LA Magazine's Description of a Disneyland Map from 1968 Is Disappointing

In the above link you will see a map of old Disneyland which looks a lot like Disneyland as it was when I last took a visiting cousin in June of this year.  The basic sections of the park are there with the exception of ToonTown.

The author doesn't go as in-depth as I expected, except to name a few things from the bygone era.  What's interesting is the sponsorship of attractions by major corporations including good ole Monsanto, Kodak, General Electric, Carnation.  Nowadays, I can't think of any other particular brand within the park other than Disney.  What would have been interesting would be side-by-side comparisons of different attractions and locations.

I wonder about the mundane things that make up the experience at Disneyland:  how long were the lines?  How were they managed?  What were the prices relative to now?  What was the surrounding geography prior to building the extra resort areas?

I also wonder what Disney was like before all the relatively recent cinematic successes of the Disney princesses and cartoons.  What was the electrical parade like?   

This would have been a whatever type piece that I wouldn't have thought about much again, if there wasn't one part of this blog that is banal and perhaps under the radar for 99.9% of the population, but irked me a little maybe because the writer used a phrase that I disliked when I don't think it's necessary.

It was use of the adjectival phrase, "politically incorrect."
There are some comically dated attractions: the now politically incorrect “unfriendly Indians” who burned settlers cabins - See more at:
There are some comically outdated attractions:  the now politically incorrect "unfriendly Indians" who burned settler cabins.
There are some comically dated attractions: the now politically incorrect “unfriendly Indians” who burned settlers cabins - See more at:
Ask yourself, would the phrase have been OK if the writer simply wrote this?

There are some comically outdated attractions:  the "unfriendly Indians" who burned settler cabins.
To me it would've been fine, he could've done without that "now politically incorrect."

I almost categorically dislike writing that includes that phrase, "politically incorrect" because it tends to signal a writer who appears to quietly show disdain for what they perceive as a more diverse, inclusive status quo.  It's like a quiet clamoring for the exclusive "good ol days."  I'm not going to try to guess the writer's intention, but in my experience, it's usually not a good sign.

The idea of "politically correctness" rests on the idea that some "truth" is not being spoken and/or is being censured/hidden because the person/entity (Disney) speaking does not want to offend people. It is as if the writer was saying that Disney was speaking some 'truth' by having this "unfriendly Indian burning cabins" show/exhibit, Disney made a reactionary decision to cancel it, and have been prevented from doing this only because some customers got mad and started crying to put it crudely.

Maybe that is exactly what happened, but as a part fan of the general stuff that Disney puts out, I'd also like to think that the internal decisionmakers of Disney itself became more diverse, aware, and more inclusive and sought to do away with the exhibition "organically."

No comments: