Seems just like yesterday I was writing about the new Little Mermaid remake. And yet here we are again, sipping iced tea and having a chat.
Because once again I’m sitting here scratching my head, fidgeting with my pearls (okay, not really, I’m sitting here with my busted-up leg elevated, iced, and trying my hardest to not reenact Cabin Fever from Muppet Treasure Island), but I am trying my hardest to find some, even if it is minuscule, shred of logic when it comes to the decision-making process of leftists.
Why is wokeism so determined to erase and cancel entire groups based on the lone voices of ornery members? As Lieutenant Colonel Allen West once said:
“History is not there for you to like or dislike; it’s there for you to learn from. And if it offends you, even better, because then you are less likely to repeat it. It’s not yours to erase; it belongs to all of us.”
Remember a few years ago when PepsiCo and others went full-on woke and erased all the representation on their bottles, labels, and packaging? The great-grandson of one of the faces of Aunt Jemima was none too pleased that the hard work of Anna Short Harrington was being erased. Instead of acknowledging the hard work, racism, and underrepresentation that she, along with the faces of Uncle Ben, Cream of Wheat, and Mrs. Butterworth faced and overcame, and instead of celebrating these individuals, these multimillion-dollar companies decided it was easier to erase their very existence all together.
That makes sense, right? Or does it? Because it looks like segregation all over again. “I’m sorry ma’am, your history and face make people uncomfortable, so instead of educating their uneducated bottoms, we are going to hide you from public view.”
And that is exactly what Disney is doing once again.
What is the name of that German fairytale of the beautiful young princess? The one with fair skin, described as white as snow with dark hair and dark eyes? She never even had a proper name, just a description for a name? Oh yes: Snow White.
So Disney is once again retelling this tale. Though for the life of me, I can’t understand why. Instead of a Snow White, as she is described in all versions of the tale, stemming from before 1800, as a girl with skin the color of snow, we have a very attractive Colombian-American Rachel Zegler. But let me tell ya, if snow is that color, you stay away from it.
As for her Seven Dwarfs: erased. Yes: they are appropriating a classic fairytale name but then butchering and cannibalizing it the way the evil Step-Mother desired to do to Snow White.
Instead of Seven Dwarves, there are Seven Magical Creatures. With the brush of the politically correct pen, an entire people group has been erased from a beloved story. Although it would appear in all irony that one of the Magical Creatures is a man of small stature.
Once again, representation is dead. And yes, I did read all the articles discussing Peter Dinklage disparaging the story and use of dwarfs in Hollywood and the media. A topic I am sure is very dear to his heart, a heart that is worth over $30 million from playing just such a character. Without playing a dwarf, who would Peter Dinklage be? An unknown man that, though different, is also made in the image of God.
Earlier this year the leftists were upset that the diversity in the Little Mermaid felt forced. As if it was done strictly out of obligation. I disagreed. I loved the elegance and twist the beautiful Halle Bailey brought as Ariel. I love the Jamaican-feeling flavor of the island where Prince Eric lived due to the gracious adoption he received from the Jamaican-inspired queen. Hans Christian Andersen simply described his mermaid as “her skin was as clear and delicate as a rose-leaf, and her eyes as blue as the deepest sea; but, like all the others, she had no feet, and her body ended in a fish's tail.” After all, the name of the story was Little Mermaid, not White Fish Girl.
Yet they’ve taken a story named Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and made it into South American Beauty and the Seven Mystical Creatures. Yes, the dwarfs have been erased and replaced. So why even pretend they’re following a story or any sort of logic? We’ve also been told by Faux White, played by Rachel Zegler:
“She’s not going to be saved by the prince, and she’s not going to be dreaming about true love; she’s dreaming about becoming the leader she knows she can be.”
What feminist handbook says you can’t have love to be a leader? Doesn’t that very statement fly in the face of the feminist mantra that we can do and have it all? Faux White can only do one, so she chooses to be a leader instead of allowing herself to enjoy one of the greatest gifts given to us: a partner to help carry our burdens. As columnist and mother Zara Hanawalt wrote:
“I’m okay with them leaning into the whimsy of fairy tales. I’m okay with them viewing romantic love as a path to happily ever after. I’m okay with them embracing things that feel traditionally girly. Because isn’t telling kids that all the things they enjoy are deeply flawed actually more harmful? Aren’t we better-serving kids if we tweak what needs to be tweaked, focusing instead on showing what healthy love ought to look like instead of nixing those stories entirely?”
So for all the young boys and girls watching this, apparently Disney wants to teach you that instead of educating ourselves on the disabilities of others, since dwarfism is a recognized and protected disability, we erase and cancel them. If we can’t see them, we don’t have to educate or train our children how to help and respect those who are different; and as someone currently living with a disability, we in the United States are sorely lacking in our education on how to help and assist the disabled.
And for the young girls watching, you must choose. Either you can be a lonely leader, or you can be a happily married woman. You can’t have both. But maybe you can have some odd friends, as long as they fit into the image the woke wants to see.
