National Geographic Slams Walt

[Chad&Janet]

In the March issue of National Geographic, there's an article entitled, "The Theme-Parking, Megachurching, Franchising, Exurbing, McMansioning of America: How Walt Disney Changed Everything."


Ouch. The author, T.D. Allman, lands a few blows on Walt's character. "Disney acted out the American idea that if you grab hold of enough wilderness, you can create a world free of problems." Basically painting him as a rapist of nature throughout the article.

I like National Geographic and much of what they do is bring awareness to people regarding issues that need our attention. There was an article (in this same issue) on elephant migration in the African country of Chad that was amazing and tear-provoking at the same time.

BUT, I was pretty disappointed at how Walt was portrayed in this article. I've read so much on Walt's life that reading this article was painful for me to sit through. Sure, there have been urban sprawl repercussions of Walt's dream, along with other un-intended side effects. Things Walt couldn't have foreseen or predicted. They don't bother to mention the whole reason EPCOT was never realized according to Walt's dream was because Walt died!

You can't help but notice that one of the author's heroes is Jack Kerouac, a self-indulgent, drug abusing, alcoholic writer of the fifties and sixties. (He mentions him continuously)

So we should take pleasure in seeing Allman slam one of the most revered and respected visionaries of the past century (not to mention a devoted family man), all the while praising an alcoholic poet. Jeez. This article p1ssed me off.

Let me know what you guys think. Here's the link to the article:
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0703/feature4/index.html

 

[Epcot242]

What an article! They really did slam Disney.

It seems the author's overall claim was that due to Walt's purchase of thousands of acres in Orlando in the face of subtle opposition, Orlando has turned into a town that butts heads with the American dream, even though that's what Walt's original idea was - to portray and display the American dream through a grander version of his first theme park. The article dripped with what I would consider to be contempt for Disney and what he was trying to do. Yet, while scorning Walt for doing this to the once pictureesque Orlando, the author conveys a feeling of happiness in the cultural diversity that it has yielded.

Now, we all LOVE Walt and what he did, but thinking about the Disney corp. and attractions such as "One Man's Dream", why in the world would they paint Walt as something other than a visionary and at heart, a true American and family man? Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with that view. But I think with this article, we're getting another view, maybe one that others less in love with WDW and in effect, Walt's dream, may hold.

So while I don't agree with a lot of what the author says about Walt and the apparent "theme-park culture" that he created (intentionally at that, according to Mr. Allman) it was interesting to see a different view that others might hold.

 

[MinnieFan]

Wow - just wow. The author's disdain for all things Disney (and, by extension, for those who love those things) just drips from this article.

I recently finished an excellent biography of Walt Disney in which the author discussed the real hatred that some have had for Disney (dating back decades). I guess we can include T.D. Allman in that group of Disney haters. That guy could sure use some pixie dust!

Thanks for sharing this.

 

[CarolA]

I actually did not see this article as a "slam" on Walt. It had some very good points, but as I expected on most Disney fan sites it's either 100% Disney or a "You hate it" LOL!

And Walt had to be aware of the urban sprawl etc that was going to occur... He planned on it occuring and bought up a lot of land to "protect" his property from it. So he is "responsible" He saw what happened in California and knew it would happen again. It was not a consequence he was ignorant of. He chose to deal with it by attempting to isolate his park. That might not have been the best overall method!

Walt was not a saint and WDW was not built entirely out of the goodness of his heart. (He wanted to make money LOL!. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but lots of fans seem to act like St. Walt just built this park because he loved us)

 

[dizprincess717]

Sounds like the author has some unidentified beef with WDW.

It's a shame, really, that ONE person can slam something that brings joy to MILLIONS of people around the world.

It's articles like that that make me write a nice little email back to the author with my favorite Disney story ever, as told to me at my Traditions class before I started my CP at Splash Mountain. Believe me, this story will warm your hearts ...

The grand marshalls for the 3pm parade were picked one morning, and the CMs discovered the little boy was autistic. He communicated through sign language. His parents told the CMs that his favorite Disney character is Snow White. Being CMs, they wanted to do a little something extra magical for the little boy and his family. They called the Entertainment department and one of the managers called some of the "good friends" of Snow White. Well, one girl begged to come in for a few hours to be Snow White. The little boy and his family were led to a backstage room where Snow White met him. Snow White asked the parents if it was okay for the little boy to sit on her lap, and they said it was fine.

And then, out of the blue, Snow White started speaking to the little boy - IN SIGN LANGUAGE. Not only were the parents crying by this point, but the little boy was as well.

Now, THAT'S what Disney's all about. The author can take that article and go to Universal Studios for all I care...

 

[GeorgiaVol]

This article is just another slam from the Earth First crazies, who would rather see us all live in thatch huts eating roots dug out of the ground with our fingers. The article is nicely wrapped up in nice comfy buzzwords, but the theme is pretty obvious, that being "People are bad". By using Walt as the center of the article, it ensured it would get more exposure.

 

[pearlieq]

I actually did not see this article as a "slam" on Walt. It had some very good points, but as I expected on most Disney fan sites it's either 100% Disney or a "You hate it" LOL!

And Walt had to be aware of the urban sprawl etc that was going to occur... He planned on it occuring and bought up a lot of land to "protect" his property from it. So he is "responsible" He saw what happened in California and knew it would happen again. It was not a consequence he was ignorant of. He chose to deal with it by attempting to isolate his park. That might not have been the best overall method!

Walt was not a saint and WDW was not built entirely out of the goodness of his heart. (He wanted to make money LOL!. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but lots of fans seem to act like St. Walt just built this park because he loved us)

That's pretty much what I got out of it too. The article advanced some opinions that aren't going to be popular on a site of rabid Disney fans, but I think there was some decent reasoning behind some of the conclusions.

Walt was not perfect, the Disney corporation is not perfect, and it is sometimes necessary to think of something beyond one's own immediate pleasure. It makes me sad how much resistance there is to those concepts!

 

[pearlieq]

You can't help but notice that one of the author's heroes is Jack Kerouac, a self-indulgent, drug abusing, alcoholic writer of the fifties and sixties. (He mentions him continuously)

Also, how come metioning any whisper of a flaw in Walt Disney is strictly verboten, but it's OK to take an ax to Kerouac?

 

[CarolA]

Also, how come metioning any whisper of a flaw in Walt Disney is strictly verboten, but it's OK to take an ax to Kerouac?

 

[DVCajun]

Also, how come metioning any whisper of a flaw in Walt Disney is strictly verboten, but it's OK to take an ax to Kerouac?

Well, DUH.

 

[jdb0822]

Well, it seemed to me that the author was slamming things outside of Disney World, things Walt never meant to control. Because crime is high in Orlando its Walt's fault? Look at Disney world, it really is a place that you can escape to, including escaping from nearby Orlando.

Look at crime in Disney, is there any other place in America where you can go and just leave your stroller full of cameras, souvenirs, etc without worry?

Agree with the author or not, the fact that he attempts to draw a parralell of Kennedy's assination to Disney's first fly over Orlando is just disgusting.

 

[pearlieq]

Agree with the author or not, the fact that he attempts to draw a parralell of Kennedy's assination to Disney's first fly over Orlando is just disgusting.

I'm curious what you found disgusting about that.

I thought the author juxtaposed the events to illustrate that America was changing in the early 60's. Many people think of the day Kennedy was shot as the day America changed (kind of like how people view 9/11, another day America changed). The scouting of Disney's land was another very important step in the changing of American culture.

 

[Chad&Janet]

That's pretty much what I got out of it too. The article advanced some opinions that aren't going to be popular on a site of rabid Disney fans, but I think there was some decent reasoning behind some of the conclusions.

Walt was not perfect, the Disney corporation is not perfect, and it is sometimes necessary to think of something beyond one's own immediate pleasure. It makes me sad how much resistance there is to those concepts!

It's not that there's resistance, atleast on my part, to any of these "concepts." I just appreciate optimism and hope as concepts as well. Lord knows I have more faults than I could care to mention, as do all of us; and Walt had faults, many of them. But rather than desecrate the memory of someone who most assuredly had an overall positive impact on the history of humanity; the author goes into a diatribe against everything he stood for. All the while ignoring the positive things about WDW. In the actual article in the magazine, there was a full page photo of 2 young sisters wearing their Mickey ears in the Magic Kingdom. The photo, in the context of the article and caption, was very demeaning. It just seemed they were portraying the girls and any of us who enjoy visiting as mindless drones flocking to another "McMansion" marketing ploy.

I think, for me, WDW isn't ONLY a moneymaking enterprise. When I visit, I get inspired. The author makes it seem that no good coould ever come from it. As a small example, the transportation technology (which fascinated Walt) shines through at the Parks, and had any of the ideas been implemented on a grand scale, we may not be as deep into the oil dilemma as we are. (which should be right in line with Nat. Geo's goals)

I would just like to see a little more of a balanced article, I guess. Never any mention of the conservation efforts of Disney or the animal treatment at AK. It just seemed very negative to me. We could all gripe about each other all day long; but it really doesn't get us anywhere. For Walt and WDW for that matter, I think there are many more positive things to say than negative.

As for Kerouac, he may have been a visionary in his own right. I was just trying to illustrate the comical extreme between what I admire in a person and what the author admires. If you're a Kerouac reader/follower, I apologize!

I put this out there to generate some friendly debate, so I appreciate the banter and the dissent! and I do see your point that not every cloud has a silver lining, no matter how hard you look...

 

[Chad&Janet]

This article is just another slam from the Earth First crazies, who would rather see us all live in thatch huts eating roots dug out of the ground with our fingers. The article is nicely wrapped up in nice comfy buzzwords, but the theme is pretty obvious, that being "People are bad". By using Walt as the center of the article, it ensured it would get more exposure.

hahaha! I pretty much agree with you.

 

[Alicnwondrln]

wow someone doesnt like the mouse

 

[Chad&Janet]

Well, DUH.

 

[mill4023]

I just read the article.
The author rambles so much and goes off on so many tangents that I really have no idea what point he's trying to make. Actually, i don't think he's trying to make a point. It sounds more like a drunken rant.

But I certainly didn't get the impression that he's a huge Kerouac fan and I didn't really see any bashing of Walt at all.

 

[pearlieq]

I put this out there to generate some friendly debate, so I appreciate the banter and the dissent! and I do see your point that not every cloud has a silver lining, no matter how hard you look...

It was an interesting read, and fun to dissect a bit.

I agree with the PP who said it sounded a bit like a drunken rant.

I can see how people would think of WDW and some vapid bubble of a thing and Walt therefore as the galactic overlord of all things vapid and plastic. I even acknowledge that's a bit of the attraction of WDW for me--it's a place where everything is shiny and happy and controlled and perfect.

I really do see your point though about the good that has come out of the endeavor as well. There's plenty to appreciate!

 

[ilovejack02]

I actually did not see this article as a "slam" on Walt. It had some very good points, but as I expected on most Disney fan sites it's either 100% Disney or a "You hate it" LOL!

And Walt had to be aware of the urban sprawl etc that was going to occur... He planned on it occuring and bought up a lot of land to "protect" his property from it. So he is "responsible" He saw what happened in California and knew it would happen again. It was not a consequence he was ignorant of. He chose to deal with it by attempting to isolate his park. That might not have been the best overall method!

Walt was not a saint and WDW was not built entirely out of the goodness of his heart. (He wanted to make money LOL!. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but lots of fans seem to act like St. Walt just built this park because he loved us)

I read this article this weekend and feel the same way you do CarolA.
I really didnt see it as a slam either, and as one PP said, it did kinda ramble on a bit. Some parts i had to re read several times to figure out what he was saying lol.

 

[fan_of_small_world]

I just sent this to National Geographic:

"I am writing to express my disappointment with the article I read on your website titled “The Theme-Parking, Megachurching, Franchising, Exurbing, McMansioning of America: How Walt Disney Changed Everything” by T. D. Allman.

I will candidly admit to admiration of both Walt Disney, the man as well as the organization. I will also freely admit that admiration does not prevent me from seeing that neither is perfect.

I have always enjoyed National Geographic articles, because they have always seemed to be fair and balanced. However, I was a bit taken aback by the extreme negativism of the author, from the first paragraph onward. He seems to present opinions more than facts. More surprisingly, his facts contradict each other. For example, in one paragraph he claims that Disney “[turned] an inland Florida agricultural center into an epicenter of world tourism,” yet later admits that “This sludgy terrain was useless for agriculture. It was far from Florida's beaches. It was hot and muggy most of the year, yet it got so cold during central Florida's brief winters that deep freezes periodically killed the citrus crop.” He also seems to blame Disney for the suburbanization (or exurbanization) of America, although he later states that “by the 1960s, all over America, suburbs were replacing old neighborhoods. Malls were driving Main Street out of business.” Clearly this tidal wave of change was well on its way when Disney World opened shop.

Later, the author’s ramblings through the “philosophy” of Kerouac would lead, one would think, to some sort of revelation, yet he never realizes one. Could anyone successfully argue that the town that Orlando has become is the picture either Kerouac or Disney had in mind? I think not. Yet the author seems to delight in describing the problems of Orlando, which to me equal the problems in any large American city, and lay them at the feel of Walt Disney. While I agree that without Disney World Orlando may not have achieved “large city” status, that’s like saying Washington D.C.’s problems should be blamed on the men who chose to put the seat of government there.

It disappoints me that such a respected organization would publish something so biased. While I certainly agree that Disney (the man and the company) were / are not perfect, I wish the author had taken time to see the other side, and present that as well. I would hope that, in the future, National Geographic will revert to presenting balanced, fair reporting."