In the words ‘transgression and barbarism’, Molly Ringwald, that great philosopher, describes not long-ago eras, but the world inhabited by our parents and grandparents. Her exaggerated take reflects the hysterical view taken by “progressives”, you know, that group of people whose cult members believe that the world must be in a constant flux, with morals and ethics constantly changing. In this strange worldview, every generation sees itself as superior mentally and morally to previous generations.
The writer of the piece containing Molly Ringwald’s words, Ted Anthony, addresses the ‘transgressions’ of the older generations, such as the ‘domestic assault’ committed by Cary Grant towards Katharine Hepburn in The Philadelphia Story. The list of shocking crimes against recently-invented Political Correctness reaches to horrors like ‘bullying’ against Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer in a popular cartoon. Other guilty parties? Desi Arnaz as ‘Ricky Ricardo’, husband of fictional Lucy Ricardo, (Lucille Ball). Even the Beatles, themselves “progressives”, are not above scrutiny. John Lennon’s song ‘Run for Your Life’ violates the progressives’ new-and-improved 21st century standards. What next?
The article, predictably, mentions ‘blackface’ routines in a tone of feigned shock, and tsk-tsks over the character ‘Apu’ on the Simpsons, because of his accent. I suppose in the progs’ world, no immigrant ever has an accent, or runs a lowly convenience store. In the ideal universe envisioned by the progressive reformers, Apu and all his kinsmen would be lawyers, brain surgeons, physicists, tech moguls. There is an unwritten rule that POCs, if not employed in presitigious and well-paying professions, are victims of racism, proof of bigotry on the part of Whites.
This article would be laughable, but it seems to be written in earnest.
It’s ironic and a bit rich that the writer criticizes some of the TV series and movies that were the product of progressives. For example movies like ‘Porky’s’. Can movies of that type, rife since the 70s-80s, be blamed on the right? The left can’t seem to make up their minds whether libertinism and hypersexuality are good if they run afoul of recent codes of behavior toward women or girls. How do lefties cope with the obvious cognitive dissonance, especially when they rarely, if ever, admit to having been wrong?
While the writer goes down the list of the ‘transgressions’ and barbarisms of the past, he mentions the 1915 film ‘Birth of a Nation‘, which chronicles the turbulent Reconstruction era in the South. The writer describes the award-winning film as one of the most ”corrosive” films ever made, and says that it is viewed ever more harshly with passing years. By whom? By the judgmental left? Sadly, the movie has been all but banned — and I am expecting that to happen someday soon, especially with the Jacobin behaviors of the left. The recent wanton, vandalistic destruction of Confederate monuments and the banishing of all Southern symbols and icons shows that the left will tolerate nothing that does not fit their narrow, arbitrary, and constantly changing mores and rules.
But the facts about The Birth of a Nation are that it was a box office hit, drawing crowds in the North as well as the South. President Woodrow Wilson, known as one of our most liberal presidents, praised the movie highly. The entertainment trade paper Variety, in 1915, described the movie glowingly as a ‘masterpiece.’
Still, as people become more ignorant of history, and as the South has been vilified and the dark era of ‘reconstruction’ airbrushed from history, The Birth of a Nation is considered unfit to watch. How times and people change. That’s what decades of ‘progressive’ domination and propaganda will do.
So round and round we go, and where we stop, nobody knows. Just as leftist icon Mao (or is he becoming a non-person now, too?) preached, a perpetual revolution is a necessity. There is no stopping point; everything must be constantly scrutinized and roundly denounced by the ‘enlightened’ left, and removed as necessary.
The difference between left and right should be obvious; the left reveres nothing but the constant remaking of the world (tikkun olam, anybody?) in its ‘correct’ system of the moment. Change is the only certainty, in a way, for all of us, but need it be? Surely preserving what is good, and shoring it up, defending it, reinforcing it is a must in order to maintain any stability and continuity. The idea of constantly remaking ourselves (or everybody else, as with the left), or constantly condemning our own ancestors is, as we can see, destructive. At the moment it seems to be ascendant, this culture of censoring and hating the past, and sadly it seems never-ending. But need it be?