ARCHIVES
EDUCATION | COVID-19 | TECH | SOCIAL | WORK | ENVIRONMENT | POLITICS | CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Don’t forget to subscribe ›
Know the difference between canceled and accountability.
Water is a necessary natural resource needed to live a sustainable life. Humans are made up of about sixty percent of water and, in addition to it being essential for the body, it is the most important substance for cleaning, bathing, washing, and many other things. When it comes to cities that are mostly comprised of Black and Brown citizens, proper maintenance and availability to the basic necessities—such as water, in this case—are sometimes overlooked or deemed as unimportant or not as urgent as those living in predominantly white neighborhoods. Blatant disregard for these Black and Brown populations shows up more often than not but mostly during some sort of environmental crisis or natural disaster.
Happy Thursday, and welcome back to the Anti-Racism Daily! I was disappointed to see this news get convoluted into something more than what it is. Not only does it add noise to a time where fast and accurate information is critical for our wellbeing, but it also detracts from the rare instances where organizations hold themselves responsible for change. I think this is a good case study in media literacy and looking past sensationalized headlines.
This newsletter is a free resource made possible by our paying subscribers. Consider giving $7/month on Patreon. Or you can give one-time on our website, PayPal, or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza). You can also support us by joining our curated digital community. Thank you to all those that support it!
Nicole
Ps – yes, I know that MI is for Michigan and MS is for Mississippi. That was a typo.
TAKE ACTION
If you are reading books with a child that depicts harmful racist stereotypes, have an honest discussion with them about it. More resources from Learning for Justice.
Explore the diverse books recommended for 2021 by the National Education Association.
Pay attention to how “canceled” is used in conversations about race. Who is on the defensive? What were the actions taken? Where did the conversation originate from?
GET EDUCATED
By Nicole Cardoza (she/her)
March 2 was Read Across America Day, an initiative launched in 1998 to celebrate reading across the U.S. The day was started to commemorate the birthday of Theodor Seuss Geisel who wrote iconic children’s books under the pen name Dr. Seuss. But this year, the news was lit up with shocking allegations that Dr. Seuss was officially canceled for promoting racial tropes in his work. A school in Virginia banned his books. President Biden slighted him in a speech. And on Tuesday, the organization that manages Dr. Seuss’ anthology was forced to stop publishing his works. Altogether, these read as serious developments at first glance but, is the controversy valid?
One thing for certain is that there are definitely racist tropes in Dr. Seuss’s work. This conversation is not new, in fact, Dr. Seuss himself acknowledged and apologized for the harm (Dr. Seuss Art). In a study from 2019 titled Research on Diversity in Youth Literature, researchers Katie Ishizuka and Ramon Stephens analyzed all the published children’s work of Dr. Suess and found that only two percent of the human characters were people of color. All of those characters were depicted using harmful racial caricatures that are unacceptable today (St. Catherine University).
Consequently, organizations have acted accordingly. In 2017, the National Education Association rebranded Read Across America which is held on March 2 each year in honor of Dr. Seuss’ birthday to focus only on the celebration of reading and, specifically, the need to read diverse books (Edweek). These changes are reflected by others celebrating the day including school districts. Loudoun County Public Schools, the school district in question, had to publish an update on their website explaining just that (lcps.org). And although President Biden is the first president not to name Dr. Seuss in his public acknowledgment, it’s likely more to stay aligned with the NEA’s talking points than a direct attack on the Dr. Seuss’ legacy.
It’s also true that some of Dr. Seuss’ books are “canceled”, but not because of public outrage. Dr. Seuss Enterprises, the organization that manages Dr. Seuss’ anthology, announced that they made the decision to cease publication and licensing of only the books that depict racist tropes. The announcement indicated that this decision was made sometime last year after an external review. None of these books are the popular ones Dr. Seuss is known for. Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, If I Ran the Zoo, McElligot’s Pool, On Beyond Zebra!, Scrambled Eggs Super!, and The Cat’s Quizzer are the six books that have been removed. (Suessville).
The controversy this year is less about the issue itself, but more on how it’s being spun by conservative media which is blaming the “woke mob” and “cancel culture” for “destroying” the institution of Dr. Seuss’ whimsical rhyming children’s books. Nothing here is destroyed; the majority of Dr. Seuss’ books will still be sold, organizations will celebrate the importance of reading, and we’ll continue to acknowledge the harm of promoting racist tropes in kids’ books. This wasn’t brought about by a mob of protestors but instead were decisions made by a national organization and the company that represents Dr. Seuss’ legacy. These clear and straightforward calls for accountability have been weaponized to insinuate that they’ve caused more harm than they actually have.
The controversy around Dr. Seuss is one of many recent examples of the conservative uproar over change, particularly expressed in the media. According to conservatives, The Muppets were canceled after Disney added content warnings to some of the old episodes that showcased harmful stereotypes (Vulture). Mr. Potato Head fell victim to the woke mob when Hasbro—sort of—dropped the Mr. and Mrs. from the brand name and logo to make the characters more gender-inclusive (AP).
These misinformation initiatives detract from the necessary efforts of both individuals and organizations to promote diversity and inclusion. They also attempt to discredit efforts to address sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. By disparaging those that seek change, conservatives believe they can reshape the narrative to act in their favor, often completely ignoring the facts most central to the issue; in this case, that some of Dr. Seuss’ work can be harmful for youth.
There’s a wide berth between accountability and cancelation, and we should applaud those taking steps to move forward instead of defending the outdated norms that exist. Although the actions of Dr. Seuss aren't forgiven, the most we can do is take accountability and do our part to move forward.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
After conversations around racist stereotypes found in Dr. Seuss' work rose again alongside Read Across America Day, the organization that represents his work announced they are ceasing the sale and publication of the books in question.
Critics decried the move as an attack by the "woke mob" and their attempts to "cancel" Dr. Seuss entirely, misrepresenting recent actions by the President, a Virginia school district, and the official Dr. Seuss organization.
This is one of many examples on how conservative media and leaders wield "cancel culture" and "wokeness" against those taking accountability and working towards change.
RELATED ISSUES
2/5/2021 | Stop white centering.
12/13/2020 | Acknowledge whiteness in classical art.
12/8/2020 | Learn how to apologize.
PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT
Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.
Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza
Understand the role of cancel culture.
Get daily actions in your inbox. Subscribe Now ›
It's Friday!
Today's email is canceled, like everything and everyone else this year (kidding). But cancel culture is having a moment in the press this week, and I think it's important to note the role it's played in the movement over the past few weeks – and how it mirrors social movements of the past.
There's been so many thoughtful responses to newsletters this week. I'll be writing a recap and answering some questions in tomorrow's newsletter, so don't forget to send in your thoughts by replying to this email. Separately, if you identify as non-white and have a story to share in an upcoming newsletter, send us a message.
And as always, you can make a one-time contribution on PayPal or Venmo (@nicoleacardoza), or contribute monthly on Patreon to help us grow.
Nicole
TAKE ACTION
1. Consider the steps you would take to hold a public figure accountable for a racist action. How would you gain their attention? How would you measure success?
2. Reflect: How have others held you accountable in the past? How would you prefer to be held accountable in the future? How would you want to be held accountable as a public figure?
GET EDUCATED
Trump said enough this week for a whole spin-off series of the Anti-Racism Daily, but one comment in particular stood out to me. It was when he addressed the nation on Fourth of July weekend about a "growing danger that threatens every blessing our ancestors fought so hard for". Was it COVID-19? Systemic racism? His consistent bans against immigration? The desecration of Native lands?
No. It was "cancel culture" (NPR).
There's been countless examples of people getting "cancelled" lately because of racist allegations, from racist white women caught on camera, to Youtube personalities, journalists and CEOs, and everyone in between (Fast Company). But cancel culture, or a public call for withdrawing from a public figure (or company) that's doing something harmful (usually via social media) isn't new. It was popularized in the mid 2010's by Black Twitter (Vox).
In a way, canceling someone is akin to a boycott; a public call-to-action not to participate with an individual. Anne Charity Hudley, the chair of linguistics of African America for the University of California Santa Barbara, reflected on this in a fantastic long-form article on cancel culture in Vox from 2019 (Vox). So from that perspective, cancel culture has even deeper roots. Hudley emphasizes that cancel culture is "a survival skill as old as the Southern black use of the boycott". We know that boycotts were not just a comprehensive part of the Civil Rights Movement (Anti-Racism Daily), but persist in other movements, too, including the #MeToo movement (Dictionary), the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement in Palestine (Middle East Monitor) and the Delano grape strike (History). And since in today's time, cancel culture is usually fueled online, the boycott becomes actionable from anywhere – allowing a much wider audience to join in, and perhaps a more swift takedown.
Naturally, as tensions rose this past month, instances of canceling did too. In a way, it felt like the digital equivalent of the physical protests. Online canceling likely gained rapid attention for the simple fact that more people are at home and plugged into social media than ever before (Business Insider). Also, in an article for Blavity, writer Anjana Susarla emphasizes that these types of controversy are exactly what social media algorithms love, so they naturally gain traction and visibility (Blavity).
Over the past few years (and especially now), many people have said that cancel culture has "gone too far". In fact, last week an open letter signed by over 150 artists and intellectuals was circulated, warning that cancel culture is eliminating the opportunity for free speech and civil discourse (NYTimes). Last fall, former President Barack Obama encouraged people to get past the idea of always being "politically woke" and remember that all people have flaws (CNN). Another popular argument against cancel culture is around its perceived effectiveness. Although celebrities are often canceled for racist, sexist, ableist, etc. actions, they rarely experience significant setbacks in their careers a result (Vox). Blavity goes so far to say that "canceling is a privilege (among many others) of the rich."
“When they throw around terms like “cancel culture” to silence me instead of reckoning with the reasons I might find certain actions or jokes dehumanizing, I’m led to one conclusion: they’d prefer I was powerless against my own oppression”.
Sarah Hagi, writer for Time
Any tool can also be wielded as a weapon, though, and there's undoubtedly instances of cancel culture out there that don't create actionable change. Oftentimes, cancel culture becomes harmful when it's applied in horizontal power structures, against others that have more complex, intersectional identities, and ask more than the capacity of the individual or company to respond (Vox). It can be used to publicly shame someone or to act out some personal vendetta. Also, you could argue that some do it hoping to boost their followers and voice.
But personally, I always come back to the structural inequities that fostered the culture that we live in. It's easier for people in positions of power to discredit cancel culture, perhaps because they are worried about what they could lose (Time). An instance of cancel culture may seem "new," but it's more likely the culmination of calls for accountability that went left unheard – like by HR professionals who didn't properly address toxic work environments, a board of directors who looked the other way when a CEO repeatedly caused harm, or media platforms that give public figures more exposure despite recent harmful statements. To escalate recent conversations on racial discrimination in the workplace, brave people of color had to break NDAs, navigate unemployment, and carry the stress of 2020 while also holding these brave and difficult conversations. Not all instances of cancel culture are good, but the practice itself is sometimes the only way marginalized folk can ensure their voice won't get lost in a system that was designed to silence.
Remember – usually cancel culture creates consequences for people with incredible privilege and power when they wouldn't have received it otherwise. No only do we need to hear marginalized voices, we need to set better examples for how we actively dismantle white supremacy.
In a way, Trump is right. We do have a growing danger in America when it comes to cancel culture. But that's how our system operates at default: it cancels the culture of systemically marginalized communities and limits their right to be heard. Some argue Trump is leading that charge (Washington Post). We can't tip the scales too far in the opposite direction and lose sight of our goals. But we must be nuanced with how we brand cancel culture. Otherwise, we could discredit both this form of protest and the invaluable stories that need it to be heard.
“Holding someone accountable isn’t the same thing as “cancel culture.” There’s too many people out here who haven’t acknowledged their mistakes, apologized for them, nor have they gone on to make amends; that are using “cancel culture” to shield them from accountability—do better”.
Ashlee Marie Preston, media personality, activist and journalist, on Twitter.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Cancel culture is akin to a digital boycott of a person, usually a powerful public figure
Canceling someone is an attempt to hold them accountable
Although aspects of cancel culture are being used in harmful ways, the practice of accountability is necessary for creating change, and minimizing future harm
PLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT
Thank you for all your financial contributions! If you haven't already, consider making a monthly donation to this work. These funds will help me operationalize this work for greatest impact.
Subscribe on Patreon | Give one-time on PayPal | Venmo @nicoleacardoza