Posted in 1940s, Movies

Song of the South at 70, Part IV (Final thoughts)

Note: All photos used in this series are used solely to illustrate the subject, and are consistent with Fair Use doctrine.


Many people who’ve never gotten a chance to see Song of the South, or who’ve only seen short, isolated segments, have perpetuated the claim that the film is racist. Now, granted, I’m not African–American, and therefore see the world through a different lens. I don’t have the same socialization and life experiences, and therefore would never claim my opinion is the only correct one. It’s the same reason I’d never claim to understand exactly what it’s like, e.g., to be a man, a Hispanic, or a Hindu.

After revisiting the film almost 30 years later (through a bootlegged streaming on a free movie-watching site which shall go unnamed), I came away not seeing the film as racist at all. It’s more racial than racist, which I’ll explain.


The film is set in Reconstructionist-era Georgia, just as Joel Chandler Harris’s Uncle Remus stories are. However, it’s extremely unclear as to when exactly it’s set, and thus many people over the years have falsely accused it of being set during the antebellum (pre-Civil War) era.

The Hays Office had asked Walt Disney to establish the fact that the film is set in the 1870s, but he included no such introductory title card, nor any other mention of a date or establishing historical context. The only real clue as to it not being antebellum is how Uncle Remus is free to leave the plantation and move to Atlanta. A slave couldn’t have done that!


The film definitely depicts an unrealistically rosy-colored picture of newly-freed slaves who are still working on the old plantation. Of course, contrary to popular belief, there were many benevolent slave owners, and freed slaves who had decent lives. It’s not like everyone were some crazed Simon Legree.

However, many freed slaves’ lives didn’t improve, or barely improved. There’s a happy medium between showing an idyllic picture of plantation life in the Reconstructionist era and showing dire poverty, exploitation, bad blood between freed slaves and their former owners who had begun paying them, and dismal living conditions. I obviously don’t expect a children’s movie to err on the darker side of history!


Uncle Remus does rather embody the stereotype of the Magical Negro, someone who rescues white characters, is in a lowly position, is very wise and patient, usually has no past and just appears to help white characters, and often has mystical powers or special insights. The term itself wasn’t coined till 2001, though this type of stock character has a very long history.

There’s also an accusation of Uncle Tomism, as Uncle Remus seems to be content with a subservient position.

However, the African–American characters are, by and large, a lot more sympathetic and interesting than the white characters. The white characters include Johnny’s straitlaced mother and grandmother, and the Favers boys who bully Johnny and Ginny. Even if Uncle Remus might be considered an Uncle Tom or Magical Negro, he at least provides Johnny with friendship, comfort, and assistance. He’s hands-down the best character.

Promoting interracial friendship is always a good thing, even if the circumstances are a bit unrealistic and rosy-colored.


Disney has made the situation worse by burying this film and refusing to release it on home media (though it is available in the U.K., Japan, and Hong Kong). Since no one can see it without going through a lot of difficulty, people are unable to form honest opinions about it, and to place it in its proper historical context.

Disney could’ve easily slipped it in there when it was releasing all those really obscure, completist films in the Aughts, like the war propaganda cartoons and the Zorro TV series. All these films got rich bonus features, including commentaries placing them in their proper context.

The film has assumed a wild life of its own, with many folks believing it has to be some horribly racist, offensive movie because Disney won’t release it.




Disney is showing absolutely staggering amounts of inconsistency by burying some films and not others. We’ve probably all heard people levelling accusations of racism at the crows in Dumbo and the Native American scenes in Peter Pan, yet both of those films are very much out there. Why hold Song of the South to such a different standard?

Considering there have been over 700 reported hate crimes in the U.S. in the last two weeks, I think the unrealistically rosy setting of Song of the South is a lot better than a Black church getting burnt or people getting beaten up and having their property vandalized.


Writer of historical fiction sagas and series, with elements of women's fiction, romance, and Bildungsroman. Born in the wrong generation on several fronts.

6 thoughts on “Song of the South at 70, Part IV (Final thoughts)

  1. I saw Song of the South when I was a small child in the mid 1950’s so I don’t remember much of it. However we covered the Uncle Remus stories when I was in elementary school. I wasn’t thinking in terms of racist images back then, but as you say, I was seeing the film through a different lens. I don’t think the film left me with any negative thinking at all, but I guess there are always those who might argue that it was part of a process of subtle brainwashing and conditioning or something like that. I don’t think so.

    Arlee Bird
    Tossing It Out


    1. I honestly barely remembered anything about the film from all those years ago, and was surprised when I began hearing modern-day accusations of racism. In all eras, there are things which are such an engrained part of the culture we don’t think to question them (good, bad, or neutral). A modern-day example might be the prevalence and increasing non-subtley of advertising placement in songs, movies, and TV shows. For a lot of younger people, it’s just part of the culture they grew up with, and if they do it themselves, they’re not necessarily setting out to be shills for their favorite brands.


  2. I’ll have to echo what Arlee wrote. What I remember of this movie is warm feelings and joy in the music. I don’t think I’m racist. That would be hard for me since our family is a mix of just about everything. I’d have to be biased against my own people who are black, hispanic and all kinds of Europeans. I just missed having a beautiful Japanese daughter-in-law, or we would have covered almost every group on the planet.


    1. Even if the film might seem unrealistically rosy-colored by 21st century standards, it actually seems rather progressive by 1946 standards. It’s promoting interracial friendship, and not demonizing African-American characters.


  3. I love C. Lee’s comment. I’ve never seen this movie, but it seems like it’s a lot of fun. And I’m far from racist. My sister was adopted from the Philippines. Her husband is black. He calls me his lil sis, and I have two half-Asian, half-black nephews who are blood to me, although we don’t actually have the same blood.


    1. It seems like a lot of people criticizing this film are too young to have seen it before Disney buried it, and thus aren’t even going off their own opinions. They’re basing it on what they’ve read, and applying their own viewpoints to it instead of looking at it in proper historical context.


Share your thoughts respectfully

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s