.

[jcb]

CarmelHP, you are right. You did not. Someone else did. My apologies.

But "chattel property" still equals money.

 

[JimmyV]

CarmelHP, you are right. You did not. Someone else did. My apologies.

Sorry. That was probably me. And you are right that the Constitution does not speak directly to secession, nor does it prohibit it. But the U.S. Supreme Court has suggested that secession is possible. Not unilaterally, as was attempted in the 1860's, but by the consent of the other states.

"The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States." Texas v. White (1869)

 

[Andrea1973]

this is my point....for anyone to say that the war was started for one reason or another is ridiculous. None of us was alive over 150 years ago when the first person got it into their head that they wanted to join up with their neighbor and or the thought to even begin to start pulling away from the rest of the nation.

Yes there are accounts of what happened, but in all honesty, point of views get skewed, lines get blurred and when a third person tries to note what happened they certainly put their own spin on the situation, and in some cases first person told stories were changed to have a better outcome then the reality. Situations are left out or records and emphasis put on the positive rather then the negative.

So how or why the first people got together is really a moot point because again I point out that NONE of us was alive to actually witness the events.

Everyone is free to have his or her opinion of the opinionated historical events of half truths and peoples perception of how things transpired.

With that said, again, I believe that the first people that joined up together were like minded individuals that wanted to preserve a way of life, with money, pretty belongings, large houses, fancy clothes, and people to do things for them (Don't we all???) so yes that way of life included having slaves. People become accustom to having certain perks in life and want to preserve those perks.

It is kind of Chicken or the egg situation so I think of it like this....

A guy starting out in life dreams of having a large house, fancy cars, lots of money to have a good life for him and his family so how asks himself 'How can I achieve this?' OR does a guy starting out in life think to himself ...'I want to have slaves, but I have no idea what to do with them.'


what seems more plausible?


Regardless, of how or why the war started, it was NOT started over a flag (and this is truly what the original post was about) there were slaves in the Americas long before the civil war started and are slaves still today*. So to single out the Single Confederate flag as being the soul flag representing slavery is a total misnomer.

Removing the flag will not remove bigotry, racist or disparaging remarks about anyone of any color.

In one TV news video I watched, an hefty white woman broke down hysterically crying, because her African descendant friends were offended by the flag, yet all of her friends were well dressed with nice suits, white pressed shirts, well kept hair and looked fairly well-to-do. They all overcame their heritage by breaking the perceived barrier despite the flag, the same one that people declare was a symbol of racism. So really what bearing does that flag have on people when her friends are doing just as well as her, or possibly better? They achieved greatness even though they grew up with the flag flying around them. In my opinion they are better then others that sit and cry about injustice. They overcame adversity so why can't others....possibly because the people that overcome choose to...who's to really say but the ones that overcome achieved greatness!

All people in today's day and age need to think of each other as equals, no matter what color, nationality, gender, sexual preference, disability, culture or religion. Each of us has the potential of being worthy of something great in ways that others may lack, each of us has strengths and weaknesses, but it is up to each of us as individuals to be accepting of each other and take it upon ourselves to say 'I want to have nice things, how can I achieve it", and it is up to each of us whether or not we choose to try to achieve it.


*The slaves of today include people coerced into being drug mules, children sold into sex slave rings, individuals that are threatened my drug lords or tainted officials to do their bidding or fear of having their families killed. There are no flags, no symbols, it simply happens, and there is no band standing, no recalling of merchandise, no call to action, just victims, thousands and thousands of victims each and every day being forgotten and left behind because people would rather dwell on the atrocities of the past rather then give aid and problem solve today.

 

[jcb]

Sorry. That was probably me. And you are right that the Constitution does not speak directly to secession, nor does it prohibit it. But the U.S. Supreme Court has suggested that secession is possible. Not unilaterally, as was attempted in the 1860's, but by the consent of the other states.

"The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States." Texas v. White (1869)

I'm obliged for the reference to Texas v White. I suspect the current "framers' intent" justices might not follow the dicta about consent of the states permitting succession. But Texas v. White makes the more fundamental point that the "obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired" despite the State's attempts to secede. Tex. v. White, 74 U.S. (1 Wall.) 700, 726 (1869). So if the American Adventure display in Epoct was intended to display the "flags of the United States" then any flag adopted by the Confederacy could not be a flag of the United States. I'm not saying I know this is the intent behind the flag display. Perhaps it is meant to show something else but a display of flags above a set of escalators doesn't exactly scream "museum" either.

 

[JimmyV]

So if the American Adventure display in Epoct was intended to display the "flags of the United States" then any flag adopted by the Confederacy could not be a flag of the United States.

I agree 100%. The Confederate flag in 1864 was no more a U.S. flag than the Union Jack was in 1812 or the Rising Sun in 1941. All those were flags flown by military forces intent on waging war on U.S. soil.

 

[coopersmom]

My big issue was not the opinions expressed so much as my belief that, when are speaking from a public platform, no matter how large or small, you bear some burden in educating yourself on the subject at hand, whatever that may be, prior to speaking out, in order not to spread misinformation. As the old adage, often credited as being said by Mark Twain, goes: "It is better to remain silent and risk being thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

It isn’t even slightly speculation to say that the Southern states seceded and formed the confederacy to hold on to slavary. This isn’t a guess or “opinion” on my part, or anyone else’s, it comes from reading the articles of secession. Each separated state’s declaration mentions maintaining the practice of slavery, clearly and with no equivocation, by sentence three, many of them sooner. Most go on to back that up with flowery and long-winded assertions as to the, “white man’s superiority,” in language that leaves zero room for interpretation. Their own words. In print. Freely and widely available for anyone with interest to read. (The historical documents have been preserved for just that: history.)

Arguing that it was solely an economic-based motivation is utterly baseless given, again, the secession documents themselves which spell out that those who voted to secede felt that slavery should be preserved NOT ONLY to maintain the South’s agrarian way of life, but because white people DESERVED to maintain dominion over those they considered inferior and sub-human.

As has been noted here, the flag we commonly refer to as, “the confederate flag,” is actually the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virgina, more colloquially known as the standard carried by troops serving under General Robert E. Lee. This once, little-known treasonous banner (because, yes, secession was a treasonous act), was quickly co-opted, post-war, as the symbol of the Knight Riders, who felt it was their mission to finish what Lee started via lynchings and other terrorization of people of color, along with anyone who dared support them. The Knight Riders are a group who later became better known as the Klu Klux Klan. A group that still proudly waves that flag today. To my mind, that fact alone should remove all doubt for any reasonable person about what this flag really represents.

The “Rebel Flag” went into widespread, PUBLIC display for the first time in the late 1950s/early 1960s, championed by, among others, Klan member turned Alabama governor George Wallace and his fellow “Dixiecrats,” among them longtime senator Strom Thurmond, who after his infamous congressional filibuster against the Civil Rights Act, posed in front of the flag. THAT’S when this flag was first flown over South Carolina’s state house, where it remained until 2000. THAT’S when Georgia incorporated it into its official state flag. I could give plenty of additional examples, but suffice to say the Rebel Flag only became widely known when the Klansmen came out from under their sheets and out into the open. It served as a not-so-secret banner to rally like-minded Southerners behind.

Make no mistake, it was never about honoring confederate soldiers whose lives were lost, any more than flying the Nazi’s flag over a group of German dead (which never happened, by the by) would be. The "Southern unity" it represented was the consensus of a pro-segregation, anti-integration, anti-Civil Rights Bill agenda.

When those men who raised it said they were for “preserving the Southern way of life,” it was a socially acceptable, but not-so-subtle euphemism for first, slavery (when that phrase was used during, prior to and just after the Civil War), and, in more modern times, Jim Crow laws, sharecropping (slavery in all but name), segregation, whites-only restrooms, drinking fountains and neighborhoods and sundown towns. Every single bit of the “preservation”, “heritage" and “history” behind that flag focuses on oppression by whites over people of color. All of it.

It was never, ever a symbol of “Southern pride,” except for those that consider racism a proud tradition they want to uphold, of which there remain many “good ol’ boys,” serving in positions both high and low throughout society, both above and below the Mason-Dixon.

The only thing “shocking” or “controversial” about South Carolina, or Disney, or Amazon, or any other mainstream, public company or government entity removing that flag is that it took them until 2015 to actually do so. In my opinion, any outrage should be saved for the fact that anyone ever thought it was OK to raise it, not that it was removed from EPCOT, or anywhere else.

No one, personally, has to "believe in" racism and white privilege for either to exist. It simply does. “White privilege” doesn’t mean wealth; it means getting the automatic benefit of the doubt based on your skin color thanks to 250+ years of dominance and power in this nation by those of European descent. If you’re white, there’s (factually and provably) a far smaller chance you’ll be stopped by the police, or that someone will cross the street to avoid you, or clutch their purse when you walk by. You’re less likely to be followed by security when you shop and more able to attend a decent school, get a home loan or a job. You're 10x less likely to be arrested and, even if you are, something like 50% less likely to be convicted of, or serve jail time for, a crime than someone of color, even if you've committed identical offenses and are of the exact same socio-economic class.

In short, as a white person, we are less likely to be discriminated against, period. All this adds up in a million tiny ways that are absolutely taken for granted every single day. In fact, someone who is white personally not experiencing or understanding racism is the absolute definition of white privilege. The ability to be ignorant of the ongoing racial injustice that exists in this country is something that can only really be known by someone born white in the United States. Even the practice of taking offense and saying, “But I'M not a racist” is, in itself, white privilege at its most pervasive and pernicious.

John Metta said it all better than I ever possibly could in his recent essay, “I, Racist,” which is well worth a Google search and a read for anyone with actual interest in a better understanding of the subject, in which I in no way claim to be an expert.

As for the wildly simplified notion that people of color need to just stop talking about race, work hard and make good … As Neil Degrasse Tyson noted so eloquently, “It is OK to encourage others to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but if you do, just remember that some people have no boots."

So, that’s my two (hundred) cents about the entire debacle. I know it’s (too) long, and most won’t read it, but I now feel I have throughly spoken my piece (and then some). Going forward, I will allow others to do the same without further response.

Edited to correct spell check's changing of "secession" to "succession" in multiple instances and other minor typos.

 

[max'sdad]

this is my point....for anyone to say that the war was started for one reason or another is ridiculous. None of us was alive over 150 years ago when the first person got it into their head that they wanted to join up with their neighbor and or the thought to even begin to start pulling away from the rest of the nation.

Yes there are accounts of what happened, but in all honesty, point of views get skewed, lines get blurred and when a third person tries to note what happened they certainly put their own spin on the situation, and in some cases first person told stories were changed to have a better outcome then the reality. Situations are left out or records and emphasis put on the positive rather then the negative.

So how or why the first people got together is really a moot point because again I point out that NONE of us was alive to actually witness the events.

So according to your logic, we shouldn't bother with any history books before people actually experienced events, which makes study of any event prior to World War I moot.

Sorry, I disagree. There is plenty of reputable historic information out there. You can go directly to the writings of the secessionists, who said the war was about slavery. No need to interpret - they said it.
But this goes to the point of the ignorance of history displayed by the podcast team who claimed to be speaking for history.

 

[JimmyV]

The “rebel flag” went into widespread, PUBLIC display for the first time in the 1950s, hoisted by Klan member turned Alabama governor George Wallace and his fellow “Dixiecrats,” among them longtime senator Strom Thurmond, who after his infamous congressional filibuster against the Civil Rights Act, posed in front of the flag. THAT’S when this flag was first flown over South Carolina’s state house, where it remained until 2000. THAT’S when Georgia incorporated it into its official state flag. I could give plenty of more examples, but suffice to say it only became widely known when the Klansmen came out from under their sheets and out into the open. A not-so-secret banner to rally like-minded Southerners behind.

Make no mistake, it was never about honoring confederate soldiers whose lives were lost, any more than flying the Nazi’s flag over a group of German dead (which never happened, by the by) would be.

It simply cannot be said any better than that. Once one does even a modest amount of research into the subject, minds will change. Show me a person who says that the flag was not created as symbol of racism and I will show you a person who has not read the secession documents. It was not created to fly over family picnics on the lawn. It was created to lead an army into battle. And that army went into battle with the goal of preserving "a way of life." Once one does a little research as to what that "way of life" was, one gleans a clearer picture. When some "good ol' boy" (as one of the podcast crew put it) waves around a Confederate flag and proclaims that "the South will rise again", what, exactly do you think that person means? Perhaps the person speaking those words uses them lightly and in ignorance. But when you really stop to think about it, those words can only mean one thing. If someone were to proclaim that "the Third Reich will rise again", we would cringe. Or if someone in South Africa proclaimed that "the NP will rise again", we would cringe. But here in the U.S., people are willing to give the good ol' boys a free pass. Perhaps not any more.

 

[Andrea1973]

So according to your logic, we shouldn't bother with any history books before people actually experienced events, which makes study of any event prior to World War I moot.

Well much of what is taught in school is HIGHLY edited, even what is laid out in every day TV news reporting is edited, and if you want to go further back, even the bible is open to several interpretations of what the readings are really saying.

So again, it is one persons opinion of what was said at the time it happened, but the actual discussion is really left to open ended debate with no clear winners. Even to this day political gain is never done in public. Politicians for the most part speak in riddles, and out of the side of their mouths, and avert direct answers to appease the masses or to gain the greatest number of people possible even if it means changing agenda with out public knowledge and this is all done to gain a better political standing.

 

[choirboy501]

Well much of what is taught in school is HIGHLY edited, even what is laid out in every day TV news reporting is edited, and if you want to go further back, even the bible is open to several interpretations of what the readings are really saying.

So don't rely on what you are spoon-fed. Do some research. The documents and historical evidence exists. Read, research, ask questions, form a conclusion. The facts should point you in the right direction.

Unfortunately we have a culture in this nation that eschews most forms of scholarship, either through bias or sloth, and is willing to accept as fact, without a shred of evidence, any rumor or sound bite they hear or comes across their social media feed.

So again, it is one persons opinion of what was said at the time it happened, but the actual discussion is really left to open ended debate with no clear winners. Even to this day political gain is never done in public. Politicians for the most part speak in riddles, and out of the side of their mouths, and avert direct answers to appease the masses or to gain the greatest number of people possible even if it means changing agenda with out public knowledge and this is all done to gain a better political standing.

Wait...what?

Best I can interpret, you are stating that we cannot pin down historical events as fact because of the bias of who was doing the recording? That we cannot trust historical documents (letters, speeches, minutes of meetings, government documents, etc.) as accurate witnesses?

 

[*NikkiBell*]

So like I originally said (and judging by the comments on that video, I'm sticking to it), this was a conversation that should have been saved for Pete to moderate. None of this nonsense would have happened.

I respectfully disagree. JeniLynn did a fantastic job moderating the discussion. I felt that it allowed for everyone to chime in and share their thoughts, which again, is what the "round table discussion" is about. I much prefer the episodes where discussions about the news are had instead of stories briefly being mentioned one by one.

As mentioned in this episode, Pete sent these news stories for the discussion. If he felt that they couldn't be handled appropriately, he would not have done so. The members of the team are all intelligent and can hold their own in a conversation.

In terms of YouTube commentary, I think that we need to remember that it comes from a larger audience - those who do and do not post on the boards. Combine that with Internet anonymity and you see statements that rarely would be said to someone face to face. Even more so, human nature causes people to make a point of commenting negatively as opposed to positively. I personally take them with a grain of salt. Likewise, thinking that the team only commented on this episode isn't the case. Because they are interested in feedback, they have done so before, something I appreciate.

 

[JimmyV]

So again, it is one persons opinion of what was said at the time it happened, but the actual discussion is really left to open ended debate with no clear winners.

Which is why one should read source material. Plain and simple. What percentage of people who have weighed in over the flag controversy on the past month have actually read the articles of secession or the transcripts of the speeches given in support thereof? .0001%? So yes, there are "opinions" bouncing all over the place, most of them uninformed. But there are also references and citations to original source material that crystallize the issues. Once consulted, the natural reaction is: "Gee. I never knew that. I now have a greater appreciation for the issues and a new understanding." And it is for this reason that I don't get too bent out of shape about the podcast crew. I am confident that if Julie did a bit of source material reading on secession, the formation of the Confederate army, the creation of the battle flag, and what people were actually fighting over, she would have a shift in opinion. As it sits now, she was born and raised in a southern state that has done a wonderful job of shielding its students from these materials, calling the Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression" and convincing people that the war was fought over "states' rights" and "a way of life". They just conveniently leave out what "right" was being sought and upon whose back the economic engine of that "way of life" was built on.

JeniLynn did a fantastic job moderating the discussion. I felt that it allowed for everyone to chime in and share their thoughts, which again, is what the "round table discussion" is about. I much prefer the episodes where discussions about the news are had instead of stories briefly being mentioned one by one.

FWIW, I agree completely. JL was clearly taken aback by some of what she was hearing from her friends but like a good moderator, she let everyone speak and she never let the discussion get out of hand. I prefer this to: "Look at me!" followed by a soliloquios rant.

 

[SMD]

The Nazi "flag" wasn't a national or state flag though was it?

I'm australian so therefore have no opinion of the flag debate, only that I agree that the racist pig who murdered those poor innocent people is getting what he wanted: publicity.

You cannot erase the past. We must learn from it. Together, we must push against the negative ties that people are giving this flag rather than removing it, effectively sweeping it under the rug/ignoring it.

And I tend to agree slightly with Craig and Kathy on the Bill Cosby thing.
He's vile and a pig if he has done all the things he's being accused of. However, does everything we ever achieve get wiped because of another action?
I agree, this is up there with murder, however, people are quick to get out the torches and pitchforks these days.

Again, I dont think what Bill Cosby did should be excused, but that doesn't mean what he achieved in the past should be forgotten.
Again, we should learn from the past.

It was the national flag from 1933 to 1945. Prior to that it was the Nazi party flag for 8-9 after Hitler designed it for the Nazi party. I don't recall seeing any references to the former East Germany or their flag either.

I think with Cosby it is also important to keep anything he achieved in the past in context, as many of the deplorable actions that are now coming out were happening during the height of his success and in many cases aided by it. We live in a different world now, and it is very unlikely that someone would be able to achieve that kind of success for that long without having this come out much sooner.

 

[Sarabi's Cubs]

Personally, I listen to the podcast to hear all of the different team members' opinions. They come from different backgrounds and have different life experiences. I don't always agree with everything I hear, but I'm not listening to hear my own views reflecting back at me. Nor do I want a lecture on the history of the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia or what constitutes rape. If I want to learn about those issues, I can do that on my own. Instead, I'm looking for the authentic opinions and reactions of the podcast members about matters related to Disney. That's exactly what they gave me this week and I for one truly appreciate their willingness to put themselves out there. As for nerves, I can't really blame them based on some of the comments I've read.

Laurie

 

[Tonyz]

I respectfully disagree. JeniLynn did a fantastic job moderating the discussion. I felt that it allowed for everyone to chime in and share their thoughts, which again, is what the "round table discussion" is about. I much prefer the episodes where discussions about the news are had instead of stories briefly being mentioned one by one.

As mentioned in this episode, Pete sent these news stories for the discussion. If he felt that they couldn't be handled appropriately, he would not have done so. The members of the team are all intelligent and can hold their own in a conversation.

In terms of YouTube commentary, I think that we need to remember that it comes from a larger audience - those who do and do not post on the boards. Combine that with Internet anonymity and you see statements that rarely would be said to someone face to face. Even more so, human nature causes people to make a point of commenting negatively as opposed to positively. I personally take them with a grain of salt. Likewise, thinking that the team only commented on this episode isn't the case. Because they are interested in feedback, they have done so before, something I appreciate.

Yeah you make a lot of good points. And really when I think back on it there's only one thing I feel Pete could have done better. I feel like if he has reigned in the part of the discussion on how the flag has been "co-opted" by racists, there would be little to no issue. Similar to a few months ago when there was a news story about possible racial discrimination at disney. Pete added one little comment that kinda put the story into a different perspective. Any topic on race can be a potential fire storm, even if you don't mean it to.

And that's just my ignorance about the YouTube comments. I had no idea they post there (I don't know why anyone would!). But now I feel bad that all the podcast team are talking and debating on YouTube and not here. What's wrong with us?

(And I really don't mean to criticize JL. She's always great.)

 

[WebmasterMaryJo]

Personally, I listen to the podcast to hear all of the different team members' opinions. They come from different backgrounds and have different life experiences. I don't always agree with everything I hear, but I'm not listening to hear my own views reflecting back at me. Nor do I want a lecture on the history of the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia or what constitutes rape. If I want to learn about those issues, I can do that on my own. Instead, I'm looking for the authentic opinions and reactions of the podcast members about matters related to Disney. That's exactly what they gave me this week and I for one truly appreciate their willingness to put themselves out there. As for nerves, I can't really blame them based on some of the comments I've read.

Laurie

Nicely said, and I agree.

 

[*NikkiBell*]

...I for one truly appreciate their willingness to put themselves out there. As for nerves, I can't really blame them based on some of the comments I've read.

Laurie

Amen.

 

[firecracker725]

this is my point....for anyone to say that the war was started for one reason or another is ridiculous. None of us was alive over 150 years ago when the first person got it into their head that they wanted to join up with their neighbor and or the thought to even begin to start pulling away from the rest of the nation.

Yes there are accounts of what happened, but in all honesty, point of views get skewed, lines get blurred and when a third person tries to note what happened they certainly put their own spin on the situation, and in some cases first person told stories were changed to have a better outcome then the reality. Situations are left out or records and emphasis put on the positive rather then the negative.

So how or why the first people got together is really a moot point because again I point out that NONE of us was alive to actually witness the events.

Everyone is free to have his or her opinion of the opinionated historical events of half truths and peoples perception of how things transpired.

With that said, again, I believe that the first people that joined up together were like minded individuals that wanted to preserve a way of life, with money, pretty belongings, large houses, fancy clothes, and people to do things for them (Don't we all???) so yes that way of life included having slaves. People become accustom to having certain perks in life and want to preserve those perks.

It is kind of Chicken or the egg situation so I think of it like this....

A guy starting out in life dreams of having a large house, fancy cars, lots of money to have a good life for him and his family so how asks himself 'How can I achieve this?' OR does a guy starting out in life think to himself ...'I want to have slaves, but I have no idea what to do with them.'


what seems more plausible?


Regardless, of how or why the war started, it was NOT started over a flag (and this is truly what the original post was about) there were slaves in the Americas long before the civil war started and are slaves still today*. So to single out the Single Confederate flag as being the soul flag representing slavery is a total misnomer.

Removing the flag will not remove bigotry, racist or disparaging remarks about anyone of any color.

In one TV news video I watched, an hefty white woman broke down hysterically crying, because her African descendant friends were offended by the flag, yet all of her friends were well dressed with nice suits, white pressed shirts, well kept hair and looked fairly well-to-do. They all overcame their heritage by breaking the perceived barrier despite the flag, the same one that people declare was a symbol of racism. So really what bearing does that flag have on people when her friends are doing just as well as her, or possibly better? They achieved greatness even though they grew up with the flag flying around them. In my opinion they are better then others that sit and cry about injustice. They overcame adversity so why can't others....possibly because the people that overcome choose to...who's to really say but the ones that overcome achieved greatness!

All people in today's day and age need to think of each other as equals, no matter what color, nationality, gender, sexual preference, disability, culture or religion. Each of us has the potential of being worthy of something great in ways that others may lack, each of us has strengths and weaknesses, but it is up to each of us as individuals to be accepting of each other and take it upon ourselves to say 'I want to have nice things, how can I achieve it", and it is up to each of us whether or not we choose to try to achieve it.


*The slaves of today include people coerced into being drug mules, children sold into sex slave rings, individuals that are threatened my drug lords or tainted officials to do their bidding or fear of having their families killed. There are no flags, no symbols, it simply happens, and there is no band standing, no recalling of merchandise, no call to action, just victims, thousands and thousands of victims each and every day being forgotten and left behind because people would rather dwell on the atrocities of the past rather then give aid and problem solve today.

Wow. That's a whole lot of ten dollar words that, pardon my vernacular, don't make no dang sense.

Are you seriously trying to pass slaves off as "people to do stuff for you"?

 

[Princess Jes]

I can see Pete coming on the show this week and having a rant about how people have been keyboard warriors on YouTube and announce a bonus for his team members (referring to the episode after Craig and Shaun got ripped into about their Maleficent review)

 

[rmm7e]

Seeing how passionate and opinionated both the team and the listeners are about both topics, I can see why Disney removed the bust and the flag. Either object could be the target of vandalism or worse and I think it was preemptive and wise on their part. Nobody wants their family's vacation ruined by that kind of controversy - Disney is about escaping the real world. I don't read anything more into it than that.