Incensed Over Senseless Censorship!

Let's get something straight right now. Racism is not now, has never been, and never will be, cool. It was, is, and always will be pointless, despicable, and motivation for some truly unspeakable acts.

That being said, everything mentioned above holds true for censorship, too.

Take, for instance, D.W. Griffith's silent film, The Birth of a Nation. It's a terrible movie, but there is some value to it: through the filmmaker's twisted bias, it reveals the folly, ridiculousness, and hypocrisy of racial bigotry. People have demanded for over ninety years that the film be banned forever, never to be shown in the US or any other country. That is, of course, a violation of free speech... even crude, offensive hate speech is "speech."

However, efforts have been made to restore The Birth of a Nation to its original format so people can see it the way it was meant to be seen. Once more, I hesitate to talk about this film like it was a masterpiece (because it isn't), but a lot of people think it is. It does, though, look like some of the footage is lost forever. This deprives people of a really really good example of why you should treat all races with the same respect.

People out there are trying to save a movie that depicts African Americans as ignorant savages put on Earth as an embodiment of pure evil, and yet two well-respected authors have gone and destroyed a series of children's books that contain mere stereotypes... stereotypes that are offensive and damaging, but that reflect the world at the time these books were written.

I am of course referring to Hugh Lofting's Doctor Dolittle stories, which Patricia C. and Fredrick L. McKissack felt free to "revise" and "rework" to change the author's words.

I'm sorry, that just sickens me.

I hope to one day be a published author. I would be livid if I came back decades or so after my death to discover that a couple of "well-intentioned" sanitizers removed profanity or violence from one of my books. I'd never write racially insensitive material, true-- because a) I know better and b) society knows better.

That still doesn't make censorship right. The McKissacks went out of their way in an introduction to the first novel to say that they did not support censorship, or dilution (cough *hypocrites*! cough). They also, however, said that they don't believe children should be exposed to damaging texts.

I can certainly understand where they're coming from. Of course you don't want to expose a child to something that could hurt them, but children aren't as stupid as people like this think they are! From my own experience in spending time with nieces and nephews, I know that kids have the ability to work out the world around them and determine what's good and what's bad. Children are intelligent and resourceful and know when to be offended.

The only "censorship" I condone is a parent's duty. It is the duty of each parent (or legal guardian) to determine what music/literature/cinema/television is appropriate and inappropriate for their children, to prevent them from seeing the inappopriate, and to provide them with the opportunity to experience the appropriate. If a child feels hurt by appropriate content, maybe the parent made a simple human error, but the offended child would need a discussion with his/her parent(s) about why what they saw/heard/read was hurtful. Once again, people, children can handle this kind of honesty-- in fact, parent/child discussions seem to me to be completely necessary for development. I remember my parents telling this stuff to me when the need arose. And guess what? I have no self-esteem issues that arise from seeing anti-me propaganda in print.

Furthermore, the Doctor Dolittle stories are not for young young children anyway. From the look of it, I'd put it at about a third or fourth grade reading level. Third-or-fourth-grade readers can-- you guessed it!-- decide (within reason) what books are good or bad for their self-esteem.

And, let me just say, I left the fourth grade a loooooong time ago. I had hoped to experience the Dolittle series because the Rex Harrison movie was such a memorable part of my childhood, and even the weaker Eddie Murphy remakes I hold in similar regard. I, a high-school graduate, wanted to figure out where these often-hilarious movies had their origin. Apparently, they were the brainchild of a gifted author whom the McKissacks have such little real respect for. They obviously don't have much respect for their readers, either. If a parent finds Doctor Dolittle inappropriate for their younger kids, whose responsibility is it to make sure the child has, instead, access to a friendlier tome? Ding, ding, ding! The answer is, in fact, the parent.

But-- what am I saying? These are probably the same kind of people who picketed to stop Cookie Monster from glutting himself on baked sweets. Parents (who, apparently, had nothing better to do than picket PBS-- do they know that parenting is a good way to eat up some free time if you have kids?) complained that it was Cookie Monster's example that made their children overweight and diabetic. Let me ask this: did Cookie Monster break into your homes and force-feed cookies to your children? If they did, you're keeping something in your house that could be far more damaging to a child than cookies and Dolittle. Parents feed their children by-- yup!-- parental responsibility! If you're worried your kid is going to get fat, stop feeding them sugar and cholesterol!!!! I mean, kids may be intelligent, but they still don't know boundaries in matters like this.

And you can blame Hugh Lofting and Jim Henson all you want. They didn't contribute sperm or ovum to your children (again, that's just a hope). They're not responsible for supporting your children (only partially because they're both dead). The best way to make the world better? Be an adequate parent to your children instead of resorting to blame and censorship.

And moviegoers out there-- stay away from Birth of a Nation. Seriously, it's a pile.