Jim Henson and Kermit the Frog vs. Walt Disney and Mickey Mouse

Aleal

Active Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Hi! Just to address some of the Walt Disney questions, Disney the person (as opposed from the corporate entity *or* the "Uncle Walt" icon) was unquestionably a complex person. However, since books like "The Dark Prince" in the 1980s and other smears (to such an extent that the Disney Archives are now off-limit to even legitimate academics and researchers for fear of what strange interpretations and insults they may come up with, and not wanting to abet them) either stretch the facts or make up things to promote an agenda. Here's a few undisputed, easily verified facts. One, Disney hired many Jewish employees (and supposedly, even the much hated [by employees] Disney attorney Gunther Lessing, who had much to do with causing unrest at the studio and had a lot of influence with Walt, was Jewish), folks like Dick Huemer (who wrote "Dumbo") and tons more. As noted in earlier replies here, he almost certainly at one point or other made an anti-semitic joke (and there's the infamous early version of "The Three Little Pigs," in which the Big Bad Wolf is dressed like the standard "stage Jew" with a beard and hook nose and a Jewish accent, *but* this version was renaimated in the early 1940s, perhaps not coincidentally around the time of WWII; if Disney was a dedicated anti-semite as the rumors claim, one doubts he would correct his own works to reduce offense). Another is that Disney never hired African-Americans, again untrue; their limited presence at the studio early on was due mostly to the nature of the industry as a whole, the occasional "Mammy" or blackface gag was again standard at every cartoon studio at the time (and Disney ended it long before MGM did, which kept such gags up through the late 1940s) and "Song of the South" while troubling (in the live action parts anyway) is more naive and ill-conceived, with the omission of a card stating the time causing confusion (screenwriter Maurice Rapf urged such an inclusion to make it clear that this was post-war and that Remus and the others were *not* slaves) and intentionally or not, Uncle Remus is practically the only human character who is at all likable. But in general, and *especially* since "Song of the South" was after all a group effort, its problems and controversies cannot be construed as necessarily representing any pure, unfiltered views of Disney himself. It's also worth noting that James Baskett won a Special Academy Award for playing Uncle Remus, with the award noting the warmth and kindess and humanity of the portrayal; not the same as an achievement Oscar, but to put it in perspective, at that time the only African-American honored in any way by the Academy was Hattie McDaniel (also in "Song of the South") for Mammy in "Gone with the Wind."

A playwright who admits to being part of the "Walt is evil and must be discredited" play wrote a bizarre and fanciful play (which he claimed was based at least partially on known facts) in which Walt Disney goes to Germany and meets with Adolf Hitler and they admire each other. This not only stretches the anti-Semitism claim to its limit, but ignores the many anti-Hitler cartoons ("Der Fuehrer's Face," anyone?) produced at the Disney studio during this time (which the playwright just tries to ignore).

Now, Disney was not perfect. One aspect which is widely and irrevocably proven, yet oddly ignored by the mudslingers, was his testimony before the House of Unamerican Activities Committee during the McCarthy era. Disney's politics tended towards the right-wing and became more so with time, and the studio strike of 1941 hurt Disney personally (since yes, he himself tended to think of his studio as a "family") and instead of looking at the real causes (wage disparity especially for low-rung artists, lack of credits in the shorts for anyone but Walt, and other genuine problems at the studio) he became convinced that it was all a Communist conspiracy to destroy him and turn his faithful employees against him. Thus, when called to testify, Disney did not hesitate to name names of people he *considered* to be Communists, such as Dave Hilberman, and when asked why, he pointed out that "I know for a fact he has no religion, and he studied art at the University of Moscow." The full text of this testimony is widely available (including a book from the University Press of Mississippi, "Walt Disney: Conversations") and certainly leaves a bad taste. But while Disney's testimony ruined careers and in general was misleading, one can understand his perspective and his own belief that he was right and only protecting himself and others; it doesn't change what he did (and after key strike leader Art Babbitt was ousted but through legal action was able to return, Disney generally tended to be vindictive towards him) or make it less damaging, but it's basic human frailty and not "evil."

Disney had other proven quirks. He had an obsession with gags about fannies and chamber pots. He personally suggested a storyline in the Mickey Mouse newspaper strip in which Mickey attempts suicide but fails (his words, more or lessm when artist Floyd Gottfredson was shocked: "I think you could get a lot of funny stuff out of it.") He was a voracious eater of chili and would often annoy his wife, when she'd prepared a hot meal, by coming home full from grilled cheese sandwiches or some such. These and other incidents show that Disney was only human and could even be a bit strange at times, but they're not glamorous enough for the biographers and rumor mongers, so the frozen Walt and Walt the racist and other claims are trotted out. Jim Henson wasn't perfect either (fewer stuff is on the record and probably fewer incidents on the whole, but it is known that in his later years, Jim separated from but did not divorce Jane Henson and began dating around). But just because they were human and had failings or oddities (whether the one or two definitely known for Jim or the many for Disney) does not irrevocably change their overall endeavors to bring entertainment and happiness to the masses (with Jim, unlike Disney, we have far more documentation about his genuine warmth and philosophies, plus of course it was a smaller concern even at its peak, and his concerns over environmentalism and world peace and genuinely wanting to have an impact for good on this planet, and often succeeding), or the enjoyment one gets from their works. The fact that with Jim (and to a lesser extent with Walt) one has to dig to find genuine flaws or else make them up says a lot (I think it also stems from the notion that, since Disney made things "only for children," he had to be a saint and if he wasn't everything he touched is a corrupting influence, or whatever).

Finally, a link which could be amusing or even touching per the title topic:
http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Mickey_Mouse
 

Super Scooter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2002
Messages
6,255
Reaction score
109
Hiya, Andrew!

Thanks for posting that about Disney. I read his wiki page, and I was more shocked about his accusations of communism than anything else. Understandable for the times, I suppose. Nice to have something posted here showing he was most likely not anti-semitic, though.
 

wwfpooh

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
5,424
Reaction score
64
Hiya, Andrew!

Thanks for posting that about Disney. I read his wiki page, and I was more shocked about his accusations of communism than anything else. Understandable for the times, I suppose. Nice to have something posted here showing he was most likely not anti-semitic, though.
Yeah. Walt was just supseptible--as any human would be--to society's pressures within the time period presented.
 

Vic Romano

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
5,161
Reaction score
86
Wow, Aleal! What a report! Thanks for sharing, I enjoyed it.

I think what it all comes down to, and I realize I'm repeating myself and others, is that the world has changed so incredibly much. We are so saturated and over filled with political correctness and the extreme measures corporations and individuals go to to keep from offending anyone is just so different then what it was like just twenty years ago, let alone fifty or sixty. Simply products of their environment, the language and mannerisms of the day would make most of our heads spin today. And while it's definitely a good thing that we have made so much progress in race and culture relations as well as addressing negative views and conversation, some times back then, language and even basic protocol weren't necessarily meant to be negative and offensive.

Simply put, it was a different time.
 

CensoredAlso

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
14,028
Reaction score
2,292
I think what it all comes down to, and I realize I'm repeating myself and others, is that the world has changed so incredibly much. We are so saturated and over filled with political correctness and the extreme measures corporations and individuals go to to keep from offending anyone is just so different then what it was like just twenty years ago, let alone fifty or sixty. Simply products of their environment, the language and mannerisms of the day would make most of our heads spin today. And while it's definitely a good thing that we have made so much progress in race and culture relations as well as addressing negative views and conversation, some times back then, language and even basic protocol weren't necessarily meant to be negative and offensive.

Simply put, it was a different time.
Very true! We're all annoyed at political correctness right now (and rightfully so, hehe), but we don't realize how good we have it nowadays. If you watch movies from the '30s, and learn about what society was like, you see things were much less united between different groups. That's why the Civil Rights movement of the '60s was so incredible and groundbreaking. It was the big step of people attempting to come together. And today our society is a much more tolerant and friendly place than it was years ago. It's not perfect of course, but it's still worth noting how far we've come. :smile:
 

Vic Romano

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
5,161
Reaction score
86
That's why the Civil Rights movement of the '60s was so incredible and groundbreaking. It was the big step of people attempting to come together. And today our society is a much more tolerant and friendly place than it was years ago. It's not perfect of course, but it's still worth noting how far we've come. :smile:
And it never will be perfect, racism will always be a very real and ugly part of humanity. The problem I have with our "purest of pure methods of political correction and the appease til' you're diseased mentality" is that it is creating a very faceless and empty and cynical populace. I fear that we're trying to completely eliminate diversity (a very good thing) with complete and total uniformity. Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with stating that you are proud to be black or proud to be white, or proud to be Hispanic, or proud to be Jewish, or proud to be gay. The problem is that in excersizing our pride, in this "NO TOLERANCE" society we're creating, someone will inevitably become enraged by such statements because they believe that "I'm proud to be fill-in-the-blank", means "I am superior to you", which should not be the case. Granted we have ignorant chimps who do state pride for the purposes of cultural superiority, but those are the fools that we need to ignore.

Giving up pride in heritage and who you are erases individuality and creativity. What we need to do is accept tolerance and pride in our fellow man as well as ourselves, rather then try a quick fix to make everyone happy— a pipe dream that will never come true.
 

CensoredAlso

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
14,028
Reaction score
2,292
It's true, people find it easier to be politically correct than to actually practice tolerance and equality. Contrary to popular perception, tolerance does not mean agreeing with people. It means being nice to others even when you disagree with them.
 

wwfpooh

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
5,424
Reaction score
64
It's true, people find it easier to be politically correct than to actually practice tolerance and equality. Contrary to popular perception, tolerance does not mean agreeing with people. It means being nice to others even when you disagree with them.
Indeed. Tolerance means being tolerant of your own differences and those of others & being respectful towards those with differences. ^_^
 
Top