Posted on 03/03/2021 8:12:38 AM PST by Kaslin
Could cancel culture actually stunt our society's strides towards better race relations?
In the Washington Post, Philip Bump argues that we should all calm down about Dr. Seuss. He supports the decision by the children’s author’s estate to stop publication of a handful of his books with allegedly racist imagery.
I say allegedly because, as I have written about before, our society has at least two competing definitions of what racism is. The more traditional one requires intent. The newer one does not. There is no way to know if Seuss intended to cause harm with the images, so it is a matter of opinion, not objective fact.
The thrust of Bump’s broader argument is that if you oppose stopping publication of the books because it is part of our cultural heritage, then you are supporting a racist culture. He writes, “This isn’t some toxic ‘cancel culture.’ If it were, what would that say about the culture you’re defending?” It’s an important question.
As I read Bump’s article, I was waiting for a word. I knew it was coming, and sure enough, it did. That word is “retired,” used as a euphemism to avoid the uglier term “censorship.” I first encountered this devious usage in 2014 amid a controversy in the theater world about whether traditional productions of Gilbert and Sullivan’s “The Mikado” should still take place. At that time, productions were canceled as a result of the outrage.
In arguing in favor of such productions, I suggested to my friends in theater that censorship is censorship whether done by the state or by cultural institutions. They insisted the play was not being censored, but retired. It seemed strange to me. After all “The Mikado” wasn’t being given a gold watch and a condo in Boca, it was being essentially banned from being performed.
At that time, many liberals, if not progressives, were still sensitive about allegations that they were engaging in censorship. After all, that was that kind of thing Jesse Helms called for, not Democrats. The gentler term “retired” soothed whatever sense they had that banning art is not a very good or particularly liberal idea. So in some sense it is good that Bump still uses it, but in general calls to censor, ban, or stop production or publication of artworks have only increased since 2014.
This brings us back to his question. If halting publication of the Seuss books is cancel culture, as many on the right would argue, what does that say about the culture? To answer this, I’ll use another example from Bump’s article. He says that when he was a kid, jokes about Polish people being dumb were very common, and they aren’t now. What, he asks, of value was lost by this change?
Setting aside the fact that reductions in Polish jokes were much more an organic than institutional phenomenon, what did the nature of such jokes tell us about America at that time, and about it now? The period between the mid-1950s and the mid-1980s produced radical and positive change regarding race relations in both law and society. They were also a time when all kinds of racial humor were ubiquitous.
Whether it was Don Rickles, the Rat Pack, Archie Bunker, or the Jeffersons, humor based on racial stereotypes was commonplace. People accepted these jokes as jokes. There was even some understanding that by laughing about these stereotypes they diffused them.
Rickles would always claim this, and there is undoubtedly some truth in it. So if a “racist” Don Rickles joke actually worked against racism, what would trying to erase or retire such artistic output say about the culture of that time, and about our own?
To the first part of that question, retiring Rickles would suggest that gains in racial equality occurred despite the race-based humor of the time. But that seems incredibly unlikely. What it would say about the culture of our time is that we are so certain, even arrogant, about the way to think about race, compared to those in the past, that we must erase the old ways from memory.
But there is a paradox here. If we assume our own viewpoint on race is so vastly superior to that of the late 20th century, then why do we also think race relations are in such a horrible state, as many who support the retirement of artworks, presumably including Bump, believe? What is our path forward if we cannot look to the past to see how we arrived here?
What if, and I don’t want to sound like a crazy person, but what if we don’t have all the answers? What if we are making mistakes today, just like people have made throughout history? What if the leftist approach to race and racism is not producing great results? Doesn’t it make sense to place ourselves in the continuum of what came before us and what will come after? How can we do that if we retire the cultural content of the past?
In this sense, we really do need to understand how things like Polish jokes and other racially insensitive cultural output came to be organically outgrown. After all, no children’s author today would create imagery like the allegedly offending pictures created by Suess — not because it is officially or institutionally banned, but because it has fallen out of cultural favor. And that is how racism is eroded: by organic and culture-wide understandings reached by society as a whole, not by experts.
It is only by understanding how far we have come and what cultural forces brought us here that we can truly tackle the problem of racism. It cannot and will not be solved by censoring books. In fact, that approach may well make the problem much worse.
We are rvt back in the middle ages with book burnings again. Sa d. We used to be an advanced society, but thanks to miserable people who can’t stand other people not being miserable too, we are right back in the middle ages. No books with opposing views, no gasoline powered vehicles if they get their way, no eating and raising meat, etc. There are other examples of devolution too, too tired to think of them now
The real change is that the fundamentals behind improving race relations used to be respect for other people and recognition of their humanity. Now, racism games are played to generate political advantage.
THAT makes all the difference in the world.
Well it sure won’t help ‘race relations’
Our goal should be policies that encourage people to WANT to hire blacks — due to qualifications and hard work Instead, the left has encouraged a victimhood mentality, discouraged pursuit of excellence, and is continually trying to FORCE people to hire them. Who needs to work for an employer who has been forced to hire him?
I find it interesting that liberals today cry that others cannot possibly understand the minority experience, cannot possibly portray minorities of today in any real sense, cannot possibly divine the thoughts of minorities; yet those same minorities will not hesitate to declare the thoughts and intentions of people who lived long ago, like Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee and others. We minorities are omniscient. Whites are not.
Innocent people get their lives ruined by FAKE accusations by liberal bullies ... legitimate victims of liberal lynch mobs. And everyone else is scared of social justice jihadis and segregates for their literal safety.
Innocent people get their lives ruined by FAKE accusations by liberal bullies ... legitimate victims of liberal lynch mobs. And everyone else is scared of social justice jihadis and segregates for their literal safety.
The cancel culture is working hard to entrench racist thinking.
They have cancelled Native Americans: the Washington Redskins now has some stupid generic name. I heard of another team that also erased its ties to Native American culture, but I forget its name.
They are now working on cancelling black entrepreneurs: Aunt Jemima, the stage name/brainchild of a freed slave woman has now been erased. Expect other icons of black entrepreneurs to disappear as well: Uncle Ben and Famous Amos are two more targets for cancel culture.
Eventually, if cancel culture has its way, the only people one may acknowledge to exist are white non-hispanics. Acknowledging anyone else would be strictly taboo.
Cancel culture is creating an intensely resented privileged class - as I believe it is intended to. Stoking the fires of racial division benefits the collectivists.
“it sure won’t help ‘race relations’”
Very true. Not only that, it breeds resentment and anger in the majority of Americans and likely leads us straight to CW II and/or splitting the country.
It always astonishes me that, throughout history, a vocal, organized and driven minority can run roughshod over the vast majority. The irony is that the Founders worked very hard to craft the best governance system possible to avoid a true democratic majority group from crushing a minority group. Here we are today with the exact opposite — the minority group of SJWs / Wokesters crushing the majority.
At least I still think the NORMALS are in the majority. Maybe not.
All this "woke" nonsense has absolutely driven us apart and into our own segregated groups. Probably the opposite of what was intended - or was it?
They don’t care about racism. They only want to destroy our culture.
Of course there's a way to know. You can examine Theodore Geisel's body of work, use common sense, and extend the benefit of doubt to a fellow creature until conclusive evidence otherwise exists.
Are IQs really dropping this fast?
Aimhigh.....you get it. So many still do not. They think we can reason and debate ourselves out of this. Calling us names, etc are tools they use to destroy our nation.
Cancel all elected democrats - solves everything.
I won’t have anything to do with blacks or other so called ‘disenfranchised’.
Screw em all.
I didn’t use to be like that.
Sorry, but I have to challenge that. Not because I have a problem with it - and when I am in the States I do keep my distance from certain ethnicities - but because what you said is just plain silly. So, because of ‘woke’ nonsense, your solution is to not only have nothing to do with Blacks but that they can all be screwed? And that you never at all felt that way before? Doesn’t make sense. Do you feel the same way about the millions of whites people who are rabid Democrats? The vast majority of Dem voters in numbers are whites people; the vapid ivory towers of academia that pump out liberal indoctrination to millions of young minds are primarily staffed by white peoples; the main stream media and their propaganda are - outside a couple talking heads here and there - overwhelmingly whites people; even the vast majority of people who buy rap crap music are white people.
If most white people would realize the importance of keeping America strong, keep government small, not vote in liberal policies that inevitably weaken the economy and society, realize America is a special country in a dark world, and not dilute the economic principles of hard work and high ambition that made the American Dream a reality - if that one demographic adhered to that, it wouldn’t matter if even 100% of blacks, Hispanics, Asians, aborigines, green martians votes Liberal!
Unfortunately that’s not the case, and unfortunately the fastest growing Liberal-voting demographic is white peoples. Especially young white people, college educated white people, and white women. The shift towards the Left will be white people.
Which is why I find it a little bit funny all this angst towards blacks.
But it’s a free world, and as I mentioned it’s not as if there is any love lost between me (like most Africans) and African-American blacks. When I visit the US I actually dress in full suit and tie every day to differentiate myself from them.
I just find it funny all the same the constant focus on one demographic thy doesn’t add much, and ignoring your own demographic (assuming you’re white, apologies sir/ma’am if I am wrong) that is THE actual group that is taking America to hell in a handbasket.
By the way, this is the same reason I find groups like StormFront and their ilk ridiculous. It’s not their beliefs, which are ok in my opinion. People can believe in whatever they want. Apparently in Australia ‘Jedi’ is an actual religion one can tick in their population census. What makes me laugh is their focus on one specific sliver of society and their ignorance of the veritable tsunami of adverse change happening around them.
Like a cricket chirping in anger because they saw some insectivore bird flying about, and yet in their endless cacophony of stridulation they ignore the fact that the whole prairie is on fire and they are about to be engulfed in flame.
Hilarious. Sad too though because in the end nothing is done to stop the tsunami of Liberalism. I personally believe a lot of this ‘woke’ stuff is to get reactions from people and have them focus on such stuff, while a lot of funny immigration (from outside the country plus from Liberal states to Conservative ones) is happening to turn certain states like Texas blue.
Crappy spell check - ‘whites people’ should be ‘white people.’
Also apologies for saying ‘what you said was plain silly.’ It wasn’t, and I apologize. Words such as ‘silly’ are silly to use. Apologies
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.