>>I can explain exactly why SOTS is an inappropriate example of black america during reconstruction. The black sharecroppers are portrayed as happy go lucky field workers just content and thankful to be working for the family of the land.<<
Oh, now we get it. Walt was the literal devil - he should have portrayed the African Americans (earth to the supposed PC police- the term "black" went out of fashion years ago) as unhappy ex-slaves, and the script should have shown them in revolt, burning down the main house at the end of the movie.
>>GWTW is also an example of Hollywoods white-washing of american history and should be found offfensive by anyone who has even the slightest regard for truth and history.<<
Yawn....Next the thought police will be going after every Western John Wayne ever made. How horrid his presentation of the American Indian......
>>Is GWTW relevant to Disney not releasing SOTS<<
To any thinking marketer, yes. But socialists don't understand that subject matter.
>>Had a black man spoke to a prominent white lady the way Uncle Remus did in SOTS - reality is that he would have been beat, whipped and lynched.<<
Oh, and you have proof that every single white in the South of the 1880s had a negative relationship with every single African American? You must live in the North or West - that's were one always finds the simplistic ibigots who demonize the South so.
>>I'm not sure how you can say I'm being hypocritical when I think they all are offensive <<
LOL - easy for you to say, given you would have NEVER mentioned Gone With The Wind, Amos and Andy or any other film other than SOTS if I hadn't pointed out that the leftos never go after anything BUT SOTS. Why SOTS? Because that particular film scares the heck out of liberals, because it is a family-friendly film, and the lefto PC thought police desperately want to keep anything they haven't put through revsionist steam-cleaning away from parents and their children.
And speaking of hypocritical, interesting to note that while Disney continues to try and bury this film domestically, it is not reluctant at all to promote it overseas. If SOTS content is so offensive, then why was it shown last Spring on national TV (in the middle of the day) in the UK ? British kids, sitting at home during the Easter holiday period, were able to watch this movie and enjoy its content and -- guess what -- they're didn't subsequently start running around the streets, subjecting kids from any ethnic minority to taunts about slavery (and, let's face it, it was the English who profitted very well from the slave trade).
>>Do I think that with the right additions and historical information/prefacing<<
This is code for "only re-release it if Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun are allowed to record half hour lectures crammed with revisionist history that will precede the film."
>>How do you think you would feel watching the movie if you were a black child - what wonderful lessons do you think it would teach?<<
For your convenience, I'll let some African Americans (again, that is correct vernacular, unlike your un-PC use of "black") speak for themselves. Here are some opinions on the films from users of
Amazon.com. Direct quotes (don't beleive me? Go check out the site yourself):
As a person of color I am proud of this film, September 15, 2003
Reviewer: dj (see more about me) from Boston
As a person of color I have seen plenty of racism on television to last a lifetime. I know racism when I see it, believe me, but Song of the South is not it. It is a tribute to our proud African-American heritage and should be seen. Uncle Remus is clearly admired in this movie more than any other character. The animation and music ranks among the best work ever done by Disney and the black folklore is included. Considering that the REALLY harmful Birth of a Nation is widely available and hailed as a masterpiece, adds injury to insult regarding the absence of this classic that is a proud illustration of the African-American heritage.
13 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
I Am Black, And I Loved This Movie, May 15, 2002
Reviewer: suboddie (see more about me) from Sacramento, CA USA
One reviewer bemoaned the fact that none of the reviews had been written by a black person. Well, here I am. I loved this movie. I grew up in Brooklyn, New York and never knew about racism until it began to show up on television. My friends were white and black: Italian, Puerto Rican, African and from all over the Caribbean Islands and Western Europe. We all went to see this movie together and we came out singing. The young boy's decision to spend time with the people he felt most comfortable with appealed to us, although we were probably too young to understand what we liked about it. Slavery was / is / and always will be an abominable institution, but it happened and to be able to build a positive story around such a regrettable time in man's history is one of the reasons why Walt Disney and "Song Of The South" are such lasting icons. My name is on the list.
>>It amazes me that having concern for truth, history and other peoples feelings has become such a negative concept in this world. <<
It never did. What has become negative is the horrific intolerance of the thought police, who don't want to allow people to view art and come to their own personal assessments of it.
>>I've never called anyone on any board a nasty name before<<
But the moment you start erroneously calling people crimminals (because of poorly written argument, which is pointed out), you do. Talk about being not being able to take what you put out....
>>Any copy of Song of the South on an NTSC videotape, or on a DVD, is illegally made<<
Wrong again. Those made for PERSONAL USE by the owner of a officially distributed copy are NOT illegally made. Refer to the FAIR USE ACT if you still don't get it yet. Yes, to sell said copy is illegal (to buy is not - "unethical" perhaps to the thought police, but not at all illegal), but again, if you don't defend your copyrights, don't whine when the courts ignore you when you finally wake up.
>>While it's true that there is legal precedent for companies having to enforce their ownership of copyright in order to maintain it (MASSIVE, MASSIVE UNDERSTATEMENT), this is not one of those cases. <<
Oh, really? Certain people obviously missed the prior discussion. A year ago, a Google search for "Song of the South video" came up with 3-- maybe 4 at best -- sources.
Today? I stopped counting after the first 6 pages of listings.
>>Disney doesn't waste its legal time and money on small potatoes:<<
I guess Amazon is a "small potato" then.
How so? Well, certain anal-fixated people might be interested in checking out Amazon. Go to their site, and put "Song Of The South DVD" in the search field.
What comes back is an interesting page. Amazon admits they don't have a video to sell, but readily refer visitors to several of "illegal" sources that are selling copies. Again, that is AMAZON doing a PUBLIC referral. Disney isn't just "not" defending their copyright - they're literally bending over and letting anyway and everyone (from Billy Bob in his garage to partners with AMAZON) rape the sales potential of any future release right out of their you-know-what.
And those who ignore that -- implying the copyright defense horse hasn't already eft the barn -- are beyond laughable and ignorant.
>>in the future, please remove your mouth from your rectum before talking.<<
We don't know where a certain person's anal fixation came from, much less why they are obsessed with sharing it here. Some chip on their shoulder, perhaps?