The mere fact that, in 2025, there's an expressed preference for the term American Indian by some Native American members of various tribes in this country, when the term Native American seemed to be the correct nomenclature by general consensus for over three decades, gives a layperson like myself (with Native American blood, but very little of it in my veins) understandable pause before even wading into a written observation on the topic. Nothing seems to be clear-cut. What's considered respectful today may not be so tomorrow, and in a rapid-paced world it's inconceivable to me that I could stay even halfway "accurate" without researching things repeatedly. I try to stay current.
I've also already expressed a lot of thoughts on topics that polarize people, which is fine, but my viewpoints seem to become more nuanced with time and my aim here is to focus on a specific angle of a topic and its history rather than "make a case." I can't have said that I believe all of the art of Marc Davis should be accessible to the general public (in the same way as should the art of Norman Rockwell) and now say, "except his racist caricatures." I also wouldn't, even if tempted, just post a bunch concept art along those lines and just add, "Marc Davis, 1968" The internet requires more than that now, or at least should. I understand why.
I also understand why Marc Davis, based on the very limited amount of time I was able to spend interviewing him (just once, in 1999, with my friend Ross Plesset), as we looked at his Western River Expedition art, chose not to comment on his depictions of American Indians in the 1960s. I asked if he had been compelled by anyone else to change any of the 1968 art that he revised in 1974 to minimize the number of American Indians in his ride concepts, and he simply said no. It is a fact, though, that by 1974 the ride plan included far fewer American Indians than were depicted in the totality of the 1968 plans.
Racially offensive characterizations of minority populations in this country, or majority populations in others, have of course been prevalent in popular culture going back centuries in art, song and, since the early 1900s, popular film. By the time Marc Davis did the renderings shown below, the hurtful implications of the kind of art he sometimes produced were quite openly discussed - just not about his art specificly.
The Civil Rights movement had already brought segregation to the forefront of American politics and social discourse by 1964. Johnny Cash also released his album Bitter Tears that same year, a record consisting solely of songs about the treatment of American Indians by, especially, the United States government and the country's founding fathers. Discussions of racism were abundant from the 1960s forward, but what passes for progress is subject to countless interpretations. And while federal legislation dealing with civil rights in both 1964 and 1968 included (and sometimes focused on) Native American tribes, the sovereignty of tribal nations made those rights more complicated and in almost no ways led to a disruption of American Indians serving as fodder for racist humor or stereotypical representations in widespread forms of media, advertising and mascots.
This stuff I bring this up not just because it makes no sense to ignore it, but also because Marc Davis is culturally relevant and will probably remain so for a long time to come. He was a key figure in the content of both the Walt Disney Company's animated films and Disney's theme parks. Davis created the character Maleficent, animated and defined the modern look of the character Tinker Bell and took a dominant role in developing attractions like the Jungle Cruise, Pirates of the Caribbean, the Haunted Mansion and several others. He was also one of just a handful of people on Walt Disney's staff whose talent was openly praised by Disney.
Walt Disney had personally overseen and, by some accounts, suggested the inclusion of racially offensive content in his films. Not in order to *be* offensive, I think, but to be what he thought of as humorous. His animators conceived of similar content also and it was present in films ranging from the first Alice and Mickey Mouse shorts in the 1920s all the way up through The AristoCats in 1970. These things ranged from stereotypical representations of non-white cultures through exaggerations of physical features, an ascription of lesser intellects to members of those cultures and vocals that reinforced perceptions of how they butcher the English language and often just sound silly or primitive.
You and I are not responsible for that. Quoting Scotsman Bruce Fummey, who is half-black and half-white, "Robert Mugabe did some brutal and horrific things in
Zimbabwe. I don’t feel responsible for them because I’m half-black. I don’t feel guilty about the transatlantic
slave trade because I’m half-white. Neither am I an apologist for either. You’re
not responsible for what happened in the past, unless you try to justify it
in the present.” It's a basis for discussion that seems rational to me.
The Walt Disney Company shifted its approach to a lot of race-centric things when I was just a baby in 1969. That was the first year when a new Disneyland attraction, in this case the Haunted Mansion, opened with a front line operating cast of both black and white employees. 1970 was not just the year of The AristoCats, with a Siamese cat who played the piano with chopsticks, it was also the year that the Walt Disney World Preview Center opened in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. Two of the first fourteen women hired by WDW were black (the twelve others white) and all were in the group promotional photos for the Preview Center. Three years prior, Disneyland had yet to put a black cast member in a front line tour guide role. That finally happened in 1968. So 1968 to 1971 best represents the time period during which the Disney company pivoted considerably on matters of race representation in their workforce. They were arguably ahead of the curve in American industry.
That was also the time period during which Marc Davis produced the art seen here and WED Enterprises artists sculpted models based on that art. Some of it has not been previously reproduced online or in published documents to my knowledge. High quality versions of the art are very rare.
While you would almost need to deliberately search for this particular Marc Davis art in 2025 to encounter it, that's not true of everything. It's still possible for Disney film viewers and Disney theme park visitors to find content that depicts American Indians in unfavorable or stereotypical ways with minimal explanation ... in ways that no prominent entertainment company would knowingly depict black people in the 21st century (and without much more context).
Entire books have been written about why it's often one way for depictions of some races and another way for depictions of others, but a quick fact is that there are far fewer members of American Indian minorities than there are of black or Hispanic minorities in the US, and this been put forth as something that makes their voices / objections to specific treatment less often heard, considered or reported on. Even if that's just one aspect of the matter, it holds water mathematically in an equation that shouldn't be about numbers.
Image sources: Anonymous, Mike Cozart, Walt Disney Company, Marc Davis in His Own Words by Christopher Merritt and Pete Docter (2019)
w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w
w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w
w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w
w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w
w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w
w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w
w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w
w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w
w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w
w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w
w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w
w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w y w
No comments:
Post a Comment