Growing Concern about Disney's Princess and the Frog

A few weeks ago I expressed major concern about Disney's upcoming film, The Princess and the Frog. Many in the African American community were excitedly awaiting the November 25th debut of Disney's first African American princess. Unfortunately I felt that the media giant's history of perpetuating the most pernicious racist stereotypes throughout its lengthy history should have made us very suspicious. Well it seems the folks at Disney have just begun to give us a peek at their hand.

Every storybook princess needs a knight in shining armor ... right? Well it seems that Disney's first African American princess will not have an African American prince! Prince Naveen, a "tan" colored, wavy-haired man from the fictional country of Maldonia, will be turned into a frog when a deal with a "voodoo" priestess goes bad. The Prince will be voiced by Brazilian actor Bruno Campos (pictured right). I know what you're thinking ... there are more people of African descent in Brazil than in any country outside of Africa. That is if we exclude India--right Dr. Rashidi? Let's be clear that Naveen is depicted as a person of color, but Disney went great lengths to not depict a man of clear "African" descent. By the way, what is so dangerous about having an African American man as a hero? Whats id so wrong about an African American woman finding a prince who is ethnically similar to her? Excluding Pocahontas, isn't this Disney's normal storyline for their princesses? Why depart from it now?

Disney's disdain for African Americans is beginning to show. I knew it would be just a matter of time before they showed their true colors. I guess the most valuable lesson from The Princess and the Frog will be that one should never look to their oppressors to liberate them. They should never wait for those to despise them to edify them. They should never leave the education of their most precious resource, their children, to those who attempted to annihilate them. Let's be wary of Disney's latest multicultural project. After all, the psychological well-being of our children is at stake. Shem em Hetep!

Original Posts:

Disney's First Black Princess Doesn't Negate Its History

Disney's Racist History, Part 2

Disney's Racist History, Part 2

Here we go! Nfr-Ka Ma'at read my original post and challenged me to further substantiate my description of Disney's history of negative images. She believed that the video of the Black crows from Dumbo wasn't going to convince you that we shouldn't easily forget this difficult history. She said, "Djed, some people haven't seen and analyzed this like we have. You have to help them see it." After thinking about it for a while, I agreed. She also thought that the picture of Sunflower (see previous post) was pretty egregious and told me I should try to post the original video.

Finding the truly uncut version of the pastoral scene from Fantasia was very difficult. Disney has taken this version out of circulation since 1969. The version that they've sold as "uncut" uses a tighter camera shot in order to remove Sunflower from view. Interestingly, they left the zebras, who are also clearly of African descent, in the newer version (more on this later). I don't think you'll easily find the original elsewhere. It nearly runs 10 minutes.
You could easily watch the original version and simply look at the stereotypically racist image of Sunflower, and say, "Man, I'm offended"; but I'd like you to analyze this a little bit further. Here are a few key points:

1) Notice that when Sunflower first appears (1:00), she is "spit-shining" one of the female centaur's hooves. Disney went to great length to depict Sunflower in a stereotypical role as to clarify her role as a servant. This sets our expectations for every other moment she appears. She becomes completely juxtaposed to the "white" female centaurs. They are royalty or demi-gods—take note of their crowning by the cherubim. To further this disparity, Sunflower seems to be half-woman and half-donkey.

2) When Sunflower is thwarted in her attempt to beautify one of the female centaur's tails, she seems angered and frustrated. This response is a typical response for the stereotypical character called the "Mammy" or "Auntie" (similar to Aunt Jemima). She cares for her white master or mistress more than herself. She fights them to do what is "good" for them--often at the expense of her own children.

3) Notice that the zebras, who are also of African descent, are serving Dionysus, the Greek god of wine and ecstasy (7:34). In opposition to Sunflower, they are lighter-skinned and actually attractive. What is the message here? You might say that zebras are native to Africa, right? I'd agree with you, but consider that the unique black and white striping of the zebra has routinely been a metaphor for being of mixed race (think of George Jefferson's epithet for the mixed race child of his neighbors). I think their role may be a more subtle insult.

First, notice that the white centaurs dance with Dionysus, but rebuff his amorous attempts. The zebras don't keep him at arms length, they enter the scene with him. They are actually Dionysus' harem (also the term for a grouping of zebras). They are his sexual property. This is actually a reference to the stereotypical character, the jezebel. The jezebel was used as a painful justification for the raping of Black women. Promiscuous and beguiling, She actually "tricks" the white man into sexual congregation with her. Often the jezebel is depicted as a "tragic mulatto". This is why they are zebras! With the amount of thought and planning that went into these negative characters, it is clear that they were not coincidental depictions.

Second, we must understand the classic tension between the role of the mammy (Sunflower) and of the jezebel (the zebras). The "pure" African is clumsy, lacking social graces, and unattractive. Only through dilution with the European can anything redeemable be found. Perhaps by leaving the zebras in the latest edit, Disney has insulted us even more.

Clearly Disney would like us to forget this history. If they really want to make amends, I say the Frog and the Princess is not even getting close. We deserve an apology, and some very tangible recompense. Maybe Disney should find way to support African American cartoonists. I'd wager they are underutilized. Thoughts? Leave a comment! Shem em Hetep!

Disney's First Black Princess Doesn't Negate Its History

When the Princess and the Frog opens this November, Disney will make history. In case you hadn't heard, 72 years after the debut of Cinderella, Disney will release its first movie with an African American princess. While the story is a update of an old British fairy tale, today's heroine is a waitress in a New Orleans who shares her father's dream—to open her own restaurant. She ends up kissing a frog ... and turning into one. Sure this frog is actually a prince (aren't they all?) , but to live happily ever after, Tiana must find a mystical voodoo priestess to change her back.

Did I mention Disney pulled out all the stops on this one? They convened focus groups with African American activists and got none other than Tony Award winning Anika Noni Rose to voice the lead (seems The No 1 Ladies' Detective Agency is finding its way into my posts). Other characters will be voiced by Oprah Winfrey, Keith David, and Terrance Howard. Shouldn't we give Disney their props? After all, Malia and Sasha aren't the only princesses anymore, right? I think not! I say their recent change of heart shouldn't have us forget their painful history.

Remember just a few years ago when Disney was on its international kick? In what was perhaps their first foray into portraying characters of color, they decided to depict "ethnic" characters in full cultural motif in different parts of the world. In fact, all of the main characters were royalty as well. In the so-called "Middle East", they produced Aladdin. In China, they brought forth Mulan. In the New World, it was Pocahontas. When they got to Africa, what did they do? The produced the Lion King ... a film without humans.

Sure the racist bent here is subtle. After all it was a pretty good story, right? And the Broadway play was impeccably produced, right? I think Disney should still be ashamed of themselves. We must ask ourselves what kinds for messages our children are receiving. Africa is devoid of human civilization and culture ... it is a land populated by ANIMALS. Can we actually blame people when they have such a hard time recognizing high culture and civilization in Africa? How could Africans have created cultures that were far more advanced than European civilizations from millennia later?

Am I being harsh on Disney? I think not ... let's not forget the litany of racist characters they spawned. Some characters are so despicable that Disney barely acknowledges their existence—like Fantasia's servant, Sunflower the Centaur.

How about the black singing crows in Dumbo (see video below)? Furthermore, why the hell did they see fit to try to sanitize the racist Tarzan character anyway? They still felt nostalgic enough about these affronts to our image that they needed try to redeem them. Don't get upset when we bring up the past when you keep making them our present. What's next, Aunt Jemima with a perm!? Oh, wait a minute ...

I say this history should not be forgotten. Particularly since once we turn away from the television ... our children are still watching. Sorry, Tiana. I'm gonna need alot more convincing.