Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I take note that you don't disagree with the NYT. Instead you create an ad hominem. Your question becomes self evident. Thanks.
(it really has to be seen to be believed)
No, you are mistaken. The accusation of the film version's Mary Poppins character as racist due to the sooty smudges she acquires through her association with chimney sweeps is absurd - we certainly agree on that. But equally absurd is your claim that the article making this accusation is proof that all of "the left" share these views.
I am sorry you felt that my pointing out the number of grammatical errors in your post was an ad hominem attack. However, it seems to me that if anyone wants to have their views taken seriously, he or she should take the time to write grammatically. An occasional typo or spelling error is one thing - but six errors in a two-sentence post is something else.
Not only is the New York Times using their own "investigation" to prove their allegations -- the author of the "investigation" actually brags about their "collusion".
I sense a theme here -- does everyone remember how Leftist Librarians decided in 2017 that Dr. Seuss was also a (gasp!!) Racist?
Normal People can't relate to these Leftist Nutters at all - and they certainly can't relate to Normal People.
Ah, the funniest thing to me is how not one of the defenders of the New York Times that were present earlier in the thread have responded to this post. Of course, that would be because this certainly makes it look as if this man's article was written in concert with the New York Times, which might also imply that the article does indeed represent the views of the editors of the New York Times.
Either way, stories like this truly don't matter to me in the slightest. However, I do like seeing evidence presented which pretty clearly destroys earlier rebuttals provided by users as to the actual involvement/beliefs of the publishing paper itself.
Seeing Mary Poppins as a young child I know I picked up on the subtle comments and stereotypes that are being dissected here. Shall we revisit the last 100 years of cultural norms and condemn everything that won't pass todays filters? Much that was portrayed is completely wrong, hell National Geographic was one of the greatest publications for promulgating stereotypes and its highly respected. Your complaining about British slang its pretty well know that they looked down their nose at anyone including their own countrymen who would be of a lower social order than they were.
Just curious - did I miss someone complaining about "British slang"? Or are you referring to the term "pickaninny" and the stereotyped language which was used by a stereotyped black character n the early editions of "Mary Poppins", first published in 1934, but which appears nowhere in either movie, and has been removed from the more recent editions of the book?
I agree that judging works of the past by today's "cultural norms" is a fool's errand. That said, I do think P.L. Travers' substitution of another chapter to replace the problematic one in "Mary Poppins" was a wise move, given the youth of the intended readers of the book, which is a popular children's classic, not just a "work of the past".
No, you are mistaken. The accusation of the film version's Mary Poppins character as racist due to the sooty smudges she acquires through her association with chimney sweeps is absurd - .....
Case closed then.
You have no argument beyond that. If you don't like my posts, then don't click on them. Or send a suggestion via PM if you are truly bothered by punctuation mistakes they certainly are not a point of the topic.
I am not saying Mary Poppins is racist indeed if you read my posts, I am claiming the opposite.
Firstly Chinmey Sweeps were covered in soot, which is a fact and secondly Mary Poppins was a light hearted childrens book whilst in the film she has soot on her face as it was good luck to shake hands with a chimney sweep. It was not in a racial context and historically represented the victorian period in London in which the film was set, when Chimney sweeps covered in black soot were a common sight.
Hardly the stuff of racism.
Perhaps you should read the book and not base your opinion on the Disney movie which changed the character of Mary Poppins into a softer, gentler woman. In the books, Mary Poppins is quite different from the Julie Andrews portrayal.
PL Travers described Mary Poppins as a woman who “never wastes time being nice”. She was sharp, short-tempered and a bit of a tyrant, a childcare professional with no references who did not, as in the Disney version, materialize by gliding serenely down onto the doorstep, but was hurled against the gate by the wind.
Mary is stern, rude, and almost cold in the book. She rarely smiles and is often bothered by the children and their questions.
She is also quite vain. The author made us laugh as she described how Mary loved to go window shopping, so she could see how wonderful she looked in the reflection.
Movie:
Mary is stern, but quite joyful and loving. Yes, she can be short with the children, but overall she is a pleasant person.
The Chimney Sweeps are mistaken for Hottentots and are shot at.
I'm waiting with baited breath for the New York Times (which I have read since high school) to dredge up the next dorky academic to write an op-ed column titled something like "It Is Racist To Call Anyone A Snowflake Unless They Are In Fact An Albino"
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,095,590 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigCreek
Just curious - did I miss someone complaining about "British slang"? Or are you referring to the term "pickaninny" and the stereotyped language which was used by a stereotyped black character n the early editions of "Mary Poppins", first published in 1934, but which appears nowhere in either movie, and has been removed from the more recent editions of the book?
I agree that judging works of the past by today's "cultural norms" is a fool's errand. That said, I do think P.L. Travers' substitution of another chapter to replace the problematic one in "Mary Poppins" was a wise move, given the youth of the intended readers of the book, which is a popular children's classic, not just a "work of the past".
I was refereeing to expression commented in this story the word Hottentot which is a derogatory word for a native African tribe, I always though it was a slang word for Germans....
I was refereeing to expression commented in this story the word Hottentot which is a derogatory word for a native African tribe, I always though it was a slang word for Germans....
So did I. And I recall seeing the movie upon its release
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
