Interactions
are in your face, in your conversations, and blasting holes in your reverie
when you go out to do any activity. These sites are landscapes for the
perpetuation of ridiculum; ad nausem. Personally, after one or two ganders, decided it wasn’t for me. Once again, it reminded me of this Walt Disney connection. I decided
to peer into the depths and take a closer inspection.
In
the spirit of investigation, I wondered on this phenomenon of using Walt Disney
in the anti-hunting vs. hunting echelons. In brief, the jest of these
conversations are verbal banter, going back and forth between different people, where eventually the hunter type will post pictures alleging that ‘Walt Disney
Got It Wrong’ with a photo of wild animals doing what they do best in nature, which is killing one another. This use of Walt Disney is the pivot in an
argument to prove the ‘truth’. Mind you when dealing with anti-hunters or
animal rights activists they have their own form of the ‘truth’. They are not
above using a symbol such as Walt Disney to bring a childlike demeanor to
further their cause of being non-aggressive. This passive-aggressive nature
shows up on internet sites when you see sympathizers for that cause rally to
find out people’s names, addresses, job so
they can go on a lynch mob crusade to show force to strike back at the evil
man with a gun killing animals through online threats. People have even had
their families threatened or lost a job because of the attention. A threat is a
threat. There are some people that do
work the system for their own benefit in the hunting and anti-hunting community
because there is always a black spot on the purity of something.
Some
hunter points in rebuttal of what this truth is:
- Animals are not humans and lack human thought, emotion and language skills.
- Animals are ruled by instinct due to the flight-fight-freeze in times of threat.
- Animals can attack humans or other animals at any time and devour the target.
- One should not have emotions or sentiment when dealing with tame or wild animals.
Animal
rights and anti-hunters rebuttal of what this truth is:
- Hunters are sick mindless, unchecked psychopaths that kill poor innocent animals.
- Hunters are mindless brutes that should convert to eating vegetables.
- All life on planet Earth should not be allowed to do violence to other sentient beings.
- In the wild, animals should not be allowed to attack other animals, whereby killing or cheating the victim out of life.
- Humanity is a waste of space on planet Earth.
Has
anyone ever noted an anti-hunter referencing Walt Disney?
Thereby, here is an attack on a person who has nothing to do with the anti-hunter cause
and the anti-hunter does not really care that someone else was tossed under the
bus on their account.
This
use of Walt Disney seems to be an effort at indicating to the anti-hunter the
need to question their belief system because it is flawed. Make no delusions
anti-hunters are not thinking of Walt Disney when they pen out their agendas
for the year. Using Walt Disney’s body of work as a light in the dark on
behalf of anti-hunting shenanigans is truly wasted effort. In truth, they could
take such verbal attacks and use it to their benefit.
Individuals
in the hunting establishment are using a much beloved and well known individual, that only wanted to make the world a happier place, into a mind-bending magician
that used sublime techniques to dumbify the masses with feel good sentiment and
animals that have human characteristics. To me this would seem an insult to the
common man because if you enjoy Walt Disney or his movies you must be an
imbecile because you don’t have the mind power to differentiate between reality
and fantasy or teach your kids the difference. I can’t recall Walt Disney proclaiming
his body of work not to be fantasy at any point and time.
When
did this crucifixion of Walt begin and why had this not evolved on to other
examples in the media. Why was Walt carrying all the illusionary
responsibility for other people’s ideologies and being their whipping post? I wanted to look at Walt Disney, the person and
his body of work. Did Walt Disney really deserve this dragging into the fray type treatment? Considering his early
work, where did hunting fit into the productions versus present day? How did
Walt Disney treat the subject of hunting in subsequent films? Are there any
others such as Stephanie Meyer, Bugs Bunny’s creator, or even the Flintstones
to point a finger at?
My
search was on…….
Walt
Disney’s early movies were written by other people with embellishment based on
cultural stories passed down by Hans Christian Anderson, the Brothers Grimm, and
unknown storytellers of yore. He took a story and made them into a moving
illustrated picture show. Walt is not totally to blame, if blame is what you
want to do. When regarding the time before Walt Disney was born, there was a
menagerie of storytellers that used animals with human characteristics to tell
moral stories about how people should act as human beings. Think Aesop’s
Fables, Mother Goose, and any story coming out the Emerald Isles to manufacture
magical beings. I guess to complain about people’s brainwashing with fairytales
and magical beings is to totally crap on people’s cultural history and call
them without a mind for wreck and reason.
When
Walt Disney began making movies his goals were clear: to alleviate unhappiness
by producing works of movie art that would entertain the masses in times of
personal and public strugglen while giving them some moral undertone in a
sheltered delivery. Of course over the years Walt Disney like everyone else, has
had his share of enemies or naysayers. If people from Walt Disney’s time were
around today they would be appalled by what they saw or heard.
On
to the article.
I
found an article in an issue of Field & Stream by Margaret G. Nichols
entitled Alice (and Friends) in Disneyland. The article I read was
written in 1972. Forty one years later the argument rages on with absolutely no
resolution.
The introduction of the article was dripping
with undertones of emotion. After reading, Nichols thinks people get too involved
in the emotion and she is just as guilty. Either way you look at it people are
passionate about the causes they champion. First the writer used established
well known people and literature to drive an interesting lead in. I thought by
the title it was going to be something about Walt Disney being avidly against
hunting. After I read pass the intro, I decided it was misleading and the true
problem was being addressed later. The reference to cartoon images and Disney
wonder was distracting but finally she gets on point with the topic.
The
introduction referenced Walt Disney in conjunction but indirectly with the Book
of Genesis in the Bible. It spoke of Walt having God-like abilities to make animals
in his image instead of humans. After
that there isn’t much reference to Walt Disney until the close. Margaret Nichols
says the anti-hunting sentiment did not start with Bambi but the growing trend
for people to be against hunting as anti-hunting sentiment was oblivious to the
natural world due to the increasing imagery being produced. Was this one person’s
low view of the general populaces ability to differentiate and dare I say it….think
for themselves?
This
might be a true statement to a degree because if a person that was against
hunting didn’t participate in that landscape, could be considered naïve in this
aspect. Even to this day, there are people from up North that have never seen a
live clucking chicken or heard frogs croaking in a swamp. Should we find fault
with this reality? No. Should they find fault with ours because it’s strange?
Quid pro quo; no, they should not. As people we should educate one another and
experience our similarities and differences. If this merges or brings about
change then deal with that row when you get on it. You could truly be dealing
with a person that is naïve of such things but to show them frustration from
not being able to lend understanding is also a good introduction to animosity.
First off, they feel like they are treated like they are stupid because they don’t
know. The person/group becomes abrasive and combative. Grudges are born.
On
the part where Nichols mentions men being the only beast I find a problem
because if you literally pick apart the movies, humans move through them with
the aid of animals not as beasts but as people with problems such as suffering.
This suffering is alleviated with the help of animals. Adults and children seem
to accept information when it is not in a threatening or aggressive way, but the
reader could discern that we acknowledge prematurely adults should know
the difference and teach this to their kids but not deprive them of stories or
entertainment. We are not the Borg.
“Facts,
after all, have little place in a cut and spliced and painted world. But
someone has to mind that more and more people are thinking with their emotions,
because the biggest danger that wildlife faces in this beleaguered world, where
man really does come on as a super-raving beast, is ignorance of its problems
and its needs. It’s all very well to say that if man weren’t in the picture,
none of the mess our world is in would have happened. But like it or not, man is in the picture,
and he certainly isn’t about to disappear.” (Nichols 65)
I
thought on this. Man is an emotional beast. For man to be divulged of emotion
would imply humans are no more than machines; program us and watch us go. If someone were looking for facts in a movie
intended for children that is a pretty shallow pool to gaze in let alone search.
I agree with the part about ignorance. I wonder sometimes how much actual
thought is put into decisions or pursuit of things (especially the decisions no
one wants to make or fulfill) where consideration is concerned or the things
people say. We can also choose to be ignorant on certain thing because it doesn’t
fit our agendas or arguments but the actual reality of the situation does not
go away. Acting ignorant is just as bad.
Margaret
Nichols does mention the hazards to wildlife such as overpopulation,
unnecessary suffering, and management. Which is present in 2013.
“But
some of the most vocal, and perhaps most disturbing because the word
"charitable” often seems to indicate a direct pipe to the fountain of truth, are
the organizations which solicit funds to help the cause of animals and use at
least some of that money to propagandize and, in effect, lobby against hunters
and hunting.” (Nichols 65)
Sometimes
I believe that people who fling around the world ‘truth’ like a flaming sword
will only be cut by it themselves. Its like telling someone you love them and
not mean it ever.
I
then thought that in consideration of allocated funds it would seem that the
hunting establishment and the anti-hunting agenda are both making considerable
bank.
As
for Disney’s body of work, in I looked for the themes of hunting.
Disney’s
early movies where the themes of murder and mayhem are prevalent but subtle you
have the following:
- Snow White and the Seven Dwarves: The huntsman doesn’t kill Snow White and remove her heart. That is an act of humanity, compassion, and right from wrong. Even in the update version the Huntsman is a level-headed guy.
- Bambi: Bambi’s mother ‘disappears’ after a shot but we assume she is dead. Bambi is left to his own devices which in fawn reality is true. The hunters are individuals that are removed from the scene as mysterious people that cause a vague undetermined violence. Bambi’s mother being shot is not treated like a Rob Zombie movie to say the least. Her blood and guts are not slashed on the screen.
- Beauty and the Beast: This movie was not done during Walt’s time but this is one of the few where the beast is a man who was vain, got cursed then turned into a Sensitive guy, who was victimized by Gaston. Gaston could be considered a person that is evil who hunts. Over exaggeration through extremes in character personality makes it certain what kind of creature you are dealing with.
With
this I am not saying we should totally look away from media that show realistic
imagery. When we sit and say things we should be looking at the way we live our
lives and how we allocate worth to certain things that should carry more
thought in terms of responsible adult decision making and scrutiny. Flinging
people into battles or under buses for causes where they do not belong should
be given consideration especially when you are acting as the more conscientious
person.
Considering
the imagery of movies such as Hostel,
High Tension, or Martyrs I wondered how as we
moved across time in movie imagery to a dark place, where being desensitized by
images that were close to literal translations of murder and mayhem, that we
jack our jaws about Bambi getting shot in the woods? Or yet in Twilight, when
the good vampires who don’t want to hurt the humans, decide it’s in their best
interest to hunt deer in the woods until Bella Swan decides she wants to go
vegan. These examples are more current and just as relevant in regards to Walt
Disney and his troop of woodland wonders.
It
could be that Disney’s movies are long lived and remembered because of their
positive effects in the way they treat violence and the human condition. Death and violence is subtle, which is what you would expect when dealing with children. Implied action where
the parent can explain if there are questions when violence occurs in movie
imagery, in a vague way. You don’t see Bambi’s mother all blown away, guts out,
hanging from a tree. In real life, parents have kids wondering around while
gutting a deer. It’s the way you explain it to them along the way that counts.
If
Disney were put on the scales of Justice I would believe he did way more
good in the world than harm. I could be wrong but he was an avid outdoorsman
who hunted and would not have aligned himself in such a harmful way against
people to support openly such a cause as anti-hunters of his day. If he did I
have yet to find it and there are only so many hours in a day.
As
to how Disney got pulled into this fray, you have Nichols who was against this
woman Alice and her anti-hunting group
which used images of harmless animals. Disney being popular in an almost unconscious
selection, pulled from what she knew and built an introduction that lead into a
story that had absolutely nothing to do with Disney aside from his use of
animal images based on child-like wonder.
I have to find an accord from the 1972 article where Nichols states,
“it is time we stop using anything but honest argument, plain statement of
fact, and open discussion of ideas when dealing with our wildlife.”
(Nichols 152)
The
only problem I have with this article is Nichols reiteration of cutesy images and
indication to be less emotional, and build debate on honest plain statements of
fact yet she is still dwelling on the bunnies? After making the above statement
she could have dropped her preoccupation for the imagery, which had nothing to
do with her angst against the woman named Alice in the article. This is like
arguing to a wall as she said in the article. If there seems to be nothing left
of sensible facts to argue the case to or for with anti-hunting peoples unwilling to listen, spend your time more wisely by promoting hunting, shooting, conservation, wildlife propagation adn management or
being a better human being. That always seems to work or at least for the past
fourty years since 1972.
As
for Walt Disney, he may have vaguely treated hunting out of respect for the viewer’s
not needing to see blood and gore. To turn them off from hunting or seeing something traumatic as an aspect of
his movies just wouldn't seem to fit his personality or his ethic but he certainly didn’t exclude it either. He should be treated
better. Walt Disney was not a rapist of the mind. There are far worse movies out there to rip your psyche apart as you willing check it out on Netflix or Redbox. There are also cable channels that signal murder, mayhem, rape both man and woman, and any sick thing you can think of all day long and into the night, nonstop. If you can't get it there its on the internet somewhere. Only a key stroke away.
On the other hand, go tell a First Nations person his traditional stories, where talking animals were used to teach lessons, that its total bogus crap and see what you get handed back.
On the other hand, go tell a First Nations person his traditional stories, where talking animals were used to teach lessons, that its total bogus crap and see what you get handed back.
Written
by : Angelia Y Larrimore
~Courtesy
of the AOFH~
Literature
Cited:
Nichols,
Margaret G. (1972 May). Alice (and Friends) In Disneyland. Field & Stream,
Vol. LXXVII No. 1, 64-154
Read Field & Stream Article Here:
