Many of you have read this post before on my AIM profile; but for those of you that haven't, this is a classic.
In the fall quarter of my freshman year of college my class was required to watch a film about Disney films and it's effect on children. To summarize the documentary, parents were complaining that Disney is not acting responsible when they make movies targeted at little kids. They claim that Disney is making movies with racism/inaccurate history/questionable morals/stereotypical characters.
Examples included lyrics from the sountrack of "Alladin" in which the singer recites that the Arab World he lives in is "barbaric, but hey it's home". Or the greedy, cunning siamese cats with buck teeth in "All Dogs Go to Heaven".
You have seen them, you've heard them, and you've heard about them on the news too. The "sex" in the dust of the "Lion King", the sexually aroused priest in "The Little Mermaid". All acts of Disney's subliminal messaging to little kids via their movies.
A group of parents argued that their kids are learning unwanted social lessons from these movies, and blame Disney for their kids behaving according to what they saw in the Disney movies.
In order to make an argument out of this plot the parents have pieced together, I'm going to agree that Disney does implant subliminal messages into their movies and stories. However, where the parents get it wrong is when they blamed Disney for their kids behavior.
Children act and react to their environment as they are taught. It's a parent's obligation to teach their kids about social interaction. Their fickle attempt to place blame on Disney about socialization runs out of steam when you realize that these parents are attempting to blame someone else for their poor craftsmanship.
I'm not saying the kids are stupid, but they're built incorrectly. Everyone agrees that if a kid sees a scary movie that the parent should be consoling the child and reassuring them that there is no boogeyman under the bed. But all of a sudden, this same criteria doesn't apply to movies with other dimensions?
If a child sees a movie with racism or stereotypes it is the job of the parent to assure the children that such aspects of the movie are untrue in reality.
Let's assume that Disney makes wonderful movies without any of the previously stated evils, and the children who watch them grow up to be successful and caring individuals. Would these same parents give credit to Disney for teaching and raising their kids correctly? No. The parents would proudly boast that they are responsible for their child's success.
So why is it that the parents get the credit when things look good, but pass on the blame when things look glum? If you're going to take responsibility you have to take the good with the bad, something these parents fail to see.
Children are easily influenced. And the biggest influences on their lives are still their parents, and if that's not the case then these kids have bigger problems than Disney.
In the fall quarter of my freshman year of college my class was required to watch a film about Disney films and it's effect on children. To summarize the documentary, parents were complaining that Disney is not acting responsible when they make movies targeted at little kids. They claim that Disney is making movies with racism/inaccurate history/questionable morals/stereotypical characters.
Examples included lyrics from the sountrack of "Alladin" in which the singer recites that the Arab World he lives in is "barbaric, but hey it's home". Or the greedy, cunning siamese cats with buck teeth in "All Dogs Go to Heaven".
You have seen them, you've heard them, and you've heard about them on the news too. The "sex" in the dust of the "Lion King", the sexually aroused priest in "The Little Mermaid". All acts of Disney's subliminal messaging to little kids via their movies.
A group of parents argued that their kids are learning unwanted social lessons from these movies, and blame Disney for their kids behaving according to what they saw in the Disney movies.
In order to make an argument out of this plot the parents have pieced together, I'm going to agree that Disney does implant subliminal messages into their movies and stories. However, where the parents get it wrong is when they blamed Disney for their kids behavior.
Children act and react to their environment as they are taught. It's a parent's obligation to teach their kids about social interaction. Their fickle attempt to place blame on Disney about socialization runs out of steam when you realize that these parents are attempting to blame someone else for their poor craftsmanship.
I'm not saying the kids are stupid, but they're built incorrectly. Everyone agrees that if a kid sees a scary movie that the parent should be consoling the child and reassuring them that there is no boogeyman under the bed. But all of a sudden, this same criteria doesn't apply to movies with other dimensions?
If a child sees a movie with racism or stereotypes it is the job of the parent to assure the children that such aspects of the movie are untrue in reality.
Let's assume that Disney makes wonderful movies without any of the previously stated evils, and the children who watch them grow up to be successful and caring individuals. Would these same parents give credit to Disney for teaching and raising their kids correctly? No. The parents would proudly boast that they are responsible for their child's success.
So why is it that the parents get the credit when things look good, but pass on the blame when things look glum? If you're going to take responsibility you have to take the good with the bad, something these parents fail to see.
Children are easily influenced. And the biggest influences on their lives are still their parents, and if that's not the case then these kids have bigger problems than Disney.
posted by Daltonius at 3:12 AM
5 Comments:
And Elian Gonzalez for that matter.
I've discovered an error in your information that, like a Jenga block removed by someone having an epileptic seizure, brings your argument crumbling hopelessly to the to the ground. Actually, I have three:
1.) All Dogs Go to Heaven was produced by United Artists, not Disney.
2.) The Siamese cats of which you speak appeared in Lady and the Tramp, not All Dogs Go to Heaven.
3.) All Dogs Go to Heaven has a kickass scene which scared the shit out of me when I was a kid where a canine Satan rises out of the ground and tells Charlie that he's come to collect his soul. He's also over two stories tall. If this doesn't make an impression on a kid he's either blind and/or death and/or retarded.
Oh, and a fourth one:
4.) You're an asswhipe who offers to whipe asses on the street corner for a nickel, and you enjoy your work.
So criminy boy, get your facts straight.
GODDAMNIT THAT'S THE NAME OF THE MOVIE!
Seriously I was thinking of which movie name the siamese cats were from. I was actually pretty confident that it wasn't All Dogs Go to Heaven, but seeing as how I wrote the blog at 3 in the morning, I didn't care (nor do I now).
So...Olivonius, it seems as though you've found nothing at all that astonishes me. Therefore I win...as always.
Burn.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Wow Daltonius, wow. You wrote "A NEW CAR AND A NEW PUPPY FOR THE RICHY RICHES! SURPRISE OF THE CENTURY!!!!"
Listen up, Penis-San. If you consider the purchase of a 6 year old Honda Civic and a rescued mutt to be a sign of elite financial status, I can only imagine the destitute conditions of poverty under which you must live every day. Enjoy rowing through the crab grass in the front of your house in that rusty half of a row boat you keep out there. And for God's sake, change your damn pants.
You know what, though? I'll admit it: My family is pretty well off. My parents are successful. Even so, I'm not the one who lives five minutes from the beach.
How's that for "obsessive personal rambling?" Was it personal enough for you? Would you like me to come down there and personally knee you in the balls? If so, just keep up the bullshit!
Love,
Olivonius
Post a Comment
<< Home