Mary Poppins Runs Afoul of the Language Police

The film Mary Poppins—theone starring Julie Andrews that was so much a part of my growing-up years—hasjust had its rating changed in Britain from U (for “universal”) to PG(“parental guidance“). At issue is what the British Board of Film Classification now considers “discriminatory language.” I was completelyflummoxed, at first, by the switch. It goes without saying that the original MaryPoppins series of children’s novels, published by P.L. Travers beginning in1934, contained racial stereotyping and language use that today make us squirm.(Travers herself later made some changes, though she resisted others, as apiece in yesterday’s The Telegraph makes clear.) But the 1964 Disney musicalextravaganza would seem at first glance to be as innocent as any movie couldbe, unless you consider Dick Van Dyke’s excruciating attempt at a Cockneyaccent a crime against humanity.

 Van Dyke, though, is off thehook. At issue, it seems, are two references within the film to “thediscriminatory term ‘hottentots.’”  Whichgave me pause: what exactly is a hottentot? Apparently this is a word firstused by the Dutch in South Africa to refer to an indigenous nomadic people,more correctly known as the Khoekhoe, who roamed the Cape region. For a time ithad some validity among anthropologists to refer to a specific ethnic grouping.And its comic possibilities led to its showing up in tongue-twisters and inpopular culture, including as part of a song lyric in The Wizard of Oz.  (The Cowardly Lion asks, “What makes theHottentot so hot? What puts the 'ape' in apricot? What have they got that Iain't got?" The answer, of course, is “Courage.”)

 But the fact that word’smeaning has ballooned to imply ignorant savages from the heart of the DarkContinent has apparently made it uncomfortable to use. This is why the British,well aware of their own history of racial and ethnic condescension, have seenfit to use the ratings change to warn parents. It’s not by any means a severepunishment, but it does suggest that words are a serious business, and thatit’s all too easy to overlook slurs from another era. Which reminds me of thecontroversy involving Disney’s 1941 animated feature, Dumbo. As Iunderstand it, the film was vilified for years because of a musical number inwhich a flock of crows led by a so-called Jim Crow perform a song that can beseen as stylistically reflecting the blackface minstrel entertainments of theOld South. It was critic Richard Schickel, in 1968’s The Disney Version,who loudly accused the studio of resorting to racist stereotypes in the way thecrows speak and move. (In recent years, a number of critics and movieperformers, including Whoopi Goldberg, have stuck up for the role of the crowsas parent-figures to the needy little elephant. They’re even the ones who teachhim to fly!)  Today, Dumbo screenson Disney+ cable uncensored, but with a warning that the film “may containoutdated cultural depictions.” Disney’s 1946 Song of the South, though,continues to generate racial controversy.

 Personally I shrink fromuncomfortably pejorative depictions of racial and ethnic minorities in bothfilms and literature. There’s a lot to cringe about in Hemingway and F. ScottFitzgerald, for instance, but I don’t believe that artistic works should berewritten to suit our modern sensibilities. (See current debates surroundingRoald Dahl’s writings for children.) Britain’s mild actions regarding MaryPoppins do seem appropriate, and I’m grateful to the British Board of FilmClassification for cluing me in to what a Hottentot actually is.