 |
| Canceled! |
The purpose of Political Correctness is noble. It spares unnecessarily hurting people from prejudicial comments made - often in complete innocence – without realizing those comments are hurtful. No one should be subjected to hurtful comments about their race, creed, color, religion, politics, ideals, heritage, size, age, gender identity, or sexual preference. Whether the person making them realizes they are doing it or not.
But there is such a thing as going too far. The question is where do we draw the line? This is where common sense comes in. Although even that is hard to pin down.
The more common form of ‘Cancel Culture’ is when someone expresses a political opinion that is not in concert with the ideals of left. A famous example of that is when New York Times opinion writer Bari Weiss was pressured by her colleagues into resigning because of her views on Israel. The left is only interested in defending the free speech rights of Israel’s critics. Not her defenders. Defending BDS supporters – good. Defending the IDF - bad.
Perhaps the most aggrieved party on this issue in our day is the black community. It is fair to say that they are perhaps the most discriminated against minority in America. That is not arguable in my view. Even though black people have made tremendous strides in our day – the point of electing a black man to be President – twice, there have nonetheless been too many ‘George Floyds’ in this country. Demonstrating we have a long way to go.
So that removing (canceling) symbols of the confederacy in southern states is something that we should all support. It should be easy to understand why a statue celebrating a confederate general fighting for the right to own salves would be hurtful to a black person.
But how far do we take this? Should the founding fathers - many of who were slave holders - be ‘canceled’ too?. Should statutes and images of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson – both of whom were slave holders - be torn down? Should they be placed on the wall of shame instead of being given the iconic status they now have as the founders of the greatest nation on earth?
There are some people that feel we need to do exactly that. They argue that these founders were just as racist as the slaveholders of the south that fought for that right in the Civil War. Are they right?
That is not an easy question to answer. But in my view the history books ought not be so drastically changed. The democratic ideals the founding fathers believed in is what forms the basis for this country. It is all too easy to use 20/20 hindsight to condemn people who lived over 200 years ago at time where cultural values acceptable then are unacceptable now - because they are so easy to identify as morally wrong. There should be a revision in the history books that reflects that reality. But to toarlly trash them is just as morally wrong as to ignore their faults.
The latest victim of ‘Cancel Culture’ is Ted Geisel, author of the Dr. Seuss series of children’s books. There are few people of any race whose children have not benefitted from them. I would have thought that ‘Dr. Seuss’ would be the last person in the world to be canceled. Is ‘Green Eggs and Ham’ really worthy of being canceled?
Of course it isn’t. But that is not one of the 6 Dr. Seuss books that are being ‘cancelled’. AP reports the following:
Six Dr. Seuss books — including “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street” and “If I Ran the Zoo” — will stop being published because of racist and insensitive imagery, the business that preserves and protects the author’s legacy said Tuesday.
“These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong,” Dr. Seuss Enterprises told The Associated Press in a statement that coincided with the late author and illustrator’s birthday.
“Ceasing sales of these books is only part of our commitment and our broader plan to ensure Dr. Seuss Enterprises’ catalog represents and supports all communities and families,” it said.
Is this yet another instance of political correctness gone amok? My original instinct was to answer that in the affirmative. But after reflecting on it, I think it is appropriate to recognize that some of his books contain hurtful imagery. On the other hand I don’t know if I would not have stopped publication of those books - but instead include acknowledgment about the hurtful stereotypes contained therein and explain that based on the cultural milieu of his time, the author was probably unaware of how hurtful they were when he published them.
We live in a time of knee jerk reaction to things which are obviously objectionable in our time without recognizing the context of the time in which they occurred. I think we lose a lot and gain little if we do too much of that.
My two cents (again).
