Reid Comments On Song

Some cultural critiques are so ludicrous, so flimsily constructed, that the mere act of dignifying them with a rebuttal feels like acknowledging a flat-earth argument. And yet here we are, once again, confronting a new chapter in the ongoing saga of canceling Christmas — this time, targeting “Jingle Bells.”

Yes, that “Jingle Bells.” The merry sleigh song that has echoed from shopping mall sound systems and second-grade classrooms for decades. According to a recently resurfaced video — shared with straight-faced enthusiasm by none other than Joy Reid, who apparently had some free time after her MSNBC show was retired to the realm of forgotten cable experiments — the beloved holiday classic is now under suspicion of harboring racism.

To trace the roots of this charge, we arrive at the musings of a Boston University professor who clarified that no, the song itself isn’t racist — but it may have debuted in a 19th-century minstrel show. That’s the whole scandal. Not the lyrics, not the tune, but the supposed venue of its earliest performance and the past affiliations of its long-dead composer. That’s all it takes now. Not content with attacking ideas, the cultural critique class has decided even the faintest shadow of historical association is enough to condemn a song, a season, and the general notion of joy.

Let’s put aside the professor’s own dismissal of the racism claim and consider what’s being suggested here: that “Jingle Bells,” with lines like “Dashing through the snow” and “Oh what fun it is to ride,” somehow constitutes an affront to modern decency. Are we to believe that “the ground is white” is now a secret code for supremacy? Must we search every sleigh ride and snowdrift for microaggressions?

The impulse here isn’t analysis; it’s absurdity weaponized as morality. And what’s most telling is the pattern. “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” was next on the chopping block — a song written in an era before cellphones, when “staying for one more drink” wasn’t a metaphor for coercion but for coy charm and mutual enjoyment. Its cancellation wasn’t cultural progress; it was the awkward venting of bitterness by those who see romance as a threat rather than a joy.

This entire spectacle serves a single purpose: to sap the season of its mirth and replace it with shame. The endgame isn’t justice. It’s control — over language, over culture, over memory itself.

Because to acknowledge the joy of Christmas — the unity it brings, the spiritual truths it represents — would be to admit that not everything is broken. And if not everything is broken, then maybe not everything needs to be torn down. That’s an unacceptable conclusion for those who derive their identity from outrage.

So, we’re left with this grim annual tradition: as people gather in goodwill, someone, somewhere will declare a carol problematic, a phrase exclusionary, or a nativity scene oppressive. It’s predictable, it’s exhausting, and it’s entirely backward.

The true offense isn’t in singing “Jingle Bells.” It’s in trying to rob the season of its joy — under the pretense of justice, armed with historical trivia, and fueled by a desire not to build anything meaningful, but to burn the old for applause.