To ALL Who Come To This Happy Place:

Yesterday -- May 7, 2025 -- was National Tourism Day. This was news to me -- apparently, it was established in 1980 to "establish the cultural and economic importance of tourism" -- and something I only learned about because of The Big News that Disney dropped:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Disney Parks (@disneyparks)

 

Initially, this was news that I was moderately excited about -- from the moment I watched the initial announcement video, I had a curious swirl of emotions. So much so that I felt like I had to write down the thoughts that were currently zooming around in my mind and dusted off my old trusty blog. Do we even blog anymore? I don't think so. But the long-form medium has always been more my speed, and I write for me, not for clicks and likes.

But, just in case, and before I start to process and unpack, I want to make a few things clear:

• First, this new Disney Park in Abu Dhabi is not, technically, a Disney park. 
  That is, much like Tokyo Disney, a company called Miral is essentially leasing the rights  -- a.k.a. paying Disney 💰💰💰 -- to the Disney IP to create a theme park. 
• It's worth noting that this is what Miral does: according to their online portfolio, they also run SeaWorld Yas Island, Warner Bros World Abu Dhabi, and Ferrari World Yas Island -- so leasing Disney IP to add a Disney Park to this area is on brand. 
• Again, this is nothing new for Disney: Tokyo Disney (the first international Disney Park) is actually owned by The Oriental Land Company, who fully funded the project. 
  The result is that Tokyo Disney is often celebrated as the "best" (<-- that's subjective, of course) Disney Park, in terms of attraction design, food, and merchandise. Of course I can't find it now, but I saw something (article? IG video?) a few weeks ago that detailed the disparity between how much funding US Imagineers get for the Disney Parks versus how much Tokyo Disney Imagineers get -- and the gist was that the Imagineers (who, I believe are Disney CMs) who work at Tokyo Disneyland, get far more money -- hence the "superior" quality. 
• Second, I have not been to Abu Dhabi or the UAE. I have traveled outside the US, but I am categorically not making claims about the city, the region, the religion, the people, or the culture. And, even if I had visited, my thoughts would be informed by my lived experiences, and wouldn't be any sort of universal statement. I would like to believe that I am not one of those people who equate "not American" with "evil" or "bad," and I will not invalidate anyone's authentic lived experiences. 
  
• It's also worth noting that I know Abu Dhabi is an entertainment capital of the world (if not The capital) right now, and is a very high-profile tourism destination. 

That being said, a few other things to establish:

• First -- as Jeremy a.k.a. Jerendelle said, growth and expansion are always good things. 
  
• Perhaps most importantly, it means that Disney will be more accessible for fans in a different region of the world. And that's a good thing. 
• It also means that there's likely a significant influx of capital headed Disney's way -- if Miral is *paying* Disney money to use their IP, it's another source of income for Disney. (After all, The Oriental Land Company used to pay Disney royalties based on the parks' revenue -- see also: here.) We can only hope that some of this will be reinvested into the US parks.
• Second -- I think it's important to note that, in 2025, the choice of location for a new park is a valid piece of information to unpack. (I've seen people on social media mentioning they thought that Brazil / South America was a top choice.)
• That is, it is true that Disney had a choice of where to green-light their next park. 
• It is also true that, when raising the concerns we're about to raise, Florida isn't the safest space for all visitors. (The same can perhaps be said of California too.)
• It is also true that China -- for the Hong Kong and Shanghai parks -- isn't the safest space for all visitors. 
• But it's also true that the Florida park was opened in 1971 -- well before current political and social climates. (And Disneyland opened in 1955.)
• And it's also true that the Hong Kong park opened in 2005 and Shanghai in 2016, also well in advance of the current social climate. 
  
• All of those parks were contracted and built before significant shifts in conversations. 

The thing is...to me, raising these concerns doesn't necessarily equate to "selfishly centering the American perspective," as I'm seeing a lot of criticisms on social media claim. 

That is, we can understand and acknowledge that this park isn't for "us," and celebrate that Disney will become more accessible for people who may not have been easily able to travel to the US (or who may not have felt safe doing so) -- and we can also voice our frustration with a company that seemingly stands for inclusion and acceptance, but only does so in a performative way. 

And it's a tricky thing, right? 

After all, Disney is a company: a capitalist corporation whose only "goal" is to turn a profit. 
But it is also a company whose brand is so deeply entrenched with storytelling and dreams and magic and happiness -- and a company that employs artists (of all kinds!) who understand the power of storytelling and representation. 

This is a discussion at the heart of my course: does Disney have an obligation to...well, do anything other than turn a profit? Does it have an obligation to teach its audience/consumer base accurate history? Or an obligation to represent diverse voices? I'm sure there's a tension between the corporate higher-ups and the storytellers, and I'm not sure what the "answers" are to these questions, if there are any. 

Watching the reactions to this unfold in real time have been fascinating -- and can be broken into 3 distinct phases, I think:

1. Wed. a.m. : initial excitement over the announcement
2. Wed. p.m. : initial criticism starting to take form, as concerns over LGBTQIA+ rights emerge
3. Wed. p.m./Thurs. a.m. : nuanced responses to the above criticism strengthens (dominant threads seem to be: stop painting UAE as a backwards regressive country; this park isn't for you (you = American Disney fans) and your criticisms make this about you and decenter non-American perspectives)

I'll admit: my first response -- as in, seconds after watching the announcement video -- was from my American-centric perspective. Yes, I was disappointed that I probably won't be able to visit this park -- and I say that with a full acknowledgement of the privilege that allows me to visit both bi-coastal parks in a calendar year. But that was an effervescent thought for me: I felt it, I acknowledged it, I accepted it, it was done -- it's one minor thought of in a sea of other factors. 

After all, my next, more significant thought was that, historically, Disney has not been great with Middle Eastern representation -- this could be a chance to learn, to grow, to rectify that. And I don't think it's at all a coincidence that the tagline for the announcement is "a whole new world."

And then the conversation started to turn, as many on social media started to point out the potential dangers for members of the LGBTQIA+ community: 

via Human Dignity Trust

And again, I don't think acknowledging these concerns is automatically de-centering international Disney fans -- both things can be true. We can acknowledge that this is a good thing for many Disney fans and also voice our concern and frustration with the Disney company. 

Because here's the thing: the Four Keys have always been integral to Disney's out-ward facing approach to the company. Prior to 2019, there were four: Safety, Courtesy, Show, and Efficiency. In the words of Josh D'Amaro, the Chairman of Disney Experiences (i.e., Parks & Resorts) himself:

Every Disney Parks cast member is familiar with our longstanding tradition of the Four Keys...which have guided our approach to guest service for more than 65 years. [...] Each cast member is asked to use the Four Keys as the blueprint for the decisions they make during the workday and the approach they bring to their interactions with others. [...] 

And when we asked our cast how we could better cultivate a culture of belonging, they suggested the addition of a fifth key: the key of Inclusion. Like The Four Keys before them, The 5 Keys -- with Inclusion at the heart -- will continue to guide us...Inclusion is essential to our culture and leads us forward as we continue to realize our rich legacy of engaging storytelling, exceptional service, and Disney magic." [my emphasis]

Here's the video that accompanied the release of the fifth key:

And just to be clear: at around 1:18 in the video, Disney included several shots of what looks to be some sort of Pride parade, with people (cast members?) sporting pride flag Ears and shirts, as the words "where everyone belongs" are narrated. That's not an accident; that's a rhetorical decision. 

And again, just to be clear: I am not in any way saying that Inclusion won't be a part of the Abu Dhabi project, or that members of the LGBTQIA+ community will come to harm there. 

I only wish to articulate my own confusion over a company that so openly celebrates Inclusion and choosing to open a new park in a part of the world where not everyone might feel welcome. 

Because that's what Disney is, to me. I know that's my personal, privileged take: Disney parks are, as Walt Disney intended, safe spaces for everyone. That may be naive, that may be delusionally optimistic, that may be a fairy-tale wish -- but isn't that the magic of Disney? Of course the social and political climates are different now than they were in 1955 when Walt first opened Disneyland; of course we can't really know who he meant (and didn't) by "all" in his opening address. But we do know that Walt believed in "moving forward" and always making things better. 

I *know* that not all Disney Parks are safe for *all* guests, even in our own country. I know that. 
I also know that Disney (largely) removed a trans storyline from their series, Win or Lose. 
I also also know that 99% of Disney's shareholders voted to uphold DEI measures in the company. 

I could keep going -- the list of steps forward and steps backward is longer than this post already is. The point is -- I hope -- just that Disney's stance on this issue isn't clear, yet Inclusion is an integral part of their company ethos. 

And maybe the point is that, for a lot of Disney fans, many things can be true, at the same time. (A novel concept on the internet/social media, I know.) We can celebrate the growth and expansion of a company that remains so important to us, and we can voice our hesitations and frustrations in way that we hope holds them accountable and advocates for dialogue and communication. It is, I think, valid to express our concern that a business decision (because Disney IS a business) it seemingly at odds with the values said business professes to (and profits on) stand for. It wouldn't be the first time, and I know it won't be the last.