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

Shop
 Explore 

Disney had a racially diverse (and deaf) mermaid long before Halle Bailey's 'controversial' casting

Even 30 years ago, not all mermaids looked the same.

disney, disney plus, mermaid

A real talk about fictional mermaids is apparently needed.

Fellow millennials, do you remember that glorious time period in the early '90s when our favorite Disney movies had their own cartoon series? They even had some pretty Marvel-worthy crossovers, like when Hercules ended up meeting Jafar and Aladdin had a run-in with Hades in the same episode. Good times.

“The Little Mermaid” was included in this movie-turned-series line-up. And during its run, the spin-off show introduced Gabriela, a racially diverse and deaf mermaid. Yes, as it turns out—Disney has always imagined it to be diverse under the sea.

Ariel first meets Gabriela and her octopus companion (an ASL interpreter) Ollie in an episode titled “Wish Upon a Starfish." The character, described as Latina on Disney Wiki, was based on a real young girl who loved the original film but tragically passed away at the age of 2 of leukemia.

You can check out their first encounter below.

Yes, that is the voice of Jodi Benson (the original Ariel) singing.

The two mermaids become fast friends and, as the episode’s title suggests, later they both get to make a wish. Gabriela shared her desire to be able to sing to “express her feelings,” which she learned she could already do through signing. The '90s were a great time for episodes ending with an upbeat moral.

Though it could be argued that Disney has had its fair share of virtue signaling in the past, it does often advocate for representation in authentic ways, as it did by introducing Gabriela.

And yet, despite having a well-known reputation for inclusiveness, Disney’s casting choice of singer Halle Bailey as Ariel in the live action remake of “The Little Mermaid” has, as so many diverse reimaginings do, been on the receiving end of racist backlash.

The comments have run particularly rampant since the official teaser trailer was released. In only two days, the video received more than 1.5 million dislikes and the inception of the hashtag #NotMyAriel.

Some have claimed that having an actress that isn't identifiable white strays too far from the original Danish story, which is pretty mind-boggling considering Hans Christian Andersen’s original little mermaid had no name to begin with, had no major physical descriptions other than “soft and tender skin” and deep blue eyes and, let’s just say, she definitely did not live happily ever after with the prince.

Another complaint is that Ariel’s signature bold red hair from the '90s (which has been significantly toned down in Halle Bailey’s look) is a must-have trait. This was certainly not a creative choice on Andersen’s part. We mostly have 1984’s “Splash” to thank for that. As PopSugar explains, Disney animators changed Ariel’s hair from blonde to red in an attempt to stand out from Darryl Hannah’s iconic role of Madison.

In other words, Disney already strayed from the “original” story. Why can’t it be tweaked again? Make it make sense, please.

There are some even more bonkers arguments swimming around out there, such as “Daily Wire” host Matt Walsh claiming that “from a scientific perspective, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have someone with darker skin who lives deep in the ocean.” Whether or not this was, as Walsh later commented, to be a form of satire, it’s hard to not see it as founded in racism more than anything else.

Considering the apparent lack of logic and unbridled outrage over this fictional character, it’s hard not to see any of the backlash to the latest “My Little Mermaid” as anything other than thinly veiled racism. One group of critics went as far as to share a digitally altered version of the teaser featuring a white woman instead of Halle Bailey, who they called a "woke actress."

Disney established the existence of dark-skinned mermaids as canon decades ago, and folklore throughout the world existed centuries before that. Plain and simple. Besides, the joyful reactions that kids are having to Bailey’s Ariel show firsthand why representation matters. The story, and the character, still have plenty of magic to offer everyone. Nothing is lost through more inclusion.

I for one hope they make even more changes to the story. Like maybe not sending young girls the message to literally prioritize their looks over their voice … or sign contracts without reading them.

From Your Site Articles

Conflict expert shares the 1 phrase you can use to stop an argument from happening

It'll make people agree with you, too.

via Canva/Photos

A guy having a collaborative conversation.

The quickest way to stop having a constructive dialog with someone is when they become defensive. This usually results in them digging in their heels and making you defensive. This can result in a vicious cycle of back-and-forth defensive behavior that can feel impossible to break. Once that happens, the walls go up, the gloves come off and resolving the situation becomes tough.

Amanda Ripley, author of “High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out,” says in her book that you can prevent someone you disagree with from becoming defensive by being curious about their opinion.

Ripley is a bestselling author and the co-founder of Good Conflict, a media and training company that helps people reimagine conflict.

How to have a constructive conversation

Let’s say you believe the room should be painted red and your spouse says it should be blue. Instead of saying, “I think blue is ugly,” you can say, “It’s interesting that you say that…” and ask them to explain why they chose blue.

The key phrase is: “It’s interesting that you say that…”

conversation, arguments, communication tips People coming to an agreement. via Canva/Photos

When you show the other person that you genuinely care about their thoughts and appreciate their reasoning, they let down their guard. This makes them feel heard and encourages them to hear your side as well. This approach also encourages the person you disagree with to consider coming up with a collaborative solution instead of arguing to defend their position.

It’s important to assume the other person has the best intentions while listening to them make their case. “To be genuinely curious, we need to refrain from judgment and making negative assumptions about others. Assume the other person didn’t intend to annoy you. Assume they are doing the best they can. Assume the very best about them. You’ll appreciate it when others do it for you,” Kaitlyn Skelly at The Ripple Effect Education writes.

Phrases you can use to avoid an argument

The curiosity approach can also involve affirming the other person’s perspective while adding your own, using a phrase like, “On the one hand, I see what you’re saying. On the other hand…”

Here are some other phrases you can use:

“I wonder if…”

“It’s interesting that you say that because I see it differently…”

“I might be wrong, but…”

“How funny! I had a different reaction…”

“I hadn’t thought of it like that! For me, though, it seems…”

“I think I understand your point, though I look at it a little differently…”

conversation, arguments, communication tips Two men high-fiving one another.via Canva/Photos

What's the best way to disagree with people?

A 2016 study from Yale University supports Ripley’s ideas. The study found that when people argue to “win,” they take a hard line and only see one correct answer in the conflict. Whereas those who want to “learn” are more likely to see that there is more than one solution to the problem. At that point, competition magically turns into collaboration.

“Being willing to hear out other perspectives and engage in dialogue that isn’t simply meant to convince the other person you’re right can lead to all sorts of unexpected insights,” psychologist and marketing Professor at Southern Methodist University tells CNBC.

In a world of strong opinions and differing perspectives, curiosity can be a superpower that helps you have more constructive conversations with those with whom you disagree. All it takes is a little humility and an open mind, and you can turn conflict into collaboration, building bridges instead of walls.

Nazis demanded to know if ‘The Hobbit’ author was Jewish. He responded with a high-class burn.

J.R.R. Tolkien hated Nazi “race doctrine” and no problem telling his German publishing house about it.

J.R.R. Tolkien by Public Domain/ Wikimedia Commons Joseph Goebbels by Vitold Muratov/Wikimedia Commons

In 1933, Adolf Hitler handed the power of Jewish cultural life in Nazi Germany to his chief propagandist, Joseph Goebbels. Goebbels established a team of of regulators that would oversee the works of Jewish artists in film, theater, music, fine arts, literature, broadcasting, and the press.

Goebbels' new regulations essentially eliminated Jewish people from participating in mainstream German cultural activities by requiring them to have a license to do so.

This attempt by the Nazis to purge Germany of any culture that wasn't Aryan in origin led to the questioning of artists from outside the country.

Nazi book burning via Wikimedia Commons

In 1938, English author J. R. R. Tolkien and his British publisher, Stanley Unwin, opened talks with Rütten & Loening, a Berlin-based publishing house, about a German translation of his recently-published hit novel, "The Hobbit."

Privately, according to "1937 The Hobbit or There and Back Again," Tolkien told Unwin he hated Nazi "race-doctrine" as "wholly pernicious and unscientific." He added he had many Jewish friends and was considering abandoning the idea of a German translation altogether.

The Berlin-based publishing house sent Tolkien a letter asking for proof of his Aryan descent. Tolkien was incensed by the request and gave his publisher two responses, one in which he sidestepped the question, another in which he clapped back '30s-style with pure class.

His publisher sent the classy clap-back.

In the letter sent to Rütten & Loening, Tolkien notes that Aryans are of Indo-Iranian "extraction," correcting the incorrect Nazi aumption that Aryans come from northern Europe. He cuts to the chase by saying that he is not Jewish but holds them in high regard. "I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people," Tolkien wrote.

Tolkien also takes a shot at the race policies of Nazi Germany by saying he's beginning to regret his German surname. "The time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride," he writes.

Here's the letter sent to Rütten & Loening:

25 July 1938 20 Northmoor Road, Oxford
Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter. I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.

My great-great-grandfather came to England in the eighteenth century from Germany: the main part of my descent is therefore purely English, and I am an English subject — which should be sufficient. I have been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride, and continued to do so throughout the period of the late regrettable war, in which I served in the English army. I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride.

Your enquiry is doubtless made in order to comply with the laws of your own country, but that this should be held to apply to the subjects of another state would be improper, even if it had (as it has not) any bearing whatsoever on the merits of my work or its sustainability for publication, of which you appear to have satisfied yourselves without reference to my Abstammung.
I trust you will find this reply satisfactory, and
remain yours faithfully,

J. R. R. Tolkien

assets.rebelmouse.io

This article originally appeared on 2.15.22

From Your Site Articles

Modern Families

Do you have a "living room family" or a "bedroom family"?

This 'debate' is all the rage on TikTok. But one is not better than the other.

alexxx1915/TikTok

TikTok user alexxx1915 recently posted a short video with the caption: "I just learned the term 'living room family' and I never understood why my kids never played in their rooms when I always did as a kid."

She briefly shows her kids hanging out in the living room with their pet dog and some toys scattered around the floor, before panning to her own face and giving a sort of sentimental look. The simple, ten-second clip struck a huge nerve with parents, racking up over 25 million views and thousands of heartfelt comments.

@alexxx1915
#livingroomfamily #fypシ

What are "living room families" and "bedroom families"?

This idea has been going around for a while on social media.

Simply put, a living room family is a family that congregates in the living room, or any common space in the household. Kids play in the same space where the adults relax — and things are often messy, as a result. Everyone interacts with each other and spends lots of time together. Bedrooms are reserved mostly for sleeping and dressing.

A bedroom family, on the other hand, is where the kids spend more time in their rooms. They play there, watch TV, and maybe even eat meals. Typically, the main rooms of the house are kept neat and tidy — you won't find a lot of toys scattered about — and family time spent together is more structured and planned ahead rather than casual.

"Living room families" has become the latest aspirational term on TikTok. Everyone wants to be a living room family!

The implication of being a bedroom family, or having 'room kids', is that perhaps they don't feel safe or comfortable or even allowed to take up room in the rest of the house, or to be around the adults.

"I remember my brother coming round once and he just sat in silence while watching my kids play in livingroom. After a while he looked at me and said 'It's so nice that your kids want to be around you'" one commenter said on alexxx1915's video.

"I thought my kids hated their rooms 🥺 turns out they like me more" said another.

"You broke a generational curse. Good job mama!" said yet another.

There's so much that's great about having a family that lives out in the open — especially if you were raised feeling like you had to hide in your room.

In my own household, we're definitely a living room family. We're around each other constantly, and the house is often a mess because of it. Learning about this term makes me feel a little better that my kids want to be around us and feel comfortable enough to get their 'play mess' all over the living room.

The mess is a sign of the love and comfort we all share together.

But the big twist is that it's also perfectly fine if your kids — and you! — like a little more solitary time.

boy playing with toys on the floor Gavyn Alejandro/Unsplash

Being a 'bedroom family' is actually perfectly OK.

There's a similar discourse that took place last year about living room parents vs bedroom parents. The general consensus seemed to be that it was better to be a living room parent, who relaxed out in the open versus taking alone time behind closed doors.

But it really doesn't have to be one or the other, and neither is necessarily better.

Making your kids feel relegated to their room is, obviously, not great. It's not a good thing if they feel like they're not allowed to exist in and play in the rest of the house.

But if they just like hanging out in their room? Nothing wrong with that at all! And same goes for parents.

Alone time is important for parents and kids alike, and everyone needs different amounts of it to thrive.

Kids with certain special needs, like being on the autism spectrum, may be absolutely thrilled to spend lots of time in their rooms, for example.

So are you a living room family or a bedroom family? Turns out, it doesn't really matter, as long as your family loves each other and allows everyone to be exactly who they are.

From Your Site Articles

Here’s a paycheck for a McDonald’s worker. And here's my jaw dropping to the floor.

So we've all heard the numbers, but what does that mean in reality? Here's one year's wages — yes, full-time wages. Woo.

Making a little over 10,000 for a yearly salary.

I've written tons of things about minimum wage, backed up by fact-checkers and economists and scholarly studies. All of them point to raising the minimum wage as a solution to lifting people out of poverty and getting folks off of public assistance. It's slowly happening, and there's much more to be done.

But when it comes right down to it, where the rubber meets the road is what it means for everyday workers who have to live with those wages. I honestly don't know how they do it.

Ask yourself: Could I live on this small of a full-time paycheck? I know what my answer is.

(And note that the minimum wage in many parts of the county is STILL $7.25, so it would be even less than this).

paychecks, McDonalds, corporate power, broken system

One year of work at McDonalds grossed this worker $13,811.18.

assets.rebelmouse.io

The YouTube channel Just Frugal Me discussed the viral paycheck and noted there's absolutely nothing wrong with working at McDonald's. More than 2 million people in the U.S. alone work for the fast food giant. The worker's paycheck shows they put in 72 hours over the pay period making $8.75 per hour. Before taxes, that's $631 for the week. Just Frugal Me's breakdown is even more eye opening, breaking down this person's pay after taxes and weighed across average rent and utility costs. Spoiler Alert: the total costs for basic necessities far outweighs what this person is making even while working 12 hours per day. But they do make too much to qualify for Medicaid, meaning they will have to go out and buy their own health insurance.

Even in states like California, where the state's $20 minimum wage ensures that people earn nearly three times as much as the federal minimum wage, which remains as low as when this paycheck first made the rounds nearly 10 years ago.

Still, even for a worker that maxed out at 40 hours per week and took zero vacation or sick time, that's only a little over $41,000 per year. That's barely half the median wage in the state of $78,000 and far below a sustainable living wage in cities like Los Angeles.

This story originally appeared on 02.26.15. It has been updated to reflect new information.

From Your Site Articles

Conjoined twins with fused brains separated; surgeons practiced for months in virtual reality

Arthur and Bernardo finally get to see each other face to face.

Image by sasint/Canva

Surgeons prepared to separate 3-year-old conjoined twins in Brazil using virtual reality.

The things human beings have figured out how to do boggles the mind sometimes, especially in the realm of medicine.

It wasn't terribly long ago that people with a severe injury had to liquor up, bite a stick, have a body part sewn up or sawed off and hope for the best. (Sorry for the visual, but it's true.) The discoveries of antibiotics and anesthesia alone have completely revolutionized human existence, but we've gone well beyond that with what our best surgeons can accomplish.

Surgeries can range from fairly simple to incredibly complex, but few surgeries are more complicated than separating conjoined twins with combined major organs. That's why the recent surgical separation of conjoined twin boys with fused brains in Brazil is so incredible.

The twins, Bernardo and Arthur Lima, are almost 4 years old and have never seen one another's face. They've spent their lives conjoined at the top of their heads, facing opposite directions. Born as craniopagus twins (joined at the cranium), their brains were also fused together, making their separation extremely complex. According to the BBC, they've been cared for at the Instituto Estadual do Cérebro Paulo Niemeyer (Paulo Niemeyer State Brain Institute) in Rio de Janeiro for the past two and a half years.

Surgeon Noor ul Owase Jeelani is the founder of medical charity Gemini Untwined, which funded the surgery. He helped lead the team of nearly 100 medical workers who worked for months to prepare for the boys' separation, which was one of the most complicated of its kind.

Jeelani told the BBC that it was the first time surgeons in separate countries practiced by operating in the same "virtual reality room" together, wearing VR headsets.

"It's just wonderful," he said. "It's really great to see the anatomy and do the surgery before you actually put the children at any risk. You can’t imagine how reassuring this is for the surgeons. To do it in virtual reality was just really man-on-Mars stuff."

Watch Jeelani explain how they prepared for the procedure:

Prior attempts to separate the twins had been unsuccessful, making the surgery even more challenging due to scar tissue. However, after multiple surgeries that took more than 33 hours collectively, the boys were successfully separated in June.

“It was without a doubt the most complex surgery of my career,” said neurosurgeon Gabriel Mufarrej of the Paulo Niemeyer State Brain Institute, according to EuroNews. “At the beginning, nobody thought they would survive. It is already historic that both of them could be saved."

Jeelani told the BBC that the boys' heart rates and blood pressure were "through the roof" for four days after the surgery—until they were reunited and touched hands.

According to Reuters, Bernardo and Arthur are the oldest twins with fused brains to be successfully separated. They will spend the next six months in rehabilitation.

Congratulations to the Lima family and to the global team that combined dedication, perseverance and the miracle of modern technology to create a brighter future for these young boys.

This article originally appeared on 08.04.22

From Your Site Articles