Why Can’t You Watch Disney’s Song of the South?

[Furienna]

Originally Posted by Aimee Evilpixie

No, if you were a kept house slave with an owner who didn't beat you, your life probably didn't suck too much.

Except for, you know, the fact that you were treated as property instead of people and literally had no rights and could be sold away from your friends and family at any time.

Other than that I'm sure it was awesome.

Here's some watching for people who would like to know more about how slavery worked.

I never said slavery was awesome. Of course it wasn't. Yeesh! But still, all slaves can't have gone around feeling miserable all day long? Many of them probably were so used to the situation, as oppressed as they were, that they couldn't imagine it being any different. Does that sound sad? Oh yeah. But that must be what it was like.

[ganzfeld]

Sure, they couldn't imagine how every free person they saw was living. Do you think they were blind or couldn't communicate?

Honest, unsnarky question: Have you ever read a single book about slavery in the Americas, Furienna? If not, and you're interested, why don't you read some.

[Furienna]

I don't get the bad attitude. I have never said that slavery is a good thing. And yes, even though I'm not American, I know a lot about your history. And slavery isn't something, that only existed over in the Americas either. We had it here in Sweden too, until the 14th century. But you make it sound like it's impossible to have the least bit of joy in one's life, even when one is poor and oppressed, and I don't agree with that.

[ganzfeld]

I honestly, on the other hand, have never gotten why it's so hard to understand. Tens of millions of people were taken from the families and homes, stripped of every language, every religion, every article of clothing and person they had ever known, packed like sardines on ships, and sent to a world they never had known. Many millions (some estimate ten million) died on the way. Over a period of 400 years, many millions of people were never given their freedom. Not only were their offspring not given freedom, often they were separated from them at an early age. Over those centuries, they were treated as property, animals. No education. Forbidden to even learn to read. Often beaten until they bled or murdered. The vast majority living in the worst conditions imaginable - truly unimaginable for us. With no hope of things ever changing.

Now someone comes along and says "It can't have been all bad." And it makes me want to throw up. I mean a really get a feeling in my stomach when I think of those millions of people being treated like that and every time someone says something so ignorant it makes that feeling come back. Nauseous and angry. So I hope you'll understand the anger. It's not about you. Really, it has nothing to with you.

Just imagine someone saying "Concentration camps weren't all bad." Or, "It's kind of sad about those children who were slaughtered by a gunman. But at least they died quickly, so." So what? So they were able to find some tiny fraction of human existence in that hell? You call that "poor and oppressed" as if that even scratches the surface of the crimes we're talking about.

You also have to understand, if you read another current thread on this topic, that this exactly the kind of thing said by people who defend these centuries-long crimes against humanity. So, IMHO, before you wade into a history of spit you don't understand, you should listen and learn.

[Hummelcat]

Furienna, people manage to develop coping mechanisms when they are living in appalling conditions. Slavery was (and probably still is, in certain parts of the world) appalling for the people who were/are slaves. Just because those coping mechanisms appear (to those of us who are not slaves) to be "a slave, who was happy with his/her life" or "there were many slaves, who weren't miserable every day of their lives" or "to have the least bit of joy in one's life, even when one is poor and oppressed", does NOT make the actual inner reality for those slaves in actual fact a bit of a lark. These people were NOT "poor and oppressed". They were property. They had no options to become "less poor" -- they had no rights to own ANY property. They had no options to become "less oppressed" -- as in voting the oppressors out of office and improving their conditions. They had no rights whatsoever.

A coping mechanism in the face of such appalling conditions does not mean being happy. If it makes you feel better to think that, then go right ahead. But I can not make that assumption.

[Aimee Evilpixie]

I don't even know why you brought up the idea of some slave, somewhere, being happy with their life anyway. Just because maybe that happened sometime doesn't excuse depictions of happy slaves as if that was a common thing.

I mean, seriously. Seriously. How is this even a discussion? Sweden had slavery until the 14th Century? American had it until only around one hundred and fifty years ago. It's possible that there are still some people alive today who are first-generation descendants from actual slaves.* There are almost certainly a lot of people still alive who are second-generation descendants from slaves. So, yeah. America's history with slavery is just a little more fraught and recent than Sweden's.

*Assuming someone who was perhaps two or three when slavery was ended and had a child at age 50 or 60 (not impossible for an older man) and that child lived to be 90-100 years old.

[lord_feldon]

Originally Posted by Aimee Evilpixie

Assuming someone who was perhaps two or three when slavery was ended and had a child at age 50 or 60 (not impossible for an older man) and that child lived to be 90-100 years old.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...or-2760654.php

That was in 2002, but if the younger man is still alive today, he's only 85. His father was sold across the country at age 9.

[Furienna]

Look... I was afraid people would misunderstand me at first. But really! Yet again, I'm not defending slavery. I know that slaves had no human rights. I know that they were someone else's property. I know terrible things could happen to them. And since around thirty million people in the US still are descendants of slaves, I understand that this is a touchy subject. But would showing a slave having a happy moment in a movie be that wrong? I mean, all slaves can't have suffered every minute of their entire lives. Even people without human rights must have their bad days and their good days.

But at this point, I guess it doesn't matter what I say. I'm just leaving the subject, because I have nothing more to add.

[ganzfeld]

Who ever implied it was wrong to show a slave having a happy moment? What's wrong is to do so without recognizing the truth of slavery. The happy slave is a lie that was made up by people who wanted to sweep that history under the rug. It doesn't mean there were never moments of happiness in slavery. Showing that in art without seeming to be insensitive, ignorant, intentionally misleading, etc is very difficult. Whether or not the Song of the South does so may be a matter of opinion. I think the people at Disney, in retrospect, decided (rightly, IMO) that this movie completely failed to do so. But if you think that the problem is that it shows moments of happiness slavery then you've completely missed the point.

Again, you could benefit by actually reading other literature, including contemporary and modern, about slavery or set in the time of slavery. I think you'll find examples that do, in fact, show those moments of humanity while at the same time telling the truth about slavery. Others may be in the middle somewhere. Then there are those that whitewash over the horror as if it never happened or wasn't all that bad, thus intentionally or unintentionally participating in and promoting a long and disgusting history of lies.

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by Furienna

So you don't think there ever was a slave, who was happy with his/her life? That's really overgeneralizing it, isn't it? Before anyone gets the idea, that I support slavery or something, of course I don't. But I bet there were many slaves, who weren't miserable every day of their lives.

Originally Posted by Furienna

you make it sound like it's impossible to have the least bit of joy in one's life, even when one is poor and oppressed, and I don't agree with that.

Of course people who live all of their lives in terrible circumstances often manage to find moments of joy and pleasure in their lives.

But that's not the same thing as being "happy with his/her life". And I think the problem here is that you're conflating the two.

The further problem is that this conflation has indeed been used historically to defend slavery. Slaveowners and other defenders would point out slaves who appeared, at a particular moment, to be enjoying themselves; and claim that this proved that the slaves wouldn't be better off free.

[Kermor]

I saw this movie in 1975, in West Berlin, in the french armed forces theater. I recognized Brer Rabbit and his enemies by having read their adventures way back when in "Le Journal de Mickey" (a weekly periodical that reprints Disney comics, as well as strips like Flash Gordon, Mandrake or Tim Tyler). I didn't think of the political implications until much later.

[TrishDaDish]

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by Furienna

I don't get the bad attitude.

I don't get why you consider suggestions that you educate yourself on the subject to be evident of a bad attitude.

[Inzl Kett]

To quote the article "Disney was playing with a loaded gun" when he made the movie. It wasn't even PC back then when the film was made in the 1940's. Folks found it offensive with it's Uncle Tomism and and other less than complimentary depictions of blacks.