Was The Lion King Racist?

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

I don't know how many people saw this, but this evening on CBS Evening News with Katie Couric there was a story about the upcoming Disney film The Princess And The Frog. The story was praising the fact that there was finally a black princess in Disney's long line of princesses, some of which were minorities like Jasmine (Arab) and Pocahontas (Native American). But then they focused on stories popping up on the internet that are claiming that the movie is racist, proceeding to show clips from Dumbo (the crows), The Jungle Book (King Looie and other monkeys) and The Lion King (the hyenas).

That struck me as weird because I had never thought that the hyenas could be considered racist, as two of the voices for the hyenas were Whoopie Goldberg and Cheech Marin, as well as the the other controversies surrounding the movie (such as the SEX/SFX debate or the strong resemblence to Kimba The White Lion).

I can understand the crows (they even made fun of that on an episode of Family Guy) and I guess King Looie, but I just can't see this. Can somebody shed some light on this issue?

[nickramer]

Here's my tip: take it with a grain of salt.

[Daffysleftfoot]

The people that consider The Jungle Book and The Lion King racist against black people jumped to very stupid conclusions based on absolutely no facts.

1. King Louis was based on Louis Prima an ITALIAN jazz singer. How can an ITALIAN orangotang in the jungles of INDIA be racist against black people? That makes as much sense as seeing a Chinese turtle in Brazil and saying "Hey, that's racist against eskimos".

2. At best, The Lion King is "specist" against hyenas. Not once is it putting down or stereotyping any race of people. The only thing that's confusing people is that Whoopie Goldberg and Cheech Marin are the voices of those hyenas. Of course noone's made clear as to who this is more racist towards blacks or latinos. So then does that make the silent hyena Ed racist against mimes? :rolleyes:

[FlapperPrower]

I don't think The Lion King was meant to be racist. Besides, wasn't the movie set in Africa?

[Studio Toledo]

The people that consider The Jungle Book and The Lion King racist against black people jumped to very stupid conclusions based on absolutely no facts.

1. King Louis was based on Louis Prima an ITALIAN jazz singer. How can an ITALIAN orangotang in the jungles of INDIA be racist against black people? That makes as much sense as seeing a Chinese turtle in Brazil and saying "Hey, that's racist against eskimos".
I think I know a few people who are like that!

2. At best, The Lion King is "specist" against hyenas. Not once is it putting down or stereotyping any race of people. The only thing that's confusing people is that Whoopie Goldberg and Cheech Marin are the voices of those hyenas. Of course noone's made clear as to who this is more racist towards blacks or latinos. So then does that make the silent hyena Ed racist against mimes? :rolleyes:
This is why I don't watch the news!

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

[QUOTE=Daffysleftfoot;142805]

1. King Louis was based on Louis Prima an ITALIAN jazz singer. How can an ITALIAN orangotang in the jungles of INDIA be racist against black people? That makes as much sense as seeing a Chinese turtle in Brazil and saying "Hey, that's racist against eskimos".

King Louie was actually portrayed by Louis Prima. I also found this snippet about the controversy regarding Kin Louie on Wikipedia:

"The characterization of King Louie has frequently been cited as an example of racial stereotyping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_stereotyping) in Disney films.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Louie#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Louie#cite_note-books.google.co.uk-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Louie#cite_note-3) However, in his 2004 book The Gospel According to Disney, Mark Pinsky asserts that a child in the current environment (as opposed to in the late 1960s) would not discern any racial dimension to the portrayal. Pinsky also relates Orlando Sentinal's film critic Jay Bogar's assertion that "the primates could be perceive as representing African Americans in a time of turmoil, but [that Bogar] saw no racism in the portrayal." [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Louie#cite_note-books.google.co.uk-2) (Pinsky offers neither a quotation nor a citation for this assertion.)"

BTW thanks for helping me clear up the spelling (Looie, honestly).

[mulroz]

The story was praising the fact that there was finally a black princess in Disney's long line of princesses, some of which were minorities like Jasmine (Arab) and Pocahontas (Native American).

Warner had a black princess already in the 40's :sowhite:

[AnthroCoon]

btw in the forthcoming film, the princess was set to be named "Maddy",
short for Madeleine, but it was changed to "Tiana" because "Maddy"
sounded too much like "Mammy"

http://animatedfilms.suite101.com/article.cfm/princess_and_frog_cast_news

[FleischerFan]

Orlando Sentinal's film critic Jay Bogar's assertion that "the primates could be perceive as representing African Americans in a time of turmoil, but [that Bogar] saw no racism in the portrayal." [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Louie#cite_note-books.google.co.uk-2) (Pinsky offers neither a quotation nor a citation for this assertion.)"

BTW thanks for helping me clear up the spelling (Looie, honestly).
I know it's not your fault because you just got something off Wikipedia, but the former Orlando Sentinel film critic's name is Jay Boyar. I know Jay - a fine fellow with an appreciation for animation (and comic books for that matter).


The assertions about racism in The Lion King are absurd. Whoopi Goldberg & Cheech Marin were cast because they are COMEDIANS and the hyenas were intended as comic relief.

To see them only as representatives of their ethnic group and not as comedians is the real racism.

[Glowworm]

That's funny-I always thought that the racism concerning The Lion King involved Pumba-not the hyenas-never even thought of racism-facsim maybe-but not racism.

Also all the stuff about "The Princess and the Frog" is rediculos-especially the latest about the prince not being black.:rolleyes:

[Fibber Fox]

That's funny-I always thought that the racism concerning The Lion King involved Pumba-not the hyenas-never even thought of racism-facsim maybe-but not racism.

The holier-than-thou crowd can find whatever they want if they look hard enough.

F. Fox

[Gordan]

Many self-righteous sensationalists are very quick to accuse Disney's films of having racist overtones. They will say that, in The Lion King, the evil hyenas are voiced by Hispanic and Black actors. They will, at the same time, conveniently forget, or purposely omit to say that, in the film, various minority voices are also responsible for some of the movie's kinder characters, including Mufasa, who was voiced by James Earl Jones. I've also heard the nonsense argument that, in The Lion King, the easily manipulated/gullible/dumb hyenas, who are coded as "minorities", are led by the physically/mentally superior lions, coded as "white people". Personally, I find these readings to be more racist than anything the actual film may say.

In a sense, Disney will always be doomed as the company's films will never be able to satisfy these self-congratulatory quazi-critics who will simply find something racist/sexist in anything the company produces: If a Disney film does not feature a female protagonist, it is sexist. If it does feature a female protagonist, then it is even more sexist because women characters are relegated to the backward/old-fashioned roles. If a Disney film features a more active/resourceful female protagonist,...well, it's still sexist, because the character is coded too much like a man. The same goes for racism. If a Disney movie doesn't feature minorities, it's racist because it portrays a white-washed version of America (racism by the virtue of sheer absence of minority characters). If it features funny and/or negative characters, Disney is racist as it promotes negative ethnic/racial stereotypes. If, on the other hand, the company creates a film with kind/benevolent minority characters - well, it's still racist for propagating "false positive images" (i.e. Song of the South).

[Thad]

Song of the South is racist.

[Bradskey]

How can a movie about a bunch of animals be racist? Seems to me the most racist (or at least grossly stereotyped -- to stop using the term "racist" so lightly) thing I've seen from Disney was probably the Proud Family. Only a handful of angry malcontents will stew perpetually about the hyenas or the crows or Uncle Remus.

[Gasmask Ted]

"How can a movie about a bunch of animals be racist?"

Was there a Ku Klux Clam movie?
(Note also that Song of the South isn't about a bunch of animals, except to the extent that humans are animals; only about 25 minutes of the 94 minute movie is the Br'er world)

[Gordan]

Song of the South is racist.

It may be racially insensitive (especially by today's standards) taking into account the film's subject matter and the complex history, but I don't know if it is "racist".

[Leviathan]

"racist" is such an ugly, politically-charged word that gets abused way too often. Racially insensitive is more than appropriate.

[Cartman]

I thought we were discussing the Lion King and not SOTS.

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

Many self-righteous sensationalists are very quick to accuse Disney's films of having racist overtones. They will say that, in The Lion King, the evil hyenas are voiced by Hispanic and Black actors. They will, at the same time, conveniently forget, or purposely omit to say that, in the film, various minority voices are also responsible for some of the movie's kinder characters, including Mufasa, who was voiced by James Earl Jones. I've also heard the nonsense argument that, in The Lion King, the easily manipulated/gullible/dumb hyenas, who are coded as "minorities", are led by the physically/mentally superior lions, coded as "white people". Personally, I find these readings to be more racist than anything the actual film may say.

In a sense, Disney will always be doomed as the company's films will never be able to satisfy these self-congratulatory quazi-critics who will simply find something racist/sexist in anything the company produces: If a Disney film does not feature a female protagonist, it is sexist. If it does feature a female protagonist, then it is even more sexist because women characters are relegated to the backward/old-fashioned roles. If a Disney film features a more active/resourceful female protagonist,...well, it's still sexist, because the character is coded too much like a man. The same goes for racism. If a Disney movie doesn't feature minorities, it's racist because it portrays a white-washed version of America (racism by the virtue of sheer absence of minority characters). If it features funny and/or negative characters, Disney is racist as it promotes negative ethnic/racial stereotypes. If, on the other hand, the company creates a film with kind/benevolent minority characters - well, it's still racist for propagating "false positive images" (i.e. Song of the South).

See, I completely agree with this. It seems that people, for lack of a better phrase, like to try and discredit Disney because, yeah, it is a big family friendly company. The fact is, many of the things found wrong with Disney's movies only exist because people talk about it. That certain thing on The Little Mermaid poster or what Aladdin allegedly says to Rahjah are only noticed because they hear the rumor once from some one and want to see the image themselves, or hear the racy line. No one really knows what was said in that scene, but people only hear what they want to hear.

I'll even admit that after I heard the news about the "secret message" in The Lion King, I paused the VCR several times on that scene just to see it for myself. If I had not heard the news, I never would have thought twice about it, just that, wow he kicked up some dust, big deal.

[Mr. Semaj]

Many self-righteous sensationalists are very quick to accuse Disney's films of having racist overtones. They will say that, in The Lion King, the evil hyenas are voiced by Hispanic and Black actors. They will, at the same time, conveniently forget, or purposely omit to say that, in the film, various minority voices are also responsible for some of the movie's kinder characters, including Mufasa, who was voiced by James Earl Jones. I've also heard the nonsense argument that, in The Lion King, the easily manipulated/gullible/dumb hyenas, who are coded as "minorities", are led by the physically/mentally superior lions, coded as "white people". Personally, I find these readings to be more racist than anything the actual film may say.

In a sense, Disney will always be doomed as the company's films will never be able to satisfy these self-congratulatory quazi-critics who will simply find something racist/sexist in anything the company produces: If a Disney film does not feature a female protagonist, it is sexist. If it does feature a female protagonist, then it is even more sexist because women characters are relegated to the backward/old-fashioned roles. If a Disney film features a more active/resourceful female protagonist,...well, it's still sexist, because the character is coded too much like a man. The same goes for racism. If a Disney movie doesn't feature minorities, it's racist because it portrays a white-washed version of America (racism by the virtue of sheer absence of minority characters). If it features funny and/or negative characters, Disney is racist as it promotes negative ethnic/racial stereotypes. If, on the other hand, the company creates a film with kind/benevolent minority characters - well, it's still racist for propagating "false positive images" (i.e. Song of the South).

The latter part of your arguement is currently what's going on with the upcoming The Princess and the Frog.

I'm more offended by those picking apart the film based on the lead characters' ethnicity than the film itself. Some changes were already made thanks to the complaints that came in from Day One, such as the princess' name change from "Maddy" to "Tiana". But now people are whining because either the prince Tiana will be paired with isn't Black (and according to Disney, not Caucasian either), or that Tiana herself isn't "Black" enough, really the other Disney princesses painted a different color, or that based from the recent trailer, our first Black princess will become a frog for a portion of the film.

SO WHAT???

There's obviously a lot at stake here; to find the fine line between returning to their roots while not repeating themselves, and offering something different to the table while not drawing so much attention to it. Disney has had active heroines before (Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin), and they've had leads change into animals before (The Emperor's New Groove, Brother Bear). The challenge is to turn those elements into something new and fresh.

Whatever path they take, the constant nitpicking is going to cause the ultimate damage to the film.