Any guesses of what the uproar is about? The public has been discontent with the fact that the costume includes a brown skin element. There is a plethora of people who are speaking out against this, siting that "Brown skin is not a costume" (article at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/20/brown-skin-is-not-a-costume-disney-takes-heat-for-moana-halloween-costume/) This costume has caused criticism from all races alike, not just Polynesian or just white.
In my opinion, I do not think Disney is attempting to be racist in this situation. Let's take a second to look at Disney's possible options in this situation as they are illustrated by Madeleine Chapman (article at http://thespinoff.co.nz/tv/20-09-2016/disneys-lose-lose-battle-with-making-a-maui-costume/).
Ultimately, there is no easy choice for Disney in this scenario. If Disney did not include the skin, then the tattoos would be missing. The tattoos appear to be an essential part of Maui's character; therefore, removing the tattoos would be extensively altering the character and his significance. Another option the company had was to lighten the skin color of the costume. Actually, scratch that. That was not a feasible option from the start because that would lead to a large scale meltdown by the entire public. Finally, possibly the most demeaning option of all would be to not release a Maui costume. This would have been seen as incredibly racist because all of the white heroes have had Halloween costumes, but the first Polynesian hero would not have. This would imply that the Polynesian hero is in some way insignificant and inferior when compared to the white heroes. In a way, I honestly feel bad for Disney. Disney would not choose to be blatantly racist, as this would hurt their public relations and have a negative impact on the company. In fact, I believe that the company put a great amount of thought into the designing of this costume in order to choose the least offensive option. Disney in the past has been highlighted as a fairly racist company that idealizes white middle-class life over any other cultures, and this costume will likely be used as evidence in future arguments about the image of Disney. In this case, I don't really believe that there was a way for Disney to avoid offending anyone.
On a personal note, this uproar has reminded me that I must examine situations more thoroughly before casting any judgement. At first when I had seen the costume, I immediately jumped on the public bandwagon that the costume is racist and disgusting. Instantly, all I could think about was the moral insensitivity that would be illustrated through wearing this type of costume. To me, it almost seems like making a game out of having brown skin, which is demeaning and demoralizing to those who have brown skin because it seems as if people with brown skin are not being taken seriously. Then, upon reading some of the valid points that Chapman had raised, I found myself not being so angry at Disney, because I understood the difficulty of the situation they had put themselves in by creating a movie with a Polynesian protagonist covered in tattoos. One of the main goals of Disney is to incorporate more diversity into the culture in a positive manner, which will be accomplished by the release of the movie. However, there will be some sort of shadow cast over the message of the movie because of this Halloween costume. In the future, I will be more inclined to analyze how Disney and other companies could be misunderstood in situations where they are presented as racists.
Also, on another note, I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THIS MOVIE.
No comments:
Post a Comment