Disney/Pixar In General

The whole "if you're seeing racist stereotypes in these characters than you are the real racist" crap is just deflecting the blame, as far as I care. How on Earth are the crows from Dumbo meant to mock the Jim Crow laws?

edited 25th Jul '17 11:11:14 AM by AdricDePsycho

Their voices are right out of a minstrel act. It's really not that shocking considering Disney cartoons in the past had already drawn on minstrel stereotypes (ahem, Mickey's gloves...)

That's honestly pretty interesting. The part about needing to see the characters' hands for gestures and whatnot makes total sense, but the whole vaudeville and minstrel show connection adds an entirely different (and kind of unfortunate) layer to the history of these characters.

I object to the phrase "some ethnics" as used in the last page because everyone is an "ethnic" of some kind or another.

Kind of like when British people say "We don't have 'British accents,' you have American accents!" No, literally every human on Earth who can speak has an accent.

Re: the Mexicans Love Speedy Gonzales discussion, I'm Mexican-American and I've never met a single Mexican who doesn't love Panchito Pistolas. (Provided they know who he is, at any rate).

The thing about Mexican culture is that national/racial/ethnic caricature isn't intrinsically offensive like it is in American culture. We don't get mad unless there's clear intent to offend. This also means that examples of caricature in Mexican media are often offensive to non-Mexicans. Look up Memin Pinguin and the brouhaha about him for a case in point.

One of the things that I think make people miss it is that we don't really have context for blackface/minstrel acts today, so people looking back think their only function was to explicitly condemn black people, and that if it wasn't the quintessential dopey slave act it wasn't an example (which is where the whole "they're not an example if they're helpful" silliness comes from). But blackface characters and humor were a popular comedy style that was basically everywhere, and were such the character types were referenced even in situations that had nothing to do with it just to share in the joke.

It was as easy as, say, any of the scores of stereotype humor still all over the place in Hollywood today. They're generally put in as a tone deaf attempt rebound on popular jokes rather, but only a few of the people who make them would likely identify as intolerant - they're used because they're an easy way to make people laugh, and they're generally perceived as harmless until enough people decide they're not funny. The lack of context tends to make people think blackface was some entirely different beast, but it wasn't really. More extreme and curried by a time where racism was more socially acceptable, but less different than we give ourselves credit for.

edited 25th Jul '17 10:08:55 PM by KnownUnknown

Actually, Disney simply had hired the band which was voicing the Crows (with the exception of the leader, naturally) because they were playing in his park and he liked their music. And the movements of the crows are more exaggerated, because the animators were testing out a new animation style. If you pay attention you'll notice that the crows are moving differently from everyone else in the movie, but that was not to make a point, they were simply playing around. Remember, Dumbo wasn't even supposed to be a movie, it was supposed to be short and then had to be stretched to movie length so that Disney could recoup the losses from their previous movies, especially Fantasia. In order to do this, they had to add additional scenes like the crows and most notable the pink elephant scene. Which is btw the only time the movie actually is deliberately mean spirited, because the clowns are supposed to represent the animators who were protesting against Disney back then.

The thing is if you really look into the history of the movie, there is little to support the criticism against it when it comes to the crows save for one very unfortunate remark regarding the white voice actor who did the leader of the crows being able to do the accent which fit the other members of the band better than they could. Which...yeah, people were clueless back then, weren't say? But all evidence points to the crows being voiced by (mostly) blacks in the first place being mostly an accident.

I think nowadays there is a tendency to jump on certain things and immediately see the worst in them.

And, btw, I stick to my opinion that combining animal characters with stereotypes is more often a case of mocking said stereotypes. There are exceptions, naturally (see sunflower, there is nothing mocking about her), but if you have, for example, in the Rescuers are whole assembly of mice from different countries and each one of them is dressed in a stereotypical way for the country they represent, it is kind of dishonest to point at the one with the Mexican hat and scream "racist" while ignoring the mice in traditional Austrian get-up in the next scene. Same for Aristocats, there is a lot fuss made about the one Asian cat, but somehow nobody ever mentions the black cat and the Mexican cat and the Russian cat in the very same scene.

edited 25th Jul '17 11:36:09 PM by Swanpride

That act being minstrel inspired, evidently. Disney liking it and picking it because it matched that style make senses, given the time period. Again, the style was ubiquitous - it wasn't something people always consciously looked at as "well, I think I'll be racist today, why don't I take in a minstrel show?"

Which is entirely incidental to the fact that that new style is used to animate characters that are clear minstrel references.

The post immediately above yours is dedicated to explaining how stereotypical humor in movies in media is less explicitly intended to be mean-spirited than people tend to assume, that not being mean-spirited doesn't mean it's not what it is, and that misunderstandings about how ubiquitous and ingrained in pop culture blackface was tends to come from that.

Like, seriously. This isn't something that can be explained away as an accident of all things. The connection there isn't theoretical - if you're actually aware of what the minstrel style of humor looked like, that is clearly what it is.

edited 25th Jul '17 11:37:46 PM by KnownUnknown

Again, the Crows are a SUBVERSION of those ideas. Instead of emphasising on how downtrodden and stupid the crows are, the very point is that they are like Dumbo, a group orchestrated from society even though they don't deserve it.

In no way are they so vastly different from the norm that they should be considered subversions. Maybe if you were talking about the most extreme versions of the style as if they were the only ones, but as I just noted that wasn't actually the case any more than every identifiable stereotypical homosexual characters in movies is outright Liberace. Some are, many aren't, and the jokes and stereotypes are so ubiquitous that you can find everything in between, even from creators who should otherwise know better.

As for them no being downtrodden, that's untrue - one of the first things we learn about the crows is that they're uneducated, and they're introduced as a group of loitering hecklers who do a shuck and jive number to ridicule the main character before having a change of heart. The whole thing is bog standard for stereotypical black characters of the time in general, not just minstrel characters. Neither is the fact that these jive talkers eventually decide to help the main character and become his biggest fans.

As noted, blackface was a big genre. Loads of blackface characters and references weren't explicitly nasty. Loads of racist characters in general aren't explicitly nasty, and are intended to be considered positive - the mammy archetype, Uncle Remus, etc. What we're looking at here is a collection of impressions and conventions that were all over the place during the time period and are exhibited perfectly in that example, because that example was very clearly made as a reference to those popular styles.

They're not a subversion by any means. All they prove is that the quality of Disney's work was such that even their stereotypical characters are charming and likeable.

edited 26th Jul '17 12:22:00 AM by KnownUnknown

To add on this, the puns during the crows' song are representative of the kind of jokes you would find in a typical minstrel show, so I suppose that's more evidence towards the minstrel feel of the characters.

edited 26th Jul '17 5:01:16 AM by Aldo930

Disney is ALWAYS playing with stereotypes...to this day, btw. What do you think the Thugs in Tangled are? Or Lumiere? Or Sebastian? This is what Disney does and I feel that the movies are emptier the more we start to scream "racist!!!" the moment we think we see just a hint of a stereotype. (not to mention that the female characters have gotten progressive worse since Disney has fallen into the "strong female character" trap instead of just creating good characters like they used to do - at least when it comes to the Disney Princess movies, in their other movies where they don't have the pressure on them they do way better exactly because what they do in this regard is not overly examined).

In my eyes the crows weren't a problem back then because they were making fun of a stereotype and they sure as hell aren't a problem now because without the context they are just a bunch of crows with a low class accent (low class, not necessarily Black).

Oh, and to summon up the position of the defenders of the crows:

"Defenders note that the crows form the majority of the characters in the movie who are sympathetic to Dumbo's plight, that they are free spirits who bow to no one, and that they are intelligent characters aware of the power of self-confidence, unlike the Stepin Fetchit stereotype common in the previous decade."

This is simply not a case as clear cut as some writers claim. There are different opinions about the scene.

There is the question whether, if it's more the cultural trappings around the depiction that's racist than the content of the depiction itself, is the depiction still offensive when it's almost completely displaced from the cultural context that spawned it?

We're getting dangerously off-topic here…

Important question that's on topic,does the racist stereotype that the crows portray stop you enjoy the film?

I'll admit it bothers me a little,but not enough to completely ignore the film.

I can't speak for the crows since they don't bother me in the first place (especially since I tend to watch this particular movie with the superior German dubbing...early Disney movies are nearly always better with the German voices with a few exceptions), but I can say that the "evil Nazi stereotype" or the "Bavarian leather pants stereotype" usually does little to detract my enjoyment of a movie unless I feel that the portrayal is harmful in some way. I truly hate "Sound of Music" for that reason, but that is the exception, not the rule, and the reason I dislike it is mostly because it romanticises something which should either be taken seriously or portrayed in a way that it clarifies that it shouldn't be taken quite as seriously. "Sound of Music" does neither.

In the Disney canon it is mostly The Rescue Rangers and The Great Mouse Detective I see nowadays with very different eyes because there the "Evil Asian guy" stereotype is played very straight, something I simply didn't see as a child because I wasn't familiar with yellow peril tropes and Asian stereotypes. Strangely it is usually stuff nobody else pays attention to which makes me pause concerning the Disney canon.

Where was there an evil Asian guy in The Great Mouse Detective?

Nowhere, there is a brief scene where Basil is dressed as an seemingly evil Asian guy. Thankfully it is only a moment.

By the way, this is how the crow sound in the dubbing which is currently sold in Germany:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG_csKKqvyc

compared with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6BJlrMVFG8

it does a slightly better job synching the text with the movements

It is ironic that if you take out any links to olden stereotypical traits, the crows are actually much more rounded 'ethnic' characters than what most Disney cartoons try to do today with their tokens, being flawed but likeable and vibrant characters.

They are wily, but not all knowing and rather mischievous and eccentric. They can have a mean spirited sense of humour, but have the capacity to feel bad and try to redeem when it goes too far. Even if we abide by the minstrel background, it is also to some degree the kookiness of their actual characters that is meant to be their draw appeal instead of their race.

Let's face it, while the likes of Tiana aren't Flat Characters per se, they are primarily made from the hypocritical marketing point of view of getting 'Ooh, black protagonist' appeal, and even then succumb to stereotyping themselves (that scene where she's finger wagging as a kid just makes me roll my eyes, that wasn't considered cliche?).

edited 26th Jul '17 8:35:49 AM by Psi001

See, I have the opposite view. I feel like the more we go out of our way to deny that racism and stereotypes existed in the time and minds of the people making these films, then the movies become emptier because we refuse to actually see them clearly.

Speaking generally, the movement of minstrel apologia for Dumbo is more baffling than anything. I've never been sure why that was the line of the sand - at least where Disney is concerned - for people accepting that racism existed, especially when its very obviously a straight example if you know what its an example of.

Is it because people think they can't enjoy the movie and accept the racially insensitive humor present at the same time? Or that having something one enjoys be considered that way feels like being accused being racist themselves? Is it because they think accepting the negative things of the time "ruin" something they enjoy?

Though more to the point, I guess, I'm not sure why Disney still having a thing about stereotypes (good catch with Sebastian and Lumiere) should mean that Dumbo isn't an example. That is, after all, my whole point about stereotypes in Hollywood. As for why some stereotypes tend to get a pass by society while tend not to, that's probably the subject of another whole conversation.

edited 26th Jul '17 10:13:34 AM by KnownUnknown

It illustrate a double standard. There are some stereotypes which are readily accepted and others which aren't. Some people claim that the difference is if the target in question - meaning Europeans are acceptable targets but groups which are considered "oppressed" aren't. And I disagree here.....and not just because more or less every oppressor was once the oppressed, too. I think that the actual line is between the stereotypes used in a mean-spirited way or just as some sort of short-hand or in order to makes some sort of point or if it displays just...cluelessness. For example a Mexican hat or Chinese hat this is just a short-hand, it is neither good or bad. "North" on the other hand is a baffling collection of insulting stereotyping which isn't necessarily meant to be mean spirited but nevertheless offensive on ever level. War Propaganda is definitely mean-spirited (for the record though, War propaganda made by Disney never had this dehumanizing streak the Warner Brothers or Fleischer war shorts had). The dogs in Lady and the Tramp they are meant to funny and again, I feel that it says a lot about us if we recognize those stereotypes.

And then there are those movies which were well-meant but are problematic because, well, mostly because Hollywood just can't let go of the white perspective. song of the South and Pocahontas fall into the category. Remus shouldn't be the side character in his own story and Pocahontas...let's put it this way, if Disney really wanted to do a movie about native americans, they should have delved into actual native American folklore the way they delved into actual local folklore for Moana instead of picking a story not BY native Americans but made up by a white guy ABOUT native Americans. In those cases I agree it is important to see them in context so that we understand the mind-set behind them.

I don't think that the crows belong into the category, though. They are memorable and sympathetic characters who are allowed to have their flaws and have no different status in Dumbo than for example the Thugs have in Tangled or the Cat in Alice in wonderland.

I'd say the difference in this case is history, and historical development - it's between what society has trained itself to be accepting of and what it hasn't due to the backlashes it has received through time. As I said before, a lot of stereotypical characters remain percieved as harmless until enough people decry it as Dude, Not Funny! and the perception of those character types change as a whole. Characters like the crows and Uncle Remus are particularly singled out because of the time period and attitudes that spawned the backlash - this was the point where people were tired of seeing these same character types over and over again, and a time period of resistance against cultural and societal racism in general where organizations against that sort of thing had more teeth than they do today, so you got organizations as high as the NAACP decrying them and Hollywood deciding its not cost effective to disagree. People condemn them today because the disdain against blatant African American stereotypes has become - for lack of a better work - memetic and central to society's perception of race sensitivity.

As I said before, this has the downside of causing people to exaggerate how specific and targetted those stereotypes in particular were, causing us to not have context for how ubiquitous and varied things like minstrelsy actually were, which in turn causes us to in turn disassociate those things from the reliance on stereotypical humor and character types that's still a problem in Hollywood today. As I said before, the crows being well rounded and positive characters doesn't make them any less straight an example of minstrel tropes, but that exaggeration makes people lose context for how pervasive those tropes really were - that it's not that much different from examples today isn't a sign that it's less of a stereotype, but that Hollywood hasn't really learned anything.

So at the same time, someone like Sebastian - a blatant stereotype of another historically oppressed people - goes with comparatively less because Jamaican stereotypes are still very much a thing people as a whole accept. But at the same time as that, Jar Jar Binks - a stereotype of the exact same group - was slammed for hitting those extreme character types we've taught ourselves to be specifically condemning to (he's basically Space Mantan Moreland, though the crows are a bit more Vaudevillan). I don't know what French people think about Lumiere, but what's more visible is what Arab people think about Jafar - and that example in particular comes back to what you're saying about oppressed vs non-oppressed (or more accurately in that case, "normalized" races vs ethnic races). Often, these things are received in wildly different ways case by case, which creates a double standard and causes us to fail to approach the problem in a universal way - people tend to have complicated and often self-centered perceptions of what's worthy of defense and what isn't their problem, and it comes up strongly in regard to subjects like this.

edited 26th Jul '17 10:47:12 AM by KnownUnknown

I think that if there was any subversion of stereotype intended with the crows, the fact that it is so little known shows how unsuccessful it was. I'm pretty confident that fans of minstrel shows who saw the film when it was first released felt validated by the crows' tropes, not criticized.

edited 26th Jul '17 10:44:19 AM by Tuckerscreator

Most likely because Jarjar is an offensive stereotype and a stupid character while Sebastian, despite hitting some Jamaican stereotypes is also going counter to a number of them (for example he is quite a stick in the mud instead of being the usual "Don't worry be happy" character you are usually associating with this stereotype) - plus the reason why he is Jamaican is mostly because Ashman and Menken felt that they needed an explanation for the sudden switch in music style for this one number, he wasn't initially invented to be Jamaican, so everything one would perceive as "Jamaican" is incidental, the only intentional Jamaican thing about him is the accent.

And a number of things which are seen as offensive are actually seen that way because someone on the internet made an argument and convinced enough people of it. A typical example is the claim that Aladdin is drawn "whiter" as Jafar. As proof you always see the same set of pictures. Problem here: Those two pictures are NOT from the same scene, one shows Aladdin in White light and one Jafar in red light. If you look at the skin colour of those characters in the same scenes, there is no difference in the actual darkness or the skin, it is more a different shade of brown...and in the scenes in which Jafar grabs Jasmine and you can see the colours side by side you can see that her shade is actually slightly darker than his. But because of this picture a lot of people on the internet will tell you that Aladdin portrays lighter skin as "better" even though there is zero evidence for this in the actual movie.

It is the same with the crows, btw. Everyone always bangs on how offensive the name Jim Crow is, and most people act surprised when I point out that the name isn't mentioned in the movie at all.