Nine most racist Disney characters ever

[The Lizard]

I liked Uncle Remus and his simple way of telling things to the children. He really did a great job of his portrayal of the kind grandfatherly type.

I think that people forget (or don't know) that Uncle Remus himself is definitely portrayed as the hero of the Song of the South movie.

Now, this doesn't excuse the way that there are no references to slavery, and that Remus seems to be the stereotype of the "happy servant", and that the white parents of the little boy often talk down to Remus. However, Uncle Remus fills the role of adviser to the boy when his parents aren't paying enough attention to him. Also, Remus is proven right after the boy goes missing and the white parents are shown to be wrong and in error for not listening to Remus sooner.

So yes, there are ignorant stereotypes in Song of the South, but the overall message and presentation of the film aren't negative enough to justify holding the film back from release. Just put a disclaimer at the beginning and include a few positive Disney portrayals of African Americans as DVD extras, and there you go.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

how is any of the racism displayed in those cartoons "hidden or non-existant"
you'd have to agree that the movies and literature are a reflection of the time they are produced in.
back when most of these cartoons were produced racism was pretty wide spread.
I mean, you do know that racism is still an issue today right?
and some of these were produced prior to the civil rights movement.
I can easily see how the Disney folks would be ok with this as people would be ok with whatever the norm for race relations is today.

why does this make some people so indignant.
I mean " what made the Red man red" that doesn't seem a tiny bit racist to you? how about, what made asians yellow?
I mean, seriously.

Well if you really wanted to get into it... what about Radcliffe from Pocahontas's or Frollo in the Hunchback? those were both "stereotypical racist whitemen" and you don't see the whites complaining... not saying we should... but i didn't take it as offensive. i take it as a play with stereotypes and characters. just how i take the other characters. It's only offensive if your really uptight and looking for it to be, none of the disney movies are teaching anyone to HATE these characters... and thats the difference.

 

[Docker2.0]

Spideyboy I agree. People are to sensitive about everything. And honestly I'd watch those Disney things and not get offended. They were a product of their time. But there are people who would be ticked about it so I agree with Sparkle when he says you can't completely ignore it cuase its blatant.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Spideyboy I agree. People are to sensitive about everything. And honestly I'd watch those Disney things and not get offended. They were a product of their time. But there are people who would be ticked about it so I agree with Sparkle when he says you can't completely ignore it cuase its blatant.

i don't consider it racist though... so i don't consider it blatent. I look at it as an individual person, and from a cartoonist background and see it a simply characures, similar to what you get done at a fair or amusement park... No one actually watches these cartoons and says... "ooo look at them silly (N-Word) crows and there singin and lazy ways"

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Well if you really wanted to get into it... what about Radcliffe from Pocahontas's or Frollo in the Hunchback? those were both "stereotypical racist whitemen" and you don't see the whites complaining... not saying we should... but i didn't take it as offensive. i take it as a play with stereotypes and characters. just how i take the other characters. It's only offensive if your really uptight and looking for it to be, none of the disney movies are teaching anyone to HATE these characters... and thats the difference.

that kind of makes no sense.
since there's no generalization.
" what makes the red man red" is about ALL indians.
you just cited 2 VILLIANS as negative stereotypes for the white race perpetuated in Disney films.
Last time I checked John Smith was pretty white and he happens to be a good guy.
and Frollo was more about sex than it was racism.

and no, racism isn't about hate, it's about separating people in categories that don't make any sense.
let's say I own an accounting firm and I don't hire a black dude because
"hey everyone knows black guys aren't good at math"
and I can say this without ANY hate and it's still racism.

and please, don't be foolish, the fact that song of the south portrays a SLAVE as a HAPPY SLAVE is pretty darned racist.

seriously now.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Well if you really wanted to get into it... what about Radcliffe from Pocahontas's or Frollo in the Hunchback? those were both "stereotypical racist whitemen" and you don't see the whites complaining... not saying we should... but i didn't take it as offensive. i take it as a play with stereotypes and characters. just how i take the other characters. It's only offensive if your really uptight and looking for it to be, none of the disney movies are teaching anyone to HATE these characters... and thats the difference.

that kind of makes no sense.
since there's no generalization.
" what makes the red man red" is about ALL indians.
you just cited 2 VILLIANS as negative stereotypes for the white race perpetuated in Disney films.
Last time I checked John Smith was pretty white and he happens to be a good guy.
and Frollo was more about sex than it was racism.

and no, racism isn't about hate, it's about separating people in categories that don't make any sense.
let's say I own an accounting firm and I don't hire a black dude because
"hey everyone knows black guys aren't good at math"
and I can say this without ANY hate and it's still racism.

and please, don't be foolish, the fact that song of the south portrays a SLAVE as a HAPPY SLAVE is pretty darned racist.

seriously now.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Well if you really wanted to get into it... what about Radcliffe from Pocahontas's or Frollo in the Hunchback? those were both "stereotypical racist whitemen" and you don't see the whites complaining... not saying we should... but i didn't take it as offensive. i take it as a play with stereotypes and characters. just how i take the other characters. It's only offensive if your really uptight and looking for it to be, none of the disney movies are teaching anyone to HATE these characters... and thats the difference.

that kind of makes no sense.
since there's no generalization.
" what makes the red man red" is about ALL indians.
you just cited 2 VILLIANS as negative stereotypes for the white race perpetuated in Disney films.
Last time I checked John Smith was pretty white and he happens to be a good guy.
and Frollo was more about sex than it was racism.

and no, racism isn't about hate, it's about separating people in categories that don't make any sense.
let's say I own an accounting firm and I don't hire a black dude because
"hey everyone knows black guys aren't good at math"
and I can say this without ANY hate and it's still racism.

and please, don't be foolish, the fact that song of the south portrays a SLAVE as a HAPPY SLAVE is pretty darned racist.

seriously now.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Well if you really wanted to get into it... what about Radcliffe from Pocahontas's or Frollo in the Hunchback? those were both "stereotypical racist whitemen" and you don't see the whites complaining... not saying we should... but i didn't take it as offensive. i take it as a play with stereotypes and characters. just how i take the other characters. It's only offensive if your really uptight and looking for it to be, none of the disney movies are teaching anyone to HATE these characters... and thats the difference.

that kind of makes no sense.
since there's no generalization.
" what makes the red man red" is about ALL indians.
you just cited 2 VILLIANS as negative stereotypes for the white race perpetuated in Disney films.
Last time I checked John Smith was pretty white and he happens to be a good guy.
and Frollo was more about sex than it was racism.

and no, racism isn't about hate, it's about separating people in categories that don't make any sense.
let's say I own an accounting firm and I don't hire a black dude because
"hey everyone knows black guys aren't good at math"
and I can say this without ANY hate and it's still racism.

and please, don't be foolish, the fact that song of the south portrays a SLAVE as a HAPPY SLAVE is pretty darned racist.

seriously now.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

haha, I reaaaaaaaally wanted to make that point.

stupid lag.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

That list is stupid.

 

[SuperFerret]

I think that people forget (or don't know) that Uncle Remus himself is definitely portrayed as the hero of the Song of the South movie.

Now, this doesn't excuse the way that there are no references to slavery, and that Remus seems to be the stereotype of the "happy servant", and that the white parents of the little boy often talk down to Remus. However, Uncle Remus fills the role of adviser to the boy when his parents aren't paying enough attention to him. Also, Remus is proven right after the boy goes missing and the white parents are shown to be wrong and in error for not listening to Remus sooner.

So yes, there are ignorant stereotypes in Song of the South, but the overall message and presentation of the film aren't negative enough to justify holding the film back from release. Just put a disclaimer at the beginning and include a few positive Disney portrayals of African Americans as DVD extras, and there you go.

As inexcusable as racism and slavery is, you find it inexcusable that there is no blatant reference at all. Would it have been really that necessary to spell it out to the viewers (who were intended to be young children) that kindly Uncle Remus was considered PROPERTY? Kind of ruins the happy-go-lucky portrayal of the character, doesn't it?

(This is so going to start something, I can feel it.)

 

[Varient]

speechless.

Mostly because I only found three of the ten offensive.


The other seven were just heavy stereotypes that come from twisted tales of real stuff,.. Aladins song for example.


I haven't seen peter pan in decades so I've forgotten the indian song,...

V.

 

[The Lizard]

As inexcusable as racism and slavery is, you find it inexcusable that there is no blatant reference at all. Would it have been really that necessary to spell it out to the viewers (who were intended to be young children) that kindly Uncle Remus was considered PROPERTY? Kind of ruins the happy-go-lucky portrayal of the character, doesn't it?

(This is so going to start something, I can feel it.)

Actually I personally agree with you. Getting into the slavery issue would just have been confusing in a childrens' movie. However, not everyone would agree, as seen below...

and please, don't be foolish, the fact that song of the south portrays a SLAVE as a HAPPY SLAVE is pretty darned racist.

This raises a difficult, sticky, non-PC question that I ask now in all honesty...

Is it possible that there WERE some slaves that were happy people and were treated well by their "owners" despite being unjustly enslaved?

 

[Mr Sparkle]

This raises a difficult, sticky, non-PC question that I ask now in all honesty...

Is it possible that there WERE some slaves that were happy people and were treated well by their "owners" despite being unjustly enslaved?

No, it's a good question.
and no doubt some slaves enjoyed less brutality than others.
I don't know about being "treated well" since c'mon, they actually thought they were less human than white people.
even in the northern states.
it's kind of when they married off 13 year old girls to 30 year old guys ( or older) I have no doubt SOME of them led joyful happy lives.

but the uncomfortable truth is that MOST Slaves didn't enjoy this particular brand of mercy, and perhaps this is why some people would find it offensive.

 

[Docker2.0]

This raises a difficult, sticky, non-PC question that I ask now in all honesty...

Is it possible that there WERE some slaves that were happy people and were treated well by their "owners" despite being unjustly enslaved?

Depends on the kind of slave you are talking about!

Anyone who says that the number 1 with that african thing with Mickey ain't racist needs to be shot. Some of the rest is reaching but that's about as obvious as mom's apple pie.

 

[The Lizard]

but the uncomfortable truth is that MOST Slaves didn't enjoy this particular brand of mercy, and perhaps this is why some people would find it offensive.

Perfectly understandable.


BTW, the Song of the South DVD has been available in the UK for several years now, which is why bootlegs are so easy to find.

 

[Obi-Ron]

It still amounts to lots of people having a chip or two on their shoulder. Many organizations (often fueled by vengeance more than any desire for justice) have made it politically "okay" for various groups to use the law as a lynching strategy. It wasn't right for white folk to treat blacks with cruelty, and it's not right for gays, atheists, and other races to be doing the same now.

I think 2k4 was unfairly jumped on for this post. My interpretation was that he was trying to say "Two wrongs don't make a right."

In other words, you can't rationalize mistreating a person because of what his "people" are, or did. That's pretty much the definition of hate crime.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

that kind of makes no sense.
since there's no generalization.
" what makes the red man red" is about ALL indians.
you just cited 2 VILLIANS as negative stereotypes for the white race perpetuated in Disney films.
Last time I checked John Smith was pretty white and he happens to be a good guy.
and Frollo was more about sex than it was racism.

and no, racism isn't about hate, it's about separating people in categories that don't make any sense.
let's say I own an accounting firm and I don't hire a black dude because
"hey everyone knows black guys aren't good at math"
and I can say this without ANY hate and it's still racism.

and please, don't be foolish, the fact that song of the south portrays a SLAVE as a HAPPY SLAVE is pretty darned racist.

seriously now.

Heres the issue... racism and segregation are 2 different things, and segregation is what your describing by "separating". John Smith was white and good... but so wasn't Mulan, Pochahantus, Jasmine, etc... all non-white characters. So your point is mute.

One thing that is also brought to the table is culture... If a cartoon character does not have enough of that races culture, that race typically says "there too white acting" when more culture is added it's deemed "racist". You can't please any party...

its very similar to whats going on with the black community and disney's new princess and the frog. The character is disney's first black princess, and her name was originally going do be call Maddy... but was deamed racist because it sounded like Nappy... so they changed her name to i think.. Tatiana (which imo sounds even more stereotypical. Then the original story was going to be Cinderella esque, having her grow from "rags to riches" but the aftican american society deemed it racist because she was a servant... so now she starts out rich.. which i still dont get due to the mere fact... i'd rather have my kids thinking they can go from nothing to something rather then be handed money. People are just OVERLY sensitive.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Actually I personally agree with you. Getting into the slavery issue would just have been confusing in a childrens' movie. However, not everyone would agree, as seen below...


This raises a difficult, sticky, non-PC question that I ask now in all honesty...

Is it possible that there WERE some slaves that were happy people and were treated well by their "owners" despite being unjustly enslaved?

well thats a verried question.. some slave owners in documented history actually took good care of there servants and treated them as family.. Others were not as fortunate and treated like dogs. You can't put everyone in a happy go lucky catagory, and everyone in a tormented one either. Either way its wrong to be "owned" but some of those owned were treated well. And actually didn't want to leave.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Heres the issue... racism and segregation are 2 different things, and segregation is what your describing by "separating". John Smith was white and good... but so wasn't Mulan, Pochahantus, Jasmine, etc... all non-white characters. So your point is mute.

actually, my point is NOT "mute" by any stretch of the imagination.
because you see, you just cited two examples of cartoon's made in the 90's, song of the south is considerably older.
Mulan happens strictly between Asian cultures, so just like there are Villians there are heroes, I completely fail to see how this makes the whole "an apache's skin is red because he is embarrassed" thing less racist.

One thing that is also brought to the table is culture... If a cartoon character does not have enough of that races culture, that race typically says "there too white acting" when more culture is added it's deemed "racist". You can't please any party...

really? wow, seems you have your finger right on the pulse of racial relations in the US ( specially were it pertains to Cartoons) I don't know were you got this Idea but hey, you know what?
roll with it, I know you can't fathom why on earth people would get offended about a portrayal of a happy submissive slave being talked down to by white children, but I guess you're probably not that old, or at least I hope you're not.

its very similar to whats going on with the black community and disney's new princess and the frog. The character is disney's first black princess, and her name was originally going do be call Maddy... but was deamed racist because it sounded like Nappy... so they changed her name to i think.. Tatiana (which imo sounds even more stereotypical. Then the original story was going to be Cinderella esque, having her grow from "rags to riches" but the aftican american society deemed it racist because she was a servant... so now she starts out rich.. which i still dont get due to the mere fact... i'd rather have my kids thinking they can go from nothing to something rather then be handed money. People are just OVERLY sensitive.

ok, whoa!
you have kids.
now I'm depressed.
but here's what you're still not getting.
this is a listing of things Disney did in the past, if you can't see the fact that Mickey gets a african in the mail and he is a stereotypical cartoon of the time ( inspired by black face) well, guess what? you're blind.
if you can't perhaps see the whole Peter Pan "red man" thing as racist.
good for you.
however, the fact that I recognized Disney's awesomely funny racism in the past doesn't mean that I think they are being racist now.
what part of that are you people NOT getting.
seriously, is that sooooo hard to understand.
the fact that black people don't have to go to the back of a public bus today doesn't mean that in the 50's things were different get it?
do you honestly think daily life in the US didn't permeate into cartoons of the time?



you can't be that dense.
and as far as the "Princess and The Frog" is concerned, I don't really care, I don't see how it affects the past unless it's some new technology Disney's been developing in secret.
they froze Walt's head so I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

but some of those owned were treated well. And actually didn't want to leave.

and some battered women love their husbands and don't want to leave them.
I guess that's ok as well.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

It still amounts to lots of people having a chip or two on their shoulder. Many organizations (often fueled by vengeance more than any desire for justice) have made it politically "okay" for various groups to use the law as a lynching strategy. It wasn't right for white folk to treat blacks with cruelty, and it's not right for gays, atheists, and other races to be doing the same now.

ok Movie fan, my brother in Christ.
I have to ask you something.
there was a time when lynching was widespread, there are pictures of dudes and their murdered black folk, the dudes posing like they caught a Salmon or something, black people were SEGREGATED and looked down upon, even the people that sometimes argued against this would never have their kids marry into black families.
might I ask what exactly are "Gays and Atheists" are doing that is even comparable to MURDER.

I mean, for someone that preaches the love of Jesus and stuff like that you have the wackiest set of morals EVER!!!!

 

[Goddessreicho]

well thats a verried question.. some slave owners in documented history actually took good care of there servants and treated them as family.. Others were not as fortunate and treated like dogs. You can't put everyone in a happy go lucky catagory, and everyone in a tormented one either. Either way its wrong to be "owned" but some of those owned were treated well. And actually didn't want to leave.

Wow! Just friggin wow! You truly have no bloody clue as to what you just said.

When you have no rights or freedom, it's impossible to be treated fair and just because YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS.

Also no matter how "well" slaves were treated they were NOT educated within the slave system. Most slaves didn't know they were treated like trained dogs because it literally did not dawn on them that they had individual freedom. If a slave wanted to read, open up their own business with their skills, farm their own land. The answer was a resounding NO.

This is true with ALL caste systems, feudal systems, and slavery all over the world. As for segregation being any different...um hello RECONSTRUCTION meant very little change in the economic situation of former slaves because of the lack of education allowed before.

Segregation was reversed because all was NOT separate but equal. Black people were still treated like non-persons with no rights, kinda like slaves but with meager salaries for a handful of jobs that they were allowed to have. Just like apartied.

The one category that can be said was that disenfranchised minorities have had an unfair ridiculously stereotyped image, one that's been "on sale" from companies like Disney for ages.

For further info, Maddy was changed to Tiana because Maddy was a common SLAVE name. That would have been shying away from the common "we made several oppsies in the past" attitude Disney now has.

Spiderboy, may I suggest you study Black History (espcially Black American History) before you post again. Sure opinions are appreciated, but what you said has no basis in the actual history.

 

[Varient]

Actually I personally agree with you. Getting into the slavery issue would just have been confusing in a childrens' movie. However, not everyone would agree, as seen below...


This raises a difficult, sticky, non-PC question that I ask now in all honesty...

Is it possible that there WERE some slaves that were happy people and were treated well by their "owners" despite being unjustly enslaved?

Happy is definetly relative.

And deserves it's own thread.

w/o starting a fight,.. this is where the house n***** and field n***** insults come from.

V.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

There were probably 2 slave owners that treated their slaves like family. I'm sure there were some that at least treated them like humans and not just property. The majority didn't.