Black sheep, white sheep
It’s all just mutton on the table.
Would the real Emerald Z. Gibb please step forward.
Emerald Z. Gibb writes a children's story story about a sheep called Robert who, finding himself ostracised by the other sheep because he has black wool, goes in search of others like him. And having found them, he lives happily ever after. But the book founders on the rock of literary reviews which accuse the author of racism. The book is banned from schools and public libraries.
Is the book ‘racist’?
It depends on the agenda of the reviewers and how they interpret it. It’s really just a version of the ugly duckling story, although Robert’s still a sheep at the end of the tale. It could also mean that we will eventually find our niche in life and people with whom we share things in common. Birds of a feather.
Is the book ‘racist’?
It depends on the agenda of the reviewers and how they interpret it. It’s really just a version of the ugly duckling story, although Robert’s still a sheep at the end of the tale. It could also mean that we will eventually find our niche in life and people with whom we share things in common. Birds of a feather.
Would the real Emerald Z. Gibb please step forward.
And when she does, not only is she black, but she’s most indignant about the equation the reviewers have been making, black sheep = black person.
But the damage has been done. The book disappears from the shelves and is forgotten until some radical South American group claims that it’s a metaphor for racial discrimination by white people. Suddenly the book’s back on the menu and Gibb is speaking out for all those who are discriminated against. The book is republished as a manifesto for toleration and equality before the law.
Should schools reconsider their position?
Perhaps, er, not. The book does seem to have ceased to be a story for children and I don’t find that I’m convinced by the new interpretation anyway. Also, just as the book was considered injurious when it was thought to be a racist tome, isn’t the new interpretation also injurious because it implies that (all) white people are racists? That can’t be helpful.
But the damage has been done. The book disappears from the shelves and is forgotten until some radical South American group claims that it’s a metaphor for racial discrimination by white people. Suddenly the book’s back on the menu and Gibb is speaking out for all those who are discriminated against. The book is republished as a manifesto for toleration and equality before the law.
Should schools reconsider their position?
Perhaps, er, not. The book does seem to have ceased to be a story for children and I don’t find that I’m convinced by the new interpretation anyway. Also, just as the book was considered injurious when it was thought to be a racist tome, isn’t the new interpretation also injurious because it implies that (all) white people are racists? That can’t be helpful.
Tomorrow, the man who talks in his sleep.
Comments