[Small logo of Thornwood girl]   Shelby Foote, Rudy Abramson and other writers opposed Disney plan for DC park
Click if you are looking for "Disneyfication in the New Media Chunnel: When Image Myth Takes Over" , a paper first presented by Avon Edward Foote at British Film Institute, Inaugural International Media Conference, University of London, Institute of Education, 2001. The paper was revised in 2002 following recommendations of Dr. Susan Mains, Conference Coordinator. The revision was brought to Chotank.com on 5 February 2004, six days before the Comcast offer for Disney. After the cable company's offer to buy Disney and dump Disney CEO Eisner, Foote added a Miami Herald quote by Edward Wasserman, Knight professor of journalism ethics, Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Virginia, with permission of the University of London PhD.

To Disney Documents þLUS page  with new 2009 information added to the original Chotank.com site that deals with defeat of Eisner-promoted, history theme park for Prince William County, Virginia, near Washington. Read the background on Protect Historic America, the organization that gets major credit for defeating Michael Eisner's plan to build Disney's America in Northern Virginia near Washington. North Alabama's Rudy Abramson writes about history of Protect Historic America.

Read FAX to Horton Foote/Foot, Academy Award winning writer/producer. The FAX explains Foote/Foot family ties to Waverley (place Eisner selected for Disney's America theme park), Windsor Castle, and Chotank. In 2001 Chotank became protected Bald Eagle habitat in Northern Virginia. And, in 2009, "Dividing the Estate" has completed Broadway run, featuring Hallie Foote/Foot, Horton's daughter in starring role.
"Mickey Looks Down the Barrel of a Flintlock"

Brian Cortez

06/08/95 ©

The battle lines were quickly drawn between the proposed Disney's America Theme Park and the historic preservation community. Facing each across the "field", the antagonists took aim and fired "verbal volley's" at each other. Posing as the established and un-defended Preservationists is the organization and planning of the historians, combined with the entrenched firepower of the wealthy landowners. The invading army known as the Corporate Camp, consisting of factions of the slowly moving Disney corporation and previously unchallenged local political institutions, and backed by both local support and a vast purse of moneys. The two opposing forces faced off on the field of honor, each expecting the other to falter and succumb to the their expertly executed tactical maneuvering.

However, when the smoke cleared, the preservationists stood victorious and the Disney Company accepted a defeat. In the following report, I will examine the various motivating factors, underlying concerns, and the Generals involved in the conflict.

Within the Preservationists are the three respected Generals of Foote, McCullough, and Moe. Directly below are Majors Jordan and McPherson, both commanding the foot soldiers of the history-related and environmental movements.

Within the Corporate Camp are Major General Eisner who seems to be in the top commanding position in the field. Immediately succeeding him are Colonels Rummel, Foner, Allen, and Brickley. They command the troops of the Prince William 66 Partnership, the congressional forces, and local residential militias. Their plans, illustrated in the press brochures, "showed what Disney's America would look like: a classic Disney theme park, with tidy miniature villages, a Hall of Presidents, a roller coaster called the Industrial Revolution, an airfield where visitors 'may parachute from a plane or operate a tanks and weapons in combat, and experience firsthand what America's soldiers have faced in defense of freedom,' a Ferris wheel, an imitation family farm and a 'building resembling Ellis Island'." and "the park will have nine territories...including 'Native America 1600-1810." [Achenbach]

Upon reviewing these plans, the first shot was fired when, "prominent historians (McCullough and Foote are) worried about Disney's ability to accurately portray American History" organized a defensive group called the National Trust for Historic Preservation. With General Moe in command, Major (Chairman) Henry A. Jordan drafted a letter stating that the leaders of the Trust considered Disney's America to be a "superscaled specimen of urban sprawl at the site currently proposed and 'destroy one of the most historic and beautiful landscapes in the country.' " [Hsu]. In fact Gen. Foote himself publicly raved that, "he opposes the theme park on historical grounds.'" and "when you simplify history...you're very likely to falsify it, because history is not simple." He fears that Disney will do an even higher injustice by attempting to, "sentimentalize history" which he refers to as a "cardinal-sin." [Hsu].

Largely unopposed in the past, the Corporate Camp units approached the fray with overwhelming confidence in their reputation and ability, so much so that Maj. Gen. Eisner was quoted as saying, he was surprised at "the fact that some of the historians object to it" following with his recollection of sitting "through many history classes where I read some of their stuff and I didn't learn anything. It was pretty boring...the books they've written." Eisner also, "expected to be taken around on people's shoulders." [Twomey].

"The idea itself, McCullough said, is not the problem...the problem is that Disney amusement parks always generate miles of sprawl, and in this case, the sprawl -- that 'ugly web of gas stations, fast-food places, T-shirt shops, souvenir and knickknack stores, the whole familiar nightmare of uncontrolled bumper-to-bumper highway commerce' -- will devour 'some of the last, best, most beautiful real history we have anywhere in the country." [Twomey] In fact, "most historians and history-related groups I know of are opposed to the Disney project, and the National Trust advertisement is the first major sign of that,'" said James McPherson, Princeton University historian. [Hsu]

Hearing this opposition to their plans, The Corporates were "astonished that" the "opponents, who scream the loudest about traffic congestion, are seeking to block the very improvements that would ease existing congestion and provide new capacity for the future." Simply put, "funding for those improvements has been approved by (the state of) Virginia. [Lewis] Preservationist Gen. Richard Moe "predicted that the Disney theme park would raise the 'prospect of added tax revenue, new jobs, and spin-off development opportunities' and 'makes the project nearly irresistible to Virginia officialdom and many local residents. And suggests that, 'this is one issue that should not be driven by economics alone.' " Gen. Moe questions Disney's tertiary motives and asks, ''will Disney encourage visitors to pursue real history nearby?"

In a two tiered move, the Corporates immediately sprung into action to counter this attack by answering that "Disney spokesmen claim that the park will draw thousands of additional visitors to the area and that all historic sites will benefit." [Moe] followed by activating Haymarket's local business militias for Disney in "a three-week radio campaign to underscore Prince William 66 Partnership President Bert Harrell's theme that 'if Prince William County's economic future can be controlled by outsiders, it can happen anywhere, and that's frightening.' "[Hsu]

At this point, the Preservationists made a bold tactical move to change their position on the issue and attacked Disney's lack of authenticity and professional historic research abilities. "How authentically will Disney portray the awfulness of slavery or the brutality of the Indian Wars" and will they display history, "warts-and-all." [Moe] Mud slinging soon arose with the statements, "Can George Washington co-exist with Mickey Mouse?" and, "can the meaning of the Civil War be conveyed next to a roller coaster?" [Moe] Coupled with the visually disturbing "spectre of Thomas Jefferson with a Goofy grin " which "raised a raucous chorus of 'Not in my backyard!" from historians and landowners." [Murr]

The Disney Corporation reaction was swift by noting that they have "retained as a consultant the Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, as well as leading historians such as Columbia University scholar Eric Foner and George Washington University professor James Oliver Horton." [Hsu]

Again the Preservationists tried to out-flank the Corporates by citing yet another aspect of their opposition. Quoting McCullough, "It is in the Virginia of Washington and Jefferson, land they knew and walked, even surveyed, and that they would recognize still were they to see it today, so little it has changed." [Twomey]

Again the Corporates defended their actions with the statement, "now, opponents suggest, we must preserve land that our ancestors merely looked at or rode through...by those standards, we'd better stop building just about everything everywhere, at least in this part of the country. Wouldn't every new home, office or school tamper with the past?" Will Montecello "be ruined by a theme park 75 miles away? If so, why hasn't Mount Vernon been ruined by the sprawl of Washington, which lies much closer? [Twomey] Essentially, Disney officials are saying that "very few historic landscapes, at least in the Western world, have a physiognomy corresponding to the conditions of the original designers." [Fitch: 269] At the same time Disney envisions this theme park as a, "source of pride and unity for all Americans." [Baker]

Even though the Corporates position seemed well defended, they did have an Achilles Heel...the press. Since Disney alone stood to have it's pristine image tarnished, and it found little to no support in the eyes of the general media press since the "reason the opposition (received) more coverage: Journalists know the company/institution/government has the expertise and money to spread its good-news message. (Therefore) newspapers think it's their job to make sure people hear the other side. [Byrd] This move signaled the final death blows for Disney. On September 28, 1994, Peter S. Rummell, president of Disney Design and Development Co., issued a statement saying in part: 'We remain convinced that a park that celebrates America and an exploration of our heritage is a great idea, and we will continue to work to make it a reality. However, we recognize that there are those who have been concerned about the possible impact of our park on historic sites in this unique area, and we have always tried to be sensitive to the issue. While we do not agree with their concerns, we are seeking a new location so that we can move the process forward...' [Baker]

Disney's realization that "there was history already there." Since "the land to be used was previously known as the Waverly Plantation. A tract of 2,000 acres of farmland located north of I-66 on route 15, the plantation is surrounded by history. The two battles of Manassas were fought to the east...Southern Railroad to the south...the Bull Run Mountains and Thoroughfare Gap to the west." This was cited by Disney as a reason for the choice of this particular site. [Achenbach]

NOTE FROM CHOTANK WEB DEVELOPER: The following paragraph confuses Admiral Andrew Hull Foote (sic) with Frederick Foote, the actual builder of the Waverly Mansion House who was not related to the Admiral. Frederick Foote is from the Foote Family of Chotank. He is first cousin several times removed of Topham Foote / Foot whose bust and coat of arms by Peter Scheemakers is displayed in Windsor Parish Church, just 300 feet from Henry VIII gate of Windsor Castle. For more about the Foote connection to Waverly Plantation see the Horton Foote Fax, another of the documents in this series on Disney's America.

"The Waverly Plantation, although now in a state of disrepair, was previously owned by Mr. and Mrs. John M. Hart. Built in 1762 by Admiral Foote, it was a typical example of an 18th century plantation. (The fact it was built by an 'Admiral Foote', gives me reason to wonder if noted historian Shelby Foote may have his own personal agenda in opposing this proposition. ) [Achenbach]

Fellow educator, New York's Sachem High School English literature teacher, amateur historian, and former Disney employee Christine Ricca believes even though Disney needs "more research in the historical department", they should still seek to build this park in "neutral territory" to avoid the confusion among the other historic sites in the vicinity. "After all there are precedences in the historic theme vacation parks, such as Busch Gardens, which has proven to work." [Ricca]

The announcement was a major blow to park supporters, including most county government officials, who had expected the 3,000-acre park and related development near Haymarket to create 3,000 jobs and generate $12 million a year in county tax revenue when it opened in 1998. Rep. Brickley called Disney's decision, "a black eye for the state" and reluctantly conceded when, referring to the wealthy landowners and historians, he said, "The fat cats won" [Baker]

James H. Mullen, Prince William County Executive, sees the area going through what he called a 'period of self-examination' and must now fight the impression that, 'this is a place you can't do a big project without a lot of hassle.' [Baker]

The two opposing sides not only disagree on the planned site for the park, they both have completely differing views of what the proposed park means and its significance to the community. The opponents see the park as a playground for historic misinformation falling in line with Fitch's idea of historic research whereas the proponents see it as an asset and positive influence on the economic culture of the area. The problem of "Engineers and technicians pay(ing) even less attention to the cultural topography of cities" is by no means new. [Fitch: 308]

The fact remains, this project, from a historic research perspective, simply cannot be classified as preservation, stabilization, replication, conservation, reconstitution, adaptive use, rehabilitation, reconstruction, or restoration. This is one of the key motives of the historian opposition and lack of understanding by Disney officials. [Fitch: 46-48]

Fitch uses Plimouth Plantation as a litmus test, it's, "effort to re-create nineteenth-century life-styles, all the outdoor areas of the village -- gardens, dooryards, and streetscapes generally -- are maintained as realistic a state as possible, including the presence of free-running goats, geese, and swine" is viewed as the ultimate in recreation while on the other side of the spectrum lies The Walt Disney Company and its Lewis and Clarke raft ride. [287] It is directly related to the idea that "a relic of the Tennessee Centennial Exposition of 1896, the replica of the Parthenon, ...today belong to Disneyland." [210]

The fact of the recent major changes in the highest levels of Disney's corporate structure was hardly mentioned throughout this debate. The spring 1994 death of Disney CEO Frank Wells, followed months later by the unprecedented firing of the head of Walt Disney Studios Jeffrey Katzenberg, and the recent repositioning of the proposed park general manager Mark Pacala all must be taken into account. These issues were foremost in the minds of Disney stockholders when in early September of 1994. "a Disney shareholder filed a formal resolution asking that the companies decision to proceed with the controversial project (Disney's America) be put to a vote at its annual meeting" scheduled for February 1995. [Meyer]

Disney's latest forays into the history arena have been less than spectacular. The recent film "Jefferson in Paris" was not well received by critics or theater goers (it was only in theaters a very short time - I didn't get a chance to see it!). The Native American community successfully lobbied to include their consultation and revisions to the upcoming release of "Pocahontas". The results of current animated feature projects on Hercules and the Hunchback of Notre Dame are still to be factored into this equation. [Giles]

The conclusion of the debate is one of a series of recent "development vs. preservation stories." [Byrd] The issue of the The Sierra Club versus the timber companies over the Spotted Owl, Greenpeace versus the whaling and fishing industries. It is all part of a growing shift in the public perception of historic preservation. As Fitch so eloquently states that. "the very struggle to save a bit of their local habitats itself an important educational experience for citizens...their understanding of its importance is deepened by their participation in the act of saving it."

I tend to agree with the view that "the battle to save the habitat must parallel the battle to save the inhabitants of that habitat." [FITCH: 404] Preservation is an honorable and necessary part of history, however, if preservation is take to the extreme affecting the lives and economic future of the inhabitants of the area under consideration, there must be compromise. My personal feeling is that Disney has full right to build their version of America, but not at the expense of my America. I believe their arrogance and lack of judgment clouded their vision of the true nature of historic presentation. If they build Disney's America in another location, away from the established national historic areas, even I may visit one of these days.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achenbach, Joe. "Disney in the Dell; The History is Already There. Just Ask Melvin Shifflett." Washington Post, 12 Nov. 1993, final ed: C Style: 1.

Baker, Peter. "Disney Gives Up On Haymarket Theme Park, Vows to Seek Less Controversial Historic Site." Washington Post, 29 Sep. 1994, final ed: A: 1.

Byrd, Joann. "Ombudsman - The Wonderful/Horrible World of Disney." Washington Post, 22 May. 1994, final ed: C OP/ED: 6.

Fitch, James M. Historic Preservation: curatorial management of the built world. 1982. McGraw-Hill: Virginia, 1992.

Giles, Jeff., and Charles Fleming., "A New Generation of Geniuses." Newsweek 5 Sep. 1994: 42.

Hsu, Spencer S. "Historic Preservation Group Comes Out in Opposition to Disney Park." Washington Post, 3 May. 1994, final ed: C Metro: 6.

Lewis, Tom. Letter. Washington Post, 9 Sep. 1994, sec. A OP/ED: 26.

Meyer, Michael., Stryker McGuire, Charles Fleming, Mark Miller, Andrew Murr, and Daniel McGinn. "Of Mice and Men." Newsweek 5 Sep. 1994: 40-47.

Moe, Richard. "Downside to Disney's America." Washington Post, 21 Dec. 1994, final ed: A OP/ED: 23.

Murr, Andrew., and Jeff Giles., "The Ride Gets a Little Rougher." Newsweek 5 Sep. 1994: 43.

Ricca, C. Telephone interview. 7 Jun. 1994.

Twomey, Steve. "Rubbing History the Wrong Way." Washington Post, 23 Jun. 1994, sec. B Metro: 1.

Return to Disney Documents PLUS Page

Return to main Chotank Welcome Page
Reviewed  .  Revised  .  Refreshed 10 September 2010  Our 15th Year