Disclaimer for racial insensitivity in Peter Pan Jr.?

[BlueStarryHat]

Are we to be offended by every little thing? What about nannies? The nanny in Peter Pan is a dog. Also, the person with a disability (Captain hook) is portrayed as the bad guy. All the Fairies are girls. Wendy only wears dresses. The fat one (Mr. Smee) is a dim-wit. What else? Come on, chime in. What else can be considered offensive?

Oh...the injustice.

Your examples are not the same as a racist stereotype.

 

[momz]

Your examples are not the same as a racist stereotype.

because sexism and ableism are ok. But racism is not.

My point is, being offended by any of these characters is overly sensitive and discredits the times when real discrimination takes place. This play is not offensive, it is playful make-believe. I think if you are looking to be offended, you will find it at ever corner...now, I'm sure I just offended you...that's ok. I'm wearing my big girl flame suit.

 

[Welsh_Dragon]

What about nannies? The nanny in Peter Pan is a dog. Also, the person with a disability (Captain hook) is portrayed as the bad guy.

The ‘nannies’ let their charges fall out of their prambulators whilst walking in Kensington Gardens and they become the lost boys. Perhaps a dog ‘nanny’ was considered a safer option, particularly as Peter’s parents shut the window on him and ‘replaced’ him with a new baby. Hook wasn’t always disabled. Peter chopped off his hand in a duel and fed it to a crocodile. Of course he later kills Hook in another battle. Peter also kills or banishes ‘lost boys’ when they grow up, is incapable of feeling ‘love’ for any girls and completely lacks empathy. He is actually quite a sinister character.

 

[BlueStarryHat]

because sexism and ableism are ok. But racism is not.

My point is, being offended by any of these characters is overly sensitive and discredits the times when real discrimination takes place. This play is not offensive, it is playful make-believe. I think if you are looking to be offended, you will find it at ever corner...now, I'm sure I just offended you...that's ok. I'm wearing my big girl flame suit.

You have not offended me, but don't put words in my mouth. I was pointing out that your examples were comparing apples and oranges. Perhaps going back and reading my posts in this thread will enlighten you as to my stance on this subject. And I don't flame people.

 

[tzolkin]

I also don’t think that the children see anything wrong with the story. The problem seems to be with adults who want to overthink everything. As others have said, fault can be found in just about everything if you want to find it.

I for one wish we could go back to a time when everything wasn’t looked at through a magnifying glass and fault found with everything. I feel bad for my grandchildren who are growing up in this polarizing time.

Children do notice it. Especially when it's their race that is being depicted negatively. Imagine how your grandchildren would feel if they were watching a Disney movie that said they were "cunning but not intelligent" or that they were "barely even human".

In my opinion this isn't really something that adults are pushing or going to great lengths to find offense. It is pretty blatant and kids do notice it and ask questions that parents need to be prepared to discuss.

because sexism and ableism are ok. But racism is not.

My point is, being offended by any of these characters is overly sensitive and discredits the times when real discrimination takes place. This play is not offensive, it is playful make-believe. I think if you are looking to be offended, you will find it at ever corner...now, I'm sure I just offended you...that's ok. I'm wearing my big girl flame suit.

Your examples were not sexism or ableism though. If they were actually doing those things, sure that would be just as wrong but you know that it's not the same thing. You're making a huge stretch. Hook being a bad guy is absolutely not the same as saying all disabled people are evil.

I'm genuinely curious if people are less bothered by this because there is this mythical Indian stereotype and they are typically not viewed as "real" people. I find it very hard to believe that anyone would be okay with their children getting up on stage and doing ridiculous accents, wearing stereotypical costumes, and singing racial slurs about African Americans or Asians. I think most people would be uncomfortable with that and would think it was wrong but when it's Indians its "just playing".

I also think shifting the idea to people being offended makes it easier to shift the responsibility to them ("they should just get over it and not be offended") rather than actually taking a moment to evaluate whether the thing is actually racist/offensive. Maybe instead of telling people that they are being too sensitive, we could just stop defending racist content as cute or benign.

Personally, I love Peter Pan and find that it evokes a sense of childhood nostalgia and wonder. Heck, my dog is named Tiger Lily. But I can simultaneously recognize that there are elements of it that are really racist and wrong (seriously, "The Great White Father"). There are many wonderful pieces of art and literature that are a product of their time that we can appreciate some aspects of them, but no longer find certain ideas appropriate. This has been normal throughout human history. Ideas and beliefs about what is acceptable behavior and language change over time. Our views on women and people of different races have changed drastically in the last 100+ years, so why is it so difficult to acknowledge that some things in a play written in 1904 may be outdated and racist when viewed through our current standards and beliefs?

 

[leahgoogle]

Children do notice it. Especially when it's their race that is being depicted negatively. Imagine how your grandchildren would feel if they were watching a Disney movie that said they were "cunning but not intelligent" or that they were "barely even human".

In my opinion this isn't really something that adults are pushing or going to great lengths to find offense. It is pretty blatant and kids do notice it and ask questions that parents need to be prepared to discuss.


Your examples were not sexism or ableism though. If they were actually doing those things, sure that would be just as wrong but you know that it's not the same thing. You're making a huge stretch. Hook being a bad guy is absolutely not the same as saying all disabled people are evil.

I'm genuinely curious if people are less bothered by this because there is this mythical Indian stereotype and they are typically not viewed as "real" people. I find it very hard to believe that anyone would be okay with their children getting up on stage and doing ridiculous accents, wearing stereotypical costumes, and singing racial slurs about African Americans or Asians. I think most people would be uncomfortable with that and would think it was wrong but when it's Indians its "just playing".

I also think shifting the idea to people being offended makes it easier to shift the responsibility to them ("they should just get over it and not be offended") rather than actually taking a moment to evaluate whether the thing is actually racist/offensive. Maybe instead of telling people that they are being too sensitive, we could just stop defending racist content as cute or benign.

Personally, I love Peter Pan and find that it evokes a sense of childhood nostalgia and wonder. Heck, my dog is named Tiger Lily. But I can simultaneously recognize that there are elements of it that are really racist and wrong (seriously, "The Great White Father"). There are many wonderful pieces of art and literature that are a product of their time that we can appreciate some aspects of them, but no longer find certain ideas appropriate. This has been normal throughout human history. Ideas and beliefs about what is acceptable behavior and language change over time. Our views on women and people of different races have changed drastically in the last 100+ years, so why is it so difficult to acknowledge that some things in a play written in 1904 may be outdated and racist when viewed through our current standards and beliefs?

I am so glad you pointed this out. I think people (including myself sometimes) get caught up or feel guilty admitting that they like something when part of it is racist. It is a possibility to love a movie or attraction while recognizing that parts of it are wrong and need to be changed.

 

[Ms.Minnie]

Children do notice it. Especially when it's their race that is being depicted negatively. Imagine how your grandchildren would feel if they were watching a Disney movie that said they were "cunning but not intelligent" or that they were "barely even human".

In my opinion this isn't really something that adults are pushing or going to great lengths to find offense. It is pretty blatant and kids do notice it and ask questions that parents need to be prepared to discuss.


Your examples were not sexism or ableism though. If they were actually doing those things, sure that would be just as wrong but you know that it's not the same thing. You're making a huge stretch. Hook being a bad guy is absolutely not the same as saying all disabled people are evil.

I'm genuinely curious if people are less bothered by this because there is this mythical Indian stereotype and they are typically not viewed as "real" people. I find it very hard to believe that anyone would be okay with their children getting up on stage and doing ridiculous accents, wearing stereotypical costumes, and singing racial slurs about African Americans or Asians. I think most people would be uncomfortable with that and would think it was wrong but when it's Indians its "just playing".

I also think shifting the idea to people being offended makes it easier to shift the responsibility to them ("they should just get over it and not be offended") rather than actually taking a moment to evaluate whether the thing is actually racist/offensive. Maybe instead of telling people that they are being too sensitive, we could just stop defending racist content as cute or benign.

Personally, I love Peter Pan and find that it evokes a sense of childhood nostalgia and wonder. Heck, my dog is named Tiger Lily. But I can simultaneously recognize that there are elements of it that are really racist and wrong (seriously, "The Great White Father"). There are many wonderful pieces of art and literature that are a product of their time that we can appreciate some aspects of them, but no longer find certain ideas appropriate. This has been normal throughout human history. Ideas and beliefs about what is acceptable behavior and language change over time. Our views on women and people of different races have changed drastically in the last 100+ years, so why is it so difficult to acknowledge that some things in a play written in 1904 may be outdated and racist when viewed through our current standards and beliefs?

As a child I didn't. I'm going to have to watch the movie again because I don't remember this.

I know my DD and DDIL both think there is something wrong with Dumbo. I know that as a child my DD didn't but now that she's an adult with children of her own and living in our current climate she sees it differently. The only thing I can think of is they are referring to the crows. I don't agree with them, to me they are just crows, but what do I know? Again, maybe I need to go back and watch the movie again. I took both of these movies at surface value, maybe there is a deeper hidden meaning that I'm missing because I wasn't looking for it? I really don't have the answers, all I know is I enjoyed these movies as a child and didn't find anything wrong with either movies and I don't believe my views of people based on their race was influenced one way or another by these movies. JM2Cs

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

As a child I didn't. I'm going to have to watch the movie again because I don't remember this.

I know my DD and DDIL both think there is something wrong with Dumbo. I know that as a child my DD didn't but now that she's an adult with children of her own and living in our current climate she sees it differently. The only thing I can think of is they are referring to the crows. I don't agree with them, to me they are just crows, but what do I know? Again, maybe I need to go back and watch the movie again. I took both of these movies at surface value, maybe there is a deeper hidden meaning that I'm missing because I wasn't looking for it? I really don't have the answers, all I know is I enjoyed these movies as a child and didn't find anything wrong with either movies and I don't believe my views of people based on their race was influenced one way or another by these movies. JM2Cs

People in general, but especially kids, are more in tune with what’s going on than we were. I know mine are way more socially aware than I was at their age. I don’t think saying because we didn’t notice it doesn’t make it a problem.

 

[BlueStarryHat]

I'm genuinely curious if people are less bothered by this because there is this mythical Indian stereotype and they are typically not viewed as "real" people. I find it very hard to believe that anyone would be okay with their children getting up on stage and doing ridiculous accents, wearing stereotypical costumes, and singing racial slurs about African Americans or Asians. I think most people would be uncomfortable with that and would think it was wrong but when it's Indians its "just playing".

I also think shifting the idea to people being offended makes it easier to shift the responsibility to them ("they should just get over it and not be offended") rather than actually taking a moment to evaluate whether the thing is actually racist/offensive. Maybe instead of telling people that they are being too sensitive, we could just stop defending racist content as cute or benign.

This is a difficult one. In the play, and the song that particularly bothered the OP, gibberish is used as 'Indianspeak.' Is that the way Native Americans talk? No, it isn't and I could see where an Indian person might be offended. I didn't see the harm, but then again, I'm white and speak from a place of white privilege. Now, I have watched Black comedians poke fun at white people and the way we supposedly sound and act and have found it funny. But would I have found it amusing if it were the other way around? No a thousand times. I'll have to digest this food for thought further and get back to you...

 

[tzolkin]

As a child I didn't. I'm going to have to watch the movie again because I don't remember this.

I know my DD and DDIL both think there is something wrong with Dumbo. I know that as a child my DD didn't but now that she's an adult with children of her own and living in our current climate she sees it differently. The only thing I can think of is they are referring to the crows. I don't agree with them, to me they are just crows, but what do I know? Again, maybe I need to go back and watch the movie again. I took both of these movies at surface value, maybe there is a deeper hidden meaning that I'm missing because I wasn't looking for it? I really don't have the answers, all I know is I enjoyed these movies as a child and didn't find anything wrong with either movies and I don't believe my views of people based on their race was influenced one way or another by these movies. JM2Cs

The crows would probably be less obvious for kids. The main crow is actually named Jim Crow (after the laws that supported segregation) and he's also voiced by a white man "talking jive" which I think most people today would consider to be the same level of inappropriate as a white person acting in blackface.

Like, Peter Pan, I don't think this means we can't watch any of these movies anymore. But I would be prepared to watch with kids and be able to discuss why we don't agree with certain things anymore. I know people were outraged when Disney+ put ratings on these movies, but that's why. They weren't getting rid of them, they were just saying that parents should be aware of what their kids were watching and should supervise/discuss the content with them.

People in general, but especially kids, are more in tune with what’s going on than we were. I know mine are way more socially aware than I was at their age. I don’t think saying because we didn’t notice it doesn’t make it a problem.

Yeah, my kids noticed small details that wouldn't have really even crossed my mind when I first watched these movies and they're all now teens/adults so it was 10+ years ago that they were noticing these things. Little kids now probably notice even more. Kids are certainly more quick to notice bullying and sexism than we were because most of the older generations were just taught that was normal.

 

[Welsh_Dragon]

Our views on women and people of different races have changed drastically in the last 100+ years, so why is it so difficult to acknowledge that some things in a play written in 1904 may be outdated and racist when viewed through our current standards and beliefs?

And actually Barrie amended, re wrote and added to his script many times. I wonder how the script would have evolved if he was still alive. For all the negatives Great Ormand Street hospital and many sick children of all ethnicities benefited and continue to benefit from Barrie’s legacy and the royalties earned.

 

[tzolkin]

This is a difficult one. In the play, and the song that particularly bothered the OP, gibberish is used as 'Indianspeak.' Is that the way Native Americans talk? No, it isn't and I could see where an Indian person might be offended. I didn't see the harm, but then again, I'm white and speak from a place of white privilege.

I think the way I gauge some of this is whether I would be embarrassed if my kid were to mimic something in public, then it's probably something that would be worth telling them is inappropriate and this is why. I'm not "offended" by the gibberish "Indianspeak" used in the songs, but I wouldn't be thrilled to hear kids running around imitating it.

The parts I find more inappropriate are the exaggerated broken English and the actual slurs-- red man, Injun, pickaninny, squaw, etc. Definitely not things you would want your kid to repeat or especially call another person. If they were using outdated offensive terms for other races, I think the school would probably favor cutting them from the script.

Getting off topic, but related to your post. Many American Indian songs consist of vocables and not actual words. (Like "la la la" or scat or beatboxing.) Which is probably why the nonsense words in the Peter Pan songs are the least offensive part.

 

[BlueStarryHat]

The parts I find more inappropriate are the exaggerated broken English and the actual slurs-- red man, Injun, pickaninny, squaw, etc. Definitely not things you would want your kid to repeat or especially call another person. If they were using outdated offensive terms for other races, I think the school would probably favor cutting them from the script.

I think we have become numb to the broken English and slurs because they've been used so often in our popular culture, and continue to be used, along with stereotyped depictions of Native Americans, particularly by sports teams. For some reason, it has not yet become something you just don't condone anymore when it comes to Native Americans. Why? I'm still figuring it out, but I think my first sentence sums up my thoughts about it right now. I'm off to read the play.

 

[JLTraveling]

If there is something else she can do is rally the parents or alert the newspaper.

Which would garner her a well-deserved reputation as a troublemaker. The fact is that right or wrong, whatever the opinion of the OP or anyone else here, this show is performed in its entirety at schools and community theaters across the country, and I have not heard of a single instance of public outrage. The decision makers told her no changes or disclaimers are needed, and that should be the end of the story.

 

[NotUrsula]

Thank you for your reply, I can see how the topic could come up with your connection to academia and your field of study. I'm also sorry if native people are offended by the way they are portrayed in this story.

I honestly feel that when the story Peter Pan was written it was not meant to be viewed in a derogatory light but rather a fantasy for children to enjoy. I also don’t think that the children see anything wrong with the story. The problem seems to be with adults who want to overthink everything. As others have said, fault can be found in just about everything if you want to find it.

I for one wish we could go back to a time when everything wasn’t looked at through a magnifying glass and fault found with everything. I feel bad for my grandchildren who are growing up in this polarizing time.

If you're interested, you might want to read a bit about J.M. Barrie. He was hugely popular, but even at the height of his fame, he was considered by many who knew him to be a bit "off". Brilliant, but "off" -- rather a lot like Michael Jackson, in fact. He had many of the same habits in regard to young boys; playing with them as if he was a same-age peer, trips, over-the-top gifts, etc. He was named guardian of the 5 Llewellyn-Davis boys when their father died, and took over their care when their mother died 3 years later. (All but one of the 5 died tragically, at least 2 by suicide.)

 

[Karin1984]

If you're interested, you might want to read a bit about J.M. Barrie. He was hugely popular, but even at the height of his fame, he was considered by many who knew him to be a bit "off". Brilliant, but "off" -- rather a lot like Michael Jackson, in fact. He had many of the same habits in regard to young boys; playing with them as if he was a same-age peer, trips, over-the-top gifts, etc. He was named guardian of the 5 Llewellyn-Davis boys when their father died, and took over their care when their mother died 3 years later. (All but one of the 5 died tragically, at least 2 by suicide.)

In addition to that, you can start by watching the 2004 movie Finding Neverland with Johnny Depp and Kate Winslet about the writing of the play.
It might not be 100% historically accurate, but probably not more or less than most historical movies ;-)

 

[Alicefan]

That's not what I said.

Here's what I said



It was because I don't see the point in changing the attire just to something else (which the author of the thread said hippie). If you're going to have an issue with the attire in the first place just have them be in normal clothing. You're reading something controversial that isn't there. I'm not saying to change the script anyways. I didn't say everyone be dressed normally either.

Seriously? lol that is literally the same thing. Dressed normally = be in normal clothing....or did I miss something? Don't get me wrong, you are totally allowed to have your thoughts on it. I just see it differently and found it funny that the answer is to make everyone the same in a world where preaching diversity is the big thing right now. The thing is, there doesn't seem to be ANY right answer that is going to fit every person. There is always going to be a way to find a problem for every solution. For me, I sure liked things better when things were exactly what they were, and you either bothered with it or you didn't. No one HAS to be involved in anything that they don't agree with these days. People need to stop trying to point out every little thing because if we do that, in the end we're going to have nothing. This thread should completely prove that. No depictions of Native Americans...we'll make them Hippies....no then hippies will be offended...Really??? It's comical.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

Seriously? lol that is literally the same thing. Dressed normally = be in normal clothing....or did I miss something? Don't get me wrong, you are totally allowed to have your thoughts on it. I just see it differently and found it funny that the answer is to make everyone the same in a world where preaching diversity is the big thing right now. The thing is, there doesn't seem to be ANY right answer that is going to fit every person. There is always going to be a way to find a problem for every solution. For me, I sure liked things better when things were exactly what they were, and you either bothered with it or you didn't. No one HAS to be involved in anything that they don't agree with these days. People need to stop trying to point out every little thing because if we do that, in the end we're going to have nothing. This thread should completely prove that. No depictions of Native Americans...we'll make them Hippies....no then hippies will be offended...Really??? It's comical.

I don't find this conversation comical at all. I like that people are talking about things out in the open instead of trying to hide it like we've been doing. I like that we're talking about stereotypes. I happen to agree that using a different stereotype doesn't make it any better and I think that tangent maybe will bring to light something to the author of the thread who thought the problem was just the type of stereotype not that there was a stereotype to begin with. Perhaps the issue is that people just find it laughable and not worthy of a serious discussion? That's just keeping the status quo. Diversity doesn't mean utilizing stereotypes, not at all.

I do agree there doesn't seem to be any right answer but I do agree with the people who have said the author of the thread has a moral choice of staying with their current role or leaving it instead of taking it upon themselves to add a disclaimer it without permission (which at least altering the play denied).

So yes I am being serious

 

[DisneyOma]

Is it though? I believe the attire followed a lifestyle. We may think of it in terms of fashion but for many it represented how they lived and while I get the OP's point hippie is a stereotype too just one they don't see an issue with (but someone else could).

A lifestyle is a choice, not based on race. Not that I think it's funny to mock anyone, but being a hippie is nothing like a racial stereotype.

Just wanted to say, they are flying to Neverland. Not America.
Second star to the right, and then straight on till morning. You cannot miss it.

Except they are mocking American Indians in the movie - maybe you should watch it again?

To me, the real question in this thread is OP's proper role in the production.

The issue is not whether some parent will video the performance and publish it, causing the sky to fall in.

OP is the accompanist and types the content of the program. OP saw a potential problem and properly asked both the director of the event, and the school principal whether a disclaimer is needed.

Both said no. The answer is no. It's not OP's place to overrule those in charge.

Then I would go to the superintendent and give that person a heads up. We've had some bad principals (and an idiot superintendent that we finally got rid of) and this would be something the principal hired by the idiot would okay, the stupid super would have okayed it, but the school committee would have had some more ammo for firing the two of them.

Speaking as a grandmother of a native American, I can give his view of this. He just shook his head and couldn't believe there was an issue with PP. Afterall, it portrays kids Playing as Indians. So, I don't think there is any "racial" issue at all, unless we try to make one.

If you are his grandmother, wouldn't you be Native American too? How do you feel about it?

I checked out the song in question. I can see where it's a bit cringey, but it seems to be harmless and a song about friendship between Peter Pan and Tiger Lily. It's a bit like, yes, Irish people don't dress up like Leprechauns but is it harming them as a people? In this case, I really don't think so. And I'm as liberal as they come.

Leprechauns are not Irish people, so this makes no sense to me?

because sexism and ableism are ok. But racism is not.

My point is, being offended by any of these characters is overly sensitive and discredits the times when real discrimination takes place. This play is not offensive, it is playful make-believe. I think if you are looking to be offended, you will find it at ever corner...now, I'm sure I just offended you...that's ok. I'm wearing my big girl flame suit.

I really think you should watch the movie again.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

A lifestyle is a choice, not based on race. Not that I think it's funny to mock anyone, but being a hippie is nothing like a racial stereotype.

Sorry, where did I say it was? Also see additional comment in the thread. Thanks