COMMENTARY

E S S A Y :

Progressives should celebrate Tinky Winky's overt queerness

I fear the issue may be tired by now, but it just won't stop bothering me. I've been feverishly mulling over it for the past month, and am now feeling compelled to vent this inner turmoil. It's about Tinky Winky.

Oh, it feels like only yesterday that I first met the Teletubbies. It was a year ago, when I was studying in England, homeland of the "technological babies." When I turned on my telly to discover a tubby running in circles, chasing a vacuum cleaner and yelling "Naughty noo-noo! Naughty noo-noo!" my reaction was something like horror mixed with delight. Over the summer I tried to get up by 1 p.m. every day so I could watch the show on PBS. Eventually I got my family hooked, and this Christmas, while pondering the top of our tree, we decided to replace our traditional angel with my talking Po doll.

In short, I feel somewhat of a connection to the show. But this essay is not about my love affair with the Teletubbies-it's about tutus, triangles, and patent leather purses.

You see, I felt strangely surprised when Jerry Falwell "outed" Tinky Winky last February, for it had always been quite plain to my eyes that Tinky was indeed a big puffy purple queen. Put together, all four of the Teletubbies suggest a cooperative of cultural diversity. Genders are equally represented, and each of the four has a distinctly different shade of skin. Check out Dipsy, the South Asian Teletubby, for example.

What really surprised me about the whole controversy was not that Falwell charged the Teletubbies with contributing to the moral degeneracy of our nation, but the extent to which the show's creators, along with the mainstream press, dismissed Falwell while perpetuating homophobia.

The immediate reaction from the show was to vehemently deny Falwell's interpretation of Tinky's (upside-down) triangular antenna and red purse as hints of his homosexuality. (Incidentally, Falwell must not yet have purchased "Teletubbies: the Album," for on the cover there's a picture of Tinky Winky in a pink tutu). US News quoted a Teletubbies spokesman as deeming the charge "absurd and kind of offensive ... It's a children's show, folks."

This attitude is reflected in the mainstream press's reporting of the controversy. The idea of an effeminate male character in a children's television show is either impossible, ridiculous, or "offensive." Falwell was accused by the spokesman for attacking "something sweet and innocent -but sweet and innocent only because he claimed Tinky to be decidedly asexual. It wasn't Falwell's homophobia that was offensive, but his explicit revelation of Tinky's "gayness."

Most irritating to me was the magic bag theory. This is the argument that Tinky Winky's favorite accessory is not a purse, but a "magic bag." Besides being a flimsy excuse, it's worthy of note that although Tinky does refer to it as his "bag," I've never seen it perform any magical acts. Moreover, "bag" is actually the British term for purse, while "purse" connotes what we call a wallet.

It's time for us all to gather around and deal with the fact that Tinky Winky is gay, and was intended by his creators to be gay. I have no way of proving this, but trust me: the British are that coy, that clever, and not half so obnoxiously puritanical as us Americans, and all these factors, combined with Tinky's iconography, point to an affirmation of his homosexuality.

What Falwell has done is, paradoxically, possibly far less damaging than the denials that the spokespeople for the show have been making. What lies latent within the denials is a subtle homophobia, and subtle forms of prejudice tend to be far more damaging than blatant ones. These are the sinister, easily overlooked prejudices that infect our lives and attitudes often without our knowing.

Perhaps it's a bit much to expect the mainstream press to defend, rather than deny, Tinky Winky's sexuality. I therefore feel that it's our obligation to do it. We, as progressives, should actively celebrate Tinky Winky as a queer character, and embrace this opportunity to teach our children acceptance of purse-carrying boys.

-Shannon Wearing, College senior

An American Holocaust, history, racism, lies and Wahoo

Have you ever pondered the reality, or lack thereof, of what a teacher or an author said? I have, mostly in history classes and for good reason. First, I take an inordinate number of history classes since history is one of my majors. Second and more important for this essay, is the euphemism, "History is 'his story'" - only the victors get to tell it. Unfortunately, this allows for the propagation of many historical lies, lies that stand as barriers to social justice and change. The lies are too numerous to name, assuming anyone knows them all, so I will only discuss one that is pertinent to upcoming events.

As the title suggests, the lie to which I am referring is the holocaust against the Native Americans, one which is continuing to this day. This lie is, in many ways, the lie of all lies underlying American history. America exists because of this holocaust, yet it is not acknowledged as such, nor is it sincerely addressed in most American history books and classes. Instead, we either act as apologists trying in vain to excuse our predecessors' actions on moral relativist grounds, emphasize historical facts that defray our responsibility, or simply ignore the facts altogether.

The first Americans killed Native Americans both directly and indirectly and stole their land. The saddest thing is that for hundreds of years their ancestors continued this immoral tradition. Americans as citizens and their government have consistently killed Indians in the name of progress and Manifest Destiny, entered into treaty after treaty only to break their word, we isolated them on reservations and then stole their children from them. I could go on for a long time, but you get the point. For those who argue that we cannot condemn them for their actions using our moral standards, I would counter that both of our moral traditions emanate from the Judeo-Christian tradition, and Christianity and its morals were even more integral to their society than it is to ours. Two other points of historical relevance can be made. I do not mean to belittle the Jewish Holocaust in any way, but who are we to condemn Hitler's Germany, we did the same thing here in America. We conquered land, ghettoized the native population and in the process killed millions because they were inferior and for the sake of convenience. There is one huge difference, Hitler's holocaust was much more organized than ours. Ours was just more insidious - we did not have the stomach for continuous, wholesale mass murder. The other point concerns South Africa. I wonder where white South Africans got the idea to isolate black South Africans in bantustans where they were to have limited self-rule over some internal issues? Bantustans sound like reservations on steroids to me.

Not only did American society commit genocide against the Native Americans and continue to do so till this very day via the policies of government agencies, i.e. Bureau of Indian Affairs, but we appropriate their identity, cultural artifacts, spirituality, etc. We give our sports teams names like Indians, Braves, Chiefs, Redskins and Blackhawks. Until recently, archaeologists and others removed items from Native American sites and museums legally kept them, which I think usually passes for stealing. Large segments are enthralled with Native American spirituality, which is an example of Edward Said's Orientalism. In my view, the most troubling of these is the team names because they are more pervasive.

As previously alluded to, a law, the Native American Grave and Repatriation Act, was passed to prevent future thievery and return already stolen items, which counts as progress; however, whether or not the law will be enforced is another question. The Orientalism, while widespread, is not as prominent as sports. Sports are watched by millions, and for this reason I argue for the pervasiveness of team names. This point may seem trivial, but it's not. What effect do you suppose it has when the only portrayals or images of Native Americans American society has is that of a smiling red-faced Indian, a tomahawk, an Indian spear point, or serious red-faced Indians replete with feathers? This concern may seem ridiculous. What's wrong with caricatures? Everything, when the caricature is the only image we possess. Aren't we honoring them and acknowledging their culture? No, not when racist stereotypes are used or when selective use is made of their culture and history. Forgive the following frank analogy, but why aren't there teams called Seattle Spooks, Houston Honkeys, New York Negros, San Diego Spics or Chicago Chinks? Would you object to such names if they existed? You should for exactly the same reasons you should object to Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Chiefs, Washington Redskins, and Chicago Blackhawks.

Next week is your chance to address your concern over all these issues and learn more about them. Monday is opening day for the Cleveland Indians. There will be a demonstration against Wahoo and the racism that he perpetrates from 10:30 to 2 p.m. at the East 9th Street and Bolivar entrance to Jacob's Field. Tuesday Ward Churchill will be giving a lecture entitled "A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Survival in the Americas, 1492 - Present" (King 106). At 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, he will be at a book-signing ceremony at the Co-op bookstore. There will even be a bonus talk by Herman Ferguson on "The Legacy of Malcolm X" on Thursday at 8 p.m. (King 106). Please come if you are interested in truth, justice, and combating racism.

-John Partridge, College senior

Back // Commentary Contents \\ Next

T H E   O B E R L I N   R E V I E W

Copyright © 1999, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 127, Number 19, April 9, 1999

Contact us with your comments and suggestions.