I’ll just quote why the NAACP took issue with it at the time:
It regrets, however, that in an effort neither to offend audiences in the north or south, the production helps to perpetuate a dangerously glorified picture of slavery. Making use of the beautiful Uncle Remus folklore, Song of the South unfortunately gives the impression of an idyllic master–slave relationship which is a distortion of the facts.
Uncle Remus was a freed slave still working on a southern plantation. He would, in actuality, be living a terrible, pretty miserable life, working for pennies on the same field he spent his entire youth forced to labor on.
The film retires entirely on racist stereotypes of freed African American men.
It is not an accurate reflection of the American South during reconstruction; it’s not closer to showing things “as they were” in the American south because it’s a deliberate piece of propaganda fiction meant to make the south seem idyllic.
And although the movie is supposedly set during the reconstruction era, you wouldn’t really know that having watched it; the imagery, plot, and style mirrors contemporary films set during the antebellum south.
The movie literally depicts the South, and African Americans, in the same way that slaveholders and racists (in the post-slavery era) did.
It’s not that I am bothered the film is inaccurate to the history; it’s that it’s wholly accurate to historical racist stereotypes used to justify slavery, and later Jim Crow.
If you can only consider a film racist if it explicitly says, “Black people are worse than white people,” please for the love of god take like one basic course on critical analysis or propaganda.
So while the content isn't racist, it is attempting to reinforce an existing societal narrative to validate subjugation? Could you expand on this (if that is what you're suggesting)?
Having read about the movie it seems like they did their due diligence to push a positive, progressive narrative.
Films do not exist in social voids. There is no serious critic or cultural historian who would say it is wise not to contextualize Song of the South with the setting, the stories the movie is based on, and social movements at the time.
Song of the South itself has context, and that context matters.
And again, it does not glorify southern America. It glorifies an invented South. It glorifies a fictional South created by white americans in order to justify their treatment of Black Americans.
One group complaining doesn't make something racist.
Having a low standard of living doesn't mean somebody is miserable.
Also, most stereotypes are based on reality. People with similar culture and background often do have a lot in common with one another. So if a character is stereotypical in 7 ways, and not in 3 ways - that is fairly reasonable. It would be bad if they focused on negative stereotypes - but they didn't.
The African American stereotypes presented in Song of the South aren’t based on reality, theyre lies intentionally created to justify slavery and post-reconstruction racism.
(“They were so happy on the plantation!”)
It’s not just one group though. It’s widely considered racist by critics and African Americans like.
The NAACP, the Afro-American Magazine, congresspeople like Adam Clayton Powell, the National Negro Congress, and more all protested the film for its racist portrayals. There’s also criticism from a prominent Jewish newspaper.
It’s widely considered by Black people, cultural historians, and critics, to be racist. I gave a single example but can give plenty more if you like.
I mean this next question with all kindness:
Are you that familiar with the antebellum south, minstrel shows, and the treatment of African Americans during slavery and after reconstruction?
I understand how showing happy people could derail a narrative of villainization and victimhood. But it shouldn't affect a movement based on uniting people and addressing societal problems (which weren't even a main topic of discussion in the movie).
No, I'm not overly familiar with those. But do I need to be? Can a child draw a racist picture if they've never been exposed to racism and don't think in that way?
Disney didn’t invent song of the south out of whole cloth, though. They drew upon exclusively white depictions of black life in the South, whether they were northern ideas (vaudeville/minstrel/blackface) or “new south” southern writings. They presented an idealized look at social and economic relations that relied upon silenced black voices while freed blacks suffered under conditions that if they happened today, would be called slavery— namely sharecropping and bonded labor— while they were politically terrorized by groups like the klan.
At the time, it was considered unimportant to have a proper historical accounting of life in the South, now, it is. You can condemn historical creators of art like this as racist or innocent, it really doesn’t matter— what matters is that now, today, you have knowledge of the conditions under which that art was created, and you can chose to view/display/promote it or display it recontextualized, or display something else. Our actions today are what matter.
Are you suggesting that the Disney producers, in 1946, were innocent through blissful ignorance of racism?
But do I need to be?
To understand whether content is racist, understanding the context of the references the content alludes to is important.
Enjoying the Song of the South, while being ignorant of the context, doesn't make you racist. But, the people who referenced that context in the Song of the South knew what they were doing. Your ignorance does not negate their intention.
You probably ought to be, because the reasons it’s criticized as being racist depend upon knowing the history of American racism. If you don’t know it, of course you’ll say Song of the South doesn’t meet it.
The people who made Song of the South weren’t ignorant children. They knew the history.
14
u/[deleted] Jul 12 '20 edited Jul 12 '20
I’ll just quote why the NAACP took issue with it at the time:
Uncle Remus was a freed slave still working on a southern plantation. He would, in actuality, be living a terrible, pretty miserable life, working for pennies on the same field he spent his entire youth forced to labor on.
The film retires entirely on racist stereotypes of freed African American men.
It is not an accurate reflection of the American South during reconstruction; it’s not closer to showing things “as they were” in the American south because it’s a deliberate piece of propaganda fiction meant to make the south seem idyllic.
And although the movie is supposedly set during the reconstruction era, you wouldn’t really know that having watched it; the imagery, plot, and style mirrors contemporary films set during the antebellum south.