Over the past decade we have made significant strides in the social arena. The question is whether they’re strides that are moving our world forward or taking it back? We have 10 times the rights, 10 times the agency and yet still, we demand more. These days, the attractive word, “progressive” has got me choking on the first syllable: ‘pro,’ Latin for in favour of is now, a common category to place in front of any topical noun you can think of: pro-abortion, pro-Trump, pro-vaccine, pro-abolition and so on and so forth. It’s rival, ‘anti,’ works the same way and I’m sure you can think of a few. Herein lies the 21st century’s personality constructor: Which side are you?
An Even Greater Divide
We live in a world that encourages togetherness and to embrace of all differences. I myself, am a strong advocate of living as fellow souls making sense of these vessels we call bodies. But…It’s the à la mode nature of it that I find destructive. Yes, if things are going to be trendy then why not make it this? But what happened to people adopting the ideology of humanism instead of isolating it to subcategories? Hear me out. To believe woman deserve equal rights is first to be a humanist before a feminist. To believe that black people have a right to live in society peacefully is a humanist principle before it is an anti-racist one. To believe that unborn babies deserve a chance, or that woman deserve financial and emotional stability before having the responsibilities of motherhood, is to grapple with the complexities of this human life. Complexities that change generationally. I firmly believe that when we box ourselves in labels such as feminism, anti-this, pro-that, we are closing ourselves to views. We are closing ourselves from people. We are stepping behind a line that divides and not unifies. More and more I’m seeing these labels branch out into extremism. But is extremism justified by ‘good’ cause? How I see it, is that the villains become blurred.
What’s Your Point? (You write about books…)
I’m writing this blog because I read an article that shocked me to say the least. Many of you are familiar with the legendary works of Roahl Doahl, (Mathilda, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Twits…I’m sure one of these ring a bell). Well, Radio France International published an article discussing French publishers’ refusal to follow in Britain’s suit of ‘editing’ Roahl Doahl’s books to fall “in line with contemporary sensibilities,” (yes, sensibilities not sense…thank you Jane Austen). Many changes have a lot to do with the perception of woman as an article on The Daily Telegraph points out. So instead of a ‘cashier’, she’s a ‘top scientist’. Further suggestions include making Willy Wonker’s Oompa Loompas gender free. Yes. I repeat. Gender free.
This is great right? Not how I see it. Literature is a reflection of a person’s time blended with their imagination. Dickens wasn’t going to speak about Pip’s anonymous tweet in Great Expectations, was he? Charlotte Bronte wasn’t going to make her character, Jane demand that Rochester be polite and ask which pronouns she prefers to be called by. Is this act of censorship guiding the younger generation or is it sheltering them? I only see a perpetuation of ignorance. And as far as I’m concerned, little girls who grew up reading Roahl Doahl (uncensored versions), still grew up to be astronauts and top scientists. And hey, some probably worked as cashiers to pay off for their studies. So why villainize the innocent?
All in All…
I get it. Publishers need to tick boxes to be sold. Production companies need to tick boxes to be on air. We need to keep the youth happy for a peaceful running society. Yet the exploitation of such a valid concept (unity, diversity, tolerance) is becoming nauseating, shallow and unnecessary. I mean…messing with Roahl Doahl to please the feminists? It doesn’t sit well with me.
Here is a disclaimer. I am a humanist and that is it. I believe everyone no matter what race, gender, social class and background should be treated fairly to their counterparts. Giving more to other may help achieving this and I acknowledge that. However, exploiting a cause? Building barriers against those who don’t support it? Well, then here…we have a problem.
One response to “The Revolution of the Snowflakes: Join or be ‘cancelled’”
I would like to hone in on your sentiments of humanism. When we define ourselves with a label we are in fact picking a side and erecting a wall that creates an “us” and “them”. I salute and also stand with your sentiments of humanism as we should live to embrace each other and not to discriminate and perpetuate “otherness”. Because when we do we are so consumed by defending our position or ethos and we zealously do this at the expense of people. Our goal should be to love, embrace and heal each other with a deep sense of empathy the reality is labels are not a vehicle for such a goal.
You might find that “feminism” and “veganism” and all the “isms” are another form of evolved and socially acceptable bigotry. If we were passionate about the human race – all of it – we would make better decisions with better reforms that actually make an impact that counts.
Additionally this business of doctoring history to support a narrative of this time does not make sense. Times change and so do sentiments/“norms” so where would the integrity be in history if the people of now rework and massage it into speaking to today?
Also if we going doctor history let’s doctor things that count. history is written is by winners/colonisers so what about all the narratives around colonisation? We are not doing the most to ensure narratives around fallen and displaced cultures have objective views but we are going to go and degender literal cartoons. In my humble opinion this is ticking boxes to say “we want to empower and be inclusive” but we must be incredibly suspicious about “ticking boxes” because ticking boxes does not change the world.
There are entire cultures/civilisations that no one will honestly and objectively know about because of “winners” write history. If we are going to edit history please can we leave the low hanging fruit and rather address vital areas that would meaningfully impact our world view and enrich us culturally.