>>7093016>That honestly reads like a try hard excuse if I ever read one. So someone wants me to believe that it took them almost 26 (((YEARS))) to become culturally sensitive enough to make the change? Yeah, sorry, but I'm not buying it.What a truly bizarre and reaching statement. There's absolutely precedence for companies and productions taking at a look at material years later and deciding to change things to make them more culturally appropriate.
When NBC did Peter Pan Live, they consulted with a Native American media representation group to reconfigure elements of the show that were dated as hell. This removing the stereotypical "woo woo peace pipe" stuff, replacing gibberish "Indian" words with phrases in Wyandotte, etc. When was the Peter Pan musical written? 1954. When was Peter Pan Live? 2014. That's 60 years in between the original production and any major company deciding, hey maybe we should change some of that stuff.
Why did they change it in 2014 and not, say, for the 60s revival? Or 70s, 80s, or 90s revivals? Because it wasn't until the 80s that major groups were becoming outspoken about the media representation of non-white characters in entertainment, and even then at that point they were easy enough brush off as random protesters who might pop up in front of the theater or people complaining in college newspapers. Even in the 90s there wasn't much notice outside of newspapers or perhaps a local news segment, if that. Whereas now if you go on national TV and have actors singing "ugg a wugg" and "me smoke 'em peace pipe!" you're going to be dealing with a hail storm of social media shit. And by contrast, the network's decision to consult with a Native American outreach group to redo some material and to specifically look for Native American actors for these roles got them positive publicity.
And that's just one random example off the top of my head.
