Petition to Remove Dumbo

[JimMIA]

But the power of some symbols are going to be different depending on the skin colour of the people. So I think it's wrong for certain groups to say that statutes have no power when obviously they do for certain groups.

Symbols only have the power WE give them. If a symbol is trying to tell you something that is not true for you, you have to stand up to the fear.

If a person is not strong enough internally to stand up to a hunk of concrete, tearing the statue down will do nothing to alleviate their fear. There will be another statue.

There is no "safe space." We make our own world...for better or worse.

 

[JimMIA]

And the other point I've been trying to make -- which falls on conveniently-deaf ears -- is that statues, and whatever meaning one attributes to them are not what this is all about.

The core issue here can be solved if people will pay attention to the real problem and work on fixing it. This is fixable.

George Floyd was not killed by a statue. He was killed by four police officers: 2 white officers, one Asian officer, and one Black officer.

Those officers belonged to a police department that has been troubled for decades. Everybody knew it, and everybody also knew that it was not the only troubled police department in the Minneapolis/St Paul area. St. Paul and the sheriffs department also have problems.

And for DECADES, they did absolutely NOTHING about the problem...except occasionally hold a meaningless march when yet another person was killed.

They took symbolic actions -- and their symbolism accomplished nothing, and did nothing to prevent George Floyd's death. But they did get some good selfies.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

I think my response was based on this argument:

My point though is that we can choose as people to limit the power that symbols have over us - we can refuse to let them control us.

It's kind of the same category as saying words have no power if you don't let them. While technically true, it's not really how the brain works and that's especially true when you are being told the same things over and over.

Communities that put these monuments up are giving a clear message regarding their priorities and values. You might not notice it but you also probably are not the target of it.

 

[BrianL]

I think my response was based on this argument:

It's kind of the same category as saying words have no power if you don't let them. While technically true, it's not really how the brain works and that's especially true when you are being told the same things over and over.

Communities that put these monuments up are giving a clear message regarding their priorities and values. You might not notice it but you also probably are not the target of it.

Understood. But I didn't say it was easy, or even likely, but I think it is something worth thinking about as it is deffinitely a part of the larger picture.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Symbols only have the power WE give them. If a symbol is trying to tell you something that is not true for you, you have to stand up to the fear.

If a person is not strong enough internally to stand up to a hunk of concrete, tearing the statue down will do nothing to alleviate their fear. There will be another statue.

There is no "safe space." We make our own world...for better or worse.

In theory you are correct. In reality you are dismissive. Not all will feel the same way you do.

 

[JimMIA]

In theory you are correct. In reality you are dismissive. Not all will feel the same way you do.

Actually, you're the one with the low opinion of other people. You think they can't handle adversity. I think they are plenty strong enough. I have confidence in them.

By the way, what is up with this UN report on Canada's exploitation of native people?

https://www.ubcic.bc.ca/canadafailingindigenouspeoples

 

[CdnCarrie]

Actually, you're the one with the low opinion of other people. You think they can't handle adversity. I think they are plenty strong enough. I have confidence in them.

By the way, what is up with this UN report on Canada's exploitation of native people?

https://www.ubcic.bc.ca/canadafailingindigenouspeoples

I guess you are unaware we are having similar conversations up here. People want to take down statutes of John A MacDonald for his treatment of the Indigenous people. Rename streets and schools of colonial founders.
Both the USA and Canada have a long way to go in healing from the past. It’s well known that we have treated our indigenous people horribly. I’m sure the USA is similar.
That UN report is not new. Are you just aware of it now for the first time?

 

[JimMIA]

Both the USA and Canada have a long way to go in healing from the past. It’s well known that we have treated our indigenous people horribly. I’m sure the USA is similar.

I'm not very familiar with Canadian issues, but we in the US certainly have little to be proud of...although Indian casinos are helping our Native Americans even the score a little.

I posted the UN article because I think it illustrates some of what I've been talking about.

The indigenous people who wrote that statement are not concerned with monuments and street names.

They realize that issues like violence toward their women and restrictions/eliminations of their property rights and land usage rights are far more important than symbolism -- so those are the issues they are addressing.

The efforts of the Canadian native people to address real issues are precisely the kind of action that, while slow and difficult, makes a huge difference long after people forget the Instagram moments.

It's hard work. It takes time, will require overcoming a lot of setbacks, requires a lot of coalition-building, and it requires dedication and persistence.

Not everyone has the backbone or determination for that kind of struggle -- but that's where REAL change comes from.

 

[NYCgrrl]

And the other point I've been trying to make -- which falls on conveniently-deaf ears -- is that statues, and whatever meaning one attributes to them are not what this is all about.

The core issue here can be solved if people will pay attention to the real problem and work on fixing it. This is fixable.

George Floyd was not killed by a statue. He was killed by four police officers: 2 white officers, one Asian officer, and one Black officer.

Those officers belonged to a police department that has been troubled for decades. Everybody knew it, and everybody also knew that it was not the only troubled police department in the Minneapolis/St Paul area. St. Paul and the sheriffs department also have problems.

And for DECADES, they did absolutely NOTHING about the problem...except occasionally hold a meaningless march when yet another person was killed.

They took symbolic actions -- and their symbolism accomplished nothing, and did nothing to prevent George Floyd's death. But they did get some good selfies.

So you’ve attended marches that were meaningless and thus are discouraging others from wasting their time? Very generous of you to share your informed opinion .
Not my overall experience with protesting but obviously everyone’s mileage varies and there are dilettantes in every movement/group.

Your view of how to elicit change does disservice to the long proud history of civil rights disobedience and disparages those involved in its ability to see past their noses. Pretty depressing world view for my sight but thankfully there are many adherents to admire such as : Walesa, Ghandi, King, Mandela, Havel, Thoreau, to name a few.

I realize you’ve a strong interest in American law enforcement but keep in mind I’d still appreciate hearing your thoughts on Confederate statues with a worthwhile history which was the specific question you offered to respond to before pivoting.

 

[JimMIA]

So you’ve attended marches that were meaningless and thus are discouraging others from wasting their time? Very generous of you to share your informed opinion .

That's not what I said, and you know it.

My concern all along is that most of these "demonstrators" were engaging ONLY in selfie moments and other trivial time-wasters. I've been saying consistently that they should remember what the real issue is, and do something about it.

All of the real heroes you listed above went FAR beyond mere marches. The marches drew attention and established the legitimacy of their causes, and with leaders like Ghandi and MLK the non-violent nature of all their acts (even in the face of murder and brutality) further lent credibility to their cause. But then, they followed through and fought the hard fights to create lasting change.

Tearing down some stupid 100 year-old statue is a nice prop for Instagram, but it trivializes a legitimate cause. And the clowns in Seattle's CHAZ/CHOP were just laughingstock.

 

[luvnwdwgal]

This is just stupid!

 

[Hisgirl]

I just saw this thread and quite frankly, I'm surprised but not surprised.

There seems to be an element of folks who want to remove anything our eyes can see or our ears can hear that could offend anyone.

Don't you see that there is no end in sight to this?

What if native american first born first people Indians come out to say they are actually offended at cowboys? How many of us grew up playing cowboys and indians? And you know who the 'bad guy' was.

What about other religions? There are prominent religions who hold values which would be abhorrent to many. Do they get their say?

Who controls the 'values' the society is forced to embrace?

If we say all structures, movies, books, symbols that could offend ANYONE must be removed, then the bible goes, the koran goes, all statues go of anything historical, any movie with a war (two sides, right?), anything with guns, anything showing an animal as a pet , sooooo many others.

Then you know what you have?

100% full on censorship.

If the government legislates my thoughts, my speech, my exposure to life...we are no longer a free society.

It's not a slippery slope. It is the destruction of the land of the free. We would no longer be free. We would be a controlled society.

 

[MamaLema]

There are 32 signatures in 2 weeks. Lets not react too much.

A lot of things are changing because a small minority group want it. I’m surprised it takes so few. Majority doesn’t rule anymore.

 

[RamblingMad]

I just saw this thread and quite frankly, I'm surprised but not surprised.

There seems to be an element of folks who want to remove anything our eyes can see or our ears can hear that could offend anyone.

Don't you see that there is no end in sight to this?

What if native american first born first people Indians come out to say they are actually offended at cowboys? How many of us grew up playing cowboys and indians? And you know who the 'bad guy' was.

What about other religions? There are prominent religions who hold values which would be abhorrent to many. Do they get their say?

Who controls the 'values' the society is forced to embrace?

If we say all structures, movies, books, symbols that could offend ANYONE must be removed, then the bible goes, the koran goes, all statues go of anything historical, any movie with a war (two sides, right?), anything with guns, anything showing an animal as a pet , sooooo many others.

Then you know what you have?

100% full on censorship.

If the government legislates my thoughts, my speech, my exposure to life...we are no longer a free society.

It's not a slippery slope. It is the destruction of the land of the free. We would no longer be free. We would be a controlled society.

It’s expanding the idea of safe spaces to public spaces. It’s the next iteration of PC. It’s not 1984 or Brave New World.

What we need is better mental healthcare in our schools.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I just saw this thread and quite frankly, I'm surprised but not surprised.

There seems to be an element of folks who want to remove anything our eyes can see or our ears can hear that could offend anyone.

Don't you see that there is no end in sight to this?

What if native american first born first people Indians come out to say they are actually offended at cowboys? How many of us grew up playing cowboys and indians? And you know who the 'bad guy' was.

What about other religions? There are prominent religions who hold values which would be abhorrent to many. Do they get their say?

Who controls the 'values' the society is forced to embrace?

If we say all structures, movies, books, symbols that could offend ANYONE must be removed, then the bible goes, the koran goes, all statues go of anything historical, any movie with a war (two sides, right?), anything with guns, anything showing an animal as a pet , sooooo many others.

Then you know what you have?

100% full on censorship.

If the government legislates my thoughts, my speech, my exposure to life...we are no longer a free society.

It's not a slippery slope. It is the destruction of the land of the free. We would no longer be free. We would be a controlled society.

In my family it was the cowboys.

 

[MOPNB]

Very interesting read... and enlightening. I think the reason people don't generally "get" that about the Dumbo story is they don't know enough about elephants. People likely had no idea there were two types of elephants that were so different. Even today, most people don't know enough about them to get that from the story. It really frames the whole movie in an entirely different light, to the point you almost wonder how Disney got away with it back then.

That's incredible!!!
From the article: As Timothy mouse, Dumbo’s only circus friend, remarks, “What’s wrong with his ears? … I think they’re rather decorative”. There is a very good answer to that question, and it’s so obvious that I struggle to understand how it has gone unremarked for all these years. What’s wrong with his ears is that they’re African elephant’s ears. Circus elephants belong to the tractable Asian species, characterized by their small, limp ears like leather rags. When Dumbo sneezes, he unfurls a pair of enormous horizontal ears, much more like the flaring coronal arrangement of the African elephant – a wild and uncompliant animal. If we translate this back into the anthropomorphic world of the movie, what it irresistibly implies is that Dumbo, the “baby with eyes of blue”, is half-African. In other words, he’s mixed-race. Concealed in this children’s cartoon, unnoticed over time, lies a civil rights fable concerning what used to be called miscegenation: the intermarriage of blacks and whites. The contemporary audience missed this, being too imbued with a culture where all acts of prejudice took their cues from the segregationist model to notice anything particular about the things that happen to Dumbo. Since then, many commentators have inspected Disney’s oeuvre for racist tropes. But no one looks at the elephant.

 

[BrianL]

That's incredible!!!
From the article: As Timothy mouse, Dumbo’s only circus friend, remarks, “What’s wrong with his ears? … I think they’re rather decorative”. There is a very good answer to that question, and it’s so obvious that I struggle to understand how it has gone unremarked for all these years. What’s wrong with his ears is that they’re African elephant’s ears. Circus elephants belong to the tractable Asian species, characterized by their small, limp ears like leather rags. When Dumbo sneezes, he unfurls a pair of enormous horizontal ears, much more like the flaring coronal arrangement of the African elephant – a wild and uncompliant animal. If we translate this back into the anthropomorphic world of the movie, what it irresistibly implies is that Dumbo, the “baby with eyes of blue”, is half-African. In other words, he’s mixed-race. Concealed in this children’s cartoon, unnoticed over time, lies a civil rights fable concerning what used to be called miscegenation: the intermarriage of blacks and whites. The contemporary audience missed this, being too imbued with a culture where all acts of prejudice took their cues from the segregationist model to notice anything particular about the things that happen to Dumbo. Since then, many commentators have inspected Disney’s oeuvre for racist tropes. But no one looks at the elephant.

I think that's pretty off-base. Dumbo is not a different species of elephant than his mother and he does not have the ears of an African elephant (otherwise wouldn't there be elephants flying all around Africa?). His ears are much, much larger than that - it is a deformity that the others are making fun of, which is still wrong of course, but it's a very different message. Now, that's not to say that the movie doesn't have other racial tropes in it (it certainly does), but Dumbo's ears are not at issue.

 

[Hikergirl]

I think that's pretty off-base. Dumbo is not a different species of Elephant than his mother and he does not have the ears of an African elephant (otherwise wouldn't there be elephants flying all around Africa?). His ears are much, much larger than that - it is a deformity that the others are making fun of, which is still wrong of course, but it's a very different message. Now, that's not to say that the movie doesn't have other racial tropes in it (it certainly does), but Dumbo's ears are not at issue.

........."and it’s so obvious that I struggle to understand how it has gone unremarked for all these years."

Does the writer of that article realize that when something is "so obvious" it doesn't go unremarked for years.

 

[MOPNB]

I think that's pretty off-base. Dumbo is not a different species of elephant than his mother and he does not have the ears of an African elephant (otherwise wouldn't there be elephants flying all around Africa?). His ears are much, much larger than that - it is a deformity that the others are making fun of, which is still wrong of course, but it's a very different message. Now, that's not to say that the movie doesn't have other racial tropes in it (it certainly does), but Dumbo's ears are not at issue.

I just thought it was an interesting point that the author of the linked article made.
I'm the mom to a child with a disability. Dumbo was the first movie we watched - she was 8 hours old and we didn't know she'd need a liver transplant, yet.

 

[BrianL]

I just thought it was an interesting point that the author of the linked article made.
I'm the mom to a child with a disability. Dumbo was the first movie we watched - she was 8 hours old and we didn't know she'd need a liver transplant, yet.

Right, but I fail to see how that equates to the issue of race. Dumbo has always been about someone who is excluded because of a disability, but who then turns that disability into a strength. There is no indication of Dumbo's "race" as it relates to humans or elephants and to equate his ears to those of an African Elephant is not an apt comparison. Yes, African Elephants have larger ears, but not to the extent of Dumbo's clearly very unusual ones - they work as wings after all. I think the writer of the artical is projecting pretty heavily.