I hadn’t seen Aladdin in years, so when Logan pulled my DVD copy off the shelf and requested ‘watch this?’ I jumped at the chance to see it again. The movie opens with the song Arabian Nights, and I couldn’t help it… I was singing along. However at one point I noticed I was singing different words than that I was hearing. Its not like me to forget the words to a song, especially one that I had heard so many times, so I decided to get to the bottom of it.
I dug through my old CD collection and pulled out my (very worn) copy of the Aladdin soundtrack and pushed play. Sure enough, the words on the soundtrack where the same as the words in my head. When Disney released Aladdin on DVD in 2004, they changed the lyrics.
In the original song, the lyrics where:
Oh, I come from a land
From a faraway place
Where the caravan camels roam.
Where they cut off your ear
If they don’t like your face
It’s barbaric, but hey, it’s home.
For the 2004 DVD release, the lyrics were changed to:
Oh, I come from a land
From a faraway place
Where the caravan camels roam.
Where it’s flat and immense
And the heat is intense,
It’s barbaric, but hey, it’s home.
I couldn’t find too much other than an archived LA Times story telling the reason for the change. They sited criticism, and claims of racism, from an Arab-American group as a prompt for the change. Where-as I can completely understand the reasoning behind the change (I’m sure its not the intent of the Walt Disney Co. to offend any particular group) I’m still not entirely sure how I feel about this. Wouldn’t this set precedent for any group to claim offense against a work of art and demand its alteration? I think the lyrics should have been taken in context against the entire movie — and Aladdin is clearly not a racist movie.
What I did find interesting is that the studio wouldn’t change the lyrics without the consent of the estate of the song’s late lyricist Howard Ashman and its composer Alan Menken. That’s a hand of artistic courtesy that I’m sure they weren’t legally required to extend, but out of respect for the work, did anyway.
April 22, 2010 at 10:00 pm
This is interesting. What year was the original movie/soundtrack released?
It raises two thoughts in my mind. The first thought is that I commend the organization who raised their concerns for doing it in way that was apparently under the radar. I’m making a lot of assumptions here, but to me, it indicates that their motive was at least pure. They probably genuinely felt like the line in the song was racist in some way. The fact that the man (or estate of the man) who wrote the song agreed to the change only furthers that assumption.
The second thought, however, is that I wonder when we get overly sensitive to issues like this, so that we actually undermine the historical context that birthed them? You’re right to say that the line, in context, is not racist, for at least the reason that Aladdin is not a racist movie. But even more, the line is a reflection of a correct historical understanding of middle eastern culture. Isn’t it true to say that in Arabian Culture “an eye for an eye” has been a historical legal value? To me, making a satirical statement about a historical fact isn’t worth getting upset about. In fact, in getting upset I think we undermine the very historical fact it points to.
In any event, I’m impressed that this was largely done “behind the scenes”. It seems to me that in most cases of discrimination the bullies on the bull-horns become the focus, rather than the act of discrimination itself.
Most of us (at least in America) are legitimately trying to be sensitive and realistic about discrimination. If for some reason I discriminated against a person, I’d be genuinely sorry and want them to approach me in private so that I could apologize and, if necessary, correct my actions. In this case, it appears that’s exactly the way that it went down. If only that were the norm.
April 23, 2010 at 8:20 am
Hey Jeremy,
Thanks for your thoughts.
The movie and it’s soundtrack were released in 1992.
I do like your take on the issue with regards to the fact that this does seem to have been mostly done, “behind the scenes”. I’ve gotten used to the fact the most sensitive (and there-by the easiest to offended people) are usually the ones who kick and scream the loudest — for better or worse.
However, the article I linked to in the post says that the Arab-American group was still not satisfied with the changes. They wanted to see the ‘peddler’ character changed because he appeared to ‘sleazy’ and they were upset with the fact that eastern accents were only given to the guards characters (in this case the guards are the ‘bad guys’). They were trying to claim that this would teach children that people who speak with a foreign accents are bad — completely disregarding the fact that the ‘guards’ dialog makes up a pittance of the movie’s speaking lines. This seems like a stretch to me.
I think that context does have to be the key here. The ‘bits and pieces’ of the movie have to be examined against the project as a whole. For example, the movie also makes 2 references to Allah. I knew a lot of Christians who blew a gasket over this when the movie was first release. How dare a children’s movie make a reference to a culturally significant fact? Even watching this happen — I was only 13 at the time — I couldn’t help but wonder what the fuss was about. Again, taken in context against the movie, the movie wasn’t about Allah, or even remotely religious.
As far as setting the stage for future rulings is concerned, where can we draw the line? For example, I’m sure many American-Indians could take offense to the movie Peter Pan for it’s song “How the Red Man Turned Red”, but does that give them the right to do back and change and/or remove it from the movie? I don’t think it should. It was acceptable for the time period in which the movie was released, and Peter Pan is not about being racists toward American-Indians. But at the same time, I don’t want to see this become an excuse to purposefully produce offensive material and claim protection under the same guidelines. The last thing I want to see is some musical written with a song about how stupid Christians are being protected because the musical is really about puppies.
I’m honestly not sure where to draw the line.
April 22, 2010 at 10:27 pm
So what do I get for noticing this a few years ago???
Jeeze…..get with the program Paul LOL!
April 23, 2010 at 8:25 am
Well Danielle, I guess I am a little behind the time. After all the DVD was released back in 2004, I should have noticed it then. Tell you what, next time you’re over I’ll put the movie on and you can sing the news words with me. It’s gonna take a bit to get the old lyrics out of my head.
April 24, 2010 at 12:01 pm
I caught the first version in theaters and told people it had been changed, but no one believed me. Although I thought it was “where they cut off your HAND,” which makes a better rhyming scheme.
April 24, 2010 at 10:37 pm
This is what makes a conversation on “free” speech tricky. I’ve struggled with how “free” it really is–or how free it should be.
One example of current limitations on our free speech is that you can’t publicly defame someone, which I think we’d agree is a reasonable restriction. It seems like it’s for the common good that you shouldn’t be able to publicly spread lies about a person or an organization, particularly if you know that they are lies. But, the law (to my knowledge) doesn’t say we can’t publicly spread lies, so long as they don’t defame a persons character. The reason, of course, is that someone would then have to be the arbiter of “truth” and “lies” and make that legal determination. That prospect is frightening. We, as a human race, disagree about far too much that is ultimately unprovable (let alone provable!) to allow any person or group to make a general determination on that. An Atheist believes that I, as a Christian pastor, am spreading “lies”–thing which are not true. And I might say the same about him. But neither of us should have the right to force the other one to shut up.
I suppose that the reason I even bring that up is because, like you, I find myself wondering where the line is. I think I’d rather Disney (or whomever) continue to be allowed to make whatever they’d like and let me be the judge of it’s appropriateness for me and my family (and you for yours).
But it’s interesting–there is a part of me that thinks that’s a bad idea, and more restriction might be a good thing. But that is the part of me that doesn’t think other people are capable of making a good decision about what’s appropriate: they might believe the song about how stupid Christians are, or they might believe that all Arab’s cut off people’s ears if they don’t like their face…
And that is ultimately where censorship comes from: the belief that others are incapable of making a wise decisions for themselves. Ie…they might believe that everything said on talk radio is true…