|
    |
Diversity in Disney’s Theme Parks: Is It Working?
Priscilla Hobbs and Antares Leask
[PDF]
Abstract
In celebrating the centennial of the Disney Studios, it is also important to note cultural challenges to Disney’s representation and how the studio/corporation responds. This includes looking beyond their cartoons and films, but also into their theme park offerings, which are arguably extensions of Disney’s animation innovations. To do this, we drill into three popular Disneyland theme park attractions that are simultaneously cinematic and controversial, placing Disney in a delicate balance between the need for renewal and their fan’s reactions to change in any form. Indeed, sometimes it seems that Disney is not responsive enough or that they are too reactive. Our contention is that, in recognition of Disney as a cultural influencer, their attempts to improve representation in the theme parks will help lead to a better small world.
Article
In its one-hundred-year history, Disney has garnered both critical acclaim and scathing criticism for its offerings. While much of the early criticism revolved around Disney’s animation and storytelling as crafts, more recent criticism has repeatedly surfaced ways in which Disney’s “everyman” falls short of full representation of their audience demographic, especially since many of the films are based on specific cultural legends. From NAACP protests of Song of the South (Wilfred Jackson and Harve Foster, 1946) to more recent protests against the casting of an African American woman as Ariel in The Little Mermaid (Rob Marshall, 2023), Disney has detractors on both sides. With a push toward diversity and inclusion, are they doing too much or too little by using the theme parks as social platforms?
As Disney celebrates its centennial, two events within its theme parks help illustrate not only the cultural significance of the Disney brand, but also tension between American nostalgia and progressive film studios. The first was the closing of the Splash Mountain attraction at both American theme parks (Disneyland in California and Magic Kingdom in Florida) in 2023. Themed after the Disney feature Song of the South, Splash Mountain served as a monument to the Uncle Remus and Br’er Rabbit stories that inspired the film. In June 2020, Disney announced that Splash Mountain would be rethemed to Tiana’s Bayou Adventure, featuring the characters from the 2009 film The Princess and the Frog (John Musker and Ron Clements, 2009) (Ramirez). The fan response to the announcement and subsequent closings was a mixture of mourning the loss of a beloved attraction, lack of understanding of the film’s perpetual relegation to the vault, and significant racist reaction against the retheming.
The second noteworthy event is the extent that Disney has been engaged in a feud with Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, which is ultimately illustrative of the power play in motion between a large corporation and a state government. The feud centres around the Florida government’s passing of the bill identified as HB 1557, colloquially known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill (Burga). Disney prolonged taking a stance about the bill, which upset many cast members. When then-CEO Bob Chapek finally took a stance, it positioned Disney as a pro-LGBTQIA+ supporter. In response, DeSantis cancelled Disney’s Reedy Creek Improvement District, which had functioned as a self-serving utility district for Walt Disney World since the initial resort construction in the 1960s and moved it within the jurisdiction of the state government. The cancellation, in the form of bill SB 1604, signed by DeSantis on 5 May 2023, gives the newly formed Central Florida Tourism Oversight Board, led by the governor’s appointees, the ability to cancel development plans and agreements previously approved between Disney and the local communities surrounding the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Disney filed a lawsuit that the bill is politically motivated, has been damaging to the company economically, and violates its constitutional rights, bringing into question whether or not corporations legally function as American citizens, and revised their lawsuit to include DeSantis’s statement that “Disney is not allowed to pervert the system to the detriment of Floridians” (CBS Miami Team).
Disney’s history, from studio to global corporation, is fraught with events similar to these two examples in which the company’s response either aligns to the conventions of the era or challenges the status quo to promote progressive thinking. Having now spanned a century of change, aspects of entire generations are defined by the corporation’s offerings spanning from films to consumer products to theme parks and residential experiences, with strong connections interwoven into the very identity of each generation. As cultural shifts occur, Disney fans look back to the era they feel the strongest nostalgia for and develop cult-like adherence to the brand as it was in that moment. Any hint of change feels like an attempt to change the identity of the fandom, as well as their own individual identity.
To look at this closer, we zoom in on one facet of the Disney corpus—the theme parks. The theme parks are an extension of the film studio and deconstructing theme park attractions helps to unravel the tension between Disney and the public. To narrow our focus, we look at attractions that include troublesome representations yet are recognised across Disney literature and social media as among the most recognised attractions among the American Disney theme parks, notably: It’s a Small World (styled in all lowercase by Disney), Pirates of the Caribbean, and Splash Mountain. The throughline of our analysis centres around (a) the narrative of the attraction, (b) the response to it, (c) the continued refresh of the characters and storyline, and (d) the broader cultural critique informed by protests to updates. We validate the reception of these changes through the commentaries posted across blog sites, YouTube channels, and other social media, where the response is not only posted to the world, but under discussion through the comment sections and reshares across other platforms. Taken together, these attractions highlight Disney’s own complex relationship between imagineering creativity, audience experience, and corporate practices, and their goal of respecting (and recognising) who their audience is, and has been, as well as their corporate responsibility for acknowledging past errors, educating future generations, fostering a general sense of doing better, and utilising the theme parks as public spaces for social commentary.
Disney Theme Parks as Social Platforms
Cinema and media scholar, Douglas Brode, recognises Disney as a significant cultural figure in his book From Walt to Woodstock with a thesis that conveys that Disney, through its mid-century films and television offerings, essentially helped establish the counterculture movement of the 1960s: “Disney films taught us to question all authority and when (if) finding it invalid, to strike out against those who would repress youthful freedoms, even if this necessitated employing violence as a last resort” (xvi). Similarly, American cultural historian, Bethanee Bemis, notes how the Disney theme parks serve as platforms for many of these countercultural ideals to manifest:
Disney’s recognition of social change [. . .] brings greater visibility to the change itself. Because Disney is looked to as an arbiter of American mores, their recognition of any change to the national identity inevitably brings argument from those who do not agree with it. Disney’s choosing to stand firm in their decisions, once made, not only recognizes change but legitimizes it and pushes it forward.” (151)
What both authors allude to is a niche in the broader conversation of social justice where a corporation recognises their responsibility to their consumers through how they position their brand. While it would be a stretch to claim that Disney is engaging in social justice, we suggest that what the company is engaging is a performative form of diversity justice, which involves creating environments where everyone feels valued, respected, and included, and where discrimination, prejudice, and bias are actively challenged and eliminated. Through Disneyland, and later E.P.C.O.T., Walt Disney envisioned such a utopia that would ultimately serve the mission and values of the Disney corporation—meaning that the social equity and narrative relies entirely on how Disney curates it, not in an altruistic desire to create a common good.
This positioning of the Disney corporation is only possible because of the blurring of boundaries across different media, creating a synergistic system where all elements of the Disney brand affect and impact the way that the brand is consumed. Film scholar Robert Neuman analyses the symbiosis between the theme park and the film industry. He describes the Disneyland experience as “cinematic”: “the visitor enters the movie, and filmic means, such as establishing shots and close-ups, are used to draw the viewer through the park” (5). He adds, “‘Live action’ cross-dissolves blur the transition from one realm or attraction to another through subtle changes in colour, architectural detailing, plantings, and music” (5). The “live action” audio-animatronics become the storytellers of the experience rides and direct the audience’s visual and aural experience. From a studio that has historically taken pride in innovation, the theme park has become a natural extension of the cinematic art form. The theme park attractions, by extension, rely on embodied action and being a part of Disneyland’s cinematic experience is intentionally immersive, yet hyperreal, to use the descriptor from philosopher Jean Baudrillard. Through the successful construction of the simulated environment, Disneyland invites its viewers to lose themselves literally in the story, blurring the lines between “real” and “fake” (Baudrillard 12–13).
It’s a Small World
Disney’s stance on a unified world can be summarized by the attraction It’s a Small World, created for the 1964–1965 New York World’s Fair when American society was experiencing a cultural turning point. It was an opportunity to showcase the innovations of the post-War world, and to showcase the changes yet to come. Many popular corporations at the time used this as an opportunity to position themselves as agents of change, highlighting the new technologies they were developing. The popularity of Disneyland positioned Disney as creators of the kind of attractions and experiences these corporate sponsors sought to have. One such sponsor was UNESCO, an agency of the United Nations dedicated to promoting messages of peace. They collaborated with PepsiCola to develop an experience themed around world peace and invited Disney to develop the attraction. What the Imagineers developed was a boat ride that tours around the world set to an unforgettable theme song that promotes the idea that it’s a small world after all.
Audio-animatronic dolls represent the children of the world, dressed in their native costumes and performing their cultural dances. It was an ambitious project, because the boat ride needed to encompass as many cultures as possible, without leaving any of the cultures represented within the United Nations out of the mix. The children are linked together by the polyphonic theme song by the Sherman Brothers, which includes this message of hope:
There is just one moon and a golden sun
And a smile means friendship to everyone
Though the oceans are wide and the mountains divide
It’s a small world after all. (Sherman and Sherman)The message conveys that for all our differences, humanity is linked together to share this world—a message aligned with the growing counterculture movement of the mid-century. In a decade that saw significant changes to public policies including Civil Rights activism, the Stonewall uprising, and events such as the first moon landing, the purpose of the attraction helped to foster a new global awareness in preparation for the new millennium, especially during the height of the Cold War when the spectre of nuclear annihilation was a constant threat. Indeed, the attraction’s theme song, a simple and memorable tune, suggests that the acceptance of all people and cultures is a fundamental human condition, yet recent world history has shown the extent that humanity struggles to accept difference.
Disney has updated the attraction multiple times to modernise technology, shift sponsorship, and to accommodate guests of all shapes and sizes (Yoshino). One of Disney’s most controversial moves was to insert its own characters as Easter Eggs in the scenes that reflect their cultures. When these dolls were first introduced, their costumes sparkled in the special spotlights illuminating them. While the Imagineers designed the dolls to emulate the unique style of Mary Blair, the attraction’s initial designer and art director, it was nonetheless jarring to see these fantastical characters mixed in with the real (albeit idealised) representation of global cultures. In her reflection on the attraction, scholar Rebekah Lovejoy describes, “as I was confronted with the first couple of characters, I experienced a body shock, developing a feeling of violation, quickly mounting to anger. […] I spent much of the day processing my intense disappointment with Disney’s decision to violate what had felt like a sacred space” (167).
But the product placement is only a fraction of the larger issues. Within the subtext of the attraction, countries victim to European colonisation are represented with stereotypic gestures, are represented more by animals (Africa, representing all countries), or filled with inaccuracies: “It is telling that the people with the darkest skin are often upstaged by animals, and inexplicably Mexico has found its way into South America” (Lovejoy 161). For many years, the racism of the attraction was simply accepted, and Disney is making slow progress to improve representation within the attraction. In 2023, a Disney fan noticed that the faces on the dolls representing Asia had been repainted to replace the stereotypical eye slits to have the same kind of round eyes as the rest of the dolls (Swensen; The Mouselets). While this is regarded as a positive step, this change is arguably closer to the homogeneity of Western ideals, showing that there is still more room to grow.
But Disney did make a major leap forward in 2022, with the Disneyland addition of two dolls in wheelchairs, one within the Latin America scenes and the other in the attraction’s finale (Azoqa), and the Magic Kingdom welcomed their doll in a wheelchair in early 2023 (Levien). While Disney could still do better, they have doubled down on their commitment:
We remain committed to our ongoing work to champion inclusivity and are excited for what the future brings as we continue to reflect the beauty of our individual experiences. It doesn’t matter who you are. If you are a guest in our park or a cast member, we celebrate you—your background, your culture, your identity—and we welcome you every day. (Levien)
Pirates of the Caribbean
When Pirates of the Caribbean opened in Disneyland, along with its New Orleans Square neighbour the Haunted Mansion, it changed theme park dark rides significantly. Not only was the immersive experience complete and total, but it is also cinematic in the truest sense. Guests float gently in boats past the very real diners at the Blue Bayou restaurant before beginning their exciting journey from scene to scene, which includes two plunges as the show building goes underground (a real estate necessity) and beyond the berm. Meanwhile, a story unfolds from dead men who tell no tales in Dead Man’s Cove to the streets of the pirating town, Puerto Dorado on Isla Tesoro. In the first version of the attraction, in between lyrics about kidnapping, looting, and plundering, the pirates were given permission to continue their questionable behaviour, including everything from auctioning women to public intoxication.
It may seem surprising that one of the most popular rides at the Happiest Place on Earth glorifies crimes ranging from abduction to arson in a catchy drinking song, yet the Pirates of the Caribbean has often been noted as one of the most favourite attractions in the park from the day it opened in 1967. To illustrate the popularity of the attraction, when the Magic Kingdom at Walt Disney World opened without the attraction, guests loudly complained and Disney president, Card Walker, rushed to build Pirates (Mark, “5 Traces”).
While the attraction is lauded for its creativity and ingenuity, it has had its own series of issues with representation throughout the years. One scene early in the town used to show men lustily chasing women. This scene was changed throughout the 1990s so now the women chase the men. The original scene portrayed pirates auctioning women off, with one of the customers yelling, “We wants the redhead!” (The DIS). Indeed, the redhead, now themed as Captain Redd, a female pirate with red hair, now reigns over that area speaking to guests to ask if they have information about the pirate she is looking for—Captain Jack Sparrow—adding a participatory element as she asks guests to keep a lookout for him.
The lookout she references is one of the most significant changes to an attraction theming. While the song itself has not changed from X Atencio’s original shanty, Disney recognised the value in fusing together the classic attraction with The Pirates of the Caribbean film series that proved an unexpected success when it premiered in 2003. As the most successful film franchise based on a Disney Parks attraction, it is the logical next step to add, and keep, Jack Sparrow as part of the ride. Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) is the only other film character to be included in the attraction, as he leads the Wicked Wench in bombing Sparrow’s hiding place. Some fans believe the “spirit” of Redd is based on the character of Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley). The addition of Jack Sparrow adds another meta-layer to the ambiance of the attraction: the character in the ride from the film based on the ride. Music from the film is now also part of the ride, adding an aural reminder of the new mythology of Pirates of the Caribbean. Other films based on rides have not changed the fundamental storyline of the original attraction the way Pirates has. When live-action films based on Disney Classics are released, the meet and greet cast members are styled after the new portrayal of the characters, but rides based on those characters have not been altered to align with film updates.
While the decision reflects Disney’s corporate synergy, guests have not been universally receptive to the changes (Mark, “Controversies”). Notably, while finding Jack Sparrow throughout the town scenes gives the ride a play element, guests familiar with the older version find it distracting. More recently, however, Disney fans have questioned the continued inclusion of an audio-animatronic of Sparrow actor Johnny Depp amid legal battles and accusations of spousal abuse, which these fans cite as an endorsement by Disney of the behaviour. The popularity of both the attraction and the films places Disney in a delicate position. Jack Sparrow is the triumphant last pirate on the ride, so the last image riders have is that of the troubled actor, an animatronic real-world reminder of the ride’s misogynistic past. With Jack Sparrow and Redd becoming part of the ride, and the gender roles being reversed so the eternal chase is now women chasing the pirates, Pirates of the Caribbean represents possibly the most visually and rhetorically altered original ride, until the retheming of Splash Mountain.
Splash Mountain
Splash Mountain also comes with its own historical baggage. Walt Disney bought the rights to Joel Chandler Harris’s Uncle Remus stories, recognizing the entertainment value of the adventures of Br’er Rabbit as he dodges Br’er Fox and his sidekick, Br’er Bear. These stories also gave him the opportunity to continue experimenting with animation techniques that fuse the real and animated worlds. Disney was not the first animation studio to experiment with this fusion, but it is a style that the studio has been well known for, from the earliest Alice Comedies (Walt Disney, 1923–1927) in the early 1920s to the Oscar-award winning Mary Poppins (Robert Stevenson, 1964). Arguably, this allowed Disney to push the technology and art form toward the more modern live-action adaptation films, such as Beauty and the Beast (Bill Condon, 2017) and The Little Mermaid, that more seamlessly than ever blend the animated with the real.
Song of the South packs three Br’er Rabbit shorts in between life on a Reconstruction-era (post–American Civil War) plantation, and the relationship between Johnny, the plantation owner’s grandson, and Uncle Remus, one of the workers on the plantation. However, for all intents and purposes, the “workers” have all the indicated markers of enslaved people: isolated quarters, different treatment, and subservient behaviours. When Johnny’s mother discovers his attachment to Uncle Remus, she separates the boy in order to minimise the influence of Uncle Remus’s stories. At the time of its release, the NAACP criticised the film and the lead Black actors, Hattie McDaniel and James Baskett, were not allowed to attend the premiere in Atlanta because of segregation (Hahn 14–17). Indeed, author Joel Chandler Harris appropriated Western African diaspora folklore and Disney’s adaptation stood to further that appropriation. In contrast, Los Angeles Times film critic, Charles Solomon, described Song of the South as “a nostalgic valentine to a past that never existed, within those limited, it offers a pleasant diversion for holiday afternoons when the children get restless” (qtd. in Sperb 152).
Before the development of home video technology, Disney would rerelease their films for a limited theatrical run roughly every seven years. It is noteworthy that the rereleases of Song of the South have coincided with periods of American unrest, notably in 1972 on the coattails of Civil Rights, 1980 with the election of Ronald Regan, and finally in 1986 (Sperb 87). Similar times of discontent coincide with social debate on the difference between “heritage” and “history”. Frequently through American history, what is one person’s “heritage” is another person’s oppression. This clash is especially potent in Song of the South, because a Disneyfied Reconstruction preserves the Antebellum South while also presenting the impression that the freed enslaved people were willing workers on the plantation and, thus, happy with their status. This narrative ignores the ongoing systemic inequalities of the BIPOC community and helps position Song of the South as a touchstone for past racial tensions and a symbol to rally around in the continuing struggle between heritage and hate.
Splash Mountain was part of the promotional campaign for the 1986 rerelease of Song of the South. Imagineer Tony Baxter describes how the idea hit him while he was driving to work one day, “thinking about the America Sings attraction that was soon to close, and how Dick Nunis (then Chairman of the Disney Theme Parks) wanted a water flume ride for the park” (Korkis 102). In a version of the log flume ride format familiar to many amusement parks, Splash Mountain takes guests slowly up the mountain through scenes of Br’er Rabbit’s journey to find his “laughing place”. At the literal climax of the attraction, the log drops guests down the mountain to splash into the briar patch and the joyful animatronic chorus singing Uncle Remus’s anthem of optimism, “Zip-a-dee-doo-dah”.
The last time the film was shown in theatres was 1986 before permanently being vaulted, meaning that Disney has no plans to release the film again in any media format, leaving the Splash Mountain attraction the only Disney-sanctioned way to experience the story.[1] When CEO Bob Iger announced the retheming of Splash Mountain as well as reinforced that Song of the South would not find a home on the Disney+ streaming service (The Walt Disney Company 38:30–40:52), the country was in turmoil over both the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns and the assassinations of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. When, in the past, Song of the South could provide that “nostalgic valentine” to quell the masses, it is apparent that it does more harm in pervading a revisionist version of history that fails to recognise the atrocities of American slavery and the impetus behind the Civil War. It is time to let the racist past go and embrace an inclusive future.
The Question of Access
When Disneyland opened in 1955, admission cost $1, and guests had to purchase tickets for each ride attraction, which were categorised into ratings ranging from A to the most popular E rating and priced accordingly. Between entry and ride tickets, the price of a day at Disneyland could soar to a whopping $2.25. With inflation, that would be the equivalent of $23 in 2024. As Disney historian Brian Just writes, “naturally, to pay for admission and then to hand over a nickel or dime at each attraction on top of it made guests feel they were being… well… nickel-and-dimed” (Just). While this system worked well during the early park days, Disneyland converted to day passes in the late 1970s to remain competitive in an increasingly saturated theme and amusement park industry. Throughout the decades, Disney has continued to refine this process, most recently launching the Genie+ and Lightning Lane system in 2021. This system allows guests to purchase premium access to rides, meaning they can bypass the lengthy queue lines and board sooner. In 2024, Genie+ access costs $25–$30 USD per guest. For the newest attractions, there is an additional cost for Individual Lightning Lanes that operate on a virtual queue with limited availability. Guests have two opportunities in a day to sign up for the line, which will call their boarding group as it becomes available, guaranteeing them a space on that premium ride. As with Genie+, in 2024, Individual Lightning Lane passes cost an average price of $10–$25 USD per guest, evoking the older E ticket system.
It is important to note that these are add-ons to the base ticket price, that ranges from $104–$194 per day, depending on park demand. Prices increase during holidays, school vacations, and other special events. Between the cost of admission and the cost of the hotels, a trip to Disneyland has morphed into a destination similar to Walt Disney World, not a family-friendly day at the park.
What makes this noteworthy in context of this analysis of specific attractions is that it demonstrates a conflict within the Disney company. On the one hand, the attraction updates show a commitment to how different people are represented and in support of the global society that dances in all white dress at the end of It’s a Small World. On the other hand, the economics of the ability for the average family to visit the theme parks is increasingly difficult to attain, in particular for families from historically marginalized groups whose income threshold is lower than the national median.
Yet, Disney theme parks continue to remain ever popular. This underscores the importance of every action the modern Walt Disney Company takes. While in many ways, using the words of British historian Lee Brooks, “Walt Disney created America” (v), the Disney corporation has carefully curated an experience through their theme parks that creates a dissonance between the public-facing altruism versus the corporate bottom line, leading to the question of Disney’s motivations and inviting critique of the success of their endeavours. Nothing at the Disney theme parks is an accident. Brooks notes that “Walt rather famously said that Disneyland is a show” and continues that “entering the park through Main Street is akin to entering a movie theatre, with coming attractions and the smell of fresh popcorn leading us ultimately to the main feature beyond the hub and the castle” (7). More than most entertainment experiences, each element of the Disney theme parks is a conscious decision. Most guests are happy that Disney is making a deliberate effort to change the theme parks to be more visually and rhetorically inclusive.
But not all Disney fans are happy, illustrating the line Disney is still balancing on between fans who applaud the inclusive changes and those who complain about them online. Disney blogger, Zach Gass, for Inside the Magic, had this to say about the removal of racially insensitive dolls from It’s a Small World: “Similar to how the removal of Splash Mountain is erasing African-American folklore, pandering to a complaining audience instead of introducing full, culturally-appropriate figures could be a sign of Disney listening to the wrong viewers.” In the same way Disney created the legend of lemmings dying by mass suicide in White Wilderness (James Algar, 1958), many park-goers have emulated the fictional lemming behaviour and followed the narrative, perpetuated by Disney in Song of the South, that enslaved people were happy, conflating history with mythologised heritage. Furthermore, Gass accuses Disney of trying to avoid controversy, and his perspective resonates with all Disney fans whenever they disagree with Disney’s decisions. Gass is not alone: in the hours after the doors shut on Splash Mountain, sellers on eBay began offering bottles of Splash Mountain water, some selling for several hundred dollars. Even legendary Imagineer Bob Gurr sold autographed replicas of the Brer Rabbit log topper (Aguila).
This perspective, though, does raise a very important question: How does Disney correct its own mistakes? Historically, the corporation has stood behind their acknowledgement as sufficient effort; however, cultural perspectives demonstrate that it is not enough to acknowledge if the products are still distributed. Leonard Maltin, film historian and editor for the Walt Disney Treasures DVD series, recorded several introductions to controversial cartoons that it is better to learn from the history rather than hide from it altogether. In the years between the release of the last instalment of the series in 2009 and Disney’s 2020 announcement of the closure of Splash Mountain, the world fundamentally changed. Movements like #blacklivesmatter and #metoo, Occupy Wallstreet and the Arab Spring demonstrated that, globally, acknowledgement really isn’t enough—action is needed. The cultural climate surrounding the 2016 and 2020 elections surfaced the amount of resistance to social justice and equity, some of which is blindly attributed to lessons learned from Disney properties, the perceived paragon of family values.
Disney is moving forward—and the alterations to three classic rides: It’s a Small World, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Splash Mountain show the company’s commitment to progress. Much of the outrage surrounding the changes is due to the fact that those who are protesting grew up with a specific version of the attraction that they are not ready to let go. Three of these attractions first appeared at Disneyland in the 1960s with Splash Mountain opening in 1989. They are products of their times in the same way we are products of our own time. Lee Brooks paraphrases Michael Eisner and says that Disneyland “represented a past that never was, and always will be” (20). Weaponised nostalgia is a very real aspect of the vitriolic rhetoric aimed at Disney as they adapt to changes in the cultural zeitgeist. These attractions have appeared in Disney parks around the world, and continue to create memories of a Disney that, to paraphrase a certain snowman, feels like a warm hug and the sentimental way many approach the very concept of Disney, because it is a small world, after all.
Note
[1] The film has lived on through piracy and YouTube, and astute seekers can find the books in older library collections, private collections, and estate sales.
References
1. Aguila, Ed. “Former Imagineer Selling Iconic Piece of Disney History.” Inside the Magic, nsidethemagic.net/2023/06/imagineers-sells-piece-of-disney-history-ea1. Accessed 6 June 2024.
2. Azoqa, Sasha. “New Disney Parks ‘it’s a small world’ Dolls Brought to Life by Imagineers, Cast in Spirit of Diversity and Inclusion.” Disney Parks Blog, 18 Nov. 2022,
web.archive.org/web/20240324070528.3. Baudrillard, Jean. Simulacra and Simulation. Translated by Sheila Faria Glaser, U of Michigan P, 1994. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9904.
4. Beauty and the Beast. Directed by Bill Condon, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, 2017.
5. Bemis, Bethanee. “'Our Cartoon City upon a Hill: Disneyland, Disney World and American Identity.” Interpreting and Mediating Disney: Mediating the Mouse, edited by Priscilla Hobbs, Intellect, 2022, 135–60. https://doi.org/10.1386/9781789384741_9.
6. Brode, Douglas. From Walt to Woodstock: How Disney Created The Counterculture. U of Texas P, 2004.
7. Brooks, Lee. Mouse to Mouse: In Search of Walt Disney’s Mythical America. Theme Park Press, 2016.
8. Burga, Solcyre. “Where the Disney v. DeSantis Cast Stands—And How it Unfolded.” Time, 21 May 2023, time.com/6281591/disney-desantis-timeline-case.
9. The DIS. “Pirates of the Caribbean ‘We Wants the Redhead’ Auction Scene February 2018 | Magic Kingdom.” YouTube, 25 February 2018, youtu.be/KgwC4VLIdgs.
10. CBS Miami Team. “Disney Revamps Federal Lawsuit against Gov. DeSantis.” CBS News, 9 May 2023, www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/disney-revamps-federal-lawsuit-against-gov-desantis.
11. Gass, Zach. “‘Racially Insensitive’ Dolls Removed From ‘small world’.” Inside the Magic, 20 January 2023, insidethemagic.net/2023/01/disney-removes-racially-insensitive-feature-from-ride-zg1.
12. Hahn, Don. Yesterday’s Tomorrow: Disney’s Magical Mid-Century. Disney Editions, 2017.
13. Harris, Joel Chandler. Uncle Remus: His Songs and His Sayings. Project Gutenberg, 2000, www.gutenberg.org/files/2306/2306-h/2306-h.htm.
14. Just, Brian. “Ticket to Paradise: Disney Parks Prices from 1955 to 2024.” Park Lore, 12 Oct. 2023, parklore.com/vault/ticket-prices.
15. Korkis, Jim. Who’s Afraid of the Song of the South? And Other Forbidden Disney Stories. Theme Park Press, 2012.
16. Levien, Danielle. “Magic Kingdom Celebrates Inclusion with New Doll Added to ‘it’s a small world’.” Disney Parks Blog, 1 Mar. 2023, web.archive.org/web/20240324070606.
17. The Little Mermaid. Directed by Rob Marshall, Walt Disney Studios, 2023.
18. Lovejoy, Rebekah. “Can Small World Ever Be Politically Correct?” Interpreting and Experiencing Disney: Mediating the Mouse, edited by Priscilla Hobbs, Intellect, 2022, 161–72. https://doi.org/10.1386/9781789384741_9.
19. Mark aka Yesterworld. “Controversies of the Pirates of the Caribbean Part 2.” YouTube, 23 Mar. 2018, youtu.be/bITHj_M78Dc.
20. ——. “5 Traces & Remnants of Unfinished Disney World Attractions – Abandoned Disney Projects.” YouTube, 24 Mar. 2019, youtu.be/IZrut8QrZow.
21. Mary Poppins. Directed by Robert Stevenson, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, 1964.
22. The Mouselets. “Disney Changed Small World To Be More Inclusive | Why They Repainted A Doll’s Face.” 20 Jan. 2023, youtu.be/q6d0kOFp1m4.
23. Neuman, Robert. From Hollywood to Disneyland: Walt Disney’s Dream Park and the Influence of American Movies. McFarland, 2022.
24. The Princess and the Frog. Directed by John Musker and Ron Clements, Walt Disney Animation Studios, 2009.
25. Ramirez, Michael. “New Adventures with Princess Tiana Coming to Disneyland Park and Magic Kingdom Park.” Disney Parks Blog, 25 June 2020. disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2020/06/new-adventures-with-princess-tiana-coming-to-disneyland-park-and-magic-kingdom-park.
26. Sherman, Richard, and Robert Sherman. “It’s a Small World.” The Sherman Brothers Songbook, Walt Disney, 2009, open.spotify.com/album/1Hrim7KTK1mNyAYAw17Q1s?si=-qPWveV9SNOKpEhJLxQ7QA.
27. Song of the South. Directed by Wilfred Jackson and Harve Foster, Walt Disney, 1946.
28. Sperb, Jason. Disney’s Most Notorious Film: Race, Convergence, and the Hidden Histories of Song of the South. U of Texas P, 2012.
29. Swensen, Krysten. “Disney Makes Major Inclusive Change to Iconic Attraction.” DisneyFanatic.com, 26 Jan. 2023, www.disneyfanatic.com/disney-makes-major-inclusion-change-to-iconic-attraction-ks1.
30. The Walt Disney Company. The Walt Disney Company’s 2020 Annual Meeting of Shareholders,11 Mar. 2020, thewaltdisneycompany.com/the-walt-disney-companys-2020-annual-meeting-of-shareholders.
31. White Wilderness. Directed by James Algar, Walt Disney Productions, 1958.
32. Yoshino, Kimi. “A Sinking Feeling on ‘Small World’ Ride.” Los Angeles Times, 9 Nov. 2007, www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-nov-09-fi-disneyland9-story.html.
Suggested Citation
Hobbs, Priscilla, and Antares Leask. “Diversity in Disney’s Theme Parks: Is It Working?” Alphaville: Journal of Film and Screen Media, no. 27, 2024, pp. 110–121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33178/alpha.27.09
Priscilla Hobbs is a cultural mythologist who specializes in Disney and American Studies, with special emphasis on Disneyland. She is the author of Walt’s Utopia: Disneyland and American Mythmaking, editor of Interpreting and Experiencing Disney: Mediating the Mouse, and series editor of the Studies in Disney and Culture series from Lexington Books. Dr. Hobbs is also the Disney Studies area chair for the Northeast Popular Culture Association.
Antares Russell Leask, Ph.D. teaches English and Education for Northern Virginia Community College and is a National Board Certified Teacher. Her dissertation focused on the impact of white privilege on paranormal reality television, and other research interests include Disney, popular culture, New Wave music, horror, and cryptozoology. She is currently transitioning from academia to the technology world, with a focus on building community and helping educators prepare for AI.
