Traditional Values

I've been watching a lot of The Waltons and Little House on the Prairie lately.  Then I saw something about someone (Netflix?) rebooting Little House and, of course, there they were... the pearl-clutching army in the comments worried about THE WOKE AGENDA is gonna ruin it.  

I got news for y'all.  If this happens, and you don't like it, nobody says you have to watch.  I stopped watching the original TV show when they decided to divert from the "facts" of the books.  Mary never married and Albert didn't exist.  That's how you deal with offensive TV shows.  

Anyway, that got me to thinking about the question of how these wholesome shows might have handled certain topics. 

 I realized Little House did handle a lot of the topics.  Mary's blindness gave them the vehicle to show that the disabled are not so different from the abled.  They brought in nonwhites from time to time and, again, focused on the similarities more than the differences. Nellie married a nice Jewish boy.  I have come to the conclusion that, given the limitations of television in the 70s and 80s, that Little House is yet another example of something that was WOKE all along.  

I don't recall a lot of the specific storylines on The Waltons.  But in recent viewings, I saw Elizabeth deal with possibly being paralyzed and an attempt to heal her by a "gypsy".  The Waltons are friendly with a "colored" family.  Well damn, that's some DEI stuff right there!  

All of this led me to wonder how these shows would handle certain other topics.  

Homosexuality:  The Waltons made it a point to be historically accurate, but I guess they could have a couple of "confirmed bachelors" or "old maids" sharing a home.  Maybe they did and I just don't remember. Maybe the Baldwin sisters weren't really sisters!  Little House would probably take a similar route, but given the pattern of that show, it'd be some stranger who wanders into town just long enough to confess the deep dark secret to an Ingalls.  

Interracial Marriage: Maybe one of the Walton boys could bring home a Japanese bride after WW2.  Maybe some local natives want to court the citizens of Walnut Grove.  But I can't see how a black/white pairing would work without destroying any semblance of historical accuracy.  One takes place not long after the Civil War.  One takes place in the American South.  Both predate the Civil Rights Movement. 

Transgenderism: This would be handled much like homosexuality.  (The girl-disguised-as-boy-for-protection trope does not count here!)  Little House's setting could set up an Albert Cashier type scenario. Albert Cashier Hell, maybe Grandpa Walton served with an Albert Cashier... when did the military actually start examining recruits? 

Which leads me to why I gave this blog post the title I did.  Often when we hear about traditional values, it's people raving against the sort of things I just mentioned, but considering how these topics could have worked in the shows... some of our traditional values aren't bad.  

These fictions reflect the world as it once was.  Did Olivia Walton or Caroline Ingalls bother much about what the neighbors did in the bedroom?  Did Charles Ingalls and John Walton assume the the new guy in town was female because he had no beard?  I don't think so... not unless they were hurting people.  These are traditional values - if a person is harmless, what they do is none of my business. 

But maybe I'm just pushing that woke agenda. 

 

Arcane by Nonni Lumen

I picked up this book at a Rummage Sale.  It says it's "a true account of ongoing paranormal Phenomena".  I found the business card for a local B&B inside.  Since the book is set in rural Ohio, I wondered if there might be a connection.  As I struggled through, it became pretty obvious that this book is, in fact, about the B&B on the card. Unless there's some other B&B a mile from one town and 8 miles from the one it has the zip code of, near Swings Corner-Point Isabel Road, in rural Ohio. 

I say I struggled and that's no exaggeration.  The author occasionally uses the wrong word for one that's spelled similar.  (Gall/gull being my favorite.   I can't believe she had the seabird to publish this.)  The real obstacle is punctuation.  She randomly sprinkles semi-colons throughout.  At one point she quotes the Bible and her semicolon completely changes the meaning.  This change contradicts the point she's making.  

She references often her NDE (near death experience) but doesn't explain that until chapter ten. The first half of most chapters is list of words and definitions, specific to the author's belief system.  The timeline jumps around like a bunny rabbit on crack.  

****

Here's the story summary: We bought land to build a B&B on.  It is haunted by victims of the KKK and of witches. There is a demon infestation, including but not limited to Lillith herself.  At the end of the book, all is not well and a second book is promised.  Not even good fiction, frankly, and it claims to be true.

Meanwhile, she is moving her family into this place.  For more than a decade she moves family members in and out of the demon-infested B&B.  She is renting rooms to strangers.   She brings in priests to bless the place and there's even confusing mentions of an exorcism.  None of the sacraments have a permanent effect. 

Her son-in-law is possessed by one of the demons and/or his mom cursed the marriage because she's a witch. A nearby shop with a black-flamed candle on the sign is run by a coven which curses the author herself.   Any symbolism not specifically Christian is demonic.  

The area is racist and antipapist and antisemitic.  We're talking caricature levels of yeehaw rednecks. No one she asks for information on her property tell her anything, but one told her there was a mill there once.  She never contacts county offices for access to public records on the land.  Yet she somehow learns that this mill was operated by the KKK as a front for lynching people.  Whites on one tree and Blacks on another.

Swings Corner-Point Isabel road is not named for the two communities it once connected, but for a hanging tree and one of the B&B ghosts.  The word picnic is not derived from eighteenth century France, but from the lynching term "pick a nig".  

**** 

The writer in me is repelled.  This book is badly written by any definition.  

The Bethel Girl in me is enraged at her character assassination of the population. 

Oh, and the second book has not appeared.

Not Even Most

Saw a meme today that said "Men who say NOT ALL MEN should be locked in a room full of snakes.  Not all of them are venomous."  I'm not sure it I'm supposed to laugh or admit the truth.  I did neither because it's based on a fallacy.   A few fallacies, actually.    

Fallacy 1: Women have to be careful walking alone because a man might attack her.  True statement.  Yet it is also true that a woman might attack her.  Or an animal might attack her.  It's more accurate to say any person walking alone should be careful because they might be attacked.  No one gets vilified, and certainly no entire groups.  (It's my personal experience that an animal attack is far more likely, but I digress.)  

Fallacy 2: Let's talk about those snakes.  Say there are a hundred snakes locked in that room.  Only 10 to 15 are going to be venomous and even fewer prey on anything the size of a human.  Even the deadliest snake does not bite for fun.  The snake that bites for no reason is a rare creature indeed.  

I'm fully aware that people are not snakes.  Some would even argue that we are not animals.  Yet the basic principle applies - how many men  are willing or able to randomly attack a fellow human being?  

Fallacy 3: It kind of leans into blaming the victim.  I understand the man who objects "Not all men".  Nobody likes to be stereotyped, and certainly not negatively stereotyped.  

I suggest "not even most" as the phraseology.  Or a sarcastic "thanks" if you're feeling less intellectual.  The latter usually gets a response of  "Oh, not you.  Other (men, in this case)."  Ask for names if they say that.  

This advice doesn't just apply to the given scenario.  It works with almost any blanket statement. Try it when you find yourself being lumped in with evil-doers  because you share a sex, religion, or political leaning. 

Small Town

Jason Aldean may not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but I don't believe he's advocating lynch mobs.  I'll clarify. 

First:  Pairing footage from a BLM protest gone bad with those lyrics?  Incredibly ignorant move.  Small towns, particularly in the south, have historically dealt with black "troublemakers" by way of a noose.  Jason Aldean may not have made that connection because he isn't and never was black.  He didn't grow up being warned about Sundown Towns or Emmet Till.  But ignorance is not malice, people.  

Second: Jason, dear, they do have a point.  A simple "Oh crap I didn't realize" could have gone a long way to defuse the situation.  There should be no shame in admitting your ignorance or your error.  I've said and done a lot of things from in my straight white ignorance - and usually been forgiven when I admitted it.  

Third: It's more reasonable to believe the entire thing is a publicity stunt.  The song has been out for a while, but few seemed to notice until the video was released. Jason Aldean just happens to be opening a bar/restaurant the same summer.  I'm more inclined to think he's greedy than ignorant or racist.  

Fourth: Jason Aldean is a city boy.  He's got no idea about small towns, especially the ones with a church on every corner.  The list of people who died because they tried something in a small town is growing every day.  There is a tragic drive in small towns to conform.  Especially in towns with strong political or religious leanings.  That's what killed Brandon Teena and Matthew Shepard.  That's what got the West Memphis Three convicted of murder. 

Sequel Series

 I've noticed a couple of trends: First, the number of television shows getting not so much spinoffs or reboots, but sequels.  Second, a lot of fussing about older shows that haven't "aged well".  So I'm dusting off my Entertainment Soapbox. 

A casual list I threw together while pondering this blog post includes:  Roseanne/The Conners, How I Met Your Mother/How I Met Your Father, Boy Meets World/Girl Meets World, Full House/Fuller House, That 70s Show/That 90s Show.  In the case of Big Bang Theory/Young Sheldon, we have a prequel series.  Many of the complaints I see from viewers are along the lines of "they're pushing a liberal agenda" or "they've betrayed the original".   (All writers are pushing an agenda, whether we know it of not.  See my previous rant on that subject.)

I think, at least in certain cases, these complainers are wrong.  The Conners seems very much in the spirit of the original - only the political climate has changed. It was okay for Roseanne to encourage young DJ not to be racist, but now that he's married to a black woman, that's offensive.   The character of Gina has a history with the family and seems to be as well written as any secondary sitcom character. 

A sequel series that does seem to be guilty of "pushing a liberal agenda" is That 90s show.  There's been a lot of talk among fans about timeline inaccuracies, but I don't let that bother me much because the original show's timeline was wonky as hell and because some of these questions might be explained eventually.  My problem stems from Ozzie.  The rest of the gang is as well written as the original in the first season, and are racially diverse, but poor Ozzie seems to exist simply as "the gay boy".   I'm all for diversity, folks, but I don't want it to be the entire character!

Now let's talk about the aging problem.  Personally, I think the entire sitcom genre is based on less-than-perfect characters.  We laugh at the character's faults, which are of course blown out of proportion for comedy.  We should keep this in mind when discussing what is or isn't offensive.

One that hasn't aged well and does have a sequel in How I Met Your Mother/Father.  The character of Barney Stinson alone gets a lot of the "not aging well" press.  Some viewers note that Ted was an unreliable narrator and had reasons to paint Barney badly. I stopped watching HIMYM when Robin and Barney divorced, and I've not seen HIMYF at all, but I hear that Barney has appeared - so maybe they can redeem him somewhat.  

The sitcom I loved that gets hate for not aging well is Friends.  Homophobia in particular is rampant in the show, but a lot of it comes from Chandler's own insecurities (remember, exaggerated for comedy).  Now, suppose they were to make a Friends: The Next Generation.  The offspring of the original gang - Erica, Jack, Emma, and Ben were all born during the run of Friends.  On his spinoff, Joey mentions that Phoebe and Mike had at least one child.  If we want racial diversity, Joey could have married or adopted any ethnicity.  If one or more of the core group is LGBT, that gives Chandler a chance to deal with his issues and redeem himself.  

I guess what I'm getting at is that these sequel series, if done well, can correct some of the problems with older shows.  But, again, these are sitcoms and by definition shouldn't be taken too seriously. 

 

Being "Woke"

 One thing I notice a lot lately is people complaining about TV shows and movies "going woke".  I can understand the complaints to a point.  If the work is historical, changing the demographics of the characters can drastically reduce the engagement of an educated audience.  Gone With The Wind gets a lot of hate for racism, but change any of Scarlett's demographics and the story does not work in a historically accurate setting.   

 I've opined in previous blogs about diversity for diversity's sake.  Tokenism is another term for it.  I think this is what a lot of the complainers are referring to. As writers are building the world of their fiction, diversity can happen naturally, as it does in the real world.  It doesn't need to be shoehorned in.  

There are shows I think of as having diversity for diversity's sake.  I just don't watch them.  If asked why I don't watch them, I would avoid using the word "woke" because that's become perceived as the cry of the -ist or the -phobe.  

All "woke" really means is aware of social injustice.  Not everyone who is woke is a fanatic about it, seeing the KKK around every corner.  Not everyone who feels a show or movie is diverse for the sake of diversity is a hater.  People, talk to each other.  Communicate in a respectful manner.  You might learn something. 

(And some of these fictional worlds were woke from the get-go, there was no becoming or going about it.  Just saying.)  

Bans and Boycotts

 I've probably pontificated on this topic before, but I'm frankly too lazy to check, so here we go. 

With the start of the school year, there is always a crop of news stories about local districts banning books.  In most cases, all that means is that a specific book has been removed from the school library.  Alarmists will tell you that these books are removed because of a racist agenda, or as a ploy to erase history from the public mind, but research into the specifics almost always lead to a parental complaint about sexual content.  (Which speaks to our strangely puritanical attitudes about sex, but I digress.)

I've said this before and I'm sure I'll say it again: A local regulation does not mean federal martial law is coming.  Some school somewhere doesn't want students to find out from them that Anne Frank had periods.  This does not mean that next week Joe Biden is going to kick down my door and take my copy of the book in question. 

This does not mean anyone is a Holocaust Denier or Anti-Semite.  If the book removed is Roots or Cujo, it probably isn't because of racism or a hatred of large dogs.  You won't find Twilight on my shelf, but that doesn't mean I hate any of the ethnicities or religious groups that might be in there.  

The bans these news articles are talking about aren't even really bans.  The library doesn't have it, but no one is likely to punish a student who gets a copy from Grandma.  Even if he totes it into the school and reads it at lunch. 

Closer to an actual ban is the thing they're calling Cancel Culture.  I know I've pontificated about this before, but it bears repeating.  We should totally boycott an entire entertainment franchise or store chain because its creator or CEO has committed an act we disapprove of?  I don't think so.

Religion (defined here as a personal belief system) and business should not mix - for either the company or the consumer.  For example, a certain company is known to support homophobic causes. Suppose we run them out of business.  Yay, we showed the homophobic CEO!  Then what happens?  How many people are going to be unemployed?  How many of those people are or have loved ones in the LBG+ community?  Boycotts hurt more than they help. 

I am not burning my books and merch from the franchises I love because the creator proves to be less than admirable.  For one thing, they already got my money when I bought the things, so I wouldn't be hurting them any! Consider the Harry Potter franchise - JKR has been running around saying some hateful things for quite some time.  Should we refuse to buy anything HP-related ever again?  Most of the movie cast has come forward and refuted her words - should they be punished by a loss of income?  Should we ignore the otherwise inclusive and inspiring message in the books?    I don't think so. 

Flawed people can make great art.  History is full of examples - most of the greats were some kind of hater, especially by modern standards. Sexual perversion is nothing new.  And there's always the question of context.   I'm not making excuses for hate - that's never cool when directed at entire groups.  I'm just saying that, if I boycott every business or franchise that's been linked to a jerk... I'd have to go live in a cave and live off roots and berries. 

Religion and politics

Why is it impolite to discuss religion and politics?  Is it really just to keep Uncle Bob and Aunt Susie from screaming at each other during a birthday party?  That's a really stupid reason to shut down intelligent discourse.  We have so many who simply swallow the Party Position or the Church Tenets without question, without thought.

My father was a Republican and a member of the NRA.  According to him, everything wrong with this country is the fault of the "damn liberal Democrats".  Barack Obama is going to kick down your door at any moment and take your guns.  Personally.  Never mind that the Founding Fathers made sure that no one person or branch of the government has that kind of power.  The fact is, we are at fault.  We need to learn, to think, and to act. Don't freak out because the Senate passed a bill you don't like - that bill still has to get through the House and the President - but do remember who voted for it.  On Election Day.  Don't blame gas prices on one dude, no matter where his office is.  Economics is something few people understand, but I am pretty sure no one is the God of Gas Prices.  (And if you're driving a Hummer towing a speedboat or huge camper, you are part of the problem, so shut up.)   The only wasted vote is the one that isn't cast!

As for religion - pretty much every religion teaches us to respect others.  The debates over gay marriage and abortion are prime examples of swallowing dogma blindly.  Whatever you believe, it isn't automatically applicable to others.  If you are Catholic, that doesn't make Pope Benny the boss of me.  It isn't your place to judge others - if those things are sins, they will eventually answer to God.

A truth pertaining to both subjects - contrary to popular belief, the USA was not founded as a Christian nation.  Don't believe me?  Look it up.