From: witness@garnet.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: rec.arts.disney
Subject: Re: Why I love Disney, Part 47
Date: 7 Sep 1992 18:16:03 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep6.180430.1@pomona.claremont.edu> greg@pomona.claremont.edu (Tigger) writes:
>In article <18903dINNadk@agate.berkeley.edu>, sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:
>> 
>> Well, Patty - hope this doesn't come as a shocker as I'd hate to burst
>> your Disney balloon, but I think in all fairness I had to add a list
>> of "Why I think Disney represents everything that's wrong with America,
>> part 47".
>
>You're absolutely right.  The Walt Disney Company is solely responsible
>for homelessness, hunger, drug abuse, riots, rape, drunk driving, murder,
>and the fact that there hasn't been a decent candidate for public office
>on any level in over two hundred years.
>

Umm - sir?  Question from the balcony! Didn't Mr. sherw@ocf write:
> of "Why I think Disney represents everything that's wrong with America,
> part 47".  Okay - I am being a little facetious here, but I don't think
                                        ^^^^^^^^^
fe-SE-shes: adj. Playfully jocular; humorous and flippant.

MY hasn't rec.arts.disney turned into a flame symposium!  It sounds to
me that Mr. sherw@ocf has some real problem with Disney - which Carol
Koster's response is accurate in that reading this newsgroup is only
going to enflame the guy.  However, I think some people here are missing
the issue.

Though Carol Koster's response was quite balanced and she seems well-informed
about some of Disney's darker secrets, I think she generally represents
the minority.  Something tells me that Patty Winter - to which he was
following up to - likely was unaware of many of the things he wrote of.
Personally, I was unaware of most of them too - however, I don't
think that means I am an ignorant, uneducated fool.  However, it does mean
that I think the PR people at Disney are very good at their jobs.

Mr. Sherwin's point, at least I think, was this: Disney isn't necessarily
an evil corporate monster that deserves our condemnation, but that it
doesn't deserve to be put on a pedestal either.  And to some extent, I
think he speaks against the American preoccupation with image over
substance.  Disney is a very image-based company - I think we all know
this.  If they are willing to sue preschools over wall paintings - I think
that's self evident.  Disney does a lot of good things - Make-a-wish for
one.  But then there are also McDonald's and the Ronald McDonald House -
where I think their food can likely be attributed closely to several cases
of heart failure in the past 30 years! - and there are defense contractors
that make nuclear weapons that donate to charities as well.

The problem with image-fixation is this - when corporate image becomes more
important than the lives of animals and the health risks of a WDW patron
who suddenly needs medical attention but is hushed over some to protect 
themselves from any negative images with the public - then I think the
fixation becomes harmful and wrong.  Preoccupation with image is what
makes so many young women in this country anorexic and bullemic, and it's
not necessarily a good thing.  Disney feeds into this image preoccupation
by excluding employees who might not look the way they want, by discriminating
against sexual orientation, by sending out the hypocritical message that
"it's a small world after all" - we are all human and should be tolerant
of each other, but only as long as you look and have the sexual orientation
that we feel is acceptable.  No - all of us at Berkeley aren't communists
who are stiff miffed that Walt wouldn't allow Nikolai Kruscheff into
Disneyland because Walt didn't agree with his political beliefs! (though
this is another historical point of Disney's intolerance of differences).
But I think we need to be aware and make informed decisions about seemingly
"harmless" preoccupations with image.

As Carol Koster also writes (among countless other things!):
> writings of and about Joseph Campbell.  These tales and characters
> provide a cultural service:  Passing down a belief system, a moral
> code of conduct, stories of heroism, quest and struggle, dreams,

Image is another problem with Disney characters - have you noticed how often
Disney has sent our children the message that ugly is evil and beautiful is
good?  "Beauty and the Beast" is not necessarily an exception to that
either - as the Beast is transformed into a handsome prince eventually
anyway - hence the story's moral in that aspect is already flawed.

I'm sorry if I am turning rec.arts.disney into alt.talk.politics here -
but I thought it was worth noting that what I thought was the main message
of Mr. Sherwin's repost was not addressed.

Ann