Racebending.com

feministdisney:

canonita:

doggedlyjohn:

thedisneydifference:

Pocahontas is complete fiction. I get it. It is a Disney fairy tale. Not an actual interpretation of what happened in real life. That was never what it was meant to be. Read the original interpretation of ANY Disney fairy tale. NONE of them follow the original story. Pocahontas is a Disney fairy tale like the rest. That is all.

It is a beautiful story with a beautiful message and it is told artfully. I don’t understand why people can’t just let it be that.

Look, Pocahontas is a great movie, but that doesn’t mean it’s not problematic. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. And it’s a little inappropriate to compare fairy tales to real history—-like, the relationship between European settlers and Native Americans was not a fairy tale, it’s history. So Disney can change it and make a great story or whatever—-“It is a beautiful story with a beautiful message and it is told artfully” Yes! True, but: “I don’t understand why people can’t just let it be that”. Because it’s not just that? It’s also many other things? Anyone with a questioning mind should be able to look into the things they loved in their childhood and see the flaws?

I agree with Cannon. And there is no pop up indication that reminds movie watchers that this is not the true story. This retelling is not a retelling in the way beauty and the beast is. Not only was that always a fictional tale, but the changes of Pocahontas as specifically rooted in a colonized way of viewing native cultures (see here and here2 for more details on specific problemtic cultural and historical problems).

I think it’s too blasse to go say “read a book and learn the truth” etc. If it’s a movie about a historical event, the truth should not be so hidden so as to be almost the complete opposite of the movie portrayal. People cannot be expected- and should not be expected- to google the historical context of every movie they see. Would it be nice if they did? Probably. Would it be great if schools spent more time examining the non-white, POC history of American experiences, before and after the American Revolution? Certainly.

But in examining how movies like this operate in real life, as opposed to idealized US Americana, Disney’s Pocahontas IS the dominant understanding of how that moment in history went down. That IS what happens when you tell a story about a culture that is often ignored except to be denigrated or used as visual props- you end up being the accepted narrative, because all others have been systematically silenced. And, again, given how this movie feeds into historical white washing and native erasure and presumptions and stereotypes of native cultures, this is very troubling.

It’s not just a movie… it was never just a movie

(via thisislucreziasand)

delladilly:

it-goes-both-ways:

kisskicker:

“And the second reason was — during the years that I spent running Walt Disney Studios — I learned about how hard it was to find a fairy tale with a good strong male protagonist. You’ve got your Sleeping Beauties, your Cinderellas and your Alices. But a fairy tale with a male protagonist is very hard to come by. But with the origin story of the Wizard of Oz, here was a fairy tale story with a natural male protagonist. Which is why I knew that this was an idea for a movie that was genuinely worth pursuing.”

—Joe Roth, producer of Oz the Great and Powerful

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGH

What’s the problem?

The number of good strong male characters in Disney films is approximately zero. Why are you so pissed off that someone wants to change that?

i am replying to this not remotely because you have a strong or remotely factually founded argument (p.s. everyone check that blog out; it’s hilarious and tragic) but because we started a list of disney [animated because i don’t have all day] male protags on twitter that i think is worth sharing:

aladdin, tarzan, kuzco, pacha, hercules, simba, peter pan, quasimodo, both the fox & the hound, pinocchio, taran, mickey, dumbo, the tramp, wart, mowgli, winnie the pooh, oliver, that mouse detective, bambi, mr toad, pongo, milo, jim, kenai, lewis, bolt, wreck-it ralph

and then of female protags, i bolded those characters in whose film a male supporting character still saved/resolved the narrative climax— which, we can talk about themes and power dynamics until the cows come home AND WE SHOULD, but at the end of the day, it is not ariel who defeats ursula

snow white, cinderella, sleeping beauty, alice in wonderland, ariel, belle, pocahontas, mulan, tiana, rapunzel

which is still ignoring all the films made by pixar under disney (all but one about men), all those films about dudes that i don’t know or care what they are, and all those films (the rescuers, the aristocats) in which arguably there are simultaneously a male and female protagonist but the narrative is still, like, super sexist

against women

sexist against women

so for those of you keeping track at home, disney’s record for animated movies with narrative resolving male vs. female protagonists is about 27:4.

thanks.

This is why I was so upset when I saw Disney’s general plot outline for it’s adaptation of The Snow Queen (next year’s movie, Frozen.)

The Snow Queen is a unique fairy tale with a ordinary girl heroine named Gerda.  When her best friend, Kai, gets kidnapped, Gerda decides to set off on her own initiative to rescue him.   On the way, she meets a number of different women who help or challenge her on her journey.  One of the women is a fierce young robber girl who kind of has a crush on Gerda and gives Gerda her pet talking reindeer.   In this fairy tale, the man is the “damsel in distress” and Gerda is the hero.

In Frozen, Disney has “princessed” the fairy tale up.  Gerda’s name has been “anglicized” to Princess Anna.  Her sister, Elsa, is the wicked Snow Queen who has cursed her.  She is accompanied by a “a rugged, thrill-seeking outdoorsman Kristoff, his one-antlered reindeer and a hapless snowman,”  

Basically, Disney took a fairy tale about an independent-minded young girl, traveling on her own and aided by different women…and changed the story to be about the girl saving herself instead of saving her friend.

Disney took a story about a young heroine traveling to save a boy and instead inserted a random male lumberjack and his reindeer to replace the badass robber girl and her reindeer.  

Although the original story demonstrated Gerda’s strength by showing her traveling alone, adapting to the different people she meets, and working with numerous women allies, this story has “Anna” versus her sister, surrounded by a bunch of male characters including a friggen’ snowman.

I wish Miyazaki had made this movie instead.

watermeloncholy:

writeoutoflove:

professional-widow:

kisskicker:

“And the second reason was — during the years that I spent running Walt Disney Studios — I learned about how hard it was to find a fairy tale with a good strong male protagonist. You’ve got your Sleeping Beauties, your Cinderellas and your Alices. But a fairy tale with a male protagonist is very hard to come by. But with the origin story of the Wizard of Oz, here was a fairy tale story with a natural male protagonist. Which is why I knew that this was an idea for a movie that was genuinely worth pursuing.”

—Joe Roth, producer of Oz the Great and Powerful

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGH

Does he live in opposite land? Does he realise that Disney is one of the only studios that focuses on female-centric children’s stories? Does he understand why fairytales are so female-centric (especially in a society with so many stories where men often get to be the heroes…I mean even in fairytales, men often get to be heroes). There are plenty of fairytales with male protagonists as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fairy_tales), so he’s wrong about that too. I just. What.

I love this story was only genuinely worth pursuing because of the ~natural male protagonist~ in them, not because the Wizard of Oz stories actually have so many brilliant heroines. Funnily enough, the movie might fail because the people behind it don’t seem to understand what audience they should be aiming their dollars at. I hope they learn their lesson. 

(via khaleesiboadicea)

booksrockmyface:

racebending:

booksrockmyface:

I would just like to point out, as I always do, that Mulan isn’t a princess. She didn’t even marry into royalty. Pocahontas passes because as a chief’s daughter, she’s an Indian princess. Just something that’s annoying to me.

What an excellent public service. Yes, do please continue pointing out that Disney has some gumption to cram these women of color into the Eurocentric construct of royalty— I mean, by golly, Mulan’s princess status should clearly be defined by “having an important dad” or “marrying an important man.”

Extra credit for sorting Pocahontas into the mythical “Indian princess” category instead of into Gryffindor.

Why do you have to be rude? Mulan isn’t a princess. By any definition (“Eurocentric” or not). She didn’t get with the emperor. Her mom hadn’t been with the emperor. Her dad was in the military. And not such a high ranking member that he could have gotten out of fighting with a few words or a bribe or something.

Seriously, make a more valid argument than the whitewashing of Disney because I’d love to hear it. I know it exists. But that is no excuse to cram a woman of color onto something with that label just because if her race.

Also, Mulan is something better than a princess. She did what she could to bring honor and freedom to her family and country. Not everyone has to be the princess.

Yeah, let’s show girls that not everyone has to be a princess by taking Mulan all of the merchandise!

Quick search of etymology of the word “princess” shows that the word began to fall into colloquial use to refer to girls (not just royalty) around 1924. It is of course a feminine version of the word “prince” which comes from Latin “princeps” which is a combination of the word primus (which means first) and capere (to take, as in the word capable). (the foremost of capable people?) In the 1900s it began to be used colloquially to mean an “admirable or generous person”

If the definition of princess is solely defined by a woman’s relationships to her father or husband, then sure, Mulan is not a “princess” and I’m sure that is yet another excellent message for Disney to convey to girls. Disney can then send the mixed message that “every girl can be a princess” (literally the name of an inane song on one of the Disney Princess CDs) while also communicating that it’s only if your dad or husband are royalty.

If the definition of a princess is expanded to include the actual history of the word then included in the concept are terms like being really good at something or being really capable or taking leadership, being admirable and generous, etc. Prin (first) ce (capable) ss (woman). Given all of China bows to Mulan and considers her their savior in the Disney version, surely she fits the definition more than other characters who were just born into or married into a “title.”

“Why do you have to be rude?”

Rude like rolling into a conversation about how characters of color are marginalized and reminding everyone that the characters of color weren’t really legitimate inclusions in the franchise anyway using patriarchal constructs?