October 16, 2019
The face of pure evil is square
Most people who have stronger political beliefs than average often tend to interpret books, movies and other entertainment based on those views.
That being said, I’m pretty sure this is the stupidest take I’ve ever heard of.
A university professor deemed the beloved cartoon “SpongeBob Squarepants” “violent,” “racist,” and “insidious” in a scholarly article.
University of Washington professor Holly Barker published her musings on the yellow sponge cartoon character and his deep-sea pals in an academic journal called The Contemporary Pacific: A Journal of Island Affairs, which features “readable” articles focused on “social, economic, political, ecological, and cultural topics.”
Holly Barker is an “anthropologist.”
I put the word in commas because anthropology, the real kind, does not exist anymore, because Jews – especially this Jew – have destroyed it to the point where it’s a dead science, and nobody who has a degree in it or teaches it deserves any kind of attention (unless they say something really stupid that I can write an article about).
In her article titled “Unsettling SpongeBob and the Legacies of Violence on Bikini Bottom,” Barker’s chief complaint hinges on her perception that the show’s fictional setting of the town of Bikini Bottom is based on the nonfictional Bikini Atoll, a coral reef in the Marshall Islands used by the U.S. military for nuclear testing during the Cold War.
The indigenous people of the area were relocated during the testing, which eventually rendered the area uninhabitable due to residual radiation. Barker finds it unjust that SpongeBob and his pals be allowed to “occupy” the area when the nonfictional indigenous people of the area do not have the option to return to their homeland.
I’m reasonably certain that whoever made SpongeBob was thinking about something else entirely when he named the place Bikini Bottom.
I mean really, how many of you had even heard of these particular savages until you read this?
As an “American character,” SpongeBob supposedly has the “privilege” of “not caring about the detonation of nuclear bombs.” In order to demonstrate this, the professor quotes one of the show’s writers, who said that the main character is “a guy who could get super-excited about a napkin but wouldn’t care if there was an explosion outside.”
“The detonations do not cause concern for the characters, as they did for the Bikinians, nor do they compromise SpongeBob’s frequent activities, like visiting hamburger joints or the beach with friends,” writes Barker.
Those guys really should change their name, it sounds really goofy.
SpongeBob and his friends supposedly perpetuate the past injustices against the indigenous people of Bikini Atoll through “SpongeBob’s occupation and reclaiming” of the nonfictional location’s lagoon. The setting of the show, Barker says, is “symbolic violence.”
“Although the U.S. government removed the people of Bikini from the atoll above the surface, this does not give license to SpongeBob or anyone else, fictitious or otherwise, to occupy Bikini,” insists Barker.
“SpongeBob’s presence on Bikini Bottom continues the violent and racist expulsion of Indigenous peoples from their lands (and in this case their cosmos) that enables U.S. hegemonic powers to extend their military and colonial interests in the postwar era,” she added.
Imagine spending 4 years of your life listening to this inane gibberish and thinking you’re actually learning something.
Who does that?
Barker also attempts to dissect and problematize the cartoon’s theme song with academic phrasing.
“The first act of the song is to have children identify who resides in the pineapple house,” she explains. “The children’s response, repeated extensively throughout the song, affirms that the house and Bikini Bottom are the domain of SpongeBob.”
“The song’s directives, ensconced in humor, provide the viewer with an active role in defining Bikini Bottom as a place of nonsense, as the audience is instructed ‘If nautical nonsense be something you wish…drop on the deck and flop like a fish.’”
By participating in the theme song sing-a-long, Barker says “the viewer becomes an unwitting participant in the co-opting of Bikini’s story and the exclusion of the Bikinian people.”
So all I have to do to genocide these coconut niggers is watch the show and sing along?
This is really making me reconsider my anime-only policy…
While Barker admits that the show’s creators likely did not have “U.S. colonialism” in mind while developing the cartoon, she calls it “disturbing” that they did not realize that “Bikini Bottom and Bikini Atoll were not theirs for the taking.” Consequently, Barker suggests that “millions of children” have “become acculturated to an ideology that includes the US character SpongeBob residing on another people’s homeland.”
In this way, colonialism is supposedly “produced, reproduced, and normalized” through the cartoon.
As if fictionally “occupying” nonfictional land were not enough, Barker also accuses the cartoon of being biased against women.
The professor complains that “all of the main characters on the show are male,” except for Sandy Cheeks the squirrel, whom she suggests was only created in order to boost the gender diversity of the show.
“The name ‘Bob’ represents the everyday man, a common American male, much like a ‘Joe,'” Barker observes, concluding that “our gaze into the world of Bikini Bottom, as well as the surface of Bikini, is thus filtered through the activities of men.”
Imagine how easy it is to be a woman in academia.
You just point a finger randomly at something, make shit up about how evil and Nazi it is, and make more money than most people who actually work for a living.
And the bonus is that anyone who points out what a useless retard you are is also an evil Nazi.
You goyim happy with this?