Posted on 02/05/2019 3:44:38 PM PST by Beave Meister
“Mary Poppins Returns,” which picked up four Oscar nominations last week, is an enjoyably derivative film that seeks to inspire our nostalgia for the innocent fantasies of childhood, as well as the jolly holidays that the first “Mary Poppins” film conjured for many adult viewers.
Part of the new film’s nostalgia, however, is bound up in a blackface performance tradition that persists throughout the Mary Poppins canon, from P. L. Travers’s books to Disney’s 1964 adaptation, with disturbing echoes in the studio’s newest take on the material, “Mary Poppins Returns.”
One of the more indelible images from the 1964 film is of Mary Poppins blacking up. When the magical nanny (played by Julie Andrews) accompanies her young charges, Michael and Jane Banks, up their chimney, her face gets covered in soot, but instead of wiping it off, she gamely powders her nose and cheeks even blacker. Then she leads the children on a dancing exploration of London rooftops with Dick Van Dyke’s sooty chimney sweep, Bert.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The Slimes printed this execrable piece from a nobody who teaches at a nowhere school because he says what their editorial writers want to say but know they can’t support in a controversy.
There’s money to be made from race hustling. It’s a gargantuan constituency of the Demonrat Party, and it’s been going on since the 19th century. They need to keep certain target groups perpetually aggrieved to maintain power.
As Tuskegee University President Booker T. Washington said... “There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”
NYT seems to have a problem with anything culturally white. Not a day goes by where there isn’t an article bashing anything not POC, female, or LGBT.
Dumb asses
So, is the very Jewish NYTimes going to condemn Al Jolson for
“Mammy”.... NO? Why not in this nightmare of PC crapola. “Mammy” was rendered in emotional appreciation of the the cultural figure of the “Mammy”— in history. The Ultimate Matriarch even as she was a house servant— the GLUE that held families together in a difficult time. No one remembers this— and then proceeds to castigate respectful memory of a bygone time, by calling it “condescending”. It was not. Especially not in Vaudeville times (it was, in fact, risque, much as Stephen Foster’s writings for Mr. Christy and his Minstrel Show— about the plight of slaves and that culture in the 1850’s. But still, the City of Pittsburgh found reason..just because, to remove the statue to their respectful Native Son, Stephen Foster... because...racism and all. What absolute horse shiite.)
We all know this is ridiculous and indicative of a very undeveloped and uneducated mind. E.g. it came from someone with an inferior education: a journalist.
We should rejoice, however, in that the idiots continue to expose their idiocy.
Laugh at them and shame them. They do it to us. The difference, of course, is that when we do it to them, it’s logical and well deserved.
The “Pay-Me-I’m-A-Victim” game.
Because 55 years ago, our culture wasn’t suffering from the cancer/disease of political correctness. Nobody knew they were supposed to be offended back then.
How dare you provide historical context for the use of blackface! How dare you not respond to any and every use of blackface as an incidence of unvarnished, obvious, and malicious racism! /s
Yes, I know. I was 15 at time. I forgot the sarcasm tag.
Libs need to publish a list of what is NOT racist.
That list would be much shorter than a list of everything they claim to be racist.
A list of things not racist would save the rest of us a lot of time.
[/s]
Maybe... if he sings.
Maybe because they had real racism to deal with, I guess.
Or because people were too smart to think that this had anything to do with Negroes.
But the story here isn't that some idiot professor writes an article like this.
It's that most people recognize that the professor and the article are idiotic.
OMGosh, are they serious? A chimney sweep is racist bc of soot? Way, way, WAY off the deep end. Disturbingly so.
Clearly chimney sweeeps would never have dark stuff on their faces, there's no other explanation. Obvious minstrel act. These guys are probably even singing "Mammy" too, I'd guess.
Does the New York Times use that shameful black ink?
Filthy, stinking racists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.