I have a confession to make. I know that the ethical and moral deterioration of the Disney corporation is a major ethics catastrophe with dire consequences for our society and culture, and Ethics Alarms should have been covering it more thoroughly. It hasn’t, and that’s because this topic is particularly painful for me.
I owe so much to Disney’s creations and philosophy. I learned a lot of ethics from the shows and movies growing up, and many of my most enduring and important interests and hobbies were inspired by Walt’s vision. My fascination with dinosaurs began with the terrifying T-Rex sequence in “The Rite of Spring” segment of “Fantasia,” for example. My reverence for the Alamo was inspired by Disney’s “Davy Crockett” series. The first dramatic production of any kind that genuinely move me was “Bambi.” I never got to visit a Disney theme park until college, but finally going to Disneyland after dreaming about it as a kid was one of the epiphanal experiences of my entire life: it was perhaps the only time something I had looked forward to was even better than I expected it to be. Disney’s perfectionism—at the parks, which were immaculate and overlooked no detail to immerse visitors in the fantasy, and in the TV shows and movies—influenced my own view of professionalism and my approach to directing for the stage. His courage and certitude in pursuing risky creative projects that everyone was telling him were doomed to fail—a full length animated film?—bolstered my own resolve when I have had project ideas that seemed nuts to everyone but me.
(And some were nuts, as it turned out. But the times I was right more than made up for those.)
I could go on, but I won’t. The point is that attacking Disney for me is like savaging a childhood hero, or even a parent. But the country, its culture and mental health is being harmed by the current distortion of Walt’s creation’s destructive alliance with the radical Left. It deserves to be attacked, and it’s time I got down to it.
This Comment of the Day (actually two comments, in sequence) by jmv0405 on the depressing post yesterday on a Disney Critical Race Theory video, makes up for some of that lost time by getting the discussion jump-started. It is also a perceptive and illuminating perspective that I wouldn’t have seen without the comment’s guidance. ***
What that video is, to me, is some next level hypocrisy.
Let me tell you some things I know about Disney because my autistic son just happened to love “The Princess and the Frog” (the movie with the black Princess made in 2009) for approximately two years. (We are very thankfully on to “Wreck it Ralph,” which is preferable because there are two of those movies, and I think they are just better as well. I shouldn’t complain, though he never liked “Frozen.”)
Everyone knows Disney’s deep history of arguably dangerously racist movies: “Song of the South,” “Peter Pan,” “Dumbo,” “Fantasia,” and “Lady and the Tramp.” This post won’t be about those movies because, granted, it was a long time ago with different leadership- so I can’t say that’s hypocritical.
Anyway, this is the company that did not have a movie with an African American Princess until 2009. And thereafter, their continued complete lack of concern for the African American community was ABSOLUTELY OBNOXIOUS. I know this because in the heyday of my son’s incredible love of “Tiana,” it was IMPOSSIBLE to get reasonably priced toys for that particular movie. My son was born in 2016, and his love of it was about 10 years after its theatrical release, if I recall correctly, from about 2019-to early 2021. If you wanted “Tiana” toys, at that time, it would cost you, minimum, $100.00. There was like a Tiana Barbie he did get from Walmart (he completely ignored it, but he often ignores toys for his true love: decorations, which his Dad has now just completely leaned into— he got almost entirely decorations and books last Christmas), but otherwise I just couldn’t afford to get him those toys. (He got Mickey’s “Christmas Carol” toys instead that year.)
Anyway, so it’s easy to say, well, that’s a ten year old movie and the reason the prices are so high is high demand. Obviously, African American girls and boys are very likely to buy Tiana toys first a significant portion of the time. But then, you could also say, Disney is one of the richest companies in the world. If they cared, they could have fixed the problem. And it should further note, the people most likely to be priced out of those items would be black people. If they gave a shit, they could have fixed it. Guess what, they didn’t give a shit. I searched again today, and it looks like Tiana toys are back. This makes sense as there is a new series coming out called “Tiana” on Disney Plus this month, and they are re-theming Splash Mountain to a “Tiana” theme next year. Literally, there were years when little black girls and boys would not be able to afford “Tiana” toys- and I couldn’t much afford them for my autistic son either. Disney couldn’t have cared less.
For many of those same years, Tiana could not be found at the parks either, which was a common complaint from black parents. By the time my son visited, they had fixed that, and “Tiana” was one of his favorite things- although the Mickey crew was pretty popular with him too. I’m assuming Disney fixed it to stay woke. They certainly didn’t fix it for the black folks who go to their park. I know, because I’ve been three times, and have seen approximately ten guests, if that, who are black. While certainly there are affluent black persons, Disney’s outrageous prices clearly eliminate the ability for the average black family in America to frequent the park. If you see black person at Disney World, there’s about a 98.5% chance they are working for Disney.
They only cared about making “Tiana” available when it became politically necessary to care- and even now- it’s clearly just virtue signaling. I know that because Tiana is the only non-white Princess who HAS to be available. The obvious reason Tiana was not around in the Park for some years is that the girls who play the Princesses often switch from one Princess to another depending on the park needs. This can’t be done for Tiana or Mulan. (I originally said Jasmine here too, but a Google image search suggests to me that they may at times just cake a ton of make up on a white girl in order to allow her to play Jasmine- and no one seems to notice or care.)
So, for years, all of those Princesses were uncommon and hard to find It’s still very hard to find Jasmine and nearly impossible to find Mulan. Tiana, on the other hand, is always available, every day, no matter what, at Princess Fairy Tale Hall. The other Princesses switch off, but not Tiana. She MUST be there, I assume because Disney is now afraid of appearing- you know, not woke. This has been the case for about three years, if I recall. This tells me Disney doesn’t care about being inclusive- because they don’t much seem concerned about making the other non-white Princesses available every day.
So, as I said at the beginning, given their track record, they can go ahead and shove it. And the track record I’m talking about is not the horrifically bad ancient track record, but the much newer track record.
I’ll also add, although it’s not the theme of my post, that Disney’s arguably horrifically racist films were made a lot later than, you know, any white people still owned slaves. But that would be a theme for a different post.
They haven’t got a half of a leg to stand on.
***
I do think I know what they’re thinking, however
They’re thinking when we played it safe in the 50s and 60s with racism- we are not constantly criticized for that. They’re trying to be on the “right” side of history this time.
They’re making a calculated bet that their opinions that they are endorsing now will be almost universal in about 25 years.
With respect to gay issues, I think they are making a reasonable bet. The movie “Strange World” did have a really nice scene where a grandfather finds out his grandson is gay, and doesn’t bat an eye. I didn’t love that movie, but I actually kind of thought that scene worked- and will work many years from now. With respect to the above issue, the bet may still pay off, but it’s much riskier.
To say the same thing differently, they think they are mostly insulting and alienating the people who will be dead within twenty years, and are impressing those who will be spending the most money in twenty to twenty-five years.
Sadly, the bet may pay off, given how many of the above points my liberal friends will make over and over again with nothing that resembles, you know, critical thought or analysis.
Ugh. Sorry, this response depressed me.
Ethics Alarms 
I am pleased to see a new commenter achieve COTD status. With that said, I am not sure exactly what point JMV is trying to make. So, my comment will address what I believe are some of the points made.
The following statement was made but with the caveat that that is a discussion for another day.
“Everyone knows Disney’s deep history of arguably dangerously racist movies: “Song of the South,” “Peter Pan,” “Dumbo,” “Fantasia,” and “Lady and the Tramp.”
Why make a statement that the above films are dangerously racist if you are not going to defend the statement.
I must say however that I am not sure that what is being described as hypocritical or racist. Ok, Song of the South has what can be construed as racial stereotypes that would have existed in the Antebellum south but are we to deny what was in favor of what we want it to be. The entire story was based on Joel Chandler Harris’s stories of Uncle Remus, a black slave who taught valuable life lessons to the white children. It should also be noted that Harris was a post war reconciliation activist.
In the post war south, freed slaves as well as non-land-owning whites worked as sharecroppers. It is from that work in the fields that we have the term “rednecks” which is a pejorative term for lower class whites that is still in use today. It should not come as a surprise that freed slaves of the era and even in 1946 when Disney produced this movie that blacks would not be portrayed as corporate titans or anything other than service workers. It might be worthwhile to examine the plight of white agricultural workers in Steinbecks, Grapes of Wrath. Who exactly decided that whites and blacks being seen in mixed company and being accepted for who they were, as was the case in that movie, racist? It might be worthwhile to examine the plight of white agricultural workers in Steinbecks, Grapes of Wrath. The movie came out at about the same time, 1940.
Peter Pan, created by J. M. Barrie is about youthful innocence, mischievousness and a desire for adventure without consequences. There are also several Greek mythological references such as the sur name Pan and his piping. How anyone finds racism in this film, Fantasia, Dumbo or Lady and the Tramp is beyond me.
Most of Disney’s stories are derived from stories written by others to teach quality lessons. In Dumbo, the message is that despite having what others think is a defect, that defect may provide a quality or capability others don’t have. It also carries a strong anti-bullying message. Fantasia was a financial bust because it was deemed too artsy for kids and adults had a hard time understanding its theme. The story Lady and the Tramp was developed when one of Disney’s story tellers noticed his own dog was being pushed aside during his wife’s pregnancy. It is an animated romantic comedy based on the writer’s experience and imagination, nothing more.
“Anyway, this is the company that did not have a movie with an African American Princess until 2009. And thereafter, their continued complete lack of concern for the African American community was ABSOLUTELY OBNOXIOUS.”
One of the reasons they may not have had an African American princess was because the U.S. does not have royalty. The fact that there were no black princesses in any of their films may be because their marketing departments could not establish a market for products in the black community.
“They certainly didn’t fix it for the black folks who go to their park. I know, because I’ve been three times, and have seen approximately ten guests, if that, who are black. While certainly there are affluent black persons, Disney’s outrageous prices clearly eliminate the ability for the average black family in America to frequent the park. If you see black person at Disney World, there’s about a 98.5% chance they are working for Disney.”
Disney’s outrageous prices pale in comparison to NBA or NFL tickets. At least, at Disney you get a full day of involvement instead of only two hours of spectating. The NBA and the NFL eliminate the ability for the average white family to attend as well.
As for availability of products, try to find a Buzz Lightyear, toy years after a hot film’s release. You won’t find it on store shelves but maybe on Ebay. You won’t find Snow White, Cinderella, or Peter Pan dolls on store shelves either. Children have limited attention spans and the shelf life of any themed toy is measured in months not years and production runs are predicated on the expected sales volume in that period of time. There are two reasons that you may not find an item in stock: it is in high demand, and they have run out of stock when you were there; it is in low demand, and they will not have another production run in the near future if any at all. Disney does not owe an obligation to any racial group to provide preferential pricing to a given race. In fact, such a policy would violate U.S. law.
“They only cared about making “Tiana” available when it became politically necessary to care- and even now- it’s clearly just virtue signaling. I know that because Tiana is the only non-white Princess who HAS to be available.”
Perhaps the reason for a Tiana doll being available now is that Tiana is being resurrected in an animated series in 2023. That is why you will find her on the shelf. If they were doing a series featuring Mulan or any other character you would find those toys on the shelves as well.
Disney is no doubt pandering to a demographic it believes will result in profits. Disney’s market valuation has been dropping which is why they brought back Bob Eiger. If Disney believes it is on the right side of history by promoting the Proud Family and its distorted history, then only time will tell if that gamble pays off. I know I will not be adding to their top or bottom line.
In the meantime, I would suggest that the Disney writers look toward original black thinkers such as Booker T. Washington who wrote that despite the experience of living as a slave in America, the condition of the American “Negro” was better than that of any Negro in the world.
In his own words:
“notwithstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery, the ten million Negroes inhabiting this country, who themselves or whose ancestors went through the school of American slavery, are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe.”
Other significant quotes by Booker T Washington:
“I early learned that it is a hard matter to convert an individual by abusing him, and that this is more often accomplished by giving credit for all the praiseworthy actions performed than by calling attention alone to all the evil done.”
“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”
“The white man who begins by cheating a Negro usually ends by cheating a white man. The white man who begins to break the law by lynching a Negro soon yields to the temptation to lynch a white man.”
Chris, I was going to take issue with the “dangerously racist” characterization as well, though the films don’t have to be really racist to be accused of that virtual crime, so the Comment’s argument is still valid.
I think the smear on “Song of the South” is garbage; always have. They are animals. Who’s black? Who’s white? I loved the Uncle Remus stories. As for the rest:
Peter Pan is my favorite of the classic Disney animated films. The racism claim comes from the way the Indians are drawn, especially the chief, and the song, “What makes the Red Man red?” It’s not racist: the Indians are good guys. But the stereotyping is certainly extreme. I get the objection.
In Dumbo, it’s pretty easy to see what the objections are: the crows, one of whom is actually named “Jim Crow,” are voiced by black actors and are pretty stereotypical, but they are still birds, and I don’t see a negative comment about blacks in the song performance.
Fantasia is a stretch, but the alleged racism is the “Chinese Dance” performed by large capped mushrooms made to look like veggie-Asians. OK, its another stereotype, but using ethnic stereotypes isn’t “racist.”
“Lady and the Tramp‘s racism is allegedly the Siamese Cats. They are cats, and the Siamese overlay is secondary. I’ve lived with a Siamese cat. The characterization isn’t far off.
I appreciate your response but by focusing on some artistic attribute the most important message becomes lost.
Are the dancing in purple hippos a cut on obese women who dance? Was Elmer Fudd being ridiculed for a speech impediment or did it make him more relatable? Should short pudgy white people get up in arms? Should aging spinsters demand apologies from the artists who cast them as skinny chickens with bonnets swooning over Foghorn Leghorn. Is he a caricature of some other group? Of course he is that is what makes him relatable.
All cartoon characters are drawn with exaggerated features and the Indians in Peter Pan were no more offensive than the way other ethnic groups were drawn. I think we wind up missing the main message because we are looking to find fault with a tangential issue. This is no different than cancelling Jefferson and Washington because they had slaves.
Do we know why one of the Crows was named Jim. Was its behavior in anyway related to discriminatory practices of the day? If it was I don’t recall it. Why were black actors voices used. The juxtaposition of a black actor being paid to play the part of Jim the Crow could just as easily be a satirical reference to abuse the idea of Jim Crow laws. Attributing racial animus in cartoon depictions of one group by another without substantiation because it bolsters your argument is lame and unprovable at this time. Perhaps this is worthy of some investigation.
As for the Siamese cat description those cats are highly vocal and aloof by nature. This makes them worthy of a cartoon depiction when you are personifying pains in the ass. But these cats are not really from Siam and the pointy hats worn are representative of the types of headwear worn from Southeast Asia into China. How would you personify an animal character unless you dress them in ethnic garb. Every cartoon exaggerates cultural identities. That is how you can demonstrate inclusion without making it boring.
You’re preaching to the choir. But my description of why those movies are called “racist” by those looking for racial grievances and proof of white oppression is critically and factually correct: you can look it up. I know the Simpsons version of white people is every bit as grotesque as Disney depictions of other races. But the theory is that whites can afford to be mocked…since, you know, we control and dominate everything.
Agreed, it is factually correct that people looking for offense will use those examples to justify their arguments. That however does not mean that their argument is valid it simply means they will use it.
The issuue isn’t whether it’s valid or invalid, but whether the perception can be justified, and then whether the resulting offense is significant enough to through out the baby with the bathwater. The Golden Rule helps. Would someone not pre-programmed to seek victim status be reasonably insulted as a Native American by the Peter Pan chief?
I think I would be.
BTW, the crows in Dumbo are also among the few individuals who actually try to help the eponymous elephant out.
True, and good point. Though Stepin Fetchit was often helpful too.
No. It has multiple origins, e.g. the Boer pejorative for British soldiers, “rooinek”. Another source may have been an adaptation of “redlegs”, which can be traced via the West Indies to Tudor Ireland.
Only the median Negro, so to speak, as his fuller quotation serves to show. However, elites in places like Haiti, Liberia or Abyssinia were far better off than any Negro in the U.S.A. (as one from Haiti found when he visited the U.S.A. and was thrown out of every reputable hotel!).
PM
I stand by my definition/origin of the word Redneck. https://www.etymonline.com/word/redneck
redneck (n.)
“poor and poorly educated Southern U.S. white person, cracker,” attested 1830 in a specialized sense (“This may be ascribed to the Red Necks, a name bestowed upon the Presbyterians in Fayetteville” — Ann Royall, “Southern Tour I,” p.148), from red (adj.1) + neck (n.).
According to various theories, red perhaps from anger, or from pellagra, but most likely from mule farmers’ outdoors labor in the sun, wearing a shirt and straw hat, with the neck exposed. Compare redshanks, old derogatory name for Scots Highlanders and Celtic Irish (1540s), from their going bare-legged.
It turns up again in an American context in 1904, again from Fayetteville, in a list of dialect words, meaning this time “an uncouth countryman” [“Dialect Notes,” American Dialect Society, vol. ii, part vi, 1904], but seems not to have been in widespread use in the U.S. before c. 1915. In the meantime, it was used from c. 1894 in South Africa (translating Dutch Roinek) as an insulting Boer name for “an Englishman.”
Another common Boer name for an Englishman is “redneck,” drawn from the fact that the back of an Englishman’s neck is often burnt red by the sun. This does not happen to the Boer, who always wears a broad-brimmed hat. [James Bryce, “Impressions of South Africa,” London, 1899]
Either way it is a pejorative.
My entire point of view is that we are becoming mired in ways to take offense at something that is immaterial to the conversation. The overarching messages in early Disney movies were designed to teach valuable life lessons to children. No child would associate a crow named Jim to prejudice and discrimination. Adults are the ones that imbue a sense of inferiority and prejudice in children by finding some sinister motivation in a character and then transferring that understanding to the child. That occurs in both white and black families. Mention the term tar baby and the culturally and linguistically illiterate call it a slur because tar is sticky and black, and it sounds like a slur so it must be one. The meaning of the term is that the more you struggle with a problem the more entangled you become. Imagine if whites decreed that no other race could utter the term redneck or cracker without suffering professional and economic damage. Would we all be better off if such words of hate (assumed when used by non-whites) are uttered. The answer is NO.
When we first seek to find fault, we fail to take the time to understand what is being offered. In a sense it becomes a game of one upmanship for the purpose of obtaining dominance. As for the the original writer’s lament that too few dolls of color were available, blaming Disney fails to understand the production process. Disney makes no dolls. They license the imagery to doll makers. If doll makers fail to understand the market for such dolls, they will be overproduced or underproduced. Holding Disney accountable for how many are produced is ludicrous.
I included the entire Booker T Washington quote immediately below my original paraphrasing. I will point out that globally according to the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), the lowest 20% of American households, which are disproportionately black Americans, have greater purchasing power than all other nations. This alone does not make for a better lived experience according to FEE.
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justfacts.com%2Freference%2Fpoorest_americans_richer_than_europe.xls&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK
“The high consumption of America’s “poor” doesn’t mean they live better than average people in the nations they outpace, like Spain, Denmark, Japan, Greece, and New Zealand. This is because people’s quality of life also depends on their communities and personal choices, like the local politicians they elect, the violent crimes they commit, and the spending decisions they make.
For instance, a Department of Agriculture study found that US households receiving food stamps spend about 50 percent more on sweetened drinks, desserts, and candy than on fruits and vegetables. In comparison, households not receiving food stamps spend slightly more on fruits & vegetables than on sweets.”
When will we ask the question, does a perpetual reliance on sins of the past to excuse the behavior of the now hold people back from achieving greatness?
If we continue to look for racism in every corner, we have little time left to examine some of the choices we all make that reduce our own long-term prospects.
Guys, I’m really sorry. The word dangerous is there for the dumbest and simplest reason: pure stupid mistake. In my (very slight I admit) defense I was writing this at like 3 in the morning. I think I might have meant “despicably”. I made a whole controversy out of a dumb mistake. Feel terrible about it.
Although I wonder if it was a bit of a Freudian slip. While I don’t believe so, my much more liberal girlfriend would probably argue they are “dangerously racist” in the fact that they are racist, in her view, and appeal to children, and thus could, I guess, teach children racism. [We’ve kind of been slowly learning not to talk politics to each other in case it wasn’t obvious from this comment.]
If we use that definition, I actually only believe two of Disney’s movies possibly hit that mark: Song of the South and Fantasia. The first of which is never shown. (By the way when I was a kid they would show the James Baskett’s absolutely wonderful song on VHS tapes introducting Disney movies- I thought that was the perfect sweet spot- don’t show the racist movie- but DO show the wonderful work of the African American who won a grammy making the movie and who probably died before earning any real money for it- Not showing it seems a pernicious form of double racism to me.) The second they just edit out the clearly racist parts. I think that’s appropriate given it’s a kid’s movie. (Although, much like Pinnochio, in only seems to be liked by movie critics. Children seem to universally HATE those two movies.) Jack’s later comment that there is nothing racist about Fantasia is the Chinese Dance suggests to me he has never seen the movie in its original form- or perhaps has forgotten. The true racism was in the depiction of a faun called “Sunflower”- and it’s pretty overt. Again, it’s always edited out and has been for years and years. Many people don’t even know about it.
The one I see in lists as the most racist after the above mentioned films is Dumbo- which I think is ridiculous given the age it was made and the depiction of the “black” crows. They are kind and worldly, and even if they are a bit of a caricature- in the end it’s a positive one. I don’t think Dumbo is racist. I feel like I’m in the minority here, though, and many people object. I also think what Dumbo does it does extremely well- and I think much more highly of the movie than the average viewer. It’s just geared towards very young kids. In my experience, kids generally like it before they can talk. (Also, not for nothing, but if there were a cartoon “ethics heroes” category, I would nominate Timothy J. Mouse- who helped Dumbo- for no other reason than it just seemed to the mouse the right thing to do.) I had originally thought Jack was wrong that the crows were voiced by African Americans, but I looked it up to make sure I wasn’t wrong, and he is mostly right, but with an exception. Jim Crow was voiced by Cliff Edwards, a white man. Again, I personally do not believe Dumbo is racist. I’m guessing my girlfriend, however, wouldn’t let her kids watch it- even if they were interested.
Peter Pan’s song “What Makes the Red Man Red,” is, I think, pretty racist, but it’s greater sin is just being a boring song that drags down the movie. Notably, the folks who think the Piccaninny tribe is inherently racist drive me absolutely bonkers. It’s clearly not a real Indian tribe, but the concept of an Indian tribe that might be imagined by little boys in England at the turning of the last century. I also really just don’t like this movie- but that’s probably because I do love the book- and I think they get the character wrong- making him kind of a juvenile, almost American show off who has a deep sense of honor. In the book, he’s younger in his depiction- too young to have a sense of honor- and, in fact, oftentimes quite cruel due to this fact. The book is really worth reading in my opinion- but you should read Treasure Island first if you haven’t as Barrie referenced it a lot-believing, I think, that his audience at that time would almost certainly have read Stevenson’s classic.
I’ve always found the racism of Lady and the Tramp just slightly uncomfortable. But then again the scene is meant to illicit discomfort- so maybe I’m off on this one. Notably, I personally give all these movies a pass anyway because they were prior to the Civil Rights movement.
As for the point that toys come on shelfs when movies are newer or coming out, yes, I agree. However, I didn’t mean just toy shelfs- I meant even like Amazon searches. They were impossible to find for a reasonable price. “Toy Story” has remained insanely popular for young children, so your example of Buzz Lightyear probably doesn’t pan out- those toys are pretty much always available. But just change your example and your point remains: so, yeah, it could be hard to find Peter Pan toys currently, for instance. But that’s not the only example of toys made by Disney that depict white people. Tiana was the only black princess- and I just feel if they’re going to preach at me, they better have had made sure that when little black girls and boys wanted Tiana toys, they ought to have been available at reasonable prices. Don’t preach at me, and I would just have accepted it as part of life- and moved on. In other words, it’s the damn hypocrisy that gets me.
I am truly sorry I used the phrase “dangerously racist.” As I said, it could not have been the word I intended. Even now, it reeks of the worst kind of hyperbole- which is, I would say, disastrous in ethical analysis.
It’s clearly not a real Indian tribe, but the concept of an Indian tribe that might be imagined by little boys in England at the turning of the last century.
Bingo. The whole of Neverland is a kids view of fun and adventure.
I don’t think its fair to compare the film (or the Broadway musical) to the book, which is brilliant, but also rather dark. (The Lost Boys are, after all, dead.) Hans Conried’s Captain Hook alone is worth seeing the Disney film….and it was my favorite ride in Disneyland.
JMV
I for one did not take exception to the word “dangerously”.
I know I was wordy in trying to say we should not look to find racism in every corner. There were so many interrelated issues in your original post that I was trying to address.
I will also acknowledge that what may appear overtly racist to you or your friend may be opaque to me. This I believe is because I don’t associate caricatures with animus in general. Perhaps that is because caricatures of people like me are not intentionally trying to diminish my humanity. There are a significant number of, what I see as, images that are overtly racist in intent. Intent must be a critical element in assessing racism otherwise we wind up spending our days looking for offense. That in my opinion is not healthy.
Keep writing this discussion was valuable to me
Jack: Could you remove the first use of this. It was supposed to be the last line in paragraph 6.
It might be worthwhile to examine the plight of white agricultural workers in Steinbecks, Grapes of Wrath.