Cultural events earlier this month brought to light, on two continents, the problem of maintaining the integrity of art and literature under the onslaught of political correctness.
In Sweden, a controversy has erupted over the re-broadcast of a 1969 television adaptation of the Pippi Longstocking books, the children’s classics authored by Astrid Lindgren. The Swedish national TV station, SVT, announced that it is revising a scene from the 1969 television series about Pippi which she says her father is “king of the Negroes,”a direct quote from one of the stories. Believe it or not, this has set off a contentious national debate.
The family has approved the station’s desire to change the TV version, but is keeping the term in future editions of the books. In 2006, the family added a preface explaining that today, the word is considered “offensive,” but that when the books first appeared, “Negro was a common expression for people with black skin who lived in other parts of the world than ours.” That’s a sensible solution. Period and context is important in art and literature: the urge by some to constantly purge the world of any reference, word or attitude in past creations that seem out of place now leads to a form of cultural self-lobotomy. Erik Helmerson, a columnist at Dagens Nyheter, an influential Stockholm newspaper, called the changes a form of censorship. “I’m very sensitive to the fact that people are offended by the N word,” he said in an interview. “I’d never use it myself.” He even called revising the TV series “a huge interference into freedom of speech.” “Where do we draw the line? What do we cut and what do we keep? Who should decide? Who needs to be offended before we cut a word?”
Good luck to Sweden holding the line at redactions of 50-year-old TV adaptations in a culture where the word “Negro” is considered not merely an unfashionable term, but a slur. The U.S. has already gone far past that point, as “Peter Pan Live!” on NBC proved. The classic 1954 Broadway musical was created by some of the great names of musical theater: Mark “Moose” Charlap and Jule Styne composing the music, Carolyn Leigh, Betty Comden and Adolph Green providing the lyrics. Of course, the story is adapted from the classic by J.M. Barrie. Never mind: one song, “Ugg-a-Wugg,” was completely overhauled because it was deemed “offensive.” Nobody seemed to care much; this is, perhaps, because theater is dead, nobody give a damn about the integrity of original musicals as much as Swedes care about Pippi, and we live in a country where the U.S. Senate thinks its their business to force the Washington Redskins to change their name.
I have to point out, however, that thinking the song carried any legitimate offense is based on ignorance and an over-active political correctness response. Here are the supposedly offensive lyrics—the song is a duet, with chorus, between “Indian Princess” Tiger Lilly and Peter Pan. [The AP applauded the casting of a Native American as Tiger Lilly, calling it culturally sensitive. She was fine, but I’m challenging anyone to explain to me why having a non-Native American play the role would be culturally insensitive, and having a black actress play Little Orphan Annie in the upcoming Hollywood remake of “Annie” is perfectly reasonable.]:
Tiger Lilly:
ugg-a-wugg
ugg-a-wugg
ugg-a-wugg
ugg-a-wugg wa
Peter:
ugg-a-wugg
ugg-a-wugg
ugg-a-wugg
ugg-a-wugg wa
BOTH:
gugg-a-bluck
gugg-a-bluck
gugg-a-bluck
gugg-a-bluck wa-hoo
ugg-a-wugg
ugg-a-wugg
ugg-a-wugg
ubble wubble
When we get in trouble
ugg-a-woo
There’s just one thing to do
Peter
I’ll just send for Tiger-Lily
Tiger Lilly
I’ll send for Peter Pan
BOTH:
we’ll be coming willy,nilly,Lilly
Tiger Lilly:
Beat on a drum
and I will come
Peter:
and I will come and save the brave noble red skin
ALL:
boom boom
ugg-a-wugg
ugg-a-wugg
ugg-a-wugg
ugg-a-wugg wa
ugg-a-wugg
ugg-a-wugg
ugg-a-wugg
ugg-a-wugg wa
puff-a-wuff
puff-a-wuff
puff-a-wuff
puff-a-wuff
pow wow
ugg-a-wugg
ugg-a-wugg
ugg-a-wugg
ugg-a-wugg
ubble wubble
When you get in trouble
and you’re took away by Captain Hook…
Peter
I’ll just send for Tiger Lilly!
Tiger Lilly
I’ll send for Peter Pan
ALL:
We’ll be coming willy, nilly, Lily
Peter:
Send up a flare
Tiger Lilly:
…and I’ll be there!
ALL:
And you know you got a friend a friend
We’ll be true blood brothers till the
end,the end,we’re brothers till the end!
If you want to edit the “noble redskin” line, fine: it’s not worth all the inevitable fuss. But the nonsense words are no more offensive, which is to say, not offensive at all, than having the teens in “Grease” sing..
Rama lama lama ka dinga da dinga dong
Shoobop sha wadda wadda yippity boom de boom
Chang chang changitty chang shoobop
Dip da dip da dip doowop da doobee doo
Boogedy boogedy boogedy boogedy shooby doowop shebop
Sha na na na na na na na yippity dip de doom
Rama lama lama ka dinga da dinga dong
Shoobop sha wadda wadda yippity boom de boom
Chang chang changitty chang shoobop
Dip da dip da dip doowop da doobee doo
Boogedy boogedy boogedy boogedy shooby doowop shebop
Sha na na na na na na na yippity dip de doom
Wop baba lumop a wap bam boom!
Or, in Gilbert and Sullivan’s “The Gondoliers,” all the happy Venetians singing, ad nauseum:
These aren’t real “Indians,” you see. Never Land is a place where children’s fantasies come to life. You can’t call them “Native Americans, ” because they are Native Never Landians, and the story of “Peter Pan” has nothing to do with the United States whatsoever: it’s English. Since little kids pretending to be “Indians” can’t be expected to speak acceptable Choctaw, just as English choristers in an English operetta that takes place in Italy and Spain but is really a satire on Great Britain don’t speak Italian but just keep “lalalalalala-ing” like idiots, the song using nonsense words is harmless, obvious, and no slur on anyone.
Gilbert and Sullivan, as it happens, also provides helpful guidance regarding when one should change a lyric or a word. That situation occurs when the word or lyric is incidental to the purpose of the literature, can be easily fixed, and when stubbornly insisting on the original is guaranteed to distract from the purpose of the work. In “The Mikado,” W.S. Gilbert was moved to use the term “nigger” twice, in two of the most famous and wittiest songs in the show, Ko-Ko’s list song, and the Mikado’s “My Object All Sublime.” (Gilbert also used the slur once in the previous operetta, “Princess Ida.”) The words were replaced by the official G&S production company, run by the family of the team’s original producer, by the 1940’s, and Gilbert would have approved. The changing sensibilities made the words destructive to the objective of the show, which was, is, and always shall be fun, not controversy. Removing the same word, however, from “Huckleberry Finn” or “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” is insanity.
By this handy rule, I conclude that the changes made on television to both “Peter Pan” and “Pippi Longstocking” are, if not reasonable, justifiable. Both are shows with a substantial children’s audience. Though neither change is dictated by logic or common sense—“Negro” is just archaic, not a true slur, and if you are going to get upset over “ugg-a-wugg,” you need psychiatric intervention—it is the whole of the art that matters, and anything that lends sourness to a concoction designed to be sweet should be removed from the recipe, like any other ingredient that goes bad over time.
Besides, “Ugg-a-Wugg” was always the weakest song in “Peter Pan.” It’s not worth fighting about.
That’s not political correctness, but pragmatism: in the end it is always the audience that matters, not the hysterical critics from the sidelines. As soon as its clear that the crowd is enjoying watching the team’s NFL games because of its name and its logo, I’ll be in favor of changing the Redskins’ name too.
Ethics Alarms 
Oh, now I understand why we don’t hear that sprightly old tune Abba Dabba Honeymoon anymore,
Which is sung by two lower primates. It’s in “That’s Enertainment”! Here…
Whaddya mean, “lower” – You’ll get PETA on your tail, if you don’t watch out.
Next thing you know, they’ll insist on having a male play the role of Peter. … And make Nana an Equity-card carrying animal act. … oh and Wendy will have to have another responsibility; why would she know how to sew … which brings up the question of explaining the thimble ….
Nana is supposed to be an actor in a dog suit. Apparently the dog union protested or something and they had to use a real dog, which just isn’t as much fun.
It gets worse. A few years ago, there was a version of Peter Pan in which the title role was played by a young man. This……..show…….was broadcast on national TV.
I think you’re confusing Mia Farrow with a young man. The role in the musical has never been played professionally bu a boy—among other things, the licensing prohibits it. The non-musical move, like the Disney cartoon…sure
As usual, you’re right. 2003 live-action movie, released by Universal Studios, non-musical, starring Jeremy Sumter as Peter.
Are you serious? I made that up, didn’t I? Didn’t I? (my last Pan was Mary Martin: what would I know)
The article takes care to point out that while they are translating it as “Negroes”, the word is considered a racial slur in the original Swedish (the way that Negro is not, merely archaic). I think a better translation would be “porch monkey” or “coons” to get you closer to the flavor of offense. Though in all honesty, I’m pretty sure that Pippi calling her father “the king of the black people” or “the king of the African-Americans” would hardly go over much better. But in this case the author approved the changes since the 70s, so I don’t see much controversy.
As far as Peter Pan, it’s a bit muddier, But the “Indian” song, purporting to be the Indian’s language, relies so heavily on outdated stereotypes, I can see the case for chucking it. It’s about as offensive as someone “speaking Chinese” going “ching chong, ching chong”. It’s a show for children, I don’t see a huge virtue in immersing them in stereotypes before they have the chance to see much of the world or think critically for themselves.
Black Annie, eh. I don’t think Little Orphan Annie had a particular ethnicity attached to her. She was traditionally drawn racially as white, but she was also traditionally set in the 1930s Great Depression era too. Change the times, change the race, swap some characters out, why not at that point? If all the characters in the Exodus film can be lily-white Americans and Brits surely there is room for a black Annie.
I wouldn’t say that the author approved the changes:
Mr. Nyman, the Lindgren grandson, said the family honored the broadcaster’s desire to change the TV version but chose to keep the term in future editions of the books. In 2006, the family added a preface explaining that today, the word is considered “offensive,” but that when the books first appeared, “Negro was a common expression for people with black skin who lived in other parts of the world than ours.”
It continues: “Almost no black people lived in the Nordic countries, very few Swedish children had seen any in real life, and television didn’t exist here. Negroes were something exotic.” The preface points out that nowhere in the books is Pippi seen “acting biased or prejudiced.”
You’re right, I was taking it from this: Defenders of the decision, including the heirs of Ms. Lindgren, who died in 2002, said the change respected the spirit of the author. Even in 1970, she had called the term outdated and said she had not meant to offend.
So technically she did not approve of the changes, but I don’t think she would object either.
You can’t get much weaker than “respected the spirit of the dead author.” Translation: “We can make more money if we change it, and she can’t do anything about it anyway.”
If all the characters in the Exodus film can be lily-white Americans and Brits surely there is room for a black Annie.
Now there’s a fantastic non sequitur and rationalization hybrid for the ages.
And if Judith Anderson could play Hamlet in her 60s, Kobe Bryant can star in the Eddie Arcaro Story…
I dont see much difference. I think we are just used to things being “whitened”, to the point where we don’t think very much about our society’s convention of having white American and British actors play pretty much whomever, whether historical or fictional, except in those very cases where it must be played by a minority (recent development, in the past they would slap a wig, makeup and/or some false teeth on the white actor and call it a day).
Doing it the other way usually is some hue and cry, and must be justified. Bleh. Different era, different characters, different Annie. No need for this particular Annie to be white.
There is NO such case where a part “must” be played by a minority, unless a white actor is incapable of being convincing in the part. Of course it must be justified: you cast to make the show work, not for some kind of affirmative action in art.
Annie’s the story about a orphan girl who gets adopted by a tycoon during the Depression—FDR even has a song. No theatrical reason she can’t be black (she cannot, however, be an old man or a 25 year old woman), but the updating to present day guts the play, and is bona fide stupid.
I think a work about MLK or Harriet Tubman, for instance, probably should be played by a minority, unless someone is trying to make a point. It rather loses a lot of the impact and causes confusion otherwise.
Ya think?
Sometimes “convincing” isn’t really enough, you know. 😉
Annie’s the story about a orphan girl who gets adopted by a tycoon during the Depression—FDR even has a song. No theatrical reason she can’t be black (she cannot, however, be an old man or a 25 year old woman), but the updating to present day guts the play, and is bona fide stupid.
I think one can draw some parallels about children’s plight then as now, blah, blah, blah. But it is an adaption. They have changed many of the songs, taken out some, added new ones in, changed many of the characters. Think of it more as “the Wiz” type of update than a straight adoption of the play, with only the race and era changed. It might make you feel better.
Hey, if it’s any good, I don’t care. I doubt that it will be. I think “all-black” versions of classics are cynical and racist at their core, gimmicks based on color. They are nothing to applaud. Race isn’t virtue
What about an all-black version of that classic, Weekend at Bernie’s, directed by the Wayans Bros.? Would you applaud that?
I wouldn’t applaud any remake of that movie.
I wouldn’t applaud ANY version of a “Bernie’s” movie. But that’s just my humble opinion. Some of my best friends like the “Bernie’s” movies (tongue lodged firmly in cheek).
Of course, this isn’t an all-black production. Ms. Hannigan is played by Cameron Diaz (white Hispanic) and the love interest is played by another white woman. The orphans seem to be an array of colors.
I think merely swapping out races, and changing nothing else can be cynical, or not, depending on the production, and what the director is trying to say. I saw a production of Othello with Patrick Stewart, him in the title role, with the races swapped out, which was fairly good and interesting. But I don’t see how all-black productions are any more inherently racist than the far more common all white productions. If someone did an all white remake of Steel Magnolias, that would be ok, but the all-black one would be racist? Why?
I saw that one too..don’t tell me you’re another DC area resident? I need to hold a lunch.
It was the most gimmicky, unforgivably silly adaption ever. The perfect example of non-traditional casting rendering a play incomprehensible, and ahistorical for buzz alone. Othello is about a black man, and his blackness is essential to the role. You want white actor to play Othello as black, and a black actor to play Iago as white, swell, that’s kosher. But what they did was unforgivable. “Othello” deserves more respect.
As to your last question: Anyone who set out to make an all-white production of Steel Magnolias would be racist, or at least silly to the point of de facto racism. There is no reason at all why blacks can’t be cast in that play, in any of the roles—the play isn’t about race. If it ends up all-white or all-black due to casting the best actresses and actors, fine—nobody should care.
If it ends up all-white or all-black due to casting the best actresses and actors, fine—nobody should care.
I guess it’s purely coincidence then that for some strange reason 90% of the “best actors” cast for lead roles are white then? Race is a very large, and acknowledged factor for casting people in roles in Hollywood. To deny that is to live in a fantasy world.
1. White actors outnumber black actors by about 9-1.
2. Stars are stars, and they are determined by the audience.
3. Commercial entertainment is driven by audience appeal, not affirmative action.
4. How many white on-screen faces are apparent on BET? Why is that? Is there something wrong with it?
1. White actors outnumber black actors by about 9-1.
That would 9-1 for all minorities, not just for black actors. Whites currently make up about 72% of the population, with minorities the remaining 28%. I don’t see whites making up 90% of the striving actors in Hollywood, but I would love to see where that is shown.
2. Stars are stars, and they are determined by the audience.
Nope. People can’t determine what they never see in the first place. Whites are given far more opportunities to be stars in the first place than minorities are.
3. Commercial entertainment is driven by audience appeal, not affirmative action.
See above. The success of shows like Scandal, black-ish, and How to Get Away With Murder show that audiences can readily identify with cultures not their own, if given the opportunity to do so.
4. How many white on-screen faces are apparent on BET? Why is that? Is there something wrong with it?
When is the last time you watched BET, Centric, and the like? I can guarantee there are far more white faces both in front of and behind the scenes than any black or minority faces in a comparable so-called “mainstream” network. Besides, if they called the Big Four networks “White Entertainment Network” rather than keeping up a pretense that they are for everyone, you might have more of a case.
1. The stats are correct, not that it matters. the point is:more white actors, more white actors cast
2. That’s an argument that casting stars makes no difference, which is obviously nonsense.
3. See above, all right. Be serious. If studios could recoup investments without paying millions to known stars, they would.
4. Well, that’s three out of, what, 250?
5. I watch BET—I watch everything— and no, white faces are as rare as black faces on Fox.
6. Tyler Perry comedies play at Ford’s Theater, and the audiences are about 95% white, just like the casts. Coincidence? I think not.
1. The stats are correct, not that it matters. the point is:more white actors, more white actors cast
Where are you getting the stats from? And your statement doesn’t hold up if more white actors are cast disproportionately.
2. That’s an argument that casting stars makes no difference, which is obviously nonsense.
No, it’s an argument as to who makes the stars in the first place? You can’t ever get to be a star if no one ever casts you. You are making a circular argument.
3. See above, all right. Be serious. If studios could recoup investments without paying millions to known stars, they would.
Most movies, even with stars, are flops. As studios have gotten larger, they have tried to hedge their bets by making more remakes, with more stars, bigger explosions. It hasn’t worked out as well as they might have hoped.
4. Well, that’s three out of, what, 250?
That’s sort of the point, no? How many could there be, if they were given the chance?
5. I watch BET—I watch everything— and no, white faces are as rare as black faces on Fox.
I call BS. The “premier movies” being shown on BET during prime time this month are: Bring it On: All or nothing (white co-lead, as well as lots of white roles), Taxi (white co-lead), Scary Movie, (mostly white cast), Boat Trip (mostly white cast), and Daddy Day Care (mostly white cast). They also show reruns of Scandal, which has a mostly white cast. Fox, during prime time has New Girl, with two black people in its ensemble, Mindy, title character a minority, Sleepy Hollow, with a black co-lead. That seems to be about it. Hardly some inversion of BET. Besides, BET is a white-owned company anyway(Viacom). If there is racism against white people, it would be of an internalized nature.
6. Tyler Perry comedies play at Ford’s Theater, and the audiences are about 95% white, just like the casts. Coincidence? I think not.
I’m not sure of your point here. (I go with the fact you probably mean a mostly black audience, not white, as you typed). Perry got his start doing church plays, and those plays are still mostly marketed to a lower-class black audience via flyers and radio ads. But I think most black people would like to see themselves in more than just the types that populate Tyler Perry productions.
Right. This worked well, it appears, and exactly as I expected (no, I won’t see it. You go, and tell me. See, people who think classic material needs to be “fixed,” don’t respect or like the material, so when they “fix it” they destroy it. There are exceptions, but few.
This does beg the question. Why would people in Sweden have problems with racial stereotypes? As far as I am aware, Sweden never had an MLK-type figure to tell them how wrong racial discrimination was. So racial stereotyping should not be a big deal there,.