The perversion of Disney

[AndrewGilmore]

OK, so here's a very old controversy.
I have just returned from a college course entitled Pluralism, which discusses society and the effects of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. on society and vice versa. This afternoon we watched a documentary entitled "Mickey Mouse Monopoly", which I'm sure some of you have seen. In it they describe many examples of racism and sexism in Disney features and how these ideologies are corrupting our children. I hadn't seen or even thought of Disney movies in about ten to fifteen years, so it came as a surprise to me how many examples of racism and sexism there are in them. (I might also mention that the film did not have the guts to mention "Song of the South" in any way, shape or form.)
However, my response to the film's point of view, which I expressed to the professor during Q&A afterwards, is that, in this overly politically correct era, people can read those kinds of "hidden meanings" into AAAAAAAANYTHING, and that there is such a thing as taking entertainment media too damn seriously. My professor had said beforehand that "it's just entertainment" was not an excuse because her aim was to make us think critically about what media exposes us to- nonetheless, I still believe there is such a thing as "just entertainment."
I also think that creative artists do not neccesarily have a responsibility to censor themselves- that an artist can create whatever they damn well want and that, if art were obligated to be morally perfect and completely and utterly innofensive to anyone, the art which resulted would be either bland and boring or nonexistent, because everything is bound to offend someone somewhere. (My professor countered this by asking whether, despite the creative artists having creative license, do the people who market art such as movies and books to millions of people have a moral responsibility towards the art they represent? I had to think about that one, and I still am.) I do know that "corporate" art is generally crap and that it's the truly creative individual artists who refuse to compromise their visions that truly make a difference in creative fields.
There is also a certain amount of hypocrisy involved in the Disney controversy. In the film, an African-American woman complained that there were no African-American characters in Disney's "Tarzan" film and that children would get the impression that the jungle was full of white people. On the other hand, had Disney included African-American characters in "Tarzan", the same woman would undoubtedly have complained that the film was racist and stereotyping African-Americans.
Despite the fact that, as I have said before on this board, I am not particularly a Disney fan (despite loving their films as a child), I find it frustrating and ridiculous how much Disney has been made a scapegoat for prejudice or just plain subversion- I do know that Walt Disney as a man was about as moral as a person could get, and it angers me that he and his work are made to look like a deliberate attempt to corrupt children with things like "hidden" sexual messages- in short, the whole thing strikes me as ludicrous and I can't believe that we have taken a body of work which has always been intended as innocent and interpreted it as the highest form of evil. Where can we find innocence and goodness in this country today if not in good old Mickey Mouse?
What do you guys make of all this?

[Chow Hound]

What do you guys make of all this?In short: You're right, it is quite ridiculous.

[jonmayo15]

For anyone who hasn't seen it, it's on YouTube split into five parts.

[Daffysleftfoot]

Let me guess, this is your teacher (http://dmgermain.blogspot.com/2006/04/another-monkey-has-joined-family.html), right? ;)

[Ray Pointer]

I remember hearing about this "documentary" being made. One thing about documentaries, or any other form of film is that it takes on a "point of view."
In this case, the film maker had a personal agenda to try to tear down the reputation of Disney by taking things out of context. This is the danger of such a captivating medium as film since it is so influential. The way that things are edited and presented has a great deal to do with the ideas presented. On the one had, your feeling that "artists had the right to present what they...please" could apply to this documentary. But let's consider other
aspects of this issue.

Interestingly, the Germans under the Nazi control produced a number of anti-U.S. films using newsreel clips of images such as F.D.R. carving a Thanksgiving turkey, looking happy, with the claim that Roosevelt was part of the "world Jewish Conspiriacy." Not only was this a lie, it is an example of brainwashing propaganda of the worst kind.

The CBS summer series, OF BLACK AMERICA hosted by BIll Cosby took a negative view of Shirley Temple, showing a clip of her playing soldier with a group of black children in THE LITTLE COLONEL. The naration stated that this was an example of placing a white child in a dominant position over the black children. This is ridiculous and false since the clip as presented was taken out of context. Such a reference discredited Shirley Temple, who has done many good things in the diplomatic service for the African nation of Ghana, not to mention dismissing the body of her incredible film work as a child.

The MICKEY MOUSE documentary goes beyond being thought provoking. It is an unfornately negative and unfair portrayal lacking balance from what has been described. One can only wonder what the film maker and the "professor" had to gain by bring such discredit to the Disney legacy. It would seem that such people are very cynical and miserable. It is so easy to tear down, but oh, so much more difficult to create something. What could this "professor" create? And if not for the competed works of Disney, what could this "film maker" create of originality? People such as this are to be pitied and most of all avoided. The shame of it all is they are being paid to do these things while others more deserving continue to be ignored.

[AndrewGilmore]

I remember hearing about this "documentary" being made. One thing about documentaries, or any other form of film is that it takes on a "point of view."

You're quite right, Ray. That's exactly what they told us last week when we watched and discussed Michael Moore's "Sicko".

[Matthew Hunter]

I checked it out on Youtube. It makes some interesting points, but It's very one-sided to say the least.

There's a very important point they miss though...why parents aren't watching the movies with their kids and discussing the differences between them and reality. Disney makes these things for entertainment, and they keep using the same sorts of characters and situations because they've been proven to work. Kids like them, parents like them, and they make lots of money and have images that can be plastered all over stores and theme parks to make even more money. Simple concept, really.

Plus, the documentary misses some key points and takes some things out of context. They mention the Hyenas from the Lion King and Tito the Chihuhua from Oliver and Company...and how they sound like ethnic minorities. They forgot to mention that the sound came from some very prominent ethnic sources...namely Cheech Marin and Whoopi Goldberg!

If the people in this documentary are worried that the images and characters are giving kids a bad view of the world, they should be more worried about the stupid parents who don't expose them to anything else. Kids are associating fantasy with reality because there's nobody around to explain the difference. That's not Disney's fault...that's the fault of gullible children in the hands of careless parents.

There's also something I've never been able to figure out...if people don't like something because they find it offensive...why are they still watching it, and buying their kids the t-shirt?

[Mr. Semaj]

Some people just complain for the sake of complaining.

Spike Lee, one who thinks damn-near everything is racist, once bought into the rumors of Walt Disney's alledged racism and anti-Semetism from the 1940's. Luckily, Joe Grant and Floyd Norman were able to shoot those rumors down.

[captchucky]

I also think that creative artists do not neccesarily have a responsibility to censor themselves- that an artist can create whatever they damn well want and that, if art were obligated to be morally perfect and completely and utterly innofensive to anyone, the art which resulted would be either bland and boring or nonexistent, because everything is bound to offend someone somewhere.

Right, an artist can only show things from his own point of view. The only problem occurs when others stop this process from happening.

[AndrewGilmore]

I checked it out on Youtube. It makes some interesting points, but It's very one-sided to say the least.

There's a very important point they miss though...why parents aren't watching the movies with their kids and discussing the differences between them and reality. Disney makes these things for entertainment, and they keep using the same sorts of characters and situations because they've been proven to work. Kids like them, parents like them, and they make lots of money and have images that can be plastered all over stores and theme parks to make even more money. Simple concept, really.

Plus, the documentary misses some key points and takes some things out of context. They mention the Hyenas from the Lion King and Tito the Chihuhua from Oliver and Company...and how they sound like ethnic minorities. They forgot to mention that the sound came from some very prominent ethnic sources...namely Cheech Marin and Whoopi Goldberg!

If the people in this documentary are worried that the images and characters are giving kids a bad view of the world, they should be more worried about the stupid parents who don't expose them to anything else. Kids are associating fantasy with reality because there's nobody around to explain the difference. That's not Disney's fault...that's the fault of gullible children in the hands of careless parents.

There's also something I've never been able to figure out...if people don't like something because they find it offensive...why are they still watching it, and buying their kids the t-shirt?

My friend, that's a very thought-provoking response and I'm going to read it to my professor next week!

[Ray Pointer]

First of all, I'd like to know how the producers gained access to the clips because obviously, Disney did not license their use. While there are some valid issues worth considering, I feel the documentary suffers from what was made clear in one of the opening comments, "over analyzing something that is merely entertainment." This is not the first time that the commercial intent of Disney has been criticized. In 1968, Movie Critic Richard Schickel published THE DISNEY VERSION: THE LIFE, TIMES, ART AND COMMERCE OF WALT DISNEY. MICKEY MOUSE MONOPOLY is largely influenced by Henry A. Giroux, who is the author of THE MOUSE THAT ROARED. It is interesting that this is the title of a 1959 Peter Sellers comedy having nothing to do with criticizing Disney.

While some comments are worth considering, most seem far too ponderous to the extent of seeming neurotic, making one want to question the stability of the person. There is also a confusion of the definition of the Disney audience, as the documentary mixes the earlier features with the modern features that were clearly fashioned to appeal to older audiences--not aimed strictly at children. The pattern set by the Disney renaissance beginning with THE LITTLE MERMAID was to introduce Broadway Musical structure to the features that stress fantasy romance with a touch of the fairytale element to appeal to an older audience. Because these are animated features, the mistake is made again that these are children's films. So the analysts are making a huge mistake in perception, and once again perpetuate the myth that animation is a children's medium.

While the docmentary raises questions about what children are being taught from these films, there is a major aspect omitted in this picture, that of the role of the parent and the educational system to contributed to the development of a child's understanding of the world. While people and children learn things from what they see in films, this should not be their only exposure to information, and particularly exposure to the real world.
Much of this concern seems to harken back to the criticisms of the telling of Fairy Tales as being harmful. Yet, all cultures have folk tales that have endured for centuries because they teach lessons. They teach the consquences and results of actions, that there are dangers and challenges in life, but there is also beauty and virtue in doing good things. That is mostly what is stressed in Disney films. And in an age that seems to glorify evil, it is ironic that this point was overlooked. Not one critic accused Disney animated features of gloriying evil. Yet we have other films and television shows that seems to do this, and children see these also.

The efforts to depict various human beings or human traits has never been
easy, and always a subject of controversy. The reference to the Indians in PETER PAN is taken out of context. I understand perfectly what the intent of the portrayal was since this is a child's fantasy "play concept". The point is that PETER PAN is on friendly terms with the Indians, and is particularly a close friend to TIGER LILLY. So again, this is a child's concept not to be taken as a literal depiction. And being descended from this heritage, I am not as offended as the woman interviewed seemed to be since I understand the full intent of the portrayal. the context, and the history of the film which is based on the original story written by the Englishman, Sir James Barrie.

The criticism of the dilect of the crows in DUMBO overlooks the fact that this is based on people who actually talk and act that way. This seems uncomfortable for some who fear this portrayal sustains a minstral show characterization. But these are not mistrals, and they are not presented in a demeaning, lazy, or stupid manner. On the other hand, would it have worked if the characters spoke like Rhodes scholars?

I have been dissatified with the portrayals of characters in some of the later features such as POCAHONTAS, MULAN, and HERCULES, in terms of attitude, and might find some validity in the concerns expressed. In other cases, the constant criticism of character types indicates that no character, good or bad seems acceptable by any of these analysts. The question is what sort of depiction would they think would be "perfect"? And are these problems unique just to Disney animated features?

In an effort to be more "relevant" and contemporary, Disney has attempted to
introduce identifyable personalities that exist. The commment about King Louie, an oragutan singing to Mogli, "I wanna walk like you, talk like you..." in the voice of a black person is totally off base since this was Louis Prima, an Italian American, not a black man. This is the one big lie told out of the ignorance of not knowing who the singer was. But the observation that there are no black characters in Disney features in the past was due to a desire to avoid criticism of the this very nature. I would be curious to hear the comments from these people about a feature like BEBE'S KIDS, which was not produced by Disney. Had Disney done it, it would surely be a volatile target, and Disney would have been labled "racist" for making an all black animated feature. So in many ways, Disney avoided the issue for decades to avoid such controversy and complaints from the NAACP and other groups. This is also why for decades there were no black cartoon characters until the creation of FAT ALBERT for television. But this is due to change with a current Disney project about New Orleans culture.

On the one hand, Disney has existed within an isolated existence of its own for many decades. In an effort to try to broaden their horizons to acknowledge other human types and characteristics, they are the subject of this criticism. But the documentary seems to question several issues within a single premise. One is the issue of "racism" and the perceived stereotypes that are portrayed. Another issue is the commercialization of children's fantasies in these films, as was the case for the Schickel book of 1968. The third issue is the Disney brand of story telling and its affect on world culture. And a fourth issue is Disney as a corporate conglomorate. Each of these subjects is worthy of examination. But the subject of Disney as a corporate giant is a separate issue from the core concerns of this documentary. Yes the quote from Michael Eisner stressed their purpose was to make money. That is the purpose of any enterprise. But the way this quote was used distorts the purpose and value of the Disney product.

In conclusion, the people involved seem a bit too serious about their perceptions of Disney features. Much of the criticism seems to stem from jealousy and resentment of the Disney success story. While I would agree that some of the commericial tie-ins are a bit excessive, the solution is very simple. Don't buy the products.

[Thad]

Well there's a difference betweening reading too much into things, like Shirley Temple movies promoting white supremacy, and recognizing that these old movies and cartoons do indeed have racially insensitive aspects. I don't think Gone with the Wind is going to get any accolades for its promotion of tolerance.

Besides, most people are racially insensitive because their parents and other adults in their lives were. I don't think anyone has inherited prejudices from old movies.

[Larry T]

Making retroactive points is as bottomless as calling Archimedes an idiot because he didn't know how to write computer code.... applying what we know/believe today to our predecessors accomplishes nothing, and is ONLY ever used to seek out backing for someone's personal current interests.

Besides, most people are racially insensitive because their parents and other adults in their lives were. I don't think anyone has inherited prejudices from old movies.

I strongly agree. Children are born innocent- it's primarily their parents and environments that influence them, either positively or negatively.

[Cartman]

When I first saw the title of this thread, I thought it was about the age-old tales of Disney's hidden messages in their movies (e.g. the bishop getting an erection in THE LITTLE MERMAID or Aladdin saying "Good teenagers, take off your clothes!").

[Ray Pointer]

There are so many things that bothered me about the twist on the documentary, and I already posted a long list before. One of the points that was largely missed in the criticisms of the Disney features is that they fail to recognize the origins of the stories, which established the very characteristics that are being criticised. Notice how they passed over other female characters such as CINDERELLA and AURORA. Notice also how the focus on ethnic types was limited to Hispanics, Native Americans, and Black Americans.
Nothing was mentioned of the Italians, in LADY AND THE TRAMP, or the Russian and Scottish personnas given to the dog characters. What is so silly about all this is that such people do indeed exist, and these characterizations
are not done in a vicious way, but mere reflect a mode of behavior by some people. I suspect that these people interviewed live in an Ivy Tower removed from people from other parts of the world. and their narrow views are just as problematic as the problems that they try to cite.

As for messages that teach that women manipulate and use their bodies, this is not unique to Disney features. It is something that is part of the culture. If this is such a problem, then it is the culture as a whole that deserves anlaysis, not just incidental incidents in Disney features. What surprised me most is that NO ONE has ever raised questions about implications of drinking and drunkeness, which is far more obvious in films such as DUMBO and SLEEPING BEAUTY.

As far as the consistent portrayal of female character goes, look at the women criticising this. With all due respect, these were not particularly beautiful women making these remarks. It is almost amusing that they would be jealous of an ideal that is only a drawing and feel threatened by it.

[AndrewGilmore]

When I first saw the title of this thread, I thought it was about the age-old tales of Disney's hidden messages in their movies (e.g. the bishop getting an erection in THE LITTLE MERMAID or Aladdin saying "Good teenagers, take off your clothes!").

Well, I did refer to that briefly in my original post, and that's also part of what bugs me about Disney's current reputation, but anyway...

[AndrewGilmore]

As far as the consistent portrayal of female character goes, lo tok at the women criticising this. With all due respect, these were not particularly beautiful women making these remarks. It is almost amusing that they would be jealous of an ideal that is only a drawing and feel threatened by it.
:D:D I was just thinking the same thing!:rolleyes:

[Ray Pointer]

Doesn't it make you wonder about the people who read such things into these films? If any of these people had any idea of what goes on in producing these films, they would certainly know that those involved put a great deal of thought and sincerity in what they do. The introduction of subversive or corrupting messages is the furthest thing on their minds. At the same time, in order to capture an audience today, the Disney crew is compelled to instill certain things to make the characters relevant and interesting to today's audiences.

I fear that the problem with all these twisted analysts can be summed up in a line from the original Broadway musical of PETER PAN. When Wendy was an adult and Peter returns, she asks if she can return to "Neverland." Peter says, "You can't Wendy. You're too grown up."

[jonmayo15]

A man in the documentary says that if a film is very racist in its original form, than why would you want to show it like that anyway? I'll tell you why because stereotypes did exist and still exist today. Why should people argue about a jazz-playing carciature of an african or african-american from 1943 as opposed to today's stereotypes of african-americans being gangsters and killing people in new shows and cartoons? It is completely ridiculous in my eyes. Hooray for people like Jerry Beck and such who try to give original unedited cartoon content. This concludes my rant.

[Thad]

As far as the consistent portrayal of female character goes, look at the women criticising this. With all due respect, these were not particularly beautiful women making these remarks. It is almost amusing that they would be jealous of an ideal that is only a drawing and feel threatened by it.

Well, I don't want to accuse anyone of being hateful, but talk like that is exactly the kind of thing these people are trying to put a stop to.

[Ray Pointer]

Well, I don't want to accuse anyone of being hateful, but talk like that is exactly the kind of thing these people are trying to put a stop to.

In the words of "author" Henry A. Giroux, "What country are we living in?"

[larriva9/11]

Well, I don't want to accuse anyone of being hateful, but talk like that is exactly the kind of thing these people are trying to put a stop to.

To say nothing of illustrations like that linked in this quote.

Let me guess, this is your teacher (http://dmgermain.blogspot.com/2006/04/another-monkey-has-joined-family.html), right? ;)

Now, I might have defended something like that 30 or so years ago on freedom-of-speech grounds had it occurred in a campus newspaper. But today, it makes me think a little too much of the fare you'd find on hardcore right-wing forums like Free Republic, i.e. it borders on hook-nosed-Jewdom.

Standards change, whether one likes it or not.

[Ray Pointer]

A man in the documentary says that if a film is very racist in its original form, than why would you want to show it like that anyway? I'll tell you why because stereotypes did exist and still exist today. Why should people argue about a jazz-playing carciature of an african or african-american from 1943 as opposed to today's stereotypes of african-americans being gangsters and killing people in new shows and cartoons? It is completely ridiculous in my eyes. Hooray for people like Jerry Beck and such who try to give original unedited cartoon content. This concludes my rant.

I have also continued to raise the issue at looking at today's stereotypes, which are actually more damaging and threatening than those of the past. But I have always said that the best way to bury a stereotypical image is to CEASE ACTING IN THAT MANNER. Has anyone seen HOLLYWOOD SHUFFLE?

[Thad]

If these ugly women, as you call them, are claiming that characters in movies should be role-models for young girls, then yes, I agree that is overreaching. Claiming that things, like, oh say, the modern Disney Princess line, clearly aimed at young girls, is sexist and promotes a distorted image of womanhood is another.

[Ray Pointer]

If these ugly women, as you call them, are claiming that characters in movies should be role-models for young girls, then yes, I agree that is overreaching. Claiming that things, like, oh say, the modern Disney Princess line, clearly aimed at young girls, is sexist and promotes a distorted image of womanhood is another.

I think everyone knows this is fantasy. These women must have some personal dissatisfactions in their own lives, and seem to lack imagination. Much of this fantasy is associated with "romance," which is mostly idylic. They are taking everything too seriously. Did you notice how serious and angry everyone appeared? They must not laugh very much. Especially Henry A. Giroux.

[Daffysleftfoot]

Now, I might have defended something like that 30 or so years ago on freedom-of-speech grounds had it occurred in a campus newspaper. But today, it makes me think a little too much of the fare you'd find on hardcore right-wing forums like Free Republic, i.e. it borders on hook-nosed-Jewdom.

Ha ha! Yeah, someone on Facebook was actually ready to kill me because of this monkey (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1344/2309/1600/00000blackpanthermonkey_coloured.jpg). But then again, he was the kind of militant jackass who saw racism everywhere whether it was there or not (in other words, the exact embodiment of that Censor Monkey). Some people. Yeesh! :rolleyes:

[FleischerFan]

Disney seems to be a magnet for this type of hysterical over-weening criticism simply because its success is so large and its genral reputation so good.

I attended the University of Wisconsin where this type of PC nonsense runs rampant. I find it ironic that the speakers are usually as prejudiced or more prejudiced than the targets they are attacking.

As to the image of women in Disney movies - what about the image of woman in nearly all American movies? Hollywood employs very few plain women, especially in lead roles. Even "Ugly Betty" is not ugly in real life.

In how many movies have you seen some glamorous actress (like Charlize Theron) win accolades for "daring" to allow themselves to wear make-up that makes them less beautiful? They are hailed for their "acting" ability. And the thought of casting plain looking women or unattractive women, for the most part never enters the mind of any studio executive. It is a hardly a Disney "monopoly."

As for messages that teach that women manipulate and use their bodies, this is not unique to Disney features. Perhaps these so-called "educators" could find a more productive field in examining the history of music videos and the emergence of the "Girls Gone Wild" slut culture. At least those films were not produced 40 to 75 years ago.

And what is "gangsta rap" but a perpetuation of the sterotype that all blacks are criminals from the ghetto?

[Ray Pointer]

And what is "gangsta rap" but a perpetuation of the sterotype that all blacks are criminals from the ghetto?

Amen, amen! I've been saying this very thing for several years now. To reiterate, such "critics" need to focus more on contemporary stereotypes which are far more damaging, alienating, and pertetuating of ignorance than anything of the past. THIS is a subject matter of greater subtance and importance that needs to be examined.

[larriva9/11]

Well, I'd rather have kids with a funky urban hipster's conoisseurship of Cherry Poptart than kids with a Christian Right devotion to some kind of values-based spin on Disney...

[Mark J]

Ha ha! Yeah, someone on Facebook was actually ready to kill me because of this monkey (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1344/2309/1600/00000blackpanthermonkey_coloured.jpg). But then again, he was the kind of militant jackass who saw racism everywhere whether it was there or not (in other words, the exact embodiment of that Censor Monkey). Some people. Yeesh! :rolleyes:

The image in your link is extremely racist and offensive on many levels - do you not see that???

[Tom Stathes]

So I'm assuming it would be less offensive to say portray a white man in monkey form? (I'm undecided as to whether the drawing is portraying blacks as monkeys or playfully manifesting the human form in another species, in this case, randomly being a monkey.)

[Daffysleftfoot]

or playfully manifesting the human form in another species, in this case, randomly being a monkey.)

That's exactly what it is, Tom. When I was coming up with a design for the censor monkey that gets carried away with finding racism in everything I tried to think of a group throughout all of human history that were the most ridiculous about it. The answer was: the Black Panthers.

As you can see (http://dmgermain.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-probably-should-introduce-censor.html), the other monkey incarnations are of caucasion people (two of which are specifically German). Therefore, the monkeys are all equally offensive for sure, but not on a racial level.

And besides, my favourite thing about those monkeys is that if you try to censor them you BECOME them. Which is of course, the worst thing to be in any society. ;)

[Ray Pointer]

That's exactly what it is, Tom. When I was coming up with a design for the censor monkey that gets carried away with finding racism in everything I tried to think of a group throughout all of human history that were the most ridiculous about it. The answer was: the Black Panthers.

As you can see (http://dmgermain.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-probably-should-introduce-censor.html), the other monkey incarnations are of caucasion people (two of which are specifically German). Therefore, the monkeys are all equally offensive for sure, but not on a racial level.

And besides, my favourite thing about those monkeys is that if you try to censor them you BECOME them. Which is of course, the worst thing to be in any society. ;)

What's next? A campaign to get THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES off the air because it is a stereotype of Ozark White people?

[Daffysleftfoot]

I forgot to mention in my last post that one of the monkeys is Arabic (http://dmgermain.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-possibly-controversial-monkey.html).

[Mr. Semaj]

Even "Ugly Betty" is not ugly in real life.

She's actually kinda pretty. :wolfie:

And what is "gangsta rap" but a perpetuation of the sterotype that all blacks are criminals from the ghetto?

Compared to the old-age stereotypes, which also depicted Blacks as uneducated, there is just too many things wrong with today's stereotypes.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

That's exactly what it is, Tom. When I was coming up with a design for the censor monkey that gets carried away with finding racism in everything I tried to think of a group throughout all of human history that were the most ridiculous about it. The answer was: the Black Panthers.

As you can see (http://dmgermain.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-probably-should-introduce-censor.html), the other monkey incarnations are of caucasion people (two of which are specifically German). Therefore, the monkeys are all equally offensive for sure, but not on a racial level.

And besides, my favourite thing about those monkeys is that if you try to censor them you BECOME them. Which is of course, the worst thing to be in any society. ;)
I could not find any evidence that the Black Panther party ever advocated for censorship. They also didn't get "carried away with finding racism in everything." There was enough real racism to occupy their time in the ghetto of Oakland -- where the party was formed -- back in the 60's.

If you want to satirize the type of person that calls for censorship due to racial stereotyping, you might want to caricature Al Sharpton (who called for the censorship of rap music because of its negative racial portrayals, ironically) or Spike Lee, instead of the Black Panthers.

[millsie]

The image in your link is extremely racist and offensive on many levels - do you not see that???Those pictures all are pretty bad. Worse still is that they are not even funny.

[Daffysleftfoot]

Those pictures all are pretty bad. Worse still is that they are not even funny.

People found them funny when I posted a comic (http://forums.goldenagecartoons.com/showthread.php?t=8982&highlight=censor+monkeys) with them in it. Both here and on the blog.

[jazzman78]

There is one fact about Dumbo that nobody seams to notice that all though the Crows are speaking in black dialect they are voiced by white actors and the main singing voice is Cliff Edwards.


Somehow nobody seams to care about this but they hold great offence to "Song of the South", which makes no sense to me.

It's about time people grew up. As most of us know you can't look at material from the 20's through the 40's with the eyes of 2008. They have to be looked at from the aspect of their own time.

Last year a bunch of Black movies were issued by Fox and MGM/WB. Green Pastures, Stormy Weather, Hallelujah and a few others. The commentary by a Black professor on the west coast was so racists that I could not listen to it. There was no or very little correct information about the actors, performers, music or facts about the movies and all he did was raise the race ticket.

If this is what black students are tough in high school and college no wonder there is so much misunderstanding about the past today among the youth.

[Tom Stathes]

I could not find any evidence that the Black Panther party ever advocated for censorship. They also didn't get "carried away with finding racism in everything." There was enough real racism to occupy their time in the ghetto of Oakland -- where the party was formed -- back in the 60's.

If you want to satirize the type of person that calls for censorship due to racial stereotyping, you might want to caricature Al Sharpton (who called for the censorship of rap music because of its negative racial portrayals, ironically) or Spike Lee, instead of the Black Panthers.
I'll admit I'm not as educated on the Black Panthers as I should be, but I can say that in my surroundings, they do not have a good reputation for whatever reason. (Being extremists I suppose).
And yes, Al Sharpton is a prime example. :p

[Thad]

I don't really disagree with Sharpton politically, other than he can be a little extreme at times. Jesse Jackson, on the other hand, is an idiot.

[Tom Stathes]

I don't really disagree with Sharpton politically, other than he can be a little extreme at times. Jesse Jackson, on the other hand, is an idiot.
Well, that's kind of how I feel as well. Sharpton can just be annoying...and he sure as hell won't be rallying if a black person kills a white cop- it does happen!

[Cartman]

Those pictures all are pretty bad. Worse still is that they are not even funny.
How could you not like the Censor Monkeys? Oh well, to each his own I suppose.

[Ray Pointer]

Well, I don't want to accuse anyone of being hateful, but talk like that is exactly the kind of thing these people are trying to put a stop to.

Do I assume that you mean the "talk" from those criticising the female characters as being hateful ?

[larriva9/11]

People found them funny when I posted a comic (http://forums.goldenagecartoons.com/showthread.php?t=8982&highlight=censor+monkeys) with them in it. Both here and on the blog.

Okay then, here's another idea for a monkey. Virgin Adolescent Male Internet Twerp Monkey

[nb: adolescence can either be real, or arrested]

[larriva9/11]

Do I assume that you mean the "talk" from those criticising the female characters as being hateful ?

Well, if you think said academics and "experts" are jealous because they're self-loathingly unattractive, perhaps that can be said even more emphatically about a lot of those clods who're devoted to talk radio and conservative-right web forums and "God Bless The U.S.A." rhetoric...

[Jon Cooke]

Just a reminder to keep things on-topic in this thread. Thanks.

[Daffysleftfoot]

Okay then, here's another idea for a monkey. Virgin Adolescent Male Internet Twerp Monkey

[nb: adolescence can either be real, or arrested]

Ha ha! You could be describing yourself when taking this thread (http://forums.goldenagecartoons.com/showthread.php?t=10735) into account. Or, better yet, by emphasizing "male", you've probably revealed yourself as this monkey (http://dmgermain.blogspot.com/2006/04/another-monkey-has-joined-family.html) in disguise. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

But yeah, back to this thread's original topic. I've read elsewhere that over-analysis is bad only if it takes the place of action or if the analysis is useless. So, when Andrew Gilmore confronts these people once again, he can ask "if this Disney content is such a problem, what is your solution?". Of course, if the answer comes back as "ban it forever" then these people are indeed monkeys just flinging their collective feces at everything.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

I'll admit I'm not as educated on the Black Panthers as I should be, but I can say that in my surroundings, they do not have a good reputation for whatever reason. (Being extremists I suppose).
And yes, Al Sharpton is a prime example. :p
I don't really know that much about the Panthers either. From what I understand, they promoted some good things for their community -- like the Free Breakfast for School Children Program -- but the leaders of the group eventually became corrupted, with Eldridge Cleaver becoming a cocaine addict. Huey Newton was also arrested for shooting a policeman.

My main point was, regardless of the group's merit, the Black Panthers never called for censorship of media. Therefore, I don't think they are a good representation for the "Censor Monkey" caricature.

[Daffysleftfoot]

Yes, the Black Panthers started off battling racism the correct way through peaceful means. It was when those bad apples got on board and changed the focus to "kill whitey" is when it all hit the fan.

The only media I recall them ever having a problem with is that they felt that Jimi Hendrix was a sellout simply because his music appealed to a white audience. When I heard that I thought that was silly and unfair. That, and the overt hostility is why I chose the Black Panthers.

As fun as it would be to draw Al Sharpton as a crazy monkey, I'll stick with the Black Panther for now. He gets to carry around a big gun. :D

One good way to find out how the Panthers viewed the media is to ask one yourself. Bobby Seale (http://www.bobbyseale.com/) has his own website with an email address.

[Ray Pointer]

The topic again is the documentary, MICKEY MOUSE MONOPOLY, as seen on YouTube.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

The only media I recall them ever having a problem with is that they felt that Jimi Hendrix was a sellout simply because his music appealed to a white audience. When I heard that I thought that was silly and unfair. That, and the overt hostility is why I chose the Black Panthers.

One good way to find out how the Panthers viewed the media is to ask one yourself. Bobby Seale (http://www.bobbyseale.com/) has his own website with an email address.
Viewing the media in a negative light doesn't necessarily mean that one advocates censorship of the media.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

The topic again is the documentary, MICKEY MOUSE MONOPOLY, as seen on YouTube.
Forum thread usually branch off into different directions, though.

Here's an interesting article from The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080310/glaser) that's sort of related to the topic at hand. :mickey:

[Nick]

I also agree that the Black Panthers are not a suitable target to be parodied for advocating censorship of the media. They may have had some strong viewpoints on racism that you may not agree with, but I don't believe they went out of their way to criticize the media's portrayal of black people. Personally I think the character would work better as an "Ali G type" ie: a white person who acts in what he believes black culture is, but is offended at the slightest differentiation from his own ironic stereotype.