.

[Hunterr]

No they don't. Adding a black person just for diversity is so unbelievably patronizing.

Um, I didn't say they should just randomly get a black person. It's more important the they fit whatever need Pete needs filled for the show(s). (And it can be any race, really. I didn't specifically say any race).

But, you're probably right. Here's to hoping whenever they need a a new contributor, it will be another white guy/gal to make sure it's not patronizing or obvious.

 

[Hunterr]

Cosby, whatever happened until innecient until proven guilty. Like Pete Rose betting on baseball, didn't have anything to do with his record.

Now sis, you know damn well that regardless of that, his reputation is tarnished.
And big corporations hate controversy. Luckily, Cosby isn't a spokesman or the face of anything Disney, so it's not like this is a huge deal or anything.
And I don't believe they removed the statue until after he word got out that he did indeed say in 2005 he gave women these drugs, so they really waited a long while before doing anything.

 

[ojeight]

Remember whey they removed Captain EO during the Michael Jackson controversy but put it back when he died.

 

[jharaldson]

I had no problem with the Confederate flag hanging in the American Adventure as part of the "history of the flags of our country."

I definitely DID/DO have an issue with the Confederate Battle Flag being flown on any government property. The flag that was recently removed in South Carolina has NOT flown there since the Civil War out of history/pride of their past. That flag was raised on the SC Capitol building in 1961 as a PROTEST to desegregation. For that reason, I am very happy that the flag is no longer on government property.

I agree with wdwscout and I found some interesting history about when the flag went up in 1961 that further emphasizes the racist nature of the centennial civil war event when the flag was raised in 1961:

The centennial delegations from New Jersey and Missouri included blacks who were refused entrance to the segregated Francis Marion Hotel, where the events were to be held. The South Carolina hosts refused to allow the black delegates to participate. ........ South Carolina led the South in leaving the national commission, and holding its own segregated events in the hotel.

http://www.scpronet.com/point/9909/p04.html

Further info on why South Carolina had racist intents with the flag go to their deciding to declare succession. South Carolina Congressman John McQueen stated when arguing for succession:

choose between an association with her sisters and the dominion of a people, who have chosen their leader upon the single idea that the African is equal to the Anglo-Saxon, and with the purpose of placing our slaves on equality with ourselves and our friends of every condition!

and the official declaration of succession declared:

increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Secession_and_war_begins

I think any statement that the Confederate Flag is not a symbol of hate and racism in South Carolina is not supported by history and facts.

 

[carmelhp]

The flag issue is a multi-faceted and confusing controversy. Firstly, the Civil War was about slavery. ALL the southern states explicitly said it was about preserving chattel slavery in their secession proclamations. There can be no serious argument about that. Secondly, the flags put up in the 1960's were to protest and oppose the outlawing of Jim Crow segregation. Again, there can be no serious argument about this, to insist anything else is historical revisionism. Thirdly, the battle flag that has come to be called the Confederate flag or rebel flag, is well known because it was adopted by the Night Riders and later KKK groups as a rallying flag for violent oppression of racial and religious minorities. On that basis, I think it's inappropriate to fly it over statehouses because of its negative symbolism. That doesn't mean that it has no positive symbolism to others ignorant of it roots and wanting to express regional pride even if totally devoid of racist intent. Those people can fly their flag, just not have it given official status. Same for businesses, they are free to fly it and free to suffer any consequences, even if the business actually meant no offense. Disney is in business to make money, not be historically accurate, as anyone who has seen their movies should know. For the record, I do find the sudden hysteria surrounding the rebel flag to be overblown, but it really is indefensible to fly it above statehouses. If Disney feels the flag threatens their business, then it probably should be taken down. Anyone offended by that is free to complain to Disney and free to withhold their business.

 

[Tom P.]

With that said I feel, the Cosby Show, should not be removed from TV, because the television show and its Characters Cliff Huxtable, wife, kids and neighbors represent GOOD family values, situations, humor and GOOD practical problem solving. Similar to the Dukes of Hazzard. Bo, Luke, Daisy, Uncle Jesse, Cooter even the good Sheriff Rosco and Boss Hogg and all the other lovable Characters also are all based on family values, love, mistakes and problem solving. Why take shows that show good family values off the air when our youth are constantly bombarded with despicable low life role models like Miley Cyrus, Kanye West, and egg throwing, peeing in mop bucket antics of Justin Beiber.

Neither the Cosby show or Dukes represent hate, bigotry, racism, rape, lewd indecent immoral acts, so what is the REAL meaning behind taking good things off the air?

I understand your point. I wholeheartedly agree that nothing good is accomplished by taking The Dukes of Hazzard off of the air.

With regards to The Cosby Show, I have mixed feelings. The only thing that makes me lean toward taking it off the air is because Bill Cosby receives a residual payment every single time an episode of the show is aired on TV, streamed through an online video service, or sold on DVD/Blu-ray. And given the power he wielded over that show, I'm willing to bet he gets a much heftier residual than the minimum that is required under the standard SAG union agreement. Therefore, every time a station airs the show, they are not just airing a good TV show that happens to have a man in it who did some horrible things. They are directly contributing financially to that man. And that makes me hesitant about the idea of keeping it on the air.

 

[Andrea1973]

With regards to The Cosby Show, I have mixed feelings. The only thing that makes me lean toward taking it off the air is because Bill Cosby receives a residual payment every single time an episode of the show is aired on TV, streamed through an online video service, or sold on DVD/Blu-ray.

Yeah, I get that, but what about the other actors from the show? I am uncertain how that works but do they still get payments from the show as well? If so should they be penalized for Cosby's indiscretions.

 

[Tom P.]

Yeah, I get that, but what about the other actors from the show? I am uncertain how that works but do they still get payments from the show as well? If so should they be penalized for Cosby's indiscretions.

The Screen Actors Guild negotiated perpetual residuals into their basic agreement in 1973. Therefore, anyone who has acted in a production for a studio that is a SAG signatory, which all the major studios are, since 1973 receives residuals on re-airings of the show forever. (Prior to 1973, actors did receive residuals, but only for a certain number of re-airings, after which the residuals expired. It's why, for example, the stars of the original Star Trek never got rich off the original show. When it exploded in popularity in the 70's, their residuals had already run out.)

So, yes, all of the other actors on The Cosby Show also receive residuals. As long as it is at least the minimum amount specified by SAG, each actor can negotiate for their particular residual amount, so some undoubtedly receive more than others, but all receive something.

I agree, it's touchy. Do you deprive all those other actors of their residual income because of what Cosby did? As I said, I'm torn on the issue.

 

[JimmyV]

The Confederate Flag: was a symbol of the confederate states that wanted to be separate from other stars due to different ideals. NOW, there was and is still to this day people that have altered the core value behind the flags original meaning, and have chosen to use the flag to represent their altered idea of what the flag represents (hate and racisim). It is this altered idea that people want to get rid of, but you can NOT remove ideas from individual people. So how do you remove a symbol that stand for two separate ideals. On one hand you have the belief in family and the love of the land (example the Dukes of Hazzard) and then the racist hate filled people like the young man that killed those people. I think that the flag should not be removed, because the original meaning of the flag was not intended to represent hate as it is being portrayed today.

...

The Confederate flag at its core, was good and related to family value and a type of honor that people have when it comes to their flag. It also stood for the lives of all the soldiers that at their cores wanted to stand up for their beliefs and family. Just like soldiers of today, the soldiers of 150 years ago fought along side friends and family to keep their fundamental way of life

This notion of "two separate ideals" is an oversimplification and a massaging of history that simply cannot withstand scrutiny. It is nothing less than an attempt to rationalize a collective mindset that wants to pretend that the flag is something other than what it was. You opine that the flag originated as a symbol of confederate states that wanted to be separate from other states due to different ideals. And you continue by going on to suggest that the flag pertained to "family values" and that the soldiers were fighting to keep "their fundamental way of life". But you cannot stop there. Go ahead and finish those thoughts and see where it leads. There are those who will insist that those different ideals were "states' rights". But again, go deeper. The right to do what? Did the southern states secede because they wanted the right to tax their people? There is no evidence of that. Did they secede because they wanted the right to form different treaties with foreign countries? Again, there is no evidence of that. What states' right were they fighting to preserve? The right of white citizens to buy and sell other human beings and place them in deplorable circumstances. That is a family value? The institution of slavery is a "fundamental way of life" that one should be proud to have fought to protect? It has become too easy and too common to assert platitudinal statements about the "true meaning" of the confederate flag or the "true values" that the south raised arms to protect. But one must first read the articles of secession from the states themselves.

From Georgia:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. …The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. …

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen...

…The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. …The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. …The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers....
With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.…

These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.


Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861

Where is the family value in this? Where is the proud tradition and fundamental way of life that needs to be honored? No. One cannot talk about the original ideal of the confederate flag without confronting this reality.

More? Here is the first paragraph of the articles of secession from Mississippi. Find the "family values" in it:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

When one delicately dances over the true right that was the center of the conflict, one glosses over history with phrases like the "states wanted to be separate". They wanted to be separate because they wanted to preserve the institution of slavery. The second "ideal" that you discuss is one of "hate and racism". But one cannot separate the former ideal from the latter. It cannot be said that the flag originated as a symbol of people who decided that they no longer wanted to be part of the United States, wanted to take up arms against the army of the United States, wanted to burn down the capitol, wanted to kill the president, and wanted to preserve the institution of slavery, and that was one ideal--and that hate and racism are a second ideal that came along later. See if you can find an undertone of racism in the Texas articles of secession:

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

After reading this, can anyone claim that hate and racism were ideals that popped up later, and that the values of the confederacy were "pure" and "family oriented" and proud traditions fought over by soldiers "just like soldiers of today"? No. The "two ideals" are one in the same and hate and racism permeate them both.

 

[jenrose66]

I have been listening to the podcast for years. I love it! However, this weeks show was the first one that I did not enjoy. I listen to enough controversy and politics in the real world. I don't want to listen to it debated on my favorite podcast. I listen to the disunplugged as a fun escape, not to hear yet more opinions on the confederate flag and how far a company should go in providing freedom of religion.

 

[HollieGolightly]

I am a long time listener to the podcast and this show was very eye opening and sad. I would have preferred to remain in the dark about the truth of the some of the host feelings on race and equality. I don't know how I can listen any longer when I know the truth. But as was stated in the podcast some are from a different time. I was really put off by statement of "people being put off every little thing". How is this little? Then she giggled. In South Carolina nine innocent people were savagely murdered, but you are up in arms about the flag being about family values. How are subjugation, rape, murder and brutality family values? I guess in the same way an afternoon of lynching and evening of cross burning was considered a family outing, complete with photographs. I am not surprised but I again will state I would have rather not known the truth. How can you not think how other people would feel pain associated with that flag? Even a small inkling of empathy would have been appropriate. I would have preferred to keep the podcast as a fun light and happy place but that has been removed.

 

[JimmyV]

I am a long time listener to the podcast and this show was very eye opening and sad. I would have preferred to remain in the dark about the truth of the some of the host feelings on race and equality. I don't know how I can listen any longer when I know the truth. But as was stated in the podcast some are from a different time. I was really put off by statement of "people being put off every little thing". How is this little? Then she giggled. In South Carolina nine innocent people were savagely murdered, but you are up in arms about the flag being about family values. How are subjugation, rape, murder and brutality family values? I guess in the same way an afternoon of lynching and evening of cross burning was considered a family outing, complete with photographs. I am not surprised but I again will state I would have rather not known the truth. How can you not think how other people would feel pain associated with that flag? Even a small inkling of empathy would have been appropriate. I would have preferred to keep the podcast as a fun light and happy place but that has been removed.

There's a part of me that feels the same way. But I find some small comfort in the fact that people are a product of what they are taught, and perhaps for some, the learning is not yet over. Maybe some eyes can be opened. For example, above I posted an excerpt from the Texas articles of secession. Go back and read it again, and focus on the passage that says: "the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free." Now, having done that, consider the following (from the Washington Post, but widely reported in lots of other sources):

Five million public school students in Texas will begin using new social studies textbooks this fall based on state academic standards that barely address racial segregation. The state’s guidelines for teaching American history also do not mention the Ku Klux Klan or Jim Crow laws.

And when it comes to the Civil War, children are supposed to learn that the conflict was caused by “sectionalism, states’ rights and slavery” — written deliberately in that order to telegraph slavery’s secondary role in driving the conflict, according to some members of the state board of education.

Slavery was a “side issue to the Civil War,” said Pat Hardy, a Republican board member, when the board adopted the standards in 2010. “There would be those who would say the reason for the Civil War was over slavery. No. It was over states’ rights.”

Five million school children in Texas will have to learn the truth from sources outside their own schools because in school, they will learn that Texas' decision to secede, while based on "the servitude of the African race", was not about slavery. I seriously doubt that the articles of secession will be printed in their text books. So if you hear or read anything that upsets you, take comfort in the fact that perhaps that persons' learning isn't yet complete. I am hopeful that after a little more study and education, some of the things that we heard on the podcast would be retracted.

 

[Princess Jes]

I have a pondering for everyone:
Why is it in America that a flag is blamed for racially motivated massacres but guns aren't?
In australia, since gun laws were introduced, we've had zero massacres.
One occurred recently in sydney that was linked to a delicious sect, and an act of terrorism.
This next pondering applies in a way to both the flag and the Cosby thing:
Do you stop sending children to school because of columbine?
Stop going to church because of a church massacre?
So why stop watching a tv show that has nothing to do with the ideals of the actual actor himself?
Mel Gibson has some pretty extremes religious views, does everyone stop watching his movies because they don't agree with his views?
I realise the sexual assault of women isn't. Religious view, but the concept is the same. The actions of the actor in his personal life shouldn't have bearing on the films you watch that they're in.

 

[JimmyV]

I have a pondering for everyone:
Why is it in America that a flag is blamed for racially motivated massacres but guns aren't?
In australia, since gun laws were introduced, we've had zero massacres.
One occurred recently in sydney that was linked to a delicious sect, and an act of terrorism.
This next pondering applies in a way to both the flag and the Cosby thing:
Do you stop sending children to school because of columbine?
Stop going to church because of a church massacre?
So why stop watching a tv show that has nothing to do with the ideals of the actual actor himself?
Mel Gibson has some pretty extremes religious views, does everyone stop watching his movies because they don't agree with his views?
I realise the sexual assault of women isn't. Religious view, but the concept is the same. The actions of the actor in his personal life shouldn't have bearing on the films you watch that they're in.

I'd guess that you'd have a better argument if the bust on display at WDW were of Cliff Huxtable, and that character had been inducted into the Hall of Fame of "Greatest TV Characters Of All time." But that is not what happened. Instead, Bill Cosby, the person, was honored. And Disney decided that a man who drugged women for the purpose of having sex with them was not worthy of being honored. As for Mel Gibson, you're out on a thin reed there. His career pretty much dried up to nothing after his racist/anti-Semitic rant(s). So, yes. People have by and large given up on him too.

 

[jcb]

Mel Gibson has some pretty extremes religious views, does everyone stop watching his movies because they don't agree with his views?

Lethal Weapon just hasn't been the same . . . .

 

[coopersmom]

I am a long time listener to the podcast and this show was very eye opening and sad. I would have preferred to remain in the dark about the truth of the some of the host feelings on race and equality. I don't know how I can listen any longer when I know the truth. But as was stated in the podcast some are from a different time. I was really put off by statement of "people being put off every little thing". How is this little? Then she giggled. In South Carolina nine innocent people were savagely murdered, but you are up in arms about the flag being about family values. How are subjugation, rape, murder and brutality family values? I guess in the same way an afternoon of lynching and evening of cross burning was considered a family outing, complete with photographs. I am not surprised but I again will state I would have rather not known the truth. How can you not think how other people would feel pain associated with that flag? Even a small inkling of empathy would have been appropriate. I would have preferred to keep the podcast as a fun light and happy place but that has been removed.

I wasn't going to comment, but I saw this and I'm somewhat sorry to have to say: I completely agree. I got about 10 minutes into the most recent podcast and had to turn it off. The opinions weren't completely surprising, but the lack of education about the flag in question was rather striking. Which, I think it's important to note, was NEVER an American flag at all -- that was kind of the whole point of succession -- so how is it "controversial" to remove it from the American pavilion? I never saw any concern regarding "forgetting history" about the lack of British flags on display there.

Anyway, I've unsubscribed from both the Disney World and Disneyland versions of the Dis Unplugged.

Don't misunderstand, this wasn't the only reason; more of a last straw sort of thing. I've just found myself enjoying the podcast less and less lately, after several years of regular listening. I won't go into a litany, because I'm fully aware my single opinion isn't worth a hill of beans, but there have been multiple times when I happened to have some knowledge of a non-Disney-related subject the podcast team was discussing and, while I fully defend their right to hold any personal opinion they wish for absolutely any reason at all, and actually really enjoy a lively debate, just happened to know they were wrong on some fairly basic facts. Having that knowledge just made it hard to think their discussion was interesting or edifying to listen to. It also sort of made me doubt/question the accuracy of other things they said where I had less direct experience and, like the poster above noted, generally took the fun out of my listening experience.

Please know, I'm under zero delusion they'll "miss" me as a viewer, and I'm fully aware the show will most definitely go on; I just won't be a listening when it does.

 

[tjevans]

Why is it in America that a flag is blamed for racially motivated massacres but guns aren't?
In australia, since gun laws were introduced, we've had zero massacres.

Because (1) guns are, admittedly, a contributing factor, but guns have been in the world for a lot longer than these massacres have been happening. Guns aren't the cause. (My personal theory is it's the lack of a mental healthcare system), and (2) some of the highest gun violence occurs in areas with the strictest laws, so more laws are not the solution.

 

[tjevans]

I wasn't going to comment, but I saw this and I'm somewhat sorry to have to say: I completely agree. I got about 10 minutes into the most recent podcast and had to turn it off. The opinions weren't completely surprising, but the lack of education about the flag in question was rather striking. Which, I think it's important to note, was NEVER an American flag at all -- that was kind of the whole point of succession -- so how is it "controversial" to remove it from the American pavilion? I never saw any concern regarding "forgetting history" about the lack of British flags on display there.

Anyway, I've unsubscribed from both the Disney World and Disneyland versions of the Dis Unplugged.

Don't misunderstand, this wasn't the only reason; more of a last straw sort of thing. I've just found myself enjoying the podcast less and less lately, after several years of regular listening. I won't go into a litany, because I'm fully aware my single opinion isn't worth a hill of beans, but there have been multiple times when I happened to have some knowledge of a non-Disney-related subject the podcast team was discussing and, while I fully defend their right to hold any personal opinion they wish for absolutely any reason at all, and actually really enjoy a lively debate, just happened to know they were wrong on some fairly basic facts. Having that knowledge just made it hard to think their discussion was interesting or edifying to listen to. It also sort of made me doubt/question the accuracy of other things they said where I had less direct experience and, like the poster above noted, generally took the fun out of my listening experience.

Please know, I'm under zero delusion they'll "miss" me as a viewer, and I'm fully aware the show will most definitely go on; I just won't be a listening when it does.

I don't know, given your comment, if you'll ever see this reply, but I urge you to go back and read my comment earlier in this thread. Probably, those hosts who you are complaining about have never learned better. I went through a public education and a college education (in the southern U.S.) without ever once hearing the civil war was fought over slavery. We were always told half of the story--it was about states' rights (the other half--the states' rights to decide the issue of slavery).

In the southern U.S., there are many people who are not racists, but see the confederate flag as standing for resisting change and holding on to a better way of life--and that better way of life does not include slavery, hatred, or racism. That's the thing about symbols--it can mean something different for each person. Look, I'm on your side. I agree with your view about the flag, but I also know that in the case of Julie and JL, they are products of an educational system like the one that I experienced, that didn't tell the whole truth.

 

[Andrea1973]

In Canada, Canadian government had "Indian Resident Schools" where under government rule with the help of Christian & Catholic Churches. The people in charge of the schools did some unspeakable things to over 150,000 children. These children were typically forced into these schools beginning around the year of 1880, were sterilized, sexually abused and physically abused and approximately 4000 children died while in the governments care. The last resident school in Canada closed in 1996 ( yes 1996, that is only 19 years ago)

In British controlled land (Canada) there were African and indigenous (Native American Indian) slaves until mid to late 1800's.

From information I found, slavery began in America (a Virginia Colony) in 1619, slavery was practiced throughout America and it's colonies until the 18th Century (so 3 centuries, that is 300 years give or take 50 years)

Although it is true Lincoln's antislavery views were public, he and other northern colonies wanted to keep the Union whole rather than splitting it into two. So the premise of the civil war was to preserve the States as a union rather then to stop slavery.

Yet people are still patriotic to the Canadian and the US flag.

So because of these unspeakable things done to people over three centuries, should we ban the Canadian and the US flag the way that people are so adamant to remove the stars and bars flag and everything associated with it?

 

[Andrea1973]

T

I agree, it's touchy. Do you deprive all those other actors of their residual income because of what Cosby did? As I said, I'm torn on the issue.

Then the issue of the Duggards comes up...that show was pulled, but some or all were all kind of "in on it" with some knowledge of issues within the family...

The Dukes of Hazzard...also pulled, not due to any bad behavior, just victims of circumstance.

YET...the Beverly HillBillies are still on TV land


I shall never ever understand the politics behind politics...

(like Peta against Seaworld yet Canada's Marineland still operates and there has not been any docu-terrorism film about the place)