SOTS News-Is This Legit?

[Super Aurora]

^ 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*

Actually they just delete that superfriends episode from netflick and other streaming places.

The reason I think we should release the movie is to end confusion for young generation. When I was little, I use to get the Sing-a-long tapes(they're still awesome) and one of them happen to be, Zip-e-doo-day. After watching that segment, I always wonder where they hell that came from or how come I never saw it. Then I came across an old story book on the animated segements of Song of the South. I was like "ok where the hell is this movie. I want to see it." And then you you have the theme ride at disneyland/world. By then I'm like, "all these song of the south products and no movie out on it?? What the hell is going on?!"

I think almost or a majority of kids who went through same thing I did would ask same thing and would want to see it.

[pap64]

Funny story...

I recently saw "Gone with the Wind", another famous epic film with a stereotypical portrayal of blacks. Watching this I realized why Disney doesn't want to release Song of the South while Gone with the Wind is widely available: South is a FAMILY film.

I guess they, as well as the people against this film, fear that this being a family film they will give young kids a bad impression of black people, whereas Gone with the Wind is a film aimed at adults, and adults are likely to get that it's a period film, therefore the characters are appropriate for the setting.

It's an understandable double standard. Many classic films are guilty of racist portrayals (The Jazz Singer features white performers doing blackface, a BIG no no these days), and are widely available and even SHOWN to educate the masses about how society has evolved since.

I wonder what Maya thinks of Gone with the Wind...

[Siren]

Not releasing just seems to make it all worse. Release it and be done with it. The uproar will be there for a little while and then the ACLU and NAACP will find some one else to save/fight/exploit.

Dragging it on like this is really a useless exercise. If Disney had NO plans to release it, I'd think they'd physically destroy it, or least try to destroy it, like they did Sunflower from Fantasia, not knowing someone snuck a bit out. Of course more SOTS is out there. Disney is nothing but a double standard with SOTS...don't release the movie because it could offend, but lets put clips into sing along videos and make...oh...I dunno....a MASSIVE F***ING RIDE OUT OF THE MOVIE!!!!!! But don't release it on DVD....use what they can to make money and pretend they are sorry for the rest.

[jpanimation]

^ 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*

Actually they just delete that superfriends episode from netflick and other streaming places.

At first I thought it was a joke, to mock the people threatening them, but after a few minutes I knew it was Comedy Central pussing out. Matt and Trey would never use an annoying joke like that throughout an entire episode (maybe farts or vomit, but not bleeping). The fact that Comedy Central bleeped out the final speech, which was about intimidation and fear, is pure irony. An episode about how dumb censorship is ends up being censored. F**K Comedy Central for not standing up for Matt and Trey's right to free speech and F**K them for caving into intimidation by radicals (terrorism only works if you're scared and let it affect you).

I can't believe they're taking down all the SuperBestFriend episode streams. They've hit every religion hard but just showing Muhammad is death worthy? Seriously, Jesus was looking at porn while Budda is snorting coke but they can't even show Muhammad (or in this case, say his name)? What makes their prophet any different from all the other religious prophets? We have something called a right to free speech, any religion is fair game. Sorry for being soo off-topic but this whole thing has me upset.

[pap64]

Disney has positioned themselves as both a great entity and a ridicule in the industry.

When other companies release films with major racial issues, people have no problems with them. But if Disney announces a project with black people (ie Princess and the Frog), all hell breaks loose. It doesn't matter if the racial portrayals aren't as bad as in other films or they are quite positive, its Disney, therefore its an issue.

Not saying that Disney should be given a free ride when they do it, just stating that Disney either has such a high position or a low one in the industry that people judge them differently from the rest.

Oh and since we are talking about "Magic Negro", how about "White Magic"? You know, when a noble, great, caring white person takes care of a minority that's been abused, neglected, ignored and inspires them to become better people?

Sandra Bullock was one in "The Blind Side". Michelle Pfeifer too in "Dangerous Mind". Speaking of teachers, TONS of Teacher movies feature a white person helping underprivileged kids.

I also realized... I've yet to see a Puertorican organization protest West Side Story, both the play and the movie. It features a very unflattering portrayal of Puertoricans in New York, and yet I see no one speaking out against it.

[Siren]

I think ALL movie companies should get a free ride when they make a movie about a certain race. If they make something offensive, understandable, but this is a historical movie. This was made at a time when such things were acceptable and frankly....movies from that time period from Disney have been released and other than small ridicule, they made it through fine. I think the crows in Dumbo are more offensive then Uncle Remus and the Tar Baby.

Also, I see a huge double standard when it comes to what is racially acceptable. Chris Rock, Tracy Morgan, and a host of other black comedians make fun of white people all the time. They stereotype them. They make some pretty nasty comments. They often make white people sound stupid. But have a white guy make a joke about blacks and OMG. I think the only comedian to have broken nearly all racial barriers is Jeff Dunham and he has to make racist jokes through puppets so he doesn't get beaten down. He has a redneck, a black pimp, and an Arab terrorist. But that's ok. Because he does the racist jokes through a puppet. And if its okay of black people make jokes about liking fried chicken and watermelon, but if Jeff Foxworthy or Brian Regan tried that, it would be racist. But Chris Rock can insult the intelligence level of white people and still get a laugh.


The point is....someone is gonna get offended. And I am far more offended by how our culture's double standards are in entertainment then by a movie that was made before most of us were even born.

[pap64]

Also, I see a huge double standard when it comes to what is racially acceptable. Chris Rock, Tracy Morgan, and a host of other black comedians make fun of white people all the time. They stereotype them. They make some pretty nasty comments. They often make white people sound stupid. But have a white guy make a joke about blacks and OMG. I think the only comedian to have broken nearly all racial barriers is Jeff Dunham and he has to make racist jokes through puppets so he doesn't get beaten down. He has a redneck, a black pimp, and an Arab terrorist. But that's ok. Because he does the racist jokes through a puppet. And if its okay of black people make jokes about liking fried chicken and watermelon, but if Jeff Foxworthy or Brian Regan tried that, it would be racist. But Chris Rock can insult the intelligence level of white people and still get a laugh.

This is so, so true. My best friend once told me that if I, a Puertorican, made a racist joke people would find it funny since minorities are good at telling minority jokes. But if HE, an American white guy, told the joke they would burn him at the stake, even though I told the exact, same joke and no one seemed to mind.

I think I know why. When we are taught history, they teach us how cruel whites were to minorities, and tell us to "respect history". So if a white guy were to joke about it, people would see it as an insult since his "race" caused these problems. But if a minority joked about it, people would see it as taking it in stride, that he is able to look back at history and have a laugh about it, and is even "an inspiration" for some.

[pap64]

I was thinking, here's what Disney should...

In the movie "Breakfast at Tiffany's", Mickey Rooney plays a highly stereotypical character named Mr. Yunioshi, a Japanese guy. Mickey isn't Japanese, so his portrayal is rather offensive.

What did Paramount do? In the recent DVD releases not only did they include apologies from the producers and actors they made a documentary called "Mr. Yunioshi: An Asian Perspective". It offered commentary by Asian people about the character and his negative impact on the film.

THIS is what Disney should do, offer HISTORY and explanations rather than to hide it. Have Leonard Maltin do a long, unskippable introduction explaining how the film is an image of the era it was produced in. Then have features about the film's racial issues by experts and present BOTH sides of the argument so its fair (that way, no one can accuse Disney of only hand picking the best), and show examples of how the company has evolved since (ending with Princess and the Frog).

People are still going to complain anyway. They still protest Breakfast at Tiffany's even though Paramount has tried their hardest to apologize for the mistake, so even if Disney did all of this they will still protest so they might as well do it.

[Lazario]

I just love SotS. If they don't hurry up and release it, I'm gonna bootleg it.

I suggest you do. I really don't think Disney are going to change their mind about this decision any time soon.

they have NO right to withhold from the public.

Legally they do.

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.

I'm sure to someone who has the time, you'd be a fascinating study.

I ask you for examples to back up your argument and you don't give them. This is not a fill in for what you're actually saying, this is a fact. This is something you haven't done. I'm not insensitive to anyone's complaints because you haven't mentioned any yet. Just the idea that people complain. I'm sure they have. But I'm not responding to any complaints until you mention one. Why haven't you? Because you're saying that would derail the discussion? COP OUT. You can't expect to insult me on this issue until you actually back up this argument with details. Details involving actual people, actual places, actual time. You don't even need to be that specific, just bring up a point that some actual person has made to back up what you're saying. Otherwise, shut up about it. Yeah I don't care very much for westerns. Does that really bother you? Or do you think that just because I don't care for the genre that means I am insensitive toward Native Americans? That's completely absurd. I don't choose to get my education about real people from movies. When I want it, I go to books and talk to people.

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.

I ask you questions because I expect if you think any of this is relevant to your "Nuanced" point of view... you would want to include details about it. But you don't. I think that's a cop out. But feel free to disagree. You're trying to ride this whole argument out by your one point: "we should not whitewash history by suppressing" certain films. That's fine. But don't go off on the side trying to tell me I'm insensitive and naive when I'm only responding to the fact that you don't want to give details. That's why the questions are so dumb. I expect if you're trying to share a more nuanced view, you'd do that with details. What was I thinking? I should have known ahead of time that that derails the discussion.

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.

That doesn't sound very nuanced to me. That sounds like you expect someone to just pick a side. As though they see themselves as any kind of power. I know I don't have power or influence. I simply say I think Disney has made the right decision. I guess we know what side that puts me on. But again, I've also said I don't believe the movie is gone from the world. I don't know how you people get this deal outside America. But within America, we not only have the bootleg which I've heard several people rave about, it's also on YouTube. It has been since June, 2008.

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.

Well, for years I chose to stay out of Song of the South discussions. Nobody cared about my opinion. And since the film was out of my reach as far as I could see it, I decided it was good for me to stay out. I knew what black people thought of it, so I took that into account because I do that with everything I watch, if I know what others think. I chose to watch it before I made up my mind. You're right- I'm not black. Big shocker. But I did see the movie because YouTube is very adequate for a fullscreen film in mono sound. And it's horrifyingly, thoroughly offensive. Especially the animated sequences, where the antagonist(s) and the protagonist(s) are given the same baffoonish, dumb personalities. And you know something? Many black people feel this is not accurate even for the time period Disney was representing. I knew this. The film only proved these people have cause for concern. Why would I drop my position that this film is offensive? Again- as long as I've been here, I've been talking about how offensive Snow White and Beauty and the Beast can be. How obnoxious Bambi is. Nobody told me what to think. My observations on Song of the South are directly in line with my observations on these other films. If you're going to call me an opportunist, next time- get your facts straight.

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.

Actually, I said Disney the corporation doesn't aknowledge nor challenge their previous films' versions of historical accuracy. Clearly that's up for debate, but I most certainly did not say parents. That would be the same as me saying the people who think this film isn't harmful are stupid. I know people are smart enough to see glaring inaccuracies in this film. But that's not the same as recognizing what's offensive about it. Like I said in the post you're quoting, many people don't want to think Disney ever did any harm to anyone. We could debate that they haven't, but you'll never hear me say they haven't. Fans and parents may agree this film isn't accurate, but that doesn't mean they understand what it feels like to have themselves personally insulted in a movie's depiction. It seems for that to happen, the topic has to shift to a film that they can see is insulting them. And man, you're right that almost all movies are offensive. In fact, Song of the South is offensive to me on at least 2 levels. As a gay man, I can see firsthand how the film is taking another minority out of context. And as an intelligent moviegoer, I can see the film expecting me not to care about that. And everyone knows how often I bitch about mainstream comedies just being offensive because they treat every last viewer like they're an idiot. That's why I say it's not up to me to decide what should and shouldn't be banned. I just comment on what I see already happening. For every indignity I feel I've suffered on behalf of some idiot writer... hey, one company (sure, for the wrong reasons) freaking decided to do the right thing. No, I'm not going to complain about that.

I will admit maybe I shouldn't have said anything about the fans here who want to see Song of the South get that region 1 release. But it's too late now and I don't regret saying it. Not for a mili-second. Not so long as a single person says the movie is actually not offensive.

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.

I wasn't agreeing with the viewpoint I was referencing, Goliath.

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?

Double-negative? I do that a lot.

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.

You're right about the first part. I admit, I was wrong. The 2nd point there is up for debate. Because it relates to traditional American values. How old-fashioned depictions of all characters were better than characters are portrayed now. And how that's symoblic of how changing times don't respect those values. That's gotten a lot of attention throughout the many years opinion-news outlets have been complaining about the changing times. Both subjects get pigeonholed the same way in America's "Blah Blah Blah" Talk Show culture. Driven by stereotypes and vanilla'd-controversy. I still see however, that black people who complain about this film get pretty much the same amount of respect from this board as "angry black people" who challenge conservative views get from Fox News.

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.

Well, you already said that I'm not seeing what you see. I'll agree with that as well; I'm not.

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.

From watching the films, Goliath. Watching the films is not the same as interacting with fans of the genre and hearing what they have to say. I've always been interested more with theories of what the genre represents than the genre itself. And I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say "I like westerns" followed by some variant of/on, "I know what you're thinking..." Several times.

Anyway, westerns do not have the same family audience today (nor in my generation) as they Disney does (did, in my generation). Both their new films and their classic films.

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

Why is it offensive?

This is the one admittedly hypocritical thing I'm about to engage in... But I'm not opening that can of worms. At one point, some time ago, I did the same thing. Probably on that Disney Marathon thread; I said I'm not going-there again. Things got way too heated, I made a jackass out of myself though I stick by (without reading it again ) every word I said. And it dissolved into very nasty name-calling. That's not the only reason I'm not going-there. I have to obsess over every last detail (to the point, where I have to watch the movie over again and maybe even take pages of notes - that's how psycho I am) and that's way too much time for just one stray point. And you probably don't care anyway.

If you really want to know that much, I will go back and try to find what I said. But not right now.

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?

This is why I felt the need to actually say something butt-kiss-ish about you in the Social Study thread. Remember? Before you went off on that "we're an underdeveloped nation" thing (sarcastic or serious? As you say, I'm not a shrink). Because I bow down - when it's deserved - to the people who can knock me off my soapbox. And you have. But only with this and the Beauty and the Beast comment.

I'm not going into details on this now. I'm freaking spent. But I'll come back to this later. You have my word.

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?

Sure... just mine. And mine alone... You're not guilty of any amount of that yourself.

[Goliath]

Also, I see a huge double standard when it comes to what is racially acceptable. Chris Rock, Tracy Morgan, and a host of other black comedians make fun of white people all the time. They stereotype them. They make some pretty nasty comments. They often make white people sound stupid. But have a white guy make a joke about blacks and OMG. [...]

Too bad... You were doing so well, up until this point. Please don't play the 'white people getting offended'-card. It makes no sense. Black comedians making fun of white people does not, in any way, compare to the ridicule, insults and abuse black people had to go through for centuries. To place them on the same level, is showing ignorance about history. White people can't dehumanize black people for decades in all kinds of media and then act like a victim whenever a black comedian makes a joke about them for a change.

I think I know why. When we are taught history, they teach us how cruel whites were to minorities, and tell us to "respect history". So if a white guy were to joke about it, people would see it as an insult since his "race" caused these problems. But if a minority joked about it, people would see it as taking it in stride, that he is able to look back at history and have a laugh about it, and is even "an inspiration" for some.

Yes, and that's a perfectly acceptable, understandable reasoning. It makes perfect sense. It's actually a very good reason why there's a difference in white people telling minority jokes and minorities themselves telling the same jokes. You really shouldn't see this as unfair or a 'double standard'. I loathe white people* who play the victim over issues like these. They have no right to complain, and not trying to understand where the difference in acceptance comes from, is ignorant.

*Yes, I know you said you were Puerto Rican.

[Lazario]

Also, I see a huge double standard when it comes to what is racially acceptable. Chris Rock, Tracy Morgan, and a host of other black comedians make fun of white people all the time. They stereotype them. They make some pretty nasty comments. They often make white people sound stupid. But have a white guy make a joke about blacks and OMG. [...]

Please don't play the 'white people getting offended'-card. It makes no sense. Black comedians making fun of white people does not, in any way, compare to the ridicule, insults and abuse black people had to go through for centuries. To place them on the same level, is showing ignorance about history. White people can't dehumanize black people for decades in all kinds of media and then act like a victim whenever a black comedian makes a joke about them for a change.

Agreed.

[Goliath]

I'm sure to someone who has the time, you'd be a fascinating study.

We're back at personal attacks now?

I ask you for examples to back up your argument and you don't give them.

I'm sorry, I'm not used to people asking me to give a source to prove that the earth is round, or that it circles around the sun. I'm very sorry that I didn't remember every film I've ever seen. Forgive me that I don't know which stereotype pops up in each film. I didn't write it down. Maybe I should have written it down while watching. Because I could have known that one day I would meet someone named Lazario who doesn't believe that widely known stereotypes about Indians exist in Westerns... (x 1000)

No, Lazario, I don't know in which specific film this widely known stereotype appears. But you can't tell me you don't believe it exists. You're just playing with my head again. You KNOW it, Lazario. You're just fucking with us again. I mean: not having a specific film title in my head means a "copt out"?! I guess you won't believe that there are films that depict muslims as terrorists, before I have shown you a specific example from a specific film? Otherwise, it didn't happen? If I can't quote Mr. Native American X and Mrs. Native American Y complaining, that means nobody is offended? So your argument is really: "if Goliath doesn't show it, it isn't true"???????

Is that what I'm arguing with?

That's the last thing I'm gonna say to you EVER. I can't stomach one more line of your demagoguery. Call me whatever you want to claim your 'victory'. Fact is, I was stupid in thinking that a person could have a reasonable discussion with you. They can't; nobody can.

[Disney's Divinity]

White people can't dehumanize black people for decades in all kinds of media and then act like a victim whenever a black comedian makes a joke about them for a change.

Funny, I thought most of these "white dehumanizers" were dead. Didn't know I was the same as some slaveowner from the 1800s or a lynchmob from the 1920s.

And, to trot out the cliches, "two wrongs don't make a right." Or "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Revenge is always an understandable motivation, but I wouldn't ever call it right.

(This is strangely eerie after I've just been reading Jean Rhys' Wide Sargasso Sea).

[Lazario]

White people can't dehumanize black people for decades in all kinds of media and then act like a victim whenever a black comedian makes a joke about them for a change.

Funny, I thought most of these "white dehumanizers" were dead. Didn't know I was the same as some slaveowner from the 1800s or a lynchmob from the 1920s.

And, to trot out the cliches, "two wrongs don't make a right." Or "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Revenge is always an understandable motivation, but I wouldn't ever call it right.

Total Equality... such an attractive idea.

When I was little, I use to get the Sing-a-long tapes(they're still awesome) and one of them happen to be, Zip-e-doo-day. After watching that segment, I always wonder where they hell that came from or how come I never saw it. Then I came across an old story book on the animated segements of Song of the South. I was like "ok where the hell is this movie. I want to see it." And then you you have the theme ride at disneyland/world. By then I'm like, "all these song of the south products and no movie out on it?? What the hell is going on?!"

I saw that same Sing-Along tape. We rented it.

I actually thought it was just a cartoon short.

My best friend once told me that if I, a Puertorican, made a racist joke people would find it funny since minorities are good at telling minority jokes. But if HE, an American white guy, told the joke they would burn him at the stake, even though I told the exact, same joke and no one seemed to mind.

I think you've got something here. Not the obvious. The fact that someone would have the urge to tell you that. It is plain weird that in America people make a big deal out of this double standard. Does it ever cross a person's mind to tell jokes about things they know? However, that being said... Me and my best friend used to tell inappropriate jokes about all kinds of things. Nothing was off limits. Guess what? Not only did we not get serious about it, we also were smart enough to do it where nobody could hear us.

I'm sure to someone who has the time, you'd be a fascinating study.

We're back at personal attacks now?

Now? And yes I read the part where you said you've already posted your last response to me. All I can say to that is: thank you.

But I have a few other things to say first.

I ask you for examples to back up your argument and you don't give them.

I'm sorry, I'm not used to people asking me to give a source to prove that the earth is round

Case in point, Goliath: that's a personal attack, at least by the exact same standard as the comment of mine you pointed out. And you began replying to me that way. Check the records, G. Turn to Page 2.

Don't tell me I'm attacking you. You have no right to make that call.

I guess you won't believe that there are films that depict muslims as terrorists

You're calling me stupid - that's a personal attack. At least I called you fascinating.

Call me whatever you want to claim your 'victory'.

Okay, now this is getting just plain creepy. Where's that still of the Zombie-Genie from Aladdin?


Seriously, Goliath - you have no idea what's going on. You replied to something I said to someone else and took it completely out of context. For one purpose: to call me a hypocrite. For that claim to work, you would have to know what the questions I asked that other person really meant. But to do that, you'd have to care about this discussion rather than just insulting me.

Anyway, since it will probably be a cold day in hell before I defend you again anywhere - I'm proud to be on the list of people who won't be talking to you again.

[Goliath]

Funny, I thought most of these "white dehumanizers" were dead. Didn't know I was the same as some slaveowner from the 1800s or a lynchmob from the 1920s.

Where did I adress you personally? This isn't about slaveowners or lynchmobs. This is about movies from the 1940's (and '50s and '60s) which depict black people as being lazy, dumb, inept, incompetent, childish etc.

And, to trot out the cliches, "two wrongs don't make a right." Or "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Revenge is always an understandable motivation, but I wouldn't ever call it right.

It's not about "revenge". You think Chris Rock or another black comedian making a joke about white people is "revenge"? Surely you are big enough a person to recognize it has nothing to do with revenge. I'm sure you are. And it's not like jokes about black people aren't still being made. Bill Maher is a widely known comedian/tv host who does it regularly. (But it's never mean-spirited, although he gets a few "ooohs" from the audience.) I just can't stand it when white people suddenly act like they're the 'victim' now. It shows a lack of historical perspective.

[Disney's Divinity]

Where did I adress you personally? This isn't about slaveowners or lynchmobs. This is about movies from the 1940's (and '50s and '60s) which depict black people as being lazy, dumb, inept, incompetent, childish etc.

Well...when you say "whites" this and "whites" that, excuse me for stupidly assuming you're talking to and/or about white people.

And, yes, it is about 40s films depicting blacks negatively. My only point to you was that I (and most other white people) are not the ones who abused and "dehumanized" black people for centuries. I wasn't even alive then. So now I must be blamed for the actions of people I don't even know? And I have no right to be a victim because of what people in the past (most of who are nearly-dead or in the grave) did to other people in the past? Sorry if I find that ridiculus.

It's not about "revenge". You think Chris Rock or another black comedian making a joke about white people is "revenge"?

But it must be. At least that's the way you're rationalizing it. It's okay if minorities criticize and joke about white people because, hey, those white people deserve it.

I just can't stand it when white people suddenly act like they're the 'victim' now. It shows a lack of historical perspective.

Yes, because what happened 40 yrs to a century ago justifies any racism today. Clearly. I'm not sure if you're aware, but I don't think any particular skin color comes with the 'victim' price tag. They all get victimized at one point or another. (And to pretend that the problems of the past can be summed up in "white people were evil" is a gross simplification. Exploitation is a human problem. The only reason white people weren't the ones being abused is become they ended up on top by chance. I can't honestly pretend that black-skinned people in the same position wouldn't end up committing the same crimes if the races had been reversed.)

As for how I feel about Song of the South, I really don't see the point in not releasing it. I think the main problem anyone would have with it really is because it's audience would have to be children (how else would Disney market it when, for some reason, they believe their only profitable markets are to toddlers and tweens?). And, yes, I think it would be fairly disturbing to see it sitting on store shelves with bright colors and a smiling slave to entice the kiddies.

[Margos]

Victimized? I don't care what time period we're talking about, jokes just do not equal violence and injustice!

[Flanger-Hanger]

The irony is that Disney has done more to keep this film in the public consciousness than its much more recent/less offensive material.

Splash Mountain, the" foam head" characters in the parks and the near perpetual release of merchandise based on its characters are good examples of this.

When was the last time Hercules or Atlantis got this kind of treatment?

[ajmrowland]

Funny story...

I recently saw "Gone with the Wind", another famous epic film with a stereotypical portrayal of blacks. Watching this I realized why Disney doesn't want to release Song of the South while Gone with the Wind is widely available: South is a FAMILY film.

Teacher: you're late. I'll be awaiting your return with a late slip.

I figured it out awhile ago. I actually think it's around here somewhere.

[Dragonlion]

Funny story...

I recently saw "Gone with the Wind", another famous epic film with a stereotypical portrayal of blacks. Watching this I realized why Disney doesn't want to release Song of the South while Gone with the Wind is widely available: South is a FAMILY film.

Teacher: you're late. I'll be awaiting your return with a late slip.

I figured it out awhile ago. I actually think it's around here somewhere.

Actually I figured that out.

But of course, it gets targeted because it's a Disney film.

I actually think it's because it's a family film.