Diversity and Representation in Media

The Jungle Cruise ride at the Disney parks will be updated to remove racist depictions of Indigenous peoples.

No word yet on those animatronic Lakota along the Disneyland Railroad but now I’m more hopeful to see those go.

I'm surpised it took this long.

Last time I was at Disneyland, 2015, and went on the Jungle Cruise ride, I remember seeing the natives, and thinking "Wait... What?"

Edited by Brandon on Jan 25th 2021 at 6:08:19 AM

Considering how long it took the Washington Football Team and now the Cleveland Baseball Team to get rid of their Native American iconography...

And there's still the Chiefs, Braves, and Blackhawks...

For some reason, the white people in charge really like holding onto to exploitative imagery of Natives. It beggars belief.

Edited by erazor0707 on Jan 25th 2021 at 8:20:59 AM

They refuse to consider the idea that they are doing anything wrong and don't want to redo their image. And Washington and Cleveland really could afford to think on more creative names.

Edited by Blueace on Jan 25th 2021 at 10:24:47 AM

At least the Braves got rid of the REALLY racist stuff they used to do. Plus they actually got permission from the local tribes to keep using the name.

Cleveland still kept their name "Cleveland Indians" they haven't changed it yet, but it will be dropped after 2021. They have gotten rid of the logo though.

Edited by jjjj2 on Jan 25th 2021 at 8:45:07 AM

Braves is a legit awesome name, I guess that helps.

I wish we were called 'Braves'.

Changing a team's name—or any other major iconography—is extremely expensive. Combine that with a bunch of racist old white guys going "I don't see what the big deal is, I'm not offended," and it takes a whole lot to change anything.

The Braves had the advantage of 1: it not actually being a racist term, and 2: being an awesome term to justify keeping it. From there, they just got permission and removed the worst of the racist stuff, and they were good to go. Basically, they realized they could get away with the bare minimum, so they did. Everyone else would have more trouble.

In fairness, none of the other teams have anything half as racist as Chief Noc-A-Homa was. 'Cept the Washington team name. That continues to be the worst.

The difference between the Braves and the other offensive team names is like the difference between a hypothetical team named the Knights, and one named the Englishmen and another named the Limeys. One represents a part of their culture that is strong and logically applied to sportsmanship, another is a weird extrapolation of an outdated term for a whole identity onto a specific small group, and the last is just gross.

Hmm, now I'm imagining such a team, complete with an anthropomorphic lime as its mascot.

@Tuckerscreator

I hope they don't remove them all the way. Because again still would be good to show indigenous folks.

Some of those teams could at least do what the Golden State Warriors did, and just get keep the name but get rid of the Native American iconography. Have the Blackhawks logo be an actual Black Hawk, have the Chiefs be based off of Fire Chiefs, or a military Chief. Of course, Cleveland and Washington still have to change their names, since those names offer no "alternate" meaning.

I thought this article from lifehacker did a good job explaining what makes a team name racist.

Erasure isn’t a perfect solution, but Disney would have to commit the work to actually consulting with Natives and educating about the cultures of the lands through the attractions. As the Jungle Cruise and Railroad are now, the former has every tribesperson either act foolish or bloodthirsty, and the latter has every native in Hollywood buckskins while the ride’s narration claims they welcome the visitors, which... yeah right.

It's the old question of which is worse - bad representation or no representation.

I still hold to the idea that bad representation is worse, since misinformation is more dangerous and harder to un-learn compared to having no information.

Edited by M84 on Jan 26th 2021 at 12:19:26 AM

I spoke to my brother about this a long time ago (he's LGBT and latinx just for some context) and this is what he told me.

It's a lot easier for people to be receptive to correct information if you don't have to well, correct misinformation first.

I'm with you on that stance.

Or be like the Florida State Seminoles and get actual permission from a specific tribe and give them visibility as well royalties.

@Tuckerscreator

I am looking at the Lakota native stuff and compared to the Jungle Cruise they are not in my opinion doing anything offensive. Mostly because of the fact the Lakota were Plain Natives, so the buckskin is fitting, especially since they are located near Frontier Land which has a heavily Western theme. I do have to say that there is thankfully no totem poles with teepees in sight. Hey, I say with the narration what the heck not.

I am still of the two minds to completely remove the natives from the Jungle Cruise. Maybe give them a new makeover.

I say there is a double edge sword to no representation, because then there is missed opportunity to imagine something.

Edited by firewriter on Jan 25th 2021 at 8:39:16 AM

You should not be using your imagination when it comes to representing actual marginalized people.

They did the thing with M Baku by changing him from being called Manape to going by his formal name. And saying this as a black person, you can try to reimagine stuff from what they originally were.

That is a fictional character. If you really cannot tell the difference...

And no. You should not reimagine history, especially in a way that panders to racist stereotypes.

Edited by M84 on Jan 26th 2021 at 1:01:45 AM

From convos with Lakota folks, the general problem that they have with the “warbonnets and buckskins” image, even in technical accuracy, is that it’s flat and oversaturated. It’s such commonly reused iconography by white creators that it’s nearly all eclipsed any other depictions of Sioux peoples, particularly modern ones. And of Native peoples in general; it’s really common here in California to see the same reused “war chiefs” all over the place despite that the Sioux tribes aren’t based anywhere near here and there are plenty of other actual local tribes.

The animatronics at the Disneyland Railroad don’t really have a character beyond that basic image, compared to how say the pirates on Pirates of the Caribbean have personalities, funny lines, unique outfits, individual storylines, etc. Compare the Railroad Natives to actual characters made by Lakota themselves (such as this cool superhero made by a friend) and the difference in imagination and effort is stark.

Edited by Tuckerscreator on Jan 25th 2021 at 9:08:13 AM

Technically those animatronics are just as fictional. And in my opinion, I do think it would still be fun to have the Jungle Natives have moments of comedy while not making them savage.

I think the difference is that the natives there weren't made to be characters in the same right as the Pirates. Mostly because the railroad ride is just a sight and see attraction. So, the Lakota are not as fleshed out due to the type of ride they are.

Edited by firewriter on Jan 25th 2021 at 9:04:03 AM

But they are meant to represent an actual culture.