While this may seem like a newer concept, this question has actually existed as long as Disney parks…
When we think of theme parks—especially Disneyland and Walt Disney World—we usually think of magic brought to life. These are places where the fantastical becomes real, where guests can escape to an idealized world of adventure, creative expression, and wonder.
The legacy of Disney parks isn’t just one of magic, however—Disney also has a rich history of making learning fun.
Particularly at places like Epcot and Disney’s Animal Kingdom, guests are encouraged not just to enjoy the awe of a theme park but to embrace opportunities to learn. Across their history, Disney has used their lands and attractions to stoke curiosity in the next generation for science, conservation, culture, geography, animal sciences, and history. Epcot, in particular, has treated guests to incredible explorations of the histories of communication, transportation, technology, and America itself.
The problem is what happens when history becomes controversial?
I considered this question on a recent visit to the Civil War memorial at Lookout Mountain & Chattanooga—as I read the struggles of soldiers on both sides who participated in the battles there, I considered the matter of controversial history. Questions surrounding the handling of Civil War monuments have been hot topics in previous years—a debate far more complex than I intend to touch here.
Still, it got me thinking about how the issue applies to theme parks. It’s one thing discussing landmarks and monuments in the real world—but what about controversial history or subjects in theme parks? Are places like Disney parks supposed to be free from such cares, expressing a world purposefully idealized, or is there a place in theme parks to spark discussion about controversial history that can lead to education and growth?
A note before we proceed: I write a fair amount of “concrete” style content like current park updates, tips & tricks to improve future vacations, and even explorations of current culture issues, like the treatment of Disney cast members in the midst of a pandemic. This is a more abstract subject—the goal is not to promote any particular agenda but simply to explore an interesting subject related to theme parks and perhaps stoke some rich discussion. For those who join the conversation in comments or on social media, let’s do our best to keep the discussion civil, respecting that there may be many different points of view.
The infamous tale of the burning cabin
Change is inevitable, and over the years, Disney has periodically updated attractions—sometimes due to cases when content no longer rings well with culture and Disney has had to adapt. Sometimes these subjects have to do with matters of cultural sensitivity, but the question becomes especially pertinent when it comes to controversial history. We’ll explore several such cases, but few are as enigmatic as the story of the Burning Settler’s Cabin.
Back in the days of yore (that is post 1956 after Disneyland opened), guests touring the Rivers of America could observe the sad tale of the Burning Settler’s Cabin. The cabin was exactly what it sounds like—a perpetually burning cabin (using the same fire effect used in Pirates of the Caribbean) belonging to a dead settler.
According to the original story, the cabin sat at the center-point between a tribe of friendly Indians and a tribe of unfriendly Indians. Unfortunately, the settler planted his cabin on the wrong side of the river and ran afoul of his less-hospitable neighbors—indeed, guests could see his body lying nearby pierced with an arrow. This theme was originally gleaned from Davy Crockett.
By the 1970’s, Disney realized the story of the cabin painted a rather-too-bleak picture, particularly in its oversimplification of the complex history of Native American cultures and conflicts with American settlers. Disney adjusted the story to make the settler the victim of river pirates, removing the arrow as a clarification. In the 1980’s, the story shifted to claim the fire was a result of exploding moonshine and that the unconscious moonshiner was just really, really drunk rather than dead. The tale changed again in the 90’s to simply state that a careless settler burned his own house down (and endangered a nearby eagle nest? Weird twist).
By the 2000’s, the burning element vanished forever—the cabin became a simple settler’s cabin. By 2010, the cabin was transformed into the home and place of business of Mike Fink, an eccentric trapper. It looked like Mike’s cabin would be gone forever in 2017, but after construction on refurbishing the Rivers of America was complete, it was revealed the cabin survived. On a side note, Walt Disney World had a burning cabin too with some similar history, only it still looks derelict.
The story of the burning cabin is interesting because it reflects so many of the changes in American perceptions of history over the decades. Looking back at the original controversial story, you could argue that there certainly was real historical conflict between American settlers and Native American tribes—but as culture engaged this conversation more and more, it became clear to Disney that their take had grown outdated and tone deaf.
Even the adjustments to stories about pirates and moonshiners didn’t survive the passage of time—ultimately, Disney decided to step back from the controversy entirely, opting for a reasonably safe solution.
Other well-known Disney ride refurbishments (due to controversy)
Another good example of this subject comes from one of Disney’s most popular rides. Pirates of the Caribbean has gone through more transformations over the years than just about any other major Disney attraction—several of which have been tied to controversy related to the history of pirates.
It would be difficult to track all of these, but the first major shift took place in 1997. In the original iteration of the attraction, lascivious pirates chased townswomen through the burning town, and a young woman hiding in a barrel from a particularly lusty pirate (some of the concept art for the ride was even more racy). The ride was adjusted to portray angry female townswomen chasing the pirates off, who seemed more focused on plundering food than maidens for the wench auction (which was still a thing). The girl in the barrel was replaced by a cat, and the lusty pirate became a gluttonous pirate instead.
A related change to Pirates of the Caribbean arrived in 2017-2018, when the Bride Auction was replaced with a loot auction instead. The well-dressed “Redhead” who had once been the object of desire at that auction became a Grace O’Malley-style pirate auctioneer. The change was uniquely controversial, though it seems fans have warmed up to the new incarnation of “Redd” more and more as time has passed. She’s even become a wandering character in the park.
Pirates is another interesting case in this study. Unlike the Rivers of America, which one could argue perhaps has a more historical focus, Disney’s depiction of life on the high seas in Pirates of the Caribbean has always been uniquely fantastical–leaning heavily towards the swashbuckling image of pirates instead of the more accurate history of pirates as… well, pirates—thieves, pillagers, and generally men-of-low-moral-fiber.
As culture has engaged in more conversations regarding the serious nature of the exploitation of women (especially trafficking), it makes sense that Disney ultimately had to make some choices regarding which direction to take the ride, leaning towards the fantastical rather than attempting to tow the line to maintain a bawdy element of the ride’s original humor.
There are several other examples in the same arena. Kilimanjaro Safaris used to have a storyline focused on poachers’ efforts to capture a young elephant. While poaching is certainly a real threat—one potentially worthy of exploration in an edutainment attraction—the story was ultimately deemed too dark for the ride. You can still see minor elements left over from it in the current ride.
Most recently, Disney has shared plans to update several rides due to controversial representations and history. The Jungle Cruise is under a long term update to adjust its story (partially tied to representation and history issues, though by and large the shift seems more focused on introducing a richer story involving S.E.A.), and most notably, Disney has announced plans to update Splash Mountain to be rethemed after the film The Princess and the Frog rather than the notoriously controversial film, Song of the South. The Splash Mountain update has proven the more controversial of the two both due to the ride’s classic nature and the fact that, in the past, Splash Mountain managed to stay distant from the sketchier problems tied to Song of the South. Despite this, it appears the issue of controversial history finally has caught up to the famous ride (even if it could be argued that The Princess and the Frog could make a worthy successor for the attraction).
Disney’s America – the ultimate experiment gone-wrong
Most of the examples presented so far have mostly had to do with culture issues, with some history controversy thrown in the mix. One of Disney’s greatest flops, however, specifically failed due to the issue of trying to navigate controversial history…
In November 1993, Disney announced an ambitious plan to launch the company’s 3rd US theme park resort—Disney’s America. This was during the time when edutainment was still a major focus for Disney parks, and Disney’s America was to be a destination like no other, bringing America’s rich history to life in similar fashion to Epcot’s World Showcase. You can read about the project in depth in our Possibilityland entry on the park, but in summary, Disney’s America was set to include themed lands focused on the different eras of US history, starting with a pre-colonial Native America, continuing through the War for Independence, the eras surrounding the Civil War, the Industrial Revolution, all the way to the World Wars.
As a kid who loved history, I really had hoped Disney would pull it off—the park sounded like an amazing idea to young ears. Alas, it would never be…
Disney originally planned to place the park in Haymarket, Virginia—a region known for a long heritage of American history. Almost immediately, the project was met with devastating bad press. Both locals and state residents lambasted the project as a mockery of real American history and a desecration of historic grounds. Opponents argued that the park would oversimplify the complexities of American history in favor of a polished, commercialized fraud. In particular, critics questioned how Disney would handle the history of the Civil War, slavery, and portrayal of other complex historic events. The park’s potential location was particularly problematic due to its proximity to Civil War battlegrounds. Disney tried to relocate the project to California by bidding to buy Knott’s Berry Farm, but that project also ultimately fell through.
Ultimately, Disney’s America was abandoned as too controversial and expensive to risk a flop… and it’s hard not to argue that the complexities of navigating history had a great deal to do with that choice.
The dilemma– Idealization vs. Edutainment
A full exploration of the reasons why this subject remains so tricky would be difficult, but we can dive into one primary issue: the potential conflict between the values of idealization and education. While this subject isn’t as pronounced at parks with a unique focus on spectacle and amusement, it does become a prominent issue in hybrid parks like Walt Disney World.
On one hand, a core element of Walt Disney World is magic—there’s a hint of the fantastical in everything at Disney parks. Even in the resort’s most education-focused park, Epcot, a sense of idealization still reigns. World Showcase, for example, is not meant to be a precise replica of each country and its history—rather, World Showcase is something like an idealized world’s fair, representing the brightest and most inspiring elements from each nation. Disney’s Animal Kingdom does the same thing with its versions of Africa and Asia.
Sometimes this idealized approach lands well, as is the case with most of the World Showcase pavilions and especially with Harambe and Anandapur in Disney’s Animal Kingdom. Harambe captures enough of the real quirks of Africa to feel enriching, entrancing, and real. Anandapur does the same with Nepali and other Himalayan cultures—as someone who spent five years hanging out with people from Bhutan and Nepal, I appreciate many of the charming nuances of that land, particularly in the queue for Expedition Everest.
Video: YouTube, DLP Welcome
On rare occasion, the idealization approach goes a little too far, over-polishing representation of history and culture. A good example of this is the map of Mexico at the end of the Gran Fiesta Tour in the Mexico pavilion. Most guests wouldn’t give it a second glance, but visitors from the US / Mexico border or from Northern Mexico may take exception to the fact that Disney’s map eliminates the entire top half of the country, even warping the map to emphasize Mexico’s more idealized destinations like Acapulco, Cancun, and Mexico City. It’s not a devastating mistake, but it has left many guests scratching their heads wondering why Disney has tried to pretend that the massive northern states of Sonora and Chihuahua don’t exist. Overall, it smacks of an over-scrubbing of complex history to the point of ignoring the rich culture of those regions (you can see the map at around 6:38 of the video above).
While idealization and education can often coincide, there are times when these two values come into conflict—should theme parks just stick to idealized portrayals, avoiding overly complex subjects, or should Disney take some risks, being willing to shine some light on potentially controversial subjects for the sake of education? The latter is something Disney has actually done throughout their history, particularly in regards to conservation and care for the environment.
If the primary goal of a park is specifically to provide an escape from reality, then the idealization point of view wins. This is an easier call to make in parks like Disney’s Magic Kingdom or Disney’s Hollywood Studios, where the subject matter is specifically fanciful. However, even these parks haven’t been immune to this question—just look at Magic Kingdom’s Hall of Presidents, which incurs some level of blowback almost every time a new president is added to the lineup.
From the idealization point of view, controversial subjects are best largely avoided in theme parks—when real world subjects are approached, the goal becomes to present a version of the world where the best of humanity is put forth, where we all learn how to get along despite our differences and where good always triumphs. This makes sense as theme parks are places of escape to a large degree…
There is value to the education viewpoint, however, even though Disney has seemingly leaned away from this priority in recent years. An “edutainment” approach may be careful not to make light of controversial subjects, but it doesn’t shrink back from them either—it takes the opportunity to examine the mistakes of humanity’s past to spark meaningful conversations.
It’s the moment in Spaceship Earth where Rome burns, where humanity faces roadblocks. It’s the dramatic inclusions of US history in the American Adventure or the conversations about conservation one finds throughout The Land or Disney’s Animal Kingdom. We may not all agree how the world should approach these matters, and some of these subjects may not be all sunshine and magic, but the goal is that we walk away thoughtful, with fuel to have rich conversations with each other, and especially with our kids. With careful tools, such an approach can be very beneficial.
A shift away from controversy
In previous years, it seems like Disney has leaned fairly hard towards the idealization side of the spectrum—the parks have shifted towards a strong focus on attractions centered on intellectual properties, and by and large, these sorts of projects lend themselves more to representing an idealized world. Disney runs into enough controversy naturally that taking risks simply for the sake of education-entertainment seems like a more and more unlikely proposal.
However, there are signs Disney hasn’t given up on the edutainment approach entirely, and that may mean more situations in the future where the company has to weigh how close they are willing to step towards controversy for the sake of education…
Epcot’s upcoming overhaul, at first glance, looks like a hard turn towards the safe approach, but Disney has continued to express hints in maintaining educational elements in the park. Future World will be divided into lands focused on Nature, Discovery, and Celebration of culture—while some new elements will be purely educational in nature (such as an eventual refurbishment of Spaceship Earth to make its history more timeless) , other attractions like the Disney Play pavilion and Moana’s water garden have potential to go either way. Disney could use these attractions purely to push their IP’s, avoiding controversial subjects altogether, or they could take the opportunity to find new ways to make education enjoyable for guests for years to come.
I respect both values represented in Disney parks, but I personally hope they don’t forsake the education component entirely just for the sake of avoiding controversy… even if I respect some of the adjustments the company has had to make in response to shifts in culture.
Over my years visiting Disney parks as a child, I enjoyed many conversations with my family stoked by questions raised on Disney attractions—even some that bordered on courting controversy. The parks provided a safe environment to start these discussions, particularly when Disney found ways to hold controversial subjects and histories in careful balance.
The greatest danger, perhaps, would be for theme parks like Walt Disney World hoping to maintain an edutainment element to lean too far into either extreme—scrubbing stories until they lose all conflict and sense of growth, painting a utopia with no cost or triumph—or making the mistake of ignoring the ways our society shifts, painting a picture too bleak or inadvertently downplaying matters of historical significance. It’s a subject that will require a great deal of thought for Disney imagineers and executives in the years to come–what are your thoughts on the subject?
Enjoy this Article? Keep reading to learn…
