What Would Walt Think

Preamble: Incensed, I got carried away with this rant. Bear with me. TS

I don’t think Walt would be pleased with the current state of the empire he built. What exactly has happened to the Disney brand anyway? What got me incensed was when I recently decided to introduce my grandson to a Disney movie I loved as a kid, The Jungle Book. I was met with this warning:

This program includes negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people and cultures. These stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now. Rather than remove this content, we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it and spark a conversation to create a more inclusive future together. Disney is committed to creating stories with inspirational and aspirational themes that reflect the rich diversity of the human experience around the globe.

What? Apparently, this warning appears before a majority of classic Disney animated features. The only content I want to learn about now is this content. In particular, who is the person that came up with this nonsense, and who exactly has been harmed? I’m happy to hear that; whoever you are, you chose not to remove the content; that’s called censorship incidentally, but precisely what did you Wokers find in Disney’s Jungle Book that you found so harmful? Seriously, enlighten me.

Nearly all of Disney’s classic animated movies have come under fire using the tried and true application of the “racism under every rock” principle. If your job is to seek out racism, you’re the hammer, and everything starts to look like a nail. Classic animated features from Disney and Warner Brothers have been held up to scrutiny through a contemporary woke lens, failing to take into account the era in which the films were made and the intent of the long-dead animators. Racial stereotyping seems to be the most common accusation. But are we to deny that certain ethnic groups have distinct characteristics? How can it be in an age where color seems to be the most important redeeming feature in college

          

 admissions, hiring practices, and critical race theory that we can then claim that there are no inherent differences between us? Do ethnic enclaves all bear the same features? Right here at home, is a drive through Little Italy or Harlem in New York, Southie in Boston, or Chinatown in San Francisco going to look the same? Is the food the same, the music, the dress, the culture? If the whole world is the same, why do we travel? For just the climate and the architecture? Sure, we share similarities, hopefully morals and scruples among them, but isn’t it the diversity, those differences, that you lefties keep telling us to celebrate? On one hand, the left tells us to revel in our distinctiveness, but on the other, they tell us we are all the same, when clearly, to the naked eye, that just isn’t true. And a stereotype is usually based, at least partially, on observation, and sometimes that observation may be dated to a time when the ethnic group was new to this country. It isn’t always malicious, although it can be, but we are then walking a fine line between a comedic, satirical caricature and one with the intent to do harm. Isn’t it a cartoonist’s job to exaggerate the characteristics of his subject? And who determines harm? Take the animated feature Peter Pan for example. Apparently, the children refer to Native Americans as “Redskins” which Disney says is a “racial slur.” We already went through this in the renaming scandal for the NFL franchise Washington Redskins for years. Surveys have repeatedly revealed that the majority of Native Americans did not find the term offensive. It was not used in a derogatory manner by the football team, nor was it used as an offense in the Peter Pan film. Disney also was critical of Peter and the Lost Boys dressing in headdresses and dancing, calling it a “form of mockery and appropriation of native people’s culture and imagery.” Children playing dress-up as Indians? Please. Rarely do kids dress up as a character to mock themselves. No child stands in line to portray the village idiot. The football team chose the name “Redskins” as a representation of a proud warrior, and children playing dress-up have the same thing in mind. But we have reached a state where even the name “warrior” has been co-opted by the left as racist and is being banned as we speak from high school sports teams across the country. A little overreach, perhaps? And this “appropriation of culture” nonsense is just that. Nonsense. Where do you draw the line? White people shouldn’t play jazz music or rap? What about Nancy Pelosi leading an overwhelmingly white Congress in taking a knee while draped in African tribal scarves? Can a Black-owned restaurant serve spaghetti? Should the cellist Yo-Yo Ma be allowed to play classical European music? Can Italians celebrate St. Patrick’s Day? It’s ridiculous. Now what about the Cleveland Indians’ goofy mascot Chief Wahoo? I’ll give you that one. That depiction is a bit different than the warrior that used to adorn the Redskins helmets. Banish that one to the trash heap of marketing stupidity. But what about the Florida State Seminoles, who have their mascot Osceola ride out onto the field on horseback and plant a flaming spear in the turf? That’s not demeaning; that’s inspirational. But not for everyone. Although FSU’s use of the mascot is supported by the Tallahassee Seminole Tribe, the Oklahoma Seminoles are not entirely on board. There’s always some disgruntled crank ruining life for the rest of us.

 Common sense should naturally rule, but unfortunately, everyone has a beef. But back to Peter Pan: a song originally entitled “What Makes the Red Man Red” was edited into “What Makes the Brave Man Brave,” an odd choice considering the Atlanta Braves and their fans’ “Tomahawk Chop” have been widely criticized as well. Admittedly, the original song’s title does have an initial cringe factor, but once again, surveys show that Native Americans are not particularly sensitive to being differentiated as “red” any more than Blacks are black and Whites are white. Well, almost. Rarely these days can you escape the term “white” being hurled about with a negative context, as in “White Fragility,” “critical white studies,” and just plain “whiteness.” Why is that acceptable? Granted, the song is an Edwardian-era view of Native Americans as represented in children’s literature of the time, just as it does mermaids and pirates, and it uses a broken English cadence and terms like “Injun” and “squaw” that are deemed offensive. But intentional malice was not the goal of the writers. In fact, they proposed a mythical, fairy tale explanation in the song: “Let’s go back a million years, To the very first Injun prince, He kissed a maid and started to blush, And we’ve all been blushin’ since.” Hardly a negative storyline and obviously meant to be appealing to children. On a more intellectual level, the criticism of the Disney movie Pocahontas was leveled at the historical inaccuracy and the use of the word “savages” in one of the featured songs. The historical criticism borders on lunacy. The animated character is widely criticized as being an attractive, mature, Native American woman in a buckskin cocktail dress when in actuality, the real Pocahontas was between 9 and 11 years old when she met John Smith, likely had facial tattoos, might have had her head shaved, walked about naked, and died when she was only 21. Hardly a character that would have been well received in a children’s movie had reality been accurately represented. Rather, Disney chose to portray Pocahontas as the character in folklore, a more sanitized version of the truth. Could have been worse, could have been Elizabeth Warren in the leading role. Although “Colors of the Wind,” the title song, received accolades, it was the song “Savages” that drew the ire of the woke mob. Once again, it is more the word than the intent. The left has apparently co-opted the term savages to be a slur directed against Native Americans. The song, however, requires more thoughtful analysis. It features verses sung in alternating fashion by the white settlers, then by the Native Americans, both referring to the other as “savages.” Not that complicated, people. In other words, the white settlers thought the native people were uncultured heathens, or savages, whereas, from the Native American’s perspective, it was the white settler who by virtue of his actions, usurping land and violence towards their people, was the actual savage. Once again, hardly malicious intent and meant to stimulate thought on perspective, not to be critical of Native Americans. Just what Disney’s little warning claims they’re trying to do.

And the list goes on. Both Lady and the Tramp and The Aristocrats were criticized for “anti-Asian stereotypes.” Stereotypes, perhaps, but caricatures that were in no way Anti-Asian to the objective viewer with an IQ above 70. In both movies, Siamese cats were depicted as Asian. Okay, last time I checked, the

 Siamese cat was originally bred in the Kingdom of Siam, which is now Thailand, which, as I recall, is in Asia. So wouldn’t it be natural to anthropomorphize the cats as being Asian? In The Aristocats, the cat plays the piano with chopsticks, and in both features, the cats have heavily accented English, and the music is Asian in technique and intonation. So what. Do Asian immigrants often speak English with an accent? Don’t traditional Asians prefer chopsticks to western utensils? Isn’t traditional Asian music....well, Asian? It’s ridiculous. How else are animators supposed to portray an Asian cartoon character? Perhaps by having the character manufacture all our goods, establish ties with Putin, threaten free maritime passage in the South China Sea, and attempt to replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. And write Hunter Biden a check. Maybe call him Xi. Yeah, children would find that hilarious. And the greatest offense of all: the cat was voiced by a white actor. But didn’t Disney just cast a Black R&B singer in the role of Ariel in the live-action version of Hans Christian Anderson’s The Little Mermaid? Show me where mermaids appear in Black seafaring literature. Or Black folks in any of Mr. Anderson’s fairy tales. Why isn’t cultural appropriation a two-way street, Disney? Because the whole thing is ridiculous, that’s why. Talking cats and mermaids. Well, guess what, the cats are entertaining characters, just as Halle Berry is a talented and attractive mermaid.

But no, Disney’s self-flagellation knows no bounds. In Lady and the Tramp, in perhaps one of the most tear-jerking scenes in animation, we meet dogs in the pound howling to the strains of “No Place Like Home.” But once again, the dogs are portrayed as caricatures of the countries the breeds come from, the French poodle, the Mexican Chihuahua, and the Russian Borzoi. And that kind of racial stereotyping just won’t do. Exactly who was offended by this scene? And in one of the most famous scenes in animation, Lady and Tramp are on a date at an Italian restaurant, and their lips meet when they find themselves on either end of the same piece of spaghetti. The Italian restauranteur is naturally named Tony, is of olive complexion, speaks accented English, has black hair, a little mustache, and is full-figured. Stereotype? Sure it is. But no outrage in this case. Why is that? I wonder if the voice-over actor was actually Italian? Are Italians too white, or are they just not one of the protected classes? Once again, an illustration of the haphazard application of standards skewed almost exclusively in favor of people of color.

And in their zeal to capture racism, it is unfortunate that the net keeps getting bigger, ensnaring questionable affronts, including some that are either fabricated or don’t exist at all. Disney’s animated feature, The Jungle Book, released in 1967, is a prime example. Based on a Rudyard Kipling story, originally written in 1894, The Jungle Book tells the story of Mowgli, a young boy raised by wolves, who reluctantly must leave the jungle when he is pursued by the menacing tiger, Shere Khan. Along the way, we meet Baloo the bear, Colonel Hathi the elephant, Kha the snake, Bagheera the panther, the beatnik vultures, and most notably, King Louie the orangutan, all of whom have their own plans for the man-cub. If you are to believe Wikipedia, the story is generally considered to be about “the

 themes of abandonment,” and the triumph of underdogs over their enemies, and “animals anthropomorphized into human archetypes” teaching “respect for authority, obedience, and learning one’s place in society,” but also the “freedom to move between different worlds.” Whatever. Disney’s take on the oft-adapted story featured fantastic voiceovers and an award-winning musical score. But heed the warning: “The character of King Louie, an ape with poor linguistic skills, sings in a Dixieland jazz style and is shown as lazy. The character has been criticized for being a racist caricature of African-Americans.” Gotcha. Swing and a miss, Disney. Whoever the contemporary snowflake with the woke-colored glasses was that wrote this gibberish, totally missed the mark, showing a profound ignorance of 60s culture, and jazz music in particular. Not only that, but they are showing their own prejudice by assuming that any animated ape has to be African American. Idiots. The character King Louis is based on the actor that voices him, Louis Prima (1910-1978). Prima was a New Orleans-born singer, songwriter, bandleader, humorist, and most notably, a trumpeter who incorporated styles of New Orleans Jazz, swing, jump blues, and even Italian folk music into his compositions and performances. His musical influences came from his Sicilian roots, but most notably from being raised in an era in New Orleans when Black and Italian jazz musicians mingled in clubs that opened their doors to them when they were discriminated against in other mainstream venues. He wasn’t culturally misappropriating Dixieland jazz in the featured song “I Wanna Walk Like You”, rather he was playing the type of music that he grew up with, music that he performed and recorded. And to claim that the character had “poor linguistic skills” is offensive. Mr. Prima, although exaggerating his speech to fit the character, actually spoke that way, which was far from linguistically poor and more in keeping with a New Orleans jazz man of the time. Nor was the character anything close to “lazy.” The entire premise, as heard in the lyrics, was that King Louie had “reached the top” and was seeking to gain the power of fire so he could be more like a human. “I wanna be just like the other men, I’m tired of monkeying around.” Hardly lazy and without ambition. And equating Louie and his band of monkeys with African Americans borders on the absurd. Who is projecting racial bias here? The film was made in 1967 and, based on the haircuts on the monkeys and their choice of expressions such as “swingers,” “squares,” and “lay it on me,” it is apparent that they were meant to be representative of the groovy hippie culture of the time. To suggest otherwise is insulting to the legacy of Louis Prima, who produced hits such as “Just a Gigolo,” “Oh, Marie”’ “Buono Sera,” and with wife Keely Smith, “That Old Black Magic,” and “I’ve Got You Under My Skin.” As saxophonist and collaborator Sam Butera said: “He was one of the greatest entertainers who ever lived-he was an entertainers entertainer.”

But perhaps racism is the easiest excuse in an effort to cancel the real target: Rudyard Kipling. Often criticized in contemporary woke circles as being a “colonialist,” Kipling was born in Bombay, British India, in 1865, received the Nobel Prize in literature in 1907, and penned classic works such as “Gunga Din,” “Kim,” Captains Courageous,” “If,” and the controversial “The White Man’s

 Burden” as well as “The Jungle Book.” In his poem “The White Man’s Burden,” he, unfortunately, perpetuates the prevailing mindset of the times in which he lived, where it was the moral obligation of the British Empire to infuse civilization and Christianity into the non-white, primitive peoples of the world. In this case, he was actually encouraging the United States to colonize the Philippines.

Again, looked at through a contemporary social lens, and now that those peoples are indeed civilized on a par with their colonizers, that once great empire now seen as being in decline, such antiquated thought will surely qualify as racism. And in contemporary woke society, historical context is no excuse; the verdict is always guilty, and the sentence: is cancellation. Thus we have such absurd demonstrations of virtue signaling as when Manchester University students painted over a Rudyard Kipling mural of his poem “If,” replacing it with the Maya Angelou poem “Still I Rise.” What exactly are they teaching students in Manchester besides a total lack of cultural awareness? Whereas the poem “If” is a proud acknowledgment of traditional British traits of self-discipline, the ability to persevere, and a stalwart sense of duty, what is often derided but more often praised as the “stiff upper lip” hallmark of British demeanor, they chose an American activist poet as a replacement? How tone deaf. What, there aren’t any suitable poets of British descent who were deemed a more appropriate substitute? Of course, the activists’ retort is that the decision to paint over the mural was “a statement on the reclamation of history by those who have been oppressed by the likes of Kipling.” Really. Reclamation of history? History is history, warts and all, not something to be rewritten to your woke sensibilities or canceled altogether because it doesn’t fit your narrative.

Could it be that Disney is just preaching the woke gospel to curry favors? Are they trying to appeal to their customer base, our misguided, activist youth? Or do they actually believe this nonsense? Perhaps. They are originally from California, you know. It is, therefore, interesting to take note of the recent battle between Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and the Disney empire in Orlando. Disney has long enjoyed a special status, paying reduced taxes and essentially carving out their own self-governing fiefdom separate and apart from surrounding communities. Like the Amazon deal that Representative Ocasio-Cortez shot down in New York, the original premise was to give Disney favored tax status in exchange for investment in Florida, bringing jobs and development to the mid- state region. But as Disney has grown too big for its britches and has made forays into politics and social justice, they have run headlong into the freight train that is Ron DeSantis. In his mind, if we’re going to give you favored status, you should keep your nose out of politics, especially if your lobbying runs contrary to the conservative winds that blow in the Sunshine State. And times have changed. Disney is far from a start-up company, or even a company seeking to expand into a lower tax environment, a tactical selling point to lure businesses to income tax- free states like Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming, and Florida. But shouldn’t this be an issue right out of the Democrat Playbook? A huge corporation, flush with cash, is receiving favored tax status and is not “paying its fair share.” Or to deploy a Warren Buffett misdirection: Isn’t Disney paying less taxes than my secretary?”

 Au contraire. The democrats are disingenuously drawing lines along politics and DEI, siding with the woke corporation over the conservative Governor who also happens to be a potential Republican presidential candidate. Quelle surprise. In this case, even traditionally liberal news sources such as CNN and Vox are hypocritically siding with big business. Vox, which frequently competes with The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, and Esquire as the most laughable source for unbiased reporting, led with the gloating headline “How Disney Just Beat Ron DeSantis” and HuffPo, another opportunistic bottom feeder, ran the story: “Disney CEO calls DeSantis Policies Anti-Florida” after CEO Bob Iger “addressed the Florida Governor’s bid to strip Disney of its self-governing powers, calling it anti-business and anti-Florida.” Even the conservative Wall Street Journal, no fan of Trump, reported that Disney had “outmaneuvered” DeSantis, Trump’s most likely primary adversary. So let’s get this straight, Bob. Do you want to govern yourself, lower your tax burden, and be able to criticize the politics of the state that grants you those favors so you can further your own political agenda? Recall, this all started when Disney chose to wade into the culture wars by opposing DeSantis’s so- called “Don’t Say Gay” legislation designed to protect children from explicit sex education from kindergarten through grade 3. You know, the bill that actually doesn’t say anything about gay at all. That’s kids under the age of eight, incidentally. Sure, rather than actually educating these impressionable little kids on topics that will keep China from eating our lunch, let’s confuse the hell out of them by making them question whether they have the right equipment in their trousers. Good talk. But really, Bob, having the Mouse attack your conservative governor and potentially the Republican candidate for President, then complaining that being prevented from paying lower taxes and performing an end-around of Florida governance is somehow being anti-business sounds an awful lot like you’re playing both sides of the political fence. And where is the criticism from the left? Since when do democrats condone a huge capitalist’s attempt to avoid paying their fair share? When it’s one of their own, apparently. And after hypocritically indicting former President Trump with 34 felony counts this week over a misdemeanor that is beyond the statute of limitations, let’s just move on to the next threat to Democrat rule forever, Ron DeSantis. There is no limit to the hypocrisy when the woke mob comes for you and then rationalizes their own indiscretions by pointing to their record of self-criticism and introspection. As if Disney’s sudden wokeness gives them a pass. It’s disingenuous, it’s manipulative, it’s politically motivated, and in some cases, they just got it wrong. But as in all things progressive, the end justifies the means.