In class yesterday I was reminded of my roommates Itunes, and it's proud political incorrectness. They're called the Second Carolina String Band, and their music id based around recreating Civil War era tunes, and keeping them as accurate to the original as possible. I have to admit that I was surprised when I heard my roommate listening to music tlaking about "Darkies" but I have to appreciate how that was in fact the language of the times. It sometimes was racist, but in other times it was just the term used for people of a dark complexion. We have to respect however that while we are different we can't ignore the fact that that was the terms and music that created our culture.
I was more surprised yesterday to find out that parts of steamboat willie had been censored at some point or other. I can understand that a couple of scenes involving Mickey coming in direct contact with mammary glands could be viewed as unusual, but since they were not even the same species. While we are at it, why don't we censor every cartoon that involves milking a cow, or laying an egg? I was glad to see that the "restored" edit wasreleased at some point, because if we start editing every piece of narrated history, to make them more "appropriate" for our times, at what point does it simply become an entirely different story? or do all abridged versions of storys count as their own narratino already?
Allow the History Major to Rant.
Oct
28
2009
Celebrating history vs. re-producing its problems
This is a touchy subject -- that is, the question of how to preserve history including those elements of it that we no longer consider appropriate discourse, without appearing to celebrate those problems. Racism is real, and the use of stereotypes and derogatory terms to degrade any group of people is a bad thing. I know you're not condoning racism, and for all I know, the 2nd Carolina String Band isn't either (this is the first I've heard of them), but it seems to me there's a difference between preservation and celebration, and the latter can sometimes be used to foment latent racism.
To refer to these objections as "political correctness" bugs me, because it sounds dismissive of both the power of language to shape our culture and reality, and of the damage it has done.
Anyway, Steamboat Willie does contain elements in that some could be offended by -- legitimately. The history of its different versions (and as I said in class, "censorship" isn't the correct word since, as far as I know, the removal of certain shots was Disney's idea) is also the history of Disney evolving the character of Mickey to be more of a kid-friendly character.
The scene with the pig is offensive or at least surprising to us because, however you understand the hierarchy of the animal kingdom in this cartoon, the scene makes a joke of Mickey poking the mother pig's breasts. Even if the intent was not to depict a sexual assault, Disney felt (and we seemed to agree in class), that it looked that way.
I think the interesting issue is how we or the original animators (directed by Ub Iwerks) parse the interspecies relationships: some animals talk and wear pants, some animals don't. And that's pretty weird anyway.
I Believe in context.
I understand completely the point you made about dismissing objections as "political correctness" being illinformed and possibly destructive, however I believe that the big thing to look at is context. However i had not meant it to be dismissive, only I object to it's clout in covering up parts of american history that are still shaping certain parts of america today. I see some attempts to rewrite American history as driving rifts between certain cultures within our nation.
What i do believe is that everything needs to be looked at in context. While some words are offensive, i believe that they need to be looked at by historians and viewers in the context that it was written. It would be wrong for some old terms to be revised with modern meanings, and be dismissed as using the older definition, but we should not look to change our history, just to make it more applicable and appealing today. And I also do agree with you that there is a difference between celebration and preservation. In some cases celebrating a historical or cultural item can truly be dangerous, but preservation is absolutly necessary from a historians point of view.Just as an example of this look at context, and to tie it into your point at the end of your response, one should consider that when steamboat willie was introduced (1928) there was a general sense that animals did not have souls. Thereby the hierarchy in the animal kingdom can be determined, by which have human traits, like the need to wear pants. In a largely christian populace this could be likened to Adam and Eve first wearing clothes int he garden of Eden, and thereby they would be considered the superiors of the soul inhumanized less unclothed animals.
Post new comment