Petition to Remove Dumbo

[JimMIA]

This is true but there is a difference in statues in places of honor and movies and theme park rides. The context is different. I am all for the removal of statues that honor Confederates, etc. but I am not for their destruction. They should rather be placed somewhere where context can be added to further the conversation. It doesn't do any good to simply destroy them and pretend that they never existed. What many propose is no better than burning books that have content that you don't agree with.

The people in mobs tearing down statues don't want "conversation." They want to "make a statement," even if it is illegal.

They're also not really interested much in actual change, or they'd be engaged in more productive activities like lobbying for changes in laws or regulations...or even to have the statue removed legally.

But that work is difficult. Tearing down a statue (or taking your selfie while others do the work) is much easier.

 

[Boopuff]

I look at things in this way - if I have to Google search something to find out why people are upset the argument (IMO) looses it's merit. As far as statues go: most of the time tax dollars went to fund the sculpting and placement of the statues. I'd rather the offensive public monument be moved to a location where people who are interested in history can view and learn from them.

This is a funny perspective: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...tues-are-bad/?arc404=true&fbclid=IwAR2NYz5CqA

 

[DuskKodesh]

This is such a niche petition with so few signatures that I have no doubt it was created either to simply stir the pot or to be satirical. If it's the former it seems to have succeeded (At least here). If the latter it failed.

I'm much more surprised that the Mickey Mouse 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' short is still up on youtube from multiple sources. I'd expect Disney lawyers to be all over that pulling it down in all forms. Then again it's from 1933 so perhaps they can't? I'm unsure. I'd post it for discussion but even in a historical context Mickey applying blackface makes me all kinds of uneasy.

 

[BrianL]

The people in mobs tearing down statues don't want "conversation." They want to "make a statement," even if it is illegal.

They're also not really interested much in actual change, or they'd be engaged in more productive activities like lobbying for changes in laws or regulations...or even to have the statue removed legally.

But that work is difficult. Tearing down a statue (or taking your selfie while others do the work) is much easier.

To be fair, sometimes a statement does need to be made, however there are limits. I do think that a lot of people do want to see change, but the way they attempt to go about it pretty much ensures that it won't happen.

 

[JimMIA]

To be fair, sometimes a statement does need to be made, however there are limits. I do think that a lot of people do want to see change, but the way they attempt to go about it pretty much ensures that it won't happen.

Sure.

But sincere statements are best made in legal ways, and they sometimes can have positive influences. Mob violence, whether directed at people, statues, businesses, police, or anything else usually hurts the cause more than it helps.

 

[JimMIA]

The other thing people need to realize at some point is that even well-done "statements" don't generate change. Statements can draw attention to a subject -- but that is just the start of change, not the end point.

Once an idea takes root in the public consciousness, that's when the real work of actually enacting change begins.

 

[bcla]

This is such a niche petition with so few signatures that I have no doubt it was created either to simply stir the pot or to be satirical. If it's the former it seems to have succeeded (At least here). If the latter it failed.

I'm much more surprised that the Mickey Mouse 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' short is still up on youtube from multiple sources. I'd expect Disney lawyers to be all over that pulling it down in all forms. Then again it's from 1933 so perhaps they can't? I'm unsure. I'd post it for discussion but even in a historical context Mickey applying blackface makes me all kinds of uneasy.

What? Mickey's Mellerdrammer? It could be in the public domain by now. Did they renew the copyright? It's older so it might not require a copyright renewal.

 

[DuskKodesh]

What? Mickey's Mellerdrammer? It could be in the public domain by now. Did they renew the copyright? It's older so it might not require a copyright renewal.

That's the one. As for copyright I'm not sure. Disney's lawyers have changed copyright precedent so many times it's made my head spin. By all means all of the early animation they did should be in the public domain by now but they keep changing things and I find conflicting information on it.

 

[bcla]

That's the one. As for copyright I'm not sure. Disney's lawyers have changed copyright precedent so many times it's made my head spin. By all means all of the early animation they did should be in the public domain by now but they keep changing things and I find conflicting information on it.

I was wrong. Anything after a certain date in 1978 doesn't have any copyright renewal requirement. But before then there might have been a requirement in order to extract maximum copyright protection.

 

[FigmentSpark]

The Gaylon twins are an example of how cruel we can be. Displayed in a ‘freak show’ circus from the age of 3 until 1991! We have to be better than this.

Interesting that you used them as an example. I went to look up who they were and found they just passed away. May they rest in peace.

https://news.sky.com/story/ronnie-a...-surviving-conjoined-twins-die-at-68-12022971

 

[VandVsmama]

OMG is there no end? Let's just burn the entire park to the ground since Mickey & Minnie are rodents and their pals are animals. I'm sure that's offensive in some way that I can't think of yet.

Exactly. We should take it 1 step further, though. For example...

• Goofy is offensive because he gets mocked and laughed at for being uncoordinated and falling down a lot. He qualifies for ADA protections.
• Minnie Mouse is offensive to the women's rights movement because she's 'dated' Mickey for literally decades and he has yet to commit or even ask her to marry him. On the plus side, at least they didn't move in together.
• Dumbo is offensive because the other elephants mock his big ears. He has a physical disability.
• Princesses like Ariel, Snow White, and the like are offensive to the women's movement and to people everywhere with intellectual disabilities because those princesses are as dumb as a box of rocks and run off with men they just met and eat food offered to them by scary old ladies in the woods.
• Conceited bastards like Flynn Ryder exemplify everything that is wrong with 'toxic masculinity' in this world what with his 'smolder' and all that.
• Donald Duck is offensive because he is mocked for having a major speech impediment and he's never been offered any special services to assist him in overcoming that. On top of it all, a Fortune 500 company is profiting from literally decades of his 'on the job' workplace accidents and nobody reported any of it to OSHA.
• Like Flynn Ryder, Donald Duck, as well, is part of toxic masculinity. Disney allows him to show up to work every day with no pants on. Nobody needs to see your feathery bits from the waist down, buddy. I mean, look at how he struts his stuff marching down Main Street during those 3:00 parades. Donald might as well be BFFs with Harvey Weinstein, you know.

 

[bcla]

Interesting that you used them as an example. I went to look up who they were and found they just passed away. May they rest in peace.

https://news.sky.com/story/ronnie-a...-surviving-conjoined-twins-die-at-68-12022971

They seem to have willingly participated as entertainment, at least into their adult lives. They could afford a retirement and health insurance. I wouldn't fault anyone for choosing to earn a living in whatever way they could since they weren't doing anything illegal.

 

[PollyannaMom]

I'm much more surprised that the Mickey Mouse 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' short is still up on youtube from multiple sources. I'd expect Disney lawyers to be all over that pulling it down in all forms. Then again it's from 1933 so perhaps they can't? I'm unsure. I'd post it for discussion but even in a historical context Mickey applying blackface makes me all kinds of uneasy.

Yikes!! I looked it up, and can't believe it either!

 

[FigmentSpark]

The Dumbo crows are not racist: quite the opposite, in fact.

https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/the-ears-have-it/

Very interesting read... and enlightening. I think the reason people don't generally "get" that about the Dumbo story is they don't know enough about elephants. People likely had no idea there were two types of elephants that were so different. Even today, most people don't know enough about them to get that from the story. It really frames the whole movie in an entirely different light, to the point you almost wonder how Disney got away with it back then.

 

[StageTek]

As far as statues go: most of the time tax dollars went to fund the sculpting and placement of the statues. I'd rather the offensive public monument be moved to a location where people who are interested in history can view and learn from them.

I agree. Tearing them down is not the way to change. Moving them should ease some of the tension.

What is offensive changes rapidly. It was only three years ago that most people said Washington statues would never become targets. Today Washington and Jefferson are considered offensive by many. When we, as a society, move all offensive public monuments to places where only people interested in history will see them I wonder how those not interested will see history.

 

[StageTek]

Exactly. We should take it 1 step further, though. For example...

• Goofy is offensive because he gets mocked and laughed at for being uncoordinated and falling down a lot. He qualifies for ADA protections.
• Minnie Mouse is offensive to the women's rights movement because she's 'dated' Mickey for literally decades and he has yet to commit or even ask her to marry him. On the plus side, at least they didn't move in together.
• Dumbo is offensive because the other elephants mock his big ears. He has a physical disability.
• Princesses like Ariel, Snow White, and the like are offensive to the women's movement and to people everywhere with intellectual disabilities because those princesses are as dumb as a box of rocks and run off with men they just met and eat food offered to them by scary old ladies in the woods.
• Conceited bastards like Flynn Ryder exemplify everything that is wrong with 'toxic masculinity' in this world what with his 'smolder' and all that.
• Donald Duck is offensive because he is mocked for having a major speech impediment and he's never been offered any special services to assist him in overcoming that. On top of it all, a Fortune 500 company is profiting from literally decades of his 'on the job' workplace accidents and nobody reported any of it to OSHA.
• Like Flynn Ryder, Donald Duck, as well, is part of toxic masculinity. Disney allows him to show up to work every day with no pants on. Nobody needs to see your feathery bits from the waist down, buddy. I mean, look at how he struts his stuff marching down Main Street during those 3:00 parades. Donald might as well be BFFs with Harvey Weinstein, you know.

Seriously! What's next? The Hamilton musical?

 

[CdnCarrie]

The people in mobs tearing down statues don't want "conversation." They want to "make a statement," even if it is illegal.

They're also not really interested much in actual change, or they'd be engaged in more productive activities like lobbying for changes in laws or regulations...or even to have the statue removed legally.

But that work is difficult. Tearing down a statue (or taking your selfie while others do the work) is much easier.

Putting up a statue in the 60s in the South wasn't making a statement? Making change to equality was too much work so sticking up a statute was easier.

 

[bcla]

Very interesting read... and enlightening. I think the reason people don't generally "get" that about the Dumbo story is they don't know enough about elephants. People likely had no idea there were two types of elephants that were so different. Even today, most people don't know enough about them to get that from the story. It really frames the whole movie in an entirely different light, to the point you almost wonder how Disney got away with it back then.

I read up on the differences between Asian elephants and African elephants when I was a kid. African elephants are larger and generally more aggresive. Also very difficult to train, although not impossible. P.T. Barnum featured Jumbo, which had an interesting history regarding safety concerns. My local zoo has African elephants, which is somewhat unusual. I've seen plenty of trained Asian elephants. I've even fed a juvenile one bananas on a trip to Thailand.

I don't think the Dumbo ears are specifically about what kind of elephant he is. It's just that he has ridiculously large ears that enable him to fly. The rest of the elephants (strangely enough all female) are Asian elephants.

 

[Boopuff]

All this PC stuff has me in stitches! My personal fave PC is this: I belong to an RV forum. Rv's are classified at Class A,B, C. Now someone, somewhere decided that since they owned a "class c" they were offended by the Class terminology - it made them feel "less" of an RVer. So the online community now calls them "Type A,B.C" however, just to be pills, some of the really old codgers on the forum hold to the "class" system. LOL

 

[JimMIA]

Putting up a statue in the 60s in the South wasn't making a statement? Making change to equality was too much work so sticking up a statute was easier.

Obviously all statues are statements -- memorials usually to something or someone believed to be important. They are also put in place legally.

I don't think I've ever known of a statue erected in lieu of a social initiative, or even in support of some social cause, LOL. The ones I've seen are just either historical tributes or works of art.

The other thing about the 1960's is that -- well, they were SIXTY YEARS AGO.

There are some good lessons to learn from the US Civil Rights movement in the 1950's and 1960's, though. One is that symbolic acts were important in creating awareness of things that needed to change.

And the other, as I mentioned above, is that most of the REAL change was done through hard work changing laws...not taking selfies. That real work took a number of years and a great deal of effort by a lot of people working together.