In Defense Of Old Racist Art

Another aspect of the culture war: undermining our cultural inheritance…

Let’s be clear: Chan is not saying “‘The Mikado’ offends me so I won’t go see it.” She is saying, “‘The Mikado’ is offensive so nobody should see it.” Is the offense taken by Chan regarding “The Mikado” really more genuine or reasonable than that of some Muslims regarding the work of Salman Rushdie? Why? What makes the offense she takes more objectively actual? Why should her ideas about what is and isn’t offensive be foisted upon everyone? In fact, there is no objective standard anywhere that can transform her opinion on this matter into a fact.

The author is a bit too progressive for my tastes, but still a decent piece.


4 thoughts on “In Defense Of Old Racist Art

  1. By the same token “Alice in Wonderland” could be banned as offensive to Englishmen because it makes fun of monarchs as maniacal decapitators, except no one is taking umbrage. The few Japanese who know Gilbert and Sullivan are probably good-humoured enough to accept the parody of Japanese autocrats just as much as they are to laugh at pompous, silly, English major-generals, schoolgirls and pirates. But if cultural relativists insist at being offended by parodies perhaps they should examine the disturbing models on which they are based.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s