Cartoons consisting of racial undertones aimed at African-Americans are nothing new. The last attempt that made prominent news throughout the media was one published by the New York Post back in February. It depicted the police shooting dead Travis the Chimp then them saying, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.” This blatantly insensitive satire manifests the historic attack of African-Americans – specifically our President, Barack Obama – being synonymous with monkeys. Of course, there were "people" who urgently defended this monstrosity as innocently portraying current politics without any harmful intention. Consequently, it only further insults African-American critics’ intelligence and is simultaneously laughable. How many imbeciles do they really think they’ll truly beguile with such uttered swill? However, when cartoons are very apparent with their racism it only makes them more easily forgettable for their ignorance while others are tactfully less egregious. Disney’s upcoming 2009 American animated family feature film, The Princess and the Frog, is a little more subliminal with its approach.
As many already know, Disney plans to add an African-American princess to its repertoire of past princesses – Cinderella, Snow White, Pocahontas, etc. – with the release of The Princess and the Frog. Initially, it was titled The Frog Princess. Needless to say, it received some negative backlash from the PC public and was soon after altered. I would have thought the title just seriously lacked sentimentalism and was not exactly complimentary to the African-American woman. But according to a Disney blogger by the name of Jim Hill, the main reason for the change was because the original title might have been regarded as a slur on the French. After all, the setting of this film is in the French Quarter of New Orleans, Louisiana, during the 1920s. Other adjustments that were made included the changed name of the 19-year-old black female protagonist from Maddy to Tiana. Some complained of the central character being a chambermaid to a spoiled white girl and the addition of a “slave name” like Maddy to top it off was undoubtedly demeaning. Even though I agree, what nettled me most was another grueling flaw within the context of the fairytale. The heroic prince that Princess Tiana is to marry is white.

From sources I’ve read, representatives of Disney claim it is to be exemplary of today’s “melting pot.” They had first conjured this project up more than three years ago, now. At some point, it was conceivable somebody at Disney would have had some sort of epiphany – an ingenious answer, or at least one “exemplary” of being thought out with some effort for the imminent question, “Why not a black man?” But instead, the only thing “exemplary” is the diminutive critical thinking skills going on at Disney Headquarters if their only rebuttal is the lame cop out “melting pot”! Is the audience supposed to forget the 1920s was a Pre-Civil Rights Movement era? The whole notion of an interracial relationship offensively neglects the reality of black American history. This was a time when black love between African-American men and women couldn’t have been stronger despite the inhumane treatment of both. I understand it is not meant to be a polemic and is just a musical cartoon. But there is no excuse for it to be intentionally nonsensical. And Disney throws more gasoline on the fire when they paint the villain, Dr. Duvalier, as a Big Black Voodoo Daddy. Only a complete idiot would entertain the idea of this being a coincidence. It’s very obvious Disney has a problem with black men. Perhaps, they feel we are not worthy of wearing crowns and rescuing our own black damsels in distress. As a result, I can ensure many black men will have a “problem” with Disney and its abomination of a movie, too. Is this flick supposed to be some kind of psychological manipulation on little black girls or something? What African-American man would want to take his daughter(s) to a movie that is trying to portray the ideal savior prince for little black girls as some Caucasoid hope rather than a man who more so resembles himself – a black man? This is disrespectful, and a few of the casting members should be ashamed of themselves for partaking in this atrocity – particularly Anika Noni Rose (Dreamgirls) and Keith David (Crash, Men at Work). The inclusion of Oprah Winfrey doesn’t surprise me, though. She probably advocated the whole idea of a Caucasian prince due to her own general detest for black men. That's why I never tune in to her show. And I am aware many other black people would advise having the same attitude towards this Disney film as they brush it off their shoulders apathetically with a shrug and a scoff.

Yes, by not becoming a patron to this garbage is definitely the most standardized approach in an effort for it to flop – not likely, though. Still, since Disney is a multi-billion dollar entity the magnitude of its marketing scheme is bound to find its way to the television sets of daycare centers where black children will view it. Sadly, it will make an everlasting influence on some little ones. The optimum step is making sure the black community isn’t lucrative for this cinematic product. Stay alert my people!!!