Representations of Race
In addition to questions about its portrayal of gender, Disney has also endured criticism of its depiction of race, all the way back from "denigrating images of people of color in films such as Song of the South, released in 1946" to today (Giroux, 1995). Disney uses "negative imagery" (Giroux, 1995) like portraying African Americans as apes and monkeys in The Jungle Book (1967), as well as Asians as deceitful Siamese cats in Lady and the Tramp (1955). They have also been criticized for using "racially coded language and accents" (Giroux, 1995) on characters who are 'bad' or at least are not as 'good' as the hero/heroine. For example, in The Lion King (1994), "members of the royal family speak in posh British accents," while the evil hyenas speak like "urban, black and Latino youth" gangsters (Giroux, 1995). This is problematic because it teaches children that cultures which are not white, middle-class are "deviant, inferior, unintelligent, and a threat to be overcome" (Giroux, 1995). If we wish to make our children more informed about cultural differences, then we must show them different kinds of stories, that show members of various ethnicities in situations that are truthfully represented and not bogged down with antiquated racist stereotypes. The following video does a good job of showing different examples of racism in Disney films to Asians, Latinos, African Americans, and Native Americans.
Here is another video of the song, "What Made the Red Man Red?", from the Disney film Peter Pan (1953), which demonstrates both negative imagery and racialized language towards Native Americans. For example, the Chief is portrayed with a "giant proboscis, a stout physique, and scarlet skin tones," while wearing "a feathered headdress, black hair, and leather buckskins" (Meek, 2006, p. 117). In addition, his voice is "deep and gravelly, and his pace is slow" (Meek, 2006, p. 117). The language of the Chief and the other Indians is not grammatically correct ("Me no spoof-um"), compared to the articulate language of the children, which suggests "these adult Indians are even less sophisticated and developed than European children" (Meek, 2006, p. 116-117).
"Why does he ask you, "How?"
Why does he ask you, "How?"
Once the Injun didn't know
All the things that he know now
But the Injun, he sure learn a lot
And it's all from asking, "How?"
Hana Mana Ganda
Hana Mana Ganda
We translate for you
Hana means what mana means
And ganda means that too..."
As can be seen from these lyrics to the song in the video, Disney's use of racialized language demeans Native Americans, their language, and their history. The suggestion that Aborginal people did not know very much until they learned from white people completely erases the fact that without First Nations knowledge, white settlers would not have survived in North America, as well as the reality that we still use Aboriginal technologies today, including knowledge of plants for medicinal purposes and agricultural practices like irrigation (Friesen, 2005). In addition, the assertion that 'hana,' 'mana,' and 'ganda' all mean the same thing implies that Native languages are irrelevant because they have no meaning and are more like "primitive grunting" (Meek, 2006, p. 94). However, this type of racism is not limited to Native Americans; the following video from Aladdin (1992) demonstrates that individuals of Arab descent have also been demeaned in Disney films.
As you can observe through watching the video, Disney had to change some of its original lyrics to this opening song because Arab groups were concerned that these offensive lines "magnifie[d] popular stereotypes already primed by the media through its portrayal of the Gulf War" (Giroux, 1995). However, they were upset Disney decided to keep in the line, "It's barbaric, but hey it's home," as well as "the racial coding of accents, and the use of nonsensical scrawl as a substitute for actual written Arabic language" (Giroux, 1995). The "thick, foreign accents" of the "bad Arabs," was contrasted with the "standard American English" that the more-white-than-Arab Jasmine and Aladdin speak in (Giroux, 1995). The film also uses negative imagery where the "bad guys have beards and large, bulbous noses, sinister eyes, and heavy accents," as well as "wielding swords constantly" (Giroux, 1995).
This is Disney 20 years ago. Things have changed since then, right? Not quite. The release of The Princess and the Frog (2009) saw Disney's first African American princess come to the screen. However, some critics are saying that the movie "still relies heavily on the reproduction of the ideology of whiteness that sanitizes the everyday lives of African-Americans and normalizes whiteness" (Gregory, 2010, p. 433). Even though Tiana is the protagonist, Charlotte, the privileged white girl, plays the princess role, and Tiana does not "really move beyond the stereotypical image of black women as invisible or as solely attached to labor" (Gregory, 2010, p. 433). Throughout the film, as in most Disney movies, whiteness is the 'normal' "against which difference is constructed," and never has to "acknowledge its role as an organizing principle in social and cultural relations" (Gregory, 2010, p. 435). We never need to say that Tiana is poor or lives in a segregated neighbourhood because she is black, we can see this because it is contrasted against the affluent lives of the white Charlotte and her father. It is also evident that whiteness controls the rest of society because Charlotte "hires Tiana to cater the ball, allowing Tiana to earn enough to place a down payment for her restaurant," as well Tiana and Naveen "must reach Charlotte before midnight on Mardi Gras for the 'princess' kiss that will reverse the spell" (Gregory, 2010, p. 449). The reality is that Charlotte was the original princess throughout the whole film, until the very end when Tiana marries a prince and become a princess (Gregory, 2010, p. 449). Although, Disney's first African American princess is a "solid step forward," it is evident that there is still work to be done to break through racist stereotypes (Gregory, 2010, p. 434).
This is Disney 20 years ago. Things have changed since then, right? Not quite. The release of The Princess and the Frog (2009) saw Disney's first African American princess come to the screen. However, some critics are saying that the movie "still relies heavily on the reproduction of the ideology of whiteness that sanitizes the everyday lives of African-Americans and normalizes whiteness" (Gregory, 2010, p. 433). Even though Tiana is the protagonist, Charlotte, the privileged white girl, plays the princess role, and Tiana does not "really move beyond the stereotypical image of black women as invisible or as solely attached to labor" (Gregory, 2010, p. 433). Throughout the film, as in most Disney movies, whiteness is the 'normal' "against which difference is constructed," and never has to "acknowledge its role as an organizing principle in social and cultural relations" (Gregory, 2010, p. 435). We never need to say that Tiana is poor or lives in a segregated neighbourhood because she is black, we can see this because it is contrasted against the affluent lives of the white Charlotte and her father. It is also evident that whiteness controls the rest of society because Charlotte "hires Tiana to cater the ball, allowing Tiana to earn enough to place a down payment for her restaurant," as well Tiana and Naveen "must reach Charlotte before midnight on Mardi Gras for the 'princess' kiss that will reverse the spell" (Gregory, 2010, p. 449). The reality is that Charlotte was the original princess throughout the whole film, until the very end when Tiana marries a prince and become a princess (Gregory, 2010, p. 449). Although, Disney's first African American princess is a "solid step forward," it is evident that there is still work to be done to break through racist stereotypes (Gregory, 2010, p. 434).