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

[golfgal]

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.

Exactly, even if ONE person protested and they got some press about it, it's more bad press then Disney wants, period, end of story.

 

[Carl]

Getting back to my question - now that I've seen it and only see 3 Brer Rabbit stories, I want to know if there are more.
If so, I'd like to see a remake of the Brer Rabbit stories and just leave out the story teller or make him white. I love those stories and no one can do the cartoons like Disney.

 

[pat fan]

just leave out the story teller or make him white.

Well I think that would be ridiculous. I believe, but could be wrong, that those are African Folk stories. (I am sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) If so, making the story teller white, after all the hoopla about the movie being racist would just throw gasoline on a fire, and, IMO, be completely unnecessary.

 

[eliza61]

This was from the stockholders meeting this year.

On Wednesday, March 23, 2011, at the Disney Annual Stockholders Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, the very final question asked of Bob Iger, just minutes from concluding the meeting, was the annual query: When might the Disney Company release the live action/animated movie, Song of the South, to DVD?


After all, November of this year marks the 65th anniversary for the film that has not been seen legally by most Americans for decades, even though it has run on BBC2 television in the United Kingdom recently without causing rioting in the streets. The film has never been officially released in the United States on videotape or DVD even though it has been done so in several overseas countries.

Although he was smiling, Iger seemed a little irritated that the question keeps coming up at every Disney Stockholders meeting. He replied:

“I said last year at our shareholder’s meeting that I had watched Song of the South again… and even though we’ve considered it from time to time, bringing it back, I didn’t think it was the right thing for the company to do.

“It was made at a different time. Admittedly, you could use that as the context. Just felt there are elements in the film…it’s a relatively good film…that would not necessarily fit right or feel right to a number of people today. Just felt it wouldn’t be in the best interests of our shareholders to bring it back even though there would be some financial gain. Sometimes you make sacrifices on the financial side to do what you believe is right and that is an example of that.

“I just don’t feel that it is right for us to use company resources to make it available whether it’s wide or whether it’s narrowly available. It is a strong belief that I have. Consulted with other top executives in the company… they all agree. Remember it as it was and don’t expect to see it again at least for a while....if ever."

It is a much more tangled “can of worms” than many people realize and the film sparks heated emotions from its defenders as well as it opponents.

It is important to remember that Song of the South came out in 1946 and there was no balance of media images that featured the noble Huxtable family of The Cosby Show or the dynamic John Shaft or even prominent African American leaders like Sidney Poitier or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. African American performers often portrayed comic roles where their characters were described as lazy, slow-witted, easily scared or flustered, subservient and worse. That image was what the American public was seeing and accepting as the norm for African Americans.

Also remember that, in 1946, the United States was still a highly segregated country with separate facilities for non-whites. The brutal torture and lynching of African Americans was so commonplace that the National Headquarters of the NAACP would fly a black flag out its window when news of a new lynching was confirmed.

So perhaps it was with a naive unawareness of this racial situation of inequity that Walt Disney thought that making a film of the fables of Uncle Remus would help the Disney Studio's precarious financial situation after World War II by expanding into live-action and bringing the colorful and much beloved American folktales to life in animation for the first time

http://www.mouseplanet.com/9602/The_Sad_Song_of_the_South



so I'm offically over this argument, for right now and the forseeable future. Robert Iger, the ceo of Disney has made the decision to not release the film. Whether or not he is practicing Political correctness or not is moot. It's done.

But they did say they were going to preserve it.

 

[olwyngdh]

FYI: do not take my ramblings as the "official" African american view on this. I'm simply one mom voicing my views. I'm sure there are many blacks who couldn't care less about the darn thing. as some one mentioned "its a movie".

From one Mom to another -- I can understand your PoV on this, and I agree that it probably should not be re-released, but I am glad that "bootleg" copies are available--I just picked mine up a few weeks ago at the Fair. For us, it was not only a childhood film that my husband and I both remembered fondly, but a teaching experience for our DD9. She and I went to a presentation in Williamsburg VA a couple years ago on the differences between African American tales, Native American Tales, and European tales. She watched it with us, and brought up how Uncle Remus's tales were exactly what she learned in African American tales are supposed to be like when we were in Williamsburg; how animals are used to show human behavior and human mistakes in a way we can learn from them. She picked up on how the tales Uncle Remus told taught the kids how to deal with situations they were facing in their own lives, specifically the bullying. She did question why all the African Americans were so poor and the white people were so rich, so we talked a bit about the reconstruction period and how hard it was for people with no education and no money to save and set out on their own. I think, while people our age may see the racisim in the film, our children thankfully may not experience that the way we did in the 60s and 70s. (or it could be that we are a military family, so there has never been a difference between races to her, there is never an us and them with other military families.) I am glad we had the opportunity to see the film with our daughter, and I know that every time she watches it, more questions will come out of it and give me more opportunities to teach her history and why and how things were and why and how they have changed and help her figure out how they need to change in the future.

Sorry for the rambling--it is a tramadol type of day--the point I was trying to get to is, even though you rightfully find films like this offensive, do you find sufficient material available to teach your children the richness of the African American folklore? And if you do, could you recomend any sources? All I have is a book of Uncle Remus tales and the film, and DD9 is WAY too young for Zora Neal Hurston. It is such a rich and layered heritage, and so vital to what America is and has become and can become (even though it isn't mine) that I hate seeing regulated to "Black History Month" and obscure English classes in liberal arts colleges.

 

[The Orchid]

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...

I think you mistakenly quoted the wrong person. I never said Disney should have made a different, more sinister version of SOTS. I said they shouldn't have made it at all. Who were you meaning to quote? I read back a few pages but haven't been able to find the post that you actually meant to respond to.

 

[DizBelle]

Isn't it hypocritacal for Disney to release it in many other countries but not here? If they deemed it inappropriate, wouldn't be inappropriate anywhere?

 

[CandyMandy]

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.

Here is the gaping hole in logic of the above: The difference between having dissatisfaction with something vs. actually acting on that dissatisfaction.

For the above simplistically assumes that everyone or a signifigant percentage of those who might be offended by SOTS are going to act on that emotion if Disney releases the film. By act, I mean engage in widely broadcast public criticism or organized boycotts.

The above implies such huge threats because look, gee whiz, some large number of people might be offended and good heavens, that would lead to large numbers of actions that could hurt Disney.

But what that implication misses is that if enough people don't act on the emotion, it has no impact.

And let me provide a real life example of just that happening to Disney, which in turn has led them to completely ignore an area of major dissatisfaction.

Anyone -- and I mean anyone -- who has spent any time on the cruise boards here is familiar with the proverbial threads that appear about smoking on cabin verandas, which Disney still permits.

The scenario is always the same. Someone either asks if this is allowed (out of concerns of having to deal with secondhand smoke) or provides a scathing trip report about how their recent DCL vacation was ruined by nearby passengers who constantly smoked.

The thread then erupts with scores of others chiming in about how yes, my vacation was ruined by that too and how backward the Disney policy is, how other cruise lines have banned veranda smoking, how gosh darn it I'm going to look to take my cruise business elsewhere or will never book a Disney balcony again unless they change this, I wrote them a letter and received a generic, impersonal "thank you for contacting us " form in response, etc. etc.

In other words, LOADS of people who are regularly expressing how OFFENDED they are by a Disney action and who are filing complaints and threatening actions.

And how does Disney respond? It IGNORES the complaints and threats, because it knows the whining about balcony smoking -- as constant as it is -- is only coming from a fraction of passengers and isn't resulting in boycotts, lawsuits or any other elements that impact the bottom line.

The same story is exactly what you would see with a properly managed home video release of SOTS. Some noise from the obvious suspects, not organized boycotts by thousands and front page editorials. The "offense" story would have very short legs, particularly if the film was released in a manner that added commentary or preamble by the right third parties; having Samuel Jackson or James Earl Jones as example in the loop would quickly blunt the "insensitivity" angle.

So the "math" in the quoted post above is pretty much meaningless.

 

[CandyMandy]

I said they shouldn't have made it at all.

So, you are therefore saying "they" were racist.

Of course, you realize "they" is Walt Disney. The film was his brainchild and passion. He dreamed for years of bringing this adaptation of the Chandler stories to life.

So you are therefore saying Walt Disney was a racist.

 

[eliza61]

Sorry for the rambling--it is a tramadol type of day--the point I was trying to get to is, even though you rightfully find films like this offensive, do you find sufficient material available to teach your children the richness of the African American folklore? And if you do, could you recomend any sources? All I have is a book of Uncle Remus tales and the film, and DD9 is WAY too young for Zora Neal Hurston. It is such a rich and layered heritage, and so vital to what America is and has become and can become (even though it isn't mine) that I hate seeing regulated to "Black History Month" and obscure English classes in liberal arts colleges.

So, I'm a bit older than you and my kids are almost grown to grown adults.

Now that presented a problem because when I was growing up there were absolutely NO sources for African american children. No books, no movies nada. I grew up during segregation and my parents never allowed me to watch Amos and Andy or any of the other crap. Very few movies showed us positively and my sister and I knew better to ever ask to see "gone with the wind". I did ask my mom about it one time and all she said was it was too bad that Sherman didn't set fire to Scarlett while burning Atlanta. I took that as a "thumbs down". LOL

I did finally see it when I was about 18 and the first thing I couldnt get pass was why in the heck would anyone WANT Scarlett? I think I made it through the scence where the little black boy fanning the girls while they slept.

What I do have is a very rich family history. My uncle was one of the tuskegee airman, my mom was a civil rights attorneys that help bring about voting rites in Tenn. so we relied on oral history, pictures and narratives.

My sons grew up during the late 80's and 90's so they had better printed material but as children, we didn't let them watch a lot of disney movies or tv. The images of us were still usually pimp, crooked pastor, illegal bootlegger, hoe, etc. I remember they finally did get a show called "Julia" featuring Diane carroll as a nurse but those were far and few in between. they did like stuff like "batman" and "thomas the tank" engine. we didn't have a tv until they were about 7 or 8.


Now though you are soooo lucky. there is a boatload of stuff out there. I still pretty much stay away from tv. For my very young kids I get stories that have a underlying message of their "beauty" becasue so much of advertising and magazines teach girls that if you don't look a certain way usually "skinny and blonde" then you won't be popular. I have nieces so we read a book called "I like myself" all the time.

http://africa.mrdonn.org/fables.html


http://www.amazon.com/Daddys-Arms-Tall-Americans-Celebrating/dp/1584300167/ref=pd_sim_b2
http://www.amazon.com/Love-Hair-Natasha-Anastasia-Tarpley/dp/0316523755/ref=pd_sim_b3
http://www.amazon.com/I-Like-Myself-Karen-Beaumont/dp/0152020136/ref=pd_sim_b4

Visit the web page of your local African American museum. They have tons upon tons of great positive stuff. Materials that show us as more than maids and nannies.

 

[Carl]

Well I think that would be ridiculous. I believe, but could be wrong, that those are African Folk stories. (I am sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) If so, making the story teller white, after all the hoopla about the movie being racist would just throw gasoline on a fire, and, IMO, be completely unnecessary.

Yes, they are African stories. But, they don't WANT an African American telling them, from what I am reading. That would make him an "Uncle Tom."
Hey, I'm just searching for a way to have those stories released on modern HD media. Don't jump on me for coming up with the wrong solution. Give me the solution, if you have one. It is unfortunate that it was an African than came up with those stories, since that has made it a bone of contention to present them to the public.

 

[eliza61]

Yes, they are African stories. But, they don't WANT an African American telling them, from what I am reading. That would make him an "Uncle Tom."
Hey, I'm just searching for a way to have those stories released on modern HD media. Don't jump on me for coming up with the wrong solution. Give me the solution, if you have one. It is unfortunate that it was an African than came up with those stories, since that has made it a bone of contention to present them to the public.

The solution may not be to make a movie of them Carl. Not all stories translate well to every medium.

I loved the movie titanic, thought it was cheesy but good but then I went to see titanic: the musical on broadway. "uggggh"

HBO does a really great series called "Happily ever after: fairy tales for every child". It is excellent. It retells some of the best loved fairy tales with children of every ethnicity. It shows people of color,not only blacks as Emperors as well as field hands.

Sweet blackberry is a non profit company started by a women named Karyn Parson. You may recognize her from the tv " Fresh prince of Bel Air" she played the oldest daughter name Hillary (I think)
Anyway they make award winning short films based on African americans for children.
They are often shown on Hbo also.

http://sweetblackberry.org/
http://sweetblackberry.org/shop/

 

[DizBelle]

Yes, they are African stories. But, they don't WANT an African American telling them, from what I am reading. That would make him an "Uncle Tom."
Hey, I'm just searching for a way to have those stories released on modern HD media. Don't jump on me for coming up with the wrong solution. Give me the solution, if you have one. It is unfortunate that it was an African than came up with those stories, since that has made it a bone of contention to present them to the public.

Go back and read my post with the content from wikipedia. Apparently, these stories in various forms appear in 267 cultures - not just African.

 

[olwyngdh]

So, I'm a bit older than you and my kids are almost grown to grown adults.

We are probably around the same age--my older girl is 26, DD9 was a surprise!

I did finally see it when I was about 18 and the first thing I couldnt get pass was why in the heck would anyone WANT Scarlett?

I agree with you on that!! Spoiled brat at the best. I love the movie, but I can't stand her.

What I do have is a very rich family history. My uncle was one of the tuskegee airman, my mom was a civil rights attorneys that help bring about voting rites in Tenn. so we relied on oral history, pictures and narratives.

That is awesome! We lived at Langley AFB for 5 yrs, and I actually got to meet one of the Tuskegee Airmen when he was there selling and signing a book he wrote--I didn't get to read it though, I sent it to my husband in Iraq and it didn't come back with him

With your family history, have you ever thought about writing and publishing their stories? I am sure your Mom had a lot of experiences we could all learn from, and the Civil Rights movement is something that we can not afford to forget--and with the MLK memorial just opening, this is a great time to get the personal stories out there.

What actually got my DD9 going on this line of interest was a combination of spending a lot of time talking to Wil in Williamsburg (probably the best interpreter there), talking to the Tuskegee Airman and listening to his stories, and finding out while working on our genealogy that one of my ancestors ran a stop on the underground railroad. She really wants to know what the lives of people were like and understand why people were abused for their color. The idea is so foreign to her that she is really working hard to grasp it. I have been trying to feed her interest, but haven't had a lot of age appropriate material.We just moved to MA from VA, so I will have to see if there is an African American museum here because I know that will fascinate her.


Thank you so much for the links--she is one of those kids with an insatiable appetite for information and I love watching her light up as she learns about new things.

Amy

 

[robinb]

This was from the stockholders meeting this year.

On Wednesday, March 23, 2011, at the Disney Annual Stockholders Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, the very final question asked of Bob Iger, just minutes from concluding the meeting, was the annual query: When might the Disney Company release the live action/animated movie, Song of the South, to DVD?


After all, November of this year marks the 65th anniversary for the film that has not been seen legally by most Americans for decades, even though it has run on BBC2 television in the United Kingdom recently without causing rioting in the streets. The film has never been officially released in the United States on videotape or DVD even though it has been done so in several overseas countries.

Although he was smiling, Iger seemed a little irritated that the question keeps coming up at every Disney Stockholders meeting. He replied:

“I said last year at our shareholder’s meeting that I had watched Song of the South again… and even though we’ve considered it from time to time, bringing it back, I didn’t think it was the right thing for the company to do.

“It was made at a different time. Admittedly, you could use that as the context. Just felt there are elements in the film…it’s a relatively good film…that would not necessarily fit right or feel right to a number of people today. Just felt it wouldn’t be in the best interests of our shareholders to bring it back even though there would be some financial gain. Sometimes you make sacrifices on the financial side to do what you believe is right and that is an example of that.

“I just don’t feel that it is right for us to use company resources to make it available whether it’s wide or whether it’s narrowly available. It is a strong belief that I have. Consulted with other top executives in the company… they all agree. Remember it as it was and don’t expect to see it again at least for a while....if ever."

It is a much more tangled “can of worms” than many people realize and the film sparks heated emotions from its defenders as well as it opponents.

It is important to remember that Song of the South came out in 1946 and there was no balance of media images that featured the noble Huxtable family of The Cosby Show or the dynamic John Shaft or even prominent African American leaders like Sidney Poitier or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. African American performers often portrayed comic roles where their characters were described as lazy, slow-witted, easily scared or flustered, subservient and worse. That image was what the American public was seeing and accepting as the norm for African Americans.

Also remember that, in 1946, the United States was still a highly segregated country with separate facilities for non-whites. The brutal torture and lynching of African Americans was so commonplace that the National Headquarters of the NAACP would fly a black flag out its window when news of a new lynching was confirmed.

So perhaps it was with a naive unawareness of this racial situation of inequity that Walt Disney thought that making a film of the fables of Uncle Remus would help the Disney Studio's precarious financial situation after World War II by expanding into live-action and bringing the colorful and much beloved American folktales to life in animation for the first time

http://www.mouseplanet.com/9602/The_Sad_Song_of_the_South



so I'm offically over this argument, for right now and the forseeable future. Robert Iger, the ceo of Disney has made the decision to not release the film. Whether or not he is practicing Political correctness or not is moot. It's done.

But they did say they were going to preserve it.

I have been trying to put my finger on why some posters are so obtuse that they can't seem to see the inherent racism in SOTS and even go as far as to defend terms like "tar baby". I think I finally understand why. The film is a product of it's time of racial segregation and many (not all) posters here are a product of the "Post-Huxtable" time racial acceptance and of a visible black middle class.

The United States was a different place back in 1940's and black actors (who were far and few between) and were relegated to "historical" roles like the "happy darkie" or that or to servants. In real life, black actors fared only slightly better. If we look at that Mouse Planet article linked above we will see that NONE of the black actors were at the premiere in Georgia. Why? Because the state was still segregated and those actors would not be allowed into many of the locations of the festivities INCLUDING the theater. Think about it. James Baskett, the star of the movie, was not allowed to be at his own premiere. THAT is the time in our history that created SOTS.

When viewed though "Post-Huxtable" eyes (where blacks can be just as successful as whites and are lawyers, doctors, and even President) the film looks quaint and harmless. Uncle Remus is a kindly old black man and the tar baby is just a sticky situation. It's can be hard to wrap your head around all the sacrifices that were made during the Civil Rights movement to make the reality of the 1940's seem so ... foreign.

I, like Eliza, grew up in the 60's and 70's but I spent many years in a nasty little pocket of racism on the Southwest side of Chicago. I heard "tar baby" as a reference to blacks and much, much worse. I think that is why I can't put my "color blind" glasses on and see SOTS as harmless. To people who experienced or who are attuned to racism it's just not possible.

 

[luvsJack]

Its been a very long time since I have seen SOTS so forgive me but---Is the things that are objectionable in the scenes of Uncle Remus or is it the Brer Rabbit and Fox stories?

If it is the stories, why doesn't anyone have an issue with Splash Mountain?

If it is the Uncle Remus parts then why can't it just be released with just the stories?

And he is not a slave right? He is a free man during the reconstruction after the war? So its basically just a old servant man telling some stories to the children of the house he works in? I really don't get the objection?

Sure it was a bad time in history. It was bad for everyone especially African Americans. But its not glorifying that time or the people. Its just a man telling some stories.

 

[Carl]

I have been trying to put my finger on why some posters are so obtuse that they can't seem to see the inherent racism in SOTS and even go as far as to defend terms like "tar baby". I think I finally understand why. The film is a product of it's time of racial segregation and many (not all) posters here are a product of the "Post-Huxtable" time racial acceptance and of a visible black middle class.

The United States was a different place back in 1940's and black actors (who were far and few between) and were relegated to "historical" roles like the "happy darkie" or that or to servants. In real life, black actors fared only slightly better. If we look at that Mouse Planet article linked above we will see that NONE of the black actors were at the premiere in Georgia. Why? Because the state was still segregated and those actors would not be allowed into many of the locations of the festivities INCLUDING the theater. Think about it. James Baskett, the star of the movie, was not allowed to be at his own premiere. THAT is the time in our history that created SOTS.

When viewed though "Post-Huxtable" eyes (where blacks can be just as successful as whites and are lawyers, doctors, and even President) the film looks quaint and harmless. Uncle Remus is a kindly old black man and the tar baby is just a sticky situation. It's can be hard to wrap your head around all the sacrifices that were made during the Civil Rights movement to make the reality of the 1940's seem so ... foreign.

I, like Eliza, grew up in the 60's and 70's but I spent many years in a nasty little pocket of racism on the Southwest side of Chicago. I heard "tar baby" as a reference to blacks and much, much worse. I think that is why I can't put my "color blind" glasses on and see SOTS as harmless. To people who experienced or who are attuned to racism it's just not possible.

I think that (the part I bolded) is terrible. That should never have been permitted. But, I must admit, that I witnessed some of that type of treatment when I was a child in Houston. There were still some segregated water fountains then, and I just couldn't accept that.

 

[DizBelle]

I have been trying to put my finger on why some posters are so obtuse that they can't seem to see the inherent racism in SOTS and even go as far as to defend terms like "tar baby". I think I finally understand why. The film is a product of it's time of racial segregation and many (not all) posters here are a product of the "Post-Huxtable" time racial acceptance and of a visible black middle class.

The United States was a different place back in 1940's and black actors (who were far and few between) and were relegated to "historical" roles like the "happy darkie" or that or to servants. In real life, black actors fared only slightly better. If we look at that Mouse Planet article linked above we will see that NONE of the black actors were at the premiere in Georgia. Why? Because the state was still segregated and those actors would not be allowed into many of the locations of the festivities INCLUDING the theater. Think about it. James Baskett, the star of the movie, was not allowed to be at his own premiere. THAT is the time in our history that created SOTS.

When viewed though "Post-Huxtable" eyes (where blacks can be just as successful as whites and are lawyers, doctors, and even President) the film looks quaint and harmless. Uncle Remus is a kindly old black man and the tar baby is just a sticky situation. It's can be hard to wrap your head around all the sacrifices that were made during the Civil Rights movement to make the reality of the 1940's seem so ... foreign.

I, like Eliza, grew up in the 60's and 70's but I spent many years in a nasty little pocket of racism on the Southwest side of Chicago. I heard "tar baby" as a reference to blacks and much, much worse. I think that is why I can't put my "color blind" glasses on and see SOTS as harmless. To people who experienced or who are attuned to racism it's just not possible.

Re: bolded - So, in addition to not allowing Mr. Baskett to go to the premiere 65 years ago we are compounding the issue by not allowing his work to be seen now by anyone. Isn't this a disservice to him?

 

[kimmar067]

Re: bolded - So, in addition to not allowing Mr. Baskett to go to the premiere 65 years ago we are compounding the issue by not allowing his work to be seen now by anyone. Isn't this a disservice to him?

...good point.

 

[The Orchid]

So, you are therefore saying "they" were racist.

Of course, you realize "they" is Walt Disney. The film was his brainchild and passion. He dreamed for years of bringing this adaptation of the Chandler stories to life.

So you are therefore saying Walt Disney was a racist.

Once again, you quoted the wrong person. I never said Disney was racist. Why do you keep accidentally misquoting me? At least I hope it's an accident. If not, you sure love to put words in other people's mouths when you disagree.

For what it's worth (and yes, I know I'm giving you more words to distort), I think there is a huge difference between being racist and being misinformed or uneducated. From the perspective of a white woman, it's very easy to not fully understand how things can be hurtful to people whose history and life experiences are very different from mine. I'm keeping an open mind to that and you are taking offense to such an extreme that you're telling me I said things you and I both know I never said. Just because I may not understand what an African American feels when watching this movie doesn't mean I'm a racist, nor does it mean Walt Disney was racist. I'm willing to listen and to be educated and informed which I like to believe is the quality that separates me from a racist. Perhaps if Walt Disney realized how hurtful and degrading this film would be for some people, maybe he would have opted to be educated before deciding to make it. But since he is dead, we'll never know, will we?

I'm looking forward to hearing from you again about what I said that I didn't actually say!