Now there isn’t an official “ban” on the movie perse but “Disney has taken it upon themselves to withhold this movie from the public”

Apparently the NAACP dissaproved the film because how it portrayed “African Americans” after the Civil War.

The movie:
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2BtjW7PW2z0[/video]

I watched it again the other day and it’s great, but I can’t find a copy to buy. So do you think Disney should re release the movie publicly on DVD etc?

Don’t know.

I haven’t seen it 😉

If it was considered racist and politically incorrect in the 1940’s can you imagine how people in 2013 would react?

They’d barely be able to cope. Heads would be exploding. Daily Mail would go into outrage overdrive.

Top Gear can’t even suggest that Mexicans are lazy as a bit of a joke without everyone pretending to be unbelievably offended.

i quite liked it still remember the songs, cant say i recall it being racist as an innocent babe though

Why have you put African Americans in quotes?

Don’t believe in banning stuff.
Release it, but explain the context.
Use it to show how far we’ve (hopefully) moved on.

See also The Dambusters, Mark Twain etc.

We get a bit close to 1984 when we start pretending that the past didn’t exist.

It’d be hard to be in 1984 if the past didn’t exist.

See also The Dambusters,

Why?
Is the Dambusters racist?

Why?
Is the Dambusters racist?

Dog is called n****r

number?

Yes. Racist.

Why have you put African Americans in quotes?

To draw attention to it.

The movie portrays blacks in a positive light, they’re kind, caring, generous and wise. I guess that explains why the NAACP dont object to blacks in many modern movies being portrayed as ignorant gangsters filled with a deep seated violent hatred. 😈

I don’t think the movie was made with an intended racism, it was just attached to it afterwards due to an overbearing oversensitive sense of white guilt.

It is essentially a cheery old man telling kids stories. Interracial kids playing and enjoying each other’s company. A white child with a black man as a role model. A white child who nearly kills himself to stop his beloved black friend from moving away. Goofy cartoon animals acting out a story and teaching lessons, also the antagonists are two white children.

Shame on those who would declare this unfit for todays children.

If you want racism from Disney then you can do much better than this.
For example try Nazi Donald Duck;

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpgSYbrw09g[/video]

Seems to be that it has just never been rereleased as opposed to be being banned but that doesn’t sound as dramatic.

grum – Member
Why?
Is the Dambusters racist?

Dog is called n****r

The word ****, was not considered in any way a pejorative term until round about the 1960’s/1970’s in the UK. Even then it was really only to do with what was going on the the US of A rather than what was going on here.

In fact the word is a derivation of the Latin noun, Niger, which literally means black. Nothing more and nothing less. So calling your black Labrador ****, really isn’t much more than a word play.

Unfortunately, much like the word Gay, its been hijacked and given all sorts of connotations which weren’t there originally. Presumably, as an excuse for PC retards to leap about and make stupid statements without understanding either the historical context or reality.

The word ****, was not considered in any way a pejorative term until round about the 1960’s/1970’s in the UK. Even then it was really only to do with what was going on the the US of A rather than what was going on here.

In fact the word is a derivation of the Latin noun, Niger, which literally means black. Nothing more and nothing less. So calling your black Labrador ****, really isn’t much more than a word play.

Yes I know.

Unfortunately, much like the word Gay, its been hijacked and given all sorts of connotations which weren’t there originally. Presumably, as an excuse for PC retards to leap about and make stupid statements without understanding either the historical context or reality.

Might I suggest a strongly worded letter to the Daily Mail, or perhaps Richard Littlejohn at The Sun?

Yes – so the dog was called ****. The over tone of the film has nothing to do with racism …
**** wasn’t seen as a racist term in 1940’s when Guy Gibson had his dog …

I should think the reason why Disney refuse to release the film is because it is patronising “Uncle Tom” stuff

Before getting in a long and drawn out debate over whether **** is , or isn’t ok to use, bear this in mind. The english language is a subtle one and relies on context for it’s full effect.

I used to work with a colleague who always addressed her best mates as “oi, you old slapper”. I was big enough and wise enough to realise that this was not a greeting that should be adopted by me, when I actually met them.
Berm Bandit, apply the same to the world **** – it needs no debate. If you are attempting to denigrate someone by using it, or are just pain ignorant, don’t. It’s origins have nothing to do with it.

Zippa-dee-doo-dah

I can’t remember it being racist watching it as a wean.

But then Disney have a habit of putting all their films on fairly limited release to generate demand, maybe this is the reason

**** wasn’t seen as a racist term in 1940’s when Guy Gibson had his dog …

By who? White people? Or were black folk ok with it too?

By who? White people? Or were black folk ok with it too?

Babylon, the power that be, The Man.
So I would guess that would be white, public school and upper middle class/upper class

I don’t think anyone black has seen it as being a term of endearment …

Unfortunately, much like the word Gay, its been hijacked and given all sorts of connotations which weren’t there originally. Presumably, as an excuse for PC retards to leap about and make stupid statements without understanding either the historical context or reality.

You sound like you want to be able use the word in company, which is an odd thing to want

As mentioned above – the film is most likely not released because of the whole “uncle Tom” thing, which is far more significant in the us than here.

Disney’s reluctance to market it in the USA is not a reaction to an alleged threat by the NAACP to boycott Disney products. The NAACP fielded objections to Song of the South when it premiered, but it has no current position on the movie.

http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/sots.asp
Bit more context about why people objected to the film on that page.

If you want it released, best write to Disney and let consumer demand sort it out, rather than posting on an MTB forum, I guess?

Jesus, the OP is trying really hard to pretend to be outraged that he can’t buy a copy of some ancient kids’ movie because Teh Blacks have BANNED it.

an overbearing oversensitive sense of white guilt.

Yeah, this is totes what America is like.

Berm Bandit, apply the same to the world **** – it needs no debate. If you are attempting to denigrate someone by using it, or are just pain ignorant, don’t.

If you read what I wrote, in the context that I wrote it, what I said was that the actual fact (well documented) that Guy Gibson had a dog called ****, at a time when that word did not, in this country, carry the racist overtones that it does now, and the fact that, that was accurately reflected in a film also made at a time then the word did not carry, in this country, the racist overtones that it does now, does not make the film, the Dambusters, racist. In fact to try to pretend that it is out of some warped sense of political correctness is if anything gravitating straight into the hands of people like Nick Griffin, who no doubt would love to jump onto a situation whereby a national war hero was branded a racist by some “loonie leftys”.

That is not to say that if similar circumstances were to occur now, and say for example Prince Harry had a Black Labrador and it called the same thing, that that would be acceptable. See the difference?

Good, now move along theres nothing to get on your high horse about here.

Erm, I think I said that in my original post, assuming you actually read it, so do keep up. Or does you saying it make it different?

However , I don’t think that “****” has ever been acceptable term – just how “the establishment” dealt with it.
Not to sure if I am more concerned about the thought of Prince Harry getting a lab, or what he would call it.

mrmoofo: Fair one. I did read it, but didn’t really understand it in the way that you now describe it. My post is not actually aimed at anyone in particular, other than those in general who leap up and down and shout racist without any real concept or thought about what that means. You do indeed correctly state the point, i.e. denigrate. So soz that I misundertood your post, merely used it to illustrate the reason for responding.

Unfortunately, much like the word Gay, its been hijacked and given all sorts of connotations which weren’t there originally. Presumably, as an excuse for PC retards to leap about and make stupid statements without understanding either the historical context or reality.

If you want to be able to use the word gay to describe you’re happy or someone else is happy or similar it’s okay to use it. However if you want to use the word gay as in to describe something in a negative manner then it’s nothing to do with “PC Retards” it’s more to do with bigots.

Anyway, I’m more in favour of leaving things as they are and providing a context as if you whitewash the bad things, even those done relatively innocently, you cover them up. Only way to get rid of those bad things is to subject them to the full light of day.