John Morton v. Robert Gooding-Williams

   After having read the arguments of Robert Gooding-Williams and John Morton about Disney's The Lion King (1994), I have come to the conclusion that neither of them make use of evidence particularly well. For instance, in Gooding-Williams' article from Social Identities in 1995, titled "Disney in Africa and the Inner City: On Race and Space in The Lion King", he introduces arguably his most important pieces of evidence in his conclusion section -- where it could have been significantly more effective had it been suggested earlier. Nevertheless, even though he may use some of his evidence improperly, Gooding-Williams does seem to have a stronger argument largely due to the quality and quantity of his evidence -- especially his secondary sources -- when compared to John Morton.
    Although I believe that Morton has strong ideas, he seems to draw many conclusions and not support his them in the same way that Gooding-Williams does. For example, with respect to the claim that Disney's Africa is "historyless", and its refutation, Gooding-Williams' argument is far better developed than his counterpart's (Gooding-Williams 2). Whereas Gooding-Williams provides evidence from Hegel, history, and the movie, Morton relies almost exclusively on his own interpretation of the movie. In his article, Gooding-Williams supports his claim that the "Africa" found in the Lion King is no different than a typical European view of Africa -- that it is a place that is "historyless ... because it is steeped in the spiritually static and essentially unchanging conditions of 'mere nature'" -- using a quote from Hegel (374). Conversely, in "Simba's Revolution: Revisiting History and Class in The Lion King", a 2010 article from Social Identities, Morton suggests that the Africa depicted is not "without history," in fact it "is almost explicit about the work that must be done to maintain" certain values. While I do appreciate the logic used by Morton in his article, I do not think it quite holds up in comparison to Gooding-Williams' argument as a whole. This idea is strengthened by the is a sense of credibility that I attribute to Gooding-Williams, because he  suggests that Disney may be taking the view of Richard Hakluyt, that "transformation and becoming historical... leads to spiritual loss and decline" (375). Thus, Gooding-Williams provides even more evidence for his claim through the ideas of Hakluyt. He argues that the depiction of Africa as historyless actually attributes a sense of spirituality to it -- a spirituality that falls apart when Scar "thinks historically" (375). In addition to suggesting that Disney's feelings on Africa could be based on historical perceptions of the continent, Gooding-Williams' evidence also seems to combat Morton's claim. After considering this portion of Gooding-Williams' argument, Disney could certainly hope to relay the message the "timeless values" ought to be "maintained in time", while still portraying Africa as a historyless land. In short, even though Morton does provide a logical argument against Gooding-Williams's claim, he fails to support his argument in a way necessary to convince me of his ideas.

   Additionally, in the second piece of his refutation, Morton takes a similar approach, only providing primary evidence from the movie and his own interpretations. In order to begin my discussion on this refutation, I first feel it necessary to summarize the argument of Gooding-Williams. In comparing the characters of color in the movie to the two types of black characters from The Birth of a Nation (1915), Gooding-Williams effectively claims that "The Lion King is an argument for an American apartheid" (377). The strength of his argument, is predicated on his discussion on the only two groups of characters who are represented as people/animals of color. To him, whereas Rafiki is a subservient person of color who works to maintain the peace, the hyenas represent catalysts for change -- which ultimately results in the pollution of society. Morton, on the other hand, seems to fail to refute these arguments, and he claims that they are not comprehensive. In fact, Morton seems to misinterpret his counterpart's claims -- or at least twist them in a convenient way. For example, Morton writes, "Rafiki, as Mufasa's spiritual 'other' and apparent godfather to Simba, displays less 'fellowship' with the hyenas than Simba's helpful friends, the meerkat, Timon, and the warthog, Pumbaa" (314). He then argues that there is a "a series of oppositions between good and evil ... pervades the whole fabric of the story" (314). While agree with Morton in that Gooding-Williams' discussion of social relations in the movie is somewhat short, I feel that Morton does not recognize the racial component of the discussion. He simply focuses on social dynamics, especially in his quote, which are largely undiscussed in Gooding-Williams' paper. Furthermore, he again fails to make use of secondary sources, which would bolster his claims significantly. Gooding-Williams, however, makes use of all the evidence that is present within the movie to make a strong claim, which he backs up with secondary evidence.