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

[blackcauldron85]

I said earlier that Disney says the Neverland Indians are Neverland Indians so that’s why they don’t consider them to be offensive.

I know, but, let's say that you're an American Indian, watching "Peter Pan". Regardless of the fact that they are Never Land Indians, they seem to be based on American Indians. I don't think that the animators based the characters on any other group. As a white girl, even I'm offended by the scene. I love the movie, but that scene just makes me feel a little uneasy.

[TheGreatOz]

I’m not sure how to do that quote thing that everyone does but my reply is in response to various posts since I last posted.)

There's a "quote" button on the right side of the frame. You hit that and a reply window opens up. You can then scroll down past the reply frame and the last several posts are there. Cut and paste what you'd like to quote from each in your reply box.

You're now almost half way through your Master's Thesis.
Good points and interesting reading all the way through.

[2099net]

Hi, I meant to reply to this a long time ago (I started typing this up on Friday morning, but then our work's computer was hacked and I've been on damage control for most of the Friday and weekend – which may explain why I was a little grumpy in other posts too) Anyhow…

You can also quote by just putting:

[ quote="person's name" ] Text to quote here [ /quote ]

(but remove the spaces before and after the square brackets, and the name has to be in double quotes). This is a useful method of quoting selectively, or a number of people from a number of posts.

On to my post.

Well, I mentioned Passion of the Christ's UK takings not to belittle the film, but just to point out Mel Gibson's drunken incident made big news over here, even though as seen, there was no reason for a media backlash or for the media to be supposedly "out to get him".

BTW, £10m is a more than respectable taking for a UK film, but in terms of the percentage of viewers, it no where near matches the US takings.

Looking at the past 10 years Oscars I see the following best picture winners (in bold) and nominees:

Braveheart
Apollo 13
Babe
The Postman (Ii Postino)
Sense and Sensibility

The English Patient
Fargo
Jerry Maquire
Secret and Lies
Shine

Titanic
As Good as It Gets
The Full Monty
Good Will Hunting
LA Confidential

Shakespeare in Love
Elizabeth
Life is Beautiful
Saving Private Ryan
The Thin Red Line

American Beauty
The Cider House Rules
The Green Mile
The Insider
The Sixth Sense

Gladiator
Chocolat
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Erin Brokovich
Traffic

A Beautiful Mind
Gosford Park
In The Bedroom
The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring
Moulin Rouge

Chicago
Gangs of New York
The Hours
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
The Pianist

Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
Lost in Translation
Master and Commander: Far Side of the World
Mystic River
Seabiscuit


Million Dollar Baby
The Aviator
Finding Neverland
Ray
Sideways

Crash
Brokeback Mountain
Capote
Good Night, Good Luck
Munich

Now, apart from last year's, I don't particularly see anything overtly left-winged about the nominees (or the majority of the winners).

They're just good films (on the whole, as I say, I don't agree with everything the Academy does) about interesting situations, the lives of interesting people or, in some cases, just well acted and directed films. They're not always the best (in my opinion some are far from the best), but the best is subjective anyway.

You also say, none of the films/books you mention are about survival, unlike the works of Dickens et al in the past. Well, I should jolly well hope so! We don't live in a world that's as harsh and unforgiving these days. We're supposed to be living in a better place. So naturally, the issues authors choose to tackle can be seen as being of less import. But films and books still are made about life and death issues - such as Hotel Rwanda or to a lesser extent The Constant Gardener (which you'll probably run off as having a left-wing anti-business agenda).

Also World Trade Center and United 93 were made this past year, despite those decisions being criticized by people for being "too soon" (Which I can't even begin to understand. Thousands upon thousands of people died in World War II, but that didn't stop them making War films during the war and soon afterwards!).

I can't begin to second guess Speilberg, but he probably started making social/political films because he wanted to grow as a filmmaker and artist. If only Lucas could do the same, we'd probably have been spared the awful Star Wars prequels.

Spielberg's already got more than enough money, so why should he care about how much money each of his films makes anymore?

Just because Speilberg has more money than he knows what to do with, doesn't mean he's part of a vast conspiracy throughout Hollywood to brainwash the population. He does want his social/political films to make a difference though, and has freely admitted as such, especially with (frankly ludicrous) statements about Munich and the situation in the Middle-East. At least he's open about his intent. Plus, he does still dabble in the "blockbuster" film genre every now and then, even now.

What I find interesting is "left" in America seems to be automatically associated with anti-Christian, and it's these issues, or ethics either pro or anti-Christian that you seem to taking to issue with. Personally, when somebody says "left-wing" to me, I think of greater redistribution of wealth, a general aversion to war, pro human rights and generally more respect for individuals. Sadly, while I see those as positive, I also think of financial waste, bureaucracy and a weak criminal deterrent (although I am anti-capital punishment). Quite frankly religion of any sort hardly comes into UK politics, even Tony Blair, who is a devout Christian hardly mentions God.

But I doubt the presence or absence of Christian ethics has anything to do with the decision not to release Song of the South on DVD. It, like most decisions is down to money. There's a fair chance that a certain number of people would boycott Disney products if it was released, and Disney have given into this threat. And the longer they give in, the deeper a hole they are digging for themselves.

Personally, as I've said, I do think the film could be seen as offensive, but for the tar baby sequence. I don't see it as a "show stopper" offense, and I doubt many people would find it offensive in the first place. Disney's certainly released worse, such as in various 30's and 40's shorts on their Walt Disney Treasures releases.

As for One of our Dinosaurs is Missing I find it offensive due to the fact Caucasian actors are made-up to appear oriental, act by putting on silly "Engrish" accents and generally act in a manner you would expect to see in a World War II propaganda film. Imagine the fuss if Song of the South has Uncle Remus as a "blacked-up" white actor.

[Clochette]

Hi

I come from Germany, where we got at least a SotS-VHS. Because of this thread I rewatched the movie yesterday and I really can't find anything offensive. Even the often mentioned tar baby-sequence - what should be bad with that? Yes, the baby is black - as is tar. I never thought of it as a race-thing, it's all about animals, isn't it?

So, what's the point with the scene?

[Chernabog_Rocks]

I too don't see the whole Tar Baby being racist thing, I've never seen the movie, but I have seen some pictures of the Tar Baby, and I think he/she is kinda cool looking. I think one thing that a lot of people forget is that what is one these movies that we deem racist now, wasn't racist back than. I think they just need to take a chance with it, they released Dumbo and The Three Caballeros, and those two movies had scenes in them that were considered racist, and now they're putting Peter Pan out on DVD, which also has scenes considered racist. So I don't see the difference between Song of The South and the other three movies I've mentioned. Didn't the actor for Uncle Remus win an Academy Award? I remember reading something about him being the first African American to win an award?

[UncleEd]

I didn't drop off the face of the earth (even though some probably would hope I do. Here I am with another post!


By left leaning I include a film that contains ANYTHING nontraditional values or what can be accessed as a reprogramming of what is moral and just by society. Even if it’s something that you may deem as trivial as premarital sex would qualify. (It has been documented that as entertainment has embraced sex as the peak of any relationship, premarital sex has gone on a rise as has divorce. While this is not the only factor, it does make sense why so many people equate sex as the tops in a relationship when for generations it has been the intellectual side. This gradual wearing down of cultural ethics is partially responsible for the way people see things today. Heck, I know a lot of people who grew up in my generation who base their moral code on the messages in cartoons and films they were raised on.


I was not merely talking about Best Picture nominees but actors, actresses, producers, etc. It seems like only left leaning films are exalted in awards shows. That said, 90% of the films nominated for Best Picture fit that category in varying degrees. As so many great films have proven, you don’t need to try and brainwash your audience to be a great film.




[/“Also World Trade Center and United 93 were made this past year, despite those decisions being criticized by people for being "too soon" (Which I can't even begin to understand. Thousands upon thousands of people died in World War II, but that didn't stop them making War films during the war and soon afterwards!).”]


To understand why there are people who gripe it is “too soon” falls back onto political correctness again. There are people who fear offending anyone. Others in the “too soon” crowd don’t want films like these made for fear it will get support for the war in Iraq or a new war in Iran. There are people in America who truly do want people to forget we were attacked without warning or provoking. There are people who say we did provoke them, deserved what we got, or


Do you realize that in American Universities some professors teach that Hitler wasn’t a bad guy, he was just misunderstood? I checked out one of my brother’s text books and it actually PRAISES Hitler for getting Germany out of a depression, jump starting the economy all over the world, and (this just appalls me) for recognizing the threat over population provided so he nipped it in the bud by exterminating people. So now Hitler is being reborn as a caring, compassionate, Gandhi-like humanitarian who sacrificed his own life to save the world instead of the hate mongering mad man that he really was. What’s the deal? You have the same thing with 9/11. You have politicians the world over who say the US lied to start a war over oil when the UN believe the same information. You have US politicians denying they voted for the war in Iraq when they did. You have people who say 9/11 was an inside job to get a reason to start a war in Iraq. Etc. It’s this same political correctness and revisionist history that keeps Song of the South in the vault.


Just as some people don’t want 9/11 to be shown in a way that makes America look sympathetic or heroic, there are people who don’t want to accept that there WERE “happy slaves” and there WERE “happy” sharecroppers, and there WERE freed slaves who stayed put on the plantations they were slaves on. These are all facts of history and Song of the South depicts the latter and that offends some people. They want us to believe that all white people abused, raped, beat, whipped, murdered, and were cruel to all black people end of story. History says otherwise. Yes, there were cases of this but it wasn’t EVERYONE or ALL cases. I dare say Song of the South gets it right as to how it really was. Let us also not forget that there were black slave owners and white slaves too. I’ve even read that Louisiana had more black slave owners that white and more white slaves than black. And these were not indentured servants but real slaves. Plus, most of those who were sold into US slavery were done so my their own countrymen in their homelands. Revisionist history wants you to believe that the big ugly Americans hunted them down like cattle and drug them here that way.


I’ll give you one more revisionist history example. The college I went to recently made national headlines because a Fraternity and Sorority held a Halloween party and a handful of white students showed up as takes off from black stereotypes. I saw no blackface on the news but one blonde was dressed like a nappy doll you see in the Silly Symphony cartoons and one had a ghetto booty. Well, someone posted 3 pictures online and in them there are black students seen whooping it up at the same party with these white students but that has been ignored. The pres coverage this has gained makes you believe that it was a party where only white kids attended where they all dressed in black face. As a result of this episode these students have been kicked out of school, forced to make a public apology, were put on probations, sentenced to community service, and still have charges pending for hate crimes. The sorority and fraternity have been banned as well. Yesterday I got my alumni magazine and it has an article on this stuff and discusses black face. The magazine says that black face was only invented by white people to derogatorily depict blacks and this is not true. Sometimes vaudeville acts wore black face to celebrate black music and style. Most famously, Bing Crosby made his career singing as a black face act. Bing was one of the first actors to support black equality. In fact, Louis Armstrong even said that “Bing is the only hip white boy there is”. Bing was obviously a friens, ally, and admirer of jazz, black style and entertainment. But according to this article we are to believe that he was a racist. I also find it interesting that this comes from the same university that preaches Hitler was really a good guy with a bum wrap. My point is when you have this kind of false information perpetuated on our college campuses it is no wonder people believe the lies about Song of the South’s alleged racism.


George Lucas injected the newer Star Wars films with his politics too so don’t let him off the hook. The reason why I say Spielberg and these other guys are a double standard is most films, as with all things, are judged a success or failure by the money they make. These guys who make these left leaning films people reject seeing have no one to answer to. They don’t have to live by the same rules that govern animation or any other genre film. They know their economic failures will be validated come award season and this green lights them to make their next propaganda picture. Spielberg’s “blockbuster” films have lost their touch for years. “War of the Worlds” is no where near on par with his earlier work or even his later blockbuster work. Now that he’s shown his true colors it’s all he can do anymore and his films have declined in both quality and success.


And just because the same kind of suffering doesn’t go on in the same places world today as it did in Dickens time doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen in other lands. What about China or the middle east? Of course these places are embraced by the left leaning so they go untouched. When Saddam was executed he actually got more press about his positive legacy than Ford did. The consensus on several networks was “Yes, he was a guy who killed people and there was suffering under his rule but there’s a lot worse under the US stint there.” You couldn’t get much closer to underhanded compliments than what he was getting in the news.


I was not suggesting this is a conspiracy either. There are just some practices that are accepted in some places. How many people do you know that keep quiet on controversial subjects for fear or offending someone? In Hollywood it is understood that since most of the filmmakers are left leaning that left leaning films will go farther than neutral films will. Look at how Michael Moore Is Hollywood’s darling when it’s been proven time and time again that in all of his films he forges facts and deceptively edits footage to push his agendas. Then he claims to be making an honest and truthful documentary. Michael Moore is entertaining but not honest with his material. The problem is that a lot people don’t know the difference.


It is a fact that these left leaning celebrities are politically correct and it’s the politically correct crowd who have deemed Song of the South too offensive to be seen. That is how I even got on this subject in the first place. Look at Roger Ebert. He has actually said NUMEROUS TIMES that Song of the South should stay in the vault and deserves to be forgotten. And you know if he feels that way tons of other celebrities will agree because none wants to be seen or labeled as a racist by the media. It’s not money that keeps Song of the South off the shelves. Disney knows they would make a lot of money releasing a never before released title on par with the greater Disney films. They just fear the bad PR that this release would garner. Disney does not fear boycotts. Several church denominations boycotted Disney and they didn’t care. A boycott over Song of the South would probably be of as little of an impact. No, it’s the racist label they fear and when that black poet threatened to rally up the bad PR over the film if they released it they were scared green and caved in. All evidence points to the label fears rather than a financial one. Look at what Iger said at the meeting when confronted/ He did not mention a financial loss, he implied the film was racist.


When I think of the left I think of spineless cowards afraid of offending anyone so they stand for nothing. I think of people who feel the general public is too stupid to take care for themselves so they need the government to take care of them. They also raise taxes every chance they get. It’s also the left who is most likely to cave in to the demands of a dictator. It was war fearing left leaders who kept signing treaties with Hitler that he ignored ass he marched all over Europe. Then they’d be “Okay, Mr. Hitler, you can have (insert country) but just sign this to promise you won’t come any farther.” Some times war is necessary and diplomacy goes to the extreme of being silly. Even now you have people in the US and Europe who think you can negotiate a peace treaty with people who have no qualms about blowing themselves up to murder others and have been doing so for thousands of years. I’m not on the right either because in the US both parties have blended together with the bureaucracy. I just calls ’em as I sees ’em.

[TheGreatOz]

I didn't drop off the face of the earth (even though some probably would hope I do. Here I am with another post!

It took you the past two weeks to write it!

No, my good sir, with all due respect, I'm first on the Go-Away Wish List here...get in line!

[UncleEd]

Has it REALLY been 2 weeks? Wow. I've just been super busy and I wrote my reply this morning.


Actually, I've been banned from more egroups/boards over the years than I can count. A post like my first one supporting Song of the South is usualky enough to get me banned because it's not PC. I applaud the people who run this board in that they allow people to share their views and thoughts and don't try to censor anyone. Hooray! I have finally found the promised land!

[Lars Vermundsberget]

Terms such as "left leaning" may taste differently to different people in different countries - but all in all I think most of your post makes much sense. It's too bad if views as expressed here should be enough to have you banned anywhere at all.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

To be completly honest I didn't understand over......well everything you talked about UnlceEd Well, the Hitler is Good part I understood, and didn't agree with. I just don't understand why Disney couldn't do a public screening of Song of The South? A lot of studios bring in an audience to view the movie and get feedback, so maybe Disney could do the same? Just say Hey, we want to know what you think of this old movie Walt Disney made waaaaaayy back, do you consider it too racist for a release on DVD? I think that would be the best way to do this, that way they get feedback on whether or not to release it. I personally don't see why they don't, I've watched most of it on YouTube, I don't think too many kids would realize that these scense or segments are considered racist.

[2099net]

I believe Disney has, over the years, ran several focus group viewings of Song of the South, some with the public, and some with notable "community figureheads".

A company like Disney which everyone claims (almost repeatedly to the point of redundancy) only cares about money about more subjects than I can count, isn't going to hold back on releasing a sure fire best seller if they thought that they could do so with minimal repercussions.

---

UncleEd, you seem to have a major no-no about Political Correctness as a concept. But there's nothing wrong with PC in itself. All PC means is "show a little respect". Releasing Song of the South with a small introduction, or even an optional pop-up fact track type thing simply contextualising or explaining the situation would be a "PC" release. The problem with PC is exactly the same with almost every other concept or substance - its when it becomes excessive.

Anything when it gets out of hand is bad. But it doesn't mean its bad in moderation.

And surely your Hitler example isn't Poltical Correctness, its just stupidity. And I would hope any student old enough to attend such lectures would be old enough to used their own mind to come to that conclusion.

One final point I want to bring up:

And just because the same kind of suffering doesn’t go on in the same places world today as it did in Dickens time doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen in other lands. What about China or the middle east? Of course these places are embraced by the left leaning so they go untouched.

I suspect that they are untouched because you (Americans) are notorious for not having any interest in non-American entertainment.

How many British films do well over there? And they're not even seperated by language (although I'm always annoyed when I read about Americans complaining about accents in British films - we're expected to put up with your mumnling actors without complaint). And as for TV, how come America expects the rest of the world to buy its product, but whenever they buy an overseas product, they have to "repackage" and "remake" it, to star American actors and be more American "friendly" when it comes to references and culture?

Do you really think anything more than a niche American audience (or for that matter niche British audience) would watch a 2 hour film about child sweatshops in China? Or a film showing the reality of living in Iran? Or the terror from Russian mafia crime gangs? I doubt it. Especially as there are filmed documentries about all these subjects already which have hardly made an impact on the US or UK markets.

[thatartguy]

How many British films do well over there? And they're not even seperated by language (although I'm always annoyed when I read about Americans complaining about accents in British films - we're expected to put up with your mumnling actors without complaint). And as for TV, how come America expects the rest of the world to buy its product, but whenever they buy an overseas product, they have to "repackage" and "remake" it, to star American actors and be more American "friendly" when it comes to references and culture?

Because Hollywood believes that their audiences are stupid and uneducated.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

How many British films do well over there? And they're not even seperated by language (although I'm always annoyed when I read about Americans complaining about accents in British films - we're expected to put up with your mumnling actors without complaint). And as for TV, how come America expects the rest of the world to buy its product, but whenever they buy an overseas product, they have to "repackage" and "remake" it, to star American actors and be more American "friendly" when it comes to references and culture?

Because Hollywood believes that their audiences are stupid and uneducated.

...and they're bound to be correct - to some extent. Too bad for all of those who are in fact neither stupid nor uneducated.

[reyquila]

Check this out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://disney.go.com/disneyatoz/familym ... index.html

[Escapay]

Check this out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://disney.go.com/disneyatoz/familym ... index.html

For a second I was wondering why we were being led to an article about SOTS. Then I noticed the behind the scenes clips on the side!



Escapay

[reyquila]

Check this out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://disney.go.com/disneyatoz/familym ... index.html

For a second I was wondering why we were being led to an article about SOTS. Then I noticed the behind the scenes clips on the side!



Escapay

Nice ehh!!!

[UncleEd]

I wasn’t saying that about Hitler, a college text book says that about him. And yes, 2099net, that IS political correctness College style at work. You wouldn’t believe the weird stuff that is taught on college campuses in America. In my very first English class I was taught by my feminist teacher that everything in the world is sexist because it resembles male reproductive organs. She brought up the computer because it has a joy stick and mocked the creators as nerds with dirty minds who wanted to control women by making them use this device. I objected because with her logic if it were to resemble a female’s area she’d have said it was forcing women into gender roles or some other such nonsense. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And this wasn’t even feminism 101, this was a basic College Freshman English class. The one that took the cake was when she told us she made her son dress in drag so he knew what his kind put women through. And I’ve heard stories of even more bizarre classes out there than this first hand experience of mine.


Lars Vermundsberget - Yes, it’s sad that in most places people want to silence those with differing views. Today it seems to be the extreme PC crowd rules all.


2099net - I’m against political correctness because it has been taken to the extreme by the world at large. By nature political correctness is excessive and extreme. Back in the day being offended wasn’t a big deal, people lived with it. Now being offended can result in a law suit or character assassination. Political correctness tries to shame people into feeling that natural opinions they have are wrong. It’s not about “showing a little respect”. In America it has resulted in new words becoming “swear” words and films and characters being banned from TV. Case in point, for years Speedy Gonzolas was MIA on US TV because some white executives decided he was offensive to Mexicans but in Mexico Speedy is the most popular character. Chuck Jones once told me that in the 70’s and 80’s scenes of Daffy Duck being shot by Elmer Fudd were cut because someone decided it was a shrouded commentary on whites shooting black men. I mean come on. Political correctness has resulted in some organizations LOOKING for things to be offended by. We need to all just be grown ups and understand that being offended is a part of life and stop worrying about what others will think of us I we say or think something.


Song of the South has been screened to various test audiences over the years, and some were all black. I’ve been told the black audiences liked the film but this was prior to the 1990’s so I’m sure Sharpton or Jackson would try to rally up the NAACP if it were done again. I think if they screened the film for soccer moms that they would fall prey to the PC police and feel like they HAD to be offended by what they saw because if they enjoyed it they would be a racist. I’ll tell you what though, I’m not afraid to admit that sometimes ethnic/racial humor in old films IS funny. I have a lot of friends of the groups targeted in the jokes and you know what, they laugh along too. I think political correctness has robbed a lot of people of being secure in their own identities as individuals and as ethnic and racial groups and it’s becoming rarer and rarer to find people who are secure in their lives and who they are. That is what political correctness seeks out to do and that’s why Song of the South remains taboo for today’s world.


“I suspect that they are untouched because you (Americans) are notorious for not having any interest in non-American entertainment.”



It’s not our fault that film studios won’t import foreign films. In America the audience is looked upon as being just a bunch of unsophisticated rubes who are too stupid to get what a “good” film is, as I’ve already discussed. Look at Jerry Seinfeld’s comments last night at the Oscars. He blamed theater owners for the reason why box office sales are down. It couldn’t be that Hollywood has been making films people aren’t interested in seeing…But to attack the theater owners for making money on concessions is kind of an out of line blow. In case you are unaware, a movie theater gets little to no money from ticket sales in the US. How it works is on opening weekend the film distributor gets 100% of the sales. That can stay at that rate for as long as 4 weeks then as the picture’s popularity declines the percentage goes down. The concession sales is the only way a movie theater makes money to stay in operation. For Seinfeld to attack that among a group of people who KNOW this is a low blow.



“How many British films do well over there? And they're not even seperated by language (although I'm always annoyed when I read about Americans complaining about accents in British films - we're expected to put up with your mumnling actors without complaint). And as for TV, how come America expects the rest of the world to buy its product, but whenever they buy an overseas product, they have to "repackage" and "remake" it, to star American actors and be more American "friendly" when it comes to references and culture?”


Film studios only do this because they think we Americans are stupid. It’s not our fault that they treat us this way and it‘s no use of you blaming all Americans for what a select few in Hollywood do.


“Do you really think anything more than a niche American audience (or for that matter niche British audience) would watch a 2 hour film about child sweatshops in China? Or a film showing the reality of living in Iran? Or the terror from Russian mafia crime gangs? I doubt it. Especially as there are filmed documentries about all these subjects already which have hardly made an impact on the US or UK markets.”


Now, according to you a good film has human suffering in it so it shouldn’t matter that the film is about China sweatshops or Iranians or the Russian mafia. Instead they focus on these fluff topics instead of serious issues, which you defend, and we both agree there are more serious things going on out there that could be used in films.


The reason documentaries don’t do well in America is because they don’t make it out to theaters. Beyond art houses and the alternative film circuit I’ve not heard of many documentaries being shown in a mainstream theater other than the Michael Moore fare. This could also be because Americans go to theaters to be entertained and not lectured to. Cable channels that air documentaries do quite well in ratings so it’s all in the presentation I suppose.


Have you seen James Cameron has made a film about Jesus, Joseph, Mary, and Mary Magnoline’s tomb being found in Israel and proclaiming that this is THE family from the Bible, even though the guy who discovered the tomb in the 60’s said he doubts that it is and he rattled off how many tombs have been found from the same period in the area with people of the same names being in the same tomb and just chalked it up to being popular names of the day. I’m sure this film will get the Michael Moore treatment because of the subject matter and Hollywood will think they’re catering to the Bible belt because it’s about the Bible in a way. But I doubt we’d ever see a film attacking Buddha, Mohammad, or Confucius. This is political correctness at work again in the form or propaganda. The trend has been ever since the 2000 election when the conservative Christians were credited with Bush’s win to attack the fundamentals of that group in the mainstream to make them look silly and foolish. Christian groups are the one group it’s okay to mock in the US and it’s ironic because religious and cultural tolerance was a concept that came out of the Bible when America was founded and it has been extended to every form of people and value system in the world until the mid 20th century when tolerance was changed from meaning “living peacefully with those who disagree with you” to “respecting other’s differing beliefs equal to or better than your own.” I call that the new tolerance. A prime example is just last week the New York State Supreme Court ruled that you can have religious symbols in public schools if they’re Hindu, Muslim, or Jewish, but Christian symbols at Christmas time are illegal. If you’re going to allow one group then you have to allow them all. I also find it kind of ironic that those in the “mainstream” are always going after the Christian group and leave the other group alone. It’s as if they fear what Christians are supposed to stand for so they want to hide it from view or try and poke holes in it and the fact is you have Christianity to thank for the very existence of the basics of our civilization. From public protecting institutions like Police, Firemen, and Orphanages to writing, mathematics, and science it was the Christian church that either initiated these things or protected them through dark periods of history. The way they teach it in school today is that Christians were the oppressors of the world when overall history proves that they only made the world a better place as a whole rather than a worse place.

[MK Sharp]

I wasn’t saying that about Hitler, a college text book says that about him. And yes, 2099net, that IS political correctness College style at work.

Nah, that's our old friends moral relativism and post-modernism at play. Because in today's new exciting history, there is no absolute truth, but a spectrum of different truths depending on where you're standing.

Political correctness tries to shame people into feeling that natural opinions they have are wrong.

I'm sure Hitler had very natural opinions about the Jews and the gypsies, but there's just a chance that he might have been wrong...

Paradoxical, ain't it?

[UncleEd]

Moral relativism and political correctness go hand in hand.


"Paradoxical, ain't it?"


No not at all. There is a difference between baseless hate and natural opinions that are either supported by a group's behavior or actions. If you have any relatives who came to America in the early 20th century wave ask them what it was like among different groups. Evey one I've met says that they all had ethnic pride and picked on each other in fun but you could always count on them to help you out when you were down. The irish picked on the germans, the polish picked on the Checs, and so on. Buyt they all tell me that you could tell the difference when it went to being hate and I must say that a lot of stuff censored from old films doesn't come across as hate to me. This is what I've been saying.



Hitler fed into hates that were festeering from economic jealousy and magnified them hundreds of times over. But you could tell it was hate freom day one. Good natured ribbing doesn't make a group of people wear a star on their clothes or segregate them to ghetto's and forbid them from owning property. And good natured ribbing doesn't lead to this. If anyone became hateful in the steel mills the workers would take him out back and ruff him up. You can tell the difference and people today have become wuss' on the subject.

[UncleEd]

I'll give you one more Disney example.


In the recent Disney Treasures Comic Book there is a story the political correctness has kept from being reprinted for years. In it Gladstone and Donald are shipwrecked on an island with typical steretyped islanders. Eventually they time the ducks to meet their chief and it's Uncle Scrooge! He pays the islanders to play into the stereotypes so rich white people will come to the island resort to see the natives and spend money. To me that is a liberating story about stereotypes but to your PC crowd it's racist and should be kept from view. What do you think?