4 ms·
> based on the erroneous assumption ... It's too easy for some Internet comment in a few words to write off the serious, long-held concerns of millions of peop
by forapurpose 8y ago
> based on the erroneous assumption ...
It's too easy for some Internet comment in a few words to write off the serious, long-held concerns of millions of people, not to mention scholars and many others. Great numbers of people have suffered very great and real harm for generations. Perhaps we should be very concerned about what they have to say, so that that harm can stop. The response of ignoring concerns has a long history, as long as the blatant stereotypes in the movie, and have reliably achieve very poor results and great harm.
> idealic
Ideal for white people - that's always true; race relations have always been ideal (or much closer to it) for white-skinned people. Generally speaking, the predictive model of white-skinned people's view of race relations depends on whether the problems are kept out of sight: If people complain too much about racism, that gets a big backlash; white people become angry. The legal system's abuses, the poverty, the unfunded schools, the lack of services, and African-American people themselves are hidden in separate neighborhoods. As long as it's not bothering white-skinned people, then race relations are good!
Films like Song of the South fulfill many white-skinned people's ideal of African-Americans and of race relations. African-Americans have a long history of being defined by white-skinned people rather than by themselves (as do many excluded groups); almost every one you see is filtered through white screenwriters, journalists, researchers, political commentators, politicians, Hacker News commenters[0], etc. Notice the high proportion of African-Americans in fictional media who are criminals, who are poor, and who speak with a heavy urban slang. Believe it or not, those things are not true of the vast majority of African-Americans; most are ordinary people with ordinary jobs and lives, and speak standard English. Having lived in African-American neighborhoods, watching the portrayal on TV and films can be bizarre - it's an alternate reality written by people who have little experience and just toss in stereotypes.
Characters like Remus are objects, not people with their own priorities but things that exist to make white people happy and comfortable, both the fictional characters in the films and (especially, of course) the real people who buy tickets. Finally, in that film the long-repeated stereotypes are particularly obvious and overwhelming (IIRC, and many others agree). If the parent doesn't recognize them, I encourage them to learn about the issue.
[0] HN's lack of African-American voices is a serious impediment to discussion. It's very rare that any commenters can speak from that point of view. Note that African-Americans are almost always discussed int he third person - 'they' and 'them'.
- jjeaff 8y ago>It's too easy for some Internet comment in a few words to write off the serious, long... I was referring to the official dissent of the NAACP, which I clearly specified. The official NAACP remarks are as follows: "The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People recognizes in "Song of the South" remarkable artistic merit in the music and in the combination of living actors and the cartoon technique. It regrets, however, that in an effort neither to offend audiences in the north or south, the production helps to perpetuate a dangerously glorified picture of slavery. Making use of the beautiful Uncle Remus folklore, "Song of the South" unfortunately gives the impression of an idyllic master-slave relationship which is a distortion of the facts." As you can see, the entire argument rests on the, as I stated, erroneous assumption that the movie is depicting slavery. I did not say there were no valid criticisms as there obviously were and are. But that specific and most famous criticism is not. I don't really have a comment on the rest of your history lesson on racism except that I agree and that this movie does not seem to apply. But good work with the virtue signaling. I'll have a sit down with my African American wife (with whom I watched Song of the South) and explain to her why she should have been more offended.
- forapurpose 8y agoPersonal attacks and the inverse, claiming some personal superiority (bringing in the skin color one's spouse! yikes!), have no place here. The GP clearly approved of the film and its depiction of race beyond any NAACP statement.
- olavk 8y agoWell I think it is more complex...certainly, I can understand how it is problematic to show Jim Crow era blacks as happy and content. But on the other hand the movie disneyfies African-American folktales like they have done to european folktales, and this is actually a recognization of a distinct African-American culture which is pretty unique. But of course in a form which have been filtered through the primary white Disney studio. The question is if this is better or worse than nothing given the time when the movie was produced. > It's too easy for some Internet comment in a few words to write off the serious, long-held concerns of millions of people, not to mention scholars and many others. Well the fact of the matter is that SotS have been erroneously criticized for depicting a "happy slave" which is simply not correct. The amount of real suffering does not really change this fact. There are legitimate criticisms, but this is not one of them.