• Hello everybody! We have tons of new awards for the new year that can be requested through our Awards System thanks to Antifa Lockhart! Some are limited-time awards so go claim them before they are gone forever...

    CLICK HERE FOR AWARDS

Film ► Cultural Importance v. Appropriation



REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS
Status
Not open for further replies.

Elysium

Villain by Necessity
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
3,543
Awards
36
Is Bedard still with this abusive husband who forced her to take the role? She still voices Pocahontas regularly (including in the WIR sequel released later this year). Regardless, the "sell-out" title would go to everyone involved with the film. I don't agree it's toxic to force people to own their own actions and decisions.

I find it interesting Pokie decided to zero in on only this one comment in a very long response to them though. I wonder why...
 

TruestSyn

Bronze Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2017
Messages
1,208
Awards
22
Location
Dunlap, TN
I see it this way, there are people on both side of the equation. On one end people see it as something that will bring the ideals of their culture to light for new people and new generations, and on the other you have people who think we should all stay segregated and nothing should be shared among people. What many people on the latter side of the fence don't realize is that, without cultural appropriation, cultures wouldn't grow. They'd stagnate and die out. The difference I think is how they handle it. If you're trying to exploit the culture for satire purposes or use it for profit of some kind without giving back to its people then that would be NEGATIVE appropriation. However, if your purpose is to educate, enhance, or even to admire that culture, then it would be POSITIVE appropriation. In the terms of Disney and Pocahontas, obviously everything was done for corporate gain. What can be done about that? Absolutely nothing. Why? Capitalism. It's all because society has been built on making profit. However, that doesn't make it any more or less wrong. It's always wrong to take advantage of anyone in any situation.

The real issue, however, is when the rights to a character are in question. The Pocahontas we're talking about in all of these contexts is DISNEY'S POCAHONTAS. The Maui we're talking about is DISNEY'S MAUI. The rights to this fictional portrayal of this character are owned by Disney, no matter what culture it comes from. Fairy Tale or not, a lot of Disney's productions are stories that come from other cultures and they have cultural influences in them based on the country of origin, yet you don't see those people up in arms about those other stories. I mentioned this in another thread but to avoid the wrath of a keyboard warrior I stopped myself from continuing, but it's all about learning from the past instead of keeping a vicious cycle that inevitably repeats itself. If we want to make the world a better place, we have to not fight each other about it but rather work together to make sure it isn't something we see again in the future. Is Pocahontas racist? I don't think so. I believe Peter Pan's portrayal of Indigenous People was way worse. While the story is being told from the wrong perspective, we're also talking about someone's creative perspective, and the people who usually scream the loudest about it are the ones who don't usually have a hat to throw in the ring. My final note is the example of Super Mario Odyssey, a game which features an outfit that has Mario wearing a sombrero and poncho. Before the US box art was changed, it featured a picture of Mario wearing that outfit on the cover. When asked about it, a majority of Hispanic people were disappointed that it was removed because they were happy to see it represented on the cover. Who screamed out that it should be removed? People who thought it would be culturally insensitive to exploit the culture, even though it wasn't being exploited in a bad way.
 

FudgemintGuardian

Moist with roistering
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
6,329
Awards
39
Since both of you mentioned this, let me just say no. Greek myths and epics, and Greek culture in general, is rigorously studied throughout the Western world and is exalted for its historical merits within academia. Kids in school are exposed to Greece as a matter of course, its hero legends have been exported all around the world, and the Greek people are not currently living under colonial occupation, having their land and resources exploited against their will for a tourist economy (among other things). If Disney or any studio wants to take creative license with that material, its impact on Greek society is negligible if not nonexistent.
Some Greeks were offended by the Hercules movie, yet that's okay because the West is familiar with the myths and culture? Why does familiarity make it okay? We can't play double standards.



Any and all culture is certainly susceptible to being mishandled, in much the same way as such material already has been. Disney has gone out of their way to see the material used in Moana is done in a respectful manner, and did a good job for the most part. They came far from when they did Pocahontas.

Should Disney just stick to exploiting the Brothers Grimm, who themselves exploited the local culture?

One good, positive movie has gotten people who wouldn't normally be interested in Polynesian culture interested. You can say that people are only interested in it because it's "exotic", but that's true of any culture that isn't your own. A lot of Japanese find the American culture exotic and more interesting than their own and vice-versa for example.

I'd rather people take interest and learn than not at all. Even if that interest stemmed from something not perfect.
 

Pokie

New member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
437
Stop being indignant for five seconds

When you call somebody a tool for enjoying voicing Pocahontas when she clearly loves and enjoys voicing the character, and has fun when it's her choice and her right.

Bedard is complicit in perpetuating a racist myth, and the fact that it "puts smiles on children's faces" is cautionary, not assuaging.

Not everybody thinks like this.

tumblr_p2hg3rTNpg1r1uuc8o1_500.jpg


tumblr_oko8why3jf1r1uuc8o1_500.jpg


Again, like Irene, these Native Americans have a RIGHT to feel this way.

I find it interesting Pokie decided to zero in on only this one comment in a very long response to them though. I wonder why...

Because I found it insulting. You should have the freedom to voice Pocahontas, and the choice to be happy doing so.

Should Disney just stick to exploiting the Brothers Grimm, who themselves exploited the local culture?

No, because then everybody is just going to be European and non-Europeans are just going to have no representation anymore. Disney really needs to hire people who are non-whites. Hiring a Maori to help Moana was a step in the right direction.
 
Last edited:

Chuman

Dad of Boy
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
12,694
Awards
44
Age
23
Is Bedard still with this abusive husband who forced her to take the role? She still voices Pocahontas regularly (including in the WIR sequel released later this year). Regardless, the "sell-out" title would go to everyone involved with the film. I don't agree it's toxic to force people to own their own actions and decisions.

I find it interesting Pokie decided to zero in on only this one comment in a very long response to them though. I wonder why...
No, she isnt. And i’m not even saying she was forced to take *this* specific role. All i’m saying is that her entire acting credits throughout the 90s are up for question. Also afaik, native americans arent exactly swimming in roles, its very common for an actor to stick with the one role theyre most known for during the course of their career but thats of the debate of her “selling out”

my point is that there’s nothing to gain by placing blame on a woman who was sexually, physically and emotionally abused for over a decade of her life when her career and freedom of roles was one of things used against her- however my perspective is that of an outsider so thats about the extent of what i feel i could contribute to this.
 

Elysium

Villain by Necessity
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
3,543
Awards
36
I guess what I think is that her personal life is irrelevant to whatever impact Disney's Pocahontas might have had for the worse. I'm sure every person who's done something questionable or wrong in their life has had something bad happen to them. That isn't a catch-all excuse for any and all matter of things. But YMMV.

Because I found it insulting. You should have the freedom to voice Pocahontas, and the choice to be happy doing so.
?

I wasn't aware criticizing someone could take away their freedoms.
 

Pokie

New member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
437
I guess what I think is that her personal life is irrelevant to whatever impact Disney's Pocahontas might have had for the worse. I'm sure every person who's done something questionable or wrong in their life has had something bad happen to them. That isn't a catch-all excuse for any and all matter of things. But YMMV.

If she was abused into taking roles that she didn't want, including Pocahontas, I think it's more than just a "bad thing happening to them", it's horrifying and disturbing. Abuse isn't light, it can break a person completely.

?

I wasn't aware criticizing someone could take away their freedoms.

There's criticizing somebody for their choice aaaaaand then there's calling them a tool.
 

Elysium

Villain by Necessity
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
3,543
Awards
36
There's criticizing somebody for their choice aaaaaand then there's calling them a tool.
Even if I agreed that was somehow different--I don't--there are still no rights being taken away?
 

alexis.anagram

pajamaモード
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
2,450
Awards
6
Age
29
Location
somewhere near Marseille
I see it this way, there are people on both side of the equation. On one end people see it as something that will bring the ideals of their culture to light for new people and new generations, and on the other you have people who think we should all stay segregated and nothing should be shared among people.
Then you're viewing the issue through an erroneous, imperialist lens. Cultural exchange is not a zero sum game; inferring that those who call out appropriation and abuse of their cultural identities are somehow pro-segregation is comical on the face of it and shows you lack a clear knowledge of the historical record on this front. Segregation has been used as a means to appropriate and exploit the land, resources and cultural networks of Indigenous people by the settler class for centuries: hence the reservation, boarding schools and California mission systems. Modern-day appropriation is just an extension of that-- a notice to Indigenous peoples that our identities are part of the colonial domain and non-Natives will always have access to them whether we like it or not.

What many people on the latter side of the fence don't realize is that, without cultural appropriation, cultures wouldn't grow. They'd stagnate and die out.
This is commonly stated but it has no basis in evidence, it's just the logical gymnastics of a settler mentality trying to invoke a heroic position against all odds: if white people hadn't come to the Americas, Natives would have never figured out how to export and expand their culture on their own! Isn't it nice how that works out.

The reality is pretty much all cultural and ethnic groupings engage in social trade-offs as a matter of course and there's a strong record of pre-colonial trade routes and intercultural mingling within Native societies. In the modern context some tribes host inter-tribal Pow Wows and will go out of their way to create venues for people from outside of their Nation (including non-Natives) to engage with the culture in a respectful manner, under the guidance of the community which is best equipped to give it voice. I've both attended and been a part of hosting similar events, so this whole narrative that there's some urgent need for white people to come take our stuff without asking or the culture will die out is farcical. Those of us who are still here have survived, literally, genocide: we are doing just fine without that, believe me.

The difference I think is how they handle it. If you're trying to exploit the culture for satire purposes or use it for profit of some kind without giving back to its people then that would be NEGATIVE appropriation. However, if your purpose is to educate, enhance, or even to admire that culture, then it would be POSITIVE appropriation.
And the only groups qualified to make that determination are the communities who are impacted by the outcome of colonial methods of cultural extraction. There is no such thing as positive appropriation just because "you mean well"; what we need from non-Natives is for them to know better.

In the terms of Disney and Pocahontas, obviously everything was done for corporate gain. What can be done about that? Absolutely nothing. Why? Capitalism. It's all because society has been built on making profit. However, that doesn't make it any more or less wrong. It's always wrong to take advantage of anyone in any situation.
This statement is meaningless and reductive. Native people haven't been "taken advantage of," like we were swindled at a car dealership or something. Moving on, what can be done about it? Disney can end its claim to profit through cultural exploitation by retiring the Pocahontas franchise, removing her from the Princess lineup, and issuing an apology and working with the Powhatan nation to do something different and better: maybe a story about a hero of their choosing, developed and directed by Native voices. That's just one possible idea.

Fairy Tale or not, a lot of Disney's productions are stories that come from other cultures and they have cultural influences in them based on the country of origin, yet you don't see those people up in arms about those other stories.
1) Be specific.
2) Just because you haven't taken the time to read opposing viewpoints doesn't mean they don't exist.
3) I'm guessing you aren't being specific because you know as well as I do that there isn't a mainstream Disney franchise with cultural underpinnings that hasn't been met with resistance and criticism from people of the original culture, often if not always for good reason.

but it's all about learning from the past instead of keeping a vicious cycle that inevitably repeats itself.
Are you really doing this? Cultural appropriation is the modern symbol of that vicious cycle and is 100% rooted in racist trends of the past which is all about white people being unwilling to let go of their perceived power and right to determination over other societies' cultural understandings of themselves. It is literally case in point.

Some Greeks were offended by the Hercules movie, yet that's okay because the West is familiar with the myths and culture? Why does familiarity make it okay? We can't play double standards.
I see your selective reading and all I can do is urge you to go back and try again before accusing people of double standards without even addressing the full substance of their argument.

Any and all culture is certainly susceptible to being mishandled, in much the same way as such material already has been. Disney has gone out of their way to see the material used in Moana is done in a respectful manner, and did a good job for the most part. They came far from when they did Pocahontas.
I mean, yeah, your life is susceptible to being mishandled if someone points a gun at you as they're in the midst of robbing your house. I guess you could frame it that way.

Should Disney just stick to exploiting the Brothers Grimm, who themselves exploited the local culture?
What exactly is your definition of exploitation.

One good, positive movie has gotten people who wouldn't normally be interested in Polynesian culture interested. You can say that people are only interested in it because it's "exotic", but that's true of any culture that isn't your own. A lot of Japanese find the American culture exotic and more interesting than their own and vice-versa for example.
Japanese culture is not threatened by abusive post-colonial policies of land and resource theft. Neither is American "culture." The Indigenous peoples of both these countries, however, are and that's the part of the dynamic which you seem intent on not addressing.

I'd rather people take interest and learn than not at all. Even if that interest stemmed from something not perfect.
Let's be quite diddlying real for a moment:
Not a single person in this thread has gone on to learn diddly all about Native cultures or traditional Polynesian lifestyles because they saw a Disney movie (no, the Wiki article you just rushed through to try and prove me wrong doesn't count).
Stop using this excuse. It's patently false, nor would it help your case if it were true for reasons I've already outlined.

Again, like Irene, these Native Americans have a RIGHT to feel this way.
Already addressed this. Stop cycling back around to it because it's ultimately meaningless. Natives do not have the RIGHT to sign away the culture on behalf of other Natives.

Because I found it insulting. You should have the freedom to voice Pocahontas, and the choice to be happy doing so.
So just to clarify:
I've been targeted for multiple posts because some people found it "insulting" that I used a fairly innocuous term to describe someone who is literally engaged in the process of displacing the cultural identity of a people who have overtly voiced their disapproval of that process, but y'all are more concerned that I said a mean thing because I can only presume you really have your priorities straight.
This is why these conversations are pointless. You have no grounds to stand on but you continue to dig your heels into the air.

No, because then everybody is just going to be European and non-Europeans are just going to have no representation anymore. Disney really needs to hire people who are non-whites. Hiring a Maori to help Moana was a step in the right direction.
We agree that Disney needs non-white representation, or at least I would agree that in an entertainment industry which is pretty much wholly owned by the Disney franchise empire non-white representation is nevertheless critical to keeping in touch with the cultural realities of the modern era, and I would also agree that Moana signals a Disney which is willing to engage in some course correction. What you're obviously missing is that kind of thing only happens because of immense pressure from the impacted communities who make it clear that any other route will be unacceptable and accordingly unsuccessful. Without the strong criticism and backlashwhich ensued following Pocahontas and some of its other films Disney would have never worked toward this kind of cultural outreach because it never would have had any awareness of the potentially negative reverberations that might occur in the absence of it. If we want to keep seeing Disney work to integrate real advances in cultural representation including the hiring of non-white film staff in leading positions, then the correct strategy is to keep the pressure on and not let Disney believe that anything is forgiven or forgotten. Especially not while it's still out there doing damage to our communities.

There's criticizing somebody for their choice aaaaaand then there's calling them a tool.
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to get at here but I have one response:
Donald Trump is a diddlying tool.
Please, feel free to let me know how far you think you'll get defending him because he's "just doing his job." I'll wait.

my point is that there’s nothing to gain by placing blame on a woman who was sexually, physically and emotionally abused for over a decade of her life when her career and freedom of roles was one of things used against her- however my perspective is that of an outsider so thats about the extent of what i feel i could contribute to this.
I think it should be clear that Bedard's experience and process as a survivor of domestic abuse do not constitute a valid shield against the shitty things she does of her own accord; even bringing it into the conversation is really weird and loaded. Domestic violence is well known to be rampant within numerous Native communities (there's a great book, Native American Postcolonial Psychology by Eduardo and Bonnie Duran which digs into this): in Bedard's case it appears she was married to a white man (could be wrong, don't know much about him) which is a whole dynamic of its own that certainly has important implications and speaks to bigger issues, but it doesn't in any way mean she isn't accountable for her actions or that their impact is reduced. That's what really matters here. Bedard herself might as well be pretty much any Native actress looking for work. Of course roles for us are limited and what's available is often not good. To begin with, the system that puts Native actors and other artists in that position of powerlessness is the real problem, and it's only enhanced by the willingness of some to cooperate and loan it a veneer of legitimacy.
 

redcrown

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Messages
1,007
Awards
6
I was debating whether I should dip into this conversation since I'm fairly uneducated and not too savvy in the subject of cultural appropriation in mainstream media, but I will just to bring up one point.

I'm guessing you aren't being specific because you know as well as I do that there isn't a mainstream Disney franchise with cultural underpinnings that hasn't been met with resistance and criticism from people of the original culture, often if not always for good reason

I would say Coco is a good example of a modern mainstream film about a non European culture being positively praised by those in the culture itself and also those who are not in it.

Although, I'll point out this might largely be do to Mexican culture itself not being as vulnerable for exploitation as US Native American culture, since the Latin countries historically were conquered in a different way than those by the Protestants, i.e the Catholic strategy of conversion (forced or not) and mixing with the natives, allowing a stronger preservation of it's people and culture vs the Protestant strategy of total genocide of the natives and purposeful annihilation of their culture.

So this conversation has to do more with the culture in question that is being represented and/or appropriated, and its' historic and current vulnerability and familiarity with people today.
 

Chuman

Dad of Boy
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
12,694
Awards
44
Age
23
dont mistake my reference to it as exemption from anything. my point is reasonable doubt: whether she was forced to take the role by her husband, neccesity or just did it because she wanted to, we don’t know that. i’m not even the first person to actually bring it up in the thread, i just elaborated with my limited two cents. if a teller at a bank is being robbed- and she doesnt press the alarm out of fesr for her life, then the robber gets away and kills someone for their car- of course the teller is “at fault”- i just think its shitty and masturbatory to blame them for it.

i don’t really have anything else to add and that was likely a poor analogy so ✌️
 

alexis.anagram

pajamaモード
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
2,450
Awards
6
Age
29
Location
somewhere near Marseille
I would say Coco is a good example of a modern mainstream film about a non European culture being positively praised by those in the culture itself and also those who are not in it.
I'm glad you brought up Coco because it's actually a perfect cautionary example of how Disney continues to operate on a commercial level and what happens when people aren't paying attention and pushing back against its nonsense; it's maybe not well known, but during the development of Coco Disney attempted to trademark the Dia de Muertos title and was met with strong backlash, earning the studio the fond nickname within Chicanx activist circles of "Muerto Mouse."
https://www.cnn.com/2013/05/10/us/disney-trademark-day-dead/index.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/disney-dia-de-los-muertos_n_3237919.html

Although, I'll point out this might largely be do to Mexican culture itself not being as vulnerable for exploitation as US Native American culture, since the Latin countries historically were conquered in a different way than those by the Protestants, i.e the Catholic strategy of conversion (forced or not) and mixing with the natives, allowing a stronger preservation of it's people and culture vs the Protestant strategy of total genocide of the natives and purposeful annihilation of their culture.
Catholic conversion in its reality still represented a form of cultural and at times literal genocide-- that's what happened here to my community via the mission system which was essentially a series of colonial concentration camps which ran on the forced removal of peoples from their traditional communities who were then enslaved and made to do labor. A Cross of Thorns by Elias Castillo details the kinds of abuses sustained by Indigenous people in California under Spanish imperialism, where the policy of conversion was no better than Richard H. Pratt's infamous policy in the late 1800s of, "Kill the Indian, save the Man" advocating for the re-education of Indigenous children through Residential Schools where they would basically have the culture beaten and (literally) raped out of them. The idea in either case was that the Native identity, our religions and ways of life, were to be suppressed, erased and forcibly substituted with those of the colonial civilizations via whatever means necessary: that's still genocide.

So this conversation has to do more with the culture in question that is being represented and/or appropriated, and its' historic and current vulnerability and familiarity with people today.
To the extent that, as I've mentioned before, Greek culture and society are not impacted in any real way by the inaccuracies and stereotypes of Disney's Hercules, yes, but in the context of Latinx culture we have to be careful as there is still a precarious relationship, particularly when it comes to United States intervention in Latin American societies and exploitation of resources throughout Central and South America even when it isn't the direct occupying force. Here's a review of Coco which specifically warns against using the film to disappear Disney's racist depictions of PoC:
Pixar’s ‘Coco’ Can’t Erase Disney's Racist Past, But It Hits All The Right Notes | Mass Appeal

dont mistake my reference to it as exemption from anything. my point is reasonable doubt: whether she was forced to take the role by her husband, neccesity or just did it because she wanted to, we don’t know that.
We don't, so there's no point speculating. She's returning for WIR2 of her own free will. I also met her once at a Native gathering and she was basically marketing herself as the voice of Pocahontas, so beyond just taking the role she has actively used that credential to gain access to certain spaces and push her name out there in spite of the criticism from Native communities, of which she's well aware.
 

Pokie

New member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
437
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to get at here but I have one response:
Donald Trump is a diddlying tool.
Please, feel free to let me know how far you think you'll get defending him because he's "just doing his job." I'll wait.

Please don't tell me that you think that I'm a Trump supporter and that I like Trump. Please don't tell me that's what you are saying here. hagashjak.


What don't you understand here? You called a Native American a tool because she likes and enjoys voicing Pocahontas. That's not criticism.

From before:
?

I wasn't aware criticizing someone could take away their freedoms.

There's criticizing somebody for their choice aaaaaand then there's calling them a tool.

Criticism: Trump is a racist because he desires to build a wall to block out a certain race of people.

Being immature: "Irene is a tool/ Donald Trump is a tool !"


Let's be quite diddlying real for a moment:
Not a single person in this thread has gone on to learn diddly all about Native cultures or traditional Polynesian lifestyles because they saw a Disney movie (no, the Wiki article you just rushed through to try and prove me wrong doesn't count).
Stop using this excuse. It's patently false, nor would it help your case if it were true for reasons I've already outlined.

You do realize that that includes you as well, right?


Already addressed this. Stop cycling back around to it because it's ultimately meaningless. Natives do not have the RIGHT to sign away the culture on behalf of other Natives.

You may think it's meaningless. She didn't "sign away the culture", that's going a bit far. She played Pocahontas in an animated movie over 20 years ago. She wanted to SHARE the story of Pocahontas, with others. Also, historians are still iffy on what really occurred.

So just to clarify:
I've been targeted for multiple posts because some people found it "insulting" that I used a fairly innocuous term to describe someone who is literally engaged in the process of displacing the cultural identity of a people who have overtly voiced their disapproval of that process, but y'all are more concerned that I said a mean thing because I can only presume you really have your priorities straight.
This is why these conversations are pointless. You have no grounds to stand on but you continue to dig your heels into the air.

Just admit that you called you claim to want to fight for the rights of Native Americans and their cultures and then turn around call one a "tool" because she did something that ticked you off.


We agree that Disney needs non-white representation, or at least I would agree that in an entertainment industry which is pretty much wholly owned by the Disney franchise empire non-white representation is nevertheless critical to keeping in touch with the cultural realities of the modern era, and I would also agree that Moana signals a Disney which is willing to engage in some course correction. What you're obviously missing is that kind of thing only happens because of immense pressure from the impacted communities who make it clear that any other route will be unacceptable and accordingly unsuccessful. Without the strong criticism and backlashwhich ensued following Pocahontas and some of its other films Disney would have never worked toward this kind of cultural outreach because it never would have had any awareness of the potentially negative reverberations that might occur in the absence of it. If we want to keep seeing Disney work to integrate real advances in cultural representation including the hiring of non-white film staff in leading positions, then the correct strategy is to keep the pressure on and not let Disney believe that anything is forgiven or forgotten. Especially not while it's still out there doing damage to our communities.

OR Disney is learning and growing from their "Dumbo Black Crow" and "What Makes The Red Man, Red"? Days.


I think it should be clear that Bedard's experience and process as a survivor of domestic abuse do not constitute a valid shield against the shitty things she does of her own accord;

Omg.....omg
....
As somebody who has been in an abusive relationship in the past, I can't believe what I'm reading right now...

"Shitty things"

You are making her sound like a criminal.


even bringing it into the conversation is really weird and loaded.

Not really. It's showing that maybe she didn't want to voice Pocahontas after all. That she was FORCED into doing so. That she was abused mentally and physically to take up roles, like Pocahontas.

but it doesn't in any way mean she isn't accountable for her actions or that their impact is reduced.

Please. PLEASE. For the love of Mickey Mouse. PLEASE. Stop. Victim. Blaming.

That's what really matters here. Bedard herself might as well be pretty much any Native actress looking for work. Of course roles for us are limited and what's available is often not good. To begin with, the system that puts Native actors and other artists in that position of powerlessness is the real problem, and it's only enhanced by the willingness of some to cooperate and loan it a veneer of legitimacy.

That might be true, but it doesn't stop the fact that Bedard ( Seems) to love voicing Disney's Pocahontas. I say seems because of her abusive relationship in the past, but she still (seems) to enjoy voicng Pocahontas. I think if she was forced into the role, she wouldn't want to come back to voice her again for WIR 2, but that's just assumpition.
 
Last edited:

Elysium

Villain by Necessity
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
3,543
Awards
36
Criticism: Trump is a racist because he desires to build a wall to block out a certain race of people.

Being immature: "Irene is a tool/ Donald Trump is a tool !"
In defense of alexis.anagram, their statement was an example of the former not the latter. They said she's a tool for having sold out her culture, not just "Irene is a tool."

Interesting you're more upset by people being angry about cultural appropriation than the cultural appropriation itself. You've devolved the entire conversation down to histrionic deflections and capslock, but I have a feeling that was your intention from the beginning.
 

alexis.anagram

pajamaモード
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
2,450
Awards
6
Age
29
Location
somewhere near Marseille
Criticism: Trump is a racist because he desires to build a wall to block out a certain race of people.

Being immature: "Irene is a tool/ Donald Trump is a tool !"
Again, glad to see you have your priorities straight, your tone policing is noted. Move on.


You do realize that that includes you as well, right?
I'm not the one arguing an educational imperative and cultural saviorism vis-a-vis foreign intervention as an angle into sanitizing the historical record of cultural theft for my own benefit, so I have no burden of proof to meet in this regard, and the case for rebuttal is there if you would take the time to actually address any of it.

You may think it's meaningless. She didn't "sign away the culture", that's going a bit far. She played Pocahontas in an animated movie over 20 years ago. She wanted to SHARE the story of Pocahontas, with others. Also, historians are still iffy on what really occurred.
Stringing together a series of successively weaker arguments isn't a good strategy.
I've already discussed how Bedard's involvement in the Pocahontas franchise has reverberations well beyond her simple voicing of the role, for both herself and others. She puts Native women in a difficult position when she encourages the imperialist lens of Disney and the larger Hollywood construct of Indian-ism.
It's obvious you can't decide if you want to minimize her impact or aggrandize it to make her seem like some sort of benevolent hero. I'll wait for you to decide which tactic you want to go with.
"Historians" are pretty sure John Smith was full of shit. It's also pretty certain that "Pocahontas" would have been a young teenager at the time this was happening. It's also pretty much the case that she was kidnapped and forced to marry a white man as a condition of her freedom and then died, y'know, just another casualty of manifest destiny and white saviorism. I know that it's beyond you why anyone would be upset about all that getting casually erased and replaced with nature mysticism and friendly woodland creatures and Broadway tunes, I mean you'd think Native people would just be used to having our cultures and histories routinely decimated and reduced to fanciful distortions for the entertainment for others?

Just admit that you called you claim to want to fight for the rights of Native Americans and their cultures and then turn around call one a "tool" because she did something that ticked you off.
tenor.gif




OR Disney is learning and growing from their "Dumbo Black Crow" and "What Makes The Red Man, Red"? Days.
Let me check:
OK I checked, and it looks like throughout this thread I've detailed how Disney is still doing incredibly racist shit and it's only because people of color call them out and hold their feet to the fire that we've managed to hold off a number of total train wrecks. "Not racist when it makes for bad PR" is just your low bar.

"Shitty things"

You are making her sound like a criminal.
Lmao.
I hate to burst your hyperbolic bubble but there's no version of my statements that reads that way.

Not really. It's showing that maybe she didn't want to voice Pocahontas after all. That she was FORCED into doing so. That she was abused mentally and physically to take up roles, like Pocahontas.
This is why Chuman never should have brought this into the conversation.

Please. PLEASE. For the love of Mickey Mouse. PLEASE. Stop. Victim. Blaming.
Did you just invoke the name of Mickey Mouse to compel me to stop "victim blaming?" I mean did you really?
How about stop reducing the dead serious reality of lived abuse in Native communities, both domestic and foreign in origin, into a smokescreen you're using in order to defend your stupid diddlying Disney cartoon.
And stop trying to gaslight Native voices of dissent into adhering to your visions of a post-racial fantasies and your internalized white savior complex while you casually argue from every kind of ignorance.

That might be true, but it doesn't stop the fact that Bedard ( Seems) to love voicing Disney's Pocahontas. I say seems because of her abusive relationship in the past, but she still (seems) to enjoy voicng Pocahontas. I think if she was forced into the role, she wouldn't want to come back to voice her again for WIR 2, but that's just assumpition.
So out of one side your mouth you argue that Bedard is a strong and empowered Native woman who just wants to share her culture with the whole wide world and stands for the character on principle, and then there's your narrative (which you've basically just now constructed out of whole cloth) that she has no agency or decision-making power in voicing the role and only continues to perform at Disney's behest because she was abused repeatedly by her ex-husband whom she divorced six years ago. I hope you can recognize how you're grasping at straws.

Interesting you're more upset by people being angry about cultural appropriation than the cultural appropriation itself. You've devolved the entire conversation down to histrionic deflections and capslock, but I have a feeling that was your intention from the beginning.
Yeah, this more or less sums up the value of this thread on the whole. This is where these discussions always end up if they don't begin there, and it's what I was talking about right from the beginning: I've been at this my entire adult life, and there isn't a single talking point which has been mentioned in this thread that is original or impressive to me. The false sense of outrage is the best part, like exactly what stake does anyone who isn't Native have in how and to what extent Native cultures are disseminated and under whose guidance. It's a bizarre conversation to have because I live as a Native person every day and feel the impact of these things so keenly, and here I have to actually explain to some randos who just decided to have an opinion that they are in no position to make excuses or apologies for racist art and media stunts. And then go back to living with all that noise anyway because no one cares and the nation's capital's football team is literally named after a racial slur historically used in reference to Indian carcasses scalped for money, that's the America I get to still wake up to in 2018. :D
 

Pokie

New member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
437
In defense of alexis.anagram, their statement was an example of the former not the latter. They said she's a tool for having sold out her culture, not just "Irene is a tool."

That's still not proper criticism though. School Yard insult for somebody for their career choices is not proper criticism.


Interesting you're more upset by people being angry about cultural appropriation than the cultural appropriation itself. You've devolved the entire conversation down to histrionic deflections and capslock, but I have a feeling that was your intention from the beginning.

Got no idea why you are trying to make me sound like a James Bond villain, but, k.


giphy.gif
 

Pokie

New member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
437
Again, glad to see you have your priorities straight, your tone policing is noted. Move on.



Lol, is that all you have to say?


I'm not the one arguing an educational imperative and cultural saviorism vis-a-vis foreign intervention as an angle into sanitizing the historical record of cultural theft for my own benefit, so I have no burden of proof to meet in this regard, and the case for rebuttal is there if you would take the time to actually address any of it.

No. I'm wondering why on earth you claim to fight for Native American rights, but then turn around, and insult one for her personal work choices for voicing Pocahontas in a 1995 Disney movie. If you wanted to fight for all of them, then why turn around and bash Irene? There is such a thing as wanting to "share" your culture to people. Being upset about White Americans romanticizing a tragic piece of real-life history is valid, but Irene is not white.

If she wanted and likes to voice Pocahontas, then she's free to do so. Maybe if she was a White American, then it would be very concerning, but she's not.


It's obvious you can't decide if you want to minimize her impact or aggrandize it to make her seem like some sort of benevolent hero.

wh at the frick ???


I'll wait for you to decide which tactic you want to go with.
"Historians" are pretty sure John Smith was full of shit.

Well SOME "historians" believe that he was full of shit, SOME believe that he was confused with the new cultures, and muddled some things up.


y'know, just another casualty of manifest destiny and white saviorism. I know that it's beyond you why anyone would be upset about all that getting casually erased and replaced with nature mysticism and friendly woodland creatures and Broadway tunes, I mean you'd think Native people would just be used to having our cultures and histories routinely decimated and reduced to fanciful distortions for the entertainment for others?

Lol, as mentioned before, some Native Americans feel perfectly OK with Pocahontas, but you know, you ignored this part, hhhmmmm.

I've detailed how Disney is still doing incredibly racist shit and it's only because people of color call them out and hold their feet to the fire that we've managed to hold off a number of total train wrecks. "Not racist when it makes for bad PR" is just your low bar.

No, you FEEL like they are still doing racist shit. Most people feel like they are heading in the right direction.


Did you just invoke the name of Mickey Mouse to compel me to stop "victim blaming?" I mean did you really?

Yes, I did. And?

"victim blaming?"

oooooh my goooooood.

How about stop reducing the dead serious reality of lived abuse in Native communities, both domestic and foreign in origin, into a smokescreen you're using in order to defend your stupid diddlying Disney cartoon.

Calm down, I don't like Pocahontas that much ( The Disney movie), I'm standing up for Irene and her choice/s to voice the Disney version of Pocahontas, actually. I thought that was already clear as day? Question: If you believe that Disney is a highly racist company, then why are you even here? On a KINGDOM HEARTS forum? If you believe that the company is so racist and disgusting, then why support them with Kingdom Hearts? It's not all Square-Enix. Just a serious, concerning question here. If you hate them, then why be here? I'm not telling you to piss off or anything, just confused.


Also, from a "Rank The Disney Canon Movies" thread I made a few months ago.

The Renaissance- ( Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Rescuers Down Under, Aladdin, Lion King, Pocahontas, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan )

Aladdin. Loved it as a child, loved it as a teenager, love it now.
Little Mermaid. Again like Snow White, maybe it's nostalgia speaking, but I adore this movie. I love Ursula as a villian and Ariel as a hero. She feels like a real character.
Hunchback of Notre Dame. One of the most beautiful movies Disney has ever done !
Mulan. Mulan is one of the best Disney Princesses ever made.
Hercules. So much fun. Meg is the best.
Beauty and the Beast. Such a clever movie. Though Beast and Belle's relationship does make me feel personally a bit uncomfortable.
Lion King. Wow, here comes the tomato throwing. I don't really like the first halt of the movie. Simba is annoying. I don't think he deserves what happens to him though. Scar is a great and frightening villian. Not a fan of the soundtrack, I only like To Be Prepared.
Tarzan. A bit underrated, loved how it attempted to be a bit unique and refreshing.
Down Under. It's okay.
Pocahontas. I hate this movie, it makes me want to cry and not in the good way. Talk about romanticizing.....that. I find Peter Pan, Dumbo etc a bit forgivable because they came out like, 60-70 years ago, but Pocahontas came out in the 90's.

And stop trying to gaslight Native voices of dissent into adhering to your visions of a post-racial fantasies and your internalized white savior complex while you casually argue from every kind of ignorance.

I'm not gaslighting anybody.

Again, calm down.

So out of one side your mouth you argue that Bedard is a strong and empowered Native woman who just wants to share her culture with the whole wide world and stands for the character on principle, and then there's your narrative (which you've basically just now constructed out of whole cloth) that she has no agency or decision-making power in voicing the role and only continues to perform at Disney's behest because she was abused repeatedly by her ex-husband whom she divorced six years ago. I hope you can recognize how you're grasping at straws.


I said that I ASSUME that there's the dark horrid possibility that she was abused into taking the role of Pocahontas. And if you are an abuse victim, and you are still standing today, then yeah, you are strong- she is a strong and empowered Native woman.

And then go back to living with all that noise anyway because no one cares and the nation's capital's football team is literally named after a racial slur historically used in reference to Indian carcasses scalped for money, that's the America I get to still wake up to in 2018. :D

..... I'm not American, but America is .......diddlyed up.


Edit : I know I made a bet, but I'm going to change my siggy, because debating serious racial issues with that sig, just feels wrong.
 
Last edited:

Elysium

Villain by Necessity
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
3,543
Awards
36
Yeah, this more or less sums up the value of this thread on the whole. This is where these discussions always end up if they don't begin there, and it's what I was talking about right from the beginning: I've been at this my entire adult life, and there isn't a single talking point which has been mentioned in this thread that is original or impressive to me. The false sense of outrage is the best part, like exactly what stake does anyone who isn't Native have in how and to what extent Native cultures are disseminated and under whose guidance. It's a bizarre conversation to have because I live as a Native person every day and feel the impact of these things so keenly, and here I have to actually explain to some randos who just decided to have an opinion that they are in no position to make excuses or apologies for racist art and media stunts. And then go back to living with all that noise anyway because no one cares and the nation's capital's football team is literally named after a racial slur historically used in reference to Indian carcasses scalped for money, that's the America I get to still wake up to in 2018. :D
Yeah, having conversations about these kinds of things ultimately is meaningless--more now than before--because the majority generally do not care about the problems for those in a minority group, won't listen, and if anything are only enraged at having to discuss or acknowledge a minority group's pov at all. And yet you can't help but try because you're the one who has to live with the consequences of their apathy.
 

Antifa Lockhart

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
3,689
Awards
82
..... I'm not American, but America is .......diddlyed up.

Honestly, if you're not American it's kind of hard to understand the culture here. Especially in regards to race, identity, and nationality. The way America treats its native citizens is fucked up. Full stop. There's no argument there.

The fairy tale that has been woven about Pochantas did a disservice to generations and their understanding of the genocide that was the settlement periods of America's "birth." Again, there's no argument about whether or not that's an opinion. It's a fact that the Disney myth takes center stage in our minds when talking about this historic figure, who was likely put through hell at the hands of John Smith and his ilk.

Some people are fine with it. Some natives are fine with it. But, not one person has the power to speak for another. Shame on you, someone who doesn't live in the American culture nor has to deal with being a Native and all that entrails here, for speaking over someone who does and ultimately telling them to calm down. That is tone policing, and it's a really common tactic that people use in order to silence minorities when they're speaking.

For the record, I don't like this topic. This seems like it was intentionally created in an effort to keep all these arguments contained in one part of the forum.
 

Chuman

Dad of Boy
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
12,694
Awards
44
Age
23
my intention was so that one debate could have it’s own thread to discuss it, i didn’t make it with any harmful intention. i do realize i should have left well enough alone, especialy after alexis.anagram said as much. i’ll close this thread and if anyone wants to ask about it then feel free; i apologize for any grief caused.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top