Some of these conclusions just make me sad

It turns out one of my favorite movies as a child, "The Jungle Book" was racist. A long time ago I learned that Rudyard Kipling (December 1865 – 18 January 1936) was a die hard British Imperialist and his views would be considered very racist a generation after he died. But that statement could be made about most of his contemporaries in the USA who were not quite as Imperialist as the British.

It turns out that in 1967, King Louie of the Apes, was written for Louis Armstrong, but the voice actor was recast as Louis Prima, as Disney was afraid to cast a black singer.

It makes me very sad to think of these brilliant classic films being denigrated in this manner.

Yes, Rudyard Kipling heartily believed it was Britain's White Man's Burden to spread English values and customs to the entire world.

Else why was Africa referred to as the Dark Continent? And why was there an Age of Discovery? Victoria Falls may well have been known to the natives for centuries but its history begins with its discovery by English explorers and its being named for their queen.

Political Correctness gone mad wants to undo history, rewrite cartoons, movies, etc. Soon nursery rhymes will have to be changed since they are largely political satire.

What bland world its going to be in the age of the Poltically Correct.

Quote: Fleastiff

Yes, Rudyard Kipling heartily believed it was Britain's White Man's Burden to spread English values and customs to the entire world.

The movie opened in 1967, and was certainly about Kipling's great literary creation, and not his political views. Louis Armstrong's made scat world famous with his 1926 recording of Heebie Jeebies, and certainly he should have had a chance to record King Louie near the end of his life. Fortunately, nobody was afraid to cast him in Hello Dolly two years later, as his final cinematic appearance.

Quote: Fleastiff

Else why was Africa referred to as the Dark Continent?

Hmmm, I always thought it was because it was the last inhabited continent to be explored with very little known about it even in the late 1800s.

Quote:

What bland world its going to be in the age of the Poltically Correct.

Probably the up-charge for an all-white order at Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Quote: AZDuffman

Hmmm, I always thought it was because it was the last inhabited continent to be explored with very little known about it even in the late 1800s.

Many of the inhabitants knew all about it.

Rewriting the Jungle Book is not political correctness. It's just bloody stupidity and not accepting old documents as being a product of their time and place. Literature generally has context, and you can view it in that sense or just decide to take the dynamite and blow them up and bury them. When folks do it to thousand year old bhudda statues, we are aghast, but doing it to the Jungle Book is 'okay'? Not at all.

The past is a foreign country. But one we can learn from at least.

This is Louis Prima doing Sing Sing Sing in the great
1993 movie Swing Kids, about Nazi Germany. I bet
Christian Bale looks at this now and wonders how
he ever had this much energy. The dance number
is 5min, but I'm sure it took them a week to film.
They had to be exhausted at the end of every day.

Quote: TheCesspit

Many of the inhabitants knew all about it.

Knew all about it? I doubt 95% of them knew anything about more than 10 miles from where they lived. Sorry to be un-PC, but Africa has always been by far the least advanced inhabited continent.

Quote: AZDuffman

Sorry to be un-PC, but Africa has always been by far the least advanced inhabited continent.

There seems to be no real claim to superiority between Africa and Europe during the time of the bubonic plague (roughly 1375). By 1421 Portuguese explorers were making inroads into exploring Africa by crossing Cape de Não being considered the impassable limit for Arab and European sailors (those who cross it, return or not).

In 1500 the populations were about equal (populations in millions)
86 Africa
84 Europe

By 1900 there was a dramatic difference considering Americas were almost entirely populated with European descendants
133 Africa
408 Europe
74 Latin America and the Caribbean
83 Northern America


Africa has passed a billion people roughly a decade before the Americas (north and south) will pass that number.

Quote: Pacomartin

There seems to be no real claim to superiority between Africa and Europe during the time of the bubonic plague (roughly 1375). By 1421 Portuguese explorers were making inroads into exploring Africa by crossing Cape de Não being considered the impassable limit for Arab and European sailors (those who cross it, return or not).

In 1500 the populations were about equal (populations in millions)
86 Africa
84 Europe

By 1900 there was a dramatic difference considering Americas were almost entirely populated with European descendants
133 Africa
408 Europe
74 Latin America and the Caribbean
83 Northern America


Africa has passed a billion people roughly a decade before the Americas (north and south) will pass that number.

What does the amount of population have to do with how advanced they are? China had a billion people decades ago but could barely feed themselves and had 1 car for every 10,000 people. I'm talking technology, societal advancement, and exploration beyond the home continent.

Why Africa remains poor and so backwards is a thread in and of itself.

I've read that one reason the US has done
so well compared other countries is we have
only one national language is a giant country.
Russia, for instance, has many. A common
language unites us and we work towards the
same goals as a result.