ARCHIVES
EDUCATION | COVID-19 | TECH | SOCIAL | WORK | ENVIRONMENT | POLITICS | CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Don’t forget to subscribe ›
Unpack the history of Indigenous boarding schools.
Residential schools were administered by various Christian denominations and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. They were designed to force Indigenous children into assimilation by making them abandon their languages and cultures. Their hair was cut, their clothing was exchanged for uniforms, and they were banned from speaking their languages. These children were cut off from their families and often experienced physical and sexual abuse (The Atlantic). Many children disappeared entirely from these schools. The new discovery of unmarked graves offers a grim explanation.
Good morning and welcome back! The recent news on the atrocities that occurred at several Indigenous boarding schools isn't new, and reflects a long history of intentional erasure of those native to what's now referred to as the U.S. and Canada. As you read more about it in today's newsletter, consider: how else are schools used to erase or censor the diversity of our youth?
Thank you for your support! This daily, free, independent newsletter is made possible by your support. Make a monthly donation to support our team.
– Nicole
TAKE ACTION
Directly donate to survivors of residential boarding schools by donating to the National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition.
Sign this petition for a national day of mourning in Canada for the lost children of residential schools.
GET EDUCATED
By Nia Norris (she/her)
In recent weeks, the bodies of some 1,200 Indigenous children have been discovered in mass graves at residential schools in Canada (Star Democrat). The US announced that they would be executing a similar effort to search former boarding schools for bodies in light of the discovery (NYT).
Residential schools were administered by various Christian denominations and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. They were designed to force Indigenous children into assimilation by making them abandon their languages and cultures. Their hair was cut, their clothing was exchanged for uniforms, and they were banned from speaking their languages. These children were cut off from their families and often experienced physical and sexual abuse (The Atlantic). Many children disappeared entirely from these schools. The new discovery of unmarked graves offers a grim explanation.
The first boarding school for Indigenous children in the United States was established in 1860 and schools remained open until 1978. By the 1880s, there were 60 schools for 6200 students including day schools and boarding schools. In 1879, Col. Richard Henry Pratt established an off-reservation boarding school in Carlisle, Pennsylvania under the premise that full assimilation would best be completed away from the reservation. His motto was “Kill the Indian, Save the Man,” and the schools sought to achieve that purpose by stripping Indigenous heritage entirely and replacing it with white culture. The schools also forced conversion to Christianity, and when parents resisted placement in the schools, rations were often denied to Indigenous communities (Native Partnership).
Canada established a similar network of schools with the mission to “kill the Indian in the child.” In the 1880s, the Canadian government began establishing residential schools and the 1920 Indian Act made it illegal for Indigenous children to attend any schools but these. Similar to the U.S., children were forced to cut their hair, wear uniforms, and were often identified by number. The children were physically and often sexually abused and suffered poor health. In 1907, it was reported that 24% of previously healthy children were dying in these schools. It is also important to note that this does not include children who died after being sent home due to illness. Anywhere from 47% to 75% of children died soon after returning home (Indigenous Foundations).
While Indigenous schools are often talked of as a thing of the past, they are a recent part of history. It wasn’t until the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act in the U.S. that Indigenous parents were granted the right to deny placement of their children in these schools (Native Partnership). In Canada, the last residential school did not close until 1996 (Indigenous Foundations).
In a previous issue, we covered inequities in the child welfare system (ARD). The boarding schools might be closed, but Indigenous children in Canada account for nearly half of the 30,000 children and youth that are in foster care in Canada (Imprint News). British Columbia did not end its controversial practice of “birth alerts,” which flagged at-risk mothers and disproportionately targeted Indigenous children, until 2019 (CBC).
On June 11, 2008 the Canadian government formally apologized for its involvement in the residential boarding school practice and in 2005, the Canadian government reached a settlement to compensate boarding school survivors as well as fund the Aboriginal Healing Foundation and form the Truth and Reconciliation Commision (Indigenous Foundations). In lieu of the recent discovery of children’s remains in Canada, Justin Trudeau made a public statement that Canadians are “horrified and ashamed” (PBS).
Although the U.S. interior secretary Deb Haaland has directed the government to take action in response to Canada’s discovery and investigate the boarding schools in the U.S. (The Guardian), the U.S. has not yet provided any form of reparations to boarding school survivors, nor issued a public apology. Although President Obama signed off on the Native American Apology Resolution in 2009, tribal citizens have stated that the quiet apology is a watered-down apology with no real public action (Indian Law). The Catholic Church also has not apologized for the genocide of Indigenous children (Washington Post).
The U.S. government and complicit churches must formally apologize for the systematic abuse of Indigenous children through boarding schools and offer reparations to survivors.
Key Takeaways
Boarding schools were established in the U.S. and Canada to assimilate Indigenous children. These schools stripped children of their language, clothes, and customs.
The schools perpetrated systematic abuse of Indigenous children for a hundred years. Many children were lost and recently their remains have been recovered in unmarked graves at former sites of residential schools.
Although Canada has publicly apologized for the abuse perpetuated by these schools and provided some compensation to survivors, the U.S. and the Catholic Church have not formally apologized or provided any form of reparations.
RELATED ISSUES
1/25/2021 | Unpack "This Land is Your Land".
12/17/2020 | Respect Hawaii’s sacred land.
11/24/2020 | Stop violence against Native women.
PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT
Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.
Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza
Know the difference between canceled and accountability.
Water is a necessary natural resource needed to live a sustainable life. Humans are made up of about sixty percent of water and, in addition to it being essential for the body, it is the most important substance for cleaning, bathing, washing, and many other things. When it comes to cities that are mostly comprised of Black and Brown citizens, proper maintenance and availability to the basic necessities—such as water, in this case—are sometimes overlooked or deemed as unimportant or not as urgent as those living in predominantly white neighborhoods. Blatant disregard for these Black and Brown populations shows up more often than not but mostly during some sort of environmental crisis or natural disaster.
Happy Thursday, and welcome back to the Anti-Racism Daily! I was disappointed to see this news get convoluted into something more than what it is. Not only does it add noise to a time where fast and accurate information is critical for our wellbeing, but it also detracts from the rare instances where organizations hold themselves responsible for change. I think this is a good case study in media literacy and looking past sensationalized headlines.
This newsletter is a free resource made possible by our paying subscribers. Consider giving $7/month on Patreon. Or you can give one-time on our website, PayPal, or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza). You can also support us by joining our curated digital community. Thank you to all those that support it!
Nicole
Ps – yes, I know that MI is for Michigan and MS is for Mississippi. That was a typo.
TAKE ACTION
If you are reading books with a child that depicts harmful racist stereotypes, have an honest discussion with them about it. More resources from Learning for Justice.
Explore the diverse books recommended for 2021 by the National Education Association.
Pay attention to how “canceled” is used in conversations about race. Who is on the defensive? What were the actions taken? Where did the conversation originate from?
GET EDUCATED
By Nicole Cardoza (she/her)
March 2 was Read Across America Day, an initiative launched in 1998 to celebrate reading across the U.S. The day was started to commemorate the birthday of Theodor Seuss Geisel who wrote iconic children’s books under the pen name Dr. Seuss. But this year, the news was lit up with shocking allegations that Dr. Seuss was officially canceled for promoting racial tropes in his work. A school in Virginia banned his books. President Biden slighted him in a speech. And on Tuesday, the organization that manages Dr. Seuss’ anthology was forced to stop publishing his works. Altogether, these read as serious developments at first glance but, is the controversy valid?
One thing for certain is that there are definitely racist tropes in Dr. Seuss’s work. This conversation is not new, in fact, Dr. Seuss himself acknowledged and apologized for the harm (Dr. Seuss Art). In a study from 2019 titled Research on Diversity in Youth Literature, researchers Katie Ishizuka and Ramon Stephens analyzed all the published children’s work of Dr. Suess and found that only two percent of the human characters were people of color. All of those characters were depicted using harmful racial caricatures that are unacceptable today (St. Catherine University).
Consequently, organizations have acted accordingly. In 2017, the National Education Association rebranded Read Across America which is held on March 2 each year in honor of Dr. Seuss’ birthday to focus only on the celebration of reading and, specifically, the need to read diverse books (Edweek). These changes are reflected by others celebrating the day including school districts. Loudoun County Public Schools, the school district in question, had to publish an update on their website explaining just that (lcps.org). And although President Biden is the first president not to name Dr. Seuss in his public acknowledgment, it’s likely more to stay aligned with the NEA’s talking points than a direct attack on the Dr. Seuss’ legacy.
It’s also true that some of Dr. Seuss’ books are “canceled”, but not because of public outrage. Dr. Seuss Enterprises, the organization that manages Dr. Seuss’ anthology, announced that they made the decision to cease publication and licensing of only the books that depict racist tropes. The announcement indicated that this decision was made sometime last year after an external review. None of these books are the popular ones Dr. Seuss is known for. Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, If I Ran the Zoo, McElligot’s Pool, On Beyond Zebra!, Scrambled Eggs Super!, and The Cat’s Quizzer are the six books that have been removed. (Suessville).
The controversy this year is less about the issue itself, but more on how it’s being spun by conservative media which is blaming the “woke mob” and “cancel culture” for “destroying” the institution of Dr. Seuss’ whimsical rhyming children’s books. Nothing here is destroyed; the majority of Dr. Seuss’ books will still be sold, organizations will celebrate the importance of reading, and we’ll continue to acknowledge the harm of promoting racist tropes in kids’ books. This wasn’t brought about by a mob of protestors but instead were decisions made by a national organization and the company that represents Dr. Seuss’ legacy. These clear and straightforward calls for accountability have been weaponized to insinuate that they’ve caused more harm than they actually have.
The controversy around Dr. Seuss is one of many recent examples of the conservative uproar over change, particularly expressed in the media. According to conservatives, The Muppets were canceled after Disney added content warnings to some of the old episodes that showcased harmful stereotypes (Vulture). Mr. Potato Head fell victim to the woke mob when Hasbro—sort of—dropped the Mr. and Mrs. from the brand name and logo to make the characters more gender-inclusive (AP).
These misinformation initiatives detract from the necessary efforts of both individuals and organizations to promote diversity and inclusion. They also attempt to discredit efforts to address sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. By disparaging those that seek change, conservatives believe they can reshape the narrative to act in their favor, often completely ignoring the facts most central to the issue; in this case, that some of Dr. Seuss’ work can be harmful for youth.
There’s a wide berth between accountability and cancelation, and we should applaud those taking steps to move forward instead of defending the outdated norms that exist. Although the actions of Dr. Seuss aren't forgiven, the most we can do is take accountability and do our part to move forward.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
After conversations around racist stereotypes found in Dr. Seuss' work rose again alongside Read Across America Day, the organization that represents his work announced they are ceasing the sale and publication of the books in question.
Critics decried the move as an attack by the "woke mob" and their attempts to "cancel" Dr. Seuss entirely, misrepresenting recent actions by the President, a Virginia school district, and the official Dr. Seuss organization.
This is one of many examples on how conservative media and leaders wield "cancel culture" and "wokeness" against those taking accountability and working towards change.
RELATED ISSUES
2/5/2021 | Stop white centering.
12/13/2020 | Acknowledge whiteness in classical art.
12/8/2020 | Learn how to apologize.
PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT
Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.
Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza
Stop white centering.
On February 2, the School Library Journal, a publication for librarians and information specialists that reviews and recommends children’s books, released the cover of their February issue, which drew immediate criticism on social media.
Happy Friday, and welcome back! This one is personal. For my 9-to-5 (I don’t run this newsletter full-time!) I run a company that creates diverse mindfulness content for kids, and I just published my first children’s book with the same intention. For both of those projects, I’m committed to centering Black and brown kids because of how often they’re overlooked. Today’s topic – during Black History Month no less – is infuriating.
Thank you all for your support. This newsletter is made possible by our subscribers. Consider subscribing for $7/month on Patreon. Or you can give one-time on our website or PayPal. You can also support us by joining our curated digital community.
Nicole
Ps – be sure to sign up for 28 Days of Black History.
TAKE ACTION
Support the work of We Need Diverse Books, which advocates for essential changes in the publishing industry.
Buy books that center children of color, particularly books beyond “issue books” from independent writers and publishers—recommendations on our Bookshop.
Consider: How do you center the “benefits” of diversity, equity, and inclusion at your office? In your community? At your school? Does it align with centering the needs of those most marginalized or the white community?
GET EDUCATED
By Nicole Cardoza (she/her)
On February 2, the School Library Journal, a publication for librarians and information specialists that reviews and recommends children’s books, released the cover of their February issue, which drew immediate criticism on social media.
Before we dive in, the statement on this cover isn’t factually wrong. The article highlighted on the homepage names the challenges that libraries in majority-white school districts experience when diversifying their collections. It’s correct that, as the article states, centering whiteness in children’s media can promote an ethnocentric, superior mindset against other communities of color. You can read the full article here.
But this is a disappointing example of white centering – when the case for change has to be rooted in the benefit of dominant culture. It’s a violent manipulation of privilege, a way to disregard the sentiments of a non-white person or community and prioritize white feelings instead. White centering is often found in tone-policing, racial gaslighting, and in the refusal of apologizing or holding oneself accountable for their actions. It creates the assumption that diversity is only important when it benefits white people.
The illustration, personally, makes this positioning most damning. The cover depicts a white child holding up a Black face speaking Spanish over their own. The two images merge, so the Black face becomes theirs, too. This is a form of blackface (Anti-Racism Daily) and normalizes the idea that white people can adopt the culture of non-white people for their own gain – as if it’s automatically theirs to own. It perpetuates the idea that the experiences of non-white people should be designed for white consumption, white empowerment, and white advancement. This notion is the foundation of white supremacy.
Rebekah Borucki, author, and publisher at Wheat Penny Press, emphasizes that “what happened here was no accident or oversight. The decision to center white children and their needs in an educational institution’s cover story, written by a non-Black woman, during Black History Month, is exactly why we desperately need more Black authors, publishers, and librarians creating and curating content for our children. Black creativity and labor does not exist for white people’s benefit.”
This perspective on books is quite common in the publishing industry. We already know that the industry is largely white, and the books written by people of color that succeed are “issue books,” books that educate and illuminate their struggles. We wrote about this in more detail in a previous newsletter. Consider the controversy around “American Dirt,” a novel that glorified the trauma of immigration written by a white woman. Publishers celebrated it and accelerated its rapid success without listening to the Latinx voices adamant about its harm (Vulture).
And this is reflected in the children’s book publishing space. A 2019 study by We Need Diverse Books found that 71% of the characters found in children’s books are either white or non-human (BookRiot). It’s 2.5x more likely that a children’s book character will be an animal than Black/African American, and only 1% of characters are of Native background. Currently, there are several top bestselling kids’ books featuring kids of color. Still, all but one of them reflect the inauguration of Vice President Harris (there’s also one that celebrates President Biden). We can’t wait for another inauguration to see this type of diversity (Barnes & Noble).
I was one of the few kids of color at an otherwise all-white school. I'd go home and wrap a towel around her head to pretend to have the long locks of my peers. I tried everything I could to fit in. Abby, an American Girl doll that represented a nine-year-old enslaved child, was the only Black doll I owned. In the first pages of the book that accompanied the doll, her overseer forced her to eat a worm found on the tobacco plants because she wasn’t removing them fast enough (Paris Review). Who was that doll created for? Who was that story created for? Was it designed to offer this young Black girl representation, vision, and hope, or make the horrors of slavery consumable for a broader audience? And would the diversity efforts of my school actually support me and my experience?
As of now (mid-day Thursday), the School Library Journal has yet to respond to the feedback on their cover. It’s clear that it’s up to us as individuals to stay educated and aware on how to center diverse kids’ books – by centering the experiences of marginalized children that deserve to be seen, heard, and celebrated.
We’ve created our own recommended reading list of diverse children’s books for Black History Month. You can explore the collection in our Bookshop.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
The School Library Journal released an off-putting cover in February that centers the need for diversity in children's media for the benefit of white students
This is an example of how white centered diversity efforts only perpetuate white supremacy
The publishing industry is notoriously white, and often only celebrates diverse stories when they seem to have a benefit for white readers.
RELATED ISSUES
11/19/2020 | Decolonize your reading habits.
7/15/2020 | End racial bias in school discipline.
9/7/2020 | Learn about critical race theory.
PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT
Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.
Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza
Understand inequities in child welfare.
Last summer, cities across the country were forced to address the role of law enforcement in creating unsafe spaces for its communities. Now, many are keeping the pressure on to see action. The Black Lives Matter LA chapter is addressing the intersection of law enforcement and child welfare, an often inequitable system harming the most vulnerable families (BLM LA). Today we are learning about the disproportionate representation of Black families in the child welfare system.
Happy Tuesday, and welcome back to the Anti-Racism Daily. I've been learning more about the topic of child welfare because of how the landscape is shifting through COVID-19.
On one hand, remote learning, social distancing rules and budget cuts have reduced the number of opportunities for other grownups to report potential child welfare situations. Smultaneously, local leaders are advocating for reduced involvement with law enforcement in these cases – as part of efforts to reduce policing and reimagine public safety. I appreciate Nia's overview of the child welfare space and the racial disparities all the more urgent in this tense time. I hope you do, too.
We're in the final stages of bringing on our first full-time staff member, thanks to the support of our community! Consider subscribing for $7/month on Patreon. Or, you can give one-time on our website, PayPal, or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza). You can also support us by joining our curated digital community.
Nicole
TAKE ACTION
Sign this petition from Black Lives Matter Los Angeles to remove police presence in child services investigations and #ReimagineChildSafety.
Support organizations that are focused on family reunification, and providing direct support to families such as Children’s Rights and Movement for Family Power.
Consider: How does this disparity affect child welfare resources in my community? How can I escalate an issue in a more equitable way?
Remember: child welfare can be greatly supported when you support housing, education. food and other essential services in your local community. Consider how your local organizations and mutual aid networks help reimagine child safety.
GET EDUCATED
By Nicole Cardoza (she/her)
Last summer, cities across the country were forced to address the role of law enforcement in creating unsafe spaces for its communities. Now, many are keeping the pressure on to see action. The Black Lives Matter LA chapter is addressing the intersection of law enforcement and child welfare, an often inequitable system harming the most vulnerable families (BLM LA). Today we are learning about the disproportionate representation of Black families in the child welfare system.
Black children make up 33% of children in foster care, although they comprise only 15% of the total child population (National Conference of State Legislatures). They are also significantly more likely to be removed from their families for the same issues that are overlooked in cases with white children.
Initially, the child welfare system was designed to reunite previously separated families, and it excluded Black families entirely. When the stereotype of the “welfare queen” became prolific in the 1980s, the welfare system became a means of separating Black families and facilitating unnecessary transracial adoptions. Congressional acts passed in the mid-1990s limited funds to support families of origin, but left funds for adoption and foster placement uncapped, incentivizing family separation. Other acts, including the Paired with Inter-Ethnic Adoption Act, facilitated a wave of unnecessary adoptions by parents from another race (Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy).
These policies incentivize American states to adopt a more punitive approach to child welfare, directing more funds to separation than direct support to families (PBS). Funding for adoption and foster care is prioritized over directly funding families in need (PBS). The federal Title IV-E Foster Care Program offers unlimited funding to foster care placements, and limits funds for services to keep families intact (Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems).
Poverty is a predictor in the removal of children from their home, and Black parents are more likely to face poverty. (For more on racism and intergenerational wealth, check out our previous article here.) There are multiple case studies where children of color have been removed from their caregivers due to lack of money only, including a case of a family facing eviction, and a hospitalized mother who did not have someone to watch her kids.
In these instances, appropriate supports like housing assistance and respite care were not offered to the families. Instead, the children were removed from their guardians and placed in foster care. These particular case examples were categorized as “emergency removals without prior judicial authorization”, and this type of removal is particularly susceptible to racial bias (Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems). Poverty also contributes to many neglect cases: a child can be removed for being malnourished, due to the family’s food insecurity. However, it would be much less harmful to fund the family than to place the child with another family (Practice Notes).
Black parents who struggle with substance use disorders are also more likely to have their children removed than white parents with the same issue. Black mothers are 1.5 times more likely to be drug tested (or have their baby drug tested) after birth, although positivity rates are about equal in Black and white mothers (Journal of Women's Health). Additionally, incarceration disproportionately affects Black Americans, putting parents at risk of their children being placed in foster care, and their parental rights being terminated entirely (Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy).
Before the child welfare laws in the late 20th century were passed, Black families were largely barred from participating in child welfare services at all. Black children were deemed to be unwanted by white adoptive parents and were largely cared for by extended family and church networks when their parents could not care for them. The AACWA was the first legislation that included Black children in child welfare services, and supported reunification or establishing permanency efforts for children in foster care (Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy)
Similar acts also facilitated the placement of Indigenous children in the childcare system. Indigenous American children are 2.9 times more likely to be placed in foster care than white children (ABA). The Indian Adoption Act of 1958 effectively allowed the United States Government to remove Indigenous children from their homes and place them in with white families. However, in 1978, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) allowed tribal courts to intervene in child welfare placements, and required the states to place children in homes that were consistent with indigenous culture (APA). However, the ICWA has not been consistent in its implementation and a 2013 ruling allowing a white family to adopt an Indigenous child has put the law in peril (Washington Post).
The American Bar Association recommends that child services workers recognize and understand biases, as well as working directly with families to better understand their situations. They also recommend that child welfare agencies hire more diverse staff (ABA). Recent policies have shifted more towards keeping families together and to offering services to families who are struggling prior to removing children (Child Welfare). One example is community doula programs that are publicly funded to give support to parents who face poverty (DONA). Although it is clear that children should not be with abusive parents, it is still critical to consider the mitigating factors of many child welfare placements. Separating families due to poverty or racial profiling is unaccepable. It’s time to prioritize funding families directly to keep them intact and healthy.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Initially, Black families were excluded from child welfare systems entirely. It wasn’t until child welfare legislation was fully developed in the late 20th century that the focus shifted to families of color.
Later, the welfare system became a means of separating Black families and facilitating unnecessary transracial adoptions.
Black children are separated from their parents at 2.2 times the rate of white children and Native American children are separated from their parents at 2.9 times the rate of white children.
More funding is directed toward foster care and adoption than to directly funding families that are in the child welfare system due to poverty.
RELATED ISSUES
10/2/2020 | Protect early child care providers.
12/9/2020 | Rethink transracial adoption.
10/28/2020 | Unpack the history of social work.
PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT
Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.
Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza
Support diversity in animated films.
Over the past couple of years, major studios have rushed to create renditions of popular stories from generations past, a way to incite millennials with renditions of their favorites and, hopefully, bring their children along for the ride. As they do, efforts to add more diversity have been applauded and criticized alike. Representation in all movies and particularly animated movies – isn’t just a marketing ploy; it’s critical to rewriting a history of whiteness in animated films and contributing to a conscious conversation about where society can grow.
Happy Monday, and welcome back to the Anti-Racism Daily. Each day, we send one email to spark action – and dismantle racism and systemic oppression in the U.S. To support our work, you can donate one-time or monthly on our website, Patreon, Paypal or Venmo @nicoleacardoza.
I’m a child of the 90s, so I was raised in the time of Disney princesses and happily ever afters. Since then, I've become an avid fan of animated storytelling. Much of my perspective on race has come from analyzing its history and how it responds to current events, so I'm excited to share that with you in today's newsletter. To unpack this issue, we touch on whitewashing, blackface, and colorism. If those are unfamiliar terms for you, I recommend referencing the associated articles as you go.
And before I get a million hate mail messages, I’m not asking you to cancel your Disney+ account or give up your favorite film from your youth! Like other other newsletters, it’s an opportunity to think critically, reflect, learn and choose what type of future you wish to invest in.
Nicole
TAKE ACTION
Reflect on your favorite animated movie/show. How does it support narratives for equity and inclusion? How does it work against narratives for equity and inclusion?
If you’re a parent: consider diversifying the TV shows and movies that your child watches at home. Search for a new, diverse story to introduce them to.
GET EDUCATED
By Nicole Cardoza (she/her)
Over the past couple of years, major studios have rushed to create renditions of popular stories from generations past, a way to incite millennials with renditions of their favorites and, hopefully, bring their children along for the ride. As they do, efforts to add more diversity have been applauded and criticized alike. Representation in all movies and particularly animated movies – isn’t just a marketing ploy; it’s critical to rewriting a history of whiteness in animated films and contributing to a conscious conversation about where society can grow.
Much of the scrutiny around representation is targeted at Disney, who arguably set the standard for feature-length animated films in the U.S. And also because their legacy is rife with racial stereotypes. Historically the principal characters of Disney movies are overwhelmingly white. If people of color are featured, it’s poorly. In the Aristocats, a cat in yellowface plays the piano with chopsticks. In Peter Pan, Native Americans are referred to by the racist slur "redskins" (NYTimes). And in Dumbo, released during the peak of Jim Crow in America, a group of black crows reinforce African American stereotypes of the time (Washington Post). Now, if stream one of these films on Disney+, a disclaimer pops up at the beginning, acknowledging that "these stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now.” They also link to a website, “Stories Matter,” where users can learn more (BBC).
You’ll notice that many of the characters shared above aren’t even human. And that’s a trend that’s persisted, even as animated films mature. Characters that could be people of color are animals (like Pocahontas and Lion King). If they are human, they tend to spend significant amounts of time as animals. On the surface, this means that we don’t get that melanin screen time many marginalized communities look forward to.
But, as Andrew Tejada notes in his article “Representation Without Transformation: Can Hollywood Stop Changing Cartoon Characters of Color?” it goes beyond what kids see. It often changes the entire story. Instead of being themselves, they spend most of the movie trying to win back their right to be human (tor.com). This means that they don’t spend time navigating their own unique stories, ones that could acknowledge the specific challenges they face and perhaps resonate with viewers. And in a world that historically sees people of color as less-than-human, it feels especially dismissive.
The story of Princess Tiana, the first Black Disney princess from The Frog Princess, is often used as an example of this. Although the story was consciously re-created to depict Southern history and a Black lead, Tiana spent most of the movie as a frog trying to kiss a prince to become human again, which quickly overshadowed her story of trying to start her own business as a young Black woman.
Otherwise, when more diverse characters have been included in animation – whether by race or by size, gender, or sexual orientation – they're usually portrayed as the villains. Their contrast from what’s considered “good” in dominant culture are used as justification to ostracize and, often, inflict violence upon them.
This contrast is primarily created through skin color, relying on our history of colorism to distinguish the character’s role in the narrative. A classic example is the Mongolians and Shan-Yu, their leader, in Mulan. The rest of the humans have light, flesh-toned skin colors, but theirs is much darker – more grey than anything, with yellow eyes. They almost look subhuman, which is intentional. It makes a clear statement of who is considered good v. evil. Meanwhile, colorism is still abundant, particularly in countries throughout Asia (read more on colorism in our previous newsletter). Other examples of colorism in animated series include Scar, Ursula, and Mor’du (from Brave), and this trend extends to live-action films, too.
Beyond skin color, villains are often given other characteristics that are used against marginalized groups. Nearly every villain in Disney films is queercoded, or, given a “series of characteristics that are traditionally associated with queerness, such as more effeminate presentations by male characters or more masculine ones from female characters” (Syfy). Think of Scar v. Simba, Hades v. Hercules, Jafar v. Aladdin, or Ursula (based on a drag queen) v. Ariel. By doing so, the films subconsciously align queerness with evil, and, because they’re often trying to thwart “true love,” threaten heteronormativity and our right to live “happily ever after” (Little White Lies). Villains are also depicted as larger-bodied (like Ursula and John Ratcliffe) or with a physical or intellectual disability (CNN).
None of these depictions themselves are harmful themselves – representation can be neutral or positive – but it’s how it’s wielded that causes the stereotypes to persist. When we always see people from marginalized communities as the villain, we also assume that those from dominant culture are the heroes, which leads us to overlook the harm they can and have, inflicted for centuries. It can also teach kids harmful notions about themselves: “I have darker skin, so I must be a bad person. Maybe that’s why I do bad things, or people don’t seem to like me very much. I deserve to be treated this way”. Or, “people that act this way are bad. It’s my job to treat them poorly. That’s what the good guys do”.
Efforts to diversify these old stories have been criticized by people who are afraid they will “change the story” too much (Washington Post). But do they? To me, these stories don’t accurately depict just marginalized culture, but any particular culture. When it comes to The Little Mermaid, the plot itself doesn’t represent much of any of the mythology mermaids inhabit in countries worldwide. It even strays far from the Hans Christian Anderson tale (Wired). I can understand if someone who strays far from the narrative was cast in a story like The Secret of Kells, set in 9th century Ireland. But for a mermaid? Let’s also remember that white actors are cast for roles designated for people of color all the time.
And of course, diversity has to move beyond what we see. White actors also voice most of the animated characters of color we see in movies and TV shows. This is a more blatant form of whitewashing that’s perhaps easier to get away with because, unlike live-action films, viewers rarely know who the actor is behind the character. (The lead crow in Dumbo is literally named “Jim Crow” and voiced by a white man). Over the past few months, several white voiceover actors have stepped away from roles where they depict people of color (Vox).
Remember that representation internally tends to impact representation externally. And it’s the directors, writers, producers, and animators of color that are pushing the industry forward. Not only are they carving their own path, but ensuring everything from accurate illustrations, dialogue, and backgrounds are creating the right container for our stories to be heard. But they should not carry the burden of re-creating an entire industry or be held responsible for its legacy.
Nevertheless, we’ve come a long way. I was reminded to watch this when I saw a series of trailers for animated stories that seem to depict beautiful, diverse stories eschewing the Disney princess motif with culturally diverse concepts and settings. And I hope we continue to advocate for all narratives to be told – and inspire us with awe and wonder.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Historically, animated films perpetuated harmful racial stereotypes
More recently, films tend to use colorism and other stereotypes to make villains feel counter-cultural, which enforces dominant culture and how it oppresses
Recently, Disney+ added a disclaimer to its films depicting harmful stereotypes that are now available to stream
RELATED ISSUES
9/15/2020 | End Hollywood whitewashing.
7/17/2020 | Analyze representation in media.
8/6/2020 | Don't do digital blackface.
PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT
Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.
Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza