Upworthy's book GOOD PEOPLE, now available - take a look!

Shop
 Explore 

Popular

Disney+ added disclaimer to problematic older films instead of censoring them

Art is reflective of life, and if you live in a time in history where racist stereotypes run rampant, then you're probably going to end up with movies that have a lot of problematic characters in them. Now that we know better, what do we do with all of the movies that are, to put it simply, racist AF?

Disney+ finally dropped, and already had 10 million subscribers in one day. By comparison, Hulu has 28 million subscribers, and Netflix has 60 million domestic subscribers. We're finally able to stream Disney classics from our childhoods, some of which haven't seen the light of day in decades. "Pete's Dragon" marathon, anyone?

Peppered with the Disney classics are movies with some questionable moments in them. Instead of cutting out the more problematic moments (such as the black crows in "Dumbo," including one literally named after the racist Jim Crow laws, or the Siamese cats in "Lady and the Tramp"), Disney decided to put a disclaimer in front of the films.

"Dumbo," "Peter Pan," "The Aristocats," "Lady and the Tramp," and "The Jungle Book" are the five films that bear a cultural warning stating, "This program is presented as originally created. It may contain outdated cultural depictions."

RELATED: Disney signed a contract with Indigenous leaders to portray culture respectfully in Frozen II

Some of the other films, like "The Three Caballeros" and "Pinocchio," have disclaimers saying the films depict tobacco use.

"Song of the South" is not available to stream at all, because that movie is a whole mess of problems that a disclaimer couldn't even begin to tackle. Disney previously announced that the 1946 film depicting African-Americans in a problematic way stay buried deep within the Disney vault, which is consistent with Disney policy on the film.

It was previously announced that Disney would edit out the problematic parts when the films were available to stream on Disney+, which came with its own controversy. Some felt that the edit was tantamount to censorship. Removing the racist stereotypes would deny us the opportunity to unpack what was wrong with them and grow from those mistakes.

Some Disney+ users laud Disney's decision to include the disclaimer with unedited versions of the old films.

RELATED: Snow White soothing a boy having an 'autism meltdown' will make you believe in Disney magic

— (@)

Other users were critical of the disclaimers, saying it's giving lip-service to the wrongness of the offensive cultural stereotypes depicted in some of its films.

— (@)

Disney isn't trying to hide its racist past, but it's more important that Disney doesn't try to repeat its racist past. Hopefully future generations will learn from the mistakes that were made and do better than those who came before them.

From Your Site Articles

Disney has added new 'negative racial depictions' warnings to six of its classic films - Upworthy ›

How can riding a bike help beat cancer? Just ask Reid Moritz, 10-year-old survivor and leader of his own “wolfpack”

Every year, Reid and his pack participate in Cycle for Survival to help raise money for the rare cancer research that’s helped him and so many others. You can too.

all photos courtesy of Reid Moritz

Together, let’s help fuel the next big breakthrough in cancer research

True

There are many things that ten-year-old Reid Wolf Moritz loves. His family, making watches (yes, really), basketball, cars (especially Ferraris), collecting super, ultra-rare Pokémon cards…and putting the pedal to the medal at Cycle for Survival.

Cycle for Survival is the official rare cancer fundraising program of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK). One hundred percent of every dollar raised at Cycle for Survival events supports rare cancer research and lifesaving clinical trials at MSK.

At only two years old, Reid was diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma, a rare type of brain tumor.

Pediatric cancer research is severely underfunded. When standard treatments don't work, families rely on breakthrough clinical trials to give their children a real shot at long-term survival.

When Reid’s chemotherapy and brain surgery didn’t work, he was able to participate in one of MSK’s clinical trials, where he’s received some incredible results. “Memorial Sloan Kettering has done so much for me. It's just so nice how they did all this for me. They're just the best hospital ever,” Reid recalls.

And that’s why every year, you’ll find Reid with his team, aptly named Reid's Wolfpack, riding at Cycle for Survival. It’s just Reid’s way of paying it forward so that even more kids can have similar opportunities.

“I love sharing my story to inspire other kids to PERSEVERE, STAY STRONG and NEVER GIVE UP while also raising money for my amazing doctors and researchers to help other kids like me.”

Reid remembers the joy felt bouncing on his father’s shoulder and hearing the crowd cheer during his first Cycle for Survival ride. As he can attest, each fundraising event feels more like a party, with plenty of dancing, singing and celebrating.

Hoping to spread more of that positivity, Reid and his family started the Cycle for Survival team, Reid’s Wolfpack, which has raised close to $750,000 over the past eight years. All that money goes directly to Reid’s Neuro-Oncology team at Memorial Sloan Kettering.

In addition to cheering on participants and raising good vibes at Cycle for Survival events, Reid even designs some pretty epic looking merch—like basketball shorts, jerseys, and hoodies—to help raise money.

If you’re looking to help kids just like Reid, and have a ton of fun doing it, you’re in luck. Cycle for Survival events are held at Equinox locations nationwide, and welcome experienced riders and complete newbies alike. You can even join Reid and his Wolfpack in select cities!

And if cycling in any form isn’t your thing, a little donation really does go a long way.

Together, let’s help fuel the next big breakthrough in cancer research. Find out more information by checking out cycleforsurvival.org or filling out this interest form.

From Your Site Articles

best of humanity

Education

Why didn't people smile in old photographs? It wasn't just about the long exposure times.

People blame these serious expressions on how long they had to sit for a photo, but that's not the whole picture.

Public domain images

Photos from the 1800s were so serious.

If you've ever perused photographs from the 19th and early 20th century, you've likely noticed how serious everyone looked. If there's a hint of a smile at all, it's oh-so-slight, but more often than not, our ancestors looked like they were sitting for a sepia-toned mug shot or being held for ransom or something. Why didn't people smile in photographs? Was life just so hard back then that nobody smiled? Were dour, sour expressions just the norm?

Most often, people's serious faces in old photographs are blamed on the long exposure time of early cameras, and that's true. Taking a photo was not an instant event like it is now; people had to sit still for many minutes in the 1800s to have their photo taken.

Ever try holding a smile for only one full minute? It's surprisingly difficult and very quickly becomes unnatural. A smile is a quick reaction, not a constant state of expression. Even people we think of as "smiley" aren't toting around full-toothed smiles for minutes on end. When you had to be still for several minutes to get your photo taken, there was just no way you were going to hold a smile for that long.

But there are other reasons besides long exposure times that people didn't smile in early photographs.

1800s photographs Why so serious? Public domain

The non-smiling precedent had already been set by centuries of painted portraits

The long exposure times for early photos may have contributed to serious facial expressions, but so did the painted portraits that came before them. Look at all of the portraits of famous people throughout history prior to cameras. Sitting to be painted took hours, so smiling was out of the question. Other than the smallest of lip curls like the Mona Lisa, people didn't smile for painted portraits, so why would people suddenly think it normal to flash their pearly whites (which were not at all pearly white back then) for a photographed one? It simply wasn't how it was done.

A smirk? Sometimes. A full-on smile? Practically never.

"Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci, painted in 1503Public domain

Smiling usually indicated that you were a fool or a drunkard

Our perceptions of smiling have changed dramatically since the 1800s. In explaining why smiling was considered taboo in portraits and early photos, art historian Nicholas Jeeves wrote in Public Domain Review:

"Smiling also has a large number of discrete cultural and historical significances, few of them in line with our modern perceptions of it being a physical signal of warmth, enjoyment, or indeed of happiness. By the 17th century in Europe it was a well-established fact that the only people who smiled broadly, in life and in art, were the poor, the lewd, the drunk, the innocent, and the entertainment […] Showing the teeth was for the upper classes a more-or-less formal breach of etiquette."

"Malle Babbe" by Frans Hals, sometime between 1640 and 1646Public domain

In other words, to the Western sensibility, smiling was seen as undignified. If a painter did put a smile on the subject of a portrait, it was a notable departure from the norm, a deliberate stylistic choice that conveyed something about the artist or the subject.

Even the artists who attempted it had less-than-ideal results. It turns out that smiling is such a lively, fleeting expression that the artistically static nature of painted portraits didn't lend itself well to showcasing it. Paintings that did have subjects smiling made them look weird or disturbing or drunk. Simply put, painting a genuine, natural smile didn't work well in portraits of old.

As a result, the perception that smiling was an indication of lewdness or impropriety stuck for quite a while, even after Kodak created snapshot cameras that didn't have the long exposure time problem. Even happy occasions had people nary a hint of joy in the photographs that documented them.

Even wedding party photos didn't appear to be joyful occasions.Wikimedia Commons

Then along came movies, which may have changed the whole picture

So how did we end up coming around to grinning ear to ear for photos? Interestingly enough, it may have been the advent of motion pictures that pushed us towards smiling being the norm.

Photos could have captured people's natural smiles earlier—we had the technology for taking instant photos—but culturally, smiling wasn't widely favored for photos until the 1920s. One theory about that timing is that the explosion of movies enabled us to see emotions of all kinds playing out on screen, documenting the fleeting expressions that portraits had failed to capture. Culturally, it became normalized to capture, display and see all kind of emotions on people's faces. As we got more used to that, photo portraits began portraying people in a range of expression rather than trying to create a neutral image of a person's face.

Changing our own perceptions of old photo portraits to view them as neutral rather than grumpy or serious can help us remember that people back then were not a bunch of sourpusses, but people who experienced as wide a range of emotion as we do, including joy and mirth. Unfortunately, we just rarely get to see them in that state before the 1920s.

From Your Site Articles

history

Parenting

Father takes daughter's bullying victim on a shopping trip to teach her a lesson

When Randy Smalls of South Carolina discovered that his teenage daughter was making fun of a classmate over her clothes and makeup, he took swift action.

via Youtube/Strahan, Sara and Keke

Randy Smalls of South Carolina

Bullying is a huge problem. According to DoSomething.org, 1 in 5 students ages 12-18 in the United States are bullied during the school year, and approximately 160,000 teens have skipped school because of bullying. So when Randy Smalls of South Carolina discovered that his teenage daughter was making fun of a classmate over her clothes and makeup, he took swift action.

Smalls instantly felt sympathy for Ryan Reese, a seventh-grader at Berkeley Middle School, having been bullied in his youth. So he took money meant for his daughter and went on a shopping spree with Ryan to get some new clothes and a makeover.

Smalls' wife and Ryan's mother Richauna Reese are friends, but they weren't aware of the bullying until recently. The families got on the phone after speaking to Ryan, and Smalls asked if he could take Ryan to buy new clothes and get a makeover at the beauty salon.

Smalls used money initially intended to buy his 13-year-old daughter some new clothes, but after learning about her bullying, he decided to spend the money on Ryan instead.

"I say, 'When you laugh along, you're co-signing the bullying," Smalls told Yahoo News.

"My daughter was upset, especially because she is into fashion," he said. "So she came with us and helped pick out Ryan's new clothes."

While his daughter was at church, Smalls took Ryan to the beauty salon and paid for twice-a-month appointments until the end of the year.

After hearing about the good gesture, local salons have also offered to keep Ryan looking stylish for the next few months.

Richauna, Ryan's mother, told Yahoo News that her daughter was struggling after the recent deaths of her father, grandfather, and aunt, as well as non-epileptic seizures caused by the stress.

The shopping trip has helped Ryan immensely. "I wasn't expecting it. I just started to cry. It (the bullying) was really sad for me because I had lost my grandpa, father, and aunt, and it really took me deep down in my depression," Ryan explained.

"This is the first time I have seen a parent take such a stance on bullying," Richauna added.

Smalls was overwhelmed by the response and says that it's helped his daughter see her mistake.

"I didn't expect for this to get big but I'm glad if other parents [can learn from it]," Smalls said. "My daughter learned her lesson."

"As parents, we have to take responsibility for what our children do," Smalls told ABC's Strahan, Sara, and Keke. "We can teach our children, but when they go and are around other children they can veer off a little bit. When situations like this happen, we have to take action and be the parent and not the friend."

And the pair seem to be getting along better for the experience. "They're cool now," Richauna said.

Watch to young girls break down the story in this adorable YouTube video:

This article originally appeared five years ago.

From Your Site Articles

parenting advice

Joy

Veterinarian has perfect response after being told it's 'disgusting' to let cats on furniture

It has cat people everywhere rejoicing.

@dr.mattmcglasson/Instagram

Pretty sure every cat person feel the same way.

No one would get a dog expecting it to not bark, try to eat human food or need daily walks. And yet people regularly get flummoxed when their just-as-loveable cat exhibits completely natural behaviors like climbing tabletops or scratching at furniture.

Of course, cat people, who delight in adapting their life to make it as enriching as possible for their feline fur babies, know the flaws of this logic. After all, most cats spend more time in the house than their human counterparts. So shouldn’t the house belong just as much to them?

If you answered yes—then this clapback video (from a vet, no less), should have you feeling pretty vindicated. And if you answered no—prepare to see the error of your ways.

Dr. Matt McGlasson is a veterinarian in Kentucky, who also happens to be the proud dad of a 5-year-old special needs cat named Rupaul.

McGlasson recently was told by a viewer that it’s "disgusting" that he allows Rupaul on his furniture (as opposed to human butts only, which are okay, I guess?).

McGlasson’s response to this comment recently racked up over 11.8 million views, with good reason.

In a clip posted to his Instagram, McGlasson holds up Rupaul, who can’t use her hind legs, and shamelessly lists off all the other things he would allow for his kitty, including:

-Cosigning a loan for Rupaul

-Letting Rupaul do his taxes

-Giving Rupaul the passwords to all of his accounts.

-Capital Punishment, which he’s not normally a support of. But if someone hurts Rupaul, “that’s another story."

-Going into a business with Rupaul

-Giving Rupaul $20,000 for bringing him a dead mouse

-Making Rupaul the beneficiary on my life insurance policy.

And last, but certainly not least…letting Rupaul on the furniture.

Put simply: “My cat can do whatever she wants. It's her world. I'm just living in it.”

See on Instagram

Down in the comments, fellow cat owners couldn’t agree more with McGlasson’s sentiment.

“My husband picked his new chair based on the cat , the arm had to be wide enough for her to sit whenever she chooses to have quality time with him.”

“I would donate my kidneys to Square if she needed them. Yes… I mean both 😂”

“‘You let your cat sleep with you?’ Ma’am, I’d let him represent me in court.”

“I bought my house for my senior kitties. I wanted to get out of our apartment so they could feel grass beneath their paws again before their time was up.”

Others reiterated how it’s a gift to be able to create a healthy, happy life for a pet, and freaking out about furniture is kind of missing the joint.

“Like I don't understand ppl who r so against cats on furniture. If ur against pets on furniture probably don't have them. Treat your pets with love and respect. When you take an animal into ur home it becomes their home and safe place. All of the things in ur house become a part of their world and cats like to naturally be elevated. My cats do what they want because they aren't pets they are family. They own the place I just live here. Lol,” wrote one person.

Bottom line: climbing is part of a cat’s inherent programming. And if cat owners truly want their home to be a safe space for their kitty, then this should be taken into consideration.

The good news is, there are plenty of cat-friendly ways you can coax them off of furniture, like making sure there are plenty of dedicated cat trees to climb and scratching posts to sink their claws into, or opting for furniture with fabrics that cats don’t love as much, like microfiber.

And as a general rule, cats respond to positive reinforcement, rather than punishment. Contrary to outdated, yet still popular belief, cats don’t “know” when they're being bad. And they will learn to associate their own with negative attention. That’s not fun for anyone.

As McGlasson, or any other pet owner can attest, having their presence in our homes provides so much fulfillment and connection, that small compromises—or large bank loans—are well worth it.

By the way, McGlasson’s TikTok and Instagram are full of hilarious cat content, so be sure to give him a follow.

From Your Site Articles

humor

Climate Change

This glacier was featured on a postcard in 1900. A camera captured where it is today.

Whoa.

116 years ago, the Pasterze glacier in the Austria's Eastern Alps was postcard perfect:

Photo via Library of Congress/Wikimedia Commons.

Snowy peaks. Windswept valleys. Ruddy-cheeked mountain children in lederhosen playing "Edelweiss" on the flugelhorn.

But a lot has changed since 1900.

Much of it has changed for the better! We've eradicated smallpox, Hitler is dead, and the song "Billie Jean" exists now.

On the downside, the Earth has gotten a lot hotter. A lot hotter.

The 15 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998. July 2016 was the planet's hottest month — ever.

Unsurprisingly, man-made climate change has wreaked havoc on the planet's glaciers — including the Pasterze, which is Austria's largest.

Just how much havoc are we talking about? Well...