Song of the South: Too Offensive to Release on DVD?

[drfsupercenter]

This has nothing to do with scenes in other movies where people can barely even tell who anyone is. Although, if anything it helps prove my point about Disney when they made Song of the South. And it has nothing to do with Affirmative Action - and I am damn offended someone decided to bring that up. It's a necessary evil in life (or- it was when it was first put into affect), it's there to right a wrong that happened long before it was set up, and I'm sick of hearing white people whine about it. They've been whining for over 20 years now. Like Escapay said, only in my style - just spend 2 seconds thinking how lucky you are for once.

What does it have anything to do with me? I'm just saying that favoring minorities is just as bad as favoring whites. If it were truly equal, neither one would happen.

What I'm saying is that they should simply not ask for your ethnicity on the application. Then nobody could accuse them of being racist/discriminating against anybody. If it just so happens that more whites get in than a minority, than that's just how it happens. And I'm talking purely based on academics and the rest of your application. Plus, if there's more whites than anyone else living in the area, doesn't it make sense that they'd accept more?

As far as Song of the South goes... I too want to see it legitimately released on DVD... but knowing Disney it will probably never happen. Or if they DO release it, they'll edit entire chunks out of it to make it "Politically correct". (Hey, look what they did to Arabian Nights! And I just keep bringing that up because I love that song and it pisses me off what Disney did to it)
For now, I'm happy of having a rip of both the bootleg Hong Kong laserdisc (basically just a PAL VHS that hasn't deteriorated) and the Japanese laserdisc. Though a remastering would be nice, as well as some real bonus features...

[BelleGirl]

Everyone here is doing, well to be honest, what straight white people tend to do all the time- get silly and bring up tons of things that are completely irrelevent to the subject at hand in hopes to blindside the main point or draw attention away from something they don't want scrutiny placed on.

Excuse me?

Well yes, talking about generalisation....

To add something to the topic of SOTS: I have the movie on VHS because Disney had less qualsm about releasing the film in Europe.
Having a different cultural 'make-up' than Americans I did not really see how this movie was so offensive to blacks as I did not so much notice the cliches ( or unconsiously turned a blind eye to them?) and I get the point now that portraying black servants as happy while living in so much poorer circumstances than their white bosses, and little Johnny did not think to invite his black play-mate to his birthday party...
On the other hand, the black people in the movie, primarily uncle Remus, are portrayed as more sympathetic and open-minded than the white ones.

I just wonder how many movies there were released at the time about a white boy seeking the company of a black man, looking up to him as a father-figure? In light of the segregation and open discirmination of black people at the time this movie's message was almost progressive.
The movie may be offensive in several ways, but I don't see any real 'danger' in releasing it in the USA and showing it to kids.

[singerguy04]

any time i've ever had anyone complain about SOTS being racist it's been because of the whole Tar Baby scene because that is a highly racial slur and it's protrayed in a light manner. As far as I've allways understood (being a middle class white american) all of my african american friends were never upset by the whole black people being poorer than the white people thing in the film. Afterall the fact that the slaves were poor at first after they were freed is historically how it was, afterall they did have to basically start from the ground up. A lot of people also brought up the fact that Brer Bear seems to have been designed off of simple black face elements. Sure Uncle Remus is an un-PC character, but I don't feel like he's the poster child for why SOTS is racist.

[Flanger-Hanger]

What I'm saying is that they should simply not ask for your ethnicity on the application. Then nobody could accuse them of being racist/discriminating against anybody. If it just so happens that more whites get in than a minority, than that's just how it happens. And I'm talking purely based on academics and the rest of your application. Plus, if there's more whites than anyone else living in the area, doesn't it make sense that they'd accept more?

Affirmative Action also includes underprivileged groups such as people from low-income backgrounds who have struggled more than others to get their degrees and disabled people who have also faced adversity in getting their jobs. It has pros and cons to it but you might want to look at all aspects of it before you start ranting about it and just assuming it concerns only race.

I agree with Laz, it's a necessary evil (or was, it may for example not include women as well as a category anymore). It was put in place t make sure people other than white, non disabled males had jobs and although you make think there is/was no need for it the truth is it had to exist.

[slave2moonlight]

any time i've ever had anyone complain about SOTS being racist it's been because of the whole Tar Baby scene because that is a highly racial slur and it's protrayed in a light manner. As far as I've allways understood (being a middle class white american) all of my african american friends were never upset by the whole black people being poorer than the white people thing in the film. Afterall the fact that the slaves were poor at first after they were freed is historically how it was, afterall they did have to basically start from the ground up. A lot of people also brought up the fact that Brer Bear seems to have been designed off of simple black face elements. Sure Uncle Remus is an un-PC character, but I don't feel like he's the poster child for why SOTS is racist.

Well, I'm not joining the anti-Affirative Action bandwagon, nor am I supporting it as I haven't looked into the issue much. However, it does bother me that there is this idea among minorities that all white people are descended from slave-owners or are middle class at worst, or whatever. There are far more poor white people than rich white people, and there always have been. Speaking as someone who is only half white (half hispanic), there are A LOT of white people who have to start from the ground up too. The idea that all white folks are spoiled, whiney middle class is totally absurd (not attacking you, singerguy04, as I know you weren't saying that, but it's been tossed around).

As for Brer Bear's character design, it seems more noticeable in Brer Fox really, and only if you're really looking for it. Brer Bear having that cream colored Muzzle is no different from most toons having a different colored mouth area. Goofy is the same and even Mickey Mouse is all black except for his face.

On the issue of the Tar Baby, as I had pointed out before, this may seem like an attempt at racism today, but it was one of the old Uncle Remus stories, slave stories collected by a white man (Joel Chandler Harris) not written by him. It was visually fascinating seeing Brer Rabbit getting stuck up in that tar, and it happens to be the most famous of the stories. It really doesn't seem logical to fault Disney for bringing this story to life or to even see anything wrong with doing so if keeping it in a historical context. On top of that, I don't think kids today would identify the tar baby as intended to look like any particular race unless someone would tell them so. Looks more like Marvin the Martian. As a kid, I never saw it as a race thing, only as a person made of tar (like a scarecrow is a person made of straw).

[Elladorine]

I've been under the impression that in later years, one of the main issues certain people have with the film is actually the dialect used.

The latest Donald Treasure is a good example that Disney *can* release racially-sensitive material, albeit on a smaller scale. I agree that the Treasures line would be the perfect venue to release this film, although given the demand for this film by collectors and the situation of this last wave it would probably be sold out before it even hit the shelves.

[BILLONEE]

I watched "Song Of The South" & was never bothered by the collar issue. I think some history has to be brought out about why such a collar was used & the other so called "offensive" issues could be addressed. Also, if they are able to put widescreen & fullscreen versions of a film on one side of a DVD, why can't they do the same with the original & sanitized versions of "Song Of The South"?

[Flanger-Hanger]

I watched "Song Of The South" & was never bothered by the collar issue.

You do realize it's just a long running joke on UD, right?

[Goliath]

Have you heard of Affirmative Action? That's exactly what they're doing, they just don't call it that anymore.

Ideally, they should just not look at your ethnicity. I mean, don't fricking put it on the application. It should be based solely on your academic status, extracurricular activities, essays, etc. Why do they even care what race/religion you are? It's stupid.

Yes, I know what Affirmative Action is, thank you very much. And I find it beyond reason to suggest white people are a 'victim' of it. They've had all chances and opportunities for ages, and they've always been priviliged. Yet now minorities who need all the help they can are giving a helping hand, white people start complaining they're being treated unfair? It's not stupid, since minorities unfortunately are more likely to come from poor backgrounds. For that reason, and because of their ethnicity, they're less likely to be accepted into college. Maybe you don't want to acknowledge that racism, but I do, and that's why affirmative action is needed.

Like I said: give me a ******* break.

As for the entertainment industry today - I was saying for years before I was banned that Hollywood is turning out nothing but crap. Nobody listened.

Nobody listened because broad generalizations like that don't make sense.

Thank you... just as I thought......there isnt anything to really be so upset about or to warrant this ban.

Yes, there is, and I'm speaking as someone who *has* seen the film, as opposed to you. But judging by your reply about affirmative action, I guess you belong to the kind of people who delibereatly don't *want* to see what's so upsetting about the movie, and you have made up your mind already before you've even seen it.

See, now this is getting ridiculous. Everyone here is doing, well to be honest, what straight white people tend to do all the time- get silly and bring up tons of things that are completely irrelevent to the subject at hand in hopes to blindside the main point or draw attention away from something they don't want scrutiny placed on.

And it has nothing to do with Affirmative Action - and I am damn offended someone decided to bring that up. It's a necessary evil in life (or- it was when it was first put into affect), it's there to right a wrong that happened long before it was set up, and I'm sick of hearing white people whine about it. They've been whining for over 20 years now. Like Escapay said, only in my style - just spend 2 seconds thinking how lucky you are for once.

As a white straight male, I must say I agree with you completely. You really nailed it with that post.

(Hey, look what they did to Arabian Nights! And I just keep bringing that up because I love that song and it pisses me off what Disney did to it)

Imagine for just a minute that somebody made a movie about your country and culture in which they said: "where they cut of your ear if they don't like you face/it's barabaric, but hey, it's home". Would you want your country, people and culture to be portrayed as blod-thirsty and barbaric in a movie that will be seen all over the world?

By the way, SotS is one of the most borings films I've ever seen. The animated parts are fun, but the rest puts me to sleep.

[slave2moonlight]

Yes, I know what Affirmative Action is, thank you very much. And I find it beyond reason to suggest white people are a 'victim' of it. They've had all chances and opportunities for ages, and they've always been priviliged.

Another "gross generalization" that is part of the big over-all problem. Again, I'm not knocking Affirmative Action, but this idea that white people in general are overprivileged and so-on is utter b.s. Most are not. Granted, they less often have to deal with being denied things because of their race, but that is NOT the same as being "privileged", not to mention it has a lot to do with where you live. I live in a community that is almost entirely hispanic, and white people are anything but privileged here. Perhaps this is something Affirmative Action should take into account. Perhaps in my area it should be helping everyone but hispanics... Though, again, I don't know the details of how A.A. works, so that's why I won't take sides on that issue.

I'll say this as simply as possible though. The fact that most overprivileged people happen to be white does not mean that most white people are overprivileged. Or even privileged. This is just another form of racism. If you take this point of view, that's no better than being racist against any other group.

[Goliath]

Another "gross generalization" that is part of the big over-all problem. Again, I'm not knocking Affirmative Action, but this idea that white people in general are overprivileged and so-on is utter b.s. Most are not. Granted, they less often have to deal with being denied things because of their race, but that is NOT the same as being "privileged", not to mention it has a lot to do with where you live. I live in a community that is almost entirely hispanic, and white people are anything but privileged here.

No, it's not bs. Just because you can list an example where it doesn't apply, doesn't mean what I said isn't true for most of the people. White people have never had to sit at the back of a bus, or had to get up to let someone else with a different skin color have a seat. White people never were denied service in diners and restaurants. White people have had all the power in the US and around the world for centuries, and they have been oppressing and are still oppressing black people every way they can/could.

White people have known tremendous priviliges. And if you want to deny that, you don't know the first thing about history, discrimination and racism.

This is just another form of racism. If you take this point of view, that's no better than being racist against any other group.

No, that's just an excuse white people use as a way to victimize themselves, so they don't have to deal with (their own) racism.

Having said this, I just wanted to add there's no reason to fight among each other. Poor white people shouldn't be fighting with poor black people (they're not "underpriviliged", they're poor, okay, stop with the euphemism that's supposed to make it sound better) about whom gets to go into college. They should unite against the people who are really holding them back: the richest 1% of the people who have all the power. Those people want us to to continue the in-fighting. Racism is the poor fighting the poor while the rich laugh.

[BILLONEE]

You do realize it's just a long running joke on UD, right?

Not at the time I read it. I just woke up ten minutes before posting & not thinking, I took it seriously. I realize that it is a long running joke now & I am happy about that. I still mean what I said about both versions of the movie on one disc.

[slave2moonlight]

I've been under the impression that in later years, one of the main issues certain people have with the film is actually the dialect used.

I believe I have heard this too. Though, again, the validity of such a complaint is arguable. The dialect that is used in the film is the one used in the stories, and that dialect was, allegedly, written by the collector of the stories in a style intended to be accurate to the way in which the stories were told. In other words, that was the dialect of the slaves/former slaves. What happens is, modern, well-educated African Americans are embarrassed by it, plain and simple. It's understandable, but it is still a historical reality, and there's nothing "right" about trying to act like it was something white people made up to be racist. And, for those reasons, it is also not the same as Goliath's example of the "Arabian Nights" lyrics at the beginning of Aladdin.

The latest Donald Treasure is a good example that Disney *can* release racially-sensitive material, albeit on a smaller scale. I agree that the Treasures line would be the perfect venue to release this film, although given the demand for this film by collectors and the situation of this last wave it would probably be sold out before it even hit the shelves.

Yes, absolutely "Song of the South" can and should be released as a Disney Treasure. With the line's history of unnecessarily apologizing to overly-sensitive folks who can't seem to keep history in context, it would handle the political correctness issue well.

[BILLONEE]

I agree that the Treasures line would be the perfect venue to release this film, although given the demand for this film by collectors and the situation of this last wave it would probably be sold out before it even hit the shelves.

I can see it as a "Treasures" item. But I also wonder that if like you say "it would probably be sold out before it even hit the shelves" that it should be a major release & not of the "limited edition" type. If the Disney company can produce posters, displays, etc. for an upcoming DVD release, Why can't they send out a "Disney Voting Booth" to all the retailers & ask the DVD buying public if they would buy "Song Of The South" on DVD & in what way should be available (uncut, edited, or both).

[slave2moonlight]

No, it's not bs. Just because you can list an example where it doesn't apply, doesn't mean what I said isn't true for most of the people. White people have never had to sit at the back of a bus, or had to get up to let someone else with a different skin color have a seat. White people never were denied service in diners and restaurants. White people have had all the power in the US and around the world for centuries, and they have been oppressing and are still oppressing black people every way they can/could.

Yet another gross, racist generalization. The few in power, who happen to be mostly white (in this country at least), are not the masses. And, again, not being mistreated is not the same as being privileged. The truly privileged are still few, even among white people.

And if you think white people have never been denied anything and don't know what that is like, you are very wrong, even if it is rarely for the color of their skin.

White people have known tremendous priviliges. And if you want to deny that, you don't know the first thing about history, discrimination and racism.

Uh, yeah, I'm the one who doesn't know a thing about history. See my above statement. You, like so many, are confusing fair treatment with privilege, and you're generalizing white people yet again. A great many people have received no privileges in life whatsoever, despite being born white.

This is just another form of racism. If you take this point of view, that's no better than being racist against any other group.

No, that's just an excuse white people use as a way to victimize themselves, so they don't have to deal with (their own) racism.

Okay, whatever. You might want to buy a dictionary sometime and really try to figure out the meaning of racism though. It isn't simply defined as, "The way white people treat black people." That's the most self-victimizing concept I've ever heard.

[Goliath]

Yet another gross, racist generalization.

Racist? I'm white! What I say is true. I'm stating facts here, and if you don't want to acknowledge them, that's your choice, but don't say it's racist to point out facts. Yes, there were 2 or 3 white people who weren't participating, that is your argument. One can always use that argument to discredit the bigger picture which is really true. Those people who didn't join the racist oppression of blacks/indians etc. are used as a shield to hide behind.

The few in power, who happen to be mostly white (in this country at least), are not the masses. And, again, not being mistreated is not the same as being privileged. The truly privileged are still few, even among white people.

See above.

And if you think white people have never been denied anything and don't know what that is like, you are very wrong, even if it is rarely for the color of their skin.

See above.

Excuse me while I yawn at the rest. I think I've made my point. You can't write anything but "not all whites did it!!1!1" and you flat-out ignored my last, most important, paragraph.

[slave2moonlight]

Racist? I'm white! What I say is true. I'm stating facts here, and if you don't want to acknowledge them, that's your choice, but don't say it's racist to point out facts. Yes, there were 2 or 3 white people who weren't participating, that is your argument. One can always use that argument to discredit the bigger picture which is really true. Those people who didn't join the racist oppression of blacks/indians etc. are used as a shield to hide behind.

Excuse me while I yawn at the rest. I think I've made my point. You can't write anything but "not all whites did it!!1!1" and you flat-out ignored my last, most important, paragraph.

Yeah, look, you really aren't reading things correctly or something. I never once said, "Not all whites did it" in regards to oppression of minorities (though that's a good point, thanks), nor have I attacked or disagreed with your historical facts. They are not the issue and I have not been denying them. Generalizing a race IS racism, and you are generalizing white people. It doesn't matter if you are white or not. And I'm sorry to break the news to you, but the number of white people that instigated and even owned slaves were a minority among white people. On top of that, yes, white people have been slaves themselves, to other white people no less. Read a bit about European history. And minorities have had slaves among their own people as well if you delve into their histories, so you may want to get off your anti-white soap-box now, especially since it looks silly when a white person does it.

[drfsupercenter]

Yes, I know what Affirmative Action is, thank you very much. And I find it beyond reason to suggest white people are a 'victim' of it. They've had all chances and opportunities for ages, and they've always been priviliged. Yet now minorities who need all the help they can are giving a helping hand, white people start complaining they're being treated unfair? It's not stupid, since minorities unfortunately are more likely to come from poor backgrounds. For that reason, and because of their ethnicity, they're less likely to be accepted into college. Maybe you don't want to acknowledge that racism, but I do, and that's why affirmative action is needed.

Like I said: give me a ******* break.

Well, slavery's been dead for well over 100 years... nobody alive today (at least in America) was ever a slave, nor did they personally know one. I don't see where these "poor backgrounds" play into anything at all. Like slave2moonlght is saying, there are plenty of poor white people out there too... and likely more than the minorities since there are more OF them!
(It's like when people say the number of people who have such a disease is increasing... of COURSE it is, the human population is increasing!)

I don't see why Affirmative Action is needed at all if they just don't ask for your ethnicity to begin with. You can somewhat suggest that businesses are being racist when they ask you your race on an application and someone other than you gets in... but if they simply don't ask and don't care, how can it possibly be biased/racist at all? Thankfully, most places aren't allowed to use Affirmative Action anymore... but the ones that still do annoy me.

Imagine for just a minute that somebody made a movie about your country and culture in which they said: "where they cut of your ear if they don't like you face/it's barabaric, but hey, it's home". Would you want your country, people and culture to be portrayed as blod-thirsty and barbaric in a movie that will be seen all over the world?

Well... First off, Aladdin takes place a LONG TIME AGO... well before modern technology, etc. And back in those days, the Arabs WERE pretty violent. The whole "eye for an eye" method of punishment... they literally would cut parts of your body off if you did certain things. (Well maybe not if they didn't like your face, but you get the idea.)
And secondly, it was Disney's mistake to put it in the film in the first place. If they had simply released it in theaters as "where it's flat and immense", that would be fine. But what I'm pressing for is the original theatrical version, and in this case, that's the "cut off your ear" line, regardless if it's offensive or not.

Plus, with Aladdin... there are plenty of other violent things they left right in the movie! There's a scene where the guy in the marketplace is gonna chop Aladdin's hand off for stealing, and Jasmine comes to his rescue. That's not any less violent than mentioning the same idea... but yet they chose to leave that in.

And how can "Flat and immense" be barbaric? Disney didn't even edit it right... it makes no sense as it's currently presented!

[Elladorine]

I got in a bad situation and almost become homeless a couple of years ago . . . nice to know I'm a part of that group of "privileged" people. I was refused financial help because I wasn't a single parent, a veteran, disabled, or a minority.

Fortunately no one has to sit in the back of the bus anymore, drink from a different water fountain, or are denied services based on race. While that part of our history is just that . . . history, I'll agree it's important to remember it so it does not repeat itself. At the same time I feel people dwell on it.

The fact that anyone uses race now to justify actions (such as saying who should and shouldn't get financial help) seems ridiculous to me.

[slave2moonlight]

I got in a bad situation and almost become homeless a couple of years ago . . . nice to know I'm a part of that group of "privileged" people. I was refused financial help because I wasn't a single parent, a veteran, disabled, or a minority.

Fortunately no one has to sit in the back of the bus anymore, drink from a different water fountain, or are denied services based on race. While that part of our history is just that . . . history, I'll agree it's important to remember it so it does not repeat itself. At the same time I feel people dwell on it.

The fact that anyone uses race now to justify actions (such as saying who should and shouldn't get financial help) seems ridiculous to me.

It certainly doesn't ring of equality, does it?