my most recent blog response to cultural heritage discussion
Q: Drawing on your readings for this week--especially the discussions of museum's need to reach a wider audience, discuss whether you think that the Disney Corporation should have been allowed to build the new Disney History Museum outside of Washington DC? Why or Why Not?
A: The concept of Disney portraying history is about as promising as that of portraying cultural heritage: Disney can't really pull it off unless it is a subject that the Disney corporation is itself responsible for creating in the first place. If this was to be a museum for how the Disney corporation has grown since it's founding, then there is a chance of success, but to expect museums to improve through Disneyfication is desperate folly. Sure, museums are becoming about as popular as reading, but there is still a certain level of legitimacy that comes with a museum exhibition. Maybe I'm lacking a certain degree of Americanism, but where I come from, museums are very important and greatly admired. We love our museums in Europe, we have museums for everything, and we cherish their knowledge greatly. Seeing such a marvelous institution succumb to the capitalist greed of Disney Inc. enrages me. As far as I'm concerned, Disney has no right getting it's discriminating claws on anything of cultural or historical value, it's messing with children's heads enough as it is. Misogyny is not okay, racial exclusion and discrimination should never be portrayed as the "norm", not in my book anyway. King Louie the orangutan should not have to sing "I want to be like you" to the white boy, Duke, the big-lipped fish should not have to play jazz on the saxophone. And what's the count on Disney princesses that lie around in a vegetative state until their prince comes and gives them a reason to live? Maybe it's easier to ask who had a meaningful life without a prince. The only one I can think of is Nala, her role was quite independent of Simba's considering her entire existence would have consisted of hunting, eating, and reproducing anyway. The Lion King is possibly the least disappointing Disney movie (sure Scar was evil and spoke in a British accent, Zazu was the British gentlemanly servant, and the hyenas were represented as African American, Mexican American, and Retarded American, but it's still relatively forgivable), because while it portrays a male dominated world, it's an accurate portrayal of a pride of lions. I learned some biology, some zoology, and even some Swahili watching that movie, so well done there, Disney. But there is absolutely nothing to be gained by Disneyfying our museums, it would only turn a respectable institution into a spectacle.
A: The concept of Disney portraying history is about as promising as that of portraying cultural heritage: Disney can't really pull it off unless it is a subject that the Disney corporation is itself responsible for creating in the first place. If this was to be a museum for how the Disney corporation has grown since it's founding, then there is a chance of success, but to expect museums to improve through Disneyfication is desperate folly. Sure, museums are becoming about as popular as reading, but there is still a certain level of legitimacy that comes with a museum exhibition. Maybe I'm lacking a certain degree of Americanism, but where I come from, museums are very important and greatly admired. We love our museums in Europe, we have museums for everything, and we cherish their knowledge greatly. Seeing such a marvelous institution succumb to the capitalist greed of Disney Inc. enrages me. As far as I'm concerned, Disney has no right getting it's discriminating claws on anything of cultural or historical value, it's messing with children's heads enough as it is. Misogyny is not okay, racial exclusion and discrimination should never be portrayed as the "norm", not in my book anyway. King Louie the orangutan should not have to sing "I want to be like you" to the white boy, Duke, the big-lipped fish should not have to play jazz on the saxophone. And what's the count on Disney princesses that lie around in a vegetative state until their prince comes and gives them a reason to live? Maybe it's easier to ask who had a meaningful life without a prince. The only one I can think of is Nala, her role was quite independent of Simba's considering her entire existence would have consisted of hunting, eating, and reproducing anyway. The Lion King is possibly the least disappointing Disney movie (sure Scar was evil and spoke in a British accent, Zazu was the British gentlemanly servant, and the hyenas were represented as African American, Mexican American, and Retarded American, but it's still relatively forgivable), because while it portrays a male dominated world, it's an accurate portrayal of a pride of lions. I learned some biology, some zoology, and even some Swahili watching that movie, so well done there, Disney. But there is absolutely nothing to be gained by Disneyfying our museums, it would only turn a respectable institution into a spectacle.