By Nabil Bakri
American Studies, Gadjah Mada University 2019
how to cite: Bakri, Nabil. 2019. "Is Disney's Song of the South Inherently Racist?". Platinum Generation: https://nabilbakri.blogspot.com. Accessed (add time and date).
the complete list of reference and bibliography is available offline, please contact the writer for the complete list, it will not be presented in this page.
OVERTURE
During the rise of DVD (Digital Versatile Disc) in the late 90s followed by a great exodus of movie studios transferring their analogue movies (from film rolls and VHS tapes) to digital platforms, a moment of which 20th Century Fox referred to as when ‘DVD Rules the Planet’ (a supplementary information booklet to Planet of the Apes DVD, 2001), Disney locked its cinematic ‘masterpiece’ Song of the South away from a digital release. While other studios saw the opportunity to release, for the very first time, all of their classic movie catalogues in stunning digital transfer offered by the then new DVD technology, Disney refused to transfer the negatives of Song of the South to digital for MPEG-2 compression on DVD. This decision is somewhat odd considering the fact that Disney is the studio that constantly updates its movie catalogues on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, Blu-ray, 4K and so on by releasing Special Editions, Collector’s Editions, Anniversary Editions, Platinum Editions, Diamond Editions, and the latest (as of 2019) Signature Collections. A great number of Disney Classics were released during the rise of DVD and again in the early 2010’s on Blu-ray High Definition (the Signature Collection is suitable for 4K Blu-ray releases). As popular as Disney’s home video releases might be, the studio does not change its decision not to release any more version of Song of the South to the public. The critically acclaimed soundtrack of Song of the South, Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah was released by Disney Records in a 2009 album called The Magic of Disney bearing the tagline ‘sparkling music and memories’ alongside 46 other popular Disney songs. However, the facts that Disney still locks Song of the South away despite of its popularity and released other Song of the South-related materials other than the actual movie, propel the discussion of possible racism depicted in the movie and Disney is trying hard to hide its mistake.
Disney released Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs due to its importance as Disney’s first-ever full-length animation. By utilizing the similar logic of historical importance, Disney also released other animated classics such as Dumbo, Peter Pan, and The Aristocats despite of criticisms regarding racisms depicted in those movies. Mary Poppins, a 1964 musical starring Julie Andrews, is considered important in the history of Disney, producing critically-acclaimed songs and filmmaking technique combining live action shots with animated characters and backgrounds. Disney released Mary Poppins on DVD, Blu-ray, and Digital Download in newly restored High Definition for its 45th and 50th Anniversary Editions. Mary Poppins, however, is not as historical as Song of the South in terms of filmmaking technique despite the fact that Mary Poppins won the Oscar for Special Visual Effects. Walt Disney produced a film starring a live action girl as Alice and combined her live action shots with hand-drawn characters in 1923, 23 years prior to Song of the South and 41 years before Mary Poppins. Furthermore, Song of the South is the first Disney feature that, similar to Mary Poppins, could be categorized as a live-action. Song of the South is no doubt a very important piece of Disney’s history. The studio’s reluctance in releasing the movie could possibly catapult people’s suspicion regarding the studio and its relation to racism, especially when another big studio criticized for producing racist animations, Warner Brothers, decided to release unaltered versions of their racist productions by holding on the logic that withholding such a record of history would suggest that the studio denies such an event happened in the past.
Warner Brothers, in the opening sequence of the official Looney Tunes Superstars: Porky and Friends, firmly added a warning asking for viewers’ discretion in viewing the shorts complied on the DVD (EXHIBIT 1). The studio admitted that some of their shorts are indeed offensive to certain groups of people, but Warner Brothers released the package anyway, arguing that by not releasing those unaltered shorts, the studio means to conceal such prejudices in the past as if they never existed. If Song of the South is indeed racist, Disney could just release the movie for historical assessment purpose, acknowledging a terrible era for races other than the Whites in the past. Actress and comedian Whoopi Goldberg, upon receiving the Disney Legend Award, gave her comment regarding this issue. She says, quoted from the article “Whoopi Goldberg Encourages Disney to Stop Hiding Song of the South, Along With Our History” in The Mary Sue, “I’m trying to find a way to get people to start having conversations about bringing Song of the South back, so we can talk about what it was and where it came from and why it came out,” (Jusino, 2017). Could this mean Disney intentionally pushes the movie away to purify its name in facing a more progressive paradigm after the arrival of the millennium? Could this mean Song of the South is indeed created to perpetuate racism? A rather shocking memory was shared by former Disney animator who was then, after his departure from the studio, gained his popularity for animating and voicing the character Snoopy by Charles M. Schulz, Bill Melendez. In the episode Walt Disney in a documentary series called Secret Lives, Melendez reveals the real way Mr. Walt Disney perceived and treated non-White people.
“Somebody hired…of course the
front office or…you know, whoever was hiring, I forget, hired this very dark, I
mean he was blue-black Hindu, very dark. And…so…Walt was, you know, walking
along the hall, he(‘s) up to his room and (mimics
Walt’s startled expression) must’ve made a take like he can’t believe him
when he saw this guy…and went up to his office I guess and he said, “What’s
that you know…what’s that Negro doing around here?” Oh no, no, no, no, no, he’s
not a Negro, he’s a Hindu. He (Walt) said, “Well, he’s pretty dark. Get rid of
him.” (Bill Melendez, former Disney animator from Secret Lives: Walt Disney Part One Section Two, mins./minutes 07:21-08:05)
Melendez’s account concerning what the documentary perpetuates as ‘the real Walt Disney’ certainly does not help the reputation of Song of the South. It all seems very clear that it is a movie portraying racist stereotypes created in a still-racist American society by a racist millionaire. Jason Sperb wrote in the Cinema Journal under the title “Reassuring Convergence: Online Fandom, Race, and Disney’s Notorious Song of the South” that his essay means to explore internet fan activity concerning Song of the South, a “musical so offensive that the company stopped releasing it to American audiences in 1986” (Sperb, 2010). Disney’s seemingly soft effort to hide the movie propagates an endless demand from public to release an uncut or extended version on DVD so the company can also add supplementary documentaries, interviews, commentaries from historians or experts, and put the debate about it being racist to rest. In addition (, this situation), according to the essay, propagates illegal distribution of the film and still no crystal-clear high definition digital version of the movie available. The essay’s bold claim that Song of the South is deemed to be ‘so offensive’ as early as its abstract’s first sentence, creates the question of what make Song of the South offensively racist to begin with. What are the audience see that can automatically label the movie as racist? This analysis means to disclose whether or not, based on the actual viewing experience of the movie, Song of the South is inherently racist, or whether the negative criticism are the actual representation of subliminal messages in the movie or simply a process of nitpicky interpretation at its best.
§
RACISM IN SONG OF THE SOUTH
Everything about Song of the South seems to suggest that it really is a racist product, and it is not even dealing with the actual movie just yet. The facts that it was released in 1946 by a (possibly) racist creator (to assume that someone is racist in 1946 and completely detach the context of the person from the societal norms at the time is to assume that Napoleon did not know how to operate a Windows computer) and that the studio is reluctant to release the movie to the public, firmly suggest that Song of the South is indeed racist. If it is not racist, why would Disney keeps it away to begin with? The scandalous vibe surrounding the movie makes it logical for someone to assume, even prior to the fundamental process of actually examining the work which is to watch the entire movie, that Song of the South is racist.
Song
of the South.
Never has there been a more vilified or controversial entry in the entirety of
the Disney canon – animated or otherwise. The very name brings up accusations
of stereotyping, racism, and censorship. With Disney having pulled the film out
of availability in the United States since the mid-80’s, only its most vile
allegations survive as an unfortunate legacy to a mass public that has never
seen the film…………………………………………………………………………..
Song
of the South was
doomed from the beginning. No matter how the subject matter was portrayed it
would have sparked the ire and derision from many political and ethnic camps.
Regrettably, no examination of Song of
the South can avoid the film’s scandalous reputation. The way some people
make it sound is as if Walt Disney essentially made a fun-filled, animated
musical romp about slavery. Worse still, many who levy accusations against it haven’t
had the opportunity to actually watch the film (and many who have the chance
simply refuse to watch it on “principle”) – a singular pet peeve of mine as I
thoroughly believe that it is vital to wholly experience a project before
passing judgement let alone lambasting it (no matter if the takeaway is
positive or negative). For example, the movie Twilight has garnered a horrific notoriety but what would it say
about one’s character or position if they were to condemn it without actually
seeing it for themselves? (Euclid, 2017)
Demos Euclid’s “Default Disney: Song of the South (1946)” further exclaims how the public automatically relate Song of the South to racism upon a mere mention of the title. The article also points out that critics (and NAACP) condemn its depictions of happy slaves, inferior African-American people, superior Whites, and stereotypical depictions of African American in general. The article, however, firmly suggests the public to watch the entire movie before deciding which side to stand on, the pros or the cons. Since the criticisms are mainly about slavery, inferior and superior race, and stereotypes, this analysis, upon further sections, would be focusing on those points only.
§
A. Slavery
Based on its trailer and fragments of movie clips, people might assume that Song of the South depicts the lives of slaves. The negative criticism emerged when the audience notice how these slaves are depicted as being happy and content with their poor-miserable lives. How could Disney produce such a racist depictions of Blacks on celluloid? Slavery is a very sensitive topic among societies especially the US since President Lincoln had previously abolished slavery and many Americans agree to the notion that slavery is indeed contradictory to American amendments concerning liberty and human rights. The public, especially those belong to African-American group, want to see the real depictions of slavery and how terrible it was. Slavery brought misery to millions of innocent African-Americans and therefore, the glorification of slavery, of happy-musical slaves, is undoubtedly racist. How could Disney release such a bigoted narrative to the public whose main viewers are children? This kind of accusation might be correct, except it is not.
One of the major criticisms is
largely based on a misconception, though not entirely without merit. Most claim
the film portrays slavery as no big deal, supposedly by portraying black slaves
as happy with their lives. The issue with this complaint is that none of the
black characters in the film are slaves. This is because the film, as well as
the original Uncle Remus stories, take place during the Reconstruction Era,
after the abolition of slavery. The role of the characters is more likely that
of sharecroppers, people who live on the plantations and work for the owner,
but also own their own shares of the land which they can make their own profit
off of. While some argued this was unclear, it seems an assumption could be
made either way, and the fact of the matter is, that was the context of the
film, evidenced by the fact that Remus and other characters can freely come and
go as they want, and rarely receive any direct orders, seeming to act on their
own autonomy. Slavery had been depicted in popular media before, largely
literature, much more realistically, so the argument that people may
misunderstand and assume the characters to be slaves isn’t a fair assumption to
make, since obviously this was the first exposure the American people had to
its portrayal. (KindRAness, 2015)
Depictions of slavery in Hollywood movies differ from one narrative to another, but the value concealed within the term ‘slavery’ should be enough for people to understand that by slavery, there would be no or less joy in characters and that there are societal factors limiting the will of the character simply because of his/her societal status, that is, a slave. The basic common sense should be enough to understand the concept of slavery or any accurate depiction of it because slavery is not bound to a specific race. Prince Judah Ben-Hur in the Oscar winning Ben-Hur (1959) is captured by Messala who sends Judah away to become a slave. No longer is Judah a free man and once he becomes a slave, there is no such privilege of joy or freedom. Judah does not become a slave because he is Black, and he is not stripped away from his freedom because he is Black, but because he is a slave. The 1939 Gone with the Wind also presents the scenery of slavery and although O’Hara’s slaves are relatively happier than other slaves, that does not mean they have total access to their own will. In addition, Scarlett O’Hara dares to insult and intimidates her slaves (sometimes with violence) simply because they are her properties. The kind and loving Prince Judah Ben Hur even has slaves, and even though he treats them as family, the narrative and the movie give the audience the information that they are, still, slaves. The only reason Song of the South shows happy slaves is the fact that they are not slaves at all. The Black characters own their own houses and have total control on their lives.
§
B. Inferior African-American and Superior Whites
It is claimed that Song of the South shows some scenes depicting Black inferiority and White Supremacy. This can be seen from the list of the core characters. Uncle Remus is a poor old man who is content with his life while little Johnny comes from a rich White family. There are striking differences between Uncle Remus (representing the Blacks) and the Johnny family (representing the Whites) and it is not merely about difference in skin color. The Whites are inherently wealthy while the Blacks are inherently poor, the Whites are well-dressed while the Blacks dressed up in shattered textiles, the Whites are smarter and well-educated while the Blacks are mostly uneducated due to the absence of access to education. And yet, the Blacks look happier than the Whites (and this particular discussion leads back to the previous point). Furthermore, Uncle Remus shows a high respect towards Johnny’s family.
In a particular scene, Uncle Remus willingly takes the blame for Johnny’s mischief and maintains his silence while Sally, Johnny’s mother, expresses her disdain toward Uncle Remus and his stories. She argues that Uncle Remus’ stories about Br’er Rabbit only makes Johnny’s attitude worse. Despite knowing that he has done nothing wrong and in fact encourages the boy to find happiness in life, Uncle Remus does not defend himself. Once again, this discussion refers back to the previous point that condemns its depictions of happy slaves. If Uncle Remus is a slave no more, why should he pay such a high respect to Johnny’s family that he intentionally fails himself from winning an argument? To many, Uncle Remus’ actions do not resemble that of a free man. This part of the narrative propagates the outrage among the audience that Uncle Remus is presented as a typical tame-slave who is happy and content with his situation, hence the accusation that the movie is pro-slavery and therefore, it is racist. However, one should ask: Do all these narrative points fit the standard of racism?
Racism, also called
racialism, any action, practice, or belief that reflects the racial
worldview—the ideology that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive
biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between
inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and
other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately
superior to others. (Smedley, (n.d))
The standard of racism, based on common sense and Smedley’s column in the Encyclopedia Britannica (world’s most extensive encyclopedia prior to the internet) is suffering based on race. Racism is when someone is deliberately being denied for the access to exercise or stripped out of his human (and civil) rights based solely on the physical appearance. Is Uncle Remus poor simply because he is Black and therefore not allowed to have access to a decent job? Does he respect Johnny’s family simply because he is aware that he is Black hence deemed inferior? Does Uncle Remus avoid an argument from Sally because he is Black and not allowed to defend himself? If all of these criticisms are objectively correct and justified, leading to the conclusion that the movie is intentionally promoting racism by presenting alleged contentment and inferiority, how could the argument explain the Favers who are White? The existence of Ginny Favers and her family drives this analysis to question whether those criticisms are presented with the pure motive of criticism or, in a suspicious way, as excuses for complaints.
If Song of the South means to present the racial and societal gaps between Blacks and Whites, the introduction of the Favers is a huge mistake. This particular White family happens to fit perfectly on the Blacks’ shoes regarding the alleged discrimination. While it is far from conclusive that these points are negative racial stereotypes consciously added to promote racism, here are three points of criticism regarding racism in the movie:
1. The Blacks are always poor and happy about it.
2. The Blacks are always inferior and pay highest respect to the Whites.
3. The Blacks are heavily stereotyped.
The Favers, being White, are strikingly similar in situation to the three points mentioned previously. These similarities spark the question of whether or not racial prejudice exists in Song of the South in the first place.
1. The Favers are also poor despite being White. This fact alone shows no correlation between skin color and wealth depicted in the movie, that being born White does not guarantee you a wealthy life. Ginny Favers never complains about how miserable her life is and nor does her mother. Jake and Joe Favers, though they do not seem to be extremely happy, do not complaint about their family’s financial status. Ginny Favers, just like the Blacks, seems to be optimistic, joyful, and content. This additional information shows no correlation between being poor and happy about it since the Favers, even though the boys are delinquents, seems to be a solid family (mins 01:23:40-01:24:17) while Johnny is unhappy about his family situation and it is not because of money but the absence of his father combined with his mother’s rules.
2. It is not only the Blacks that respect Johnny’s family. His family is well-respected and it is not because they are White, for if it is, the Favers should get the similar treatment from other characters and yet, Uncle Remus dares to threat Jake and Joe Favers, a scene further shows how race has nothing to do with societal hierarchy in Song of the South. Johnny’s grandmother respects Uncle Remus and maintains her respect for him even after Johnny’s mother lost her respect towards Uncle Remus and it is not because he is Black. In a particular scene, before Jonny’s birthday, Mrs. Favers constantly reminds Ginny to curtsy in front of Johnny’s family and their guests and she eventually says “don’t forget your manner,” (mins 01:09:25-01:09:47). Song of the South shows a somewhat complex societal hierarchy rather than just using race to explain the status of a character.
3. Since the particular point concerning stereotype would be extensively discussed in the next section, the third point of this comparison between Blacks and the Favers proposes a question regarding the Favers boys. Why, if critics are very sensitive about stereotype, the depictions of Jake and Joe Favers lost below the radar? There are indeed Black stereotypes in Song of the South, but they are visible only in supporting characters. Stereotypes in a movie do not necessarily mean prejudice and the stereotyped depiction of ‘boys will be boys’ in the personae of the Favers boys does not necessarily generalize boys and suggesting prejudice that all boys are juveniles. If each and every stereotype is to be called out, then the portrayal of the Favers boys is not only racist but also sexist.
§
C. Stereotyping African American
The last mostly-criticized point considered as the manifestation of racism in Song of the South is the use of stereotype in visually describing the Black characters in the movie. The use of stereotype is deemed to be overly generalizing thus eliminates the complexity of its characters. It is not surprising nor illogical that those belong to African American group grow overly sensitive regarding Black stereotype since throughout the history of America to the time of Civil War and, to some extent, today, African Americans are often depicted in negative stereotype. A very well-known case would be the existence of Jim Crow that represents Blacks as inferior to the Whites. According to the stereotype, Blacks are ignorant, buffoonish, superstitious, joyous and musical (Kleider-Offutt, 2017 and Singer, 2016). The last two points, joyous and musical, might be the biggest target of racism accusation in response to Song of the South. The stereotypes that develop negative perceptions of Blacks in people’s psyche are indeed cancerous that sociologist and philosopher William Edward Burghardt Du Bois (W.E.B Du Bois) stated that even though Black people are legally free in accordance to the amendment concerning human rights, racial prejudice that lurks among American societies makes them no more than ‘slaves of society’ (Thorpe, et al., 2015:70-73). Ethnographer Elijah Anderson even stated that African American is closely associated to criminality, violence, and poverty, the exact visualization of the term ghetto (Thorpe, et al., 2015:82-83). These are the exact reasons why African Americans are extremely sensitive in discussing the matter of Black stereotype thus causing Song of the South a titanic backlash for presenting scenes and characters perceived by many as stereotypical African American in the utmost offensive manner. In order to really comprehend the criticism, however, it is necessary to view stereotype not only from historical and sociological perspective, but also the perspective of cinema.
To the extent that all
stereotypes of human groups are predicated on the reduction of complex codes to
easily consumable visual and verbal cues, the film stereotype is
paradigmatically linked to racial discourse. This does not mean that all
stereotypes are raced, but rather that the logic of race as visually
discernible underwrites the production and circulation of the stereotype…………………...
Across the three decades that now
constitute the history of the study of stereotypes, we can trace the emergence
of important issues about representation and difference, the political economy
of the industry, spectatorship and identification, and, most importantly, the
relationship between film and culture. (Wiegman in Hill and Gibson (Ed.),
2000:159).
Based on Wiegman’s short-writing in the book Film Studies: Critical Approaches (2000), stereotype reduces complex codes of human beings thus eradicates the potency for character development. This limitation creates a hollow, one dimensional character lacking in emotional depth. Are the main characters in Song of the South, including Uncle Remus, one dimensional? What is meant by main characters is any character bestowed with enough screen-time to allow emotional and personality changes to happen. It would be too illogical to demand supporting characters to be as complex as the main characters simply because it is impossible to give each and every character the same amount of screen-time that would allow them to organically change their personalities. It is important to critically examine whether or not Uncle Remus is a one dimensional character and the supporting Black characters are indeed negative stereotypes of African Americans.
In literature, as in life, people
often see growth, change, and internal conflict carried out in a single
character. The term one-dimensional character in a book review or story refers
to a character who lacks depth and who never seems to learn or grow. When a
character is one-dimensional, he or she does not demonstrate a sense of
learning in the course of a story. Authors may use such a character to highlight
a certain trait, and usually, it is an undesirable one.
The
Role of the Flat Character in a Story
One-dimensional
characters are also known as flat characters or characters in fictional stories
that do not change much from the start of the story to the end. It is thought
that these type of characters have little to no emotional depth. Their role is
often to highlight the main character, and they typically hold a simple and
small perspective about life or the situation in the story. Their character is
often a stereotype and may simply be used as a literary device to keep the
narrative moving. (Fleming, 2018)
Based on the idea presented by Fleming, it is safe to assume that one dimensional characters are those lacking in emotional depth in facing different circumstances, hence never seem to learn or grow, and ended up being the exact same character from Overture to Entr’acte to Coda. It is highly important to investigate whether Uncle Remus, as the main African American character, is a one dimensional character or a round character. It is critical indeed because if he actually is a one dimensional character, the accusation of Song of the South being stereotypical would be justified. Uncle Remus is visualized as a wise, friendly old man. He is kind, patient, down-to-earth, and optimistic. The negative stereotypes such as lazy, ignorant, too superstitious, and so on, are indeed absent from the persona of Uncle Remus, but other stereotypes such as content, joyful, and musical are inherently attached to the character. However, Song of the South actually presents a totally different side of Uncle Remus who, in the end, is just a human being like all of the audience. The movie shows how Uncle Remus (too) can be hurt, emotionally, and ended up being sad and disappointed (mins 01:21:48-01:23:20). When Johnny’s mother no longer puts her trust on him and firmly asks Uncle Remus to stay away from her family (mins 01:20:30-01:21:00), the once joyful and optimistic Uncle Remus decides to leave his home and move to another region. This scene, no matter how simple it might seem, envisions several psychological scopes of human psyche.
When Uncle Remus feels certain to abandon his house, he completely changes his heart’s conviction after feeling that he is no longer needed and wanted. This particular point alone can be related to psychologist Carl Rogers’ idea that the good life is a process, not a state of being, that contentment is not the pinnacle of life, but instead, a process of life (Collin, et al., 2012: 130-133). This analysis does not mean to analyze Uncle Remus’ personality using theories of psychology because it would be a completely different area of analysis, but it shows the fact that Uncle Remus has the human quality that would make him a round and complex character, a total contradiction to the criticism calling Song of the South as a compilation of racist stereotypes hence producing one dimensional characters. Thus, the criticism condemning the visualization of happy slaves can no longer stand on its logical reasoning. It is not simply because Uncle Remus and other African Americans depicted in the movie are not slaves, but also because Uncle Remus’ happiness is not his fixed attribute for being Black, but the established narrative to show the completely opposite side of him that would make him a multidimensional character. It might not be intentional, but given the screen time of Uncle Remus, the studio had to develop the character in order to meet the requirement of total screen time, hence when Uncle Remus’ ideas about happiness and contentment are being challenged while he is supposed to be a man with conviction, Leon Festinger’s idea should apply comfortably. Festinger is a psychologist who proposed the psychological theory that ‘a man with conviction is a hard man to change’ (Collin, et al. 2012:166-167). These seemingly simple psychological points of view show that the process for the joyful Uncle Remus, who loves his home so dearly, to despair and sadness leading to his decision to leave his house, is a process of complexity. This, once again, shows that Uncle Remus is not a one dimensional character because he is not the personification of all African American stereotypes.
§
CODA
Fleming (2018) argues that in the context of storytelling, stereotype is not necessarily awful. Sometimes, stereotype is needed just to move the story forward as long as it is not in the form of a main character or presenting stereotype at the main character’s expense. During the resurgence of an ancient clash between races in the middle to the brink of the 2010’s when the notions of White Supremacy and Black Lives Matter became once again trending after their brief intermission as Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States of America, one major stereotypical point of Song of the South becomes the center of the attraction. The public seem to upset about the way Walt Disney presents poor African Americans as happy human beings. As the Whites started to question the Blacks’ allegations (Smith, 2017), this analysis proposes a question regarding the criticism. The question is, is being economically poor but spiritually content the exclusive stereotype/attribute of African American? If one insists that this is the case of racism, could this mean psychology is also racist? Psychiatrist Viktor Frankl argues that ‘suffering ceases to be suffering at the moment it finds a meaning’ (Collin, et al., 2012:140). Should his argument apply exclusively to African American and any other race is not allowed to experience their suffering ceased?
Should one relates Viktor Frankl’s argument to the scenes in the movie showing acts of solidarity among African Americans, he shall find that the sociological and psychological arguments that ‘mankind have always wandered or settled—agreed or quarreled—in troops and companies’ (Thorpe, et.al., 2015:21) because mankind, by nature, is social being (Collin, et al., 2012:240-241) actually make sense. That being said, are the stereotypes of African American in Song of the South inherently racist? As previously discussed, stereotype does not necessarily equal to prejudice and create one dimensional characters. How could someone explain the existence of African American stereotypes that depict them as having a more robust and stronger body and more effective in sports (Wilson (n.d) )? The fact that many people condemn Song of the South without even watching the entire movie and put it in historical, sociological, and entertainment contexts (Euclid, 2017) is undoubtedly dangerous, especially because Song of the South appreciates African American actors in the time when not even the actor of Uncle Remus is allowed to watch the premiere just because of the color of his skin (Sergio, 2016) thanks to segregation in movie theaters.
It is relatively easy, especially after the birth of internet social media, to pick a problem out of its context and interpret it based on the post-modern renewed notion that everything is relative, using relativism as the ultimate justification (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Relativism”, 2015). In 2018, Lanisha Butterfield wrote an article published in the Oxford University’s website entitled “Caricature or stereotype? The legacy of Black excellence at Oxford”. The article talks about the picture of Christian Frederick Cole, the first Black African student at the University of Oxford discovered by two alumni Pamela Roberts and Sir Ivor Crewe. The picture is deemed to be more of a caricature than a portrait, and it is suspected that the picture contains racist stereotype (Butterfield, 2018). In 1941, Looney Tunes released Hollywood Steps Out, a short filled with caricatures and stereotypes, making fun of Hollywood superstars at the time who are mostly White. It features celebrated conductor Leopold Stokowski (Fantasia, 1940) wearing a snood and dancing to a beating music rather than conducting classical music, the king of Hollywood Clark Gable (Gone with the Wind, 1939) unable to control his lust towards women, silent film star Buster Keaton (appeared as cameo in Sunset Boulevard, 1950) showing lack of emotion, and many other influential figures including J. Edgar Hoover as the G-Man, a slang term to call a federal agent. This short is, above all, a merry melody, though it was censored multiple times in several parts (looneytunes.fandom.com). This short, however, also shows the public that stereotyping is not an exclusive treatment addressed to African Americans. There are White stereotypes and they too make fun of themselves. This analysis is by no means supporting racial prejudice, negative stereotype, and racism. However, this analysis encourages the audience to criticize any work of art without detaching it from its context. While it is okay to make fun of the White in a Looney Tunes cartoon because it is, after all, a cartoon, it is not okay to criticize happy and musical stereotypes of African America in Song of the South because it is, after all, a musical.
***
REFERENCES
PRINTED BOOK available on demand
ONLINE PUBLICATIONS available on demand
VIDEOS/DVD available on demand
BIBLIOGRAPHY
available on demand
***