snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Disney

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 04 May 2008, 04:33 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
limit herself to going places that have never, ever had an overt policy of racism, she's not going to have too many places she can go. The whole point of the civil rights movement was to open up doors, not to say, "well, now you have to let us in, but we're not coming anyway."
Perhaps she was boycotting Disney, not because (she believed) they used to exclude blacks, but because (she believed) Disney continued the policy into the 1970s.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04 May 2008, 04:34 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
Even if it was true, it's over 30 years ago. Get over it. Maybe she should fight against some injustice that is still happening.
What does "getting over it" mean in this context, though? Regardless of the veracity of the claim, does she not still have the ability to choose where she spends her vacation/money?

I have never been a fan of the "just get over it" argument, by the way. It never takes into account the actual even in need of getting over, and implies some sort of emotional retardation by the person who just can't get over it.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04 May 2008, 04:46 PM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
What does "getting over it" mean in this context, though? Regardless of the veracity of the claim, does she not still have the ability to choose where she spends her vacation/money?
Ms. Hyp O. Thetical does have that ability, but that doesn't mean her reasons for using that ability can't be criticized if she chooses to voice them. If she said she wasn't going there because it's not her cup of tea or it's too expensive or it's too busy, I don't think anyone here would be telling her to get over it. If someone said that they refused to vote for the Democratic Party because of the policies of Southern Democrats decades ago, I would probably feel the same way, though I might try to help (at least I hope I would) the person change that with rational discourse rather than a dismissive quip.

Last edited by lord_feldon; 04 May 2008 at 04:58 PM. Reason: add clarification
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04 May 2008, 05:11 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lord_feldon View Post
Ms. Hyp O. Thetical does have that ability, but that doesn't mean her reasons for using that ability can't be criticized if she chooses to voice them.
Beyond telling her that she is wrong, however, what other criticism do you think gyou are entitled to?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05 May 2008, 01:45 AM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
. . . I have never been a fan of the "just get over it" argument, by the way. . . .
But there has to be some "statute of limitations," or else people would still be fighting and re-fighting all their old battles. There was a Doonesbury cartoon where an Iraqi wanted to get revenge on someone for killing a member of his family -- in the year 1387.

No one in the management at Disneyland today was involved in setting admission policy in the 1960's; who, exactly, would be the target of the boycott?

I certainly agree that the phrase is too facile all by itself; it could just as easily apply to wrongs done to us only yesterday. But in due course, old wrongs simply must be allowed to fade. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Mahatma Gandhi (attributed.)

Silas

Last edited by Silas Sparkhammer; 05 May 2008 at 01:45 AM. Reason: clarity
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05 May 2008, 01:18 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

I am hardly talking about honor killings to avenge wrongs committed centuries before, though, Silas.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05 May 2008, 08:19 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
I am hardly talking about honor killings to avenge wrongs committed centuries before, though, Silas.
That's entirely obvious. The point generalizes, however. Every wrong has an ultimate "horizon." In law, for murder, it is the lifetime of the murderer; we don't hold the children of a murderer responsible for his actions. None of the current Disneyland executives were in charge in the 1970's, so, *even if the charge of discrimination were true,* what point is there in a boycott? Who is being harmed? Not the bigots who instituted the policy, but their successors who have done away with it!

In animal training and child-rearing, it is vital to have punishment closely associated with wrongdoing. You can't come along a week later, say "Bad dog" or "Shame on you, Jane" and issue punishment. A boycott of Disneyland for actions thirty or forty years ago would be extremely poorly thought out.

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05 May 2008, 08:28 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

I guess I don't see the problem with one person boycotting--the impact is hardly likely to be felt by The Disney Corporation, and, if it makes the woman feel as if she is somehow honoring a legacy of those who went before her, what is the harm?

I think boycotts like these are, by and large, silly, because it doesn't hurt anybody, really. But it isn't as if she was organizing any sort of wider-scale boycott--she is simply choosing not to go to a Disney property.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06 May 2008, 02:19 AM
Natalie Natalie is offline
 
Join Date: 15 January 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Slick View Post
Just because segregation existed doesn't mean it existed in every state. Or that it existed against blacks. Up here in the Pacific Northwest, for example, there were laws on the books but they were mainly directed at Asians. African-Americans were so few up here that they were more "exotic" than "minority".
You've got the first part right, but you're missing the reason. Blacks didn't (and don't) live in the Pacific Northwest in high numbers largely because they were driven out in the 1800s. Oregon Territory, for example, mandated that no free blacks could live in the state in 1844 (the punishment for refusing to leave was public whipping). That law was repealed a year later, but an essentially identical law was passed again in 1849 and was in force for four years. When Oregon became a state in 1859, the act forbidding free blacks from living in the state was added to the state constitution. It stayed in the Constitution until 1926, although it was technically invalidated by the 14th Amendment. And yes, some black people were forcibly ejected from Oregon for violating that law.

In Washington, Seattle was segregated like practically every other city in the United States, at least according to the University of Washington.

Last edited by Natalie; 06 May 2008 at 02:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06 May 2008, 02:51 AM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
I guess I don't see the problem with one person boycotting . . .
Well, no, I don't see any great harm. Heck, I'm singly boycotting a lot of things! I refuse to see the movie "ET," and I refuse to buy frozen food. More close to actual rationality, I refuse to shop in non-union supermarkets.

Quote:
--the impact is hardly likely to be felt by The Disney Corporation, and, if it makes the woman feel as if she is somehow honoring a legacy of those who went before her, what is the harm?
Only that it's aimed at people who were never guilty of the offense. (Which, at this point, hasn't even been documented yet!)

Quote:
I think boycotts like these are, by and large, silly, because it doesn't hurt anybody, really. But it isn't as if she was organizing any sort of wider-scale boycott--she is simply choosing not to go to a Disney property.
Well, the woman in the OP also told at least one of her friends about it, thus spreading the meme. I agree, she didn't add, "...And you shouldn't either."

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06 May 2008, 08:35 AM
Floater's Avatar
Floater Floater is offline
 
Join Date: 24 February 2000
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 6,853
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
I guess I don't see the problem with one person boycotting--the impact is hardly likely to be felt by The Disney Corporation, and, if it makes the woman feel as if she is somehow honoring a legacy of those who went before her, what is the harm?

I think boycotts like these are, by and large, silly, because it doesn't hurt anybody, really. But it isn't as if she was organizing any sort of wider-scale boycott--she is simply choosing not to go to a Disney property.
In my opinion the term boycott should be associated with a personal sacrifice to some extent. For some higher reason you refrain from something that you could benefit from. If it's something you could have or have not without noticing it it's just voting with your wallet, not boycotting.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06 May 2008, 10:05 PM
kanazawa kanazawa is offline
 
Join Date: 19 January 2007
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 331
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Slick View Post
This is like playing "Where's Waldo", only with black people.
Can I have that as my new sig line...

Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08 May 2008, 12:50 AM
barbrainey's Avatar
barbrainey barbrainey is offline
 
Join Date: 05 December 2003
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Posts: 657
United States

True, not every state in the Union had segregation laws. The southern states were the ones who had the most stringent "Jim Crow" laws before the civil right movement. And no doubt many had segregated "whites only" amusement parks.

Corretta Scott King, in her book, My Life With Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote of such an amusement park. When the King family first moved to Atlanta in the early '60s there was an amusement park called FunTown. The King children begged to be taken there, but the place was for whites only. Finally in exasperation, Yolanda King, the eldest, told her mother that "you just don't want to take us to FunTown!" Mrs. King explained that the park was built by people who "are not good Christians." They didn't want black people to go there." Yoland jot upset so Corretta explained that this was what Dr. King was doing in his work. He was trying to make it possible for black children to attend any park to place they wanted. Later the Kings found out that FunTown had been quietly desegregated.

B. A. Rainey
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08 May 2008, 05:21 PM
Natalie Natalie is offline
 
Join Date: 15 January 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barbrainey View Post
True, not every state in the Union had segregation laws.
There may not have been laws at the state level in every single US state, but segregation was practiced in every state of the Union at some point, including the North. This New York Times op-ed discusses the misconception many people have of Northern states pre-1965.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08 May 2008, 06:24 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie View Post
There may not have been laws at the state level in every single US state, but segregation was practiced in every state of the Union at some point, including the North. This New York Times op-ed discusses the misconception many people have of Northern states pre-1965.
There are several housing developments in San Diego where the title deed to the property has language barring the land from being sold to blacks. I find it incredibly depressing, and I keep wishing that someone would take it to court and force the deeds to be re-drawn, to remove the language.

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08 May 2008, 06:50 PM
Mama Duck's Avatar
Mama Duck Mama Duck is offline
 
Join Date: 22 October 2001
Location: South Texas
Posts: 12,151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
There are several housing developments in San Diego where the title deed to the property has language barring the land from being sold to blacks. I find it incredibly depressing, and I keep wishing that someone would take it to court and force the deeds to be re-drawn, to remove the language.
I'm guessing subsequent deeds had no such language. I would caution against attempting to erase unpleasant history.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09 May 2008, 12:42 AM
Natalie Natalie is offline
 
Join Date: 15 January 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mama Duck View Post
I'm guessing subsequent deeds had no such language. I would caution against attempting to erase unpleasant history.
Some of them are still present but they haven't been constitutionally enforceable since Shelley v Kramer in 1948.

Restrictive covenants were incredibly common around the country. Federal housing loans put in place after World War II actually required racial covenants before a loan would be granted, until they were invalidated. I believe there's an article on Snopes about Bush's house in Texas having once had a racial covenant in force, which isn't surprising at all considering he lives in an exclusive suburb.

Gentleman's Agreement, which was a book and an Oscar winning movie, is about racial covenants in Darien, Connecticut.

Sorry for all the lectures about this - residential segregation was one of my research topics in college and I interned for someone who's researched sundown towns extensively.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09 May 2008, 01:01 AM
Johnny Slick's Avatar
Johnny Slick Johnny Slick is offline
 
Join Date: 13 February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 11,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie View Post
In Washington, Seattle was segregated like practically every other city in the United States, at least according to the University of Washington.
1. Sorry, by "Pacific Northwest" I meant Seattle.

2. The maps you show from 1920 especially kind of underscore my point. There were barely any blacks up here at that time (and not because they were banned). It's interesting to see that in 1960 the majority of African-Americans lived in the Central District (nowadays the "black part" is further south, in the Rainier area) but even so, Seattle and its surrounding communities have always been more integrated than, for example, Chicago, who had a suburb with exactly zero land-owning African-Americans as late as the early 1980s (Grosse Point; Mr. T was IIRC the first black man to buy land there).

3. The point about Asian-Americans - the Japanese especially - and Native Americans is well taken. In my hometown of Bellevue (the biggest suburb of Seattle) there was a Strawberry Festival held every year from the early 20s through 1942, when "war shortages" were cited as the reason it stopped. In actuality it stopped because most of the strawberry farmers were Japanese Americans who were, by summer of '42, largely interned (which is a nice way of saying jailed for the possibility of maybe someday wanting to commit acts of sabotage). Seattle has a long and very nasty history with Asian immigrants. However, my point was specifically about blacks.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09 May 2008, 01:09 AM
Natalie Natalie is offline
 
Join Date: 15 January 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Slick View Post
1. Sorry, by "Pacific Northwest" I meant Seattle.

2. The maps you show from 1920 especially kind of underscore my point. There were barely any blacks up here at that time (and not because they were banned). It's interesting to see that in 1960 the majority of African-Americans lived in the Central District (nowadays the "black part" is further south, in the Rainier area) but even so, Seattle and its surrounding communities have always been more integrated than, for example, Chicago, who had a suburb with exactly zero land-owning African-Americans as late as the early 1980s (Grosse Point; Mr. T was IIRC the first black man to buy land there).

3. The point about Asian-Americans - the Japanese especially - and Native Americans is well taken. In my hometown of Bellevue (the biggest suburb of Seattle) there was a Strawberry Festival held every year from the early 20s through 1942, when "war shortages" were cited as the reason it stopped. In actuality it stopped because most of the strawberry farmers were Japanese Americans who were, by summer of '42, largely interned (which is a nice way of saying jailed for the possibility of maybe someday wanting to commit acts of sabotage). Seattle has a long and very nasty history with Asian immigrants. However, my point was specifically about blacks.
I'm aware that Asians have been targeted more in the Pacific Northwest, I just think that the absence of blacks doesn't necessarily mean an absence of discriminatory laws. In general, white Americans have never needed to be near black people to be afraid of them.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09 May 2008, 01:31 AM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mama Duck View Post
I'm guessing subsequent deeds had no such language. I would caution against attempting to erase unpleasant history.
Well, I see two reasons to want the language off of title deeds...

1) If I buy a house in such a suburb, I have to sign the title deed... And I don't want to sign my name to such language, even if it is a legal "dead letter." I just don't want to be associated with it at all.

2) Y'know, just in case the 14th Amendment is ever repealed... (grin!)

Silas
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.