Tumblr page for Racebending.com - Media Consumers for Entertainment Equality.

Please feel free to browse our tumblr page for the latest community-sourced information about media representation in Hollywood.

Reblogged from disneydiversity  21,282 notes

One of the most disturbing scenes in Disney’s “Aladdin” is when Jasmine must pretend to seduce Jaffar in order to distract him. The clothing that the animators chose to put her in, complete with the shackles, are all a white, colonial wet dream. And she’s the only Disney princess who’s had to use her body in this way to distract someone. Then there’s this scene in “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” where Esmeralda is shimmying her hips and breasts and basically ends with a pole-dance sequence: a far cry from the delicate waltzes and pirouettes that Belle and Aurora dance. The simultaneous fascination and revulsion that Whiteness has for WOC bodies are unmistakably evident in Disney’s posturing of Jasmine and Esmeralda.

By

The Jasmine Diaries Part II: ‘Exotic’ is not a Compliment

(via marfmellow)

A perfect example of “desert flower” fetishization/exotification. Women of color are always shown as “others”, they’re seen as women who have to use their sexuality to save themselves (or worse, as people who are just inherently sexual by their mere existence).

We’re putting these sexualized images of women of color into cartoons meant for children, essentially brainwashing them to grow into adults who fetishize non-white women. Gross.

(via callingoutbigotry)

Reblogged from racebentdisney  18,452 notes

Okay, but it’s not just about getting paid to prance around in a princess costume

racebentdisney:

amaninyc:

lyrique86:

Let me tell you a story.  Once at a party, I had all the little girls sitting around me and I was asking them about their favorite parts of all the princess movies.  The birthday girl was sitting next to me, and tells me, “Princess, your skin is the same color as mine.”  I smile and agree, and try to move the game along, but she interrupts and says, “Your skin is brown and you’re a princess.  It’s the same color as mine, but you’re a princess.”

“Well, if my skin is brown and your skin is brown, and I’m a princess, then you must be a princess too.” I tell her.  And then I spent the next 10 minutes assuring all the black girls at the party that yes, they have lovely skin and yes, they can be princesses with me.

This happens at most of the parties I go to.  I have had my arm stroked, my hair patted, my skin color commented on more times than I can remember. I am not simply hired out to entertain a bunch of cute little girls dressed in poofy skirts who want to play with a big girl in a poofier skirt.  I am hired out because I am an affirmation. For these little black girls (and boys!  I’ve dazzled a few of them too) Princess Tiana is proof that for once, they can be special BECAUSE of the color of their skin, not IN SPITE OF.

Adding some of her pictures for emphasis.

We’ve featured pictures of this lovely Tiana before, but I wanted to add this post to the blog as well :)

    just-a-simple-monk asked
    After getting angry for the billionth time about how disney doesn't even have a hispanic princess, I realized something: Disney can't even paint with all the colors of the wind.

    Answer:

    redhead-oblivion:

    threelittlemonkeybutts:

    fuatino:

    racebending:

    rimshot

    PPPPFPFFF

    Look it can’t even paint with more than one, it just splatters the other colors into a giant mess and tries to pass it off as painting.

    Where’s that post that points out Rapunzel was Disney’s first white princess in 20 years??
    While it’s true there’s not representation of every ethnicity yet, it’s not true that they only “paint with one color.” And I gotta say I find it ironic that the quote used for this reference was sang by a Native American (hint: not white) princess.
    Bottom line: I’d love to see Disney do a Hispanic princess, a mixed race couple, a movie where the princess is the one saving the prince, a same-sex couple as much as the next person. But making false claims about the diversity in their movies isn’t going to get us there.

    I assume that post is hiding in embarrassment because even if Rapunzel was Disney’s first white princess in 20 years (not withstanding with the pile of Cinderella sequels that home video spat out, and the giant castles that Disney has erected to memorialize three different white princesses, etc.) that’s a pretty sad statistic.

    Sure, we went 20 years without a new white princess. Let’s be thoughtful about this:

    • Tiana was the first African American Disney princess in 72 years and the only African American princess ever.

    • Mulan was the first East Asian Disney princess in 61 years and the only East Asian princess ever.
    • Pocahontas was the first Native American princess in 58 years and the only Native American princess ever.
    • Jasmine was the first Middle Eastern-analogue princess in 55 years, the first princess of color in 55 years, and the only Middle Eastern-esque since.
    • These four, plus Princess Kida, are the only princesses who are not white.

    So this argument that ooh, Rapunzel was the first white Disney princess in 20 years? When there were six white princesses before her? Rapunzel has only been out since 2010, and since then Disney has added THREE more white princesses.

    That’s four white princesses in the past three years.

    Disney can crown four princesses, all of the same same race, in three years, when they are white.

    Yet, as your own fancy statistic attests, it took them six times as long to crown four princesses of color, of different races—each from films with questionable racial stereotypes.

    Trying to minimize Disney’s terrible track record isn’t going to get us there either.

Reblogged from storybrookemirror  3,831 notes
storybrookemirror:


Things will get a bit hairy on Once Upon a Time when the ABC drama introduces its take on Rapunzel.
And filling the iconic role, TVLine has learned exclusively, will be ill-fated Originals witch Alexandra Metz.
Metz will make her debut in the 14th episode of Season 3 — aka soon into the second half, which premieres March 9 — and though nothing at this time is confirmed, there is always the option for additional future appearances.

[x]

storybrookemirror:

Things will get a bit hairy on Once Upon a Time when the ABC drama introduces its take on Rapunzel.

And filling the iconic role, TVLine has learned exclusively, will be ill-fated Originals witch Alexandra Metz.

Metz will make her debut in the 14th episode of Season 3 — aka soon into the second half, which premieres March 9 — and though nothing at this time is confirmed, there is always the option for additional future appearances.

[x]

Reblogged from selchieproductions  350 notes
    ileikturtles asked
    Hi, I have a school assignment about Disney’s discriminatory adaptation, Frozen, and as my final piece chose to do a redesign of some characters, how many depending on my progress by the deadline. The more I read about how offensively wrong Disney got this, the more I am daunted by this task, as I don’t want to make any stupid or insulting mistakes. I'm running out of letters now but could you tell me a bit about where to start learning about the saami culture as relating to the original story?

    Answer:

    selchieproductions:

    Hi there, the original story was written by Hans Christian Andersen, the same Danish author that wrote ‘the Little Mermaid’ and as such it is not a Saami story at all. 

    In the original story however, the main character Gerda meets a Saami woman who helps her finding her way to the Snow Queen’s palace by writing a message on a piece of dried fish that she tells Gerda to bring to a Finnish woman in the far north of Finland. This part of the story is a mere paragraph long, so the only reason why Disney has chosen to call Kristoff Saami is to add a bit of exotic flair to the film itself. 

    Disney’s understanding of our many and different cultures is non-existent, they haven’t used any Saami advisors in the process of making the film, Kristoff is a vendor of ice with a pet reindeer and the only inclusion of a Saami voice in the film is through the opening song, which is a yoik written by a South Saami composer. This yoik is not performed by Saami artists, however, so it’s not really a Saami addition to the film as much as it is a tune chosen because of how exotic it sounds. In many ways Eatnemen vuelie is not chosen because Disney wants the film to give Saami a place, it’s been chosen because it sounds like a chant not all too dissimilar from the opening song in Pocahontas.

    In other words, changing Kristoff’s outfit from the horrible mismatch of things he’s currently wearing and that Disney presents as being Saami to something authentically Saami would be equally problematic because he is not Saami. Making Kristoff Saami is a way for Disney to claim that they have included minorities in their stories, rather than telling yet another boring, white Western story that has nothing new to add to the wealth of children’s films out there. His Saaminess is a tokenistic way of showing how inclusive Disney is while not being inclusive or diverse at all.

Reblogged from medievalpoc  12,878 notes

medievalpoc:

flowerspike:

medievalpoc:

feministdisney:

bigscarytiger:

feministdisney:

(someone erased my original captioning, but it read “The Disney Princesses tell it like it is.”)

bigscarytiger:

jonnyornonny:

ethicsinadvertising:

Great little comic on (lacking) diversity in Disney media

So many conflicting ideas on my head about this.
Against: FUCK OFF! IT’S A CHILDREN’S FILM AND BEFORE REPUNZEL WE HAD TWO DECADES OF POC PRINCESSES! TWO. DECADES. Also, both films are set in places without poc in them anyway :/ sorry. Also, merida is a Pixar Hero(ine) NOT a Disney Princess, and I will argue that point to the grave.
For: yeah, poc should be more represented in all media. Why go back on two decades worth of progress? Regardless of fantasy setting, some historical accuracy could at least be attempted.

What Jonny said. One girl on here was hitting a rage cause there were no poc in Brave. Brave is set in 10th century Scotland. There were no poc there at that time. Relax your balls and enjoy the movie.

going back through Brave stuff posted months or years ago is amazing. Just look at the high quality of commentary people added to pictures that blatantly address their point. Like how do you even manage to do that

(also “two decades”… what. As if white characters weren’t there in huge numbers at the same time? Also, simply having characters throughout a span of time doesn’t mean a group is represented enough… as is obvious via many recent films…)

The pictures aren’t addressing my viewpoint for Brave, though. It is historically accurate to not show PoC in the movie because there weren’t any PoC living there until the UK began slavery with people from India and then eventually Africa, and Pixar got condemned on Tumblr for keeping to that. Surely if you feel adding a PoC character is an obligation and not because they’re a part of the story is just as racist as deliberately leaving them out or making them white when they should be included in the story?

And you can’t compare the historical (in)accuracy with the use of magic (a character being transformed into a bear) seriously, how can anyone think that’s a valid comparison?

it actually did address your point but you are, I guess, so sure that slavery was the only way that PoC could get there besides an extensive historical worldwide trade network originating out of both the continents of Africa and Asia, that you didn’t bother to look up the point indicated in image 3. I honestly find your ignorance intentional because I know damn well that people have replied to your reblog with the blog medieval PoC, which, if you search through, has referenced Brave and Scotland multiple times. 

Your complete lack of understanding of the past is exactly the reason that diversity is necessary- you can’t imagine a world where PoC might be present as non-slaves, as people with agency outside of what the British empire dictated, because the media you’ve been exposed to throughout your life has never presented that to you as an option…

I also, no, don’t see how including PoC, even if it’s done as an “obligation” because you can’t wrap your mind around them being a natural part of a story, is as racist as often excluding them or misrepresenting them in media. It is likely that certain people will continue to see their presence as “an obligation” so long as white narratives continue to be seen as an acceptable default…

I’m also not sure why you think chameleons and magical bears are somehow acceptable inclusions when PoC aren’t even though they actually could be there historically but this has been gone over so many times like it’s seriously right there in the images that idk why it was even put as a point.

I went ahead and bolded the parts of these responses that once again show that “historical accuracy” is only important to white people when it comes to casting MODERN MEDIA and excluding people of color from films.

Despite the historical fact that there is documented presence of people of color in Scotland since Classical times, through the Middle Ages, and into modern history.

During the Roman occupation of Scotland, there were over 260 camps of Roman soldiers, the archeological remains of which are visible from the air. The sheer amount of manpower sent into Scotland to try and subdue it grows ever larger as more investigations into these sites is conducted.

In fact, the rather famous disappearance of the IX Hispana Roman Legion is still being investigated, but analysis of primary sources shows that after a bloody defeat, the survivors may have just become part of the population of Scotland. All of this happened around 100 A.D.

Hispania, the origin of the Legion, was under Carthiginian Influence until the Punic Wars almost 100 years later, and on this map you can see the pre-Punic War sphere of Carthaginian influence:

image

In fact, I recently posted an interactive map that demonstrates just how easy and fast travel was in the days of the Roman Empire.

Going to the Middle Ages, we have Kenneth III, King of Scots from 997 to 1005 , also known as “Kenneth the Brown” whose race is still tiresomely debated in certain circles. There is no conclusive “proof” of his race because the racial categories we have today did not exist then. And of course, the former Romans living and working in Scotland at the time would have no written record of their activities or appearance because no one cared.

Once we get into the High Medieval and “Renaissance” period, written records of many specifically Black people in important royal circles. These records are a part of the UK government’s accessible to the public website:

James was a popular, fun-loving king with many interests. Many Black Moors were present at his court. Some worked as servants or (possibly) slaves, but others seem to have been invited guests or musicians. We know that he courted Margaret with lute and clavichord recitals and took her out hunting and playing sports.

After their marriage, the king’s Lord High Treasurer’s accounts provide numerous entries to show how much he enjoyed lively entertainment, employing foreign minstrels from Italy and elsewhere. King James was generous to all kinds of people, including Black Moors, as the following entries from the Treasurer’s accounts demonstrate:

  • To celebrate Shrove Tuesday in 1505, several Africans including a 'taubronar' (drummer) and a choreographer were present in Edinburgh. Twelve dancers (including Italians) performed in specially made black-and-white costumes costing £13 2s 10d. Was this the origin of Morris (Moorish) dancing?
  • In 1504-5 the ‘Moryen’ taubronar was paid 28 shillings to allow his taubroun (drum) to be painted.
  • James bought a horse at a cost of £4 4s for this drummer, who accompanied him when he toured his northern domains.

Moor women were also mentioned in the Treasurer’s accounts. It is unclear whether or not they were servants, since they were showered with items such as gowns of satin, ribbons, slippers and gloves, paid for by the king.

Entries that refer to Moor women include:

  • 'Blak Elene' or 'Elen More' was given five French crowns in 1512.
  • A ‘blak madin’ who attended Queen Margaret was given four-and-a-quarter ells (just over five yards) of French russet.
  • 'Blak Margaret' was given a gown costing 48s in 1513.
  • 'Two blak ladies' staying at the Scottish Court were presented with 10 French crowns as a New Year gift at a cost of £7.
  • In 1527, one item simply said ’ to Helenor, the blak moir - 60 shillings’ .

You can see that the primary sources are included:

image

I think it’s worthwhile to ask ourselves, why is bigscarytiger so very confident in asserting:

It is historically accurate to not show PoC in the movie because there weren’t any PoC living there until the UK began slavery with people from India and then eventually Africa…

This is the effect that the history taught in our classrooms has on real people.

People who feel supremely confident in saying, “you can’t have anyone who looks like you in our movie because you didn’t exist, and when you did it was just as slaves”.

Whitewashing history affects the present and the future.

I want to shoot every single fucking one of you in the fucking head. HOW ABOUT YOU LEAVE IT THE FUCK BE. THEY’RE NOT BEING RACIST BY EXCLUDING THE POC FROM THEIR CARTOONS YOU DAMN TWATS THAT SHIT DIDN’T EVEN OCCUR TO THEM. STOP TRYING TO BITE EVERYONE’S THROATS OFF JUST TO APPEASE TO POC BY PLAYING A SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR, YOU’RE BEING FUCKING OBNOXIOUS. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF. YOU.

Seriously.

Wowwwwww.

You literally want to shoot me in the head for pointing out facts? You want to shoot me in the head because I think children’s cartoons should have characters that look like their audiences?

I just.

Wow.

Remember that time I mentioned this is the #1 most controversial subject I’ve covered?

I was not kidding. It’s honestly frightening how violent these people get when you point out that you could make a cartoon more representative of its audience.

Reblogged from feministdisney  700 notes

"Disney Exec Says Women Are Hard to Animate Because of Emotions"

feministdisney:

feministdisney:

Via Jezebel…check out the article but yes, what the title says. I basically just posted this after finding the other link, but then realized this quote had more textual info than what was there.

…according to one Disney exec, female characters are harder to animate than male ones due to their having to show a “wide range of emotions” and having to “keep them pretty” in the midst of movement. Almost immediately, the internet called bullshit.

The exec, whose foot is probably by now firmly in his mouth, is one Lino Disalvo, Disney’s head of animation for film. He lauded the achievements of the animation staff who worked onFrozen to a visiting animation blogger, saying making the film look good was a unique challenge. BECAUSE LADIES.

Historically speaking, animating female characters are really, really difficult, ’cause they have to go through these range of emotions, but they’re very, very — you have to keep them pretty and they’re very sensitive to — you can get them off a model very quickly. So, having a film with two hero female characters was really tough, and having them both in the scene and look very different if they’re echoing the same expression; that Elsa looking angry looks different from Anna being angry.”

love the comparison image they posted… & this comment:

You know who else doesn’t show a wide range of emotions? Infants. Because just like these characters they’re all huge eyes and tiny smooth other features.

So, in theory, if animated ladies didn’t so very much resemble babies, could they be drawn emoting? Maybe? Eh?

image

I’ve seen other people comment on it and should have included it in posts (forgot) but it’s a good point that the implication here is ALSO that men don’t need to show as much range of emotion. Which gives credence to the stereotype that “women are emotional, while men are logical and don’t do things like cry”.

also why DO you have to keep female characters “pretty in the midst of movement”?? it’s like period commercials where I have to do white pants-ed cartwheels while I’m cramping blood out my bottom like hello it’s ok to be not pretty when you’re escaping from death or whatever 

Reblogged from raptorific  25,973 notes

raptorific:

wrenspaperwings:

feminist-space:

raptorific:

Seriously, it surprises me that people still don’t get that “whitewashing” doesn’t just mean “taking a character of color and turning them white,” but also applies to “focusing disproportionately on the stories of white people,” “glossing over or altering…

I kinda feel though that for the times, the princess’ are actually a wider spread than you’re making it sound. Yes their skin is white but theyre of different nationalities. German English French American Scottish ect. Just because the countries main population of the time when the story was written was white isnt really the fault of the tale. I mean you don’t go to African stories and myths expecting to see white people and have them be culturally diverse. Same with any other ethnicity

(Also with frozen, the upper frozen countries are whiter than white because the pigment is bleached from extended exposure to cold temperatures encouraged them not to go outside and produce melatonin which gives skin its pigment hence the white skin. Also because shes an ice fairy thing.))

That’s the thing. I go to European folk tales and myths expecting to see European people, who are predominately white (although there have been people of color in Europe for longer than white people, because there were no white people before Africans migrated to Europe, and commerce and immigration have been pretty vibrant between the two places since then)

I also go to African folk tales and myths and expect to see African people, and when I go to Asian folk tales and myths I expect to see Asian people, and when I go to Native American folk tales and myths, I expect to see Native American people, and so on for every geographical region and its respective predominate ethnic group.

Except that’s the thing. I don’t go to African stories and myths expecting to see white people. Disney doesn’t go to African stories and myths, full-stop. 

Disney goes to European folk tales and uses a cast of white people, like you might expect in that region and time period. Then, they go to European folk tales and use a cast of white people, like you might expect in that region and time period. Then, they go to European folk tales and use a cast of white people, like you might expect in that region and time period. And then, they go to European folk tales and use a cast of white people, like you might expect in that region and time period. 

The problem is not that the cast of any given individual movie isn’t diverse enough. The problem is that Disney continually chooses to set their stories in western and northern Europe (conveniently, where “all the characters are white” is plausible).

They might just be “being accurate to the story’s time period and location,” but the thing is, they choose the time period and location, and time after time, they always seem to choose stories written by and exclusively featuring white people. 

Yeah, if they made movies set in Africa or Asia or pre-colonial Australia or pre-colonial Americas, the characters in those movies would all be African or Asian or whatever culture is indigenous to the story’s setting. The problem is that they don’t really do that. In the “Princess” collection, they have two movies set in America, one set in Asia, and one set in a made-up country that is so dissimilar to any culture that has ever existed that the closest location I can give for it is “somewhere below Russia.” Then they have eight movies set in northern/western Europe, for a total of nine white princesses who.

Of course, those nine princesses are sometimes French, sometimes Danish, sometimes German, et cetera. There’s a lot of different nationalities amongst the white princesses.

However, amongst the Asian princess, there is one nationality: Chinese. Amongst the Black princess, there is one nationality: American. Amongst the native American princess, there is one nationality: Powhatan. Amongst the Arab princess, there is less than one nationality, because Agrabah bears almost no resemblance to any one place that ever existed. 

Do you see the problem? The white princesses, plural, have a great deal of diversity in their nationalities, in their appearances, in their personalities and attitudes. The princesses of color get no such diversity, because there is only one of each race.

  • The only Asian princess is Mulan, who’s from China.
  • The only Native American princess is Pocahontas, who’s Powhatan.
  • The only Black princess is Tiana, who’s American.
  • The only Middle-Eastern princess is Jasmine, who’s from Agrabah.
  • The only white princesses are Snow White who’s from Germany, and Cinderella who’s French, and Aurora who’s maybe French or German or British, and Ariel who’s from the ocean but moves to Denmark, and Belle who’s French, and Rapunzel who’s German, and Merida who’s Scottish, and Anna who’s Scandinavian, and Elsa who’s Scandinavian. 

And that’s kind of the issue. White people already have seven princess from various parts of Europe. Every other race (note: race, not nationality) has one princess, maximum, but Disney still insists on giving white people an eighth and ninth helping in one go while everybody else is still waiting on firsts and seconds

And that is what people mean when they say it’s whitewashing. 

Yeah, if they made movies set in Africa or Asia or pre-colonial Australia or pre-colonial Americas, the characters in those movies would all be African or Asian or whatever culture is indigenous to the story’s setting. The problem is that they don’t really do that. 

It’s actually more problematic and racist than even that.   Disney has set movies in areas with a lot of people of color like Africa and Australia—and they still feature white people—look at Tarzan, The Rescuers Down Under, etc.

shesnotafraidtobeamermaid:

fantasylanded:

mulan in the FRONT yeeeeaaaaahhhhh

you can totally tell that mulan and poca were not meant to be in this picture. they should have kept it that way. 

This is actually fan art (sorry for all of the excited people), and besides, Disney makes a point to not put that many princesses of color up front, ever.    But thanks anyway.
Lots of critique on Disney marketing practices under this tag:  http://racebending.tumblr.com/tagged/disney-princess

shesnotafraidtobeamermaid:

fantasylanded:

mulan in the FRONT yeeeeaaaaahhhhh

you can totally tell that mulan and poca were not meant to be in this picture. they should have kept it that way. 

This is actually fan art (sorry for all of the excited people), and besides, Disney makes a point to not put that many princesses of color up front, ever.    But thanks anyway.

Lots of critique on Disney marketing practices under this tag:  http://racebending.tumblr.com/tagged/disney-princess

Reblogged from feministdisney  2,849 notes
feministdisney:

thesorrowsongs:


waltdisneyconfessions:


"When I see a little black girl with Tiana merchandise, I wonder if the little girl actually wanted it or it was bought for her because she’s black and maybe her parents wanted her to have the black Disney princess toys. When I was younger I didn’t know the difference between races. We were all the same. I only knew boy and girl, old and young. That was it. So it just makes me wonder if the little girl knows as well or if she just genuinely likes Tiana."


You know what’s fucked up about this ask?
This would be the perfect opportunity to talk about the lack of POC, specifically BWOC representation in Disney and how, while it’s great that we now have Tiana, there’s really still only one character little black girls can cling to.
But nope, instead this white girl simply must begrudge the one sliver of representation that little black girl gets. She must begrudge the fact that her parents might want their child to grow up with same celebration of her features and culture that little white girls get their entire lives.
When you see a little white girl with a Snow White doll I wonder if you’re saddened because she might only have the doll because she’s wh- oh wait, nevermind I forgot, there’s SEVEN other princesses to choose from. Isn’t that lovely how little white girls get a chance to pick out a princess they identify with whose story and songs they actually LIKE. 
And confessor, you really think you didn’t see race is a child? I think the entire field of psychology would beg to differ. Even if a child is too young to fully articulate what race is (hell most adults still fail at that), they know what they look like and they know whether there’s a discrepancy between their features and the features of the people who get to be princesses in the movies on tv.
This is whiteness… whiteness is making a confession like that and seeing that white girls have a myriad of white choices and black girls only have one and thinking the only problem is that the little black girls might not get toys with white princesses on them from their parents.
White girls, you seriously slay me…


I saw this on WDC and noticed a bunch of people had reblogged you so I cruised through 3 pages of your blog to find it :P (lipsredroses, though apparently it was a reblog in itself! still good!)
agree with above. I mean it basically translates to, “I must be superior to those black parents because I never notice race and it would never influence my decisions of who I look up to” 
also yeah irritated at the implication that even though she’s a new and popular princess, every doll is under suspicion for being “bought because she’s black.” Guarantee OP has never applied such a lens to white dolls at any point in time

The whiff of superiority and revisionist history begrudging kids of color for seeing race is what gets to me here.  Based on all of the existing research on kids and race, there is no way OP didn’t pick up on the difference between races (unless they were only ever around people of the same race and did not watch TV) even if OP is now demonstrating ignorance around the way Disney franchises approach race.

feministdisney:

thesorrowsongs:

waltdisneyconfessions:

"When I see a little black girl with Tiana merchandise, I wonder if the little girl actually wanted it or it was bought for her because she’s black and maybe her parents wanted her to have the black Disney princess toys. When I was younger I didn’t know the difference between races. We were all the same. I only knew boy and girl, old and young. That was it. So it just makes me wonder if the little girl knows as well or if she just genuinely likes Tiana."

You know what’s fucked up about this ask?

This would be the perfect opportunity to talk about the lack of POC, specifically BWOC representation in Disney and how, while it’s great that we now have Tiana, there’s really still only one character little black girls can cling to.

But nope, instead this white girl simply must begrudge the one sliver of representation that little black girl gets. She must begrudge the fact that her parents might want their child to grow up with same celebration of her features and culture that little white girls get their entire lives.

When you see a little white girl with a Snow White doll I wonder if you’re saddened because she might only have the doll because she’s wh- oh wait, nevermind I forgot, there’s SEVEN other princesses to choose from. Isn’t that lovely how little white girls get a chance to pick out a princess they identify with whose story and songs they actually LIKE. 

And confessor, you really think you didn’t see race is a child? I think the entire field of psychology would beg to differ. Even if a child is too young to fully articulate what race is (hell most adults still fail at that), they know what they look like and they know whether there’s a discrepancy between their features and the features of the people who get to be princesses in the movies on tv.

This is whiteness… whiteness is making a confession like that and seeing that white girls have a myriad of white choices and black girls only have one and thinking the only problem is that the little black girls might not get toys with white princesses on them from their parents.

White girls, you seriously slay me…

I saw this on WDC and noticed a bunch of people had reblogged you so I cruised through 3 pages of your blog to find it :P (lipsredroses, though apparently it was a reblog in itself! still good!)

agree with above. I mean it basically translates to, “I must be superior to those black parents because I never notice race and it would never influence my decisions of who I look up to” 

also yeah irritated at the implication that even though she’s a new and popular princess, every doll is under suspicion for being “bought because she’s black.” Guarantee OP has never applied such a lens to white dolls at any point in time

The whiff of superiority and revisionist history begrudging kids of color for seeing race is what gets to me here. Based on all of the existing research on kids and race, there is no way OP didn’t pick up on the difference between races (unless they were only ever around people of the same race and did not watch TV) even if OP is now demonstrating ignorance around the way Disney franchises approach race.

Reblogged from karonhiake  4,601 notes

We believe that Pocahontas’s husband Kocoum was killed by the English after Pocahontas was kidnapped. Mattaponi oral history tells us that the English killed Kocoum prior to Captain Samuel Argall’s departure for Jamestown with Pocahontas aboard ship. The British did not recognize the marriage of Pocahontas and Kocoum, believing it to be pagan. Little Kocoum, the small son of Pocahontas and her warrior husband, survived. Some of his descendants live today.

By Dr. Linwood Custalow and Angela L. Daniel, The True Story of Pocahontas: The Other Side of History (via karonhiake)

knphoto:

ASIAN AMERICAN DISNEY PRINCESSES:
by Kim (annakimskywalker) & Donnie (donniekompany)
11x17 inkjet prints


Most of us grew up watching Disney classics featuring the beautiful Disney princesses we all know and love. Disney was and continues to be a staple in the lives of many children. However, despite how much we admired these princesses, it was difficult relating to them because they didn’t physically represent us. Take a look at any Disney princess product and you will see the preference towards the White princesses, white washing of princesses of color (skin color, facial features, etc), and the shoving of these princesses to the side.

In the 76 years since Snow White was released, there have been 11 (soon to be 12) Disney princesses, only 4 of whom are women of color (Jasmine in 1992, Pocahontas in 1995, Mulan in 1998, and Tiana in 2009). It took 55 yearsto portray a woman of color as a princess, and these portrayals also came with problematic and inaccurate representations of their respective cultures & histories (not to mention Tiana was a frog more than half of the movie).

How are young APIA children supposed to believe in “happy endings” when we don’t see them happening to people who look like us?

All of the above was the inspiration behind this photoshoot. We believe physically showing some of our favorite princesses as Asian American women will allow us to build more of a connection with the princesses who weren’t women of color, but who still possess qualities we admire and/or see in ourselves.

**These are just 5 of the 15 we recently showed at our university’s Asian American Studies Expo.

Andrea as Sleeping Beauty
Henna as Belle
Cat as Cinderella
Young as Snow White
Jenny as Tinkerbell

Photography/lighting: Kim
Hair/makeup/wardrobe: Donnie
Editing: Kim & Rachelle