PDA

View Full Version : FROG PRINCESS Under Protest Already


CanadianGuy
05-12-2007, 11:51 PM
From Contactmusic.com ... which quotes Jim Hill...

Almost two years before its hoped-for release of its first hand-drawn animated film produced under the supervision of Pixar's John Lasseter, Disney has already drawn fire for alleged racial and ethnic insensitivities that were detected in its original announcement of the film, according to Disney watcher Jim Hill. Since the original title, The Frog Princess, might be regarded as a slur on the French, the title has been changed to The Princess and the Frog.

The main character, named Maddy -- who was to become Disney's first black princess -- has had her name changed to Tiana, since Maddy reportedly sounded too much like Mammy. She will no longer be seen as a chambermaid working for a rich, white spoiled Southern débutante.

In a statement, Disney, which said that it ordinarily does not comment on its animated films in the early stages of production, observed: "The story takes place in the charming elegance and grandeur of New Orleans' fabled French Quarter during the Jazz Age. ... Princess Tiana will be a heroine in the great tradition of Disney's rich animated fairy tale legacy, and all other characters and aspects of the story will be treated with the greatest respect and sensitivity."

Jillery
05-13-2007, 08:09 AM
Good grief!

MJMcBride
05-13-2007, 08:28 AM
why are we concerned about offending the French?

barreloflaughs
05-13-2007, 09:39 AM
why are we concerned about offending the French?

And when did anyone ever confuse 'Maddy' with 'Mammy'?

What a load of dung.......

barrel

aspcamhreditor2
05-13-2007, 10:00 AM
Hmmmm ...

Wonder if the community that complained about Maddy realizes HOW MANY Maddys (Maddie, Madi, etc) there are our there now?

As a parent of one, does that mean I'm racist?

OR, should I be in a some sort of full-on tirade about the discrimination against young girls w/ that name. My APPARENTLY but through NO KNOWLEDGE OF MINE racially-named Maddie would have loved to have an important character named the same.

Unfortunately, the only maid in this house is me ... even on mother's day!

Good grief. I like PRE politically correct days myself.

Guess I better go look into changing my child's name....

mitros
05-13-2007, 04:07 PM
why are we concerned about offending the French?

Maybe they {Disney/Pixar} heard of the new French leader that won the elections over there recently, who said that he wants to have a closer relationship with us, and wants to be friendlier then they have been in recent years with the USA....... Hey, it's a thought.:confused3

PS: I ain't stickin' up for the French, as I said, it's just a thought.:goodvibes

I'mNoPrince
05-13-2007, 05:33 PM
why are we concerned about offending the French?

I think maybe because they have a park over there and it would be hard to sell all the wonderful stuff that will be out for a year before the movie.

Think about now at DLRP pick your own Frog Princess.

Oh and I agree and think they should just close that park down anyhow.

Luv2Roam
05-14-2007, 04:00 PM
I knew someone with a daughter they called Mady (short for Madison). They were just fans of the movie Splash. :confused3 Never considered or confused Mady with the word mammy. :confused: :sad2:

50 years Too!
05-14-2007, 08:47 PM
Wow,

Know several blue eyed blondes named Maddy!
Including my niece.

msgrimm23
05-14-2007, 11:59 PM
what is the world coming to. lord all mighty.

jdg345
05-15-2007, 09:31 AM
Wow ... just ... wow ... :confused3

Mickeyistheman
05-16-2007, 12:30 PM
Geez, come on, if this is how life is going to be that we are going to be watched if we say or write one thing that someone disagrees with, that is has to be racial.

I don't get that. Okay so they wanted to make Maddy a chambermaid ummm wasn't Cinderella and Snow White the same thing before they became Princesses? So why can't Maddy do the same thing and show the new "Little Princesses" out there that she too can overcome adversity and be what she dreamed to be?

Why should it be different for this princess? I just don't get people nowadays I really don't.

Why do we have to pick on everyone? Just because someone has a difference in opinion doesn't mean we have to jump down their throat or have them fired.

This is someone's creation and even before anything is done they have to fight for what their vision is. No wonder there isn't anything more creative coming out, they can't do it because someone will get offended and it will never happen.

So they will keep remaking movies and Broadway shows and nothing origianl will come out it. Such a shame because I am sure there are many fabulous young people out there who have that creativity but will be afraid to show what they can do.

Sorry for the rant:hyper:

mitros
05-16-2007, 05:40 PM
Yea, Thanks Bubba Clinton for starting all of this "politically correct" garbage.....

Kim&Chris
05-16-2007, 05:44 PM
What a ridiculous pile of crap. I knew that Disney was going to get nothing but grief once this project was announced. It won't be long until Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson get their hands in this and ruin it once & for all.

SarahandPaul
05-16-2007, 07:07 PM
What a ridiculous pile of crap. I knew that Disney was going to get nothing but grief once this project was announced. It won't be long until Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson get their hands in this and ruin it once & for all.

Yeah, it's sad that Disney can't just make a movie and try to make it the best the can't without outside worries.

Charade
05-17-2007, 07:35 AM
Can't wait to see what protests come if (hopefully!) SOTS is rereleased.

gypsydoodlebug
05-17-2007, 07:50 AM
Oh for the love of Pete ... half DD's preschool is named Maddy -- Madison is sooo popular now.

Anyone know any Tianas out there?

Luv'sTink
05-17-2007, 08:27 AM
Looks as though Disney can not do anything right....

www.blackprof.com/archives/2007/03/disneys_black_frog_princess.html

Towncrier
05-17-2007, 08:31 AM
I hope they eliminate any references to "Dixie" in the film. Afterall, Disney felt it necessary to rename "Dixie Landings" in order not to be offensive.

Briarmom
05-17-2007, 09:08 AM
Oh for the love of Pete ... half DD's preschool is named Maddy -- Madison is sooo popular now.

Anyone know any Tianas out there?

Exactly. In the school where my son went to kindergarten, there were 5 Madisons. There were 25 girls. You do the math.

This is ridiculous. :sad2:

FayeW
05-17-2007, 09:13 AM
Oh for the love of Pete ... half DD's preschool is named Maddy -- Madison is sooo popular now.

Anyone know any Tianas out there?

I know a Tiana...a blond, blue eyed white girl.

Now, everyone jumping on the Maddy bandwagon. NOBODY SAID Maddy was a "racial" name. THEY SAID it sounded similar to Mammy. I think the political correctness is over the top but you can all simmer down now.

Oh yeah, as to "why are we concerned about offending the French?" Well, why wouldn't they be?:confused3 Why would ANY company knowingly offend a segment of the population they hope to sell their product to? Just good business sense if you ask me.

Kim&Chris
05-17-2007, 09:16 AM
I know a Tiana...a blond, blue eyed white girl.

Now, everyone jumping on the Maddy bandwagon. NOBODY SAID Maddy was a "racial" name. THEY SAID it sounded similar to Mammy. I think the political correctness is over the top but you can all simmer down now.

Oh yeah, as to "why are we concerned about offending the French?" Well, why wouldn't they be?:confused3 Why would ANY company knowingly offend a segment of the population they hope to sell their product to? Just good business sense if you ask me.

Wow, thanks for letting us all know we can simmer down now. I was waiting for someone to tell me it was OK.

For the record, I just can't see how Maddy could ever be seen as "similar" to Mammy. And I doubt there's a 7 year old alive right now that would ever seen a similarity between the two.

FayeW
05-17-2007, 09:43 AM
Wow, thanks for letting us all know we can simmer down now. I was waiting for someone to tell me it was OK.

For the record, I just can't see how Maddy could ever be seen as "similar" to Mammy. And I doubt there's a 7 year old alive right now that would ever seen a similarity between the two.

MaDDy ... MaMMy. Sounds similar.

Just clarifying that nobody said MaDDy was a racial name. Several posters have commented about it and it was a false interpretation of what was said in the article.

Kim&Chris
05-17-2007, 09:52 AM
MaDDy ... MaMMy. Sounds similar.

:rolleyes1 No wonder this nonsense persists.

FayeW
05-17-2007, 10:16 AM
:rolleyes1 No wonder this nonsense persists.

Hey, I was only answering the poster I quoted who said she "can't see how Maddy could ever be seen as "similar" to Mammy". I wouldn't confuse them, but they are, in fact, similar words. It would be a stretch but I suppose if I were drunk I could confuse them, or if I had a speech impediment.

For the record, I think changing the name was a stupid, and does nothing but demonstrate political correctness at it's worst. Making up descrimanation where there is none is some how worse than being ignorant of it in the first place.

Tantor
05-17-2007, 10:23 AM
Good grief is right......

gypsydoodlebug
05-17-2007, 10:52 AM
Hey, I was only answering the poster I quoted who said she "can't see how Maddy could ever be seen as "similar" to Mammy". I wouldn't confuse them, but they are, in fact, similar words. It would be a stretch but I suppose if I were drunk I could confuse them, or if I had a speech impediment.


Actually, you quoted me. YOU put those words in MY mouth. If you see above, I said absolutely no such thing. I just pointed out I know a bunch of kids named Maddy. :confused3 Perhaps you got me confused with another poster?

FayeW
05-17-2007, 10:58 AM
Actually, you quoted me. YOU put those words in MY mouth. If you see above, I said absolutely no such thing. I just pointed out I know a bunch of kids named Maddy. :confused3 Perhaps you got me confused with another poster?

I quoted two people. You first, when I answered your question asking if anyone knew anyone named Tiana. I put no words in your mouth. I just answered your question, and then added a few more thoughts of my own.

My second post I quoted Kim&Chris, it was to her that I responded with Maddy & Mammy being similar words, not you. I know you "said absolutely no such thing".... I never said you did. What I didn't realize is the poster I was answering was also the poster I had quoted (in my third post).

gypsydoodlebug
05-17-2007, 11:08 AM
No worries.

djm99
05-17-2007, 12:03 PM
Actually, I am pleased that Disney Execs are thinking ahead and being culturally sensitive. I see absolutely NOTHING wrong about thinking about how stereotypes can impact generations to come. Disney movies can be really powerful. Especially in the young minds that love them most. When I first heard this movie was taking place in New Orleans I was ecstatic!!! Finally a non-stereotypical black princess. Then I read what it was about. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah!!! Because I love the 'rich' history that New Orleans holds, I just knew this Princess would be grand from first scene. In my opinion, no other city could pull this off during this era but New Orleans. New Orleans had MANY affluent Creole women (of African Decent) that by the 1940's would not have a clue what a slave life could have been like. But you want to talk about stereotypes. Disney will offer a black princess but you can bet that having a black prince isn't even fathomable in those Execs mind. The Prince would have to be white. Same ole story. They did this with Cinderella (a non-black Prince was used). In all fairness the Prince wasn’t white either, he was from the Philippines – I think. I guess I got the last Black Prince. I digress.

I am at least proud that Disney execs are during their research and thinking ahead. My hats are off for the Disney Execs.

JoeEpcotRocks
05-17-2007, 12:08 PM
I hope they eliminate any references to "Dixie" in the film. Afterall, Disney felt it necessary to rename "Dixie Landings" in order not to be offensive.

Yeah, what was that all about?

Kim&Chris
05-17-2007, 12:14 PM
Disney will offer a black princess but you can bet that having a black prince isn't even fathomable in those Execs mind. The Prince would have to be white. Same ole story.

Wow :sad2:

djm99
05-17-2007, 12:34 PM
Wow :sad2:

Not too sure what your "wow" and sad simile means, but Disney has NOT had a starring human role (animation or non-animation) of a black man since "Song of the South" in the 1940's. This does NOT include the recent Tween "The Proud Family" (where a Dad actually lives with his family) or Disney's latest "Jump In". I forgot about the Let's So Raven friend Cory. It just doesn't happen often at all. Black men are donkey's dragons or some other creature. They give jokes and laughs, etc. This is not just Disney, its all those that make Family Movies. For whatever reason, it just can't be a normal black man just being a person or a phenomenal prince – all tall dark and handsome (like my husband). :love:

I will agree without hesitation that Disney is making some GREAT strives toward cultural diversity. I appreciate that sooooo much about Disney! This is why they get my money every time a film is released, I'm there opening weekend. This Frog Princess will be no different. I also want to add, that I hope the Execs do not do that sassy black girl thing either. This is a stereotype too. Common in some circles, but its often stereotyped that it’s the norm.

Kim&Chris
05-17-2007, 12:53 PM
Not too sure what your "wow" and sad simile means, but Disney has NOT had a starring human role (animation or non-animation) of a black man since "Song of the South" in the 1940's. This does NOT include the recent Tween "The Proud Family" (where a Dad actually lives with his family) or Disney's latest "Jump In". I forgot about the Let's So Raven friend Cory. It just doesn't happen often at all. Black men are donkey's dragons or some other creature. They give jokes and laughs, etc. This is not just Disney, its all those that make Family Movies. For whatever reason, it just can't be a normal black man just being a person or a phenomenal prince – all tall dark and handsome (like my husband). :love:

I will agree without hesitation that Disney is making some GREAT strives toward cultural diversity. I appreciate that sooooo much about Disney! This is why they get my money every time a film is released, I'm there opening weekend. This Frog Princess will be no different. I also want to add, that I hope the Execs do not do that sassy black girl thing either. This is a stereotype too. Common in some circles, but its often stereotyped that it’s the norm.

I can't really recall any Irish princes, Italian princes, Polish princes, Russian princes etc either, but I don't really keep score. You say that black men are all donkey's dragons - I don't really know what that means. I guess you're referring to Eddie Murphy being black and voicing the donkey in Shrek (the same movie where a white man voices an ogre and a Spanish man voices a kitty cat?). Sorry, I don't mean to go back and forth with you, but it seems like Disney made an attempt to do something special, and it's turned into a circus before it even starts. I'll leave this one alone.........

djm99
05-17-2007, 01:39 PM
I can't really recall any Irish princes, Italian princes, Polish princes, Russian princes etc either, but I don't really keep score. You say that black men are all donkey's dragons - I don't really know what that means. I guess you're referring to Eddie Murphy being black and voicing the donkey in Shrek (the same movie where a white man voices an ogre and a Spanish man voices a kitty cat?). Sorry, I don't mean to go back and forth with you, but it seems like Disney made an attempt to do something special, and it's turned into a circus before it even starts. I'll leave this one alone.........

Leave it alone - or ride it til dawn - that's your prerogative. In all the ethnic groups you mentioned (other than Italians) I can't think of one well known NEGATIVE stereotype. Yet I would bet YOUR paycheck that you can recall plenty of negative AA stereotypes. And I'm NOT keeping score and if you READ my post, I mentioned my appreciation and RESPECT for Disney's attempts at a Black Princess and its sensitivity toward stereotypes. IMO, you confusing keeping score with stating facts. You are writing as if you are bothered by Disney’s sensitivity. Like cultural sensitive is ridiculous.

Remember, I'm a Disney fan. I would see this movie if this was about ANY NEW princess, so you can keep the race card in your own ethnic pocket and not impose it on me. And you can play nonchalant like race doesn't exist, if that makes your world pretty, but it does. Like I stated in my post, I look forward to this movie and I hope that Disney does a good job putting this movie together. The same hope I've wished for any of the early announcements from Disney.

ETA: All the those Ethnic groups - if I had all of them in one room (all dressed in jeans and a shirt) and an AA - which one could you clearly pick out? You might be able to pick out an Italian - MIGHT. But one you'd likely have no doubts about - is that AA. My point, I couldn't tell you what Ethnic group any of the 'white' princesses are? But I bet you can tell what Ethnic group The Frog Princess will be - not just because Disney said so, but because we can see her.

Kim&Chris
05-17-2007, 02:01 PM
Leave it alone - or ride it til dawn - that's your prerogative. In all the ethnic groups you mentioned (other than Italians) I can't think of one well known NEGATIVE stereotype. Yet I would bet YOUR paycheck that you can recall plenty of negative AA stereotypes. And I'm NOT keeping score and if you READ my post, I mentioned my appreciation and RESPECT for Disney's attempts at a Black Princess and its sensitivity toward stereotypes. IMO, you confusing keeping score with stating facts. You are writing as if you are bothered by Disney’s sensitivity. Like cultural sensitive is ridiculous.

Remember, I'm a Disney fan. I would see this movie if this was about ANY NEW princess, so you can keep the race card in your own ethnic pocket and not impose it on me. And you can play nonchalant like race doesn't exist, if that makes your world pretty, but it does. Like I stated in my post, I look forward to this movie and I hope that Disney does a good job putting this movie together. The same hope I've wished for any of the early announcements from Disney.

ETA: All the those Ethnic groups - if I had all of them in one room (all dressed in jeans and a shirt) and an AA - which one could you clearly pick out? You might be able to pick out an Italian - MIGHT. But one you'd likely have no doubts about - is that AA. My point, I couldn't tell you what Ethnic group any of the 'white' princesses are? But I bet you can tell what Ethnic group The Frog Princess will be - not just because Disney said so, but because we can see her.

NO one is playing the race card, except perhaps you. Enjoy the movie, I won't be seeing it.

Nom
05-17-2007, 02:36 PM
I think that djm is making some good points. I was dissapointed to read in that link that the prince, who seems to be the love interest of maddy (I assume) is not black. I wish disney would have taken the full plunge and made both leading characters black.

Other than that, I agree that the films seems to be a good thing.

djm99
05-17-2007, 04:33 PM
Enjoy the movie, I won't be seeing it.

I wonder why?:rolleyes:

djm99
05-17-2007, 05:14 PM
From Contactmusic.com ... which quotes Jim Hill...

I'm wondering why you didn't mention the more written about portions of this article. Since you didn't I will.

To explain: What the Mouse was hoping to do with this completed sequence from "The Princess and the Frog" was when people would then raise objections to "Song of the South" and its depiction of blacks, Disney officials would then be able to point to this excerpt from their studio's upcoming traditionally animated feature and say "Look, back in the 1940s, we may have depicted African-Americans in a sometimes clichéd, often despicable fashion. But we don't do that anymore. Look how even-handed we are with the characters from 'The Princess and the Frog.' How we don't use any stereotypes with this film."

It was hoped that -- by doing this -- Disney officials would then give those who would automatically hammer on "Song of the South" because of the way that film depicts blacks much less to complain about. Defuse the situation, so to speak.

The only problem with this plan that it was dreamed up prior to "The Frog Princess" being consumed by its own PC controversy. Now, there are those at the Mouse House who wonder if it's wise to link these projects. Thereby making both "Song of the South" and "The Princess and the Frog" bigger targets for politically-correct types.

However, should the complaints about Ron'n'John's newest project actually be defused by that statement that Disney released to the Web earlier this week ... Well, the company might (And let me stress that word again: might) try putting "Song of the South" out in stores in time for the 2008 holiday shopping season.

And just so you know, Jen ... Disney's supposedly considering making "Song of the South" a title that they'd then release under their recently resurrected "Disney Treasures" line. Which could possibly mean a very small production run for this particular DVD. Something along the lines of 150,000 to 500,000 units tops. Just to sort of test the waters. To see if there'd actually be an uproar if the Walt Disney Company were to make this 60+ year-old film widely available for sale in the U.S.

If that Disney Treasures version of this film does well ... Well, look for the Mouse -- a year or so later -- to make another, wide-open edition of "Song of the South" available for purchase. But only in the Disney Blu-Ray format. Which would (in theory) provide consumers with yet another incentive to invest in HD technology.

Of course, a lot of things can happen between now and the 2008 holiday season, Jen. Disney could get cold feet about "Song of the South" and/or decide that "The Princess and the Frog" is already far too controversial. Which is why they then wouldn't dare to do anything to link these two films.

But -- that said -- this shows that the Walt Disney Company is once again looking for ways that they can then release "Song of the South" to the U.S. market. Which should give all you animation fans out there some reason to hope again ... I think.

So this whole thing of being PC (according to this writer) would be to justify releasing Song of the South. So in reality (according to this article) Disney really does NOT care about political correctness, just finding a way of releasing another movie? This article had little to do with the Frog Princess itself - but more about a strategy from Disney. It amazes me what people 'take' or disregard from a particular article. Or better yet, others can read this thing themselves.

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2007/05/11/why-for-is-disney-already-doing-damage-control-on-the-princess-and-the-frog.aspx

Nom
05-18-2007, 06:27 AM
I'm wondering why you didn't mention the more written about portions of this article. Since you didn't I will.



So this whole thing of being PC (according to this writer) would be to justify releasing Song of the South. So in reality (according to this article) Disney really does NOT care about political correctness, just finding a way of releasing another movie? This article had little to do with the Frog Princess itself - but more about a strategy from Disney. It amazes me what people 'take' or disregard from a particular article. Or better yet, others can read this thing themselves.

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2007/05/11/why-for-is-disney-already-doing-damage-control-on-the-princess-and-the-frog.aspx


The thing that I don't get about it, if this really is the strategy, is why do all this just to justify song of the south re-release? Is the possible revenue from song of the south that big? Because it seems like a lot of trouble to go to (doing a whole new movie just to have ammo to defend a re-release).

I can't imagine that is really the driving force, because who besides disney fanatics is going to buy song of the south anyway? I would think there would be a lot more possible revenue is making a black princess and expanding the appeal of the wildly popular princess line to a new demographic, and making this new movie as good as it can be, with no link to an old controversy that could possible reduce the income.

The fact that the creation of the film is only to justify song of the south just does not ring true to me.

I'm not saying that disney really cares about minorities... I think this is just a business desicion to expand the princess line. And it would not make sense, business-wise, to link this new princess to a controversy that could turn off a large number of the parents of black children.

Charade
05-18-2007, 06:53 AM
Not too sure what your "wow" and sad simile means, but Disney has NOT had a starring human role (animation or non-animation) of a black man since "Song of the South" in the 1940's. This does NOT include the recent Tween "The Proud Family" (where a Dad actually lives with his family) or Disney's latest "Jump In". I forgot about the Let's So Raven friend Cory. It just doesn't happen often at all. Black men are donkey's dragons or some other creature. They give jokes and laughs, etc. This is not just Disney, its all those that make Family Movies. For whatever reason, it just can't be a normal black man just being a person or a phenomenal prince – all tall dark and handsome (like my husband). :love:

.


Not true. Eddie Murphy starred in "The Haunted Mansion". Michael Jackson in "Captain EO". Cuba Gooding Jr. in "Snow Dogs".

djm99
05-18-2007, 12:55 PM
Not true. Eddie Murphy starred in "The Haunted Mansion". Michael Jackson in "Captain EO". Cuba Gooding Jr. in "Snow Dogs".

Not really keeping score and as I stated in my comment, it does NOT happen often at all. There are people making honest positive efforts. AGAIN, as a person of color I appreciate that. The Haunted Mansion really is a GREAT example of Disney really putting a decent script and a big name to make a great movie. I stand corrected. I am humble enough to admit that. Captain EO, if memory serves was a 3D show in Epcot not at the movies – although Disney did put a lot of ‘stock’ in it. Which I loved as a kid - I forgot about that! :hippie: Last, Snow Dogs was a bad movie all together. Couldn't 'get' into it. Even with your examples - we are talking 3 out of what 50+ movies since 1943 (when SOTS was made). The earliest of the mentioned was done in the early 1980's. Again, we can go backward and foreword all day long about diversity in this country OR we (includes me) could focus on hopes of making a GREAT new Princess who can be loved by all. NOT just little black girls - but all girls. Again, I am a Disney fan, if Disney decided to create a Latina Princess, an Italian Princess, or a Jewish Princess – DJM99 – would learn to love her. It really shows the content in a persons character when they blatantly state that they WILL NOT see this movie – and as of today, don’t have a reason. In truth, we don’t even know WHAT the movie is about. The only thing that we absolutely know without a shadow of a doubt is that a Black Princess will be made. So, to say this early that you will NOT see it, only leaves one conclusion – YOU HAVE NO DESIRE TO SEE A BLACK PRINCESS. Someone wrote on this thread that the concept was ridiculous.

ETA: Save the explanation of the above statement, we are talking fairy tales here. Last time I looked there was no glass slippers, mermaids, flying carpets, or talking dragons. They are all make-believe so kill the historically correct thing.

For the record, I not suggesting that Disney or anyone else create an AA movie, but it would be nice to be included in great productions.

The thing that I don't get about it, if this really is the strategy, is why do all this just to justify song of the south re-release? Is the possible revenue from song of the south that big? Because it seems like a lot of trouble to go to (doing a whole new movie just to have ammo to defend a re-release).

I can't imagine that is really the driving force, because who besides disney fanatics is going to buy song of the south anyway? I would think there would be a lot more possible revenue is making a black princess and expanding the appeal of the wildly popular princess line to a new demographic, and making this new movie as good as it can be, with no link to an old controversy that could possible reduce the income.

The fact that the creation of the film is only to justify song of the south just does not ring true to me.

I'm not saying that disney really cares about minorities... I think this is just a business desicion to expand the princess line. And it would not make sense, business-wise, to link this new princess to a controversy that could turn off a large number of the parents of black children.

I am in total agreement here. I was just wondering why the OP open this thread as an AA princess issue - when the entire article alleges that the release of this movie has NOTHING to do with Disney really being PC - but a way to release SOTS. :confused3 - BTW, I just saw SOTS about a month ago, and I really don't get what the big issue is. I have seen far worse images in old movies (and NEW ones) – and a few are currently on Primetime TV. I will admit that I didn't like it, BECAUSE of all the broken language. I watched it first and showed my daughter. She kept saying, "Mommy, what are they saying". My response, “I don't know - I'd have to rewind it and process it". It just was not my thing. But I wouldn't care if Disney released it. I wouldn't consider it a racist movie, but stereotypical and VERY common of that time. I think those that protest should find a much more important cause, and this movie - just isn't it!!

Kim&Chris
05-18-2007, 01:08 PM
It really shows the content in a person character when they blatantly state that they WILL NOT see this movie – and we don’t have a reason. In truth we don’t even know WHAT the movie is about. The only thing that we absolutely know without a shadow of a doubt is that a Black Princess will be made. So, to say this early that you will NOT see it, only leaves one conclusion – YOU HAVE NO DESIRE TO SEE A BLACK PRINCESS. Someone wrote on this thread that the concept was ridiculous.


You certainly do enjoy putting words in peoples mouths, which in itself speaks volumes, but I'm guessing you realize that already. I would love to see any princess; black, Jewish, Puerto Rican, Phillipine - the list could go on and on. I just doubt that this movie will ever be made. It seems Disney will not be able to do it right, no matter how they try. Please do not imply that my decision has anything to do with race. You don't know me, so you have no right to imply anything. Your "conclusions" are merely an extension of your belief that no one wants to see a black princess. :rolleyes1

djm99
05-18-2007, 01:20 PM
You certainly do enjoy putting words in peoples mouths, which in itself speaks volumes, Your "conclusions" are merely an extension of your belief that no one wants to see a black princess. :rolleyes1

NO ONE or you. I have a desire to see this black princess - excited about it. Remember YOUR Comment:

Originally Posted by Kim&Chris
Enjoy the movie, I won't be seeing it.

You said that. And I don't have to put words in YOUR mouth - you do a good enough job all by yourself.

Originally Posted by Kim&Chris
Enjoy the movie, I won't be seeing it.

Originally Posted by Kim&Chris
Enjoy the movie, I won't be seeing it.

Originally Posted by Kim&Chris
Enjoy the movie, I won't be seeing it.

Originally Posted by Kim&Chris
Enjoy the movie, I won't be seeing it.

Please leave your "explanation" of this statement to yourself. YOU are entitled it.

Kim&Chris
05-18-2007, 01:27 PM
I'm not really sure why you hit the 'quote' button so many times :lmao:

I don't have to explain anything to you because you know everything :thumbsup2

MasterShake
05-19-2007, 06:31 AM
I think it's great that Disney is making a movie with an African American princess and it's a shame that they will probably have so much difficulty making it. Every decision they make will be looked at under a microscope by groups that want to find something to be offended about.

Maddy (IMO) has nothing to do with the name Mammy.

I can't see what the big deal is with her being a maid. Aladdin was a thief, but I don't remember an outcry from the Arab community. It's a pretty common theme to have a character rise from humble beginings to a position of greater importance. Several characters did not start off as princesses; Cinderella (maid) and Belle come to mind. What's being overlooked is the fact that I'm sure this character would have been brave, intelligent, and personable.

As far as the prince being African American, what difference does it make? It seems to me that it would be less racist to have Disney promoting an interracial union. Wouldn't that show how far we've come to have Disney make a movie with an interracial couple?

Disney has been criticized for not having an African American princess and now they will be criticized for making one. In the end they will probably have to play it so safe, that the movie will be ruined. Every creative aspect will be dissected and in the end we'll get a movie with a watered down plot that will get Disney the fewest pieces of hate mail.

The funniest part about this whole thing is the description of the “Rich White Spoiled Debutant”. As far as I can see the only group being portrayed negatively in this movie is Caucasians and I haven’t seen a single complaint about that.

Charade
05-19-2007, 06:58 AM
The funniest part about this whole thing is the description of the “Rich White Spoiled Debutant”. As far as I can see the only group being portrayed negatively in this movie is Caucasians and I haven’t seen a single complaint about that.

That's because they deserve it...

EUROPACL
05-19-2007, 06:58 AM
Disney has been criticized for not having an African American princess and now they will be criticized for making one. In the end they will probably have to play it so safe, that the movie will be ruined. Every creative aspect will be dissected and in the end we'll get a movie with a watered down plot that will get Disney the fewest pieces of hate mail.

The funniest part about this whole thing is the description of the “Rich White Spoiled Debutant”. As far as I can see the only group being portrayed negatively in this movie is Caucasians and I haven’t seen a single complaint about that.

To be fair, I'm not so sure that hate mail bothers Disney. They've been through a boycott from the Southern Baptist, they take constant flak over their "Gay Days" and their open door policy for "Gays" to work at Disney.

One thing is for sure the only people that are allowed to be hated upon these days are Caucasians and Christians....anybody else and its a national emergency.

djm99
05-19-2007, 11:39 AM
Maddy (IMO) has nothing to do with the name Mammy.

I can't see what the big deal is with her being a maid. Aladdin was a thief, but I don't remember an outcry from the Arab community. It's a pretty common theme to have a character rise from humble beginings to a position of greater importance. Several characters did not start off as princesses; Cinderella (maid) and Belle come to mind. What's being overlooked is the fact that I'm sure this character would have been brave, intelligent, and personable.

As far as the prince being African American, what difference does it make? It seems to me that it would be less racist to have Disney promoting an interracial union. Wouldn't that show how far we've come to have Disney make a movie with an interracial couple?

Disney has been criticized for not having an African American princess and now they will be criticized for making one. In the end they will probably have to play it so safe, that the movie will be ruined. Every creative aspect will be dissected and in the end we'll get a movie with a watered down plot that will get Disney the fewest pieces of hate mail.

The funniest part about this whole thing is the description of the “Rich White Spoiled Debutant”. As far as I can see the only group being portrayed negatively in this movie is Caucasians and I haven’t seen a single complaint about that.

You made some really good points, and its kind of hard to argue on its logic. But in addition to what you mentioned, it wasn't so much as the name Maddy sounds like Mammy for me as it just sound like an old name. But hey this is taking place in the 1940's. Although the name is NOT an issue for me and I didn't even think about it, until I read an article right after the annoucement release, when I mentioned that Disney introduced its soon to be Princess, an African American named Maddy (to a co-worker sitting next to me), her first response (before I could even tell her what the article said) she said "Maddy – that’s a ugly name". When I told her about the article she agreed. - I don't like this "new" name at all. But I couldn’t even tell you what Snow Whites or Sleeping Beauty's name is. Who knows, one or both of them have a name. I think in general this whole thing is being thought about too much. We are talking about a fairy tale here. It’s all ‘make believe’.

Also, the whole interracial thing, Disney made an interracial Cinderella story with an African American Cinderella and the Prince was a Philippine Actor in 1997. I remember because I made my then “newlywed” husband watch it with me. His response, “A black man can’t even exist in a fairy tale”. Hey, I’m not a black man, and black women are portrayed slightly more positively than the men. He noticed this immediately. Although many see this as crossing racial barriers many find this unsetting and in many circles taboo. So, this interracial decision could bring more controversy than the name Maddy could ever. At the very least I would have like to see these characters with interracial families themselves. We are taking about a New Orleans setting. The French mixed with a little of every body in New Orleans. This French Prince could be Creole or she could be Creole. There is many ways and directions Disney could take this and really make it relevant to the melting pot of today. Just my 2 cents.

Another Voice
05-19-2007, 06:12 PM
Disney is in trouble here because the entire affair looks like a cynical marketing ploy.

Instead of coming out and saying “we have a wonderful story to tell – one that we think everyone will love”, the press announcement focused on the ethnicity of the lead character and how profitable the “princess” line has been for the company.

The entire project reeks of marketing PowerPoint presentation slide titled “Missing Demographic Groups from Current Product Line”.


People whine that “Disney is a business” and use it as an excuse to paper over any decision the company makes. But that statement is wrong – Disney is an entertainment business. It holds a different role in our society than the makers of carpet shampoo and industrial plumbing fixtures. Entertainment is, for better or worse, the mirror that we hold up to see ourselves and our world. Entertainment is how most people experience life beyond their neighborhood; entertainment surrounds and shapes us from our earliest moments.

Because of that special position, entertainment companies have special responsibilities to uphold that are unlike other industries. Knee-jerk marketing decisions have consequences far beyond a failed movie or a toy lines profitability.

Nom
05-19-2007, 06:25 PM
Well, IMO, the fact that the lead male is a european prince makes me think that the black heroine will be resuced from her circumstances by a white male, or will have to leave her people to be with this white male... I am totally ASSuming here at the plot line, but I can't imagine much different because that is how most of the princess stories typcially end up. And a black woman having to be resuced by a white male may not sit well with many black people. Nothing against interracial relationships, I just think that we need more positive portrayals of strong black men in the media, especially aimed at kids... black boys will go see this movie as well. Wouldn't have been awesome if they could have seen a strong black male role model up on the screen?

ITA again with djm- it is great they are branching out with a black princess, but black boys need to see strong black men in the media even more!

I just wish that they had set the first black princess story in africa. Maybe reinact an old african folk tale.... with all the cast being african. That would probably have more support from african american groups, plus it would expose all our kids to an area of culture that we don't get enough of in school.

I don't know why they did not go that route--- seems safer than the story they decided to go with, and they could have done some amazing stuff with the african culture.

Oh well! But like I said... I think this is overall a good thing, just wish they had made a few different choices.

Charade
05-19-2007, 06:35 PM
Why can't we just have people with strong "look up to" characteristics?

Nom
05-19-2007, 06:40 PM
Why can't we just have people with strong "look up to" characteristics?

With all due respect, I think if you lived in a society where you rarely saw a strong character of your race portrayed in a positive light on the screen, you would better understand why it is important to see role models of your own race in the media. (I'm assuming that you're not a minority here- sorry if I am wrong! But I can't imagine someone who is a minority having that responce.)

Charade
05-19-2007, 06:45 PM
With all due respect, I think if you lived in a society where you rarely saw a strong character of your race portrayed in a positive light on the screen, you would better understand why it is important to see role models of your own race in the media. (I'm assuming that you're not a minority here- sorry if I am wrong! But I can't imagine someone who is a minority having that responce.)

No, I'm not a minority. But I wasn't raised to look at peoples skin color before measuring their character.

Nom
05-20-2007, 08:55 AM
No, I'm not a minority. But I wasn't raised to look at peoples skin color before measuring their character.

It has nothing to do with that... what I am trying to convey is that for many black boys, the only portrayal of themselves that they see in the media is 'gangsta pimpin'. It would have been very nice if disney had taken this opportunity to have a strong black prince- it would counter the many negative portrayals of black men that are so abundant in the media.

I'm not saying that it's their responsibility to do so, just that it would have been nice if they had gone that extra step.

There was actually just a great article on a similar topic in my sunday paper this morning... it was saying that black boys are behind all other races and sexes in school performance- and behind by a LOT. A new study says this might be because of a culture of de-valueing eduction in black men, partially due to the lack of positive black male role models in the media. (there are other reasons for this culture of de-vauled education, but lack of black male role models reminded me of this thread.)

Yes, all people should look up to any positive role model, irregardless of their color... but if you're a young black boy and you almost never see any positive portrayals of your race in the media, especially in animated features which are targetted to you- and all you see in the media is negative role models- well, it's not good. It can get to many young boys.

Kim&Chris
05-20-2007, 03:05 PM
It has nothing to do with that... what I am trying to convey is that for many black boys, the only portrayal of themselves that they see in the media is 'gangsta pimpin'.

That's an interesting statement. I watch shows like Grey's Anatomy (a Disney Company show), where some of the most powerful characters are black and Hispanic. Those characters are about as far from "gangsta pimpin'" as possible. Maybe it's not media's fault entirely (if we beleived everything we saw on TV or in the theater, then we'd believe that all Asians knew karate, that all Italians were mobsters, that all blondes were dumb, etc - you get the picture!), but instead the choices people make for themselves.

djm99
05-20-2007, 04:41 PM
That's an interesting statement. I watch shows like Grey's Anatomy (a Disney Company show), where some of the most powerful characters are black and Hispanic.

Kids do not watch Grey's Anatomy and you know that. We can keep on talking around the issues or we can talk like serious adults. As he/she stated we are talking about black young boys and the lack of positive role models. I agree that Disney is not responsible for do this themselves, but it would be nice.

Kim&Chris
05-20-2007, 06:04 PM
Kids do not watch Grey's Anatomy and you know that. We can keep on talking around the issues or we can talk like serious adults. As he/she stated we are talking about black young boys and the like of positive role models. I agree that Disney is not responsible for do this themselves, but it would be nice.

I don't know what your problem with me is, but you certainly don't need to reply to everything I post.

djm99
05-20-2007, 06:57 PM
I don't know what your problem with me is, but you certainly don't need to reply to everything I post.

I do NOT have a problem with you, I don't even 'know' you. And please read over this thread - YOU 'responded' to my comment. IMO, if you don't want people to respond - don't post. Makes sense to me!:thumbsup2 :surfweb:

djm99
05-20-2007, 06:59 PM
Why can't we just have people with strong "look up to" characteristics?

Agreed - don't forget that WE don't all look alike - and WE should all be represented.

NeverEnufWDW
05-20-2007, 08:14 PM
From Contactmusic.com ... which quotes Jim Hill...

There are truly a LOT of people out there who need to GET A LIFE !

Nom
05-21-2007, 07:57 AM
That's an interesting statement. I watch shows like Grey's Anatomy (a Disney Company show), where some of the most powerful characters are black and Hispanic. Those characters are about as far from "gangsta pimpin'" as possible.

I agree with djm, that kids are not watching shows like Grey's. It's the young black boys that are in trouble. Anyway, by the time people are old enough to watch shows like greys, hopefully they have enough sense of self that even if they did not have strong role models, they would be ok. It's really kids that are preteen and younger that are very influenced by what they see in the media.

Maybe it's not media's fault entirely (if we beleived everything we saw on TV or in the theater, then we'd believe that all Asians knew karate, that all Italians were mobsters, that all blondes were dumb, etc - you get the picture!), but instead the choices people make for themselves.

Yes, you are definately right that there are a lot of stereotypes in the media! I think that the particular problem for black males is threefold: first, that there are almost no postive role models for black boys in the media that is targetted to them (while you will probably agree that there are positive protrayals of white children all the time), second, that the role models that are out there that black boys see is largely negative (they probably watch music videos much more than shows like greys anatomy), and third, that there are other cultural issues at play with young black men that are not seen as much with other minorities (lack of father figures, etc). So it is definately not all the media's fault... and I am not saying that disney must put a strong black man in the movide... I am just saying it would have been nice.

Here is the article I read sunday... it does a great job of encapsulating what I am trying to say.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/05/the_achievement_gap_separating.html

It does not say all the blame is on the media... but some of the blame is there. So if disney had taken a giant step and made a strong black prince- that would have sent a powerful message to a demographic that really needs one!

MasterShake
05-21-2007, 08:15 AM
Agreed - don't forget that WE don't all look alike - and WE should all be represented.

Who said anything about African Americans all looking alike?


third, that there are other cultural issues at play with young black men that are not seen as much with other minorities (lack of father figures, etc).


I'll assume that this is a fact and not a stereotype you are throwing out (I think I did here this was a problem on CNN, but I can't remember for sure). If this is the case, maybe we should be focusing on this problem rather then looking for an entertainment company to provide proper role models.

Nom
05-21-2007, 08:44 AM
I'll assume that this is a fact and not a stereotype you are throwing out (I think I did here this was a problem on CNN, but I can't remember for sure). If this is the case, maybe we should be focusing on this problem rather then looking for an entertainment company to provide proper role models.


Did you read the link? It talks about the combination of factors and how they interplay. Take a look at the link- it's brief but informative and shows that it is a fact, not a stereotype. Yes, it's not all on the media, but every little bit helps.

Charade
05-21-2007, 08:55 AM
I guess what bothers me (and I might get flamed for it) is that do black boys and girls really think to themselves "I wished the star of this movie looked like me"? Is it the character or the actor (IRL) they're trying to relate to? I believe it's up to the parents to expose their kids to the things they feel will help guide them through life. I don't think they should rely on a fictional animated movie to be a significant factor. If at all. There are many real life role models for kids to look up to. They come in all colors, sizes and backgrounds. It's up to the parents to seek these people out.

djm99
05-21-2007, 10:23 AM
Who said anything about African Americans all looking alike?

No one said anything about anybody all looking alike. You asked "Why can't we just have people with strong "look up to" characteristics?" - my response is that WE as a human family should do just that, without the focus on skin color. Since WE all look different, we should show that diversity in film and TV. You eliminate the focus on skin by representing everyone. That everyone is white, brown, red, and black people. This is easily done. Many new toy companies (like Bratz and Barbie) are in a marketing boom of doing just this. They are doing a great job of cultural diversity. That's how you eliminate that focus - show diversity. That's all I was saying - or trying to say.


I guess what bothers me (and I might get flamed for it) is that do black boys and girls really think to themselves "I wished the star of this movie looked like me"? Is it the character or the actor (IRL) they're trying to relate to? I believe it's up to the parents to expose their kids to the things they feel will help guide them through life. I don't think they should rely on a fictional animated movie to be a significant factor. If at all. There are many real life role models for kids to look up to. They come in all colors, sizes and backgrounds. It's up to the parents to seek these people out.

No flames from me, just hopefully clarity. First things first, children, especially ages 4-12 (be them black, white, red, or yellow) very rarely think for themselves. We as parents shape their thoughts in many (or most) respects. Our environments, schools, home, what's seen on TV, what's told to us by peers, all embody their thoughts. Many parents can afford to expand their 'horizon' by exposing them to other things outside of their current realities. Those parents put their kids in sports, dance classes, and other extracurricular activities. It is unfortunately when some have kids and they themselves haven't been exposed to other positive realities so that same destructive, negative (and sometimes non-productive) mindset is 'inherent' from one generation to the next.

Their are many inner city youth (both black and white) whose only 'role models' are drug dealers, pimps, and men of questionable activities. Some mothers want to do better, but often times don't know where to start. I've called it being ‘socially retarded’. Some feel an 'inability' of 'knowing' how to stop thinking peripherally. They can only see what's immediately in their faces. Looking to the left or right never crossed their minds. It's like bringing home a new gold fish and placing it in a fish tank. That new fish will get its in aquarium and explore its environment then move toward the glass, bump its nose, move to other side bump its nose again , move again bump its nose again, then finally come to the conclusion its not going anywhere and never hit that glass again.

Like that fish these boys have to fight so many negative influences (even in-house family) to make it out of those fish bowls. I am so blessed to have the husband that I do, that volunteers his time to mentor black boys. He is a teacher at a gifted middle school and really works with these boys on and off the clock. He coaches football and tutors math. So back to your original question, IMO all kids are influenced and in many respects their thoughts are directly related from the environment from which they come. If positive role models are lacking in that environment and hardly any positive ones are even represented in the ‘make believe’ places of both movie and TV – major problems are accruing and will continue to accrue until changes are made.

Disclaimer: I am ONE black person. I do NOT represent thought for every one of color.

djm99
05-21-2007, 10:24 AM
double post sorry -

crazy4wdw
05-21-2007, 11:11 AM
Just a note regarding being courteous to other posters and not making statements that could be interpreted as a personal attack. I have a feeling that this thread may get out of hand! Thanks for your cooperation!

Nom
05-21-2007, 11:35 AM
No flames from me, just hopefully clarity. First things first, children, especially ages 4-12 (be them black, white, red, or yellow) very rarely think for themselves. We as parents shape their thoughts in many (or most) respects. Our environments, schools, home, what's seen on TV, what's told to us by peers, all embody their thoughts. Many parents can afford to expand their 'horizon' by exposing them to other things outside of their current realities. Those parents put their kids in sports, dance classes, and other extracurricular activities. It is unfortunately when some have kids and they themselves haven't been exposed to other positive realities so that same destructive, negative (and sometimes non-productive) mindset is 'inherent' from one generation to the next.

Their are many inner city youth (both black and white) whose only 'role models' are drug dealers, pimps, and men of questionable activities. Some mothers want to do better, but often times don't know where to start. I've called it being ‘socially retarded’. Some feel an 'inability' of 'knowing' how to stop thinking peripherally. They can only see what's immediately in their faces. Looking to the left or right never crossed their minds. It's like bringing home a new gold fish and placing it in a fish tank. That new fish will get its in aquarium and explore its environment then move toward the glass, bump its nose, move to other side bump its nose again , move again bump its nose again, then finally come to the conclusion its not going anywhere and never hit that glass again.

Like that fish these boys have to fight so many negative influences (even in-house family) to make it out of those fish bowls. I am so blessed to have the husband that I do, that volunteers his time to mentor black boys. He is a teacher at a gifted middle school and really works with these boys on and off the clock. He coaches football and tutors math. So back to your original question, IMO all kids are influenced and in many respects their thoughts are directly related from the environment from which they come. If positive role models are lacking in that environment and hardly any positive ones are even represented in the ‘make believe’ places of both movie and TV – major problems are accruing and will continue to accrue until changes are made.



ITA- you said what I was trying to say very clearly and consisely... thank you!

I should add that I am a white woman... but my eyes were opened to a lot of things when I was at college. I went to a pretty liberal college and took some great courses that helped me understand about many of the racial problems in this country, where they stem from, etc. I learned a lot from the friends 'of color' that I met in those classes, and I feel that my perspectives on life were changed through many of the courses I took and the people I got the opportunity to interact with, and the friends that I still have to this day.

However, although I learned a lot, I am not a black woman, so I can never speak from that place... so I apologize if I spoke out of turn at all! I just feel strongly about some of the inequities that are still in our society, and it would have been great like I said, to see a strong black male prince in this tale.

I do feel that if our kids learned about different perspecitves in high school, some of the stuff that I learned about in college, people would be a lot more understanding about why it is so important to see diversity in the media aimed towards young people. I think that unless you have somewhat of an in-depth understanding of history and some of the causes of poverty and racism in our country, it is easy to fall into the trap of saying "everyone should see beyond color" and truely believe in that utopian vision. It would be a wonderful place if everyone did see beyond color, and that was all it took... and I hope we get there some day. In the meantime though, as we work towards that goal, why not do what we can to stop the cycle of disenfranchising of many young black men?

I am enjoying having the discussion with all, and always like to see different points of view. I like that we can all learn from one another here.

freakylick
05-21-2007, 12:44 PM
I just wish that they had set the first black princess story in africa. Maybe reinact an old african folk tale.... with all the cast being african. That would probably have more support from african american groups, plus it would expose all our kids to an area of culture that we don't get enough of in school.

I don't know why they did not go that route--- seems safer than the story they decided to go with, and they could have done some amazing stuff with the african culture.

Since it's Disney, there would be outcry that they didn't set the movie in America because apparently blacks can only become princesses/princes amongst their own kind in Africa. And I am sure there would be outrage about how Disney is saying that if blacks want to be "successful", they should go back to Africa because America belongs to caucasians.

I'm sorry, but I just see this a very difficult situation for Disney because every detail of this movie will be criticized and in the end, this quote will likely come to fruition:

Disney has been criticized for not having an African American princess and now they will be criticized for making one. In the end they will probably have to play it so safe, that the movie will be ruined. Every creative aspect will be dissected and in the end we'll get a movie with a watered down plot that will get Disney the fewest pieces of hate mail.

djm99
05-21-2007, 06:44 PM
ITA- you said what I was trying to say very clearly and consisely... thank you!

I should add that I am a white woman... but my eyes were opened to a lot of things when I was at college. I am enjoying having the discussion with all, and always like to see different points of view. I like that we can all learn from one another here.

Wow - I'm speechless. I pegged you wrong. I'm humbled too.

Since it's Disney, there would be outcry that they didn't set the movie in America because apparently blacks can only become princesses/princes amongst their own kind in Africa. And I am sure there would be outrage about how Disney is saying that if blacks want to be "successful", they should go back to Africa because America belongs to caucasians.

I'm sorry, but I just see this a very difficult situation for Disney because every detail of this movie will be criticized and in the end, this quote will likely come to fruition:

There are always going to be people who will criticize any movie (especially when a movie is depicting minorities - except when its minorities that are making the films -umm :sad2: - double standard and I digress). I remember the controversy around Aladdin (One of the verses of the opening song "Arabian Nights" was altered following protests from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). The lyrics were changed in July 1993 from "'Where they cut off your ear if they don't like your face/It's barbaric, but, hey, it's home," in the original release to "Where it's flat and immense and the heat is intense/It's barbaric, but, hey, it's home." ) And Pocahontas (it was considered so historically inaccurate it was just ridiculous. First it was the look of Pocahontas (which said she looked like an AA model Naomi Campbell), how old she really was (pre-teen), how Native Americans were depicted, how handsome John Smith looked, and on and on). It’s just unrealistic to think that everyone will be satisfied. But as movie makers being sensitive to cultural differences and showing a balance is important.

I cannot emphasize enough my appreciation for Disney's attempt at this. It shows a lot of growth on Disney’s part. Although I've always thought that the execs where fond of Africa, and I'm shocked too that Disney didn't go there. Even if there is an arterial motive as the article suggest. I hope this project is done well, and its well attended by all.

yitbos96bb
05-22-2007, 03:59 PM
And when did anyone ever confuse 'Maddy' with 'Mammy'?

What a load of dung.......

barrel

My Dog's name is Maddy... I've never mixed up the two. I'll bet some minor political figure *****ed and Iger rolled over. He has no guts when dealing with this kind of stuff. See his previous idiotic statements on SOTS... mind you they had no issues with Dumbo, which has quite a few racially insensitive moments and characters.

yitbos96bb
05-22-2007, 04:03 PM
Yea, Thanks Bubba Clinton for starting all of this "politically correct" garbage.....

Boy what an ignorant comment.

yitbos96bb
05-22-2007, 04:12 PM
Actually, I am pleased that Disney Execs are thinking ahead and being culturally sensitive. I see absolutely NOTHING wrong about thinking about how stereotypes can impact generations to come. Disney movies can be really powerful. Especially in the young minds that love them most. When I first heard this movie was taking place in New Orleans I was ecstatic!!! Finally a non-stereotypical black princess. Then I read what it was about. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah!!! Because I love the 'rich' history that New Orleans holds, I just knew this Princess would be grand from first scene. In my opinion, no other city could pull this off during this era but New Orleans. New Orleans had MANY affluent Creole women (of African Decent) that by the 1940's would not have a clue what a slave life could have been like. But you want to talk about stereotypes. Disney will offer a black princess but you can bet that having a black prince isn't even fathomable in those Execs mind. The Prince would have to be white. Same ole story. They did this with Cinderella (a non-black Prince was used). In all fairness the Prince wasn’t white either, he was from the Philippines – I think. I guess I got the last Black Prince. I digress.

I am at least proud that Disney execs are during their research and thinking ahead. My hats are off for the Disney Execs.

You also seem to forget that in 1940's New Orleans, that Jim Crow laws were rampant, and the number of poor african-americans were MUCH MUCH higher than the number of rich afluent ones. And because of the Jim Crow laws, these rich affluent ones were still second class citizens with their own section of town, etc. And one of the more prominent jobs for poor people in the South during that time period was working for the rich in a butler, cook, maid capacity. From what I could tell, Disney was actually being more historically accurate than anything. The name change doesn't bother me as much (I do think they overreacted which is par for the course for Disney instead of taking the creative chance and defending their work) but the circumstances are a bit annoying and the title change especially.

yitbos96bb
05-22-2007, 04:15 PM
I think that djm is making some good points. I was dissapointed to read in that link that the prince, who seems to be the love interest of maddy (I assume) is not black. I wish disney would have taken the full plunge and made both leading characters black.

Other than that, I agree that the films seems to be a good thing.

In 1940's New Orleans, a mixed raced relationship would be quite the social taboo. Depending on how they handle it, it could be quite a big statement.

yitbos96bb
05-22-2007, 04:19 PM
Not true. Eddie Murphy starred in "The Haunted Mansion". Michael Jackson in "Captain EO". Cuba Gooding Jr. in "Snow Dogs".

That's also not to mention movies from other Disney business Units, Miramax, Buena Vista, etc. After all, Pulp Fiction was a Disney movie and two of the 4 biggest parts were black males.

freakylick
05-22-2007, 05:49 PM
There are always going to be people who will criticize any movie (especially when a movie is depicting minorities - except when its minorities that are making the films -umm :sad2: - double standard and I digress).
...
It’s just unrealistic to think that everyone will be satisfied. But as movie makers being sensitive to cultural differences and showing a balance is important.

I cannot emphasize enough my appreciation for Disney's attempt at this. It shows a lot of growth on Disney’s part. Although I've always thought that the execs where fond of Africa, and I'm shocked too that Disney didn't go there. Even if there is an arterial motive as the article suggest. I hope this project is done well, and its well attended by all.

I agree with the bolded statement. I don't expect them to make everyone happy. However, that's not really what I was getting at. My point was simply that many in the black community (please note that when I say "black community", I speak in generalities and do not address that to anyone specifically) have been clamoring for a black princess and then they jump at the opportunity to criticize every last detail (heck, I heard one black "journalist" criticize them for using Randy Newman to do the score since he is the "whitest white man"). No matter what Disney would have done, the black community would have found problems with this film. IE-Disney is really in a no-win situation here.

For example, they do a movie showing a black woman working for a white family...and they are criticized for being insensitive to the issue of slavery. Let's say that this movie instead showed a black woman working for a black family....What do you think the reaction would have been to that...Surely they would be scolded for falsely depicting the enslavement of blacks and shifting blame from the white man.

Don't get me wrong, I am not shedding a tear for Disney here. They brought much of this on themselves. From both a strategic and humanitarian standpoint, they should never have waited this long to do a movie with a black princess and/or prince.

EUROPACL
05-22-2007, 05:55 PM
For example, they do a movie showing a black woman working for a white family...and they are criticized for being insensitive to the issue of slavery. Let's say that this movie instead showed a black woman working for a black family....What do you think the reaction would have been to that...Surely they would be scolded for falsely depicting the enslavement of blacks and shifting blame from the white man.



A often glossed over fact is that many "freed blacks" in America owned slaves themselves.


According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

mitros
05-22-2007, 06:58 PM
Boy what an ignorant comment.

Thanks! I like you too!:sad2:

djm99
05-22-2007, 08:21 PM
You also seem to forget that in 1940's New Orleans, that Jim Crow laws were rampant, and the number of poor african-americans were MUCH MUCH higher than the number of rich afluent ones. And because of the Jim Crow laws, these rich affluent ones were still second class citizens with their own section of town, etc. And one of the more prominent jobs for poor people in the South during that time period was working for the rich in a butler, cook, maid capacity. From what I could tell, Disney was actually being more historically accurate than anything. The name change doesn't bother me as much (I do think they overreacted which is par for the course for Disney instead of taking the creative chance and defending their work) but the circumstances are a bit annoying and the title change especially.

I'm a little unsure what your point is in this brief AA history. I am VERY aware of the Jim Crow Laws and the 'feel' of this time. Again, we are talking about a fairy tale. Disney 'chopped up' Pocahontas to make it a love story. They ignored all the historical facts of that time and made a wonderful story. Although Pocahontas had its own controversy, a story was made. Do we really want to watch a Disney cartoon about the 'sport' of lynching, blatant racism, and Jim Crow Laws of that time - OR - do we want to watch a 'feel good' movie that makes us smile. Yes Disney will likely show the era as it was, but there were many black people (particularly in New Orleans) that were affluent. Regardless of how they were regarded by whites. As I stated earlier, Anne Rice did a wonderful Novel about this VERY subject. The story followed FREE people in the 1840’s and patterns of irony and injustice together through complex family relationships and social structures. If this was a documentary - yes- being historically correct is imperative, but a cartoon - for kids can stand some creativity.

djm99
05-22-2007, 08:45 PM
My point was simply that many in the black community (please note that when I say "black community", I speak in generalities and do not address that to anyone specifically) have been clamoring for a black princess and then they jump at the opportunity to criticize every last detail (heck, I heard one black "journalist" criticize them for using Randy Newman to do the score since he is the "whitest white man"). No matter what Disney would have done, the black community would have found problems with this film. IE-Disney is really in a no-win situation here.

I respectfully disagree. For one, when has the 'black community' clamored for a black princess. I will challenge you to prove that statement. I am a HUGE Disney FAN. I read papers and online articles from MANY sources and I've NEVER read one article (prior to the announcement of this new Princess) of a 'clamor' for a black princess. Proved me wrong!!!! If I'm wrong I will humbly put my tale between my legs and apologize. One or two articles is not a clamor BTW, I'll be waiting.......

Secondly, the whole maid thing did not and would not be a problem if that was necessary for the story. When Disney did Cinderella with the AA actress Brandy, NO ONE complained. Why? Because Cinderella was a 'maid' for her mean step sisters. Being a servant or maid was part of that story - PERIOD. The frog Princess if memory serves is about women who sends her 3 sons out to look for wives, one of the sons comes across a frog, and a witch is involved. So on and so on. Being a maid is totally Disney's creativity (or lack there of). Being a maid is unnecessary. Although there are many versions of the Frog Princess I'm thinking this is one that Disney might stay in line with the one I’ll cut and paste below. As you read it, be mindful that this is the Russian version and most of the time its the mother sending her sons out, but a father. Also, please tell me, how being a maid will fit into this story. If this is indeed the story that Disney is going ahead with.

The Frog Princess

Once upon a time in a faraway land, there was a tsar who had three three unmarried sons. The tsar wanted them all to marry and carry on their line. He told them, "Each of you must go out to the field beyond the palace grounds and shoot an arrow into the air as far as you can. You must marry whoever lives at the place where your arrow lands."

The three sons did as their father had asked. The arrow of the eldest son landed in the courtyard of a boyar (nobleman) and the boyar's daughter picked it up. The arrow of the middle son fell into a merchant's yard, where the merchant's daughter found it. The youngest son, Prince Ivan, shot his arrow into a swamp. When he went into the swamp to find it, he found a frog holding the arrow in its mouth. Being a dutiful son, he did what his father had asked, and all three sons married their brides.

Of course, the first two sons never tired in the days that followed of laughing at their younger brother and his frog-wife. Prince Ivan was very sad, but he kept his bargain and treated the frog as if she were a princess. At least she was a frog who was able to speak.

One day the tsar called his three sons to him and said, "I want each of your wives to sew me the best possible shirt she can by tomorrow morning."

The first two sons went off to tell the tsar's command to their wives, while Prince Ivan went home looking very sad. When the frog asked him what was wrong, he said, "My father wants you to sew him a beautiful shirt by tomorrow." "Oh, don't worry, Prince Ivan," the frog replied, "just go to bed. Morning is wiser than evening."

That night when everyone was asleep, the frog turned into a beautiful princess named Vasilisa the Wise. She clapped her hands together and said, "Come, my maids and servants, sew me a shirt like the one I saw at my dear father's!" In the morning Ivan woke to find a beautiful shirt lying on a chair and ran happily with it to the palace. The tsar did not like the shirts of his other daughters-in-law, but loved the one Ivan had brought.

A few days later, the tsar said to his sons, "I want your wives to bake the finest bread for me by tomorrow." Of course, the same thing happened; the frog made the bread that pleased the tsar best. Then the tsar told his sons, "Dear sons, tomorrow I will hold a feast at the palace. I want you to bring your wives dressed in their finest clothes." Prince Ivan went home and told the frog about the feast. She told him, "Don't worry, Prince Ivan, go to the feast by yourself. I will come later."

Next day Ivan went to the feast alone, and his brothers and their wives started to laugh at him, saying, "Where is your frog-wife?" All of a sudden everybody heard a thunderous sound approaching the palace. A golden carriage drove up to the entrance, the door opened, and Vasilisa the Wise descended from the carriage. To everyone's astonishment, she took the hand of Prince Ivan and walked in with him to the feast.

At the dinner table Vasilisa, after eating the main course of baked swan, put some of the bones up her sleeve, drank some wine, and poured the rest from the glass up her other sleeve. Her sisters-in-law saw her and repeated what she had done. When everyone got up to dance, Vasilisa, dancing with Ivan, waved with one sleeve and a lake appeared, then waved with another sleeve and several white swans appeared on the lake. Her sisters-in-law also waved with their sleeves, but they only splashed the guests with wine and threw bones all over the dance floor.

Prince Ivan was so overjoyed to have such a wonderful wife that he ran home while everyone was still at the feast and burned his wife's discarded frog skin so that she would remain beautiful. When Vasilisa returned home and could not find her frog skin, she became sad and said, "Ah, Prince Ivan, you have no idea what you did. If you had waited three more days, I would have been your real wife forever. But now I must go live as the prisoner of Koshchei the Deathless." Then she disappeared.

Ivan wept sorrowfully and went to search for his wife. On the way he met an old man and told him what happened. The old man said, "Vasilisa's father turned her into a frog for three years, because she was wiser than he. If you wish to find her, Ivan, take this ball and follow it as it rolls along the ground."

Ivan followed the ball into the forest where he met a bear. Being very hungry, he was about to shoot the bear with an arrow but the bear begged him, "Don't kill me, prince. I will help you in the future."

Journeying further into the forest, Ivan saw a drake and wanted to kill it with his arrow. But the drake begged him, "Don't kill me, Prince Ivan. I could be helpful to you."

So Ivan kept walking onward, getting hungrier and hungrier. Later he came across a rabbit and also could not kill it, because the rabbit begged him not to. The same thing happened when he came to the seashore and encountered a pike.

Soon Ivan came to a little hut on chicken legs where a Baba Yaga (Grandmother Spirit) lived. She told him, "Vasilisa is at Koshchei's house. It's hard to win a victory over him. His death is at a needle's end, the needle is in an egg, the egg is in a duck, the duck is in a rabbit, the rabbit is in a stone chest, the chest is at the top of a tall oak-tree." Ivan thanked her.

He continued onward until he found the oak-tree, but it was too tall to climb and too strong to cut down. All of a sudden the bear Ivan had spared appeared and tore the tree up by its roots. The chest fell out of the tree and broke. The rabbit jumped out and wanted to run away. But the rabbit Ivan had spared overtook the first one and killed it. The duck flew out from the rabbit, but the drake Ivan had spared caught it. The egg fell out of the duck into the sea. The pike Ivan had spared found the egg and brought it to Ivan. He opened the egg, broke off the point of the needle and Koschei instantly died in his palace. Vasilisa was now free. Prince Ivan and Vasilisa returned home and lived happily together for the rest of their lives.

http://www.lacquerbox.com/frogprincess-long.htm

djm99
05-22-2007, 09:16 PM
A often glossed over fact is that many "freed blacks" in America owned slaves themselves.

Not sure what your point was - but you are absolutely correct. Not only did some free blacks own slaves, some participated in our capture. Be mindful that many are on record for owning slaves ONLY because they ‘purchased’ their families freedom. As did my family – according to my grandmother and documents I’ve seen. But yes – there were a few that owned plantations. So in reality your ‘statistics’ are misleading because they DON’T distinguish between who owned slaves for labor, and who ‘owned’ their family. Your quote proves my point that it WAS indeed affluent AA’s during the days of slavery. Again, this movie is taking place in 1940 or is it 1920? Whichever time it is NO one was a slave at that time. In almost EVERY oppression situation around the world, the same ethnicity has participated in that oppression. Unfortunately it was (and will continue) to be individuals who participate in the destruction of their own people. Does that lighten the sins of whites? You wrote that as if slavery is justifiable because a few blacks owned blacks. You could have listed many statistics on slavery – why that one? How many whites own slaves? Why not those quote? It was unnecessary and out of the content of the discussion.

Charade
05-22-2007, 09:20 PM
I respectfully disagree. For one, when has the 'black community' clamored for a black princess. I will challenge you to prove that statement. I am a HUGE Disney FAN. I read papers and online articles from MANY sources and I've NEVER read one article (prior to the announcement of this new Princess) of a 'clamor' for a black princess. Proved me wrong!!!! If I'm wrong I will humbly put my tale between my legs and apologize. One or two articles is not a clamor BTW, I'll be waiting.....

Well, from the reactions such as "It's about time...", one could make the assumption that it was at least somewhere in peoples minds. I'm sure some of them were in the 'black community'.

So what made Disney decide to have one anyway? I'm sure some marketing guru had his "finger on the pulse" of the market and said "yanno what, it's about time we had a black princess".

Charade
05-22-2007, 09:23 PM
Not sure what your point was - but you are absolutely correct. Not only did some free blacks own slaves, some participated in our capture. Be mindful that many are on record for owning slaves ONLY because they ‘purchased’ their families freedom. As did my family – according to my grandmother and documents I’ve seen. But yes – there were a few that owned plantations. So in reality your ‘statistics’ are misleading because they DON’T distinguish between who owned slaves for labor, and who ‘owned’ their family. Your quote proves my point that it WAS indeed affluent AA’s during the days of slavery. Again, this movie is taking place in 1940 or is it 1920? Whichever time it is NO one was a slave at that time. In almost EVERY oppression situation around the world, the same ethnicity has participated in that oppression. Unfortunately it was (and will continue) to be individuals who participate in the destruction of their own people. Does that lighten the sins of whites? You wrote that as if slavery is justifiable because a few blacks owned blacks. You could have listed many statistics on slavery – why that one? How many whites own slaves? Why not those quote? It was unnecessary and out of the content of the discussion.

our?? :confused3

djm99
05-22-2007, 09:24 PM
Well, from the reactions such as "It's about time...", one could make the assumption that it was at least somewhere in peoples minds. I'm sure some of them were in the 'black community'.

So what made Disney decide to have one anyway? I'm sure some marketing guru had his "finger on the pulse" of the market and said "yanno what, it's about time we had a black princess".

To mention a 'after the fact statement' is NOT a clamor by a long shot. You are also quoting one writer and a expression. I'm waiting on the clamor.

Charade
05-22-2007, 09:28 PM
To mention a 'after the fact statement' is NOT a clamor by a long shot. You are also quoting one writer and a expression. I'm waiting on the clamor.

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/03/12/disneys-first-black-princess-its-about-time/

djm99
05-22-2007, 09:36 PM
our?? :confused3

I know you don't get it - don't worry about it!;)

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/03/12/disneys-first-black-princess-its-about-time/

Again, a reaction - an 'after the fact' comment. Where is the clamor FOR a black princess as stated in freakylick's statement. That is what I asked him to prove. That was my challenge! Any one can make a statement afterward - but again - where was the clamor FOR the black princess. Still waiting.....

Charade
05-22-2007, 09:41 PM
I know you don't get it - don't worry about it!;)

I do get it. I don't know why you needed to refer to the capturing of slaves (over 200 years ago) with a first person reference.

EUROPACL
05-22-2007, 09:42 PM
Not sure what your point was - but you are absolutely correct.

The point was exactly what I wrote and the stats that were given. They do include the percentage of Whites that owned slaves at that time. If you care to look you will see the quote that I was responding to...it should be easy to see why and the specifics of New Orleans as that is the rumored setting. Yes I'm aware that slavery was not in practice in the 1940's or 20's, Someone else brought slavery into this issue. I was just stating a fact that it would not be out of question to have a black slave owner or a black maid working for a black family.

You seem very angry at the slavery issue and anybody that seems to bring facts into the issue. You should be careful who you direct that anger toward. As you can see a very small percentage of White owned slaves. Considering that my family came from Ireland in the early 1900's and married other Irish that came later, I'm afraid you might want to direct it somewhere else.

Charade
05-22-2007, 09:44 PM
I know you don't get it - don't worry about it!;)



Again, a reaction - an 'after the fact' comment. Where is the clamor FOR a black princess as stated in freakylick's statement. That is what I asked him to prove. That was my challenge! Any one can make a statement afterward - but again - where was the clamor FOR the black princess. Still waiting.....

There was a reference to a women (a Mom) who started to petition Disney 8 years ago. That's not an after-the-fact reaction.

Not having a beautiful, strong American black girl as a leading Disney character has been a glaring lapse for years. One mom of a black daughter created an online petition eight years ago calling for a new black princess. She amassed 3,505 signatures. Disney has created plenty of non-white princesses in the past -- Pocahontas, Mulan, Jasmine (Disney markets and merchandises its princess line -- so these are more than just lead female characters of its movies, they are brands in the truest sense of the word).



That's just one I'm sure there are more.

djm99
05-22-2007, 09:44 PM
I do get it. I don't know why you needed to refer to the capturing of slaves (over 200 years ago) with a first person reference.

Maybe - because MY family was involved! :idea:

EUROPACL
05-22-2007, 09:47 PM
Maybe - because MY family was involved! :idea:

How many slaves did your family bring over?

Charade
05-22-2007, 09:54 PM
Maybe - because MY family was involved! :idea:

THIS generation?

djm99
05-22-2007, 10:04 PM
You seem very angry at the slavery issue and anybody that seems to bring facts into the issue. You should be careful who you direct that anger toward. As you can see a very small percentage of White owned slaves. Considering that my family came from Ireland in the early 1900's and married other Irish that came later, I'm afraid you might want to direct it somewhere else.

It amazes me that someone can 'read' anger on a message board! :wizard: You must have magical powers.

There was a reference to a women (a Mom) who started to petition Disney 8 years ago. That's not an after-the-fact reaction.


Yes you are correct. I took a little time and read through a few. Most refer to this black princess as Maddy - how would they know what her name was (Maddy) if this petition was in fact all a ‘after the fact’. Many of the comments refer to the black princess by name. I see this ONE mom’s petition (which I would have gladly signed) and doubt seriously that Disney ever saw this petition and weighed their decision on this petition (if it would have an in pack at all. According to the date this article was written it does look like it was written around the announcement. But surely this ONLINE petition can't be proven as a clamor for a black princess. The 28th person to sign this petition stated that this was 2006 'get with it Disney' - this is NOT an old petition at all. This is a new petition.

EUROPACL
05-22-2007, 10:12 PM
It amazes me that someone can 'read' anger on a message board! :wizard: You must have magical powers.


Its an easy call....

but I guess you were laughing and giggling over the subject considering how you were directly invloved and all.

djm99
05-22-2007, 10:15 PM
THIS generation?

This generation - what? You don't consider yourself a reflection/descendent of your family? Yes even SEVERAL generation before. How many NEW generations benefit from old money? I read once that every new born Kennedy is given 1 million dollars. This may be untrue, but probable. How many Rothschild’s that are descendents of 'The Rothschild’s' are beneficiaries of old money/values/etc. I only mentioned these families because they hold a 'rich' history we all know. Regardless if you want to acknowledge it or not - I am a reflection and descendent of my family. The difference between you and I (I presume) I see black people as my family because unlike you are your heritage, you know exactly where you are from. I don't have the pleasure of those facts. That was taken from me.

djm99
05-22-2007, 10:19 PM
Its an easy call....

but I guess you were laughing and giggling over the subject considering how you were directly invloved and all.

Well, I'm glad I can make it easy for you. I'm not sure how I'm 'directly involved and all', but your right - I am laughing. Not angry at all! I can 'hold my own'. :cool2:

EUROPACL
05-22-2007, 10:26 PM
The difference between you and I (I presume) I see black people as my family because unlike you are your heritage, you know exactly where you are from. I don't have the pleasure of facts. That was taken from me.

Wait are you from a slave family or not? Were you captured or not? I guess now your saying you don't know...so you might in fact have slave owner blood in your family. So It's not so much the "sins of whites" as the sins of your family too.

djm99
05-22-2007, 10:34 PM
Wait are you from a slave family or not? Were you captured or not? I guess now your saying you don't know...so you might in fact have slave owner blood in your family.

You do realize one could have proof that their family was indeed slaves, but not know EXACTLY where their family came from. And YES, I am VERY proud to tell you that some of my ancestors were so fortunate to 'own' their own family. That's why I knew that those in statistics of owning slaves are often stated as if those 'purchased' were used for labor. According to stories told in my family and documents found, I had a relative that bought many of our family members. :surfweb:

ETA: I stated in a previous post that AA participated in BOTH the capture and enslavement of its own people. And to the question as to was I captured? - U R serious? I know my family didn't get in a boat willingly and come to America for a vacation.

EUROPACL
05-22-2007, 10:38 PM
You do realize one could have proof that their family was indeed slaves, but not know EXACTLY where their family came from. And YES, I am VERY proud to tell you that some of my ancestors were so fortunate to 'own' their own family. That's why I knew that those in statistics of owning slaves are often stated as if those 'purchased' were used for labor. According to stories told in my family and documents found, I had a relative that bought many of our family members. :surfweb:


So why lump all "whites" into your little "slave sin" comments?

djm99
05-22-2007, 10:55 PM
So why lump all "whites" into your little "slave sin" comments?

I didn't link all whites into the 'slave sin’; I argued that the poster made flawed statistics and why he didn't mention the ‘sins of whites’? He/She mentioned those of blacks. He didn't just make a statement, he/she found 'proof'. As a matter of fact, I didn't 'put' the sin on whites at all. I merely asked the question, why he/she added those statistics without the other statistics. His/Her ‘statistics’ were imbalanced. He/She almost gave the impression (I'm stretching here a bit) that the number of blacks owning another, was 'white' justification for being slave owners themselves. Or a ‘don’t forget’ statement. Guess what, we know!!!

ETA: I just noticed that the "he/she" or the poster I was referring to is you!! How funny - it was YOU! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!

EUROPACL
05-22-2007, 11:21 PM
I didn't link all whites into the 'slave sin’; I argued that the poster made flawed statistics and why he didn't mention the ‘sins of whites’? He/She mentioned those of blacks. He didn't just make a statement, he/she found 'proof'. As a matter of fact, I didn't 'put' the sin on whites at all. I merely asked the question, why he/she added those statistics without the other statistics. His/Her ‘statistics’ were imbalanced. He/She almost gave the impression (I stretching here a bit) that the number of blacks owning another, was justification. Or a ‘don’t forget’ statement. Guess what, we know!!!

ETA: I just noticed that the "he/she" or the poster I was referring to is you!! How funny - it was YOU! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!

The funny part is that you still haven't been able to read the post correctly and see the stats for whites are there and have been from the start. Which I've pointed out twice now. The other funny part is that you still won't can't or don't understand that I was answering a direct point and quoted it.

Does that lighten the sins of whites

Sorry you should be more clear with your attacks on whites then...as it sounds like you mean all whites.




...edit. BTW why do you need the stats for whites listed so badly anyway....I provided them for kicks and giggles...but I don't see you harping on Spanish, Asian, Indian slave ownership stats.

djm99
05-22-2007, 11:36 PM
The funny part is that you still haven't been able to read the post correctly and see the stats for whites are there and have been from the start. Which I've pointed out twice now. The other funny part is that you still won't can't or don't understand that I was answering a direct point and quoted it. Sorry you should be more clear with your attacks on whites then...as it sounds like you mean all whites.

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

I'm not 'understanding' your quote because it seems to be missing information. You know the information about how many whites owned slaves/ or the percentage. The above is the quote YOU used - please point out to me where the above quotes states the number or percentage of whites that owned slaves. The 1.4% and the 4.8% statement "census figures quoted above" part of the quote is referring to information NOT stated. I found the article you used, seems you should have cut and paste this part:

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

Now that's funny!!! :lmao: - all that pointing out to me and you didn't even read your own post. You just cut and paste w/o adding the "census figures quoted above" information.

What's not so funny (but it could be to you) when I googled that quote you gave, some interesting sites came up. This article was popular in certain circles...... ummmmmm

...edit. BTW why do you need the stats for whites listed so badly anyway....I provided them for kicks and giggles...but I don't see you harping on Spanish, Asian, Indian slave ownership stats.

I don't need them, just questioning you and your motive for the statement. Since you were in the mood to google, cut and paste things, thought those stats might be interesting to you. Since finding stats of AA's owning slaves was an interest to you. The article was totally 'off' too, but an interesting read.

rantnnravin
05-23-2007, 07:33 AM
Also, please tell me, how being a maid will fit into this story. If this is indeed the story that Disney is going ahead with.


because it will more than likely be an adaptation of THIS story, by the Brothers Grimm:
The Frog-Prince

One fine evening a young princess put on her bonnet and clogs, and went out to take a walk by herself in a wood; and when she came to a cool spring of water, that rose in the midst of it, she sat herself down to rest a while. Now she had a golden ball in her hand, which was her favourite plaything; and she was always tossing it up into the air, and catching it again as it fell. After a time she threw it up so high that she missed catching it as it fell; and the ball bounded away, and rolled along upon the ground, till at last it fell down into the spring. The princess looked into the spring after her ball, but it was very deep, so deep that she could not see the bottom of it. Then she began to bewail her loss, and said, ’Alas! if I could only get my ball again, I would give all my fine clothes and jewels, and everything that I have in the world.’
Whilst she was speaking, a frog put its head out of the water, and said, ’Princess, why do you weep so bitterly?’ ’Alas!’ said she, ’what can you do for me, you nasty frog? My golden ball has fallen into the spring.’ The frog said, ’I want not your pearls, and jewels, and fine clothes; but if you will love me, and let me live with you and eat from off your golden plate, and sleep upon your bed, I will bring you your ball again.’ ’What nonsense,’ thought the princess, ’this silly frog is talking! He can never even get out of the spring to visit me, though he may be able to get my ball for me, and therefore I will tell him he shall have what he asks.’ So she said to the frog, ’Well, if you will bring me my ball, I will do all you ask.’ Then the frog put his head down, and dived deep under the water; and after a little while he came up again, with the ball in his mouth, and threw it on the edge of the spring. As soon as the young princess saw her ball, she ran to pick it up; and she was so overjoyed to have it in her hand again, that she never thought of the frog, but ran home with it as fast as she could. The frog called after her, ’Stay, princess, and take me with you as you said,’ But she did not stop to hear a word.
The next day, just as the princess had sat down to dinner, she heard a strange noise–tap, tap–plash, plash–as if something was coming up the marble staircase: and soon afterwards there was a gentle knock at the door, and a little voice cried out and said:
’Open the door, my princess dear,
Open the door to thy true love here!
And mind the words that thou and I said
By the fountain cool, in the greenwood shade.’ Then the princess ran to the door and opened it, and there she saw the frog, whom she had quite forgotten. At this sight she was sadly frightened, and shutting the door as fast as she could came back to her seat. The king, her father, seeing that something had frightened her, asked her what was the matter. ’There is a nasty frog,’ said she, ’at the door, that lifted my ball for me out of the spring this morning: I told him that he should live with me here, thinking that he could never get out of the spring; but there he is at the door, and he wants to come in.’
While she was speaking the frog knocked again at the door, and said:
’Open the door, my princess dear,
Open the door to thy true love here!
And mind the words that thou and I said
By the fountain cool, in the greenwood shade.’ Then the king said to the young princess, ’As you have given your word you must keep it; so go and let him in.’ She did so, and the frog hopped into the room, and then straight on–tap, tap–plash, plash– from the bottom of the room to the top, till he came up close to the table where the princess sat. ’Pray lift me upon chair,’ said he to the princess, ’and let me sit next to you.’ As soon as she had done this, the frog said, ’Put your plate nearer to me, that I may eat out of it.’ This she did, and when he had eaten as much as he could, he said, ’Now I am tired; carry me upstairs, and put me into your bed.’ And the princess, though very unwilling, took him up in her hand, and put him upon the pillow of her own bed, where he slept all night long. As soon as it was light he jumped up, hopped downstairs, and went out of the house. ’Now, then,’ thought the princess, ’at last he is gone, and I shall be troubled with him no more.’
But she was mistaken; for when night came again she heard the same tapping at the door; and the frog came once more, and said:
’Open the door, my princess dear,
Open the door to thy true love here!
And mind the words that thou and I said
By the fountain cool, in the greenwood shade.’ And when the princess opened the door the frog came in, and slept upon her pillow as before, till the morning broke. And the third night he did the same. But when the princess awoke on the following morning she was astonished to see, instead of the frog, a handsome prince, gazing on her with the most beautiful eyes she had ever seen, and standing at the head of her bed.
He told her that he had been enchanted by a spiteful fairy, who had changed him into a frog; and that he had been fated so to abide till some princess should take him out of the spring, and let him eat from her plate, and sleep upon her bed for three nights. ’You,’ said the prince, ’have broken his cruel charm, and now I have nothing to wish for but that you should go with me into my father’s kingdom, where I will marry you, and love you as long as you live.’
The young princess, you may be sure, was not long in saying ’Yes’ to all this; and as they spoke a gay coach drove up, with eight beautiful horses, decked with plumes of feathers and a golden harness; and behind the coach rode the prince’s servant, faithful Heinrich, who had bewailed the misfortunes of his dear master during his enchantment so long and so bitterly, that his heart had well-nigh burst.
They then took leave of the king, and got into the coach with eight horses, and all set out, full of joy and merriment, for the prince’s kingdom, which they reached safely; and there they lived happily a great many years.

djm99
05-23-2007, 08:02 AM
because it will more than likely be an adaptation of THIS story, by the Brothers Grimm:
The Frog-Prince

The king, her father, seeing that something had frightened her, asked her what was the matter.

If Disney is using the Brothers Grimm Version of this story - I would be elated. It is a WONDERFUL story. BTW, I don't know if you read the story you posted, but she was NOT a maid, but a PRINCESS - her father was a KING indeed. She's not working for a rich family, no rich white debutant. All those additions would be Disney's 'creative' control (and contributes to the stereotypes of that day).

I'll even take it a step further and say that affluent AA’s of that day would have been 'viewed' or pre-judged as snooty (often feeling 'superior' over those of less affluent circumstances, i.e. poor blacks and many whites), so this version of the story would work. Again, the history of African/French Creole history in New Orleans is quite interesting. Many ‘passed’ as white. In Alex Haley’s book, “Queen” his grandmother would ‘pass’ as white for quite some time, IN NEW ORLEANS. After reading that version, I am excited about this film. Thanks for listing this story. I will share this one with my little one pictured below. If you’re interesting in reading a fiction or non-fiction book about this subject refer to my earlier post. I listed two excellent books.

Nom
05-23-2007, 08:31 AM
That's also not to mention movies from other Disney business Units, Miramax, Buena Vista, etc. After all, Pulp Fiction was a Disney movie and two of the 4 biggest parts were black males.

After all of the discussion on this thread regarding young black males need for positive role models, I am STUNNED that you would hold the two black males in pulp fiction up as possible role models. Have you read the thread, and the concern about the negative portrayals of black masculinity in the media that young black boys see every day??????????? Do you believe that the two black men in Pulp fiction are positive role models????????? Don't you see- they are an example of the negative way black men are portrayed in the media.

And hopefully young boys are not seeing that movie anyway. My point about wishing the prince in this new animated film was black was to fill the void of positive role models in films targetted towards children.

I have not read the rest of the new posts yet, I was just so stunned by that post I had to comment. Now off to read the rest.

Nom
05-23-2007, 08:46 AM
I do get it. I don't know why you needed to refer to the capturing of slaves (over 200 years ago) with a first person reference.

Charade and Euro, There are so many white people who talk about ansestors coming over on ellis island, talk about their people and heritage etc. Many people say 'when we came over from italy, ireland... when we went to ellis island, etc.' Why is it wrong or offensive to you if a black person talks about how their ansestors came over? It is their heritage. It's their right.

Some people relate to their heritage that way, others don't.... and this relating to heritage really crosses color lines. It's just that most black people's heritage involves their ansestors being forcibly removed from africa, torn apart from their families, put in chains, and brought over here to be slaves. It's an ugly thing, and I think many white people feel ashamed deep inside when it is brought up. Even though we as generations after slavery had nothing to do with it, it's an ugly thing to be reminded of. I think that is why many of us react so strongly when we hear it. That reaction is OUR issue though... it's a black persons right to say it, because it's reality! It's their past, and their heritage. Just like I have the right to say, when we came over from Germany, etc. It's not a black persons fault that their statement carries the baggage it does.

Charade
05-23-2007, 08:59 AM
Charade and Euro, There are so many white people who talk about ancestors coming over on Ellis island, talk about their people and heritage etc. Many people say 'when we came over from Italy, ireland... when we went to Ellis island, etc.' Why is it wrong or offensive to you if a black person talks about how their ancestors came over? It is their heritage. It's their right.

Some people relate to their heritage that way, others don't.... and this relating to heritage really crosses color lines. It's just that most black people's heritage involves their ancestors being forcibly removed from Africa, torn apart from their families, put in chains, and brought over here to be slaves. It's an ugly thing, and I think many white people feel ashamed deep inside when it is brought up. Even though we as generations after slavery had nothing to do with it, it's an ugly thing to be reminded of. I think that is why many of us react so strongly when we hear it. That reaction is OUR issue though... it's a black persons right to say it, because it's reality! It's their past, and their heritage. Just like I have the right to say, when we came over from Germany, etc. It's not a black persons fault that their statement carries the baggage it does.

I don't think it's proper when anyone does it. I've never done it. I don't even know my true ancestry because I'm adopted. IMO, whenever I hear someone refer to an event in the first person, I think it's their experience, not those of their forefathers.

There's nothing for me, as a white person to be ashamed of no matter what my ancestors did. I'm not my fathers keeper.

Seriously, if someone in a casual converstation said to you "when we came over from Germany to the US..." , you'd think they were talking about themselves. I know I would as probably most people would . If they said "when my granparents or ancestors came from Italy to the US...", you know exactly who they're talking about.

EUROPACL
05-23-2007, 09:22 AM
I'm not 'understanding' your quote because it seems to be missing information. You know the information about how many whites owned slaves/ or the percentage. The above is the quote YOU used - please point out to me where the above quotes states the number or percentage of whites that owned slaves. The 1.4% and the 4.8% statement "census figures quoted above" part of the quote is referring to information NOT stated. I found the article you used, seems you should have cut and paste this part:



http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

Now that's funny!!! :lmao: - all that pointing out to me and you didn't even read your own post. You just cut and paste w/o adding the "census figures quoted above" information.

What's not so funny (but it could be to you) when I googled that quote you gave, some interesting sites came up. This article was popular in certain circles...... ummmmmm


Do you find it hard to see the trees because of the forest?

1.4% of White American as a whole owned slaves.
4.8% of White "Southern" owned slaves.

Those are the stats. If you want something more do your own ressearch. I don't care who wrote the article what I do care about is the Facts listed and cited properly as such in the article. If you have a problem with them talk to Duke University professor John Hope Franklin about his book From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans .



I don't need them, just questioning you and your motive for the statement. Since you were in the mood to google, cut and paste things, thought those stats might be interesting to you. Since finding stats of AA's owning slaves was an interest to you. The article was totally 'off' too, but an interesting read.

Wow you seem to be unable to read at all at this point. I've stated several times that I was answering a direct question about blacks, slaves and them owning or working for other blacks. That was why they were listed. Listing the number of whites was done becuase I was sure someone like you would come along and demand to know...as you still want to blame "whites for their sins"....when in all it was a very small number of people hundereds of years ago that were involved in it. Yet you still seem to be missing the real point is that it was more than just "whites". So you can stop hating all whites now and blaming them for slavery considering that your own race was invoved in the act as well.

btw I love the fact you just throw out the the article was totally "off" comment without so much as word as to what was off.

Charade
05-23-2007, 09:43 AM
1.4% of White American as a whole owned slaves.
4.8% of White "Southern" owned slaves.

Those are the stats.

That's the way I read it too.

rantnnravin
05-23-2007, 11:25 AM
my jewish anscestors very likely did not appreciate being enslaved by africans and forced to build pyramids in the searing heat, but
i'm not blaming every person of african descent today for that infraction

so, while i can understand those of african descent being upset with the plantation/slave owners, why hold those who came from italy, ireland, or germany (and THEIR descendants) in the late 1800s who were forced to work in deplorable conditions in factories to blame for things that happened and ENDED before they even arrived in this country???:confused3

freakylick
05-23-2007, 12:49 PM
Yes you are correct. I took a little time and read through a few. Most refer to this black princess as Maddy - how would they know what her name was (Maddy) if this petition was in fact all a ‘after the fact’. Many of the comments refer to the black princess by name. I see this ONE mom’s petition (which I would have gladly signed) and doubt seriously that Disney ever saw this petition and weighed their decision on this petition (if it would have an in pack at all. According to the date this article was written it does look like it was written around the announcement. But surely this ONLINE petition can't be proven as a clamor for a black princess. The 28th person to sign this petition stated that this was 2006 'get with it Disney' - this is NOT an old petition at all. This is a new petition.

This may be "ONE" mom's petition, but there are still well over 3,500 people that signed it. Some may have already known about "The Frog Princess", but I am sure that a vast majority didn't. You claim that this is not an old petition, but I don't know why that's relevant. Does it not still substantiate the views of the signers?! Also, why did you emphasize that it's an online petition? There's not a lot of proof that I could provide that's not online. But if you want more...some quick googling gave me just a few:

This article (http://blackvoices.aol.com/lifemain/lifemain_canvas/featurestory/_a/disney-princesses-black-girls-need-not/20060710172409990001) was updated in March 07, but was originally written in August 2006 and it seems as though the author had no knowledge of this movie. The editors note references a poll showing that the majority of the 17,000 voters feel strongly enough that they feel Disney should be boycotted for it's lack of representation of blacks.

This (http://blackcommunity.blackvoices.aol.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=553&nav=messages&webtag=ti-entertainmnt&tid=152442) is the forum discussing the above article with a few people desiring a black princess...several of which even mention buying white dolls and painting them black.

From these very same DIS boards. (http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=890561&highlight=black+princess) This one even got a little heated and ended up closed.

This gentleman (http://www.quillandquire.com/authors/profile.cfm?article_id=5937) isn't exactly clamoring, but he saw such a need for it that he wrote a book with a black princess. (I know this isn't exactly proving my claim, but he saw that there was a need for this type of book based on his discussions with children and was compelled enough to do it after talking with children.)

From a blog (http://www.adoptblogger.com/2006/11/09/hey-disneywheres-the-black-princess/) where one mother actually insisted that she wasn't going to buy anything Disney until there was a black princess. Another responder knew of "The Frog Princess", but said they should demand a more "universal" black princess.

From Yahoo Answers (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060613024648AAtFEZv) Many of these folks claim that they will write to Disney asking for a black princess...no way to prove if they ever did though.

Nom
05-23-2007, 01:05 PM
my jewish anscestors very likely did not appreciate being enslaved by africans and forced to build pyramids in the searing heat, but
i'm not blaming every person of african descent today for that infraction

so, while i can understand those of african descent being upset with the plantation/slave owners, why hold those who came from italy, ireland, or germany (and THEIR descendants) in the late 1800s who were forced to work in deplorable conditions in factories to blame for things that happened and ENDED before they even arrived in this country???:confused3


I did not see anyone here blaming anything on their ansestors being slaves. I did not see anyone here holding any other posters to blame for slavery. instead, I am seeing a lot of people taking her identification with her heritage mighty personally!!!

djm99
05-23-2007, 01:10 PM
I really don't like the direction this board has gone, but I'd like to add to some stats about slavery. Debate over this following stat.

The number of Africans deported to the Americas by the Europeans: about 10-15 million (about 30-40 million died before reaching the Americas).

The number of slaves sold to the new world varied throughout the slave trade. As for the distribution of slaves from regions of activity, certain areas produced far more slaves than others. Between 1650 and 1900, 10.24 million African slaves arrived in the Americas in the from the following regions.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I will always be amazed as SOME people conveniently rewrite, re-interpret, and misinterpret the slave trade to suit their interest in a sour attempt to alleviate their ‘guilt’. It is sad to read resourcefulness, which attempts to reverse accountability and makes the victims responsible for their own enslavement. If justice is an unchallengeable right for all humanity then those millions upon millions who died deserve to be remembered and those who murdered, brutalized and betrayed them must be called into historical account.

It is not to make others feel bad, but part of the process of telling the truth; a truth washed away in stolen history and cultural domination. If the ancestors of some Arabs, Turks, Europeans, and some Africans were participants in the destruction of African civilizations then it is not sensible for fear of offending to avoid these topics. In addition, it is equally not fair for the victims' descendants, to apply the same "racism in reverse." It is about a dialogue to heal the wounds and the bitterness. Some are so busy saying, “but” Africans did, or they did – but NOT one of these stats within this threads even attempt to acknowledge whites four fathers involvement in the slave trade. As if it was okay, because blah blah blah blah……… SOME are writing as if EVERYONE else is to blame then the VERY descendants that have often benefited. Many immigrants made a choice to come to America, to make a better life for themselves and the families to come. The same privileges your ancestors had when they got here were restricted for mine. Not just discouraged, but the threat of violence was oftentimes exampled. My ancestors were not given those choices. We were not only forcibly brought here; we were oftentimes raped, murdered, and maimed - all in the name of sport and play. We were not even human. We are documented with the animals we raised. 1/5 of a human I think it was. And that 1/5 was only to increase the number of House of Representatives - to have more ‘say’ politically.


To make matter worse, once freed we couldn't equally take part in a country we helped make successful. We had to march and protest to be considered a part of this country. This is why WE will continue to have these oftentimes ‘senseless’ debates. No one wants to acknowledge the issues, so we keep circling BS instead of moving forward. For the record, pretending like it didn’t happen is not moving forward.

ETA: Emphasis was placed on SOME, I am well aware that many acknowledge that slavery existed and was primarily practiced by whites. I have NEVER written anything about ALL whites.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Slave_Auction_Ad.jpg

Reproduction of a handbill advertising a slave auction, in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1769.

djm99
05-23-2007, 01:25 PM
I did not see anyone here blaming anything on their ansestors being slaves. I did not see anyone here holding any other posters to blame for slavery. instead, I am seeing a lot of people taking her identification with her heritage mighty personally!!!

I have been thinking the same thing. I wonder why? I'm sure 'they' will respond. :surfweb:

EUROPACL
05-23-2007, 02:07 PM
I really don't like the direction this board has gone, but I'd like to add to some stats about slavery. Debate over this following stat.


It's almost as if you are reading a different board and thread and posting responses here.

Nobody here is "debating" anything reguarding slavery. You just refuse to read the post.

rantnnravin
05-23-2007, 02:29 PM
I did not see anyone here blaming anything on their ansestors being slaves.
re-read what i wrote please, because that's not what i said.
I did not see anyone here holding any other posters to blame for slavery.instead, I am seeing a lot of people taking her identification with her heritage mighty personally!!!

because when AA make comments like "the sins of whites" it is directed at my skin color, rather than my heritage or involvement in the oppression of a particular race.
MY people were oppressed too (6 million murdered by Germans) yet, i don't hold ALL Germans accountable for the actions of a few.
I don't hold ALL of African descent accountable for Hebrew enslavement in Egypt.
Fine, identify with your heritage, embrace it, make sure it never happens again. But be careful that you are not painting every person of a certain color with a broad brush. My ancestors got here AFTER slavery ended in this country. I am not "guilty" of anything.

The problem is, Disney is being raked over the coals for a storyline they haven't even announced or released. :rolleyes1

djm99
05-23-2007, 02:34 PM
my jewish anscestors very likely did not appreciate being enslaved by africans and forced to build pyramids in the searing heat, but i'm not blaming every person of african descent today for that infraction

Oh now Egypt is Africa - let the 'powers that be' tell it, Egypt is NOT Africa at all. BTW, I'm not in denial I am very much aware that the so-called Middle East is Northern Africa, but for political/separatist reasons, Egypt is spoken of as an independent continent of Africa. Many don't even know that Egypt is within the continent of Africa. Have you ever seen a map of ‘the Middle East’ – it clearly separates the part of the region from its mid and southern counterpart. If you are indeed Jewish, you would be the first for me, which have ever acknowledged Egypt as apart of Africa. Interesting that this is the first time I’ve read this and again, blame on Africa is being made. Also, according to Definitions of whiteness in the United States (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) The U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation also categorizes "white people" as "people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa through racial categories used in the UCR Program adopted from the Statistical Policy Handbook (1978) and published by the Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce.

It sounds to me that Africa is to blame for everything racially wrong in this wrong. Wow. Yet again, I’m amazed!

rantnnravin
05-23-2007, 02:40 PM
ok, so you dispute that Egypt is on the African continent, and have even cited that some people consider it another continent- therefore, Jews were never enslaved or persecuted
and...
you ignore the entire second half of my post

i get it now:rolleyes1

djm99
05-23-2007, 02:47 PM
It's almost as if you are reading a different board and thread and posting responses here.

Nobody here is "debating" anything reguarding slavery. You just refuse to read the post.

I didn't refuse to read it, you didn't add the information you quoted. I added that information. You left the reader to assume that the quotes were the number of whites. And if you don't call it a debate okay – I guess you were discussing these issues. Like I stated my families history could easily disproved those numbers inaccurate, especially since the article didn’t make a distinction between those who owned slaves as a means of labor, or those who purchased their own family. There is a difference. And that was the debate (or discussion).

djm99
05-23-2007, 02:52 PM
ok, so you dispute that Egypt is on the African continent, and have even cited that some people consider it another continent- therefore, Jews were never enslaved or persecuted
and...
you ignore the entire second half of my post

i get it now:rolleyes1

I doubt that you 'get it' - and no - if you read my post I clearly stated that Egypt was a part of Africa - but the 'powers to be' do not see it that way. I ignored (or better stated, I didn’t comment) the second half of your post because it was nothing discuss. It was accurate. What do you want me to do - refute it? :confused3

I have to go pick up my daughter from school; it’s been stimulating chatting with you guys. I'm sure I'll return to much controversy. And I hope we don’t have ‘heart feelings’ here. I really am enjoying myself.

EUROPACL
05-23-2007, 02:56 PM
I didn't refuse to read it, you didn't add the information you quoted. I added that information. You left the reader to assume that the quotes were the number of whites. And if you don't call it a debate okay – I guess you were discussing these issues. Like I stated my families history could easily disproved those numbers inaccurate, especially since the article didn’t make a distinction between those who owned slaves as a means of labor, or those who purchased their own family. There is a difference. And that was the debate (or discussion).


Please go back and read real slowly...out loud if you need to...the first post where I quoted the stats. The numbers for white slave owners is clealy there.

If you want to disprove those numbers then by all means do so. I look foward to your book and properly cited research.

Oh btw Wiki is not accepted in any circle as a proper source for citing.

rantnnravin
05-23-2007, 02:57 PM
It sounds to me that Africa is to blame for everything racially wrong in this wrong. Wow. Yet again, I’m amazed!

kinda sucks to be held accountable for something you had nothing to do with, huh?
but, you're just reacting like this because, really, somewhere, deep down inside you feel guilty because your ancestors must have benefited in someway.
amazing how shoes can feet both feet, huh?

irisbud
05-23-2007, 03:09 PM
I'm sorry, but this is all a debate that I have never understood.

Yes, people in this country owned slaves. It was wrong. The United States was torn apart by war over this, among many other issues. We know now that it was wrong. In schools, we preach that it was wrong, and I sincerly think that most people will wholeheartedly agree about the inherant "wrongness" of it.

Yes, reconstruction following the civil war was done poorly and handled ineptly. Should things have been done better? Of course. Can we go back in time and change them? No.

Throughout history, many groups have been outcasts and have been persecuted for some reason or another to some degree or another. Is it wrong? Yes. Do we learn from it and move on? Not really. Should we? Of course.

As generations pass, the best that we can do is try to learn from those who have come before us and do what we can to leave the world a better place than we found it. Do we succeed? Not necessarily. Does that mean that we should give up? No. "Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it."

There are so many things in life that seem right at the time, and even justifiable. When I look back upon human history, I am intigued, fascinated, elated, saddened and horrified all at once.

It is not my job nor my duty to pay for the "sins" of those who have come before me, just as my children should not have to pay for my "sins". If I am ignorant it does not make me less guilty, it simply means that those who follow me should strive to become more knowledgable.

I think that until we can stop blaming one another for a past that was we will never be able to move forward into a future that might be. The past is past. It doesn't make it right, wrong, less painful, or more acceptable. It just makes it over.

I think that whatever Disney's motivation for introducing a black princess, it is a good move and it is about time, though the most progressive step of all is when we no longer will notice such things.

mitros
05-23-2007, 04:42 PM
I'm willing to bet the administrators will close this thread down shortly.........

djm99
05-23-2007, 05:28 PM
Please go back and read real slowly...out loud if you need to...the first post where I quoted the stats. The numbers for white slave owners is clealy there. If you want to disprove those numbers then by all means do so. I look foward to your book and properly cited research.

o k a y - I - r e a d - it - r e a l slow - and yes you clearly stated the stats - you just didn't say to what the stats were directly to. You left a ‘fill in the blanks’ line of the percentage then southern whites. Southern Whites what? Yes I came to the conclusion that the percentage was the southern whites that owned slaves, but you left it out. Why is it so hard for you to admit that the information was omitted? What you clearly stated was that a flawed number of AA owned slaves – that was clear. You didn’t omit anything in that figure. Then you went on the write that you will ‘return to the census figures quoted above’. You didn’t state the census figures (the numbers you stated) - you just didn't refer to the census. The census figures of whites owning slaves (according to this article) were omitted from your quote. I read the article. That’s really NOT that big of deal. Why are you so insisted in proving information that was clearly omitted? You know what, I’ll let you win – your right!!!


Oh btw Wiki is not accepted in any circle as a proper source for citing.

Only when it fits your argument. :cool2:

EUROPACL
05-23-2007, 05:47 PM
o k a y - I - r e a d - it - r e a l slow - and yes you clearly stated the stats - you just didn't say to what the stats were directly to. To left a ‘fill in the blanks’ line of the percentage then southern whites. Southern Whites what? Yes I came to the conclusion that the percentage was the southern whites that owned slaves, but you left it out. Why is it so hard for you to admit that the information was omitted? What you clearly stated was that a flawed number of AA owned slaves – that was clear. You didn’t omit anything in that figure. Then you went on the write that you will ‘return to the census figures quoted above’. You didn’t state the census figures (the numbers you stated) - you just didn't refer to the census. The census figures of whites owning slaves (according to this article) were omitted from your quote. I read the article. That’s really NOT that big of deal. Why are you so insisted in proving information that was clearly omitted? You know what, I’ll let you win – your right!!!


I'm sorry that you had trouble figuring out that an article about slave owners is talking about slave owners. I'm sure you thought that the numbers listed for whites were cases of TB at the time.

I did not write the article. It is a quote. A direct in line quote from an article...I did not take out some magical text between the two paragraphs that would have drawn a picture for you. Seems that everyone else has been able to understand the text. I could have quoted the whole thing but that is hardly the correct thing to do. I could have included the wealth of Blacks at that time too...but again not the correct thing to do. Alas it is you that seems to have some sort of infatuation with white slave owners at the time...when (again) if you go back and look that was not the issue I was addressing.

Flawed number of blacks owning blacks? Where do you get this info? Where is your source that says the 3,000 free blacks in NO owned slaves is wrong?


btw...yes I use Wiki...however ask anyone if Wiki is considered a quotable source by any reliable citation standard such as MLA or APA.

djm99
05-23-2007, 09:40 PM
I'm sorry that you had trouble figuring out that an article about slave owners is talking about slave owners. I'm sure you thought that the numbers listed for whites were cases of TB at the time.

I did not write the article. It is a quote. A direct in line quote from an article...I did not take out some magical text between the two paragraphs that would have drawn a picture for you. Seems that everyone else has been able to understand the text. I could have quoted the whole thing but that is hardly the correct thing to do. I could have included the wealth of Blacks at that time too...but again not the correct thing to do. Alas it is you that seems to have some sort of infatuation with white slave owners at the time...when (again) if you go back and look that was not the issue I was addressing.

Flawed number of blacks owning blacks? Where do you get this info? Where is your source that says the 3,000 free blacks in NO owned slaves is wrong?

But Jews did, it would seem irrefutably, have (at the very least) a "disproportionate role" in the slave trade even in the southern United States, where they were not -- as the NOI book shows -- as involved as in other places in the Americas. According to one survey noted by Jewish scholars Lee Soltow and Ira Rosenwaike, 75% of Jewish households surveyed in the American South owned slaves, more than double the average 36% for all southern households. [ROSENWAIKE, in SEC. LIFE, p. 180] And Jews, as we will continue to witness, have always been "disproportionately" represented in virtually any field where there is serious money to be made. (In Port Royal, Jamaica, in 1680, about 16% of Jewish households had no slaves; in the non-Jewish community, this figure was over 47%. Likewise 73.7 % of Jewish households had between one and four slaves; in the non-Jewish community the figure was 41.8 %.) [SCHORSCH, J., 2000]

btw...yes I use Wiki...however ask anyone if Wiki is considered a quotable source by any reliable citation standard such as MLA or APA.

I said you were right.

kinda sucks to be held accountable for something you had nothing to do with, huh?
but, you're just reacting like this because, really, somewhere, deep down inside you feel guilty because your ancestors must have benefited in someway. amazing how shoes can feet both feet, huh?

"In the tenth century," notes Jewish (and Zionist) author Julius Brutzkus, "the Jews possessed salt mines near Nuremberg. They also traded in arms, and exploited the treasuries of the churches. But their great specialty ... was their trade in slaves." [LEON, p. 124] "The first Jews that Poles encountered," states the Encyclopedia Judaica, "must certainly have been traders, probably slave traders, of the type called in the 12th-century Jewish sources holekhei rusyah (travelers to Russia). [EN JUD, v. 13, p. 710] "In the tenth century," notes Israel Abrahams, "the Spanish Jews often owed their wealth to their trade in slaves." [ABRAHAMS, p. 98]

Jews, says Lewis Browne, "traveled everywhere from England to India, from Bohemia to Egypt. Their commonest merchandise in those days, beginning with the eighth century, was slaves. On every high road and on every great river and sea, these Jewish traders were to be found with their gangs of shackled prisoners in convoy." Such disturbing facts that impugn the Jewish myths of perpetual victimhood must of course be apologized away. "Slave trading," says Browne, a Jewish scholar, "seems irredeemably vile and hateful to us today, but we must remember here again the standards have changed ...And in light of the customs of those times, the slave-traffickers were actually doing almost a moral act. They alone were keeping the conquering armies from slaughtering every one of their defeated foes after each battle." [WILLIAMS, J., p. 230]

Jewish apologists of course further argue that Jews were involved in the trade of European slaves (the English word "slave" is reputed to come from "Slav") because "they were forced into it" by others, they were only "doing the dirty work for Christians," it was a norm of the era, or that extensive Jewish slave trading was a "Christian ecclesiastical myth." Another Jewish apologist justifies the Jewish slave trade of Europeans during the era of Pope Gregory this way:

"Had the Jews been prevented from owning slaves it is likely that
they would have given up the slave trade and had they done this
the labor shortage that would have been created might have
caused an inestimable loss of life through sheer starvation."
[ABEL, p. 197]

"They came with ships carrying African blacks to be sold as slaves. The
traffic in slaves was a royal monopoly, and the Jews were often
appointed as agents for the Crown in their sale ... [LIEBMAN, in SEC.
LIFE, p. 55] ... [The Jews] were the largest ship chandlers in the entire
Caribbean region, where the shipping business was mainly a Jewish
enterprise ... The ships were not only owned by Jews, but were manned
by Jewish crews and sailed under the command of Jewish captains."
[SEYMOUR LIEBMAN, New World Jewry, 1493-1825 , in MARTIN, p. 113]

EUROPACL
05-23-2007, 10:18 PM
I'm wondering about you views on the current slave trade in Africa? Do you have as much venom towards that as you do over the act and people that brought slaves to the US?

djm99
05-23-2007, 10:37 PM
Take the time and read through this thread. I did NOT in any way invite the conversation of the slavery, who enslaved who, and/or stats to 'prove' my point initially. My original discussion was about the lack of positive role models for black youth. If memory serves me correctly, YOU invited this discussion. It was your quote of blacks owning slaves that kicked all this off.

I don't have a problem with any group of people. I will 'say my peace' when someone points a finger at one, when three are pointing back at them. Remember you pointed a finger at blacks for owning blacks, so I in turn pointed three at you. Hate to sound like the typical racist with this line, but I have many Jewish and white friends. When I say friends, I'm talking they visit my home, I visit their home, my kids play with their kids, and one of my oldest friends from High School is Jewish. We have had this conversation before - respectfully. We agree to disagree and we move on. I don't have a problem with any race of people, just flawed, inaccurate, misleading, and imbalanced information.

Any enslavement of a human being is WRONG! I am disgusted when I read articles about young boys being enslaved in diamond mines, and for various other reasons. Some reports, I will admit, I'm often skeptical, but I do have an associate that has lived in Africa for many years (she is American) and has seen these things first hand. So there, you here it directly from me. I'll say it again so there is no confusion. ANY enslavement of a human being is barbaric, inhumane, and last but not least - sinful. It makes no difference of the captors color, race, ethnicity, or religion - it is inhumane. Period. No wiggle room.

EUROPACL
05-23-2007, 10:39 PM
So that would be a NO you don't?


edit...btw Where is the "flawed, inaccurate, misleading, and imbalanced information". That I posted?

djm99
05-23-2007, 10:48 PM
So that would be a NO you don't?

Please read my edit.

NeverEnufWDW
05-23-2007, 10:56 PM
I guess it is not suprising to me that yet another discussion is trumped by someone pulling the race card. How symbolic of where we are as a nation.

djm99
05-24-2007, 05:44 AM
I guess it is not suprising to me that yet another discussion is trumped by someone pulling the race card. How symbolic of where we are as a nation.

Have you read these post. No one has played the race card on this discussion. Playing the race card refers to an allegation raised against a person who has unnecessarily brought the issue of race or racism into a debate so as to obfuscate the matter. Screaming racism and telling the truth about the lack of positive role model for black boys is not a scream of racism. The 'race card call is used in two contexts. 1st, and more common, context, it alleges that someone has falsely accused another person of being a racist in order to gain some sort of advantage. Where has ANYONE called/referred to another as racist on THIS thread. The 2nd context refers to someone exploiting prejudice against another race for political or some other advantage. So how does 'playing the race card' fit into the context of this discussion. We were discussing the slavery in America, who owned who, what stats we felt were accurate, etc. No one referred to anyone as being racist, or had anything to politically or any other advantage. We might all agree to disagree but no card games are being 'played' here. Discussing historical facts is not necessarily 'playing cards'. If anyone is playing cards its you. Racism and Historical facts is totally different. I hope you don't think its one in the same. How could one ever sit through a History Class. Does every mention or debate on historical fact include 'playing the race'. Was it playing the race card, when the individual made references to slavery (I didn't do that) and then another poster commented on that poster and added 'facts' of the amount of blacks that owned slaves in New Orleans. Was THAT poster (I'm assuming none black) playing the race card or stating what he thought was historical fact. I know that I've only commented (through reaction) of the posters. I did NOT invite this discussion. So who exactly is playing the race card on this discussion board. I'm assuming I'm the only known AA on this thread, so I'd like to know (if you are referring to me,) when I 'played the race card'. Maybe you are refering to the article that the OP didn't fully submit. I don't know, but reacting to a comment that someone stated is NOT playing cards. If you were referring to the OP's article, I'd read the whole article, because the writing is trying to insinuate that Disney is playing the 'trump' card in this whole race 'battle'. The article suggest that this 'new' princess is only a political move to release song of the south without much debate. A perfect example of 'playing the race card'.

crazy4wdw
05-24-2007, 06:30 AM
I feel the discussion on this thread has run its course and its being closed down.