Why are you trying to downplay Disney's racist views by saying they are just minor offences? Minor, major, its all the same. Is that to say that the church bombing that killed 4 little girls in Alabama should be 'passed over' because it was a sign of the times? And who are you to say what black people will or will not be offended by? You should check YOUR prejudices!

Minor, major, its all the same.

Yup, ya got me there. Uncle Remus telling Brer Rabbit stories to the white kids is just the same as burning down churches full of black children.

Perhaps you are under the mistaken belief that you have a right not to hear anything you consider offensive, or that black people shouldn't hear something that might be offensive.

Then of course you are presuming that all black people will find the same things offensive.

My point was not particularly that somebody should or shouldn't be offended by some specific art work, but that the work should be available as public domain work at this point. That way anyone with an interest in such things could examine the actual object of controversy and decide for themselves what to think of it.

Also, that way, you could get you a copy of Song of the South to watch while you jack off into orgasms of exquisite indignance.

Oh, I think it's going to be a gusher!

SONG OF THE SOUTH deserves to be buried.. it's available to internet-savvy folk, so fine..

but as far as putting it in modern day Wal-Marts, Targets and Best Buys? Hell no..

the fact exists that these deluded images did a great disservice in collectively disrespecting black people as a whole-- to dismiss it as simply being a sign of the times implicitly endorses the attitudes.. the promotional image above may not have even been used by most theaters..

the "uncle remus" folk tales are of great historical importance, BUT-- in the hands of Disney, how many people now implicitly (or for younger people, explicitly) attribute the various brother's grimm-harvested folk tales as Disney "inventions"? The same goes for Milne's WINNIE THE POOH...

I can remember seeing the movie as a young boy, on the DISNEY channel, in the mid 80's... Despite the 'moral' lesson(s) involved, it was hardly a bold maneuver for any filmmaker to depict American slavery as being anything but a marginally uncomfortable circumstances.. young people who are not conscious of the true brutality of the slavery era may be led to think it was "just okay"...

Surely the film shows that although Uncle Remus was being persecuited by white people it did not make hime bitter towards all white people, he still befriended the little boy because it had nothing to do with him. Does this story not have a moral....somewhere?

i always enjoyed uncle remus. of course i was a little white boy then.brer bear was funny always funny. i was surprised when dumbo was pulled because of the two crows. i think that these films were relavent later on larry

Well, I'm not just sure how to judge the movie, cause I haven't seen most of it. I'd really like to lay hands on simple DVD so I could see what the fuss was about.

My best understanding would be that they were basically sidestepping the racial issues. Not that they were trying to justify slavery, but their theoretical sin would seem to be basically glossing over those sins.

Instead, they glossed over those parts so they could get to presenting Uncle Remus having human relations with the little white kids. Perhaps that was more important to do at that point, from Disney's standpoint. They at least thought that they were trying to be inclusive and doing right.

But I'd sure like to study the thing closely, get a chance to pick at it a bit.

It should be released, I don't care how racist or un-racist it is, I'm not even going to justify it with "sign of the times" it should be released because it's part of cinematic history, and then people can hate it or like it all they want, but people have a right to form an opinion of this movie regardless of how offensive it is.

The author Al is so obvoiusly a racist it is painful to read his denials that Disney was. As it is apparent in his writng of the above article as well as in his angry responses to anyone who does not agree with his racist opinions. Poor poor Al, why the sexual references in your response...perhaps you are more than just an angry racist, perhaps this aggression is more far reaching. I wish for you the ability to see beyond your pity ignorance in due time so that you are able to remove the samsara you have placed upon yourself. Your existence is beyond today, last week and next year, you are more than the colour of your skin and you have an obligation to do better than this gibberish you are publishing. I wish you knowledge and peace.

Senoj, I could give a rat's ass about you calling me "racist." The likes of you have whored the word out to the point that it's all stretched out of shape and not able to do any good when someone comes along who actually would fit such a description.

But there are few things that I find more contemptible and distasteful than the kind of cheap grasping after a faked-up sense of moral superiority that you display here. You want to act like you're some enlightened spiritual creature. You're obviously not, and your comments in #8 are evidence of that.

As to Walt Disney, I make no claim to having any understanding of his personal attitudes about race. Don't particularly care. I'm judging only by what he put on the screen. In that professional capacity, I've seen nothing to indicate that he intended other than to be inclusive and understanding. It's a small world, after all.

Then again, maybe if I could actually watch Song of the South I'd get a different outlook.

This isn't a copyright reform issue--it's a political correctness issue, and as such, I have to stand with Al on this one. History, as much as some would try otherwise, cannot be rewritten. Nor should it be. Summarily dismissing Disney (or Barger, for that matter) as a racist because they bring up something that makes you feel uncomfortable puts the real shame on you. Espousing censorship, no matter how noble the intention, opens a floodgate for terrors you have not even begun to imagine.

Political correctness is a real danger to freedom of speech in that it waters down creative thought. I've disagreed with Al more often than not( we won't rehash the DC thing), but never once can I recall an instance where he called for censorship or a ban of any kind.

Thanks, Ray. It partway IS a copyright reform issue though, in that they are using copyright law as the tool of censorship.

Mostly, copyrights are pumped up and abused for the relatively benign purpose of simple greed, wanting to continue extracting tribute for 50 or 100 year old stuff- however much and long they can get Congress to let them milk it.

But stuff like this Song of the South and some of the Scientology nonsense use copyright as a stick for censorship of the historical record. They are using it to not just tax the works like regular copyright usage, but to as much as possible completely suppress historical documents that the modern corporate entities think will reflect badly on their companies.

Copyrights = censorship.

First, I'd like to direct you to