I can’t believe I am here writing this. But here we go. One of my very earliest memories, and first memory of enjoying a film, movie, or theater, was my babysitter getting back from her honeymoon and taking me and my older sister to see The Little Mermaid.

Months later, when the film finally was able to be rented from our local Movie Gallery, my mother was slightly horrified that her two young daughters had been exposed to the celebration of teenage rebellion, immodesty, and a boisterous father who was bullied into stepping aside after sacrificing himself for the protection of his family and realm.

Thankfully at my very young age, my main takeaway from the film was that long, soaking wet hair is gorgeous, which turned into a massive heart and headache when I realized my waist-length, tight curls did not flip and smooth out like Ariel’s. Sigh.

But I am now a mother of two growing boys and I understand much more what my mother felt when she first watched The Little Mermaid. The need to protect our children from a world and culture that is actively seeking to destroy their innocence is greater by the day.

And that was never so apparent than when the raging rabid leftists came out in droves attacking the 2023 remake of The Little Mermaid.

Not only are the leftists disappointed that it wasn’t “kinky” enough (excuse me?) but they’re also claiming it “erased slavery,” making it “dangerous.”

Oooooh boy. Let's make a nice cup of tea, or maybe iced matcha since it is currently 103 degrees where I live, and address these, shall we?

First off, the word “kink” has many meanings. Consider these definitions:

1. A short tight twist or curl caused by a doubling or winding of something upon itself

 

2. A mental or physical peculiarity; eccentricity, quirk

 

3. A clever unusual way of doing something

 

4. A cramp in some part of the body

 

5. An imperfection likely to cause difficulties in the operation of something

 

6. Unconventional sexual taste or behavior

So based on these definitions, which do you think The New York Times article by Wesley Morris and the related tweet referred to? I am pretty sure they’re referring to number six. Once again, excuse me? Kink?

So let's rephrase what Morris stated but with the actual definition instead of the word. “Joy, fun, mystery, risk, flavor, unconventional sexual taste, and behavior.” Remember folks, for those in the back of the room dozing, this is a movie geared towards children and families. On what planet in what galaxy should we be bummed that our kids aren’t being exposed to even more “unconventional sexual taste”?

After calling this whole movie bland, problematic, lacking in joy and flavor, and having a “white prince,” he finishes up with this discussion of Scuttle, the bird telling Ariel that Eric is set to marry Ursula, the sea witch who is imitating a human.

“The song that breaks this news to Ariel and Sebastian is a rap called ‘The Scuttlebutt’ with lyrics by Lin-Manuel Miranda. And Awkwafina, who does Scuttle’s voice, performs most of it while Bailey (the actress playing Ariel) looks on in what I’m going to call anguish. Here’s an Asian American performer whose shtick is a kind of Black impersonation, pretending to be a computer-generated bird, rhythm-rapping with a Black American man pretending to be a Caribbean crab. It’s the sort of mind-melting mess that feels honest and utterly free in its messiness, even as the mess douses a conveniently speechless Black woman.”

This writer has fussed and fumed for the length of a very long article about the lack of kink, how the inclusivity felt like a duty, and everyone just trying too hard to be modern, to only turn around and complain about the racial identities of the performers. So black voice is acceptable and “feels honest” now because you happen to like this song? Can we please keep our ideologies and pet peeves straight for a minute people?

But then his very next paragraph ends with “And I can’t wait to see how Disney’s going to apologize for it in 34 years.”

Seriously, I can’t keep up! So people are no longer to be judged based on talent but by the color of their skin? Martin Luther King Jr. would be making waves with how fast he’s rolling in his grave. Not only are we still judging people by the color of their skin, it would appear that we’re going backward from when he said “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Moving right along to my next topic: the claim that this particular version erases the history of slavery and therefore is dangerous. Marcus Ryder, a British campaigner and chair of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, wrote the following in a blog post:

“A world in which the very idea of race for the main characters seems to be subverted, consciously ignored and at the same time Black beauty is celebrated, needs to be applauded… While the importance of casting the Little Mermaid as a Black woman has been commented on in numerous articles the casting of the other roles is also worth a mention… At the same time the Little Mermaid’s father is White while her Mermaid sisters are of various races and ethnicities. Race as a social construct, as we know it, clearly does not exist underwater.”

He further waxes eloquent via social media: “The sad reality is this great film left me concerned that Disney did not take seriously this very sensitive time and place which due to the atrocities that happened there should be treated very carefully, especially for impressionable children.”

Dude, with all due respect, we’re discussing mermaids, mermen, sea witches, King Triton, and other various fantastical fantasies. Is it too much to assume that this is a peaceful world in which the fall of man and sin entering the world did not also bring with it slavery?

We have a beautiful picture of living together in peace where racial tensions have apparently never been heard of. We do not need a constant caveat of “hey beautiful people, I’m so sorry you’re living successfully on this island after your friends, family, and enemies kidnapped you, and sold you to foreigners.” If that is the case, why did they not need to show that in The Lion King or Aladdin? After all, some of those countries still practice slavery to this very day. While historically the Middle East enslaved white and people of African descent, sub-Saharan Africa still has what is estimated to be seven million of the fifty million people living in modern slavery.  And don’t get me started on the genocide of African slaves by their Middle Eastern and particularly Arab masters, hence their small population to this day in the modern Arab world.

Why are we not upset at the historical telling of those inconvenient stories? Is it because we’d rather indoctrinate children and teach them a skewed partial version of history than actually stand up and fight the modern-day demons?

So here’s to teaching our children the difference between reality and factual history, versus a version that demonizes the very far-removed descendants of slaveholders while ignoring the modern-day slavery still being inflicted on very real men, women, and children.

Slavery and sexual deviancy are both consequences of a fallen world. Why would we choose to celebrate one while simultaneously ignoring the other that is still harming millions across the pond? So, Misters Ryder and Morris, I genuinely believe your priorities are out of line, and that you both need to go back to grammar school and educate yourself about the world you’re actually living in, not spending time criticizing a fantasy world that never has and will never exist.