Interesting article. I'm sure there will be an African-American princess in the future! ;)

Wonderful article, and really heartfelt (since I'm also, like they say, "a person of color".) That Tarzan image is sooo funny, hahaha!

"Executives who make movies in Africa without Africans are asking for it.

I'll cut you no slack. Nope, not even Disney."

You racist. Tarzan is about a European family shipwrecked in Africa, cut off from all civilization, all people. That includes African people. Back to the Future III was set in California in 1885, yet I didn't see any hispanic people. Or native Americans. Or chinese railroad workers. Was that movie racist, too? Or just you?

Great story, Floyd. Thanks for the insight. I feel very fortunate to be able to read your columns and enjoy your amazing knowledge of the history of animation.

It's a shame that "Song of the South" hasn't been released to DVD. I saw the film as a kid, and I thought Uncle Remus was cool. He was a hero. I don't remember anything in the film that seemed insulting to blacks, aside from its historical setting which was, after all, reflective of the way things were in the American South during that time period. But I'm white, and maybe I'm missing something here. As for the crows in "Dumbo", IMO they're one of the best parts of the film. Wouldn't it be a shame if that film were banned because of their inclusion? My god, they're good guys! Their song "If I Saw An Elephant Fly" is delightful. And meanwhile there are all sorts of insensitive junk on Adult Swim and Family Guy, played for laughs. Ah well. It's a weird world we live in...

@ AntiBias

you are mistaken, there certainly were native Americans in Back to the future III.

@ all

I too have seen Song of the South and I just could *not* find anything racist in that movie. But I understand discrimination is still a hotter issue in America versus Europe, where I live. I suspect when this is the case, people might be more sensitive to this subject-matter?

@AntiBias: You're calling him a racist?! Weird.. Did you read the whole article?

@wberkhout: hay, wat leuk om eens een Nederlander tegen te komen :) (translation for all the non-Dutch people: hay, how nice to finally bump into a Dutchman)

A lovely article.

you should check out the introductions to the Disney Treasures sets by hypocrite Leonard Maltin, brrr they make my skin crawl... the fear of being racist is amazing.

Maltin almost apologizes for gags such as Donald Duck looking like an indian chieftain after crashing through some reeds... because of course it's so RACIST!

Then again, is it a surprise, in a nation where one can successfully sue someone for farting.

It might be beneficial for those shouting "racist" to do, at least, a smidgen of research before shouting the phrase. The original Tarzan novels did indeed have Africans in them, although, due the attitude of the times, it portrayed them in a less then favorable light. Of course, this was also true of gender attitudes in the novels as well, and Burroughs later became far more liberal in his writings in later years.

But that is not the heart of the statement. The heart was that Disney has ignored this particular ethnicity for some years know. I don't know if it was by design, perhaps out of the fear over what people may find offensive in the caricatures of the designs. Or maybe it was simply the writers only writing what they know. What I do know is that whatever the motivations behind it, altruistic or not, the absence of black characters is clearly felt and perhaps leaves a blemish on Disney's reputation that isn't really necessary. Something easily fixed with an animated film that takes any one of history's black cultures and portrays them with the same dignity and seriousness that they've addressed other cultures with.

I have to agree with Floyd on another point as well. The oversensitivity of this nation has taken all the fun out of cartooning/writing. There are very few venues nowadays that really let a writer or artist express themselves without the benefit of an observer shouting "racism" or "bias" over something that intended or implied neither. The only fear I have with any future "black princesses" from Disney animation is that they will overthink the character to death and water down what could potentially be one of the greatest stories to date.

AntiBias,

I don't think Floyd's comments about Disney's Tarzan are racist. I think he is just telling Disney, they can do better.

Think about it for a moment. "Tarzan" - Disney's first (human) story set in Africa, yet there are no Africans!

Granted, in the original Burroughs story, the African natives are portrayed quite primitive savages. The book has many themes of the white European's superiority over all the beings of Africa. In defense of Disney's story deptartment, they neatly edited this sentiment. But neither did they replace it with anything else.

The book also portrays gorillas as savage, bloodthirsty beasts. Because of what we know know (thanks to the likes of Dian Fossey) the personalities, relationships and even diets of the apes were altered to a more factual basis. Yet, nobody said, "Let's figure out a way to present an African tribe in a more accurate light."  And what's more, nobody has said, "Let's revisit Africa and do a princess story set there! There are dozens of tales and legends we can use!"

Mr. Norman isn't pointing fingers, he's just not letting them rest on their laurels.

At least, thats the way I see it.

Thanks for the great article, Floyd! This is a great way to get everybody talking about this issue!

Mr. Norman - Thank you for another entertaining and enlightening story. The world needs more people like you.

As far as Tarzan goes - I don't remember, but I don't think we ever saw native africans in the movie, did we? We had the animals, Tarzan, and the British. They never crossed paths with any natives. Had we seen white 'natives' then I could see a BIG problem. But the whole point is that Tarzan was raised by gorillas because he was nowhere near humans (after his families camp was attacked). I think if they'd been near others, the gorillas would have not raised him. So not seeing anybody else (native africans) is part of the reason that there is a story in the first place. Plus, it's not like every square inch of africa is inhabited. Had they gone to L.A. and not seen anybody, let alone minorities, then it would be a different story.

AntiBias - Get over yourself.

Hi Floyd. Thanks for sunch a wonderful article. I can't picture a segregated

society. It's just so foreign to us today. I would like to share something you

may find interesting. I personally happen to be white. My first job out of

high school was at a movie theatre in east Oakland, CA.

I was the projectionist. My boss was happened to be a black woman whom

I still adore to this day. Doggone it, she would tell patrons things

(only when they were mis behaving) and they always complained too me about

her. You should have seen the look in their eyes when I told them that not

only was she the manager but she is in fact MY boss.

That always unexpectedly forced some patrons to face their own

prejudices. Though I laugh about it now, it was very uncomfortable at the

time.

Anyway, I do look forward to the possibility of a African Princess.

There must be many wonderful stories in Afirca just waiting to be told.

We know that there are many ruins of lost civilazations there.

It's about time for those stories to be told.

PS Floyd< I want to personally thank you for all the laughter that

you have brought to people through you work at Disney and elswhere.

May God bless you in all of your endeavors.

wec

AntiBias, you should count to 100 or something before you post some stupid crap like you have here.  

gigglesock said:

"It's a shame that "Song of the South" hasn't been released to DVD. I saw the film as a kid, and I thought Uncle Remus was cool. He was a hero. I don't remember anything in the film that seemed insulting to blacks, aside from its historical setting which was, after all, reflective of the way things were in the American South during that time period."

While I do agree with you totally about SotS, gigglesock, where most people take issue with the film is the fact that the portrayal of African Americans is not, by and large, reflective of the way things were in the American South.

They're sort of portrayed as being happy-go-lucky, subservient, and kind of bland. It's a very sanitized and largely inaccurate picture of the way most African Americans felt in the era immediately post-Emancipation.

That being said, I don't know why anyone would find that offensive. Silly? Maybe ... Outdated? Definitely. Offensive? Seems like a stretch ... I mean while the attitudes shown in the film may not be themselves historically accurate, the picture IS historically accurate in terms of perceptions of race issues during the time period in which it was CREATED.

All this talk about SONG OF THE SOUTH has got me thinking. If a 'negative stereotype' (regardless of actual intent or without thought to the period in which is was created - thanks wdwacky) I think we should start a list of Disney movies to boycott because of the negative sterotypes towards other groups.

Examples:

All Cinderalla movies portray step sisters as evil white women.

PETA should protest the negative images attributed to Octipuss' and Eels in Little Mermaid. (and maybe british lions too - Lion King)

Foster parents are portrayed merely as evil treasure hunters in The Rescuers.

Sailors are bad in Peter Pan.

The list can go on and on. Why? Because every movie needs a villian. Except wait, African Americans weren't the villians in Song of The South. They just weren't portrayed as Nobel Peace Prize winning scientists and humanitarians.

If we were complaining about a movie like The Birth of a Nation, that would be one thing.

Just release it already!!! Song of the South is a good movie!!!!!!!

If Disney had depicted African natives in their animated film version of TARZAN, one can only imagine the hordes of special interest groups leaping at the bit to scream "racism". I find Jim's self-righteous criticism of the film for its absence of African natives to be laughably pompous, especially the whole "not gonna get away with it while I'm watching" nonsense. Jim just accused the modern Disney comany and the creative team behind TARZAN of being racist, and I'm sorry if that doesn't cheese me off -- especially when there is no way Disney can win on that front where Tarzan is concerned. Depict the natives, you'll be called racist. Leave them out, you're still accused of being racist.

Way to kick off "Black History Month".

Thanks for the insightful article Floyd. You bring up many good points. One I've always wondered was why there aren't more Disney movies depicting african-americans, or any humans who are "of color". The only one I've ever been able to remember was the short "John Henry", which most people probably never heard of. Any other animated feature depicting people of color were animated as animals. Lion King comes to mind. Most other movies where the characters weren't white featured lighter skinned characters, such as Mogli, Aladdin, Pocahontis and Mulan. Is there just a fear of backlash? As much as I love Disney, this issue has always puzzled me, and I don't blame you at all for not giving them any slack. Disney should be the standard of excellence at every angle.

I don't think Tarzan was a problem. It was a euro-centric story that took place in an uninhabited part of Africa. Putting Africans in there would be damaging. For one, why would Tarzan be raised by apes if there were humans nearby? For another, how do you portray the Africans in a manner that doesn't put an enormous amount of attention from them, taking away from the rest of the movie? Any portrayal would hit a nerve and become a focal point. People would question if it was sensitive enough, if it was accurate enough, if the attitude towards them was historical enough.

I just don't think native people would have fit into the plot or the themes without detracting.

As a whole Mr. Norman just keeps gaining respect from me. I like that he discusses the overly-sensitive nature of some people. Honestly this can be just as damaging as the racism itself, and it's popping up everywhere. People often seem to mistake mocking phobias as promoting them, as evidenced by the Snickers commercial in this year's Superbowl.

Of course, this is all easy for me to say, being a straight white guy from the Northeast.

But I tend to think Morgan Freeman has some great views on race. We need to get over it. Yes, race has shaped people due to cultural stigmas, but a white infant and a black infant are no different. Beyond that, constantly separating based on race, even to the point of celebrating race, only furthers the idea that races are different, and it's hard o see a separate-but-equal with race. If one race is different, wouldn't one have to be better, at least at some things, and worse at others?

Better to just see them as the same.

Will take a while to get there, because cultural experiences due to race still create differences. But we're moving there. Slowly but picking up steam.

Just my 2 cents. Overal, very nice article.

And pixie, why aren't there more people of color in the movies? Approx. 12.7% of the US is black. About 74% is white. Assuming people are more likely to see a movie based on their race, it's just better business to go after the larger demographic. It's changing, slowly, for better and worse. The success of movies like Norbit are showing Hollywood that white audiences are coming around. At the same time, african american audiences, long forced to watch white characters, are flocking to african american movies regardless of quality, as the success of movies like Norbit are showing Hollywood.

AntiBias said:

"I find Jim's self-righteous criticism of the film for its absence of African natives to be laughably pompous, especially the whole "not gonna get away with it while I'm watching" nonsense. Jim just accused the modern Disney comany and the creative team behind TARZAN of being racist, and I'm sorry if that doesn't cheese me off -- especially when there is no way Disney can win on that front where Tarzan is concerned."

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that you'd probably do a heckuva lot for your credibility if you could manage to get the author of the article correct.

Jim didn't write this article ... Floyd Norman did.

Jim = White Guy

Floyd Norman = African American guy

I'm not talking about the article -- I'm talking about the CAPTION to the Tarzan cartoon, which was NOT written by Floyd Norman.

Actually, Floyd did write the caption to the cartoon, it's his article top to bottom.

I think one thing's been clear through Floyd's articles - if I ever have a chance to buy him a drink, even for five minutes of stories, I'd jump for it.

It's Floyd's cartoon as well. Methinks there is more (anti)bias towards all-things-Jim here, then any genuine disdain of the comments made in the captions.  It's a black man that faults Disney for ignoring the existence of Africans in a movie set in Africa in this article. Perfectly valid reasons for doing so. Before you go shouting racist again, make sure you know who your shouting at. Reading by lines might help.

Thanks for another great article Floyd. Everything you've posted on here has been fantastic reading. That Tarzan cartoon is a riot (the Phil Collins in the corner had me cracking up).

At least the tv spinoff of Tarzan made a go at black characters. But I think the tv division doesn't have the pressures of a massive worldwide audience, which is why you're more likely to see the main human character on Gargoyles being half-African American whereas Jim Hawkins of Treasure Planet was changed from black (given the context of the movie, he'd technically not be AA) to white. I've heard that, particularly among the more expensive films out there, studios are nervous that black characters don't translate well in certain markets. There was even shock that Haunted Mansion opened at 1 in Japan according to Variety.

But guess what? A strong enough hook makes all that irrevelant(sic?). So why not have Eddie Murphy instead of, say, Tim Allen?  I didn't think HM had much beyond amazing set design and costumes, but it's nice to see movies with black leads with none of the hip-hop stuff or men playing fat women.

MosquitoControl said: I think one thing's been clear through Floyd's articles - if I ever have a chance to buy him a drink, even for five minutes of stories, I'd jump for it.

Amen!

Seems to me it would have been a simple matter to have natives in the group of explorers that discover Tarzan. Would that bunch of europeans really go traipsing into strange jungle without some kind of guides? It would have helped to establish just how remote the area was, having africans comment on it being unexplored and uninhabited. Disney missed an opportunity, and it is a bit silly to have a movie set in Africa without any africans in it.

Oh, and Antibias, you're completely wrong. Read Floyd's other articles. You'll find he's about as far from racist as one can get. You're speaking of things you do not know.

I won't get sucked into the silliness that has taken over this discussion.  I enjoyed Floyd's perspective on an interesting time in our history that still causes concerns into the present.  I have always been fascinated by stories of Blacks [please don't start a new discussion on my use of this word] who grew up in relatively unsegregated areas who had to suddenly face the purest forms of "legal" segregation in the old South.  

These are stories that shouldn't be limited to February.

Is it me or the sensitive parts of the main article have been REMOVED?!

No, it is not me!

Freedom of speech?

This is sad, and is sad the fact that some people don't seem to see what Mr Norman's trying to say!

Boy, do I hate PC!! (And Apple is not much better! LOL!)

In regards to the above post ... Absolutely no changes have been made to "Now in full color: A cartoonish look at Black History" since this piece was first posted on JHM back on Tuesday, February 20th. The text of this story is exactly as it was when Floyd Norman originally sent it in, captions and all.

Why FrenchDisneyFan would now be claiming that " ... the sensitive parts of the main article have been REMOVED," I have no idea. But he or she is wrong.

i thinks Maltin doesn't go far enough. Many europeans includings myself a eastern european have too short memories. this is  fine article.