(A statue to George Washington in Baltimore was defaced with red paint over the weekend-the memorial in Druid Hill Park also had the words ‘Destroy Racists’ and the initials for the Black Lives Matter movement written on the base.) The concept of tearing down statues that represent fallen ideals as societies advance new principles is nothing new. During the American Revolution a statue of King George III
I think Eugene Robinson says it perfectly in his op ed in today's Washington Post:
"There is an obvious difference between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who founded our union, and, say, Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson, who tried to destroy it. The fact that Washington, Jefferson and other early presidents owned slaves should temper our admiration for them but not erase it entirely. They gave us a nation grotesquely disfigured by slavery, but they also gave us the constitutional tools, and the high-minded ideals, with which to heal that original, near-fatal flaw."
One thing we absolutely need to do is to recognize and then eliminate what the Daughters Of The Confederacy did, in the beginning of the 20th century. Read up on them. They not only erected most of these Confederate statues, they also rewrote schoolbooks. Their work needs to be put in a museum, as a warning to not allow this sort of racist propaganda to ever see the lightnof day again.
It is time for American history to be enriched by providing school children a more complete and accurate account of how this nation came to be. The historical public figures who worked to create a more perfect union should be properly recognized, and the details of their private lives revealed.
The contributions of Black Americans, whose endurance and resiliency define the best traits of the American character, is at the core of who we are as a people. We all have a lot to learn from our fellow citizens.
A national commission to review and designate the figures who deserve to be honored / recognized should be convened. Evaluating the past honestly, with a desire to celebrate individuals who helped to create the American Way, is a project for our times.
Statues are not America. They are 19th-century-through-mid-to-late-20th-century representations of what Americans at the time thought was important, and too often they are not only not great art, but eyesores (Nathan Bedford Forrest, anyone?). In recent decades, we've kind of gotten away from literal representations of statues and into more abstract expressions of national pride and/or guilt — think the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial in Washington, a wall which cuts a gash into the landscape, symbolizing our grief over a misbegotten war, and which was later compromised with... a statue.
But the statues in question are here, obviously... we know that because people keep trying to tear them down. If such a land as a Fyfedom existed (which of course I would rule), here are the laws I would lay down:
Tear down all the Confederates, nearly all of which were erected with malevolent intent well after the Civil War. Plus, oh yes, they fought against the United States in the name of slavery. Enough said.
Andrew Jackson has to go, too. And get him off the twenty. Yes, we know why that hasn't happened yet.
Remove any piece that places people of color in symbolically subjugated positions, such as the statue of TR in front of the New York Natural History Museum. (TR's great-grandson and the museum board support this move.) But consider these representations carefully on a case-by-case basis. The famous Saint-Gaudens bas-relief commemorating the 54th Massachusetts, for example, elevates Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, but that was historically accurate: the regiment was African-American, led by a white officer.
The other Founders are more complicated. I think we need to treat them as a giant educational opportunity instead of tearing them down. When I was in school, we were never taught that Washington, Jefferson, and many others owned slaves (and in Jefferson's case, of course, there was Sally Hemings). In fact, slavery was pretty much glossed over completely... we never discussed it with the same horrified awe in which we learned about, say, the Holocaust. And we're not going to tear down Mount Vernon, Monticello, the Jefferson Memorial or Mount Rushmore. But we need to add to them. Americans need to understand that the Founders were brilliant but compromised, and exactly how.
It's also important to understand that we are all complicit in America's original sin. Read the lyrics to "Molasses to Rum to Slaves," from the musical "1776," for a memorable and thought-provoking summary of exactly how.
So let's do all this. But long story short, taking these statues down is not canceling America, because they are not America. The Constitution is. That's what we should be worried about, because that's what Benedict Donald, Bill Barr, and their merry band of traitors are working hard to cancel, every day.
I grew up in the south and many of my cousins still idolize the confederacy. They are also largely racists who claim they’re not because they know black people. My opinion is these confederate statues should be moved from their positions and placed in a public park or museum with plaques that contextualize their creation and symbolism. But I disagree with vandalizing statues of founding fathers and Revolutionary War heroes. They gave us the tools we still use today (except POTUS*) and we have to use those tools to enforce the rights of everyone, equally, under the law.
How can we make it better? Replace confederate statues with those of black heroes: Martin Luther King, Harriet Tubman, Dr Charles Drew, Dr Rebecca Lee Crumpler, SCJ Thurgood Marshall, Medgar Evers, Rev George Lee. There are hundreds from which to choose.
Take the statues down, put them in a specified location with real placards, telling the real story. Have a walking history path. Have recordings that can be listened to, detailing the history of each figure, good and bad. I have seen many statues, that I've questioned. The Daughters of the Confederacy had their say with many of them, across the nation. Now we can tell the whole story for generations to come.
There may not be a "right answer here," as Emily suggests. But let me submit that tearing down statues is a feel good stand in for saying you're participating in the rebuilding of our country... it's far easier to pull them all down than to pull down animated people sitting on the opposite side of a tough negotiation.
I am NOT saying that statues might not ought come down, I just wonder if the same sense of satisfaction was not had by those who long erected the statues? Might they have hoped the statue stood in for the hard work of actually building a resilient community and government?
Just as your beloved law professor (and you also) with the question of transgression - the indecency noted every time you and she passed under the bill of sale - we still know that such symbolism carries heavy weights that can squelch more than they likely inspire. The challenge will always remain for us living, sentient beings, reaching to each other with fallibly-wrapped-humilty, to propose new ways to live harmoniously/together/side-by-side and walk into a future of our imagination/creation. Surely we will want to mark those new ideals in some permanent way, too...
Slave owners who sided with and supported and/or fought for the Confederacy - a treasonous act even at the time - should not be memorialized with statues or anything else and doing so, IMO, perpetuates the myth that there was some nobility in the Confederate cause. There wasn't.
There were other slave owners such as Washington and Jefferson who do not belong in the same category and tearing down their statues and removing their presence from our national memory is, again IMO, short-sighted and stupid. We might not be a country at all in 2020 without many male, and perhaps some female (I simply don't know whether women owned slaves), slave owners. Removing every last statue of slave owners in early America in 2020 betrays ignorance, not intelligence. People need to do a little critical thinking here.
I don’t know where the line is anymore. I live in Rhode Island. At this time the state’s name is The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations it was incorporated in 1790 when the definition of Plantation meant settlement and yes farms. Ten years ago there was a referendum to drop Providence Plantations from the State's name. It lost 78% of the state’s voters liked the fact we are the smallest with the longest name.
It has remerged with the Gov. directing all state offices to drop Providence Plantations and the legislature has set it on the ballot for Nov. I also know while Roger Williams was tossed out of Mass. for not adhering to the religion they pilgrims left England for , so Rhode Island was founded on religious tolerance. However, Brown University was endowed by a man who made most of His money off a slave trade. Some Historians say Rhode Island was About 60-70% of slave trade.
So I am terribly confused about where the line is and it has become a big deal some people say if it makes some people happy change it. So much good history so much bad history so much Tolerance yet so much unrest on this , we have a small African American Population 5.7% and a Native American population Narragansett, Mashpee, Wampanoag being the most prevalent. I don’t know where the line is anymore.
We are witnessing a young, energetic movement fueled by two centuries of immeasurable pain and inequality.
Yet at some point the movement will fall victim to its own physics unless a single, salient voice is heard that can temper passions and gently dissuade looking at all moments in history through 21st century lenses.
Grant did more to end slavery than just about anyone. I was disheartened to his statue come down, and thought that it reflected historical ignorance. But, I am also sure that there are many who disagree with me.
There are some statues & images that certainly have no place in our evolving society as they represent things that most of us have abandoned in favor of a more modern & inclusive worldview. Confederate iconography is to black Americans what the Nazi swastika is to people of Jewish ancestry.
But you're right - our country's history is filled with a roster of complex men & women, the vast majority of them were far from perfect, no matter what they achieved. They were simply people of their time, a fact that the cancel culture rarely wants to take note of in its activist fervor. I think what's most important is that we focus more on the stories behind the statues - our history books rarely tell the full story on any issue & it's important for a better understanding that they do.
The same questions can be posed over aspects of our popular culture. When a popular actor or actress reveals that they are on the wrong side of history somehow, does that diminish their art? Mel Gibson is an abhorrent individual, but has a body of work, much of which is quite impressive, & all of which involves the talent & creative energy of thousands of others. John Lennon was an abusive husband & absent father, but alone & together with The Beatles created some of the most memorable songs in rock and roll.
A couple of weeks ago, something similar reared its head in relation to a decades old Disney movie. I quickly learned that like so many other things, this was due to our current cancel culture, where if something offends someone somewhere, people are all but obligated to throw a fit. Often, it's absolutely merited. Often, it's reactionary & even silly. Here, people were calling for the Disney Parks to replace Splash Mountain with another attraction, because of the problematic elements of the film that inspired it, Song of the South. The movie, which is not familiar to many because it has been largely out of circulation for so long, is most definitely problematic. Set in the American south during the reconstruction era (after the American Civil War had ended), it features some beautifully animated sequences, a couple of fun & memorable songs, & some standout live action performances. It also features free black men & women still living subserviently to affluent whites & some songs & sequences you'd like to soon forget. Lots of issues, especially when viewed through a modern lens. That the film is available for sale at the Jefferson Davis Museum & Library should tell you something about the current attitudes surrounding it. The movie is also not available on their Disney+ platform, even with the same sort of 'outdated cultural depictions' disclaimer that plays before Peter Pan & other films.
The attraction is inspired solely by the music from the film & by the animated sequences, which were inspired by the stories of Joel Chandler Harris, who adapted them from the oral traditions of black people in the late 19th century American south. Many advocated for it to be replaced with an attraction inspired by The Princess and the Frog,simply because it involves black characters - that was largely the extent of their argument - they were understandably caught up in the moment in the aftermath of George Floyd's murder at the hands of police. Not that representation doesn't matter - it most definitely does as The Princess & the Frog showed us with the introduction of the first black Disney Princess over a decade ago & as Wonder Woman & Black Panther have shown more recently, but literally like 'black people have had a shitty go of it in this country, so let's give them a Disney ride!'
Dipping my toe into the discussion, I suggested instead the idea of 'Pocahontas' Riverbend Adventure.' I did this for a number of reasons. First, theming. Splash Mountain is located in Critter Country in both Anaheim & Tokyo & in Frontierland in Orlando. Pocahontas could easily fit in either scenario, where TPATF is set in roughly the 1920s, & unless they retheme the entire land, would fit better in their New Orleans Square area. Second, audience reception: I enjoyed both films - even went to a special premiere event at the Roseland in NYC for TPATF, but Pocahontas made nearly $100M more at the box office, despite being released more than a decade earlier. Disney pays attention to box office when planning for additions to their parks, or we'd have attractions based on Dick Tracy or Atlantis: The Lost Empire. Third: Tiana spends roughly 80% of the film as an amphibian, which doesn't seem like it's the best opportunity to showcase a Disney Princess of color. Fourth: in addition to the suitability of the land where the attraction is set, the ride system for Splash Mountain could easily be converted to a Pocahontas themed ride. Canoes as a ride vehicle are a no-brainer, set pieces like Grandmother Willow & the forests of Virginia, comedic cameos by Meeko & Flit, a climactic waterfall, etc. - it's something that could be realized very easily 5) I think the less action-oriented TPATF would be better served by a restaurant, whether it was put in New Orleans Square or Main Street, USA. Tiana spends the entire movie wanting one. Why not grant her wish in the real world? 6) If not a restaurant, why not a 'dark ride to the Other Side,' but in an appropriate land, like a Villains Park or if space wasn't an issue, attached to a themed restaurant in New Orleans Square?
I paid very close attention to the responses & retweets, engaging with replies both positive & negative & admit I got more than a little testy here & there. While many people liked (2000), if not loved, the idea & commented as much, others were considerably less receptive. They were spiteful, jumped to attack mode & unwilling to read beyond the character limit of the first tweet. I was called a racist a number of times, which if they looked at the rest of my feed or knew me personally, would (hopefully) seem as ridiculous to them as it does to me. I don't think it's racist to suggest that an attraction based on a movie set in 1920s NOLA doesn't really belong in 'Critter Country.'
While there was a lot of enthusiasm, there was also a lot of 'Pocahontas is just as racist as SotS, if not more so!' This was not something that was lost on me, if they had bothered to read on into the discussion. Colonialism & other troubling elements, like them aging Pocahontas to be more of a romantic interest for John Smith, are widely recognized by people aware of the film. The fact that Disney acknowledges it as a fictionalized account is less widely recognized (though you'd think a talking tree would tip people off). Some ranted about Mel Gibson, as if Disney is responsible for his outing as a misogynistic racist a decade later. Should they also abandon all Winnie the Pooh properties because Jim Cummings had been accused of rape & animal abuse? Many of the responses suggested there was also a generational element at play. Unless you're a fan of Disney in general, different movies will resonate more with people of different generations. Someone suggested The Princess & the Frog. I suggested Pocahontas, but also thought of a Rescuers-inspired 'Journey to Devil's Bayou.' Several others suggested Moana & even The Emperor's New Groove, because where TPATF advocates may have thought 'black representation,' these people thought 'water,' ignoring the incongruity of those IPs in Critter Country or Frontierland. I had also suggested that Disney raze the ride entirely & create something free of ties to any IP, aiming to give us this generation's Haunted Mansion or Pirates of the Caribbean, but Disney fans know how unlikely that is.
The fact is that most Disney movies are problematic in some way or another, whether we're discussing those that date back 90, 60, or 30 years. Even TPATF was subject to criticism, with many reviews at the time of its release calling out perceived elements of racism. The film is also not as representative as some might like, having been written by 2 old (but very talented) white men & revered Disney studio vets.
Question: must we really rush to condemn everything? In the case of both Song of the South & Pocahontas, Disney went to others for guidance when making these films. For Song of the South, they looked to the NAACP & other individuals & organizations. For Pocahontas, they consulted a number of historians & Native American organizations & hired Native Americans to voice those character roles for authenticity. Those efforts seemed satisfactory at the time these films were made. Should that not be enough to quell the impulse to condemn? Or should we go further? Peter Pan has troubling depictions of Native Americans - should we call for Disney to close their popular Peter Pan's Flight ride? Dumbo features racism & animal cruelty - should that Fantasyland attraction be shut down? The Little Mermaid is pretty sexist. Should Ariel's Undersea Adventure be closed? Or should we acknowledge these films for what they were at the time & focus on creating new art that has learned from the lessons they left us?
The "heritage not hate" argument about these Confederate monuments fails to take into account that we as a nation have a shared heritage & that the victories of some of our nation's citizens too often came at the expense of others. Why not look for symbols that can uplift us all?
I applaud the attention being given now to whom our country wants to memorialize because it's forcing many who were never taught, the complete history of its leaders and the history of those never included. As a Black child, I was given supplemental history books - biographies, memoirs, history books not provided by schools, so that I would know and appreciate the actions and thoughts of Black Americans (from when we were brought here to present). I've read many times lately that "all I was taught about slavery was Harriet Tubman and Lincoln" or "the Civil Rights Movement was MLK, marches, and protests". Me too. My HS history class on both subjects barely skimmed the surface, focused on white actions, and was one class session in length. But there are and have always been, resources outside the classroom for education about your nation and its heroes, sung, unsung, and unacknowledged.
I have no interest in continuing limited thinking from our past. If a thinking person wonders why we would continue to uphold members of the Confederacy as model citizens today, I say, "Right. Why do we?" and support their removal. The Founding Fathers have a problematic history and while I think tearing down their statues isn't necessary, a plaque that tells the whole truth is necessary. I think it important that we say all the major details, and owning slaves is a major detail when they wrote, "all men are created equal", to include. If we as a nation cannot look our past, the complete story, in the face and learn from it, then we really are doomed to repeat it.
Should we have historical parks where the statues of the Confederacy live on? Why? What benefit do we as a nation derive from that? We already have the Jefferson Davis library and plantations to give us that piece of history. We need more? That's the point in tearing them down, we don't need them. We do need statues everywhere that reflect the lasting contributions of other American heroes far too long unacknowledged. If we're serious about attacking racism in this country then is has to be at every level, including statues.
Everyone was/is a product of their times. Using the benefit of hindsight & the current moral standards, we can see that every human being out there is flawed and has no business having a statue ,plaque ,street or school named after them. The people who built this country did some great, heroic, self sacrificing things. They also did some truly terrible things. Leave the statues alone but teach the COMPLETE history. I see a lot of false outrage of something some guy did 170yrs ago, tearing down the statue doesn't change what happened then. Teaching the whole story WILL prevent it from happening again.
I think Eugene Robinson says it perfectly in his op ed in today's Washington Post:
"There is an obvious difference between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who founded our union, and, say, Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson, who tried to destroy it. The fact that Washington, Jefferson and other early presidents owned slaves should temper our admiration for them but not erase it entirely. They gave us a nation grotesquely disfigured by slavery, but they also gave us the constitutional tools, and the high-minded ideals, with which to heal that original, near-fatal flaw."
One thing we absolutely need to do is to recognize and then eliminate what the Daughters Of The Confederacy did, in the beginning of the 20th century. Read up on them. They not only erected most of these Confederate statues, they also rewrote schoolbooks. Their work needs to be put in a museum, as a warning to not allow this sort of racist propaganda to ever see the lightnof day again.
It is time for American history to be enriched by providing school children a more complete and accurate account of how this nation came to be. The historical public figures who worked to create a more perfect union should be properly recognized, and the details of their private lives revealed.
The contributions of Black Americans, whose endurance and resiliency define the best traits of the American character, is at the core of who we are as a people. We all have a lot to learn from our fellow citizens.
A national commission to review and designate the figures who deserve to be honored / recognized should be convened. Evaluating the past honestly, with a desire to celebrate individuals who helped to create the American Way, is a project for our times.
Statues are not America. They are 19th-century-through-mid-to-late-20th-century representations of what Americans at the time thought was important, and too often they are not only not great art, but eyesores (Nathan Bedford Forrest, anyone?). In recent decades, we've kind of gotten away from literal representations of statues and into more abstract expressions of national pride and/or guilt — think the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial in Washington, a wall which cuts a gash into the landscape, symbolizing our grief over a misbegotten war, and which was later compromised with... a statue.
But the statues in question are here, obviously... we know that because people keep trying to tear them down. If such a land as a Fyfedom existed (which of course I would rule), here are the laws I would lay down:
Tear down all the Confederates, nearly all of which were erected with malevolent intent well after the Civil War. Plus, oh yes, they fought against the United States in the name of slavery. Enough said.
Andrew Jackson has to go, too. And get him off the twenty. Yes, we know why that hasn't happened yet.
Remove any piece that places people of color in symbolically subjugated positions, such as the statue of TR in front of the New York Natural History Museum. (TR's great-grandson and the museum board support this move.) But consider these representations carefully on a case-by-case basis. The famous Saint-Gaudens bas-relief commemorating the 54th Massachusetts, for example, elevates Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, but that was historically accurate: the regiment was African-American, led by a white officer.
The other Founders are more complicated. I think we need to treat them as a giant educational opportunity instead of tearing them down. When I was in school, we were never taught that Washington, Jefferson, and many others owned slaves (and in Jefferson's case, of course, there was Sally Hemings). In fact, slavery was pretty much glossed over completely... we never discussed it with the same horrified awe in which we learned about, say, the Holocaust. And we're not going to tear down Mount Vernon, Monticello, the Jefferson Memorial or Mount Rushmore. But we need to add to them. Americans need to understand that the Founders were brilliant but compromised, and exactly how.
It's also important to understand that we are all complicit in America's original sin. Read the lyrics to "Molasses to Rum to Slaves," from the musical "1776," for a memorable and thought-provoking summary of exactly how.
So let's do all this. But long story short, taking these statues down is not canceling America, because they are not America. The Constitution is. That's what we should be worried about, because that's what Benedict Donald, Bill Barr, and their merry band of traitors are working hard to cancel, every day.
I keep coming back to the thought...There is a difference between remembering and memorializing.
I grew up in the south and many of my cousins still idolize the confederacy. They are also largely racists who claim they’re not because they know black people. My opinion is these confederate statues should be moved from their positions and placed in a public park or museum with plaques that contextualize their creation and symbolism. But I disagree with vandalizing statues of founding fathers and Revolutionary War heroes. They gave us the tools we still use today (except POTUS*) and we have to use those tools to enforce the rights of everyone, equally, under the law.
How can we make it better? Replace confederate statues with those of black heroes: Martin Luther King, Harriet Tubman, Dr Charles Drew, Dr Rebecca Lee Crumpler, SCJ Thurgood Marshall, Medgar Evers, Rev George Lee. There are hundreds from which to choose.
We have to keep educating people, no matter their political alignment.
Take the statues down, put them in a specified location with real placards, telling the real story. Have a walking history path. Have recordings that can be listened to, detailing the history of each figure, good and bad. I have seen many statues, that I've questioned. The Daughters of the Confederacy had their say with many of them, across the nation. Now we can tell the whole story for generations to come.
There may not be a "right answer here," as Emily suggests. But let me submit that tearing down statues is a feel good stand in for saying you're participating in the rebuilding of our country... it's far easier to pull them all down than to pull down animated people sitting on the opposite side of a tough negotiation.
I am NOT saying that statues might not ought come down, I just wonder if the same sense of satisfaction was not had by those who long erected the statues? Might they have hoped the statue stood in for the hard work of actually building a resilient community and government?
Just as your beloved law professor (and you also) with the question of transgression - the indecency noted every time you and she passed under the bill of sale - we still know that such symbolism carries heavy weights that can squelch more than they likely inspire. The challenge will always remain for us living, sentient beings, reaching to each other with fallibly-wrapped-humilty, to propose new ways to live harmoniously/together/side-by-side and walk into a future of our imagination/creation. Surely we will want to mark those new ideals in some permanent way, too...
Slave owners who sided with and supported and/or fought for the Confederacy - a treasonous act even at the time - should not be memorialized with statues or anything else and doing so, IMO, perpetuates the myth that there was some nobility in the Confederate cause. There wasn't.
There were other slave owners such as Washington and Jefferson who do not belong in the same category and tearing down their statues and removing their presence from our national memory is, again IMO, short-sighted and stupid. We might not be a country at all in 2020 without many male, and perhaps some female (I simply don't know whether women owned slaves), slave owners. Removing every last statue of slave owners in early America in 2020 betrays ignorance, not intelligence. People need to do a little critical thinking here.
I don’t know where the line is anymore. I live in Rhode Island. At this time the state’s name is The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations it was incorporated in 1790 when the definition of Plantation meant settlement and yes farms. Ten years ago there was a referendum to drop Providence Plantations from the State's name. It lost 78% of the state’s voters liked the fact we are the smallest with the longest name.
It has remerged with the Gov. directing all state offices to drop Providence Plantations and the legislature has set it on the ballot for Nov. I also know while Roger Williams was tossed out of Mass. for not adhering to the religion they pilgrims left England for , so Rhode Island was founded on religious tolerance. However, Brown University was endowed by a man who made most of His money off a slave trade. Some Historians say Rhode Island was About 60-70% of slave trade.
So I am terribly confused about where the line is and it has become a big deal some people say if it makes some people happy change it. So much good history so much bad history so much Tolerance yet so much unrest on this , we have a small African American Population 5.7% and a Native American population Narragansett, Mashpee, Wampanoag being the most prevalent. I don’t know where the line is anymore.
I'm not sure there is a right answer here.
We are witnessing a young, energetic movement fueled by two centuries of immeasurable pain and inequality.
Yet at some point the movement will fall victim to its own physics unless a single, salient voice is heard that can temper passions and gently dissuade looking at all moments in history through 21st century lenses.
Grant did more to end slavery than just about anyone. I was disheartened to his statue come down, and thought that it reflected historical ignorance. But, I am also sure that there are many who disagree with me.
There are some statues & images that certainly have no place in our evolving society as they represent things that most of us have abandoned in favor of a more modern & inclusive worldview. Confederate iconography is to black Americans what the Nazi swastika is to people of Jewish ancestry.
But you're right - our country's history is filled with a roster of complex men & women, the vast majority of them were far from perfect, no matter what they achieved. They were simply people of their time, a fact that the cancel culture rarely wants to take note of in its activist fervor. I think what's most important is that we focus more on the stories behind the statues - our history books rarely tell the full story on any issue & it's important for a better understanding that they do.
The same questions can be posed over aspects of our popular culture. When a popular actor or actress reveals that they are on the wrong side of history somehow, does that diminish their art? Mel Gibson is an abhorrent individual, but has a body of work, much of which is quite impressive, & all of which involves the talent & creative energy of thousands of others. John Lennon was an abusive husband & absent father, but alone & together with The Beatles created some of the most memorable songs in rock and roll.
A couple of weeks ago, something similar reared its head in relation to a decades old Disney movie. I quickly learned that like so many other things, this was due to our current cancel culture, where if something offends someone somewhere, people are all but obligated to throw a fit. Often, it's absolutely merited. Often, it's reactionary & even silly. Here, people were calling for the Disney Parks to replace Splash Mountain with another attraction, because of the problematic elements of the film that inspired it, Song of the South. The movie, which is not familiar to many because it has been largely out of circulation for so long, is most definitely problematic. Set in the American south during the reconstruction era (after the American Civil War had ended), it features some beautifully animated sequences, a couple of fun & memorable songs, & some standout live action performances. It also features free black men & women still living subserviently to affluent whites & some songs & sequences you'd like to soon forget. Lots of issues, especially when viewed through a modern lens. That the film is available for sale at the Jefferson Davis Museum & Library should tell you something about the current attitudes surrounding it. The movie is also not available on their Disney+ platform, even with the same sort of 'outdated cultural depictions' disclaimer that plays before Peter Pan & other films.
The attraction is inspired solely by the music from the film & by the animated sequences, which were inspired by the stories of Joel Chandler Harris, who adapted them from the oral traditions of black people in the late 19th century American south. Many advocated for it to be replaced with an attraction inspired by The Princess and the Frog,simply because it involves black characters - that was largely the extent of their argument - they were understandably caught up in the moment in the aftermath of George Floyd's murder at the hands of police. Not that representation doesn't matter - it most definitely does as The Princess & the Frog showed us with the introduction of the first black Disney Princess over a decade ago & as Wonder Woman & Black Panther have shown more recently, but literally like 'black people have had a shitty go of it in this country, so let's give them a Disney ride!'
Dipping my toe into the discussion, I suggested instead the idea of 'Pocahontas' Riverbend Adventure.' I did this for a number of reasons. First, theming. Splash Mountain is located in Critter Country in both Anaheim & Tokyo & in Frontierland in Orlando. Pocahontas could easily fit in either scenario, where TPATF is set in roughly the 1920s, & unless they retheme the entire land, would fit better in their New Orleans Square area. Second, audience reception: I enjoyed both films - even went to a special premiere event at the Roseland in NYC for TPATF, but Pocahontas made nearly $100M more at the box office, despite being released more than a decade earlier. Disney pays attention to box office when planning for additions to their parks, or we'd have attractions based on Dick Tracy or Atlantis: The Lost Empire. Third: Tiana spends roughly 80% of the film as an amphibian, which doesn't seem like it's the best opportunity to showcase a Disney Princess of color. Fourth: in addition to the suitability of the land where the attraction is set, the ride system for Splash Mountain could easily be converted to a Pocahontas themed ride. Canoes as a ride vehicle are a no-brainer, set pieces like Grandmother Willow & the forests of Virginia, comedic cameos by Meeko & Flit, a climactic waterfall, etc. - it's something that could be realized very easily 5) I think the less action-oriented TPATF would be better served by a restaurant, whether it was put in New Orleans Square or Main Street, USA. Tiana spends the entire movie wanting one. Why not grant her wish in the real world? 6) If not a restaurant, why not a 'dark ride to the Other Side,' but in an appropriate land, like a Villains Park or if space wasn't an issue, attached to a themed restaurant in New Orleans Square?
I paid very close attention to the responses & retweets, engaging with replies both positive & negative & admit I got more than a little testy here & there. While many people liked (2000), if not loved, the idea & commented as much, others were considerably less receptive. They were spiteful, jumped to attack mode & unwilling to read beyond the character limit of the first tweet. I was called a racist a number of times, which if they looked at the rest of my feed or knew me personally, would (hopefully) seem as ridiculous to them as it does to me. I don't think it's racist to suggest that an attraction based on a movie set in 1920s NOLA doesn't really belong in 'Critter Country.'
While there was a lot of enthusiasm, there was also a lot of 'Pocahontas is just as racist as SotS, if not more so!' This was not something that was lost on me, if they had bothered to read on into the discussion. Colonialism & other troubling elements, like them aging Pocahontas to be more of a romantic interest for John Smith, are widely recognized by people aware of the film. The fact that Disney acknowledges it as a fictionalized account is less widely recognized (though you'd think a talking tree would tip people off). Some ranted about Mel Gibson, as if Disney is responsible for his outing as a misogynistic racist a decade later. Should they also abandon all Winnie the Pooh properties because Jim Cummings had been accused of rape & animal abuse? Many of the responses suggested there was also a generational element at play. Unless you're a fan of Disney in general, different movies will resonate more with people of different generations. Someone suggested The Princess & the Frog. I suggested Pocahontas, but also thought of a Rescuers-inspired 'Journey to Devil's Bayou.' Several others suggested Moana & even The Emperor's New Groove, because where TPATF advocates may have thought 'black representation,' these people thought 'water,' ignoring the incongruity of those IPs in Critter Country or Frontierland. I had also suggested that Disney raze the ride entirely & create something free of ties to any IP, aiming to give us this generation's Haunted Mansion or Pirates of the Caribbean, but Disney fans know how unlikely that is.
The fact is that most Disney movies are problematic in some way or another, whether we're discussing those that date back 90, 60, or 30 years. Even TPATF was subject to criticism, with many reviews at the time of its release calling out perceived elements of racism. The film is also not as representative as some might like, having been written by 2 old (but very talented) white men & revered Disney studio vets.
Question: must we really rush to condemn everything? In the case of both Song of the South & Pocahontas, Disney went to others for guidance when making these films. For Song of the South, they looked to the NAACP & other individuals & organizations. For Pocahontas, they consulted a number of historians & Native American organizations & hired Native Americans to voice those character roles for authenticity. Those efforts seemed satisfactory at the time these films were made. Should that not be enough to quell the impulse to condemn? Or should we go further? Peter Pan has troubling depictions of Native Americans - should we call for Disney to close their popular Peter Pan's Flight ride? Dumbo features racism & animal cruelty - should that Fantasyland attraction be shut down? The Little Mermaid is pretty sexist. Should Ariel's Undersea Adventure be closed? Or should we acknowledge these films for what they were at the time & focus on creating new art that has learned from the lessons they left us?
The "heritage not hate" argument about these Confederate monuments fails to take into account that we as a nation have a shared heritage & that the victories of some of our nation's citizens too often came at the expense of others. Why not look for symbols that can uplift us all?
I applaud the attention being given now to whom our country wants to memorialize because it's forcing many who were never taught, the complete history of its leaders and the history of those never included. As a Black child, I was given supplemental history books - biographies, memoirs, history books not provided by schools, so that I would know and appreciate the actions and thoughts of Black Americans (from when we were brought here to present). I've read many times lately that "all I was taught about slavery was Harriet Tubman and Lincoln" or "the Civil Rights Movement was MLK, marches, and protests". Me too. My HS history class on both subjects barely skimmed the surface, focused on white actions, and was one class session in length. But there are and have always been, resources outside the classroom for education about your nation and its heroes, sung, unsung, and unacknowledged.
I have no interest in continuing limited thinking from our past. If a thinking person wonders why we would continue to uphold members of the Confederacy as model citizens today, I say, "Right. Why do we?" and support their removal. The Founding Fathers have a problematic history and while I think tearing down their statues isn't necessary, a plaque that tells the whole truth is necessary. I think it important that we say all the major details, and owning slaves is a major detail when they wrote, "all men are created equal", to include. If we as a nation cannot look our past, the complete story, in the face and learn from it, then we really are doomed to repeat it.
Should we have historical parks where the statues of the Confederacy live on? Why? What benefit do we as a nation derive from that? We already have the Jefferson Davis library and plantations to give us that piece of history. We need more? That's the point in tearing them down, we don't need them. We do need statues everywhere that reflect the lasting contributions of other American heroes far too long unacknowledged. If we're serious about attacking racism in this country then is has to be at every level, including statues.
Everyone was/is a product of their times. Using the benefit of hindsight & the current moral standards, we can see that every human being out there is flawed and has no business having a statue ,plaque ,street or school named after them. The people who built this country did some great, heroic, self sacrificing things. They also did some truly terrible things. Leave the statues alone but teach the COMPLETE history. I see a lot of false outrage of something some guy did 170yrs ago, tearing down the statue doesn't change what happened then. Teaching the whole story WILL prevent it from happening again.