DVDizzy Forum

Lazario wrote:Sigh, yes. It's not nice for someone to want to hold back history, sure. But still, I'm a little tired of people who keep ignoring something key here. What black people think of this movie is important to consider. Maya Angelou does not deserve this scorn or disrespect. Disney making money - who cares? I think you guys are being a little selfish now. Of all the discussions of is the movie really racist or offensive, I don't see anyone other than maybe me who seems to give a damn about what black people think at all. Much like the movie itself.

The movie does in fact contain rascist stereotypes and is degrading to black people. Just because it's not offensive to the white members here speaking out does not mean it isn't offensive to black people. I still stand by my position as a white man. And as a gay man, I see all the time how - for no good reason at all - human characteristics of people are taken out of context for laughs or simple-minded, hokey "feel-good" / life-affirming messages. And especially minorities. And it serves to do nothing else but further numb viewers to the problem's source.

You people would all change your tune and how if you could see this from someone else's point of view.

I completely agree. I've said it a 100 times and I'll say it a 100 times again: the film is offensive to black people, because it portrays them in a degrading, subservient way, childish manner. And you're right: most UD-members don't want to see this and they come up with superficial 'arguments' like: "But Remus is a NICE man, no?" As if that's the issue! They don't want to see the problem because that would require them to think about it longer than two minutes. They just want their dvd.

By the way, I'm not supporting witholding the film. I'm all for it being released. The nazi's who want ti organize a protest against it are free to do so, but I don't give a damn about it. If we had to withold *all* films from 60 years ago that are racist (or mysoginist), we'd hardly have any films left.

All that fuss about the dullest and lamest film Disney has ever made...

"Magical African-American Friend" (MAAF) is what they call this issue, I believe. Other, more recent, films also using this concept are Hitch, The Legend of Bagger Vance (ugh...), The Green Mile, The Shining, Million Dollar Baby, Big Momma's House 2, Dogma, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, etc. - to a lesser extent though (except Bagger Vance, which is in a league of its own).

Even though SotS is a lot older, it still doesn't fall outside of the category. Let's just say, I definitely see how someone could be offended by this film - 'cause fact is... it *is* racist. Whether it should be vaulted forever is not up to me, so I won't comment on that.

I really wish Disney would finally release SOTS JUST so that we wouldn't have to wade through "oh my god are they finally going to release Song of the South" threads that seem to pop up every 6 months or so.

Just do what I did....give up and buy the bootleg. I actually got a very good copy, not DVD quality of course, but like a brand new VHS quality. Sound is perfect too.

Laz, for what it's worth, I'm rarely ever in the mood for an argument, especially at a time like this over what boils down to being a sensitive subject for many. Please don't interpret my defensiveness as an attack; I'm just as entitled to express my opinion as you or anyone else. Maybe you aren't aware I'm not in support of a wide-release or maybe it doesn't really matter; just let me say I don't exactly expect to see this film stocked on the family DVD shelf of every Wal-mart.

As a patron of the 1986 theatrical release and an owner of a bootleg, I fail to see what's so offensive about this movie given its context and especially when comparing it to other films of its era that are commercially available. I'm sorry if other people do and will leave it at that. No matter how many times I express my opinion it's not going to change anyone else's, and vice-versa.

And with that, I'll respectfully withdraw from this thread.

slave2moonlight wrote:The fact here is that just about every film, book, painting, etc... has something in it that someone can or will find offensive.

That's true. And I agreed with that in another thread (one of the many) on this. But you know something really funny about this film versus Peter Pan or Snow White? Song of the South has been seen negatively in a very intense way by generations now of black people in America. Disney fans can't deny that or try to erase it just because they want the movie on legit DVD. It's highly disrespectful. And the film is offensive the whole way through. Snow White balances out her extreme naivety with adoration of others for her and her kindness getting her what she might deserve. Peter Pan doesn't begin or end with the Indian camp, so we only have to squirm through a couple of scenes.

slave2moonlight wrote:It doesn't matter if it's one person, a large group of people, the majority, nothing should be buried on the basis that it offends.

Actually, I don't see the movie as being buried. Not at all. Other than the fact that we're talking about it- it's available online (or at least- it was) on that special site. It is (or at least it was) up in full on YouTube. How did you get to see it? I've seen it. The people who feel they need to see it can. By hook or by crook. It doesn't need to be mass-marketed.

slave2moonlight wrote:This is an issue about art and history and trying to whitewash the past. It's both sad and disappointing to hear that artists like Angelou and Cosby don't understand that.

What I'm saying though is - I don't see anyone trying to understand them either. Maybe this goes both ways.

slave2moonlight wrote:Yes, everyone has the right to be offended, but not to be thought police or art police. As is the correct, normal address to people who find something offensive: if you don't like it, don't watch it.

Ignoring something doesn't make it just go away. Some people overreact to some things, true. But I have to say- this isn't one of them. I completely admire your position here and I'd agree with it were it another movie. With another, potentially less serious history. And there is still a kind of racism people get from modern entertainment that isn't broken by predominantly white films and TV. And these are the only black people a frighteningly-large portion of America will watch. Disney adds to that and so far, the only thing they've done to show they're concerned with the message they might be sending was to hold back Song of the South.

slave2moonlight wrote:We all get offended by things we see in the media at one time or another. If you're going to be like book burners and demand people bow down to your hurt feelings, you shouldn't be surprised if a lot of people don't give a crap.

I'm not surprised, that's why I spoke up in the first place. But I suspect black people aren't surprised either. And that is a problem.

My feelings aren't hurt by this movie. If they were (even hurt), it would be by the horrifying behavior of the Disney fans here. After all this time talking about the movie- most of you just don't care what black people think about this movie. Or aren't willing to take a look at the characters in the movie from someone else's point of view. That is essential to do before you try to make this point. But instead, all of the discussion revolves around censorship and how evil it is. How unfair Disney is being to fans.

I would just say flat-out: censorship is wrong. And then that would be the end of it. But now I'm starting to think censorship is evening out. At least the people trying to keep this movie held back aren't just responding to something cold, without perspective and without looking into the heart of it. In essence, these characters are blatant reinforcements of classic, highly inaccurate stereotypes that are alive today because of movies like this. Because progressive black characters in most movies and shows that contain them are kept from the public because they may also contain adult dialogue and themes not okay for all children. That's even a given for any of these programs that are handled by mainstream distributers / studios.

I think if my feelings were genuinely hurt, I'd have just turned this thread off. Or not come back to these discussions. But I keep looking and still the only thing people are talking about is how unfair Disney is to them. Guess you can't please everyone. So for that, I'm glad this time Disney put the minority first.

slave2moonlight wrote:And I'm not condoning the creation of racially insensitive art of any form, just condemning the burying/editing/whitewashing of it.

I know. That's why you're cool.

Nobody means to do this either. But how would they ever know without considering someone else's feelings? When do the people on these threads ever think about what the film's detractors have to say? They don't, they just brush it off like it doesn't mean anything. That struck a chord with me.

And this is not an issue of this film hurting feelings perse. That could happen even if the people offended by it were taking some small detail out of context. But we all know the thing that offends people about this movie isn't a couple words or something somebody wears. It's everything. It's about the film's overt and total debasement of black people. And because the film adheres to the classic Disney happiness, a lot of people don't see anything wrong with any of it.

slave2moonlight wrote:I don't believe a film like this makes anyone a racist anymore than horror films make people killers.

That's very true. But I'm not saying this movie creates racism in people. It doesn't have to to have a negative effect. All it has to do is remind people of the stereotype many people still have of: "Disney said black people are nice so I know they are now, but they're also very dumb or not capable of being as educated as the whites."

I do think one day, that kind of thinking will be dead. But in the meantime, it's still around. And it grows from white-made messages that black people are different than white people. Ignorance on this issue will only die if we stop sending those messages. Even in the form of bad movies from many decades ago.

slave2moonlight wrote:As most of us have said, this work should be released in the proper context if people feel it necessary.

Well, I certainly don't find this work necessary to release at all.

slave2moonlight wrote:It's an invaluable window to one common viewpoint from our past that we are still trying to correct.

I see the release of this film for the purpose of trying to change things the same way I see waiting for change. To paraphrase Florence from The Jeffersons, waiting doesn't change anything.

slave2moonlight wrote:It should be out there for viewing and discussion. And despite its racially offensive aspects, it is still a lovely story about an interracial bond with excellent animation of the classic Brer Rabbit stories.

I find Disney's adaptation of the Brer Rabbit stories to be the single most offensive aspect of the movie.

slave2moonlight wrote:

Lazario wrote:Don't get self-righteous about this and don't take it personally.

Hmm, that demand doesn't sound the least bit hypocritical.

Understood. And ... you're right. To a point. I do get defensive. But think about the point I'm really making, S2M.

enigmawing wrote:Laz, for what it's worth, I'm rarely ever in the mood for an argument, especially at a time like this over what boils down to being a sensitive subject for many.

I hate arguing too.

So, let's put this behind us!

ohmahaaha wrote:I really wish Disney would finally release SOTS JUST so that we wouldn't have to wade through "oh my god are they finally going to release Song of the South" threads that seem to pop up every 6 months or so.

Hmm...

That is so very nearly something I can get behind!

Duckburger wrote:"Magical African-American Friend" (MAAF) is what they call this issue, I believe. Other, more recent, films also using this concept are Hitch, The Legend of Bagger Vance (ugh...), The Green Mile, The Shining, Million Dollar Baby, Big Momma's House 2, Dogma, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, etc. - to a lesser extent though (except Bagger Vance, which is in a league of its own).

Hey, that's a good one. Is that really an official term? I've never seen it used by film scholars. Has it been coined recently? I'd like to know more about it. Do you know anyone who has written about this?

If we ban SOTS because its offensive to blacks today, why not ban every single old wild west movie because that sure as hell isn't showing Native Americans in a positive light. The thinking that SOTS shouldn't be released because of its offensive material would mean we should carry that to other movies, and thus, destroy every single copy of any movie that makes African Americans subservient, Native American savages, Mexicans thieves, etc.

Goliath wrote:

Duckburger wrote:"Magical African-American Friend" (MAAF) is what they call this issue, I believe. Other, more recent, films also using this concept are Hitch, The Legend of Bagger Vance (ugh...), The Green Mile, The Shining, Million Dollar Baby, Big Momma's House 2, Dogma, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, etc. - to a lesser extent though (except Bagger Vance, which is in a league of its own).

Hey, that's a good one. Is that really an official term?

I've always heard the term "Magic Negro".

SpringHeelJack wrote:

Goliath wrote:Hey, that's a good one. Is that really an official term?

I've always heard the term "Magic Negro".

Yep, that's the official term. The other one is just a name given to that situation by an American newspaper, I believe it was the Time. But "Magic Negro" is the actual one, it even has its own wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_negro.

Siren wrote:If we ban SOTS because its offensive to blacks today, why not ban every single old wild west movie because that sure as hell isn't showing Native Americans in a positive light.

How many people complain about those movies today in all seriousness? And how do those films' portrayals of "Indians" insist they are stupidly-simplistic and happily ignorant? And, how are those films targeted to the same wide mass family audience as Disney's?

Siren wrote:The thinking that SOTS shouldn't be released because of its offensive material would mean we should carry that to other movies, and thus, destroy every single copy of any movie that makes African Americans subservient, Native American savages, Mexicans thieves, etc.

Disney aren't destroying Song of the South though, are they?

>>Disney aren't destroying Song of the South though, are they?<<

By suppressing the film and refusing to screen it openly for new generations, the rights holders are indeed erasing Uncle Remus and Br'er Rabbit, their tales and valuable lessons and some of Walt Disney's best character animation and story work ever done - - as sure as if they burned the negative.

Art and historic pop culture should be for everybody to enjoy and learn from forevermore. Let's hope for an era of true progress and change and enlightenment when the public is again allowed access these classic works.

merlinjones wrote:>>Disney aren't destroying Song of the South though, are they?<<

By suppressing the film and refusing to screen it openly for new generations, the rights holders are indeed erasing Uncle Remus and Br'er Rabbit, their tales and valuable lessons and some of Walt Disney's best character animation and story work ever done - - as sure as if they burned the negative.

In a poetic way, perhaps. But realistically? Not even close.

merlinjones wrote:Art and historic pop culture should be for everybody to enjoy and learn from forevermore. Let's hope for an era of true progress and change and enlightenment when the public is again allowed access these classic works.

...and "God bless us, every-one" (*Cue up dramatic, chintzy choiral-classical music score and camera dissolve through drippy, warm candlelight in extreme closeup to exterior shot of prodigal family home as the glorious, hopeful sun sets on "After all... tomorrow. Is. Another. Day" voice-over*) ...

No offense, but :

To be honest, if I had the choice between Disney not releasing or having them release the film but putting a censor bar over Uncle Remus and having his name be bleeped...

Cookie for who gets the reference.

^ I can't believe there are actually people crazy enough to threaten Matt and Trey. Its not like this was the first time of them portraying Mohammed in an episode.

*waits for cookie*

Siren wrote:If we ban SOTS because its offensive to blacks today, why not ban every single old wild west movie because that sure as hell isn't showing Native Americans in a positive light. The thinking that SOTS shouldn't be released because of its offensive material would mean we should carry that to other movies, and thus, destroy every single copy of any movie that makes African Americans subservient, Native American savages, Mexicans thieves, etc.

Excellent point. Couldn't have said it better myself. That's why I'm against witholding Song of the South. It just doesn't make any sense to ban this film, when you can buy old Stephen Fetchin or Bill Bojangles films on dvd (or even Birth of a Nation!). If we would ban all films that portrayed a certain ethnic (or religious) group in an offensive way, we wouldn't have many films left to watch. Because the movie industry is UGLY to minorities. That's not just a thing of the past. True, we're not doing jewish or japanese or chinese stereotyping anymore and we're being much more careful about black people... but we still love to dehumanize Arabs/muslims, and women, and gay people.

Duckburger wrote:Yep, that's the official term. The other one is just a name given to that situation by an American newspaper, I believe it was the Time. But "Magic Negro" is the actual one, it even has its own wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_negro.

Ah, yes, I know the "magic negro". If only because of Rush Limbaugh's infamous song about president Obama. And then his fans get upset why his detractors call him a racist. Gee, where did they get that notion?

Lazario wrote:

Siren wrote:If we ban SOTS because its offensive to blacks today, why not ban every single old wild west movie because that sure as hell isn't showing Native Americans in a positive light.

How many people complain about those movies today in all seriousness?

Why does that even matter? I thought you wanted to ban SotS because of its portrayal of black people. So I thought this, to you, was an issue of the content of a film. But apparently, that's not the case. It's only the size of the complaining group that counts. That's the single most ridiculous 'argument' I've ever read on UD. You probably know yourself how stupid it sounds. But if you still insist to continue with it: when, pray tell, is a group of complainers "large" enough for a film to be deemed ban-worthy? Need 1000 people complain? 100.000 people? Over a million people?

Lazario wrote:And how do those films' portrayals of "Indians" insist they are stupidly-simplistic and happily ignorant?

What, you've never *seen* a Western? Otherwise you wouldn't ask such a dumb question. Indians are portrayed either as children, who can be duped easily and persuaded by white men if they are given bright shiny objects; or as wild savages, who are only concerned with the killing of white men and abduction and rape of white women (for no apparent reason).

THAT'S not offensive? Why the double standard, Lazario? As I understand, you're not black yourself, right? (Not that that would justify such a double standard in any way, but that could have been a reason.) You know, you accuse people of not trying to see the issue from somebody else's point of view. But you're doing the exact same thing: you refuse to see the objections of Native Americans to the old Westerns. You try to downplay that. You're being hypocritical.

Persons involved in the creative arts who advocate the suppression or censorship of art in any form are in a severe state of denial. By definition, all of the arts -- and all creators - - are totally dependent on freedom of expression and access to the marketplace - - that includes historic works from artists gone by (whether or not those rights are in the public domain or held by a media conglomerate).

Goliath wrote:It just doesn't make any sense to ban this film, when you can buy old Stephen Fetchin or Bill Bojangles films on dvd (or even Birth of a Nation!). If we would ban all films that portrayed a certain ethnic (or religious) group in an offensive way, we wouldn't have many films left to watch. Because the movie industry is UGLY to minorities. That's not just a thing of the past. True, we're not doing jewish or japanese or chinese stereotyping anymore and we're being much more careful about black people... but we still love to dehumanize Arabs/muslims, and women, and gay people.

Lazario wrote: How many people complain about those movies today in all seriousness?

Why does that even matter?

Well, the point you're trying to make involves everyone complaining about racial stereotypes of all people in movies historically - am I correct? In that case it would be helpful to know, since you talk so much throughout your reply about other minorities being portrayed negatively, how many people in fact complain about these other stereotypes. Would you have any idea? Before I even entered this thread, we had the names of 2 well-respected, high-profile black figures. I'm curious who's complaining about these other racial minority stereotypes. Might help put things into perspective.

Goliath wrote:I thought you wanted to ban SotS

It's not up to me to ban SotS. I merely said I think it's a wise choice. If you have to, consider it me trying to support one of Disney's many business decisions. For a change.

Goliath wrote:because of its portrayal of black people. So I thought this, to you, was an issue of the content of a film. But apparently, that's not the case. It's only the size of the complaining group that counts.

Well, check it out: the fact the black people have been complaining for many decades about this movie kind of made me have to think twice about what could be wrong with the movie for them to be so passionate about it. I'm glad it was never that complicated for you or that you made your mind up right away. Good for you. But me- I had to think about it. And I decided that it wasn't up to me to say these people are wrong. It's not up to me to do anything more than say I don't think anyone complaining here about Disney's decision gives a damn what black people think. I'm sure you have better reasons than selfishness. But when I look around, all I see is a bunch of: "all movies will be censored" because of this 1. That to me, just seems like whining. So I said it. If I'm wrong, please feel free to tell me so.

Goliath wrote:

Lazario wrote:And how do those films' portrayals of "Indians" insist they are stupidly-simplistic and happily ignorant?

What, you've never *seen* a Western?

Yes I have. Overall, I find them kind of boring and choose not to pay attention to them. Also, I never thought John Wayne was very heroic nor Clint Eastwood all that sexy. One of the reasons I turned away from the genre is because everyone pretty much looks like a moron in those movies. Do you think that's why not many people complain about the stereotypes any more? Because the only people who really love those movies are people who see them as nothing more than a macho fantasy? Therefore knowing not to take them at all seriously?

Goliath wrote:Indians are portrayed either as children, who can be duped easily and persuaded by white men if they are given bright shiny objects

The savages-part I believe. But, do you have any specific examples of this former stereotype?

Goliath wrote:THAT'S not offensive? Why the double standard, Lazario?

I didn't say any negative portrayals of minorities weren't offensive. I just happen to think it's important to take how the mainstream view these kinds of movies into account. It seems to me that westerns are made for adults and while kids used to enjoy them a great deal decades ago, adults today don't pass these western movies and shows they enjoyed as kids onto their kids the same way as Disney passes down the many historical movies they've made onto every new group of kids like they can trust their version of history is accurate. This is a fact in America. And if you're at all acquainted with our propaganda and our news outlets' idea of social commentary, you'll no doubt have heard the one about how Hollywood doesn't make any heroes anymore. Heroes like the ones they enjoyed when they were kids. Ringing any bells yet? Well, you know what? Maybe it so happens that the reason we don't get the same westerns today as we did back then is because as you pointed out, the old enemies were poor stereotypes.

The point is, I don't see anyone claiming that the westerns don't reinforce negative stereotypes. This is something we understand. I guess that's what I was trying to say by asking that "dumb question." People don't defend them openly. They just enjoy the fantasy of it. And know to separate that from the reality they know. But Disney isn't the same thing. Because it has that infamous name and a huge cult (no offensive, look at how I've defended Sleeping Beauty - I'm part of it, that's how I know about) of apologists who are never willing to admit that these films do reinforce negative stereotypes with kids. Parents aren't as responsible as you may think. Just look at the fact that I'm the only one who complains about Beauty and the Beast being offensive and Snow White telling us she's stupid and her patronizing the old men by treating them like children. With that family name on their movies, they have a built-in defense. They don't mean to harm anyone. They're Disney. Think about it. They're too nice.

Goliath wrote:As I understand, you're not black yourself, right? (Not that that would justify such a double standard in any way, but that could have been a reason.) You know, you accuse people of not trying to see the issue from somebody else's point of view. But you're doing the exact same thing: you refuse to see the objections of Native Americans to the old Westerns. You try to downplay that. You're being hypocritical.

Am I?

Hey, I'm black. And white. And Native American. And I just love SotS. If they don't hurry up and release it, I'm gonna bootleg it. And I'm STILL gonna whine that they haven't released it. And you know why? Because it's not only a good film, it's also a classic film, and it's also NOT offensive, and it's also a piece of art (even if it's slightly dated) that they have NO right to withhold from the public.

Lazario wrote:Well, the point you're trying to make involves everyone complaining about racial stereotypes of all people in movies historically - am I correct? In that case it would be helpful to know, since you talk so much throughout your reply about other minorities being portrayed negatively, how many people in fact complain about these other stereotypes.

No, that's not at all what my point was, and you know it, as I repeatedly said it's not about the size of the complaining group --that's *your* point! What matters to me is that there are a LOT of movies that are offensive to a lot of different ethnic or religious minorities. Whether or not these groups complain about that the way the 'black community' does about SotS (and I purposefully use this term very loosely), or in the same numbers, is irrelevant. That doesn't make those movies any less offensive

Lazario wrote:I'm glad it was never that complicated for you or that you made your mind up right away. Good for you. But me- I had to think about it. And I decided that it wasn't up to me to say these people are wrong.

It really is a reflex of you, isn't it, to fill in for other people what they did or didn't do or think? It's in your nature, isn't it? Actually, I'm much more nuanced than you are on this issue. As I stated, I see why black people are offended by this film and I agree with them. But on the other hand, I wouldn't want to whiewash history by surpressing a certain film.

Lazario wrote:If I'm wrong, please feel free to tell me so.

Yeah, like that would help!

Lazario wrote:Do you think that's why not many people complain about the stereotypes any more? Because the only people who really love those movies are people who see them as nothing more than a macho fantasy? Therefore knowing not to take them at all seriously?

I don't know that "not many people" are complaining about them. I'm sorry that you are so incredibly short-sighted to discredit an entire genre of films. Not that it comes as a surprise, but still... wow. I won't go any further into that, because that would mean you would have achieved your goal of derailing the discussion. It was about your blatant double standard when it comes to portrayal of black people and Native Americans in movies. And your complete insensitivity to the offensive way those people are portrayed in Westerns. So insensitive, that you even had the nerve to ask.

Lazario wrote:The savages-part I believe. But, do you have any specific examples of this former stereotype?

Why? If I don't say, right here and now, that this stereotype appears in this-and-this movie around this-and-this point in the film, you don't believe it exists? You continue to baffle me with the degree to which your played naievite has become transparent.

Lazario wrote:I didn't say any negative portrayals of minorities weren't offensive. I just happen to think it's important to take how the mainstream view these kinds of movies into account.

That's bullshit. Either you think a certain movie should be banned, based on the offensive content; or you think it should be available. What if 100 black people said SotS should be released because they don't find it offensive, and 90 people say they object to release because they do find it offensive? Are you suddenly going to drop your view that the film is offensive and say it should be released? That's the logical conclusion from your posts. That makes you an unprincipled opportunist.

Lazario wrote:It seems to me that westerns are made for adults and while kids used to enjoy them a great deal decades ago, adults today don't pass these western movies and shows they enjoyed as kids onto their kids the same way as Disney passes down the many historical movies they've made onto every new group of kids like they can trust their version of history is accurate.

When did parents ever think that Disney movies represented reality or (historical) accuracy? No parent in his/her right mind thinks that Disney is about reality, Lazario. You know that as well as I.

Lazario wrote:And if you're at all acquainted with our propaganda and our news outlets' idea of social commentary, you'll no doubt have heard the one about how Hollywood doesn't make any heroes anymore.

Hollywood doesn't make heroes anymore? May I have a laugh here? Almost every action movie is about some handsome guy saving the world from evil (and getting Megan Fox in bed in the meantime). It's always traditionally about the good versus evil battle.

Lazario wrote:Maybe it so happens that the reason we don't get the same westerns today as we did back then is because as you pointed out, the old enemies were poor stereotypes.

The Western is already dead anyway.

Lazario wrote:The point is, I don't see anyone claiming that the westerns don't reinforce negative stereotypes.

Huh? You don't see anyone claiming that the westerns don't reinforce negative stereotypes"? Didn't you mean to say that you see nobody complain that westerns *do* reinforce negative stereotypes? The sentence would work then. Of course your point would still not be right. Maybe you don't see them because you haven't looked for them. Maybe because they don't get media coverage as easily as a bunch of angry black people.

Lazario wrote:This is something we understand. I guess that's what I was trying to say by asking that "dumb question." People don't defend them openly. They just enjoy the fantasy of it. And know to separate that from the reality they know.

Now you're making a different point altogether. Now you're talking about people not *defending* westerns openly. When we were just talking about people openly *complaining* about them. You're mixing them up. But about people not openly defending them: how would you know? You say you don't know much about the genre anyway. So how would you know how fans of those films feel about them and how they express themselves whenever criticism is thrown at their favorites?

You don't know. You just assume a lot of things. That's a common thread through most of your posts.

Lazario wrote:But Disney isn't the same thing. Because it has that infamous name and a huge cult [...] of apologists who are never willing to admit that these films do reinforce negative stereotypes with kids. Parents aren't as responsible as you may think.

Disney is exactly the same thing. Just like people who love westerns defend their films, Disney-fans defend their films. And like I said, no parent thinks Disney's films represent reality.

Lazario wrote:Just look at the fact that I'm the only one who complains about Beauty and the Beast being offensive

Why is it offensive?

Lazario wrote:and Snow White telling us she's stupid and her patronizing the old men by treating them like children.

Why is that offensive? The character is naive and the dwarves *are* not capable of taking care of themselves properly (remember the mess they lived in; that can't be healthy). Why is that offensive?

Lazario wrote:

Goliath wrote:You're being hypocritical.

Am I?