4 ms·

> I watched that scene on yt, read the lyrics and even wiki page about that song. I can't understand why it's considered "extremely racist". It looks even cute

> I watched that scene on yt, read the lyrics and even wiki page about that song. I can't understand why it's considered "extremely racist". It looks even cute. However I'm from Eastern Europe and probably miss some subtler context here. Or is this a case of overcorrection in US society? Excessive political correctness for past wrongdoings? It's "extremely racist" because the new requirement by certain ideological groups is that depictions of certain ethnic groups has to be done with extreme sensitivity, otherwise they're racist. It's an extremely high bar (e.g. I'm sure a huge amount of American material depicting the English or French would be considered racist if that standard were applied). The result seems to be a general expungement of Native American imagery in the US, even of some stuff created by Native Americans themselves. > It's also quite funny when I saw that "black magic" is now considered racist. Guess what? It's also called "black magic" in Serbia since centuries ago, when noone here ever saw non-white man. Black in this context symbolizes darkness, and fear we feel in the dark. Not a skin color. First they go after the mockery, then they of after the innocent stereotypes, then they go after the things that just have a coincidental relation (because they can't stop).

teachrdan 5y ago
> I'm sure a huge amount of American material depicting the English or French would be considered racist if that standard were applied I think what you are missing here is that there is no history in the US of genocide against people of English or French descent. The US has a long history of exploiting American Indians, forcibly relocating them at gunpoint, or just killing them outright. Part of what made this possible was systematic dehumanization of American Indians by portraying them as ignorant savages who were incapable of being "civilized" due to their race. This is the exact dehumanization that Disney was engaging in for laffs in Peter Pan. Obviously, we need to do more to make up for this history of injustices against American Indians. But I find that those who speak loudest to justify racist caricatures against them are the ones least likely to want to do anything to redress those injustices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_of_Native_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_of_Native_A...
- zozbot234 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - teachrdan 5y ago
    You're making my point for me. The US was capable of fighting multiple wars against the English without a campaign of dehumanization against all people of English descent, based on claims that the English were inherently and irredeemably savage and uncivilized. I invite you to find a Disney movie with caricatures of English people that portrays them with exaggerated features, outlandish clothing, and speaking incomprehensibly, and where non-English people then dress and act like them as a goofy lark. The best I can think of is specific goofs on the English aristocracy at specific historical times (like revolutionary America) -- as opposed to American Indians, who were often shown to just be primitive barbarians, whether it was in the 1700s, 1800s or 1900s.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      Maybe not against all people of English descent, but certainly those who stayed loyal to the Crown. Tarring and feathering especially was not only a form of physical torture and public humiliation but also of rather overt, unambiguous dehumanization, since to be subjected to it meant being treated as akin to a medieval outlaw: someone who would altogether lose the protection of the law as a consequence of their "savage and uncivilized" crimes.
      - teachrdan 5y ago
        Exactly. Individuals were treated based on their individual political beliefs. Compare that to a Disney song about how American Indians are dark savages who speak a nonsense language. These are two completely different treatments, one of which is based entirely on race and white supremacy.
    - oh_sigh 5y ago
      Did the Americans do that with Native people? Historically, some native tribes were aligned with the US government, and some were not. It would be weird to malign your allies as irredeemably savage. For example, modern day Western racists might not differentiate between Chinese and Japanese, but the US government in WWII made sure to try teach people how to differentiate between the two(using racist tropes - negatives one for Japanese and positive ones for Chinese): http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6795/ http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6795/
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

teachrdan 5y ago

> I'm sure a huge amount of American material depicting the English or French would be considered racist if that standard were applied I think what you are missing here is that there is no history in the US of genocide against people of English or French descent. The US has a long history of exploiting American Indians, forcibly relocating them at gunpoint, or just killing them outright. Part of what made this possible was systematic dehumanization of American Indians by portraying them as ignorant savages who were incapable of being "civilized" due to their race. This is the exact dehumanization that Disney was engaging in for laffs in Peter Pan. Obviously, we need to do more to make up for this history of injustices against American Indians. But I find that those who speak loudest to justify racist caricatures against them are the ones least likely to want to do anything to redress those injustices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_of_Native_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_of_Native_A...

zozbot234 5y ago
[flagged]
- teachrdan 5y ago
  You're making my point for me. The US was capable of fighting multiple wars against the English without a campaign of dehumanization against all people of English descent, based on claims that the English were inherently and irredeemably savage and uncivilized. I invite you to find a Disney movie with caricatures of English people that portrays them with exaggerated features, outlandish clothing, and speaking incomprehensibly, and where non-English people then dress and act like them as a goofy lark. The best I can think of is specific goofs on the English aristocracy at specific historical times (like revolutionary America) -- as opposed to American Indians, who were often shown to just be primitive barbarians, whether it was in the 1700s, 1800s or 1900s.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Maybe not against all people of English descent, but certainly those who stayed loyal to the Crown. Tarring and feathering especially was not only a form of physical torture and public humiliation but also of rather overt, unambiguous dehumanization, since to be subjected to it meant being treated as akin to a medieval outlaw: someone who would altogether lose the protection of the law as a consequence of their "savage and uncivilized" crimes.
    - teachrdan 5y ago
      Exactly. Individuals were treated based on their individual political beliefs. Compare that to a Disney song about how American Indians are dark savages who speak a nonsense language. These are two completely different treatments, one of which is based entirely on race and white supremacy.
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    Did the Americans do that with Native people? Historically, some native tribes were aligned with the US government, and some were not. It would be weird to malign your allies as irredeemably savage. For example, modern day Western racists might not differentiate between Chinese and Japanese, but the US government in WWII made sure to try teach people how to differentiate between the two(using racist tropes - negatives one for Japanese and positive ones for Chinese): http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6795/ http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6795/

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]