Disney and monarchy. [Archive]

Red Terror Doctor

5th December 2007, 15:13

Check out the book How to Read Donald Duck By Dr. Ariel Dorfman:

http://adorfman.duke.edu/vaults/donald_duc...donald_duck.htm (http://adorfman.duke.edu/vaults/donald_duck/excerpt_donald_duck.htm)

http://www.adorfman.duke.edu/

http://www.newint.org/issue188/update.htm

http://www.bbcf.ca/books_1.php

Debunking Donald Duck
Walt Disney racism

A caustic attack on the sacred duck of the comic-strip world has become a bestseller in response to the Third World need to debunk the most pervasive US export - Disney cartoons.

How to Read Donald Duck, described as a 'classic work on cultural imperialism', has gone through 13 Latin American editions, been translated into 13 languages and sold more than half a million copies. But this distribution is nothing beside the Duck's: Donald's comic books are published in 47 countries and he quacks over television in 21 languages.

'How come the "natives" always give up their riches to the Duck invaders?' asks the blurb. 'Why are there no parents in Donald Duck comics?' And 'What are Huey, Duey and Louie doing in Vietnam?'

The authors of these questions, Chilean critic and novelist, Ariel Dorfman, and Belgian sociologist, Armand Mattelart, wrote the book in the flush of the Chilean revolution in 1971, before the bloody military coup drove both into exile.

The book strips away the cloak of innocence in Walt Disney's Duckburg. Laid bare is the ideology underneath. More than half the time, the ducks are looking for gold - usually in exotic places where it is just lying around, surrounded by blissfully stupid 'natives'.

In Disney's world, there are only the rulers and the ruled: on one side the ducks, on the other the baddies and the savages. The values of the comics are white, middle-class and male. Everyone else is subservient or invisible. On the rare occasions that women pop up, they are bird-brained, reflecting Disney's famous comment: 'Girls bored me; they still do.'

Dorfman and Mattelart also pose another dynamic question: where, they ask, are the 'workers' portrayed in Donald Duck comics? Who produces the material goods that Donald and his relatives are surrounded with? The workers are missing because they don't fit in with a dream world, in which the middle class lives happily on the fruits of labourers it never sees.

This pattern was reproduced exactly in the organization of Disney's company itself, they argue: Walt Disney took all the credit for the Disney creations, although the ideas came from his studio team whose names never appeared on any of the products. In fact Disney himself could not even draw.

James Gibbons / Third World Features

Psy

5th December 2007, 15:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 06:40 am
I hardly think they're trying to restore a feudal order. I really don't know if anyone really actually wants feudalism to make a come back(if you know sites that promote this, DO send them my way, I have to see it myself!) Disney is focused more on the middle class. Its TV shows are mainly about the "common" problems children of middle class families come across in middle school and high school. It promotes the same aesthetics and standards that most media outlets promote but at a much younger audience. Perhaps you should focus on that instead?
One just has to look at companies like Disney lobbying the state to make copyright and patients indefinite to see capitalists see nothing wrong with the idea a economy being based on ownership instead of being based on capital as they have both. See Capitalists overthrew feudalism because lords owned the land, now capitalists own the land and either way they are the ruling class.

Back to my point the feudal powers of Europe would have loved Disney films as they promote their class order. I think one reason for this first is Disney is cheap they recycle stories from the feudalism feudal and thus recycle feudalistic propaganda as entertainment. But I do think it is more then that, Disney strategy is selling fantasies of obsolutes that is hard doing with capitalism with coming off as blatant (and Disney goal is not to make capitalist propaganda but simply to make tons of capital) yet going with feudalism works for Disney, if you look at their TV productions that is more grounded in capitalism it is not as absolute, they had problems not making Scrooge McDuck come off as a rich prick and it simply weird that Glomgold (The second richest duck) is painted as evil, I know they were going with the idea that only good people float to the top but second richest capitalists is still pretty good. Both spent most of their time treasure hunting kinda breaking the capitalist myth that holding property is hard work. Yet Dinsey TV productions don't aim for the same fantasy as the movies they aim for adventure which probably why Disney TV production don't both promoting feudalism.

Pirate Utopian

5th December 2007, 21:44

I grew up on Disney movies, but I never been for monarchy.
I think Disney just continues the typical princess love stories without thinking about it.

Also High School Musical is absolute total crap.

R_P_A_S

5th December 2007, 21:50

you know what i hate about disney? how they fucking stereo type other cultures and such.

just look at Cool Runnings and The Mighty Ducks D2.. sick

Psy

5th December 2007, 23:48

Originally posted by Big Manifesto+December 05, 2007 09:43 pm--> (Big Manifesto @ December 05, 2007 09:43 pm)I grew up on Disney movies, but I never been for monarchy.
I think Disney just continues the typical princess love stories without thinking about it.

Also High School Musical is absolute total crap.[/b]
I think it has to do with Disney looking for free stories which mostly means recycling stories from the feudal era, after Disney is finished re-writing the story to make it a story about absolute good & evil and Disney tacks on a happy ending their version becomes feudal propaganda that the old feudal powers would have given whole colonies for. I think another reason is simply this stereotype of feudalism play to Disney's absolute good & evil type stories better then even the most glowing image of capitalism.

R_P_A_S

you know what i hate about disney? how they fucking stereo type other cultures and such.

just look at Cool Runnings and The Mighty Ducks D2.. sick

Lets not forget their sexism, sure Warner Brothers objectified women but they did it with tongue in cheek, while Disney ran seriously with stereotypes of women.

Dimentio

5th December 2007, 23:52

Originally posted by Psy+December 05, 2007 03:09 am--> (Psy @ December 05, 2007 03:09 am)
Everyday [email protected] 05, 2007 03:01 am
It doesn't promote monarchy, exactly, it just builds from the fanaticism and romance of beautiful princesses and charming princes.
By doing so instead of being propaganda for the capitalist class order (by say replacing the prince with a son of a powerful tycoo) it promotes the feudal class order. [/b]
Pretty Woman?

Although Pocahontas had some vaguely socialist messages.

Dimentio

5th December 2007, 23:56

Originally posted by Psy+December 05, 2007 03:41 pm--> (Psy @ December 05, 2007 03:41 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 06:40 am
I hardly think they're trying to restore a feudal order. I really don't know if anyone really actually wants feudalism to make a come back(if you know sites that promote this, DO send them my way, I have to see it myself!) Disney is focused more on the middle class. Its TV shows are mainly about the "common" problems children of middle class families come across in middle school and high school. It promotes the same aesthetics and standards that most media outlets promote but at a much younger audience. Perhaps you should focus on that instead?
One just has to look at companies like Disney lobbying the state to make copyright and patients indefinite to see capitalists see nothing wrong with the idea a economy being based on ownership instead of being based on capital as they have both. See Capitalists overthrew feudalism because lords owned the land, now capitalists own the land and either way they are the ruling class.

Back to my point the feudal powers of Europe would have loved Disney films as they promote their class order. I think one reason for this first is Disney is cheap they recycle stories from the feudalism feudal and thus recycle feudalistic propaganda as entertainment. But I do think it is more then that, Disney strategy is selling fantasies of obsolutes that is hard doing with capitalism with coming off as blatant (and Disney goal is not to make capitalist propaganda but simply to make tons of capital) yet going with feudalism works for Disney, if you look at their TV productions that is more grounded in capitalism it is not as absolute, they had problems not making Scrooge McDuck come off as a rich prick and it simply weird that Glomgold (The second richest duck) is painted as evil, I know they were going with the idea that only good people float to the top but second richest capitalists is still pretty good. Both spent most of their time treasure hunting kinda breaking the capitalist myth that holding property is hard work. Yet Dinsey TV productions don't aim for the same fantasy as the movies they aim for adventure which probably why Disney TV production don't both promoting feudalism. [/b]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:41 pm

[email protected] 05, 2007 06:40 am
I hardly think they're trying to restore a feudal order. I really don't know if anyone really actually wants feudalism to make a come back(if you know sites that promote this, DO send them my way, I have to see it myself!) Disney is focused more on the middle class. Its TV shows are mainly about the "common" problems children of middle class families come across in middle school and high school. It promotes the same aesthetics and standards that most media outlets promote but at a much younger audience. Perhaps you should focus on that instead?
One just has to look at companies like Disney lobbying the state to make copyright and patients indefinite to see capitalists see nothing wrong with the idea a economy being based on ownership instead of being based on capital as they have both. See Capitalists overthrew feudalism because lords owned the land, now capitalists own the land and either way they are the ruling class.

Back to my point the feudal powers of Europe would have loved Disney films as they promote their class order. I think one reason for this first is Disney is cheap they recycle stories from the feudalism feudal and thus recycle feudalistic propaganda as entertainment. But I do think it is more then that, Disney strategy is selling fantasies of obsolutes that is hard doing with capitalism with coming off as blatant (and Disney goal is not to make capitalist propaganda but simply to make tons of capital) yet going with feudalism works for Disney, if you look at their TV productions that is more grounded in capitalism it is not as absolute, they had problems not making Scrooge McDuck come off as a rich prick and it simply weird that Glomgold (The second richest duck) is painted as evil, I know they were going with the idea that only good people float to the top but second richest capitalists is still pretty good. Both spent most of their time treasure hunting kinda breaking the capitalist myth that holding property is hard work. Yet Dinsey TV productions don't aim for the same fantasy as the movies they aim for adventure which probably why Disney TV production don't both promoting feudalism.
Americans love feudalism because they have never experienced real feudalism. They feel a lack of continuency and safety which they falsely interpret being based on a lack of morality.

Also, the only thing that Americans feel is exotic about Europe is it's monarchies. They have always travelled to Sweden just to see the king.

[img]http://missionxp.webblogg.se/images/king_carl_xvi_gustaf_1146407355.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

w0lf

6th December 2007, 02:16

Are you serious? Little girls like to watch princess movies..

Psy

6th December 2007, 02:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:15 am
Are you serious? Little girls like to watch princess movies..
Do they really like to watch princess movies or does Disney market this to them? Do you think Disney would tell the same stories in a post revolutionary America?

counterblast

6th December 2007, 05:11

Why are the Disney princesses doomed to an eternity as "second in command"?

And will there ever be a Disney queen that isn't the villain?
(ie: Ursula (Little Mermaid), Queen Maleficent (Sleeping Beauty), The Queen of Hearts (Alice in Wonderland), the queen (Snow White)?)

Psy

6th December 2007, 05:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 05:10 am
Why are the Disney princesses doomed to an eternity as "second in command"?

And will there ever be a Disney queen that isn't the villain?
(ie: Ursula (Little Mermaid), Queen Maleficent (Sleeping Beauty), The Queen of Hearts (Alice in Wonderland), the queen (Snow White)?)
Well in Lion King there was Sarabi (Queen under King Mufasa), then Nala (Queen under Simba) that rallied the lionesses instead fighting Scar even though she always seems to beat Simba in a fight so odds are she would have handled Scar in a fight better then Simba (and she didn't suggest to Simba that she should fight scar instead due to her being a better fighter). But they were all second in command as queen under the king.

As for why I would guess that Disney is simply sexist.

Dimentio

6th December 2007, 13:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 05:10 am
Why are the Disney princesses doomed to an eternity as "second in command"?

And will there ever be a Disney queen that isn't the villain?
(ie: Ursula (Little Mermaid), Queen Maleficent (Sleeping Beauty), The Queen of Hearts (Alice in Wonderland), the queen (Snow White)?)
Female rulers are always more controversial than male rulers in our history.

But the female rulers with the worst reputation has always been those who have been second-in-command to their husband but yet played a prominent role in government. They often get the blame for all unpopular decisions.

Just look at Theodora (wife of emperor Justinian), or for that matter Hillary Clinton (who somehow magically is "evil" because she did not freak out during the Lewinsky affair).

The myth of the evil female ruler is prevalent in our culture.

w0lf

6th December 2007, 20:47

Originally posted by Psy+December 06, 2007 02:53 am--> (Psy @ December 06, 2007 02:53 am)
[email protected] 06, 2007 02:15 am
Are you serious? Little girls like to watch princess movies..
Do they really like to watch princess movies or does Disney market this to them? Do you think Disney would tell the same stories in a post revolutionary America? [/b]
Disney markets it, but little girls can choose to watch something else, there's no gun to their head.

Psy

6th December 2007, 20:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 08:46 pm
Disney markets it, but little girls can choose to watch something else, there's no gun to their head.
I think you underestimate the power of marketing especially to the young. If adults are susceptible to propaganda then what makes you think kids can simply take propaganda aimed at them as a suggestion?

w0lf

6th December 2007, 21:22

Originally posted by Psy+December 06, 2007 08:50 pm--> (Psy @ December 06, 2007 08:50 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2007 08:46 pm
Disney markets it, but little girls can choose to watch something else, there's no gun to their head.
I think you underestimate the power of marketing especially to the young. If adults are susceptible to propaganda then what makes you think kids can simply take propaganda aimed at them as a suggestion? [/b]
Good point comrade, But I think if a little girl says she wants to be a princess she just wants to live in a big mansion and wear big dresses. I don't think she dreams of being killing people for disagreement with her or the like. But yes, monarchism is wrong.

Psy

6th December 2007, 21:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:21 pm
Good point comrade, But I think if a little girl says she wants to be a princess she just wants to live in a big mansion and wear big dresses. I don't think she dreams of being killing people for disagreement with her or the like.
But Disney doesn't portray that, Disney portrays class reproduction through blood lines (in other world minimal class mobility). In the movies where you have a commoner marrying royalty the commoner has to win over royalty to prove to them they are worthy. Also that the class system is right and proper and any plot against the class order is evil and a happy ending is the restoring of the class order. Take Lion King for example where the idea overthrowing Scar never crossed anyone till they found Simba (the true King) was not dead, even when Sarabi comes to tell Scar there is no more food she simply tells him instead of mustering up a revolution in response to the lack of food.

Angry Young Man

13th December 2007, 16:52

I read that Walt Disney's dad was a staunch socialist.

Despite this fact, Walt Disney was a savage fascist. What he fails to recognise is that nobody should be king. Not even Simba.

Psy

15th December 2007, 19:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 04:51 pm
I read that Walt Disney's dad was a staunch socialist.

Despite this fact, Walt Disney was a savage fascist. What he fails to recognise is that nobody should be king. Not even Simba.
Walt Disney was pretty dead by the time Lion King went into production (him being frozen is a myth, he was cremated).

black magick hustla

16th December 2007, 20:22

jesus christ people, some of you have been reading too much into bullshit, liberal gender and cultural theory.

disney's movies are generally based on old folklore stories, there is no "agenda" behind it.

Psy

16th December 2007, 21:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:21 pm
jesus christ people, some of you have been reading too much into bullshit, liberal gender and cultural theory.

disney's movies are generally based on old folklore stories, there is no "agenda" behind it.
So you suggesting Disney movies promote sexism, racism, imperialism, monarchism and consumerism by accident? Disney's Tarzan took blacks out of Africa (that existed in early Tarzan movies), Pocahontas makes imperialism look like a misunderstand and the result of corruption below the monarchy (as the monarchy is above having such flaws). In The Lion King even when there is a looming famine there was no attempt at revolution because Scar was next in line thus only the return of Simba solved the problems. Beauty And The Beast is sexist as Belle excuses the abuse of the beast that is simply a sexist message since our society has problems of wife abuse and women shouldn't be learning to simply take and their husband will eventual change.

These only a few more examples.

black magick hustla

17th December 2007, 07:22

Originally posted by Psy+December 16, 2007 09:32 pm--> (Psy @ December 16, 2007 09:32 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 08:21 pm
jesus christ people, some of you have been reading too much into bullshit, liberal gender and cultural theory.

disney's movies are generally based on old folklore stories, there is no "agenda" behind it.
So you suggesting Disney movies promote sexism, racism, imperialism, monarchism and consumerism by accident? Disney's Tarzan took blacks out of Africa (that existed in early Tarzan movies), Pocahontas makes imperialism look like a misunderstand and the result of corruption below the monarchy (as the monarchy is above having such flaws). In The Lion King even when there is a looming famine there was no attempt at revolution because Scar was next in line thus only the return of Simba solved the problems. Beauty And The Beast is sexist as Belle excuses the abuse of the beast that is simply a sexist message since our society has problems of wife abuse and women shouldn't be learning to simply take and their husband will eventual change.

These only a few more examples. [/b]
disney's movies were a product of a chauvinist, sexist society but there isnt any agenda behind it. its not like the director where thinking "heh we should promote imperialism" or whatever

RedStaredRevolution

18th December 2007, 21:10

Marmots right. A lot of disney stories are based off of fairy tales written hundreds of years ago in feudal times. Sure there are some other ones that they came up with on their own but the vast majority of them (Cinderella, Snow White, Little Mermaid, Pinocchio, Aladin, etc.) were written back before there was full blown capitalism, if any capitalism at all. They probably just chose these stories because these are the stories children have grown up with for generations so it obviously appeals to a lot of people, thus making a lot of money.

Psy

18th December 2007, 22:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 09:09 pm
Marmots right. A lot of disney stories are based off of fairy tales written hundreds of years ago in feudal times. Sure there are some other ones that they came up with on their own but the vast majority of them (Cinderella, Snow White, Little Mermaid, Pinocchio, Aladin, etc.) were written back before there was full blown capitalism, if any capitalism at all. They probably just chose these stories because these are the stories children have grown up with for generations so it obviously appeals to a lot of people, thus making a lot of money.
Look at Lion King, even the 1966 Kimba was less monarchical (and the later versions even less so). When Kimba returned to Africa few cared he was royalty (really it didn't come up much), most people followed him because he earned their respect (he regularly puts his life on the line to save everybody else) and Kimba was fighting for a society in Africa were all animals and humans could life together as equals.

In Lion King Simba becomes king just because he is the next in line and tosses Scar over a cliff.

If we look at Hamlet (which is the bases of the story) it does not promote monarchy, Hamlet actually portrays monarchies as backstabbing and greedy. While Disney rewrote the story into Monarchical propaganda.

Lion King is only one example.

RevMARKSman

18th December 2007, 22:46

Originally posted by Psy+December 18, 2007 05:24 pm--> (Psy @ December 18, 2007 05:24 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 09:09 pm
Marmots right. A lot of disney stories are based off of fairy tales written hundreds of years ago in feudal times. Sure there are some other ones that they came up with on their own but the vast majority of them (Cinderella, Snow White, Little Mermaid, Pinocchio, Aladin, etc.) were written back before there was full blown capitalism, if any capitalism at all. They probably just chose these stories because these are the stories children have grown up with for generations so it obviously appeals to a lot of people, thus making a lot of money.
Look at Lion King, even the 1966 Kimba was less monarchical (and the later versions even less so). When Kimba returned to Africa few cared he was royalty (really it didn't come up much), most people followed him because he earned their respect (he regularly puts his life on the line to save everybody else) and Kimba was fighting for a society in Africa were all animals and humans could life together as equals.

In Lion King Simba becomes king just because he is the next in line and tosses Scar over a cliff.

If we look at Hamlet (which is the bases of the story) it does not promote monarchy, Hamlet actually portrays monarchies as backstabbing and greedy. While Disney rewrote the story into Monarchical propaganda.

Lion King is only one example. [/b]
It's not propaganda. Everyone turns nostalgic for a previous social order when a new one comes around, and people forget the bad things. Feudalism turned out a lot of stories, too, because there were a lot of wars over who ruled what. All stories thrive on conflict.

I seriously doubt Disney is really a pro-feudal conspiracy.

Psy

19th December 2007, 18:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:45 pm
It's not propaganda. Everyone turns nostalgic for a previous social order when a new one comes around, and people forget the bad things. Feudalism turned out a lot of stories, too, because there were a lot of wars over who ruled what. All stories thrive on conflict.

I seriously doubt Disney is really a pro-feudal conspiracy.

Compare Jungle Emperor (Kimba) to Lion King. Simba is king because he is the son of Mufasa, while the fact Leo (Kimba) is the farther of Panja (Caesar) plays little part in Jungle Emperor, others animals follow Leo because they choose to. Also in Lion King they stated Simba was arranged to be married to Nala while in Jungle Emperor Leo was not arranged to be married to Lyre they simply formed a relationship. The later animes turned Leo more into a leader then a king with Leo having even less influence over animals, even those allied with him.

It just seems Disney has a utopian view of Monarchy.

Sugar Hill Kevis

19th December 2007, 18:45

It's not in disney's economic interest to promote the idea of a monarchy - I mean many capitalist nations succeed perfectly with their gross thievery in the absence of the feudal vestige of monarchism... to disney it's irrelevant in the persuit of profit, it just really makes a nice tale which young kids will "awww" over... I doubt there's a monarchist conspiracy over the matte

Psy

19th December 2007, 19:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:44 pm
It's not in disney's economic interest to promote the idea of a monarchy - I mean many capitalist nations succeed perfectly with their gross thievery in the absence of the feudal vestige of monarchism... to disney it's irrelevant in the persuit of profit,

Well feudalism did offer one thing capitalism doesn't for the ruling class, property being based on lineage. Now that Disney has all these properties it has to still accumulate ever greater amount of capital just to keep the property it has, under feudalism Disney would simply have to state its lineage entitles it to its holding till the end of time regardless of how much capital is has.

it just really makes a nice tale which young kids will "awww" over... I doubt there's a monarchist conspiracy over the matter
One has to ask why Disney rewrites these tales, what does other studios don't seem to have the same utopian view of monarchy (unless they are trying to copy Disney)?

RedStaredRevolution

19th December 2007, 21:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:33 pm
It just seems Disney has a utopian view of Monarchy.
Or mabye a Romantic view of it, as does most of the world. People like hearing stories about kings, castles, knights, dragons and the like becuase it is so romanticised in our society.
Samurai have not existed since feudal japan but a lot of movies and cartoons glorify samurai. this doesnt mean the creators are trying to restore feudalism in the east, its just something that attracts peoples interests for some reason.

RedStaredRevolution

19th December 2007, 21:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:22 pm
One has to ask why Disney rewrites these tales, what does other studios don't seem to have the same utopian view of monarchy (unless they are trying to copy Disney)?
Rewrites the fairy tales that they make into movies? mabye because most of the original versions of fairy tales are pretty horrible and wouldent sell well to the children of today. when most of these stories were written they were intended to scare children into following the moral of the story. Disney puts a happier twist on it for marketablility reasons.

Sugar Hill Kevis

19th December 2007, 22:33

Originally posted by Psy+December 19, 2007 08:22 pm--> (Psy @ December 19, 2007 08:22 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 06:44 pm
It's not in disney's economic interest to promote the idea of a monarchy - I mean many capitalist nations succeed perfectly with their gross thievery in the absence of the feudal vestige of monarchism... to disney it's irrelevant in the persuit of profit,

Well feudalism did offer one thing capitalism doesn't for the ruling class, property being based on lineage. Now that Disney has all these properties it has to still accumulate ever greater amount of capital just to keep the property it has, under feudalism Disney would simply have to state its lineage entitles it to its holding till the end of time regardless of how much capital is has.ng to copy Disney)? [/b]
I didn't realise inheritance had been abolished?

Psy

19th December 2007, 23:09

Look at Kimba/Jungle Emperor that was made in Japan and you notice it doesn't really promote monarchy even though Kimba/Leo is of royal blood. He fights for equality and more just a leader, he puts his life on the line for everyone else and is not above pitching in doing work.

So in Kimba/Jungle Emperor you have a king in name only and earned his the loyalty of followers through his selfless actions and he doesn't exploit his position for his own person gain. While in Lion King everyone seems to only care about blood lines.

Why does Disney not romanticize the same way with kings being selfless and noble, instead Disney fantasies the class system and the privliges of a ruling monarchical class. Think about it, Disney creates this fantasy for girls to marry into the ruling class and becoming royalty, in Kimba/Jungle Emperor Lyra mostly falls in love with Leo more for being like a brave knight (with dreams of a just equal society that Lyra shares with Leo)

Psy

19th December 2007, 23:20

Originally posted by Kevis+December 19, 2007 10:32 pm--> (Kevis @ December 19, 2007 10:32 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:22 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 06:44 pm
It's not in disney's economic interest to promote the idea of a monarchy - I mean many capitalist nations succeed perfectly with their gross thievery in the absence of the feudal vestige of monarchism... to disney it's irrelevant in the persuit of profit,

Well feudalism did offer one thing capitalism doesn't for the ruling class, property being based on lineage. Now that Disney has all these properties it has to still accumulate ever greater amount of capital just to keep the property it has, under feudalism Disney would simply have to state its lineage entitles it to its holding till the end of time regardless of how much capital is has.ng to copy Disney)?
I didn't realise inheritance had been abolished? [/b]
Intellectual property expires and even then capitalism only guarantees ownership as long you can have enough capital to defend it. For example if Disney sales drop off capitalism forces Disney to sell off its property, where in feudalism this is not the case.

RedStaredRevolution

20th December 2007, 01:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:08 pm
Look at Kimba/Jungle Emperor that was made in Japan and you notice it doesn't really promote monarchy even though Kimba/Leo is of royal blood. He fights for equality and more just a leader, he puts his life on the line for everyone else and is not above pitching in doing work.

So in Kimba/Jungle Emperor you have a king in name only and earned his the loyalty of followers through his selfless actions and he doesn't exploit his position for his own person gain. While in Lion King everyone seems to only care about blood lines.

Why does Disney not romanticize the same way with kings being selfless and noble, instead Disney fantasies the class system and the privliges of a ruling monarchical class. Think about it, Disney creates this fantasy for girls to marry into the ruling class and becoming royalty, in Kimba/Jungle Emperor Lyra mostly falls in love with Leo more for being like a brave knight (with dreams of a just equal society that Lyra shares with Leo)
You keep using the same example over and over. You cant prove your point from 1 movie. There are a lot of movies made by Disney (made much more modernly) that have absolutely nothing about kings, monarchies, etc.

Yes Disney has some classic movies about marrying into royalty because thats how the stories went that they were based off of! They picked popular stories that a lot of people knew about to appeal to a bigger audience to make money, and it worked. Thats all there is too it. Disney was a douche bag but his movies arent promoting feudalism.

RaÃºl Duke

20th December 2007, 03:08

How about the Anastasia movie?

Psy

20th December 2007, 04:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:27 am
You keep using the same example over and over. You cant prove your point from 1 movie. There are a lot of movies made by Disney (made much more modernly) that have absolutely nothing about kings, monarchies, etc.

True but in the pictures where they do have monarchies they mostly tent to fantasize about royalty.

Yes Disney has some classic movies about marrying into royalty because thats how the stories went that they were based off of! They picked popular stories that a lot of people knew about to appeal to a bigger audience to make money, and it worked. Thats all there is too it. Disney was a douche bag but his movies arent promoting feudalism.
Remember Disney is selling these as fantasies so you have to ask what is better. The fantasy of being part of a privileged class or the one of noble and selfless warriors? The latter is actually very common outside Disney, the whole damsel in distress bit is from tales of noble and selfless warriors, the fantasy of a knight to rescue is not about class and based on the ideal of the noble and selfless warrior.

Psy

20th December 2007, 05:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:07 am
How about the Anastasia movie?
Well Anastasia is not a Disney movie but it was a attempt to copy the success of Disney. Here again monarchy is romanticized, Anastasia finds out she is royalty and Dimitri is a ex-servant turned con man only concerning himself with accumulating capital (even if through a trickery) that abandons the pursuit of capital to be with Anastasia.

RaÃºl Duke

20th December 2007, 05:16

I have a feeling that maybe we might find out that disney movies are what makes americans (from US) so "kiss ass" to foreign royalty of past and present (I talked about be-heading the czar and they say why? Well duh, he's a tyrant. They thought we shouldn't be "so cruel."; although they have actually done much worse. :rolleyes: )

Kitskits

22nd December 2007, 22:19

Contrary to what some people believe here, I believe this is an excellent thread.

Don't misunderstand, I hate idiotic conspiracy theories, I used to be a conspiracy theorist-idiot. The awe and respect for paranoia is a big pile of bull#%% and I only realized it some years ago. However, some things have to be taken seriously. Disney has a huge effect on kids and therefore society.

I have thought about this many times and I sincerely think that Disney, intentionally or not, is a huge propaganda tank. For example, do a comparison with Warner Bros. In warner there is no morally "bad" person. The one possibly conceived as bad are doing what they are doing for logical reasons. 100% logical, the coyote wants to eat, so he chases the roadrunner. Same with Sylvester (sorry for incorrect spelling). In Disney we see that the "bad" elements are fully surreal and irrational. This stinks of christian moral etc propaganda. The "bad" elements in disney are just evil for the sake of evil. The robbers (I don't remember their name) in Donald Duck are just plain evil for no apparent reason than evil itself and want to rob the private property of Scroodge. As you see I extend in more than monarchy propaganda. Ok now, we see the full identification of robbery, a manifestation of class antagonism, with evil. Seems to me like those christians that claim that the morally wrong actions, according to THEIR morality, are because of Satan's commands. No scientific logical explaination, just that mighty Satan orders and so evil people obey.

It seems to me that every sane open-minded person can see this reactionary thinking in Disney. Cinderella is one huge example of the fascist thinking dominating modern society. Poor girls, never mentioned as product of the capitalist system, wait for their prince to be saved. The question I raise is this: "What if the prince never comes?" which is the 90% of the situation. What if the darwinism which applies in humans sees one girl as ugly and not worthy of attention? Then the prince never comes and she is thrown to the garbage. This is disney, like every fascist does an optimistic propaganda "they will come to save you from nowhere", but what about the outsiders of life? This is not mentioned anywhere.

Sorry if sometimes I got over-emotional, thank you for reading.

Psy

29th December 2007, 18:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:18 pm
It seems to me that every sane open-minded person can see this reactionary thinking in Disney. Cinderella is one huge example of the fascist thinking dominating modern society. Poor girls, never mentioned as product of the capitalist system, wait for their prince to be saved. The question I raise is this: "What if the prince never comes?" which is the 90% of the situation. What if the darwinism which applies in humans sees one girl as ugly and not worthy of attention? Then the prince never comes and she is thrown to the garbage. This is disney, like every fascist does an optimistic propaganda "they will come to save you from nowhere", but what about the outsiders of life? This is not mentioned anywhere.
Speaking about that in Disney's Aladdin princess Jasmine was unhappy with princes trying to win her hand in marriage and sneaked out of the palace where she meets the thief Aladdin, the movie point out the class system prevents Jasmine from marrying out of her class (and she was unhappy with the princes the class system produced) and at the end boil all this down to a law that prevents royalty from marrying lower classes as the only problem and not the feudal class system that prevented Aladdin from even being in the palace before he was a prince.

Yes capitalism also has a class system but capitalism wants to keep its class system hidden so it is pretty safe for capitalist propaganda to bash the feudal class system.

Also note the movie points out that Aladdin is seen as special by the cave that protected the lamp simply because Aladdin was Aladdin. So instead of having Aladdin using skills to retrieve the lamp by avoiding traps (he is pretty good at avoiding the palace guards), the movie just states Aladdin is chosen by some mystical force to have the lamp. Going back to Lion King, Simba didn't really have much skills as a fighter as the movie pointed out Scar was far from a skilled fighter, so here again Disney says skills are not important as class.

Psy

1st June 2008, 19:35

I have thought about this many times and I sincerely think that Disney, intentionally or not, is a huge propaganda tank. For example, do a comparison with Warner Bros. In warner there is no morally "bad" person. The one possibly conceived as bad are doing what they are doing for logical reasons. 100% logical, the coyote wants to eat, so he chases the roadrunner. Same with Sylvester (sorry for incorrect spelling)

I know this is much later but I though I'd add that WB poked fun at capitalism.

IE in "To Russia with Lab Mice" (Pinky and the Brain)

Pinky:"..Russia is if full of cheating, lying and backstabbing intrigue"

Brain: "The cold war is over Pinky, todays Russia is full of the spirit of free market capitalism"

Pinky: "What is free market capitalism?"

Brain: "uh well, cheating, lying and backstabbing intrigue"

Then you have mentions of unions in WB cartoons for example in "Frontier Slappy" (Animaniacs) Slappy squirrel unionized the oxen team of Daniel Boone, the unionized oxen then beat Daniel Boone with their picket signs, walking away with the line "management".

DropZoneRecords

2nd June 2008, 15:23

Disney is racist and sexist, it also promotes greed and all round rather perverted, not the kinda things kids should be watching.

Plagueround

2nd June 2008, 19:12

I always figured Disney was just lazy and didn't come up with ideas for movies, so they borrowed from old school fairy tales. Even their "original" movies are derived and reworked fairy tales.

Bear MacMillan

2nd June 2008, 23:13

I think Disney has been more rascist than feudalist.
They promote childish and ignorant views of certain ethnic groups:

Native Americans in Peter Pan:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_at9dOElQk)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_at9dOElQk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_at9dOElQk)

Black People in Song of The South (This movie is set in the post civil war Southern states:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ak4vjiNzw)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ak4vjiNzw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ak4vjiNzw)
This movie has never been released on home video, I wonder why?:rolleyes:
Also, at the film's release in 1946, the man who played the "Uncle Remus"(the black character in the video), wasn't allowed into the premier.

and Arabs in Alladin:

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPUAhSGZtvU)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPUAhSGZtvU
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPUAhSGZtvU)

Psy

3rd June 2008, 00:17

I always figured Disney was just lazy and didn't come up with ideas for movies, so they borrowed from old school fairy tales. Even their "original" movies are derived and reworked fairy tales.
Lion King is mostly the anime series "Kimba the White Lion" bastardized into a Disneyesque fairy tale. They went out of their way to go from Kimba that was a leader because he was a noble fighter that fought for progressive ideals (including organizing a collective farm in one) to Simba that is no fighter (it is established Nala is a better fighter then Simba yet Simba is the one the faces Scar). Also unlike Kimba that fights for a better future, Simba only fights for the status quo

Disney Saturday Morning cartoons seems more aimed at carrying the capitalist line.

Disney had:

Shere Khan basically owned the city state of Cape Suzette in TaleSpin
Scrooge McDuck that seems to own most of the world, but acts less of a capitalists then Shere Khan as McDuck goes around finding treasure while Shere Khan is only seen working the capitalist mode of production to enrich himself.

Yet Disney normalizes the fact that you have a single capitalists in their shows that basically owns everything. You also didn't see the same poking fun at capitalists in Disney cartoons like other studios did for example WB had:

Montana Max that was a rich brat in Tiny Toon Adventures
Plotz the incompetent CEO of Warner Brothers in Animaniacs

Lector Malibu

3rd June 2008, 01:36

This is a good thread. Yes Walt Disney was as claimed.

And Look Hitler liked him. Saw That one coming :rolleyes:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1579629/Did-Adolf-Hitler-draw-Disney-characters.html

I will say this though. These movies where made a very long time ago. I agree though these are not suitable to be shown to children or anymore for that matter.

Dust Bunnies

11th June 2008, 22:37

I don't think Disney is some super propaganda machine or anything. We're looking at this too much, there are better things to theorize about.

Psy

12th June 2008, 01:24

I don't think Disney is some super propaganda machine or anything. We're looking at this too much, there are better things to theorize about.
So it is just a coincidence other studios made fun of monarchs and capitalists while Disney put them a pedestal? Just a coincidence that Disney with The Lion King watered Kimba the White Lion far more then NBC did in 1966 to the point Lion King carries none of the progressive story line of Kimba?

trivas7

12th June 2008, 01:56

I don't agree. I love Disney for its visuals, but just about everything they've ever produced teaches bourgeois values.

Chapter 24

12th June 2008, 21:33

Dust Bunnies

12th June 2008, 21:42

So it is just a coincidence other studios made fun of monarchs and capitalists while Disney put them a pedestal? Just a coincidence that Disney with The Lion King watered Kimba the White Lion far more then NBC did in 1966 to the point Lion King carries none of the progressive story line of Kimba?

They simplified it so children of that era (90s) would want it/ get it. Kings and fantasy are big things for little kids, having the entire noble and right VS wrong may be too complex for them. Walt and his successors wanted money not feudalism.

Psy

12th June 2008, 23:14

Really?

There's actually concern over whether or not Disney promotes feudalism?

Many of their movies may have plots relating to the concept of kings, queens, princes, and princesses, but so what? Lion King is a childhood memory for me, I'll continue to deny enjoying all the other crap I watched as a youngster, but that movie was just epic in a way no other movie has been.

I also found Lion King epic when I was young, then I saw the 1966 Kimba and later saw the more matureJapanese Anime versions of Kimba and saw that Lion Kimba was very shallow.

Kimba fought for a better world, many times putting others above his own survival.

Simba fought to reclaim his place on the thrown.

Are we really in a position to question whether or not kids are supposedly going to take feudal ideas and thought from movies about "royalty"? What we should be concerned about is when these kids grow up and learn about how politics are done in their country, thinking they can change things by voting for a different representative to make decisions "in their own interest" every few years.

Before we can counter propaganda, we have to be able to recognize propaganda.

They simplified it so children of that era (90s) would want it/ get it. Kings and fantasy are big things for little kids, having the entire noble and right VS wrong may be too complex for them. Walt and his successors wanted money not feudalism.
That underestimating the intelligence of children. Also what about other studio's? What about Warner Brother "Iron Giant"? Or Don Buth's "Secret of NIMH"?

Dust Bunnies

13th June 2008, 00:33

Haven't seen both of the ones you've stated, but I still firmly believe you all are over thinking this. Lets say you're baking a pie for your mom, and then suddenly you walk away and it burns! For no reason it burns, is it Capitalist sabotage or just some part of life?

I greatly doubt that Walt and his successors wanted Feudalism back and was promoting it.

Psy

13th June 2008, 02:51

Haven't seen both of the ones you've stated,

You never seen Secret on NIMH!!!!! It is a classic.

but I still firmly believe you all are over thinking this. Lets say you're baking a pie for your mom, and then suddenly you walk away and it burns! For no reason it burns, is it Capitalist sabotage or just some part of life?

I greatly doubt that Walt and his successors wanted Feudalism back and was promoting it.
Actually if you look at Walt Disney pushing for its copyrights to never expire (and how Disney focuses on its old properties) Disney is trying for a pre-capitalist mode of production were it no longer has to produce new value and simply has to demand tributes for value already in the system.

Chapter 24

13th June 2008, 05:17

Before we can counter propaganda, we have to be able to recognize propaganda.

There's a difference between labeling something as 'propaganda' and actually recognizing it as such. The latter follows the former. But you have not given any sufficient evidence to support your claim that Disney movies propagate views of feudalism and medieval social structure to the young children that watch them. The idea of royalty in reality is not a pleasant one, but throughout the years one cannot deny that this idea of kings and queens has been a fundamental structure in many stories, both modern and historical.
Even if your view that Simba was a morally flawed character was true, that his decision-making ultimately led to putting his survival over others, the main point is that it NEVER happened. It's a fictional story. To claim Simba to be honorable or the antithesis as such is pointless. If Simba could be held as a legitimate representation of the ruling class of feudal society, what does this have to do with marketing propaganda to youth?
And in the "most definitely unlikely" scenario that Disney is using such marketing methods, so what? A young five year old girl wants to be a princess like those portrayed in their movies, so who cares? In years time she will have grown out of it. So any longterm effects in Disney's propagandic methods simply do not exist.

Psy

13th June 2008, 06:36

There's a difference between labeling something as 'propaganda' and actually recognizing it as such. The latter follows the former. But you have not given any sufficient evidence to support your claim that Disney movies propagate views of feudalism and medieval social structure to the young children that watch them. The idea of royalty in reality is not a pleasant one, but throughout the years one cannot deny that this idea of kings and queens has been a fundamental structure in many stories, both modern and historical.

Yes but other studios have mocked monarchies for decades while Disney has gone out of its way to project monarchies in a positive light. Newspapers have bias so why it so strange to say Disney has a bias?

Even if your view that Simba was a morally flawed character was true, that his decision-making ultimately led to putting his survival over others, the main point is that it NEVER happened. It's a fictional story. To claim Simba to be honorable or the antithesis as such is pointless.

If a studio was portraying capitalists like how Disney portrays monarchs most people would say that studio is making capitalist propaganda.

If Simba could be held as a legitimate representation of the ruling class of feudal society, what does this have to do with marketing propaganda to youth?

And in the "most definitely unlikely" scenario that Disney is using such marketing methods, so what? A young five year old girl wants to be a princess like those portrayed in their movies, so who cares? In years time she will have grown out of it. So any longterm effects in Disney's propagandic methods simply do not exist.
It starts kids into wanting to rule over inferior classes, it propagates the status quo making all that challenges the system as evil. The reason Disney made Simba was Kimba would be evil in Disney type stories, it would be in Kimba's character to fight Mufasa and Simba to bring equality.

Disney paints the world into black and white, Disney makes the ruling class always the side of good and everyone that challenges the ruling class is always evil just for the crime of upsetting the status quo.

Chapter 24

13th June 2008, 16:03

Disney sheds the ruling class in a positive light. Okay, fair enough. But at the same time they have singing animals and inanimate objects in their movies as well.
Take Anastasia. Not a Disney movie, but it's a fair example as it sheds the ruling class in a fair light. After all the Czar at least appears to be a decent character. Little kids who watch the movie won't remember that, trust me, I tried watching it pretty young and the only time I wasn't bored was when that albino bat thing voiced by Hank Azaria was saying or doing something.
Now that's just me, there might be other kids that choose to take it in that the Romanov family was good and had good intentions, and start advocating for the monarchy.
Here's my point: find one good real-life situation in which after watching one of their films, a child began to wanting to rule over inferior classes, as you said.

Psy

13th June 2008, 18:29

Disney sheds the ruling class in a positive light. Okay, fair enough. But at the same time they have singing animals and inanimate objects in their movies as well.

That have human characteristics, the USSR also used animals with human characteristics to project the values of the state.

Take Anastasia. Not a Disney movie, but it's a fair example as it sheds the ruling class in a fair light. After all the Czar at least appears to be a decent character. Little kids who watch the movie won't remember that, trust me, I tried watching it pretty young and the only time I wasn't bored was when that albino bat thing voiced by Hank Azaria was saying or doing something.
Now that's just me, there might be other kids that choose to take it in that the Romanov family was good and had good intentions, and start advocating for the monarchy.

Anastasia was trying to clone the Disney type movie on purpose yet Anastasia proved to be unprofitable, there was a time when many studios tried to out do Disney but then their studios found the rate of profit for making type Disney stories was too low to bother and since then Disney's competitors over the decades grew much larger then Disney.

Here's my point: find one good real-life situation in which after watching one of their films, a child began to wanting to rule over inferior classes, as you said.

It is not the case of a kid watching a single Disney film, it is being exposed to Disney stories over a long time.

Dust Bunnies

13th June 2008, 19:35

So a kid will continue watching Disney to teen hood, then too adulthood then want to take over the world and become King/Queen? I find this notion very ridiculous.

Psy

13th June 2008, 19:56

So a kid will continue watching Disney to teen hood, then too adulthood then want to take over the world and become King/Queen? I find this notion very ridiculous.
More like they are more accepting of authority figures and have less expectations of authority figures to justify their position. This also means if/when they are in authority they simply expect people to follow them because they are in a position of authority.

Dust Bunnies

13th June 2008, 23:08

Then they get a smack in the face when they are in authority that not everyone follows the leader.

ckaihatsu

14th June 2008, 05:47

So a kid will continue watching Disney to teen hood, then too adulthood then want to take over the world and become King/Queen? I find this notion very ridiculous.

The overall point here -- and it's a Marxist / materialist point -- is that *all* cultural products, along with our upbringing, are what shapes our perceptions of the greater social world. Even as adults we're not simply handed a map or a single book or something that says: "Okay, all the bullshit's over, *here's* your perfect guide to how the world works."

In other words, we're *always* absorbing, learning, and hopefully thinking about the world around us and how to make our way in it -- that goes for children as well as adults.

If it weren't for science and Marxism and such we'd be even *worse* off -- as many are -- in dealing with the cultural influences that surround us in modern society.

Would kids be more likely to want to be architects if they lived in a city of skyscrapers? Yes.

Would girls be more likely to play the role of the maiden and look for a prince to sweep them off their feet if they read and watched nothing but romance-type stuff in books and TV shows? Yes.

Would over-privileged, white children raised in homogenous social environments be more likely to be racially insensitive and even racist if they only watched Disney-type stuff? Yes.

I think Disney has been more rascist than feudalist.
They promote childish and ignorant views of certain ethnic groups:

Native Americans in Peter Pan:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_at9dOElQk)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_at9dOElQk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_at9dOElQk)

Black People in Song of The South (This movie is set in the post civil war Southern states:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ak4vjiNzw)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ak4vjiNzw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ak4vjiNzw)
This movie has never been released on home video, I wonder why?:rolleyes:
Also, at the film's release in 1946, the man who played the "Uncle Remus"(the black character in the video), wasn't allowed into the premier.

and Arabs in Alladin:

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPUAhSGZtvU)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPUAhSGZtvU
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPUAhSGZtvU)

Chris

--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

Psy

22nd June 2008, 00:42

Then they get a smack in the face when they are in authority that not everyone follows the leader.

We live under capitalism, if you don't grovel for the bosses your are fired unless the other worker stick together and engage in class struggle in the work place.

redSHARP

22nd June 2008, 06:30

Lost In Translation

25th June 2008, 00:05

I really hate those Disney straight to DVD movies, or the TV movies (HSM, Hanna Montana). The animated movies Disney makes with Pixar are quite good (Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, etc. etc.)

Psy

6th July 2008, 20:48

lets not forget Disney white washing thier history. look up "disney" on youtube and half the stuff you get is clips that disney edited out of their "digital remastering" sets. his blatant racism and sexism has been edited conveniently for the youth. i am all for getting rid of stereotypes and insencitive stuff, but at least own up to it and apologize and teach why it is wrong. to sum up disney, i quote Family Guy (it might be wrong, but i looked for the actually clip but alias, could not).

walt disney awakes from being chronogenically frozen
scientist: welcome walt disney to the future!
walt disney: are the jews gone yet?
scientist: uhh no.
walt disney: put me back in!

Well look at WB shorts like:

Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarfs (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1pyaz_coal-black-and-de-sebben-dwarfs-194_music)

and

Goldilocks and the Jivin' Bears (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x43ltw_goldilocks-and-the-jivin-bears_shortfilms)

and they were taken out of circulation, so Walt Disney is not the only one with selective memory of their history.