Well, that's really the ultimate point here, isn't it? What certain gamers think and what Disney or SE do have very little correlation with one another. (I've learned that the hard way with this series, on many other subjects...) I doubt there would be any meaningful "controversy" that would materialize if the property appeared in KH. I'm referring to the real world, not pockets of the Internet or Twitter.
I'm sorry, but no it absolutely is not. While there are problems with Pocahontas, it doesn't glorify the denigration of Native Americans whatever you think about it the way that SOTS shows a Black person happy and content with his enslavement. Let's be real, that is also an offensive comparison. While the film had issues--the same kind you would find in Avatar or Dances With Wolves--it doesn't glorify what was done to Native Americans; the film was even made with consultation from Native Americans during its creation. That doesn't make the film less problematic, but it does make it enormously different from SOTS. You can criticize things while also recognizing the different weight they hold. Pocahontas and SOTS are not the same. Peter Pan is more offensive than Pocahontas is, imo, in its portrayal of both Native Americans and women.
Btw, for those holding up Moana as a better example--you do know that there has been huge controversy over Maui's portrayal in that movie right? And it began before the film was even released. And then there are controversies with Frozen II, TP&TF, Mulan, The Lion King, Fantasia, Dumbo, etc. And those are just on race. Nearly all the Disney princess films are controversial in regards to gender portrayal.
It's not though... how is the entire story of Pochantas being twisted into this cliche, white savior, we can all just get altogether if we all stop fighting each other is not just as insulting to the history of Native Americans as Song of the South is to Black Americans like myself? I made the comparison because its Disney twisting real history to fit an agenda that makes white people feel better about themselves and not have to think about the mistreatment of Native Americans in this country that still goes on to this day, thinking it can or was solved in they it was in the film when its not that simple. As I said, both are kind of on the same boat regardless of if you think one is less offensive or not. That's still a pretty strawman argument that pretty much said "well, I mean, it's not as racist as it could've been, so it's okay it's just a slightly racist with poorly thought-out messenge" yes, even a positive messenge of equality can be poorly thought if you don't know the history of that racial group. It can make you look super ignorant and its something a lot of people don't understand when it comes presentations of minorities. I don't know if you are a minority yourself, so you may not have the same qualms. But that doesnt matter, because to the majority, and culturally, it's a problem.
If you know the story of Pochantas, then yes, despite its messenge of equality, the entire film is still pretty offensive because it's pretty much rewriting history the same way a typical Thanksgiving story does, which shows the level of depth Disney actually cared to go too. The typically White man and the Natives fought but eventually learn to get along and the white man have respected their land and culture since then, which isn't the history that should be taught because that isn't what happened. Not only is it incredibly cliche but it doesn't tell the real history of Native Americans relationship to the white man in America and how all of them pretty much got f--ked in so many ways. And then presented the conflict in the end as if both parties are in wrong, when the reality is not as simple as Disney is trying to make it. And btw, I'm pretty sure even the Natives they consulted weren't happy with the way the film turned out in the end and even if were, that doesn't excuse the film either. That's like saying that just because a black person feels systemic racism isn't as bad as everyone thinks, doesnt mean it isn't and just futher excuses mistreatment or poor representation.
If you want to a modern story that represented the suffering of Native Americans by the white man while also challenging the moral grey notion of continuing that same violence they inflicted on them to protect your people and heritage and what's left of it, play Red Dead Redemption 2. Because while it presents the Natives going after the American government as wrong (because violence begets violence), the game never makes them feel as if they are entirely in the wrong in doing so because you understand why people as innocence as Native Americans would be pushed to do those things because human beings can only take so much suffering for so long.
You can just say something is less offensive just because they made a few pandering, poorly written, low hanging fruit nods to equality but poor representation is just as bad ss no representation. Again, same thing with Song of the South but only reason people find that more problematic is because there is such a lack of care to Native American suffering that still continues to this day. And even then, it presents the exact same problem Disney has had with racial history for years. Its the twisting the history to make it seems like all this injustice to POC can simply be solved with typical Disney lesson of holding hands and singing kumbaya. Its insulting, no matter how more or less offensive you think it is.
It shouldn't exist and it shouldn't be promoted.
The fact that you don't think that taking the story of a little girl that was raped, taken advantage of, and eventually died in one of the most heartbreaking ways you can imagine because of the injustices and mistreatment of white people of that time and having that story twisted for years and years into this positive thing to make them look less bad and Disney still decided to make that story knowing how offensive it is to Native Americans or the fact that just because a select few were possibly okay with the story (which I find extremely hard to believe) means that it's all totally justified, pretty shows me your flawed mindset on the whole thing.
And speaking of Moana and all the rest you just mentioned, all try my best to make it short
Moana: yeah that was a problem and it should be addressed, even if the rest of film is pretty respectful to the culture, more then most Disney film so that's already a positive, though Maui is one aspect you can't overlook. So yeah, I'm all for that.
Peter Pan: yeah no, that's still a problem but only because of the way the Natives are designed besides the main girl (I'm blanking on her name) and "what makes the red man red" being a pretty offensive song that even Disney is smart enough not to promote (at least I hope don't but if they still are... yikes) But despite all that, I excuse it in KH because the things that made it problematic in that film are not in the game at all and it's pretty easy to do, which is why no one made a big deal out of it. The same can't be said for Pochantas because again, Pochantas as a character is problematic herself. It's just not the same thing.
Frozen: I honestly have no idea what you are talking about in this regard since Frozen is mostly based on a fictional, fantasy novel. Maybe because of the culture it was written from but I didnt see many people of that culture complaining about it.
Mulan: Again, I dont know where you are going with this since Mulan is fictional Chinese folklore and the film pretty much stays true to the story and its representation of Chinese culture of that time is pretty accurate.
Dumbo: I dont know exactly where you are going with this but as far as I know, Dumbo was only ever a summon in KH and that was about it. Dumbo as a character is not the problem with that film, it was crows themselves. All that was completely out of the remake; so Disney, despite still making a bland film, made the right call.
Fantasia: Again, I dont know why you are bringing up another racially offensive scene of Fantasia as if that makes the film of Pochanatas okay or justified. Again, its the same thing as Dumbo, the film itself isn't the problem, it was that scene and it was been taken out of the film since. So again, I dont know what point you are trying to make here.
The Lion King: ... what? Again... what? What was racially insensitive about the The Lion King at all? If anything, The Lion King is incredibly respectful to African culture. Why do you think the braodeay musical is widely praised? And even taking that out, The Lion King itself isn't offensive either and uses African music and art in a incredibly creative and respectful way. I mean... if you are talking the voice actors being white, then you are kind if just splitting hairs at that point since they're all lions anyway.
Disney Princress: I don't think anyone here is going to deny the misogyny of past Disney princess but like I said before, the characters themselves are not the problem, its the films and how it frames them. It's this weird mix they did back in the day of making the female characters likeable and represented pretty postively personality wise but since the film is still written by a man in the 20th century, it didn't stop them from putting them in situations where they have to be saved by a man or there whole plight revolving around a man. That is a problem but the reason why little girls still love them because if you take them out of the film they are not misogynistic at all and they're pretty great characters in their own right (except for Aurora. Shes as bland as dry almond milk), with Cinderella being one of my favorites if you really understand who her character is and why the remake is way more offensive to her character, which is pretty ironic. And even taking that out, Disney has gone to great lengths to improve the roles of female characters in their films. They are not always successful but they at least try and more often then not are successful at doing so. But also keep in mind, I am a man. So take that with what you will.
Again, I understand your mindset but I honestly thinkin it's pretty flawed and not presenting the bigger picture of it at all. Song of the South when you look at it at face value doesnt seem offensive because its not outright saying Black people were okay with everything that happened in history and even portrays the relationships between Uncle Remus and the white kids and their parents as pretty positive. They even have a few racist lines in the film that certain characters are against. Hell the entire messenge of the film is a messenge of equality. But the film language definately makes it seems that way, as if the suffering of African Americans was completely solved and we're all just happy go lucky and fee racism acts that happen are a rarity. It confuses itself with its messenge of supposed equality. And it's the same with Pochantas. It takes the plight of Native Americans relationship to the white man of America and makes it seems like the racial issue was solved or can solved this easy and the white man was completely respectful to their land and culture and just left.
So how are they both not committing the same flaws of twisting history to fit some psuedo narrative of equality that doesn't make any sense?
That's a legit question.