ShareThis Page
Tom Purcell: Good grief! Critics miss Christmas specials’ points |

Tom Purcell: Good grief! Critics miss Christmas specials’ points

| Monday, December 3, 2018 7:03 p.m
Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer

Good grief!

With everything in everyday American life politicized, count on someone, somewhere, being offended by something, anything — even classic Christmas TV specials.

A recent Huffington Post tweet promoting a video about a holiday classic says “‘Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer’ is seriously problematic.”

Why? Because Rudolph’s father, Donner, verbally abuses him for being different; because Santa is a bigot who mocks Donner for having an odd son; because the school coach encourages the other reindeer to bully Rudolph; and because Donner is a sexist who tells his wife she can’t search for the missing Rudolph because it’s man’s work.

One commenter’s tweet in the video sums the criticisms up well: “Yearly reminder that #Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is a parable on racism & homophobia w/Santa as a bigoted exploitative (expletive).”

It’s unclear whether the video was intended as satirical or serious, but at this time of constant outrage, nobody would be surprised if it’s an actual criticism.

Because recent criticisms of “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” — some charge racism because black character Franklin sits alone on an old lawn chair at one side of the table — are not satire.

Such criticisms miss the point.

According to The Atlantic, the story of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” was created in 1939 by retailer Montgomery Ward , which featured Rudolph in promotional coloring books . In 1949, the story became the basis for a hit song that transformed Rudolph from “misfit to hero.”

In 1964, when the stop-motion animation Christmas special was first broadcast, a whopping 50 percent of the American viewing audience watched it.

Why? Because “Rudolph” is the ultimate underdog story.

We all know, of course, that Rudolph’s “very shiny nose” makes him different; that the other reindeer call him names; and that he triumphs over adversity. He proves his many naysayers were wrong to try to make him conform. He demonstrates that what others saw as his biggest weakness was in fact his biggest strength.

To be sure, Rudolph’s hero journey should be celebrated, and it is, by millions of viewers — many of whom posted sensible tweets showcasing why the HuffPo video so woefully missed his story’s point.

Which brings us to Franklin in “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving.” Charles Schulz introduced Franklin Armstrong in his “Peanuts” comic strip in July 1968.

“At the time, the United States was struggling with desegregation, and while the country had taken several steps to integrate the population, issues about having black and white people attend the same schools, use the same bathrooms, or appear in the same comic strips were still matters of substantial controversy,” reports

In other words, Schulz took a big chance by introducing a black “Peanuts” character. Correspondence with Harriet Glickman, a teacher in Los Angeles, explains why.

According to NPR, Glickman wrote Schulz a letter explaining why a black Peanuts character “could play a small part in promoting tolerance and interracial friendship.”

Schulz wrote back, explaining that he considered her suggestion, but “he worried that if he created such a character, black parents might think he was condescending to their families.”

Nonetheless, despite backlash from some newspaper editors and other naysayers , Schulz introduced Franklin, using “Peanuts” to help, as best he could, quell our divisions.

Schulz was courageous, not racist.

That such context must be provided to counter critics of America’s long-beloved Christmas specials makes me want to say one thing.

Good grief!

Freelance writer Tom Purcell of Library is author of “Misadventures of a 1970s Childhood.” Visit him on the web

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.