Recommendations of the editorial team
Chuck Norris, on March 10, not only birthday (his 85th), not only counted twice to infinite and played through chess. Chuck Norris also does not believe in the theory of evolution, believes that large parts of the universe have been created by a so-called “intelligent author”, would prefer to abolish marriage for everyone and think it is right in the middle of the growing number of gauge at US schools to enter an advertising deal with a weapon manufacturer. Chuck Norris doesn’t work at all.
And no, you can’t just let entertainment to be entertainment – insofar as you want to put nine seasons “Walker, Texas Ranger” or the Republican fever dream “Invasion USA” in the mere proximity of an entertainment product. Anyone who – in whatever direction – is publicly committed to themselves, can no longer be considered detached from their artistic work. And Chuck Norris consciously decides to use his pop -cultural standing and his awareness as a platform for his political activism.
A wolf in intellectual fur
“But it wasn’t a problem in the past,” may have replied some. Another debate is whether this was actually the case. The fact is that Chuck Norris, which is more than 50 years of spanning film and television career, have not only changed the very individual taste of the audience, but the society and its values. And if Chuck Norris does not live in a time bubble, he has to position himself for these developments – and also live with the consequences of his attitude. Because the right to freedom of expression, particularly in the USA, is not the right to be heard or shielded by counter -speech in the country of freedom.
But why do you still pay attention to Chuck Norris? Because Chuck Norris is not a public more radical, does not run around with a white robe or transfers the Proud Boys a monthly membership fee. Norris likes to give himself as an intellectual who only asks questions and thus distracts from his holey arguments. This can be seen particularly well in a contribution that Norris wrote for the right-wing conservative online magazine “Townhall”.
In it he represents the scientific consensus of evolution theory as “prevailing orthodoxy” and accuses educational institutions to have become “limited learning environments” due to prejudices against God, the Bible and Creationism. And ultimately, he asks: “Why can’t different theories about the origin of life be presented outside of scientific courses? Isn’t education based on presenting a wide range of knowledge and opinions? “
Apples with pears, science with faith
And he is right. No sensible person will seriously question this statement. But these questions are fog candles with which he veils his dubious positions. He mixes science with faith, facts with opinion. This is the famous comparison of apples with pears. And whoever believes that the company – to put it a little simplified – has to control gut feeling in a certain direction is dangerous.
In another text for “Townhall”, Norris argues against the law of homosexual people – to marry – under the guise of tolerance. He demands this for declared LGBTQIA*opponents like himself and accuses the progressive other side of only preaching tolerance, but not granting it. But tolerance stops exactly at the point where another tries to limit it.
Context is king
Everyone has to decide for themselves which consequences are drawn from statements like this. If a production company Norris’ values do not want to represent values, that’s okay. Selling his DVD collection with the Ollsten Norris ham is also okay. Criticizing Chuck Norris is not only okay, but essential. We know this not only from Germany, but also very well from the United States: every taboo break shifts the border of what is said a bit further towards Extreme. And from words become deeds. In the end, did the Capitol of the United States and try on a dilettant state prank.
Should Chuck Norris be deleted from pop cultural memory? No. He can continue to mime the law-and-order ranger. Just like “blown away by the wind” is still worshiped as a cult classic, even though he relativizes slavery and propagates racism and misogyny. Just like the stories “Huckleberry Finn” and “Pippi Longstocking” in no more current editions with the N-word and still like to be pressed into children. The main thing remains to take a critical look at the material and to show who expresses what in which context. Because we remember: Words become deeds.