Is Disney Still Racist?

I can't possibly believe that I am the only one to notice this, so does anyone else see the Disney Pixar film Cars as racist? My brother-in-law thought I was being ridiculous. We were enjoying Christmas with the entire family at my parents' home when the subject came up and almost ruined Christmas. Not because he and I were getting heated, but it was one of those situations when everyone else thinks you are getting heated so they try to distract you from your conversation, which ultimately makes you mad at them.
I understand his hesitance to agree with me, I remember when everyone was talking about Lion King as though it was racist because the bad guys were voiced by Whoopi Goldberg and Cheech Marin, but that argument was ridiculously inconsistent since James Earl Jones was the patriarch of the hero family and the British Jeremy Irons was the main villain. Obviously Disney does not gain anything by being racist any more than they gain something by sneaking phallic symbols into the poster art of Little Mermaid, but there is something unsettling about the new Disney films. I'm sure that my claims are equally as preposterous as those to most people, but I have made some observations that I believe to be case in point.
It strikes me as occurring only since any actual Disney family has left the company, and most likely it is not intentional, but when you are telling fables through talking animals and machines, you are recounting an ancient tradition of storytelling. You are bringing a truth of some kind to life for the listener of the story by getting away from all of the preconceptions we have about humans (sex, sexual preference, race, etc..) by telling a story through characters that you understand are not real. The important thing to remember when telling a symbolic story is that everything in your story is then assigned a subtext.
In the Disney animated film Tarzan, we are given the understanding that monkeys are the good guys. Oh, and elephants. Umm, okay, monkey's, elephants, and SOMETIMES humans. But Cheetah's are definitely bad. Why is that? No one can really answer that, but we can refer back to other Disney films to see how they handled it in the past. I remember in The Jungle Book that the panther was good, but the tiger was bad. And the snake was bad, but the bear was good. So it isn't about carnivores vs. herbivores that good and evil is decided, but rather based on the character of the individual, regardless of their genus or species.
However in Tarzan we are not provided a character assignment for the Cheetah. He doesn't talk or sing or anything. It's like he's an animal! But isn't everyone in the story animals? We are not given a reason for the Cheetahs' lack of personification, but we do understand that if and when the Cheetah dies, he deserves it. He was mean. He was a killer. But what is the subtext in that? It is acceptable for someone we fear to die? Death is a just reward for those we deem evil? Not only is that an arbitrary morality, but it is a death sentence? Isn't the message there that it is up to you, the individual, to decide if someone is good or bad? If that is the case, then I guess the killers at Columbine were justified. Those popular kids were mean to them, so, like the Cheetah, they had to die.
I realize I'm being ridiculous by saying that Tarzan is responsible for Columbine, but my point is that subtext is important in fables. The message must be consistent. Obviously there is plenty of racism in old Disney cartoons (see Song of the South) and I'm not suggesting that the good-old-days of Disney were morally superior, but certainly the consistency of their message remained aware of how to tell the story. The subtext must be handled deliberately and carefully.
So what is my big problem with Cars? Children age three to seven are not old enough to understand stereotypes, but an animated film targeted at their age sure can educate them about it. Especially a film targeted at "NASCAR dads" and people with a more rural mentality has the ability to get right in there and endorse a terrible ideology. My seven year old daughter didn't know that Mexicans like low-riders. She didn't know black girls have big asses. She didn't know white people with southern accents live in trailer parks. She didn't know that minorities belong together or that white people are always the heroes, but I think she might be getting the idea after seeing Cars.
Again, I'm painting with some broad strokes, I'm not suggesting that there be a government agency governing the use of stereotypes, or even that Disney be more aware of the political correctness fascism, I just want to see more parents outraged. Are the smart parents not watching this film with their children? I watched it at the San Marco Theatre and was sitting directly behind a young, well-dressed black couple with their children. They sat that entire movie, as tedious as the plot line was, and didn't even cringe. I was behind them with my head in my hands. On one hand, I know that this gives me a great opportunity to talk to my kids about stereotyping and racism, but on the other hand, I thought I would have more support in my argument. Especially from my sister and brother-in-law who are the only other "liberals" in my family.
To me, casting Cheech Marin as the low-rider that is dating Jennifer Lewis, the black girl with huge tailfins, is already horribly stereotypical. Adding Larry the Cable Guy to anything is just furthering its racist undertones, and then amidst all of these stereotyped characters that are race-identifiable even before you learn who does the actual voicing, there is Owen Wilson, the whitest of white men, and Bonnie Hunt, the ultimate natural blonde from Cheaper by the Dozen, as the romantic leads and the heroes of the story, makes it a study in why Disney must think that white society is the best and everyone else should remain in their boxes.
The only film I can remember feeling as strongly about the racial implications is A Time to Kill with Samuel Jackson. Don't even get me started about Grisham's need to send a white hero in to save a dim-witted but honest black man. My brother-in-law chalks it up to my white guilt, and I won't say he's completely wrong about that, but apparently there isn't enough white guilt going around to stop young children from learning how to stereotype. And if you discuss stereotyping with someone and they pull the old "stereotypes are rooted in truth" bit; remind them that that is exactly why they are so wrong. There is a big difference between mocking a stereotype to disarm it and reinforcing a stereotype so that it lives on.
Regardless of all of these semantics, Cars was just a plain old-fashioned bad movie. If you are in the mood for a good Pixar Disney flick, see The Incredibles again.

My sister and I could be called "new urban parents" I suppose. Whether you are a parent or not, anyone can find this funny. It's from a new website called babble.com and it made me laugh out loud at my monitor, which was a little awkward for everyone around me, but if it makes you do the same thing, it'll all be worth it.

Bratz Dolls: Brides of Christ in Pleather Minis

Did anybody else just completely freak out in the midst of reading that article in The New Yorker about Bratz dolls? The whole thing is just apocalyptically depressing. I mean, Barbie was bad enough: the giant rack, the blond hair, the twiggy hips and legs. And now she's supposed to be the model of feminist empowerment? Because, see, Barbie actually holds down a job, or appears to want one.
The Bratz dolls, by contrast, are "party girls." Their chosen activities, as set out in the various sold-separately Bratzanalia, includes trips to Vegas and all-night mall parties. They dress in that fashion that was once, long ago, called "trampy," but that we must now learn to call "sassy" and "super-cute!" They wear short skirts and tight T-shirts with inspirational slogans like "My Heart Belongs to Shopping" and "So Many Boys, So Little Time." It would all be kind of cute (in a Jonbenet Ramsey sort of way) if the target audience for Bratz wasn't, like, six-year-old girls.
Honestly, I wouldn't even give a shit about this half-witted huckster mysogyny, except that I've got a baby girl now and at some point, presumably, she's going to start running with a posse of other little girls who all play with these dolls. And so I'm going to have to come off like this big, crusty curmudgeon when I tell her, No, she can't have a Bratz doll, even though Ashley and Sadie and Madison have one! Because, honestly, you can't explain concepts like self-commodification to six-year-olds. They just want the damn product. And the more you withhold it from them, the more precious it becomes in their gimlet eyes, and the harder they're going to push for it.
Fuck.
So I'm sitting there stewing about all this last night and feeding Josie her bottle and staring into her innocent, not-yet-self-commodified little eyes and anticipating the day she will toddle home and calmly announce that she's disowning me if I don't buy her the Yasmin Bratz doll, and the whole prospect is giving me Daddy's First Ulcer.
And that's when it hits me.
Rather than fighting against the current, why not bodysurf the new wave of under-age sexualization/consumerization?
That's why (just as soon as I scratch together the scratch), I'll be introducing a new doll to compete with Bratz: Baby's First Slut!
That's right, parents! She's the Baby who goes all the way! All her parts move. Yes they do. All of them. A few even secrete! Sometimes, Baby's First Slut wears outfits, but not when she's feeling naughty! Some of the other dolls don't like Baby's First Slut, but that's only because all the boys love her. She knows how to make them happy. So happy that they buy Baby's First Slut lots and lots of sassy outfits.
This is where we get into the really big money: Accessories! Baby's First Slut is all about the product:
Baby's First Bling!
Baby's First Escalade!
Baby's First Ice!
Baby's First Cristal!
In the interest of being culturally sensitive – as well as making sure we nail down all our market sectors – we'd need some multi-ethnic Slut equivalents:
Baby's First Concubine!
Baby's First Courtesan!
Baby's First Puta!
Baby's First Ho!
And we'd need to make sure that we gave the girls exciting narrative elements to work towards. That's why we'd publish a whole set of books (with necessary spinoff product, obviously) to stake out the following exciting adventures:
Baby's First Internet Porn Video!
Baby's First STD!
Baby's First Unwanted Pregnancy!
Baby's First Abortion!
Baby's First Substance Abuse Crisis! (Baby's First Rehab sold separately.)
Baby's First Suicide Attempt!
We wouldn't want to turn things dark too quickly, though, because we need to score some celebrity endorsements early on in the process.
If we position ourselves correctly, we'll get credit from the lefty moonbats (like myself) who are always moaning about the bad messages that dolls send, while also drawing the masses of little girls who just want to emulate the false versions of female empowerment and happiness peddled by the various Power Sluts of our age. I don't want to toot my own horn here, but this is basically a blank check for a gajillion dollars just waiting for you to sign.
Who's with me?"

If you know the name of the author of this piece, please let me know so that I can give them credit. My sister found the article on babble.com but I could not find it when i went to the site. Nonetheless, the entire site was funny as hell.
-Jon