Do y'all really not get it?

okay, it's a disney movie so of course it's going to be fluffy and puffy. remember, disney made hunchback of notre dame and the little mermaid, both of which the main character dies at the end, but disney cleans it up cuz it's disney! happy fluffy. so whether it's civil war or not, people are reading too much into it. it's superficial yet and yes the animations are the best part about it. alot of disney stories from that time period were fluffy puffy and not overly realistic or even close to any kind of reality. and ideas were a lot different than they are now, seeing as now we're a little more sensitive to ethnic stereotypes etc.
but to dismiss the movie and never show it is ludicrous. what a perfect opportunity to teach children about why it was made the way it was, what the old south was like when the author wrote this stuff and maybe why he wrote it. like the golden collection of the looney toons that have a whoopi goldberg disclaimed at the beginning saying that the racial stereotypes in them were wrong then and are wrong today etc. although i can't for the life of me see what's racist about the cartoons, the only thing i can figure out is that since speedy gonzales and his friends are all mice and speak with a spanish accent and don't work but just siesta all day that people might think people who are spanish are lazy. but that's a huge huge stretch. kids don't think that way. even watching it now that's stretching the possibilities of what's wrong with it.
but yeah, a perfect opportunity to release sots with all the background information, documentaries on its being made, the author and history etc. use it for teaching and not for scapegoating.
it's not a history lesson, it's a cartoon basically. no sense of reality about it, unless i'm the only one who doesn't have cartoon animals around me all the time. that's cuz it's a story. there are plenty of civil war and slavery documentaries etc around so kids can learn about it when they're older. and adults too. anyway, i found it online and bought it and i still love it. and i ain't no racist.

Yes. I get it. But I want to see this movie again anyway, and in a modern format. It's one of my favorites from my childhood, my youth and my adulthood. The Uncle Remus tales are charmingly done with meaningful modern life implications. And I think I and most other mature movie goers understand that the fairy tale portrayal of the "black folk" and their situation is not PC (and I am not using the term PC derogatorily). And God forbid, I am not excusing slavery or racial discrimination here in the least, but don't you think there were at least a few slaves that were treated well by their "owners" and content with that as portrayed? Hey, most of us in one way or another are slaves today, saying "Yassum" to our jobs, to the financial system, to our politicians, and yes, even to our own personal responsibilities.

[deleted]

Having lived in the south for most of my life, I found Tobbacco Road to be a pretty accurate dipiction of white trash...

If that's what you get out of this outstanding children's movie, then you have NO HEART and not much of a brain either. I saw this tonight for the FIRST TIME - and I'm 56 - and not only is it the BEST Disney film, it's a great film PERIOD. It's a movie about the things that children - of all colors - experience - parents not getting along - maybe breaking up, moving to a new place with all its uncertainties and not knowing anybody and feeling like no one cares, finding friends - including a black boy and a poor white girl, being bullied by bigger, nastier children - I could go on and on but there are SO many children's concerns this movie addresses BRILLIANTLY.

Remus is a wonderful MAN whom any child would love as an uncle or grandfather. His stories are wise and healing as he truly understands children. Moreover James Basket gives a GREAT performance that deserves to be SEEN, especially as a black actor. And to hear Hattie McDaniel sing was a treat in itself. Your desire for censorship prevents us from seeing these great artists, frequently at their best because you cannot understand that people, no matter what the time or context, were still PEOPLE, with hearts and brains and something to offer. Which is more than I can say about you or anyone who would censor this outstanding film.

EVERY CHILD OF ALL RACES SHOULD SEE SONG OF THE SOUTH. PERIOD.

I think I understand completely the frustration and consequent anger that comes from one's history being misrepresented. Also, that the control of how the history is presented is in the hands of people with no interest in the objective truth or in the perception of those most negatively impacted by the history. On the other hand, the film itself is a part of history that is unavailable to me and others like me who seek a deeper understanding and more knowledge in general.

One of the grossest misrepresentations of history, a great far-fetched lie about American history was "Birth of a Nation." I do have that movie on DVD. I can watch - actually I have tried to watch it several times, but have never made it all the way through - and place it in context. I place it in context of the development of film, as well as in context with our desperate attempts to justify slavery and racism that continued long past the Civil War and the Jim Crow South. It was a great movie for its time for its advances in film making technique. At the same time, it was racial propaganda unredeemed by any of the positive images or messages that came with SOTS.

I think this open discussion needs to continue. The problems with SOTS need to be aired. I think that films can have both negative and positive attributes. I have not been able to see the film. I am not black. So, if I ever get to see the film I will see it from the perspective of a white male who grew up with whatever advantages, or lack of disadvantages that entails.

I hear your pain and anger. I think you are justified. I also know that we cannot undo what has been done. We need to have dialogue and go on from here, where we are now. I think that dialogue will be better able to continue with full and open access to our history.

Richard Wright on Their Eyes Were Watching God:

"The sensory sweep of her novel carries no theme, no message, no thought. In the main, her novel is not addressed to the Negro, but to a white audience whose chauvinistic tastes she knows how to satisfy. She exploits that phase of Negro life which is 'quaint,' the phase which evokes a piteous smile on the lips of the 'superior' race."

http://people.virginia.edu/~sfr/enam358/wrightrev.html

[deleted]