Kinsman, Gwendolyn ENG 3140 May 1st, 2012 Colonization Is Still Alive and Well and Its All

Your Fault: Or Colonizing of the Mind and the Stranglehold Disney Has on the World What even is post colonialism? If one were to ask a random person on the street that had no idea, most people would hazard a guess that it was simply the era after colonialism, and they would be partially right. It does reference the era after colonialism in the mid-20th century. Post colonialism is prevalent in nations that were colonized, and then gained their independence, either after a rebellion or after a peaceful transference of power from the colonizer to the colonized. However, if one were to ask the same random stranger if colonialism is truly dead, and by that, I mean, does colonization mean only colonization of a nation or people in a nation, by another country or nation state? Can colonization happen to a group of people by some other entity or force? The answer to that question is complicated, but ultimately, yes it can. In fact, all people are colonized every day; the colonization is that of the mind. In particular, one particular corporation has a stranglehold on the minds of a good population of the world, particularly in the United States, and that corporation would be Disney. Of course, many would balk at the notion that they could be colonized, as they are free to do what they wish, that no one from Disney, nor is Disney themselves forcing anyone to watch their films, go to their parks, or buy any of their merchandise. No, this colonization is something that we do to ourselves, and it does not happen to us by force or because we are not strong enough to stop it, it happens because we are ambivalent and because we buy into what Disney is selling.
Kinsman Page 1

In order to truly lay out this new form of colonization that has become prevalent in the world we must look at two post-colonial philosophers in Edward Said and Gayatri Spivak, who both spent a great deal of time laying out the ideas of post colonialism, Orientalism, and the Subaltern. These terms are intertwined and when dealing with post colonialism, go hand in hand. In Orientalism, Said tells us that Orientalism is this basic idea that there is something fundamentally diametrically opposed between Western and Eastern societies. This idea isnt really questioned, because it is true both hemispheres of the world buy into different cultures, into different belief systems, and their way of life are vastly different, however, Orientalism goes further than that. Orientalism also claims that there is a stereotype from the Western perspective that those from the Orient or East are, exotic, pre-modern, emotional, and indolent. (Dittmer 18). In, Visions of the East: Orientalism in Film, Mary Hamer makes the assertion that it isnt that Orientalism completely ignores the Eastern cultures and societies, its that they do acknowledge them and study them, and then measure their culture and society against their own, and find ways to subvert any and all evidence that there may be something to the Eastern way of life. She claims, Orientalism is seductive; it offers forms for European pleasures. (Bernstein 271.) In other words, Orientalism allows the Western world to justify what they are doing, their way of life and thinking, because the thing they are measuring is diametrically opposed to them, and anything that is different, must be bad or exotic. In the term of orientalism, exotic does not mean beautiful and desirable as it does today. Exotic, in terms of orientalism, means wild or dangerous, or something to be frightened of. She also claims that, The most effective counter to the fantasies of Orientalism, it has been argued, is to measure them against the historical record. (Bernstein 271). She claims that many authors and artists from the time were accused of ignoring anything true and historical, so as to keep up the fiction of the Eastern setting and to

Kinsman

Page 2

perpetuate the notion of Orientalism. Said himself claimed in Orientalism, The Orient was Orientalized not only because it was discovered to be Oriental in all those ways considered commonplace by an average nineteenth-century European, but also because it could be- that is, submitted to being-made Oriental. (Bernstein 305). Choo asserts, Said convinced the West of what the East already knew, that the Orient is a Western invention. For Said, Orientalism is the form imperialism takes in the Orient. What constitutes the superior West (modernity, scientific advances, and technical advantages) and what constitutes the inferior Orient (superstition, adherence to tradition, spirituality as wisdom) have a strong foundation in the colonial quest for wealth and profit. (Bernstein 305). In other words, the very idea of colonialism and imperialism lends itself to Orientalism, it is the very justification of taking away the same humanity of those being colonized, so as not, to offend ones sensibilities and lead to guilt and shame for forcing a group of people to submit to someone who simply knows better, because they are better. If one can justify their actions and beliefs at the expense of another group of people and gain more land and profit in the meantime, then why shouldnt they? Once a group of people is forced to adhere to a fictional representation of them by a group that has taken the power, they become mute and powerless. Shawn Rider in his article, The Silenced Majority: Colonization of the Mind and the Flesh Eating Zombie claims, The relationship between the ruling and the ruled is a constant power struggle. Edward Said buys into Foucaults notions of power flow, in that power flow is set up so power flows away from the native and toward the colonizers. Native language and religion are usurped by civilized or better versions, destabilizing the native culture and of course the restabilizing force is that of the colonizers. (Rider 4-9). Once the natives buy into the new religion, language,
Kinsman Page 3

and culture, the natives become the subaltern. The subaltern refers to according to Spivak, In postcolonial terms, everything that has limited or no access to the cultural imperialism is subaltern-a space of difference. (De Kock 45). To Spivak, the subaltern is those natives who have been cast under the Orientalism lamp, those who have no voice, because it has been torn away from them, it is those who have been cast as the role of, The Other. In terms of the colonizer, The Other becomes the subaltern, it becomes the people that are different than them, and by different it means, worse than. Of course the question Spivak poses then, is can this group of people speak? Can a group that has had their voice taken away, actually speak? Tabish Khair says in, Can the Subaltern Shout (and Smash), that Spivaks notion of the subaltern only being able to speak when they stop speaking as a subaltern, is wrong, and that idea of speech being noise, or a sound made from ones voice, is faulty. Speech can happen through body language, through thought, through written word, and that the question of whether or not the subaltern being able to speak is a rather stupid question. Of course, the subaltern can speak, but the better question, can the subaltern ever be listened to? Meaning, can the subaltern ever say anything that is listened to, welcomed, and adhered to? And that question is no. The subaltern can say anything they want, but as long as they are only speaking to another subaltern, the message means very little. It is like the phrase, preaching to the choir; subalterns could speak all day long to each other. Nothing will ever happen, because simply put, they are subaltern. As long as they are in that position, not speaking to the right people, not taking a stand and shrugging off the oppression of being the subaltern, it doesnt matter if they speak or not. (Khair 10-15). J. Maggio in his article, Can the Subaltern be Heard?: Political Theory, Translation, Representation, and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, basically agrees with what Khair says about
Kinsman Page 4

the subaltern. He claims that just because the colonizers refuse to listen to the subaltern when they cry out, doesnt mean the subaltern are not heard. There is a distinction between hearing something and listening to someone. You can hear almost anything, but the things you choose to actually listen to are the ones that get through and stay with you. In this, Maggio, faults Spivak for her shortsightedness and her approach on the subaltern and the subject of speaking and being heard. (Maggio 429-438) Which leads to another question entirely, does the subaltern even want to speak? If the subaltern are now colonized into believing they are in fact better off with the new colonizing force, why would that group of people even want to speak out? And this is where colonization of the mind comes into play. Marcelo Dascal claims in his essay, Colonizing and Decolonizing Minds, Whereas the most visible forms of political colonialism have for the most part disappeared from the planet by the end of the millennium, several of its consequences remain with us. Postcolonial thinkers have undertaken not only to analyze this phenomenon, but also to devise strategies for effectively combating and hopefully eradicating colonialisms most damaging aspect the taking possession and control of its victims minds. (Dascal 1). Many will ask, but what is it? The answer is complicated. Colonization of the mind is a metaphor that shows how a colonizer forces their ideologies, beliefs, or some external source into the mental sphere of its subjects. It thereby changes the subjects way of thinking, and the contents that are in the mind, because of this the effects of colonization of the mind are long lasting, and last far longer than any physical ramifications of colonization. There is a clear unevenness of power between the colonized and colonizer, once someones mind has been

Kinsman

Page 5

colonized they can be tricked into thinking they are either the colonizer or the colonized, and most participate involuntarily, but some participate voluntarily, because they buy into what they colonizers are selling. In terms of colonialism, colonization of the mind took place most often by simply subverting cultural values like family, religion, music, and food and routinely showed the colonized how they could be civilized like the colonizers and be better than they were, and slowly over the course of time eradicated the former culture. (Dascal 1-26). Then there is the argument that Dascal puts forward that says that even if one were to shun the colonization of the mind of one group, another group would ultimately colonize the mind anyway. There is no way to completely keep ones mind free from colonization, because life is made up of thought and action on those thoughts. (Dascal 21-22). Mary Douglas claims, The colonization of each others minds is the price we pay for thought. (Dascal 1). There is no escaping colonization of the human mind, and that as long as humans are alive and are on earth, colonization will be alive and well and has no end in sight. The physical action of colonization of humans and land, came from the thought, and since then has been moved away from, but there is nothing greater or scarier than being controlled by someone else or by having a thought or idea implanted in your head by an outside source. In this, I think of the film Inception. The movie is a science fiction thriller set in the world of dreams. A team of people can go into the dream world of a subject and plant an idea so that the subject does what another person wants or desires. The film itself is futuristic and seemingly farfetched, but the reality is that it happens every day to nearly every person in the world. (Inception). We are affected by the words we read, hear, and speak. The films we watch give us a message and implant in our mind, and things we may have never thought about before believed, can become our greatest desires, wishes, and beliefs. All because of something we read, heard, or saw.
Kinsman Page 6

Salah Sabawi in his article, Colonization of the Mind: Normalize This!, Normalization is the colonization of the mind, whereby oppressed subjects come to believe that the oppressors reality is the only normal reality that must be subscribed to, and that the oppression is a fact of life that must be coped with. (Sabawi). In Sabawis article he is referring to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, but it holds true in almost form of colonization of the mind. And we can see this in popular culture; such as films and music. No corporation does this better than the Disney corporation, and it is not just in the films they produce, but its in the theme parks they build, and the merchandise they sell. It is in their wholesome, family fun image that allows them to reach the most innocent minds out there, and that would be children. Disney is pretty genius in that in figured out the way to affect the future is to get the children. By sugarcoating political ideas, beliefs, ideologies, and the patriarchal society in which we live, and giving us beautiful animations, colors, and catchy songs that try to deter away from the messages that are actually being portrayed in the film, we simply sit for two hours and enjoy it all. Meanwhile, were being indoctrinated with all sorts of messages from race to gender to political issues. We not only watch the films, but we also sit our children in front of the screens and take a shower or get housework done, thinking there is nothing wrong in letting our children watch a two hour movie about a lion or a rapscallion from the middle east. We take our children to the parks, and buy the merchandise and buy into everything Disney tries to forcefeed us. (Nooshin 239). We simply believe that what we are watching is true, because it is coming from a trusted source in Disney. If Disney is putting it in their films, then it must be healthy and wholesome, right? And yet, while your children are watching these films they are being taught that young men from the Middle East are thieves, liars, beggars, and that they cant

Kinsman

Page 7

be trusted. Is it any wonder that when our children grow up, they believe it of all people from the Middle East, as they did of Aladdin, when they were just children watching Aladdin? Henry Giroux states, When politics is cloaked in the image of innocence, there is more at stake than simple deception. There is the issue of cultural power and how it influences public understandings of the past, national identity, coherence, and popular memory as a site of injustice, criticism, and renewal. (Kraidy 45). Kraidy claims, Disneys Aladdin displays an aura of playfulness and innocence positing a utopian age of purity. Beneath this harmless surface, however, a myriad of semiotic constellations engage a plethora of signs in a powerful field of signification where constructions of race, class, and gender are imbricated in monolithic formulae and reductive conventions converging in the power dyad of a glamorized Self and a postulated other. Hollywoods ideological manufacturing of the Orient is one of the most enduring sites of Otherness in American popular culture, Disneys Aladdin is no exception to the rule. (Kraidy 45- 46). In the film, we see an opening to Aggrabah, the stereotypical desert in Arab land. According to Kraidy, agrabah phonetically literally means barbaric. And the opening song actually includes the line, Its barbaric but its home. (Aladdin 1992). It is no wonder that The Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee strongly reacted to the film and called it unconscious racism. The belief is that, Aladdin, as well as most other Disney films have a subtle code in which they perpetuate their beliefs and ideologies, and are often overlooked or ignored. In this film, its shown in the drawing of the sultans palace, in which it looks almost exactly like the castle in the Disney Logo and the fact that Genie turns into Jack Nicholson. Its quite obvious that Aladdin is not a product of the Middle East, but of the world, Disney lives in.

Kinsman

Page 8

In fact, through the whole movie, Genie is an enigma. What even is he? Is he a slave to Aladdin, or is a God-like figure because he gives Aladdin the script to the movie? He takes all sorts of forms, his normal form is that of someone from the Middle East, but he becomes Jack Nicholson, who is definitely not from the Middle East. In the end, Nora Bathaiser says in her article A Whole New World- Rereading Disney Animation of the Early 1990s, Genie incorporates all these forms and has even more shapes. His transcendental figure is closely connected to the culture: the genie-essence is related to the myths and legends of the Arab world, but the forms he takes and the people he embodies are from the American and Western World. (Borthaiser 9). In other words, the Genie is a nice show of being someone from the Middle East, but really, he is just another stereotype and only serves the purpose to further propagate the idea of Orientalism. She claims, Films like Aladdin gives us an interpretation of the Arab World through the lens of the American Disney. Several further principles are responsible for this phenomenon. Disney films represent other cultures as if they could not represent themselves. (Borthaiser 2). (Said Orientalism 875). She goes on to say that, the representation of the United States versus the Middle East is shown in how certain characters are drawn. All of the negative characters being Jafar, Iago, and the apple seller are all caricatures, who are drawn very tall, very large, or very small. Jafar is in all red and looks evil. Meanwhile Jasmine, Aladdin, the Sultan, and Genie have Western body profiles. Its quite apparent that the drawings of the characters were for the audience to determine who was good and who was bad. The red and blue coloring is inherently American, seeing as the two colors are used primarily in their flag, in the colors for their two parties, and in Aladdin show the difference between the Muslim world, the red, and the American/Western world, the blue. It could also be said that red is indicative of heat and blue of water and the fact that Middle East
Kinsman Page 9

has a plethora of one and desperately needs the other, is just another caricature of the Middle East in the film. There are other indications that point to Aladdin being nothing more than a political cartoon meant to turn the minds of the audience against the people of the Middle East. A few would be the timing of the film, in which it came out as Desert Storm was happening, the fright over the nuclear weapons that America thought Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait had, and the idea that the Middle East were full of thugs who wanted nothing more than to take over the world. One particularly damning piece of evidence against Disney, according to author Alan Nadel in his journal article, A Whole New (Disney) World Order, is the scene in which Jafar hits his apex of evil. He becomes a dark energy and is surrounded by a very visible halo of an atomic insignia. (Nadel 194).This seemingly propagated the ideas that if we allowed the world to be overtaken by the Middle East a new world order would take over and we would have to forever live in fear of a nuclear takeover. Another reading of this film is Disneys support for President Bush and the War, when his popularity was starting to dwindle. And the film doesnt just stop at race and politics either, they then try to propagate the idea that Jasmine must have a man to take care of her, because her father, The Sultan, is just so worried she wont be able to survive. Through the whole film Jasmine keeps insisting on marrying for love, which is noble, but her poor father tells her he hopes she never has a daughter so she doesnt assert her independence and dare to do anything but get married. Then Jasmine does find love and spends the rest of the film trying to prove to Aladdin she is not a stuck up snob and that she is in fact worthy of him, while he is trying to prove to her and her father he is worthy enough and can take care of her. (Borthaiser 1-12). The whole film stinks to high heaven of nothing but Orientalism, Sexism, Racism, and Classism. And people still went in masses to see the film and show it

Kinsman

Page 10

willingly to their children. As I stated before, is it any wonder our current relationship with the Middle East is doing so well? And because they were accused of being misogynistic to women and doubly so for women of color, they of course did not stop there. They created films that feature strong female leads in Mulan, The Princess and the Frog, and Pocahontas. And seemingly, its a great step forward. Mulan is Asian and goes out to fight for her father who is injured and cant anymore. Tiana is a strong, hardworking African-American woman who is a waitress and dreams one day of owning her own restaurant, and Pocahontas brings honor to her family by saving John Smith and then she lives happily ever after with him. And on the cover, these films do seem swell, then we look at them closer. Mulan is basically a bad female for almost the entire film, because she doesnt want to just get married, and especially because she emasculated her father by going to war for him. And even while performing as a man, shes the worst male. She doesnt fit in anywhere, and is actually quite depressing to watch. But then, she miraculously becomes a woman again after being injured, saves the entire kingdom and is a hero. However, she isnt considered good until she goes back home and does what shes supposed to: be a homemaker. Then Chang arrives and rescues her from being a dishonor to her family. What a great, positive message that sends out. You can be a hero, but only if you get married and be the good little woman we all know you secretly want to be. The blatant sexism in this film is quite possibly the most offensive in all the Disney films Ive ever seen. The worst part is that its cloaked in a message of being a hero, and being a woman. This doesnt even begin to touch the surface of how damaging this can be to those that dont identify with the gender they were born as, and what kind of message does this and every Disney film send out? That youre wrong for not identifying with the gender you were born as.
Kinsman Page 11

Sarita McCoy Gregory states in Disneys Second Line: New Orleans, Racial Masquerade, and the Reproduction of Whiteness in The Princess and the Frog, that the film uses second line attempts to reveal the humanity of blacks, while reasserting traditions of racial hierarchy. While individualism and romantic engagement continue to exist as themes now attached to representations of blackness, there is another project that Disney undertakes in this film-maintaining its investment in whiteness-that warrants further investigation. (Gregory 432). In other words, Disney tries to show Tiana as a strong, amazing black woman, but the film still relies on the ideology of whiteness that sanitizes everyday lives of African-Americans and normalizes whiteness. (Gregory 433). In the film, Tiana is the protagonist and the main character, but she does not get to be princess. No, that is saved for the white character of Charlotte. But despite the fact that Charlotte gets to be the actual princess filmmakers try to assert that Tiana is a black princess. So if she is a princess, why is she a waitress? Why is her only redeeming feature going from poverty to riches? Why couldnt we have seen a rich black family with Tiana as the princess? The answer is that Disney needed to have her interact with the white real estate brokers to reinforce the moral code of white supremacy. (Gregory 443). They tell her that being outbid was a good thing because she was not from the right background. This simply reinforces the idea that Tianas desire to own land is inappropriate, and especially for a black woman. Disney tells the audience that there is a distinction between persons (being white) and sub-persons (being black) and that black people are only wealthy by the benevolence of white people, and therefore only human once they become wealthy. The filmmakers claim that they never intend to teach people about racism (Gregory 447)., but they do, whether or not they want to, because their own racist ideologies seep into the film and therefore into the minds of those who watch it, and Disneys racism is blatantly apparent in The Princess and the Frog.
Kinsman Page 12

Tiana gets her happy ending, which is of course a guy, noticing a trend here in Disney films in relation to women? Then we have Pocahontas, a film about a Powhatan Indian girl who saves John Smith and then falls in love with him and brings great honor to her people. The only problem with this is that its not historically true, in any way, shape, or form. Pocahontas did exist, but she didnt save John Smith and she didnt marry him. In fact, the Powhatan people find this movie and the retelling of this story to be the most offensive thing they have ever heard. And the best part of all? Disney filmmakers claim that they went out of their way to get Native American input. Of course, they never actually acknowledge who they asked, but any Powhatan person can tell you, it wasnt them. Producer, Jim Pentecost on the film, Theres not a lot of firsthand material, we thought that since historians among themselves cant agree, that you know, we had a certain amount of a license to use what is known from the folklore to create this story. (De la Cruz). This quote in and of itself is quite laughable, because the claim that since historians disagree, it is okay to simply rewrite history and say whatever you want about a person that actually did live, and not only rewrite history, but write something so offensive to the people that Pocahontas belonged to. The fact that Pocahontas only brought honor to her people by saving a white man, that the real Pocahontas didnt even know, let alone marry, is what offends the majority of Native Americans who have seen the film. The fact that Disney pulled nearly every stereotypical move in the book when animating and writing the story, did not really help either. But the most appalling of all is that the real story of Pocahontas is not a love story, its not a happy go lucky story that has a happy ending, its tragedy. The real Pocahontas was captured and taken to England where she was married off and shown off as a civil savage, because she too was colonized. Her people
Kinsman Page 13

were raped, pillaged, and murdered from ruthless colonization, and Disneys rendition of Pocahontas is a mockery of Mataoka, the real Pocahontas and the Powhatan people. And this film is being shown to Children as if it is such a good film, because it is historical and it has good music and its Disney, never mind that it is offensive and racist to an entire group of people, and that Pocahontass only redeeming feature is that she married a white man who she saved. (Kutsuzawa 2-6). Disney is brilliant. Theyve created films that everyone wants to see, because they are pretty and nice and tell stories of love and overcoming obstacles, and meanwhile they can insert subliminal messages and political, racist, and sexist ideologies throughout their films and have a good laugh at the billions of susceptible people who go along with it. And that is why colonizing of the mind is so dangerous. The fact that we watch these films and dont think about the implications of Tiana being told she has to rely on white people to be successful, that Pocahontas is only a hero when she saves a white man, that Mulan is only good when shes a woman whos in love, and that Aladdin is a no good, dirty thief who cant be trusted, shows that we are implicit in our colonization. We do it to ourselves, because even if we can see the messages, we often dont care, because we buy into them, after all we are white, we are western, we are American, we arent the Orientals being made fools of. Orientalism is okay, since you know, we are not from there. The ambivalence of our society has led to us being more colonized than those we are watching being colonized by Disney. Disney colonizes Orientals on film, and while we are watching it and agreeing with it, Disney is colonizing us and making trillions of dollars off our ambivalence and our propensity to want to be better than everyone else, to want to feel special, unique, and great. In Deconstructing Disney, authors Byrne and McQuillan claim that Disney knows what it is
Kinsman Page 14

doing, that we, the subaltern do not speak because we are ambivalent, and Disney simply continues to colonize our minds because we let them. They make the argument that its good and right to deconstruct Disney, to cast them in the same light they cast us and Orientals, that Disney is not held exempt from being ridiculed and mocked, and that if more people actually did speak up about it, wed have a fighting chance. (Byrne and McQuillan 1-2) The fact remains though that we are a lazy people, that we like being fed anything sugarcoated, even if it is a giant pile of excrement, wed still eat it, because it tastes so sweet and we like sweet things. When it comes to colonization, we are always being colonized, and for the most part our colonization is our own fault, because we do not know how to speak up, or because we simply do not want to. So, yes, we can talk about post colonialism, and how great it is to be out of that era, but we will never be post-colonial completely, because every day our minds are being colonized by Disney, by random television commercials, by politicians trying to tell us what to believe, by television shows telling us hot girls in bikinis are where its at, by rappers telling us we need cars to be happy, and by literally anything we ever read, hear, or see. We dont have a choice in being indoctrinated or in being colonized, but we do have a choice in what we listen to, and maybe if we were a little more careful in listening to the right things, we wouldnt be so willing to eat whatever candy coated piece of shit we come across.

Kinsman

Page 15

Works Cited Aladdin. Prod. Ron Clements. Perf. Robin Williams and Scott Wenger. The Walt Disney Corporation, 1992. DVD. Bernstein, Matthew, and Gaylyn Studlar. Visions of the East: Orientalism in Film. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1997. Print. Borthaiser, Nora. "A Whole New World- Rereading Disney Animations of the Early 1990s." Americana- E-Journal of American Studies In Hungary IV.1 (2008). Print. Byrne, Eleanor, and Martin McQuillan. Deconstructing Disney. London: Pluto, 1999. Print. De Kock, Leon. "An Interview with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak." A Review of International English Literature 23.3 (1992): 29-46. Print. Degli-Esposti, Cristina. Postmodernism in the Cinema. New York: Berghahn, 1998. Print. Dela Cruz Yip, Arielle. "Colonial Colours of the Wind." WordPress. 15 Apr. 2012. Web. 2 May 2012. Dittmer, Jason. Popular Culture, Geopolitics, and Identity. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010. Print. Inception. Dir. Christopher Nolan. Perf. Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, and Joseph Gordon Levitt. Warner Bros.2010. DVD. Khair, Tabish. "Can the Subaltern Shout (and Smash?)." World Literature Written in English 38.2 (2000): 7-16. Print.

Kinsman

Page 16

Kutsuzawa, Kiyomi. "Disney's Pocahontas: Reproduction of Gender, Orientalism, and the Strategic Construction of Racial Harmony in the Disney Empire." Asian Journal of Women's Studies 6.4 (2000): 1-39. Print. Maggio, J. ""Can the Subaltern Be Heard?": Political Theory, Translation, Representation, and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak." Alternatives 32 (2007): 419-43. Print. McCoy Gregory, Sarita. "Disney's Second Line: New Orleans, Racial Masquerade, and the Reproduction of Whiteness in The Princess and the Frog." Journal of African American Studies (2010): 432-49. Print. Mulan. Prod. Pam Coats. Perf. Ming-Na, BD Wong, and Eddie Murphy. The Walt Disney Corporation, 1998. DVD. Nooshin, Laudan. "Circumnavigation with a Difference? Music, Representation and the Disney Experience:" Ethnomusicology Forum 13.2 (2004): 236-51. Print. Patain, Bruno Philippe. Postmodernism and Cinema. 1994. Print. Pocahontas. Dir. James Pentecost. Perf. Mel Gibson and Irene Bedard. Walt Disney Corporation, 1995. DVD. Rider, Shawn. "The Silenced Majority: Colonization of the Mind and the Flesh Eating Zombie." Shawn Rider Writings. Web. 2 May 2012. <http://wdog.com/rider/writings/romero.htm>. Sabawi, Samah. "Colonization of the Mind: Normalize This!" Palestine Chronicle 18 Mar. 2012. Print. Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon, 1978. Print.
Kinsman Page 17

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. Can the Subaltern Speak? Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1988. Print.

Kinsman

Page 18