Again, as always. First there was Shylock, in Merchant of Venice, the negative portrayal of a Jewish moneylender. Then there was Huck Finn, the not-so-negative but perhaps a little too stereotypical depiction of a former black slave in the South. And there have been hundreds, thousands since then. Lolita, De Sade, Fahrenheit 451, the list goes on and is endless.
But the latest casualties are hitting a little closer to home. I mean Pepe Le Pew, who was an overly affectionate doesn't-take-no for an answer skunk. Presumably a comically reference to French Canadians or stereotypes about French Lovers. And not technically "Censured" so much as cancelled, so - fine - most things are humorous or relevant only in the context of the culture - time, place and people - that produced them. But that they publicize it is worrisome - part of a larger trend of whitewashing history. And by whitewashing it I mean making it as Vanilla as possible; devoid of anything that might possibly offend anyone.
But I should say, if you're killing Pepe you should really be killing Ms. Piggy. Like, I get a lotta creepy/stalker/abusive vibes out of her and Kermit. Picture me screaming and waving my hands and shouting "Somebody, won't somebody PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!".
I should make up a sign saying "Cancel Ms Piggy" and go stand with the Anti-Maskers tomorrow. There's been a lot of protesting lately, but it's never about things that matter.
This is not to be confused with "Cancel Culture", in which a "celebrity" does something outrageous or stupid or questionable and then loses their lavish lifestyle, endorsements, etc. I don't give a damned about that. That people get upset about somebody losing their job over doing something stupid is entirely what the whole wide rest of the real world deals with on a day to day basis. It's less "Cancel Culture" than it is "Consequence Culture".
But this is not cancel culture - this is revisionist history, pandering to those who are taking offense where none is given.
And the latest victim - Dr. Seuss.
Author of "Oh, The Thinks you can Think". Only, apparently, you can't. 6 Titles being pulled from publication by the Dr. Seuss foundation on the advice of educators and other so-called experts.
I disagree with this - the censure of history and art and literature.
The "Negative" or "Stereotypical" depictions included a Chinese boy who eats with sticks. Hair done up in Pigtails. Now - really - I looked at it again - to jog my memory - and - could still see nothing of offense in it. Yes, it's a stereotype built upon centuries of their own traditions. The hair, the clothes, chopsticks - until comparatively recently were a very visible portion of their culture. Not in a bad way - it marked them as being different. And when you're a kid it's interesting to view the world as different, exciting to think that different people have different lives, dress, act, and eat in a manner unfamiliar to ourselves.
Another one - "McElligots's Pool" - for having "Eskimo Fish" that wore parkas. I mean - HOLY FUCK! Have you been north of the 49th? Parkas are fucking mandatory in this country 6 to 9 months of the year! It's a stereotype for a fucking reason! It's the truth! Would an Eskimo (They don't even exist, specifically, merely a broad generalization for any indigenous people that live above the Arctic Circle) take offense to being depicted in a parka? Fucking hell! Or are they worried about the depictions of the fish?
They are stereotypes, surely - but negative? Hardly.
These stereotypes engage us and inspire curiosity about peoples and cultures different than us. To be told that Eskimos and Chinese people live in houses just like ours is boring and inspires no one to travel. And, depending where you're from, it's not necessarily true. To be told that Eskimos suffer criminally high rates of substance abuse, addiction, depression and suicide - well - while accurate might also be construed as negative. And it isn't going to inspire anybody to visit. To be told that the Chinese are torturing and raping innocent people held in concentration and forced labor camps might also encourage some negative stereotypes.
If they had said that they were discontinuing the books because no one was buying them I'd understand. But this whitewashing, censure of books because they "Might" cause offense is insane. Given that there are probably fewer than a dozen of these books available in the NorthWest Territories/Nunavut I doubt very much any of the children there are being offended by fish in Parkas. Most likely they find it humorous just like the rest of the world. And given their circumstances they would be I'm sure glad of any portrayal that drew interest to their lifestyles.
There seems to be this equivocation that to depict anyone as different than ourselves is bad. I would disagree. Cultures can be bad, but cultures aren't race. And Dr. Seuss isn't portraying these cultures in a negative way. His books were designed to inspire curiosity and learning. I very much doubt he intended to offend anyone - given that in 1971 he actually went through and revised a good many of his illustrations that might be considered offensive.
Now I'm taking this a bit personally because I personally love stereotypes. No shit. Greedy Bankers. No ones arguing that one. Killer Incompetent Bungling Cops. Another truism. Crooked Lawyers. Yep. Wait...I just described the Prime Time TV/Movie Line and no one's protesting that. Vacuous, insipid women looking for their Prince Charming? The Bachelor, purportedly a REALITY TV SHOW and - just wow - doesn't anybody want to protest that? If not that, then surely the contestants and very premise of it!
Me, I liked the idea of living in a world with headhunters, cannibals, witch-doctors - even if they're not current, they're part of our history. And the fact that we interpret these differences as "negative" and "stereotypical" when we should, in fact, be teaching our kids that it's OK to be different and we celebrate that - is - to say the least - infuriating.
Perhaps I'm not as "liberal" as I thought.