Is Disney Racist?

Many children in this generation grew up on Disney princess films, learning how to wish upon a star and make friends with cute woodland creatures.

PC: Rebloggy

However, as the world becomes more integrated, and Disney becomes a larger and larger societal force, especially among children, Disney should be careful to portray races and cultures in a truthful and non-biased way.

Disney did attempt to represent other races and cultures in its princess line with Jasmine, Pocahontas, and Mulan. However, if we look closer at their films, we can see that although Disney tried to represent minorities in its films, the end results are superficial at best. Minorities are still inaccurately represented in Aladdin (1992), Pocahontas (1995), and Mulan (1998) through blatant stereotypes.

Aladdin is the worst. It was produced during the Gulf War in the early 1990s, when Arab sentiment was strong, so the film bases its characters off Middle Eastern stereotypes, whether consciously done or not.

Critics such as Dianne MacLeod notice that although all the characters are recognizable as Middle Eastern, Aladdin and Jasmine have American face structures and accents whereas minor characters and evil characters have stereotypical Middle Eastern features and foreign accents. Aladdin and Jasmine have small noses, whereas the palace guards have large noses and dark beards. Jafar’s features are even more extreme, which embodies the Western caricatures of the baddies of the time, Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomeini.

PC: Wikia

PC: Wikia

Pushing Middle Eastern characteristics onto evil characters promotes the idea that American-looking and American-sounding people are good, while Middle Eastern-looking and foreign-sounding people are evil.

(Let's not forget to mention the ignorance that is Jasmine's outfit. She's clothed in a stereotypical Arabian looking harem pant set. That's right. A harem pant set. I have a feeling an Arabian princess would be more covered up. Talk about sexualizing a woman based on a misinformed stereotype. Check out an article that ranks 14 Disney princesses--where Jasmine is at the top of the list because of her "vaguely exotic" vibes. Yuck.)

After their faux pas with Aladdin, Disney made a conscious effort to right their wrongs in their next film, Pocahontas. According to Eve Benhamou, Disney researched the story and hired historians and Native American consultants to make Pocahontas as accurate as possible. Benhamou claims that this research helped Disney break away from the traditional Western stereotype of the teepees and elaborate headdresses of the Plains Indians and more realistically portray the lifestyle of the Algonquian tribe, such as growing corn and living in wooden shelters.

However, other critics point out that beyond those cosmetic fixes, Disney’s research otherwise did not help. Amy Cappiccie, Janice Chadha, Muh Bi Lin, and Frank Snyder claim that Pocahontas’s Barbie-like figure and short, falsely Algonquian dress, with a slit up the side of her leg, sexualizes and idolizes her. They claim that she is portrayed in the stereotype of the “Noble Savage—a once-great but now conquered culture that was integrally connected to the earth and could commune with nature” (54). In other words, this image is one that idolizes Native Americans, therefore othering them from the norm.

PC: Giphy

While I agree that this image of Pocahontas idolizes her and fits her into the “Noble Savage” stereotype, I don’t agree that it’s a bad thing. I believe that the portrayal compliments her and her tribe, applauding their natural lifestyle and contrasting them to the materialistic goals of Governor Ratcliffe and the white settlers—essentially praising native culture and criticizing Western culture.

…and at least the portrayal of Native Americans in Pocahontas is better than in Peter Pan. Check out this article to read more about Disney’s unfortunately more blunt racism.

PC: Wikia                              PC: Wikia

However, I don’t like the fact that the white settlers call the natives “savages” so often. I understand that historically, white settlers did refer to natives that way, but, like Pauline Turner Strong put it, calling a Native American “savage” is like calling an African American “nigger.” You just can’t do that. Plus, such repetition cements in children’s minds that it’s okay to call someone such an offensive term.

Mulan improves a little from Pocahontas, in that it doesn’t use any offensive terms regarding Asian people, but stereotypes are still very present in the film.

While Mulan was fairly accurate architecture- and cultural-wise, they slacked in the character department. I noticed that many characters had the stereotypical slanted slit eyes, short stature, and either a super-lanky or fat body type. Furthermore, like in Aladdin, the more insignificant or traditionally Chinese the character was, the more stereotypical they looked; the more significant the character, the less Asian and more American they looked.

For example, traditional characters such as the Emperor and Grandma all have very small, slanted eyes, and insignificant characters such as the ladies who get Mulan ready for the matchmaker also have absurdly tiny and slanted eyes.

PC: Wikia                 PC: Pinterest                         PC: YouTube  

In contrast, Mulan and Shang have relatively larger eyes, although still small compared to other princes and princesses, as if the only trait that makes a character Asian is the size and angle of their eyes.

PC: Cosmopolitan

PC: Wikia

In terms of body type, insignificant characters have either very round or very thin body shapes, whereas significant ones have the ideal American body-type. Mulan’s three soldier friends are great examples: Chien-Po is fat, Ling is lanky, and although Yao is supposedly muscular, he is still depicted as short and squat. Even Mulan’s mother and grandmother are also round in figure.

PC: Wikia

Again, Mulan and Shang, as the main characters, break this pattern and fit into the ideal American beauty standard. Mulan is thin but athletic, and Shang has broad shoulders and a built body.

PC: Tumblr

Although Disney probably did not intentionally paint their characters with stereotypes, this just shows that these false images are already ingrained in Western society so much that people don’t realize the harm that they incur on minorities. Disney should be more aware of the stereotypes they portray to prevent future normalization of false images.

These inaccurate representations have negative impacts on children, mostly enforcing white privilege and offensive stereotypes. According to Dorothy Hurley, children need to see themselves reflected in literature and media to build a positive self-image. However, seeing their culture portrayed as inferior to American culture is very discouraging and sometimes offensive and can dampen self-image.

Check out this Asian American blogger’s story about her experience watching Mulan as a child.

Disney’s widespread popularity only makes it a more urgent issue for Disney to accurately depict minorities, or children will grow up with a false image of the people around them, and children of color will continue to be marginalized in society.

Thankfully, people nowadays recognize the importance of accurate representation of minorities. (Read about the Internet's response to a rumor that the cast of live-action Mulan was going to be all white.)

Hollywood can always find a way to insert a white savior into any story. EVEN THE LEGEND OF MULAN. https://t.co/TveNOdL7Lx

— Angry Asian Man (@angryasianman) October 10, 2016

But remember, that’s what Disney thought when it first introduced Jasmine, Pocahontas, and Mulan, yet their films were still ridden with false stereotypes. It is up to us to make sure that Disney takes the right steps toward a more just representation of minorities in its future films.




References:
Cappiccie, Amy, Janice Chadha, Muh Bi Lin, and Frank Snyder. "Using Critical Race Theory to Analyze How Disney Constructs Diversity: A Construct for the Baccalaureate Human Behavior in the Social Environment Curriculum." Journal of Teaching in Social Work 32.1 (2012):46-61. Taylor & Francis Online. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.
MacLeod, Dianne Sachko. "The Politics of Vision: Disney, Aladdin, and the Gulf War." The Emperor's Old Groove: Decolonizing Disney's Magic Kingdom. New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2003. 179-92. Print.
Hurley, Dorothy L. "Seeing White: Children of Color and the Disney Fairy Tale Princess." The Journal of Negro Education 74.3 (2005): 221-32. JSTOR. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.

In Conclusion...

I can’t believe this class is almost over. It seems like just yesterday (so cliché—I know), I was jumping for joy that I got into this class amid the craziness of registration. I came into this class thinking that I would be watching a bunch of Disney movies and analyzing them in high-school-literature-class-fashion. I got half of that right. We did watch a lot of Disney movies for sure—a lot of which I kind of knew the stories of but had never actually watched before—but the analysis was so much more in depth and more relevant than I expected.

This class was basically a modern women’s studies class. I learned so much about gender and gender-portrayal in Disney princess films that I feel like I’ve emerged from this class a higher level of feminist and Disney critic than I was when I came in. Before this class, I liked Disney because I thought its songs were fantastic (I still shamelessly sing them at the top of my lungs) and the stories were cute, but now I’m suspicious of the fact that almost every movie weaves romance into its plotline—independent young women don’t need no man! Or princesses for that matter.

Through this class, I’ve learned about Disney’s history and the evolution of its princesses. I became more aware of how Disney is affected by and actively incorporates current events into the production of its films. I distinctly remember the article I used for my second essay. I feel like that article taught me the most about Disney’s history because of its analysis of when Disney produced, or rather did not produce, princess films. The article taught me that the films’ purpose was to perpetuate traditional gender roles or whatever is socially acceptable. In the 1900s, princesses such as Snow White (1937), Cinderella (1950), and Aurora (1959) perpetuated traditional domestic female roles because they were produced in eras when women were encouraged to stay at home. However, the fact that there were no Disney princess films in the 1940s, when women were empowered, points to the fact that Disney’s major role is to perpetuate old standards. Reading this article and other analyses in class made me more skeptical of Disney’s intentions.

I also became more aware of gender and cultural/racial disparities present in Disney films. Through rewatching Disney princess movies with a concentration on gender, I noticed sexist comments and actions that I had never noticed before, such as the scene in Cinderella when the king insists that there must be a good mother out of the many women at the ball. This might explain why I felt inexplicably uneasy during parts of princess movies—because my inner feminist was uncomfortable with the traditional gender roles represented in the old and some newer movies—e.g. when Ariel and Pocahontas say “daddy I love him!” When I was reading articles for my third essay, I came across lots of background racism, like the realization that even though Disney claimed to create a diverse film by changing the physical race of the characters, it still injected American values into the culture, thereby devaluing its diversity.

However, no matter how egregious Disney’s mistakes are, it is still good that we are learning about them because now we can educate others about gender and racial disparities in popular media, or at least see the world with different eyes. Then we can help effect change in society, and maybe Disney will change again. As for me, I know for sure when I get around to seeing Moana, I will be viewing it from a different perspective—albeit a more critical one—and I hope with every new princess film, Disney improves its representation of women and different cultures.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When Stars meet the Snow

I remember seeing this video a while ago, but I just came across it again, and it is sorta kinda VERY hilarious. I guess this is what you get when Disney acquires Star Wars?? Worth the watch (and the cringe). Enjoy!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Princess Privileges

When I first started reading "Applying for the Position of Princess: Race, Labor, and the Privileging of Whiteness in the Disney Princess Line," I questioned Condis’s argument. She argues that white princesses achieve princesshood by freeing themselves from labor, whereas princesses of color continue to live in a life of labor even once they are princesses.

I immediately began listing all the princesses in my head and their statuses as laborers. Cinderella, Aurora, and Snow White all freed themselves from forced labor. That was easy; they support Condis’s argument because they are the first-wave princesses, so no surprises there. Ariel has never worked a day in her life, and neither has Belle, Jasmine, or Pocahontas. The only princesses that do any form of work are Mulan and Tiana. Furthermore, Tiana is the only one that explicitly labors as a goal. Her dream is to open her own restaurant, and she explicitly works hard toward it. Upon my own conclusions, I did not agree with Condis’s argument…not until I started reading her explanations. Even then, she hasn’t fully convinced me.

Condis starts out with her definition of Disney’s definition of princesshood (so many definitions). She defines “princess” in terms of the first-wave princesses: beautiful, young, and white women who live lives of romance and leisure. The problem I have with this definition is that, while it is accurate for the traditional perception of princess, it is only accurate for the traditional princess. It assumes the definition of princess is static. Who is to say that the definition of princess has not changed over the years? Or at least Disney’s definition? I definitely think that Disney’s definition of princess has changed over the years.

Condis then begins to examine each Disney princess and their labor statuses. She quickly concludes that the Cinderella and Snow White work against their will, and only after they are freed from their labor are they princesses. She makes an interesting point about Aurora, however. Aurora is raised without a need to work, but meets her demise when she pricks her finger on a spinning wheel, which Condis claims is a symbol of labor. This confines her to a comatose state, comparable to being enslaved by labor, and must be freed by a prince, which instills her princesshood. I can buy that argument because the spinning wheel always seemed arbitrary to me, and that explanation gives it meaning.

However, I find fault with Condis’s explanations of Ariel and Belle’s statuses. Condis claims that Ariel rebels against her father because she doesn’t want to work as a singer in the royal concert, and in the end, Triton releases her from working “as a representative of the merfolk government” (31). I think this is a stretch. Nowhere in the film does Ariel have a “job.” Her singing is not a job; it is her identity. She is good at it and enjoys it. Furthermore, Triton’s motives for not wanting Ariel to leave were not because he wanted her to work in their “merfolk government.” It is clearly a father-daughter relationship. The closest relation to labor in The Little Mermaid I can think of is in Sebastian’s song, “Under the Sea,” when he sings “up on the shore they work all day, out in the sun they slave away,” referencing human life above the sea. This could point to the expectation that mermaid princesses, and princesses in general, should not be laboring, but Condis doesn’t even bring this point up.

I also have a problem with Condis’s explanation for Belle. She claims that it is Belle’s job to tame the Beast, and she rejects that job until it becomes easy for her, i.e. when she falls in love with him. That statement just seems wrong to me. First, it is never a woman’s job to change someone. Second, doesn’t the curse place the burden of work on the Beast? He is supposed to be the only looking past surface looks and changing himself, not Belle. Plus, I think it’s very fair to dislike someone who is rude to you and your father. Therefore, Ariel and Belle’s characterizations as disliking labor fall.

Lastly, Condis’s analyses of the four princesses of color irk me. Her dismissal of Jasmine as whitewashed has some basis of truth, but she is still clearly of color and doesn’t like to labor, so to me, Condis’s argument is a cop-out to not deal with Jasmine’s clear opposition to her overarching argument. As for Mulan, I somewhat disagree with the statement that Mulan rejects feminine labor for masculine labor. I don’t think it’s as direct of a causation as Condis seems to put it. Mulan doesn’t immediately switch out one for the other; rather, through her love for her father, she realizes she can escape feminine labor through masculine labor as an alternative. I do agree that this point supports Condis’s argument that the princesses of color enjoy labor. However, in the end, Mulan still rejects working in the government and retreats to a life of leisure at home.

The greatest point that Condis convinced me of is Pocahontas’s continuity of labor. I had never viewed Pocahontas as a laborer, but Condis’s evidence of her athletic body, the scene of her picking corn, and her new position in place of her late mother, convinced me that she did do work. Furthermore, she chooses to stay behind and care for her tribe, another form of labor, instead of living a leisurely, white life with John Smith.

I also fully agree with the argument about Tiana, but I wonder how much of this is coincident. Both diversification and emphasis on actively taking charge of your own life are on an upward trend. Maybe, just maybe these two ideas are at a crossroad and show up in the same movie. I am interested to see what Moana brings to this debate about labor.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More from a Galaxy Far, Far Away

Today, StarWars.com revealed that Game of Thrones star Emilia Clarke will be playing a lead in the new Han Solo stand-alone movie! You know, to me, she kind of looks like Princess Leia...

But of course that couldn't be possible because this movie is set before A New Hope, before Han and Leia meet...unless there's something they're not telling us about...

I guess we'll just have to wait and see!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tale As Old As Time...

The news we have all been waiting for! Drum roll please...

The official trailer of the live-action Beauty and the Beast was released yesterday!!! Must I say more? Watch it below!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Beauty and The Beast Update!

The news we have all been waiting for! Drum roll please...

The official trailer of the live-action Beauty and the Beast was released yesterday!!! Must I say more? Watch it below!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~