- Position‹2 of 2
- Yes, people should #BoycottMulan
- Argument1 of 3›
Disney shot parts of live action Mulan in Xinjiang, China
At a time when China's Uyghur minority is being persecuted, the film does little to showcase its plight. Instead it arguably comes down on the side of the Chinese government.
The argument
U.S. politicians are among many who have expressed dismay at Disney’s decision to film in Xinjiang. Josh Hawley of Missouri sent a letter to Disney CEO Bob Chapek for “whitewashing the ongoing genocide.” The corporation's decision to shoot portions of the live-action epic in the northwestern region of China—where an estimated 1 million members of the mostly Muslim Uyghur ethnic minority have been placed against their will in 're-education' camps as part of an effort to forcibly assimilate them with China’s majority Han population—has been hugely unpopular with Disney's top executives acknowledging that it has overshadowed much of the movie's release. Some of those detained in the camps have been subjected to forced sterilisations and abortions, recent reports show, with former detainees describing torture and inhumane treatment. Even the possibility of such acts having occurred should have deterred the company from not only shooting there but also from thanking government officials.
Context
China has been embroiled in controversy following the exposure of seemingly unlawful detainment of Uyghur Muslims and nothing has been done despite months of public outcry. Despite this, Disney shot parts of the film in areas where the mistreatment is said to be taking place and thanked government officials in the movie credits.
Premises
Counter-arguments
The decision may have not been ideal however there are two broad reasons why boycotting is not an appropriate response. Firstly, Disney executives have acknowledged this as a lapse in judgment. Secondly, the thanking of government officials is a Chinese imposed regulation that Disney needed to fulfill to be allowed to film in the area.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The location and the credits are established, but the step to a boycott is left implicit. Filming scenery in a region is not participation in what is done there, and the argument never says what the boycott is meant to achieve — the loss falls largely on the film's cast and crew, while the studio's future decisions about where to film are what the objection targets. [Rejecting P2] The reports of abuses are grave and are not what is in dispute; what the premise does not establish is any connection between them and this production. A senator's characterisation is an allegation rather than a finding, and the counter's point that the credit was a local regulatory requirement goes to whether thanking officials constituted an endorsement at all — a question the argument treats as already settled.
Framing
The decision to shoot in a place where an alleged genocide is happening and then also thank the government officials is clear on how tone-deaf the production of the film was.