Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 113
  1. #61

    • Artistic integrity
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Orange County
    Posts
    3,503

    Re: Where is all the Latin presence in California Adventure?

    Quote Originally Posted by USS Seawolf View Post
    In contrast, Knott's Berry Farm included in it's 'Camino Real' area models of the California Missions, and not that far away is the Aztec themed Jaguar ride.
    You beat me to it Seawolf. Knott's Berry Farm indeed, for decades, featured dioramas of California's missions.

    There's a whole spread about them here - O.C. History Roundup

    And are rumored to make a return.

    One does not have to have an opinion on religion (for or against) to marvel and appreciate these detailed models, of early California "Spanish" architecture.

    I enjoyed them in my early visits to Knott's, when I was a child and teenager. And while, today (as an adult with a formed, & strong opinion about religion), I'm thrilled to hear .. a thematic piece of Knott's Berry Farm's history is making a return - As Knott's has been making new strides to bring back some of it's early "charm".
    Last edited by Tomorrowland_1967; 07-06-2013 at 04:35 PM.
    MY SIGNATURE:
    Dear Peoplemover Fans, If you want to see a new attraction that at least mimics the 1967 Peoplemover in a future Tomorrowland remodel, you need to write to the powers-that-be, and let them know. If you don't - Then the next time Tomorrowland is remodeled, you will see a land barren of any "Peoplemover" type attraction.

  2. #62

    • Beach Expert
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    A beach town that Harbor Blvd was named after
    Posts
    10,595

    Re: Where is all the Latin presence in California Adventure?

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    Plus, most people visiting DLR/DCA aren't going to hop on a plane and visit the Cambodian ruins depicted in Jungle Cruise or Indiana Jones. They can get in their cars or hop on the train and go to the missions. It would be redundant to have copies of things that people can easily visit an hour or two outside of DCA.
    Then maybe they should get rid of Hollywoodland? Maybe Paradise Pier as well? And DCA is close to the Mojave Desert, so perhaps they should remove Carsland as well.

  3. #63

    • Ducksketeer
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bonafide SoCal original
    Posts
    141

    Re: Where is all the Latin presence in California Adventure?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomorrowland_1967 View Post
    You beat me to it Seawolf. Knott's Berry Farm indeed, for decades, featured dioramas of California's missions.

    There's a whole spread about them here - O.C. History Roundup

    And are rumored to make a return.

    One does not have to have an opinion on religion (for or against) to marvel and appreciate these detailed models, of early California "Spanish" architecture.

    I enjoyed them in my early visits to Knott's, when I was a child and teenager. And while, today (as an adult with a formed, & strong opinion about religion), I'm thrilled to hear .. a thematic piece of Knott's Berry Farm's history is making a return - As Knott's has been making new strides to bring back some of it's early "charm".
    WOW! That is great news that Knott's is committed to returning these valuable cultural and historic exhibits to the park. I was thinking about the 'El Camino Real' area at Knott's a few weeks ago; remembering how nice of a walk it was to explore the mission models under the shade of the eucalyptus trees and near the reflection pond after a big meal at Mrs. Knott's chicken dinner restaurant. For many who grew up in SoCal Knott's Berry Farm was where you went after church for a meal on a Sunday afternoon. Back then there was no cost to get into the Ghost Town area, and there were many interesting sights like the missions exhibit to see. Back then things were so much simpler. WD learned some of his magic from Mr. Knott in my opinion.

    Thanks TL_67 for sharing that OC history link! I've already added it to my favorites.

    SW

  4. #64

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,591

    Re: Where is all the Latin presence in California Adventure?

    Quote Originally Posted by Garthilk View Post
    First,

    California was not originally part of Mexico..
    Actually it was, California stopped being part of Mexico in 1846 when the state was annexed and the Bear flag republic was created. in 1850 California joined the union as a free state.

    Mexico ruled over what was California from 1821 to 1846

  5. #65

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    170

    Re: Where is all the Latin presence in California Adventure?

    Quote Originally Posted by Baloo View Post
    Actually it was, California stopped being part of Mexico in 1846 when the state was annexed and the Bear flag republic was created. in 1850 California joined the union as a free state.

    Mexico ruled over what was California from 1821 to 1846
    Simply no. By your own quote it was part of Mexico for all of 25 years. And that is choosing a very early date for Mexican independence. Do you really believe California came into existence in 1821? Just say California was part of Mexico before it was part of the USA. It's the "originally" part that people keep explaining is wrong. Despite the early Portuguese and English explorers, it was Spain that had the most early European influence with their trade and missions, and of course Mexican culture runs deep as well today. So, the OP's question is certainly legitimate. It's just that line about it originally being part of Mexico that people keep wanting to defend for some reason.
    Last edited by Steveman; 07-06-2013 at 10:24 PM.

  6. #66

    • Ducksketeer
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bonafide SoCal original
    Posts
    141

    Re: Where is all the Latin presence in California Adventure?

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    Please show me where I said all references to religion should be eliminated - right, I didn't. I was specifically talking about missions, which have an extremely loaded history. Unfortunately, the negative historic activities of the missions do color how they are regarded today, and to ignore that history would be a grave mistake.
    In your opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    IMHO there's no issue with showing references or relationships to religion in a cultural context (Christmas, Hanukkah, Dia de los Muertos and Three Kings Day, crosses in the cemetery, etc.), or showing completely fictional ruins or non-specific ancient temples. That's not the same, at all, as showcasing an existing building with a specific history, that actively engaged in activities that had a grave effect on people living in that area. Under Junipero Serra indigenous people in California were enslaved, many worked as slaves AT the missions, and the population dropped from 300,000 to about 16,000. Regardless of what else he did, or how architecturally pretty the missions might be, that is not something to celebrate.
    In your opinion, like you said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    That's not trying to bash any specific religion. It's pointing out that bad things went down at these places that had a detrimental effect on California, so showcasing them might be a bit misplaced.
    "Bad things" happened in many ways and for many reasons. But that is just the way history is I guess. Heck, if I thought about too hard I might not want to see Roman style columns on buildings because the Romans were such meanies. And like I mentioned earlier, some really "bad things" happened at some of those mesoAmerican temples too... especially for the people being sacraficed at them. However, I celebrate the inclusion of the archetecture and the represented culture in all of these themes as something interesting and fun, especially in an amusement park. Spanish explorers, Vikings, astronauts, Romans, nuclear submarines, witches, pirates, cowboys, Indians--- all the same. All part of "the show".

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    There can be mission-style architecture without depicting the missions themselves...just as you can show gothic architecture without building a cathedral. Or you can build a house that looks like an 1800s Southern mansion without making it a slave plantation (or based on a nonfictional slave plantation). There are ways to acknowledge the positive aspects of the architecture and cultural influences.
    Certainly, and as is done with something like a European castle for example, would you agree? Castles which existed for the royalty who derived their status based solely on something they insisted was "divine right" to rule over the serfdom. Serfs being people exploited and relegated to a lower class for life, without any rights or say so in the matter.

    I suppose someone could make up an argument that a European castle is an offensive reminder of abuses from the past.... or somebody else might just enjoy the theme as something that adds drama to the narrative. I mean just for fun, right? And another person might enjoy the heritage of the California missions in a park themed specifically about California. Just saying.


    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    Plus, most people visiting DLR/DCA aren't going to hop on a plane and visit the Cambodian ruins depicted in Jungle Cruise or Indiana Jones. They can get in their cars or hop on the train and go to the missions. It would be redundant to have copies of things that people can easily visit an hour or two outside of DCA.

    I find it especially ironic given the context of this thread to assume that the Hispanic/Latin culture, especially here in SoCal is necessarily offended by references to the California missions. I have friends who are Mexican who attend church at Mission San Gabriel. Every time I travel inside of California I try to include a stop to a mission just to take photos. When I do, I see mostly hispanic people visiting these missions, so I'm not understanding the big problem here.

    My fear is that by overthinking these relics of history too much we end up watering down the story to the point that you can no longer have pirates chasing women (that they just purchased in an auction) for any reason other than the trays of food they are carrying.

    Now back to talking about happier things, I hope.

    Peace.
    Last edited by MickeyMaxx; 07-22-2013 at 11:59 PM.

  7. #67

    •   
    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,883

    Re: Where is all the Latin presence in California Adventure?

    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyIPresume View Post
    Then maybe they should get rid of Hollywoodland? Maybe Paradise Pier as well? And DCA is close to the Mojave Desert, so perhaps they should remove Carsland as well.
    Those aren't showing actual existing historical buildings that are nearby. They're areas based on specific areas, buildings and parts of California history. You can't find a park like Paradise Pier close to LA (the one that is closest is Santa Cruz and that's a ways off - Pacific Pier isn't historic and isn't the same). Cars Land is a fictional area set in the existing Mojave. Hollywoodland isn't reproducing anything specific and real from Hollywood that people could actually visit. Buena Vista Street is reproducing something specific that isn't there anymore. Again, it can't be visited. The Hyperion would probably be closest because it's a pretty direct copy of the Los Angeles Theater in Downtown LA but it's meant to be a nod to the theater - which is closed and can't be visited - and not a historical reproduction. When Disney does reproduce real historical buildings they're not ones that are close by (like the Pavilions at Epcot, or the Fun Wheel at DCA - it is a direct copy of the Wonder Wheel but the Wonder Wheel is 3000 miles away).

    Which goes right along with what I was saying. It's possible to use good aspects of the architecture or historical building styles in creating fictional places and structures, rather than reproducing actual places.

    For me a better example would be if Disney chose to build a copy of the Chinese theater in Hollywoodland. Notice that they haven't done that. It works in Florida because Florida is 3000 miles from Hollywood CA. In DCA it would be absolutely ridiculous because the Real McCoy is so close. Or a direct copy of Union Station, the Crystal Cathedral or Dodgers Stadium. All of those places have history, but why would anyone need a copy of those things at DCA when the real places are right around the corner, so to speak?
    Merida looks like this. Not a Barbie doll!

  8. #68

    •   
    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,883

    Re: Where is all the Latin presence in California Adventure?

    Quote Originally Posted by USS Seawolf View Post

    "Bad things" happened in many ways and for many reasons. But that is just the way history is I guess. Heck, if I thought about too hard I might not want to see Roman style columns on buildings because the Romans were such meanies. And like I mentioned earlier, some really "bad things" happened at some of those mesoAmerican temples too... especially for the people being sacraficed at them. However, I celebrate the inclusion of the archetecture and the represented culture in all of these themes as something interesting and fun, especially in an amusement park. Spanish explorers, Vikings, astronauts, Romans, nuclear submarines, witches, pirates, cowboys, Indians--- all the same. All part of "the show".
    And in this case we are talking about "meanies" who enslaved an entire population and almost completely wiped them out. The Romans were nasty fellows in some respects, but they didn't commit genocide. The Aztecs did perform human sacrifice, but again, they didn't kill an entire people.

    To me, saying that history should be ignored for entertainment's sake is like saying that it would be cool to have a real, brutal Southern slave plantation - and not just a building based on Southern architecture - at Disneyland because hey, the architecture is good show, or have a copy of the Eagle's Nest because hey, it was pretty even though a murderous dictator lived there. At some point we have to draw the line.

    You can have Spanish explorers in the park without actively celebrating the oppressive ones. You can appreciate the architecture without reproducing the historical sites.

    Certainly, and as is done with something like a European castle for example, would you agree? Castles which existed for the royalty who derived their status based solely on something they insisted was "divine right" to rule over the serfdom. Serfs being people exploited and relegated to a lower class for life, without any rights or say so in the matter.
    Except that it's not an actual European castle where we can trace an actual history. It's something fictional. And there are all different types of castles; not just one. Cinderella Castle is based on Neuschwanstein, which actually does not have any history of serfdom or oppression - King Ludwig II was late 1800s and is best known for promoting art, music and architecture. He paid for his castles out of his own pocket instead of taxing Barvarians. Notice they didn't base the castle on the home of Vlad the Impaler. The style of Sleeping Beauty's castle is also more toward the Renaissance onward; not a known Middle Ages serfdom castle with a specific history (those things are scary looking).

    I find it especially ironic given the context of this thread to assume that the Hispanic/Latin culture, especially here in SoCal is necessarily offended by references to the California missions. I have friends who are Mexican who attend church at Mission San Gabriel. Every time I travel inside of California I try to include a stop to a mission just to take photos. When I do, I see mostly hispanic people visiting these missions, so I'm not understanding the big problem here.
    That's apples and oranges. There's a difference between visiting a historical site and reproducing it for sheer entertainment value. Some don't know the history. Some visitors are devout followers of the religion. Some like to see the historical places in context - hey, when I went to London I wanted to see the Tower of London and the Clink. Everyone has their reasons. The fact that it is enjoyed by some doesn't mean it belongs in Disneyland as entertainment. Talk to people who actively identify with Indigenous groups in Western America and ask if they like the missions, and they will likely give you a very different answer. Hey, visit the real missions. Enjoy the architecture and the history in context. It's different than reproducing and celebrating the missions in a theme park.

    My fear is that by overthinking these relics of history too much we end up watering down the story to the point that you can no longer have pirates chasing women (that they just purchased in an auction) for any reason other than the trays of food they are carrying.
    And my fear is that my minimizing the negative impact and amount of human suffering that the missions caused, and specifically celebrating them (instead of just the architecture) you don't learn from history. Do we really want to celebrate the people who wiped out languages, cultures and traditions? And what is the message that we pass on, if we do? It's been said that "those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it."

    Anyway. Moving on.
    Last edited by Malina; 07-06-2013 at 11:05 PM.
    Merida looks like this. Not a Barbie doll!

  9. #69

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,591

    Re: Where is all the Latin presence in California Adventure?

    Quote Originally Posted by Steveman View Post
    Simply no. By your own quote it was part of Mexico for all of 25 years. And that is choosing a very early date for Mexican independence. Do you really believe California came into existence in 1821? Just say California was part of Mexico before it was part of the USA. It's the "originally" part that people keep explaining is wrong. Despite the early Portuguese and English explorers, it was Spain that had the most early European influence with their trade and missions, and of course Mexican culture runs deep as well today. So, the OP's question is certainly legitimate. It's just that line about it originally being part of Mexico that people keep wanting to defend for some reason.
    well obviously California was not ORIGNALLY part of Mexico just like the rest of the country was not part of the United States it was all Indian territory until European exploration invaded the territory in 1542 and Spain began building mission along what would become the El Camino Real.

    That does not remove the fact that when Mexico won its independence it took control of the region from Spain and ruled California from 1841 until the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the war.

    And it's not my quote that information comes directly from information in several museum in Southern California that give the history of the state and its early inhabitants during that time period when the state saw its major growth and its rich history.

  10. #70

    • Ducksketeer
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bonafide SoCal original
    Posts
    141

    Re: Where is all the Latin presence in California Adventure?

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    And my fear is that my minimizing the negative impact and amount of human suffering that the missions caused, you don't learn from history. What the missions did destroyed languages and cultures and wiped out entire groups of people. Groups with valuable histories that we will never know, because they are all gone. Do we really want to celebrate the people who did that?
    It is not about celebrating the unfortunate facts about what happens when human populations migrate and conquer or settle into new lands. Fact is that most native populations died from just early causal contact with the Europeans. The diseases they spread to native peoples was an epidemic. Is that what you are calling "genocide"? Figures show that as high as 90% of the indigenous people died before there was even significant numbers of European settlers in the Americas. That is more about biology than it is about genocide. And of course I don't say that to minimize the exploitation or abuse suffered by native populations at the hands of the Spanish, or any colonists in the New World.

    But we can't just pick and choose which cultural aspects we are going to continue to reference. If we did, then we wouldn't include reference to Greeks, Romans, Persians, Vikings, Saxons, Mongols, Turks, French, Spanish, English, Dutch, Portuguese, Aztec or even the Lakota Sioux who eventually stole the sacred Black Hills from the Crow Indians. You would have to include many cultures into the same category you are putting the Spanish colonialists in wouldn't you?. But here in California, we don't just erase what the influence was by Spain do we? Nearly all of our place names and many other cultural ques come from the Spanish period. The Carthay Circle Theater is designed in the Spanish colonial revival style for goodness sakes!

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    Anyway. Moving on.
    Of course. But if you think about it, you might ask Disneyland to remove the name "Columbia" from the sailing ship in the rivers of America. Because of course "Columbia" is a word which literally means "land of Columbus" and everything that stands for. Wouldn't want to "celebrate" any of that history either, would we?

  11. #71

    •   
    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,883

    Re: Where is all the Latin presence in California Adventure?

    Quote Originally Posted by USS Seawolf View Post
    It is not about celebrating the unfortunate facts about what happens when human populations migrate and conquer or settle into new lands. Fact is that most native populations died from just early causal contact with the Europeans. The diseases they spread to native peoples was an epidemic. Is that what you are calling "genocide"? Figures show that as high as 90% of the indigenous people died before there was even significant numbers of European settlers in the Americas. That is more about biology than it is about genocide. And of course I don't say that to minimize the exploitation or abuse suffered by native populations at the hands of the Spanish, or any colonists in the New World.
    The fact that it was common convention doesn't mean it was okay, or should be considered acceptable today. And actually the genocide I am talking about is not about the spread of disease - which in some cases was deliberate - but by the systematic enslavement and murder that was carried out. Murdering, enslaving people, torturing them when they tried to escape and destroying their lives, with the goal to eliminate them altogether, does qualify as genocide. In the 1800s before California became part of the country, even Americans - who weren't being kind to their own indigenous populations - thought that what was happening in California to indigenous groups was cruel, which says a lot. And then you have quotes like this:

    August 7, 1853, Yreka Herald said:
    "Now that the general hostilities against the Indians have commenced we hope that the Government will render such aid as will enable the citizens of the north to carry on a war of extermination until the last Redskin of these tribes has been killed. Extermination is no longer a question of time " the time has arrived, the work has commenced, and let the first man that says treaty or peace be regarded as a traitor."


    But we can't just pick and choose which cultural aspects we are going to continue to reference. If we did, then we wouldn't include reference to Greeks, Romans, Persians, Vikings, Saxons, Mongols, Turks, French, Spanish, English, Dutch, Portuguese, Aztec or even the Lakota Sioux who eventually stole the sacred Black Hills from the Crow Indians. You would have to include many cultures into the same category you are putting the Spanish colonialists in wouldn't you?. But here in California, we don't just erase what the influence was by Spain do we? Nearly all of our place names and many other cultural ques come from the Spanish period. The Carthay Circle Theater is designed in the Spanish colonial revival style for goodness sakes!
    You're totally missing the point. I've said several times that there are ways to incorporate the architecture and positive cultural influences (after all, Dia de los Muertos incorporates both indigenous and western religion, right?).

    I'm also pointing out a specific institution that did terrible things, not every single individual Spanish person who happened to live in the colonies.

    There's a marked difference between saying "hey, this fictional structure with influences from Rome/Persia/Spain/China is great" and saying "hey, here's a direct replica of a specific historical place where people were tortured and killed, reproduced for your amusement! That's great!" In the former you're celebrating culture and art; in the latter you are celebrating human rights abuses. For instance, we can do a cute Barvarian village and celebrate good things about German culture, but Disney would never think of putting up the Eagle's Nest.

    And of course we always pick and choose which cultural aspects we celebrate. When we look at Main Street USA, for instance, you're not seeing signs on the theater and cinema that say "Whites only," because we recognize that Jim Crow laws were offensive and wrong, even if they were historically accurate for the era and location.

    Of course. But if you think about it, you might ask Disneyland to remove the name "Columbia" from the sailing ship in the rivers of America. Because of course "Columbia" is a word which literally means "land of Columbus" and everything that stands for. Wouldn't want to "celebrate" any of that history either, would we?
    Considering Columbus didn't even technically get to North America - he never got farther north than Cuba - we're not the land of Columbus. Leifur Eriksson got here first, too, so it's a bit inaccurate, when you mention it. And again, you're missing the point. The boat has a stupid name, but its history is clean. It's not "yay! this was a prison ship! Let's reproduce it and celebrate it for your family's entertainment!"

    Anyway, moving on for real. I do find it troubling that there's such sentiment to minimize the magnitude of human rights abuses, though. There's no way to move on as a society unless we recognize that the mistakes of the past WERE mistakes and stop holding them up.
    Last edited by Malina; 07-07-2013 at 01:05 AM.
    Merida looks like this. Not a Barbie doll!

  12. #72

    • Ducksketeer
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bonafide SoCal original
    Posts
    141

    Re: Where is all the Latin presence in California Adventure?

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    The fact that it was common convention doesn't mean it was okay, or should be considered acceptable today. And actually the genocide I am talking about is not about the spread of disease - which in some cases was deliberate - but by the systematic enslavement and murder that the missions carried out. Enslaving people, torturing them when they tried to escape and destroying their lives, with the goal to eliminate them altogether, does qualify as genocide.
    The goal was none of that. "The goal" (not that any of us needs to agree with the motive) was to convert them to a religion so that Spain effectively could claim them (the mission Indians) as citizens/subjects and thus retain title to the land. For Spain knew full well that without numbers in this northern land, they would eventually be in direct competition with English or French settlers who were coming to the North American continent in greater and greater numbers. Most of the Spanish population was still centered in Mexico City and Montery. Spain could not entice many Spanish to settle in California at the time. The plan was to use the Indians as their claim. To say that the Spanish goal was to depopulate the 'mission Indians' without replacing those numbers with other settlers first, is just mythology.

    BTW, can you cite one case where the spread of disease by any Europeans was done deliberatly? I'm not talking about the one case where a British officer considered doing it during the French and Indian wars. I'm talking about anyone actually doing it, or attempting to do it, and even especially in Spanish colonial California? Fact is it never happened, and it has been refuted by historians for decades. It is a myth. Native Americans were decimated by small pox and other diseases they had no immunity to in the same way that Europeans were decimated by these same diseases centuries before; just by being proximate to other people who had the disease.

    And as far as enslavement of Indians, that is a gross oversimplification of the history. Yes, they were abused in many ways. But most of the mission Indians flocked to the Spanish settlements because the Spanish offered them food in the form of sheep, goats, pigs and grain. Most of the Indians exchanged their labor for food. For many Indians it was easier to work for the Spanish than continue to forage for food as they had in the past. Was this a disruption to their prior lifestyle, of course. But it was not done as means to just kill them off. That theory makes zero sense at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    You're totally missing the point. I've said several times that there are ways to incorporate the architecture and positive cultural influences (after all, Dia de los Muertos incorporates both indigenous and western religion, right?).
    I've heard your point. And my point is that there is nothing wrong with including mission bells, arches like the missions had, the iconic El Camino Real signs and other themes from the Spanish colonial period as well. It's not as if the tower of the Carthay Circle Theater isn't already that. I'm not saying to put a cross on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    There's a difference between saying "hey, this fictional structure with influences from Rome/Persia/Spain/China is great" and saying "hey, here's a direct replica of a place where people were tortured and killed, reproduced for your amusement! That's great!" In the former you're celebrating culture and art; in the latter you are celebrating human rights abuses.
    False argument! Is Fort Wilderness celebrating human rights abuses? Is the Pirates of the Caribbean intended to be a celebration of human rights abuses? Even though we are full aware that they probably did rape and murder people. Have you been to Rome? Did you refuse to appreciate the Flavian Ampethiter (Colosium) based on your idea that it would be a "celebration of human rights abuses"?

    As already stated, the history of California already is what it is. However, without the course it took, there wouldn't even be a Disneyland, would there? California missions are just as relevant culturally to this land as the Aztec temples are in Mexico City. Why haven't you mentioned the mass genocide that occured there with the same passion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    And we always pick and choose which cultural aspects we celebrate. When we look at Main Street USA, for instance, you're not seeing signs on the theater and cinema that say "Whites only," because we recognize that Jim Crow laws were offensive and wrong, even if they were historically accurate for the era and location.
    Another strawman argument. California missions are only offensive and wrong to you. To many people they are just a reminder of an important colonial period that shaped this land. Not any different than 'Liberty Square' in WDW. Obviously at the time "liberty" unfortunatly did not mean freedom for everyone in this country. But should Liberty Square be dismanted for the reasons you already stated? Because within that historical context it did include slavery?



    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    Considering Columbus didn't even technically get to North America - he never got farther north than Cuba - we're not the land of Columbus. Leifur Eriksson got here first, too, so it's a bit inaccurate, when you mention it. And again, you're missing the point. The boat has a stupid name, but its history is clean. It's not "yay! this was a prison ship! Let's reproduce it and celebrate it!"
    That was not the point. The point was that "some people" are offended by references to Columbus. My question to you, based on your stated position of what should not be celebrated because of the history; my question is: should "Columbia" (meaning land of Columbus) in celebration of Columbus, be removed from that ship?

    I believe this is an entirely silly argument. Silly because we are talking about an amusement park which is based on consumerist spending in a land that was once owned by the people you claim to be worried about. Take your arguement to it's logical conclusion and the entire Nation should be dismantled because it celebrates the conquest of the native peoples.

  13. #73

    •   
    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,883

    Re: Where is all the Latin presence in California Adventure?

    Quote Originally Posted by USS Seawolf View Post

    BTW, can you cite one case where the spread of disease by any Europeans was done deliberatly? I'm not talking about the one case where a British officer considered doing it during the French and Indian wars.
    No, the Indigenous groups had no resistance to the diseases brought over by Europeans. However, considering Lord Jeffrey Amherst considered the Indigenous to be subhuman, repeatedly talked about exterminating them, and that one of his soldiers, William Trent, actually confirmed giving out at least some smallpox blankets, there's no reason to believe that his carefully considered plan was not carried out.
    Amherst and Smallpox

    And as far as enslavement of Indians, that is a gross oversimplification of the history. Yes, they were abused in many ways. But most of the mission Indians flocked to the Spanish settlements because the Spanish offered them food in the form of sheep, goats, pigs and grain.
    Now you're just denying history. The slavery that happened at the missions has been well documented. The natives were taken to the missions by force - not will - and forbidden to leave. They didn't need food from the missions; they had their own well-established agricultural societies. The situation at the missions was documented as early as the 1700s by Jean-François de Galaup de la Pérouse.

    http://www.nahc.ca.gov/califindian.html
    The Indian in the Closet
    Monterey in 1786: The Journals of Jean François de La Pérouse - Jean-Franðcois de Galaup comte de La Pâerouse - Google Books
    The dark, terrible secret of California's missions - SFGate

    California missions are just as relevant culturally to this land as the Aztec temples are in Mexico City. Why haven't you mentioned the mass genocide that occured there with the same passion?
    Perhaps because the Aztecs didn't carry out a systematic attempt to wipe out a specific population? They were the oppressed by the conquistadors; not the oppressors. In addition even though they took over other groups and did practice human sacrifice, they didn't wipe out entire tribes. Also, the subject was the missions; Aztecs are irrelevant here. You are aware they were not the Indigenous tribe living in California, right?

    I've heard your point. And my point is that there is nothing wrong with including mission bells, arches like the missions had, the iconic El Camino Real signs and other themes from the Spanish colonial period as well. It's not as if the tower of the Carthay Circle Theater isn't already that. I'm not saying to put a cross on it.
    And you're obviously not hearing my point, because I've said the exact same thing. I've said over and over again that it's fine to incorporate the architecture, NOT the actual mission structures themselves AS missions.

    False argument! Is Fort Wilderness celebrating human rights abuses? Is the Pirates of the Caribbean intended to be a celebration of human rights abuses? Even though we are full aware that they probably did rape and murder people. Have you been to Rome? Did you refuse to appreciate the Flavian Ampethiter (Colosium) based on your idea that it would be a "celebration of human rights abuses"?
    *sigh* I feel like I am talking to a wall here, because again, you are missing my point completely. There are:

    1. Historical sites, like the Colosseum (yes, I've been there) and the Tower of London. These sites are educational and historical and appreciated in that context.

    2. Amusement venues, which are fabricated to represent different cultures.

    3. Real historical incidents.

    4. Fictional historical incidents.

    An amusement park that is incorporating historical aspects into fictional stories is not the same as a historical landmark. So Fort Wilderness, et al are irrelevant here. A story, such as Pirates, is not fact. Keep in mind they've sanitized Pirates completely from what actual pirates did - which included disemboweling live people - so again, even there, they are picking and choosing what we see. Again, I think I've said this about 5 times now.

    To make a very simple example: Visiting Auschwitz is a life-changing experience. Visiting a fun theme park based on Auschwitz would be horrifying and would completely trivialize everything that happened there.

    Likewise: visiting a historical mission in that context is not the same as celebrating a mission in a theme park.

    Another strawman argument. California missions are only offensive and wrong to you. To many people they are just a reminder of an important colonial period that shaped this land.
    No, not just to me - to anyone who is Indigenous or who is educated on Indigenous history.

    Not any different than 'Liberty Square' in WDW. Obviously at the time "liberty" unfortunatly did not mean freedom for everyone in this country. But should Liberty Square be dismanted for the reasons you already stated? Because within that historical context it did include slavery?
    Please point out what, at Liberty Square, is an authentic recreation of a specific, known historical place where people were hurt or tortured.

    That was not the point. The point was that "some people" are offended by references to Columbus. My question to you, based on your stated position of what should not be celebrated because of the history; my question is: should "Columbia" (meaning land of Columbus) in celebration of Columbus, be removed from that ship?
    And that is a straw man. I'm not concerned about names; I'm concerned about context. The Columbia as a ship didn't do anything objectionable; it was a historical artifact with a clean record. To boot, despite its etymology, the word "Columbia" at the time of the ship's naming had come to refer to a female personification of America (much like Marianne or "Liberty Leading the People" in France); not a celebration of Columbus the explorer.

    I believe this is an entirely silly argument. Silly because we are talking about an amusement park which is based on consumerist spending in a land that was once owned by the people you claim to be worried about. Take your arguement to it's logical conclusion and the entire Nation should be dismantled because it celebrates the conquest of the native peoples.
    Not really. I'm wondering why you are so defensive and angry about this - you seem to take offense with the fact that anyone might have an objection to the missions. Again, the only way the nation can move forward - including Disneyland - is to stop holding up negative aspects of the past as positive things.

    In the meantime, I'm just putting you on ignore now, because I feel like I'm completely wasting my time here. If you don't want to acknowledge the genocide and mass subjugation of Indigenous people in North America, hey, you don't have to. It doesn't mean it didn't happen and it doesn't mean others can't object to representations of it.

    To the mods: I'm sorry this thread has gone so far. I felt it was important to correct misinformation - it's the same as if someone was saying the Holocaust never happened. It's just too important to let it go.
    Last edited by Malina; 07-07-2013 at 03:02 AM.
    Merida looks like this. Not a Barbie doll!

  14. #74

    • Ducksketeer
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bonafide SoCal original
    Posts
    141

    Re: Where is all the Latin presence in California Adventure?

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    Nom the Indigenous groups had no resistance to the diseases brought over by Europeans. However, considering Lord Jeffrey Amherst considered the Indigenous to be subhuman, repeatedly talked about exterminating them, and that one of his soldiers, William Trent, actually confirmed giving out at least some smallpox blankets, there's no reason to believe that his carefully considered plan was not carried out.

    Talked about and actually occurring are two different things. However, based on this one letter people are led to believe that European colonists deliberately committed systematic biological warfare. If I were you I would be more concerned in getting your facts straight before committing to such sweeping charges. Besides, that incident had nothing to do with the Spanish in California and that is the fact.


    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    Now you're just denying history. The slavery that happened at the missions has been well documented. The natives were taken to the missions by force - not will - and forbidden to leave. They didn't need food from the missions; they had their own well-established agricultural societies. The situation at the missions was documented as early as the 1700s by Jean-François de Galaup de la Pérouse.
    Much of the California Indian tribes sustained on acorns, fish and small game. Unlike the plains Indians or the tribes of the forested Eastern territory, California Indians had to forage for food; there were no large herds of bison in California. Mono Indians even sustained themselves on fly larvae from the Mono salt lake. When the Spanish arrived many Indians found the Missions a place of refuge. Abuses occurred, and soldiers often were harsh in enforcing the rules, but the goal was not to kill Indians as already stated. The goal was to successfully maintain Spanish control of the territory. I never said that did not entail exploitation. You are the one who continues to falsely label that as genocide. It was not genocide.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    Perhaps because the Aztecs didn't carry out a genocide? They were the oppressed by the conquistadors; not the oppressors. In addition even though they took over other groups, they didn't attempt to wipe them out.
    Sacrificing, or should I say murdering as many as 20 thousand captured people from other tribes in one day would be called what? You could dispute the numbers I suppose, but you can't dispute the practice. So what kind of "human suffering" would you call this? Just curious why you won't even acknowledge it? Doesn't fit into your narrative maybe?


    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    And you're obviously not hearing my point, because I've said the exact same thing. I've said over and over again that it's fine to incorporate the architecture, NOT the actual mission structures themselves AS missions.
    What does that even mean, the mission structures? Nobody said use a cross or other religious icons. Does that include bells too? Can't even resemble a Mission? But of course other religious temples from other cultures are okay with you? Are you going to protest Knott's because they are returning the Mission models to that park? Guess what, nobody is going to care about that. Nobody, especially Latin/Hispanic people are going to be upset. In fact, Knott's has a very good record of also celebrating native American cultures. They have had endorsements from Native tribes in that regard. Do you actually believe that if Disney did similar there would be some outcry over Missions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    *sigh* I feel like I am talking to a wall here, because again, you are missing my point completely. There are:

    1. Historical sites, like the Colosseum (yes, I've been there- it's never called the "Flavian ampitheater, sorry) and the Tower of London. These sites are educational and historical and appreciated in that context.
    But California missions cannot be appreciated in a similar context? Are they not historical? Are they not educational?

    And BTW, the Anfiteatro Flavio or Amphitheatrum Flavium in Latin, is the correct historical name for what is commonly known as the Coloseum of Rome.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post

    An amusement park that is incorporating historical aspects into fictional stories is not the same as a historical landmark. So Fort Wilderness, et al are irrelevant here. A story, such as Pirates, is not fact. Keep in mind they've sanitized Pirates completely from what actual pirates did - which included disemboweling live people - so again, even there, they are picking and choosing what we see. Again, I think I've said this about 5 times now.
    And again, the original poster of this thread wasn't calling for an actual mission to be built. It could just be a mission looking building that was not involved in any of those terrible things you accuse the Spanish colonialists of. Same as our own Fort Wilderness was not actually a base for raids against Indian tribes. Although, the Fort on Tom Sawyers did have replica muskets in the towers. Not sure what the historical reference of that was supposed to mean other than maybe the soldiers just like shooting at squirrels.


    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    To make a very simple example: Visiting Auschwitz is a life-changing experience. Visiting a fun theme park based on Auschwitz would be horrifying and would completely trivialize everything that happened there.
    And that is not what the entire history of the Spanish mission system was, so it is a false argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    Likewise: visiting a historical mission in that context is not the same as celebrating a mission in a theme park.
    Obviously not to you. However it would be appreciated by most people within the historical context of the Spanish colonial period.


    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    No, not just to me - to anyone who is Indigenous or who is educated on Indigenous history.
    You are only giving an opinion based on your indoctrination on the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post

    Please point out what, at Liberty Square, is an authentic recreation of a specific, known historical place where people were hurt or tortured.
    It is obviously a representation of the American Colonial period. I never said it was of a specific event. You are continuing to use false logic here. Is it your claim that Liberty Square is not intended to represent a historical context at all? There is architectural representations there of all 13 of the original colonies. How does that not include, to use your words, a "celebration" of the historical context? How is that any different than if the same was done of the Spanish colonial period?

    I don't expect you to answer that. But it bears repeating.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post

    And that is a straw man. I'm not concerned about names; I'm concerned about context. The Columbia as a ship didn't do anything objectionable; it was a historical artifact with a clean record. To boot, despite its etymology, the word "Columbia" at the time of the ship's naming had come to refer to a personification of America; not a celebration of Columbus the explorer.
    A personification based on the name of Christopher Columbus. Columbia means "land of Columbus". Do you celebrate Columbus day? I would guess that you probably don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post

    Not really. I'm wondering why you are so defensive and angry about this - you seem to take offense with the fact that anyone might have an objection to the missions. However, history doesn't go away if you pretend it didn't happen.
    I'm not angry or defensive about it. Why are you being defensive because I disagree with your false oversimplifications of the history? You are the one who opened up this discussion with your absolute insistence that any reference to California missions would be taken as offensive by everyone? I can assure you that it is not (reference Knott's having mission replicas). And I am certain that it wouldn't even offend vast numbers of Latin/Hispanic people here. But of course you will diminish that by claiming that "they are not educated about the history." Maybe they just accept the history as what it is without attempting turn it into some platform to perpetuate an agenda?

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    Oppression doesn't go away. And again, the only way the nation can move forward - including Disneyland - is to stop holding up negative aspects of the past as positive things.
    So you do disagree with the Pirates chasing women, and you do disagree with the Fort Wilderness, don't you? You see I am more in the camp of What would Walt do? The same guy who while having a burning settlers cabin, also had an Indian camp which showcased actual American Indian dancing and culture. The guy who had no problem with including many different kinds of historical references in a rich and entertaining manner. Walt Disney who had a Aunt Jemimah's pancake house in Frontierland, and the Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln at the other end of the park. A man who understood that as long as you offered balance to the enterainment, it would be well received. I am certain that Walt Disney would not be as concerned as you are about California mission references in a park themed specifically about California. But then Walt was probably not as "educated" on the subject as you would like.

    You call this moving forward. I call it living in a vacuum.


    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    In the meantime, I'm just putting you on ignore now, because I feel like I'm completely wasting my time here. If you don't want to acknowledge the genocide and mass subjugation of Indigenous people in North America, hey, you don't have to. It doesn't mean it didn't happen and it doesn't mean others can't object to representations of it.
    It doesn't mean that I don't recognize the history; I'm just not trying to push an agenda on Disneyland or others. I acknowledged the exploitation and abuse, same as with just about every other culture from the Romans to the Aztecs. I just refuse to pick and choose things that happened a long time ago and give extra significance to some things, or zero significance to other things like the Aztec human sacrifices the way that you do. I am not responsible for the history, so I don't appreciate being made to feel guilty about it. It had nothing to do with me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malina View Post
    To the mods: I'm sorry this thread has gone so far. I felt it was important to correct misinformation - it's the same as if someone was saying the Holocaust never happened. It's just too important to let it go.
    Another gross over statement on your part. Reasonable people will decide for themselves if having a arch or mission bell on a building designed to resemble the missions of the Spanish colonial period at a amusement park in California is equal to a the holocaust or not.
    Last edited by USS Seawolf; 07-07-2013 at 05:08 AM.

  15. #75

    • Artistic integrity
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Orange County
    Posts
    3,503

    Re: Where is all the Latin presence in California Adventure?

    "California missions - To many people they are just a reminder of an important colonial period that shaped this land."
    That's exactly how I feel. I'm not Catholic. I'm not religious. And I have very strong opinions about it. Yet - All I can think of is - Knott's, bring back those mission dioramas! I'd prefer appreciating them over spinners and more roller coasters.

    And if DCA devoted a section, representing the Mexican/Spanish aspects/history ... I'd love it. It would be another layer of diversity to the park!

    My fear is that by overthinking these relics of history too much we end up with..........
    That's the key word right there - Overthinking.

    If I overthink Death - Then Haunted Mansion should close. If I overthink the real history to pirates, and all they did - then PotC should close. And Sleeping Beauty Castle should be torn down - as it reminds me of the dictatorships that ruled in castles, looming over villages - A stark reality then - with the rich on the hill, and the poor below. That existed in Europe for centuries, until those old barbaric forms of ruling, were finally laid to rest, and middle classes started to thrive. Granted, there are some things that should never make the list, to add to a theme park. A Spanish/Mexican section - I don't see a problem.

    And who wants a bland, white-washed, generic, homogenized theme park anyway?

    How about we take World Showcase at EPCOT, and turn all the countries into one big open mall, and take all the restaurants from each country, strip them of all their exterior theming, and make them all T.G.I.F.s and Red Robins. And there you have it - One giant same/homogenized politically-correct theme park.
    Last edited by Tomorrowland_1967; 07-07-2013 at 05:31 AM.
    MY SIGNATURE:
    Dear Peoplemover Fans, If you want to see a new attraction that at least mimics the 1967 Peoplemover in a future Tomorrowland remodel, you need to write to the powers-that-be, and let them know. If you don't - Then the next time Tomorrowland is remodeled, you will see a land barren of any "Peoplemover" type attraction.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Where's all the merchandise?
    By Sallah in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-02-2007, 09:24 AM
  2. Where does all the water go?
    By Abominable Snowman in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-27-2006, 10:14 PM
  3. Where does all the money go?
    By Alestro Bakai in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-26-2006, 12:26 PM
  4. Where have all the Shakes(and yogurt)gone?
    By kronos in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 07-13-2006, 09:05 PM
  5. Where did all the smilies go?
    By Mac Daddy in forum The Forums
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-27-2005, 12:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •