Just watched "Song of the South"......

[pat fan]

Is it equally offensive if TODAY you tell someone in your employ (same or different race as yourself) to not discuss certain topics with your child? I thought that was just being a parent and maintaining control over what is exposed to your child?

I was just trying to see the side of how it could be offensive, not that I was necessarily agreeing with that viewpoint. Of course I think a parent has the right to limit what their child is exposed to, but in the context of the movie being racially offensive, I thought that might be something someone could point to. I could very well be wrong too.

and you can explain "tar" baby and "kind" old man until the cows come home, you (white folks in general) have that option of taking the story out of the time contect.

I feel like maybe this reply is aimed right at me, and I don't understand the snarky reply. (you white folks) sounds very snarky. How do you know I am even white? Maybe it IS my AGE, but I have never heard "tar baby" referenced in the way you described. As Judge Judy says, ignorance is no defense, but if the term, in a racially charged way, has died out enough that I never heard it used that way, can we get past it and just enjoy the movie without bringing that back up? If you keep picking at a wound it keeps bleeding. Let it heal. I know it is difficult because of when you grew up, but how do we move on if we aren't allowed to?

 

[goofyernmost]

nope I saw it. It's been almost 45 years ago when I was younger. I actually was trying to see it again this weekend to see if maybe my thoughts were some how crazy because when I viewed it I was in segregated south. with "for colored only" signs all around me so I was trying to see if perhaps the environment might have contributed to my absolute hate of it.

Ok, so let me start with a few things.

1) first black and white children rarely were able to "play" freely at that time. period. with no signs of prejudice!!! LMAO. in 1880 GEORGIA!!!! there was a distinct line drawn even when you were allowed to play together in 1963 when I was a child. white children knew it, black children knew it.

2) ebonics is fine if you can freely chose to use it. free or not, not using correct phrasing in speech could have and did get a black child beaten within an inch of his life, let alone a black man. Emmitt Till was brutally murdered fully 10 years after t his movie for simply "flirting" with a white women

3) tar baby is an offensive term. Now with most language the offensivity (is that a word) comes from the common usage of the word. Sure the innocuous meaning would be the story told by Uncle remus but that is not how the term is used. LOL. ask Rep Lamborn who found himself in hot water after using the term in assocation with the President. He later sent a letter of apolgy to the President.
The general usage of the word "tar baby" means some one who is so black they are to be like "tar" it's sort of on par with calling some one a "spook". not good. The common usage of the word was depicted in ads with "pickininny" babies.

I'll get back with exact scenes and lines in a few.

And yes, I can say the "happy darkie" theme is offensive.

I wonder...would you have felt better if it had been depicted like you say? Why is showing an ability to have some relationship between black and white good and looking at things in a positive manner instead of a look into the past for everything bad?

Do you really believe that white children held that same hatred in their hearts that their parents or their grandparents might have? Some, maybe...but to blanket everyone as falling into a mode of hate and prejudice is just as bad as any other prejudice in my way of thinking.

Yes...all those things happened that you mentioned, BUT, not everyone was doing it and it is a shameful slam on those that knew the difference between right and wrong to state that every situation was the same. As for the reference of a WHITE woman protecting her child from a BLACK man...well I'm not sure, given the situation that the word white or even woman needed to be used...the word I would think of would be Mother protecting her child from something that she thought to be harmful! I am equally sure that there could have been any number of reasons why and none of them had to do with whether or not someone was black or white. From the setup of the movie, to me it was more of a try to keep him from falling into that world of make believe and face reality.

I would hope that you would watch it again and this time do not read so much into it. This story did not really attempt to show what race relationships were over all in the area. It was a specific spot at a specific time with a specific child that was troubled and need of someone to guide him. In this case it was a black man that stepped up and filled the bill. I am having a lot of trouble understanding why that is a bad thing, especially as far as how people felt about blacks back then were concerned. I would think of it as anything but a stereotypical depiction.

All that said...everyone is entitled to draw whatever conclusion they can from this movie, but since this is the United States it would be really nice if we were allowed to draw our own conclusions and not be told what we can and cannot see or what we should or should not think. As you can tell by this thread...not everyone saw any evil or negative in it.

 

[eliza61]

I wonder...would you have felt better if it had been depicted like you say? Why is showing an ability to have some relationship between black and white good and looking at things in a positive manner instead of a look into the past for everything bad?

Do you really believe that white children held that same hatred in their hearts that their parents or their grandparents might have? Some, maybe...but to blanket everyone as falling into a mode of hate and prejudice is just as bad as any other prejudice in my way of thinking.

Yes...all those things happened that you mentioned, BUT, not everyone was doing it and it is a shameful slam on those that knew the difference between right and wrong to state that every situation was the same. As for the reference of a WHITE woman protecting her child from a BLACK man...well I'm not sure, given the situation that the word white or even woman needed to be used...the word I would think of would be Mother protecting her child from something that she thought to be harmful! I am equally sure that there could have been any number of reasons why and none of them had to do with whether or not someone was black or white. From the setup of the movie, to me it was more of a try to keep him from falling into that world of make believe and face reality.

I would hope that you would watch it again and this time do not read so much into it. This story did not really attempt to show what race relationships were over all in the area. It was a specific spot at a specific time with a specific child that was troubled and need of someone to guide him. In this case it was a black man that stepped up and filled the bill. I am having a lot of trouble understanding why that is a bad thing, especially as far as how people felt about blacks back then were concerned. I would think of it as anything but a stereotypical depiction.

All that said...everyone is entitled to draw whatever conclusion they can from this movie, but since this is the United States it would be really nice if we were allowed to draw our own conclusions and not be told what we can and cannot see or what we should or should not think. As you can tell by this thread...not everyone saw any evil or negative in it.

Yep, it is the United states and the great thing about the US is when you own some thing you can do what you want with it. Sp in reality you're only entitled to viewing it if Disney so declares it. I am in no way telling you what you should not see or think. You can think what ever you feel about the movie just like I can. You simply don't like the results of the way I and many others feel.

You want to be allowed to draw your own conclusion, take your complaint to disney. They are making the BUSINESS decision to not release it. They are making the sound business decision based on their right to make a profit. I exercise my American right to boycott or not patronize any business that I don't particular care for.

You saw no evil in it. good, I'm 100% glad for you but unfortunately there must be those that do and right know their opinion holds greater weight in the eyes of disneys execs . evidently quite a few others must feel strongely against it since Disney has been worried about it's release for quite some time.

So in closing, if you really feel strongly that the movie should be release simply do what quite a few African Americans have done by letting Disney know that.

See the great thing about how America works is that some times it works in ways that you might not like but yet it's just as American.

 

[DizBelle]

Yep, it is the United states and the great thing about the US is when you own some thing you can do what you want with it. Sp in reality you're only entitled to viewing it if Disney so declares it. I am in no way telling you what you should not see or think. You can think what ever you feel about the movie just like I can. You simply don't like the results of the way I and many others feel.

You want to be allowed to draw your own conclusion, take your complaint to disney. They are making the BUSINESS decision to not release it. They are making the sound business decision based on their right to make a profit. I exercise my American right to boycott or not patronize any business that I don't particular care for.

You saw no evil in it. good, I'm 100% glad for you but unfortunately there must be those that do and right know their opinion holds greater weight in the eyes of disneys execs . evidently quite a few others must feel strongely against it since Disney has been worried about it's release for quite some time.

So in closing, if you really feel strongly that the movie should be release simply do what quite a few African Americans have done by letting Disney know that.

See the great thing about how America works is that some times it works in ways that you might not like but yet it's just as American.

I really, really, REALLY want to understand your position. But, honestly, it is lost on me. I am asking (begging) you to educate me. What is it that is offensive about this movie? What are the scenes or dialogue that is offensive? I really don't know. I've watched the movie specifically looking for what is offensive and didn't see it.

For the record, I grew up in Georgia (just south of Atlanta) in to 70s. I have no recollection of any racial tensions. I went to public schools. I remember a relatively even racial mix.

 

[CandyMandy]

It's not a realistic depiction of what really went on back then. I can see how you would be insulted. It's not cool to make light of what was a horrendous and insulting and degrading time for African Americans. The movie should not have been made.

Oh, I see...what Walt Disney should have done in 1946 was to make a dark, sinster film about poor sharecroppers being brutalized by their landlords. The children of the landowners should have been characters who hated the children of the sharecroppers and Unlce Remus should have been jailed for trying to eeven speak to them. Then we would have had an "authentic" picture...

 

[CandyMandy]

I'm wondering this too since I haven't gotten a response to my question about what scenes or dialogue are offensive.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[ZellyB]

Don't hold your breath.

Why in heaven's name would she need to satisfy your demands for specific lines and scenes. How absurd. The theme of the movie (or at least the depiction of Uncle Remus) is offensive to her and to thousands of others like her. Enough said. I think she's been extraordinarily patient in trying to answer questions about just why she finds it offensive and indicating she is speaking for herself. The fact that she finds it offensive makes it offensive to her. Period. Eliza stipulates beautifully that Disney is making a business decision and if at some point they decide it's better business to release it, they will.

 

[goofyernmost]

You can think what ever you feel about the movie just like I can. You simply don't like the results of the way I and many others feel.

You want to be allowed to draw your own conclusion, take your complaint to disney. They are making the BUSINESS decision to not release it. They are making the sound business decision based on their right to make a profit. I exercise my American right to boycott or not patronize any business that I don't particular care for.

You saw no evil in it. good, I'm 100% glad for you but unfortunately there must be those that do and right know their opinion holds greater weight in the eyes of disneys execs . evidently quite a few others must feel strongely against it since Disney has been worried about it's release for quite some time.

See the great thing about how America works is that some times it works in ways that you might not like but yet it's just as American.

No, actually what we are dealing with here is the P word...Political Correctness. You and others may think that your individual "opinion" is what is driving the force, but it isn't...it is fear that a minority might decide that it is offensive and cause them trouble. Part of what you said is correct. It is the part that I highlighted and underlined. There is no incentive for Disney to release this movie because under the best of conditions, profit, would probably be miniscule. So in the meantime, we are all deprived of a very nice movie that was made with no intent to downgrade anyone, in fact the opposite, but because some want to equate it with a bad time in American History...it will be lost to everyone. That isn't American...that is bullying!

American would be that all have had the opportunity to study the facts, and base their opinions on that fact instead of what others are telling them. And your right would be to not buy the product, even protest...but not exclude it from everyone else, because your interpretation is such that you don't like it.

 

[eliza61]

No, actually what we are dealing with here is the P word...Political Correctness. You and others may think that your individual "opinion" is what is driving the force, but it isn't...it is fear that a minority might decide that it is offensive and cause them trouble. Part of what you said is correct. It is the part that I highlighted and underlined. There is no incentive for Disney to release this movie because under the best of conditions, profit, would probably be miniscule. So in the meantime, we are all deprived of a very nice movie that was made with no intent to downgrade anyone, in fact the opposite, but because some want to equate it with a bad time in American History...it will be lost to everyone. That isn't American...that is bullying!American would be that all have had the opportunity to study the facts, and base their opinions on that fact instead of what others are telling them. And your right would be to not buy the product, even protest...but not exclude it from everyone else, because your interpretation is such that you don't like it.And that's exactly what I'm doing, so please tell me exactly how I am excluding you from seeing the movie.

Hogwash. No one gets the "right" to see private property when they want, how they want.

Song of the south is a movie owned by a corporation OWNED AND OPERATED by stock holders. You don't have some divine american right to see what they do not want to show. I don't give a flying flip if it is pc. I'm not excluding it from jack. I don't have the power to do that.

If disney decided to stop selling snow white and the seven dwarfs because Little people would boycott, guess what you would no longer be able to buy. So anyone who wanted to see after the fact would be just as SOL. No one has some American divine right to purchase SW.

I repeat again, if you want to see the film or have it released YOU have the same right to contact Disney and state your case as I have.


What I find so hypocritical is that whenever people complain about disney, the first thing out of peoples mouths here is "vote with your dollars". Well that is what the Black community has decided to do (no, no all). we are voting with our considerable dollars.

So according to you I do have the right to boycott and not buy the movie but if I do that (in large enough numbers) and the company decides to make a business decision based on my boycott now I'm a bully?

LOl so I have the right just as long as it doesn't hurt you.

You're are absolutely right, I would not buy the movie, uhm excuse me, that's exactly what disney would be afraid of.

In 2009 conservative amounts are that African Americans spent 6 billion bucks on travel and vacation. Disney is trying to tap into that very large market. So you honestly think they should potentially piss of that wad of cash for a movie that by your own statement will not bring it that much money? Seriously? You yourself said they would make zippo profit and you want them to release it because it's a "nice film".

Sure it may be about Political correctness. PC has it's place. I don't support businesses that portray my people in a negative, dangerous light. I don't support banks that charge outrageous fees. When you run a business that depends on public opinion you are very much subjected to PC. You are very sensitive to who and what your audience is and how they feel.

TV shows, products or any thing for sale is bounced around by the winds of PC as you call it.
Why do you think sponsers dropped Tiger Woods when it was found out that he behaved badly? No one wanted to risk a bunch of pissed off wives and girlfriends boycotting their product.

This has nothing to do with bullying and every thing to do with you simply don't like a really smart business decision that prevents you from viewing some thing. which I repeated, the company that owns it has no, absolutely no obligation to show it to anyone if they don't want to.

 

[golfgal]

I'm wondering this too since I haven't gotten a response to my question about what scenes or dialogue are offensive.

Well--just the whole tar baby reference is pretty offensive--feel free to do a web search as to why if you don't know why this is offensive...


Now, Song of the South is probably my favorite Disney movie, and while I don't personally find the movie offensive, there are many in our society that do. I think it is a great historical reference to an era in our countries history and if view as such, people should not have issue with the move, however, that just isn't how many people operate these days. When people blame not getting jobs or any "wrong" done to them automatically on the color of their skin and never dig deeper as to the real reason (like maybe you just aren't qualified for the job??)...Song of the South will never be released by Disney.

 

[CandyMandy]

Why in heaven's name would she need to satisfy your demands for specific lines and scenes.

Well, excuse me, I did not ask for the specific references, another poster did, but apparently the anti-SOTS crowd likes to shotgun.

The theme of the movie (or at least the depiction of Uncle Remus) is offensive to her and to thousands of others like her.

How do you know this? Can you show us evidence such as a website where thousands of the supposed offended have stated they want the film banned? I can certainly provide evidence there are thousands who want the film released. And while we're at it, why aren't these offended clamoring for Gone With The Wind to be banned? (I suspect is has to do with the fact that film is so embedded as a Hollywood classic they know attempts to attack it would not only be futile, but also counter productive). So they instead stick to attacking an easier target: a lower profile, somewhat forgotten Disney film.

 

[golfgal]

Well, excuse me, I did not ask for the specific references, another poster did, but apparatently the anti-SOTS crowd likes to shotgun.



How do you know this? Can you show us evidence, such as a website where thousands of the supposed offended have stated they want the film banned? I can certianly privide evidenc ethere are thousands who want the filom released? And while we're at it, whay aren't these offended clamoring for Gone With The Wind to be banned? (I suspect is has to do with the fact that film is so embedded as a Hollywood classic they know attempts to attack it would not only be futile, but also counter productive). So they instead stick to attacking an easier target: a lower profile, somewhat forgotten DIsney film.

It doesn't matter if 80,000,000 want the show released, DISNEY has decided not to release the film. You have to know that if they did release the film there WOULD be protests and a lot of bad press...Disney is choosing to avoid that.

 

[iheartdisney]

Looney Tunes has released DVDs with Speedy Gonzalez and Pepe LePue, and I must have missed he rioting by the Hispanic and French nations of the world.

​

My kids and I just watched it a few months ago, and LOVED to finally see it. I had the same reaction. I don't get the big deal. I found the two redneck boys down the street to be way more offensive than Uncle Remus. What with beating up their sister and trying to drown the dog. Is that what society thinks of white people? That image is OK to portray?
(and as for how I gained access to the film, my mom was helping her sister clean out her junk room, and there was a Song of the South DVD. She called me immediately!

 

[DizBelle]

Well--just the whole tar baby reference is pretty offensive--feel free to do a web search as to why if you don't know why this is offensive...


Now, Song of the South is probably my favorite Disney movie, and while I don't personally find the movie offensive, there are many in our society that do. I think it is a great historical reference to an era in our countries history and if view as such, people should not have issue with the move, however, that just isn't how many people operate these days. When people blame not getting jobs or any "wrong" done to them automatically on the color of their skin and never dig deeper as to the real reason (like maybe you just aren't qualified for the job??)...Song of the South will never be released by Disney.

From Wikipedia:

The Tar-Baby is a doll made of tar and turpentine used to entrap Br'er Rabbit in the second of the Uncle Remus stories. The more that Br'er Rabbit fights the Tar-Baby, the more entangled he becomes. In modern usage according to Random House, "tar baby" refers to any "sticky situation" that is only aggravated by additional contact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure how "tar baby" became derogatory based on this. It's root, as far as the tale told in the Song of the South movie, is from African folklore. Why would people of African descent be offended by a story from their own history?

And, now that the "sticky situation" is represented by honey in the Splash Mountain attraction, should people that are the color of honey be offended?

And, apparently there are 267 cultures that need to be offended by it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Variations on the tar baby legend are spread among the folklores of more than one culture. In the Journal of American Folklore, Aurelio M. Espinosa examined 267 versions of the tar baby story.[2] The mythical West African hero Anansi is recorded as once being similarly trapped.[3] In a Spanish language version told in the mountainous parts of Colombia, an unnamed rabbit is trapped by the "Muñeco de Brea" (tar doll). A Buddhist myth tells of Prince Five-weapons (the Future Buddha) who encounters the ogre Sticky Hair in a forest.[4]

The Tar Baby theme is present in the lores in various tribes of Meso-America and of South America : it is to be found such stories[5] as the Nahuatl (of Mexico) "Lazy Boy and Little Rabbit" (González Casanova 1946, pp. 55–67), Pipil (of El Salvador) "Rabbit and Little Fox" (Schultes 1977, pp. 113–116), and Palenquero (of Colombia) "Rabbit, Toad, and Tiger" (Patiño Rosselli 1983, pp. 224–229).

According to James Mooney in "Myths of the Cherokee",[6] the tar baby story may have been influenced in America by the Cherokee "Tar Wolf" story, which is unlikely to have been derived from similar African stories: "Some of these animal stories are common to widely separated [Native American] tribes among whom there can be no suspicion of [African] influences. Thus the famous "tar baby" story has variants, not only among the Cherokee, but also in New Mexico, Washington [State], and southern Alaska—wherever, in fact, the pine supplies enough gum to be molded into a ball for [Native American] uses...". In the Tar Wolf story, the animals were thirsty during a dry spell, and agreed to dig a well. The lazy rabbit refused to help dig, and so had no right to drink from the well. But she was thirsty, and stole from the well at night. The other animals fashioned a wolf out of tar and placed it near the well to scare the thief. The rabbit was scared at first, but when the tar wolf did not respond to her questions, she struck it and was held fast. Then she struggled with it and became so ensnared that she couldn't move. The next morning, the animals discovered the rabbit and proposed various ways of killing her, such as cutting her head off, and the rabbit responded to each idea saying that it would not harm her. Then an animal suggested throwing the rabbit into the thicket to die. At this, the rabbit protested vigorously and pleaded for her life. The animals threw the rabbit into the thicket. The rabbit then gave a whoop and bounded away, calling out to the other animals "This is where I live!".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the reason I'm asking for specifics about what is offensive is because I wish to become educated about their viewpoint. And maybe, just maybe, if people are forced to really think about and describe what is offensive, they might see that there really isn't anything to be offended about. Or maybe, just maybe, they can enlighten me on what is offensive about it. I'll take either one.

 

[goofyernmost]

I no longer feel the need to argue this. It's a waste of time anyway because apparently, giving into pressure, the Disney folks have decided that it just wouldn't be worth it to re-issue the film.

Hopefully, this theme will not carry over to other things like movies about WWII because we could possibly offend the Germans. Or maybe Forrest Gump because it would offend those of lesser intellectual power.

What it proves is that people believe whatever they want to believe, me included, and nothing will soften that belief. Personally, I have a copy of the movie, I don't watch it often, but I do occasionally review it so whether or not Disney re-issues it is of no particular concern of mine. What it does mean is that whatever judgement I make of it is based on something I have seen at least once within a time-span that is more current. That outlook might be wrong for others...not for me.

 

[DizBelle]

More on "tar baby".....

Even if "tar baby" came to be a derogatory term for a black person, my guess is that it didn't happen until after Song of the South was made. Even if it was before, "tar baby" in the context of this movie is used to represent a sticky situation so it should be taken as such. If someone else uses the term in a different fashion, then that's on them and shouldn't reflect on Song of the South.

 

[Geoff_M]

I no longer feel the need to argue this. It's a waste of time anyway because apparently, giving into pressure, the Disney folks have decided that it just wouldn't be worth it to re-issue the film.

I think part of what mystifies people that would like to see the movie released for the home market is that there doesn't appear to be any organized "pressure" against doing so. The NAACP issued an objection to the film when it first came out, written by an executive who had not personally seen the film and mis-characterized Uncle Remus as a "slave" and the setting as pre-Civil War, but the organization reportedly has declined to take a position on the film in recent years when the question of its release in the post-Huxtable era has been brought up. While I have no doubt there would be some people upset with Disney if they were to release it on DVD, I seriously doubt it would become a PR headache of the type that some predict. But there would no doubt be some people upset, and some threatened "actions" (likely to be as successful as recent actions as the SBC's call for a member "boycott"), and given that the DVD probably wouldn't be much more than a "collectors" item in terms of sales, I doubt the potential financial reward will be worth it for Disney to release the title. Instead, Disney will just continue to let demand be met by looking the other way on eBay bootlegs.

Even if it was before, "tar baby" in the context of this movie is used to represent a sticky situation so it should be taken as such. If someone else uses the term in a different fashion, then that's on them and shouldn't reflect on Song of the South.

Probably true, but in our culture once a term becomes racially tinged, almost any usage becomes "toxic". Anyone else remember eating at the "Sambo's" restaurant chain when they were growing up? It was started by two partners "Sam" and "Bo" before the children's story became popular in the US.... but none of that mattered to critics of the name.

 

[CandyMandy]

If they did release the film there WOULD be protests and a lot of bad press.

Prove that. Here on a website focused on Disney, we have at best two posters (out of the thousands here regularly) who claim they are insulted by the film - and to little surprise both are from the Tri- State area and only one has stated they are African American. And as I mentioned earlier, Google all you want and you will still never find a website dedicated to boycotting or attacking Disney if they release this fim. On the other hand, go to Amazon, type in SOTS and enjoy reading the over 500 reviews criticizing Disney for not making the film available and pleading for its release.

 

[golfgal]

Prove that. Here on a website focused on Disney, we have at best two posters (out of the thousands here regularly) who claim they are insulted by the film - and to little surprise both are from the Tri- State area and only one has stated they are African American. And as I mentioned earlier, Google all you want and you will still never find a website dedicated to boycotting or attacking Disney if they release this fim. On the other hand, go to Amazon, type in SOTS and enjoy reading the over 500 reviews asking why the film is not available.

Well, the fans of the movie would not be the one's protesting now would they?

 

[ZellyB]

Prove that. Here on a website focused on Disney, we have at best two posters (out of the thousands here regularly) who claim they are insulted by the film - and to little surprise both are from the Tri- State area and only one has stated they are African American. And as I mentioned earlier, Google all you want and you will still never find a website dedicated to boycotting or attacking Disney if they release this fim. On the other hand, go to Amazon, type in SOTS and enjoy reading the over 500 reviews asking why the film is not available.

So, let's think about it statistically using your premise of two posters out of thousands and extrapolate that. The DIS has listed 377,119 members. If we use that number and calculate the same ratio to the US population that would mean that 1,656 people would be offended. Of course, we also know that not all 377,119 members have read this thread (a substantial number probably never even use the site any more), so if we look at the number of replies to the thread and extrapolate using that number we get 5,251,102 people. So, somewhere between 1,656 and 5,251,102.

Either way, it's more people than Disney wants to gamble on for whatever profit they might get from a release of the movie. It's a film that some find offensive whether everyone feels that way or not.