No, SpongeBob SquarePants is not a violent colonialist

A senior academic claims the talking sponge is whitewashing American militarism.

Callum Breese

Topics Culture USA

A senior lecturer at the University of Washington has published a 10,000-word report purporting to expose the evils of the popular Nickelodeon TV show, SpongeBob SquarePants.

Professor Holly M Barker argues that the children’s cartoon is guilty of ‘the whitewashing of violent American military activities’ towards the indigenous people of the Pacific’s Marshall Island during the Cold War. She draws a connection between Marshall Island’s Bikini Atoll and the fictional underwater town of Bikini Bottom, where SpongeBob lives. Indigenous people on the island were told to leave their homes so that the US military could test out its nuclear weapons, making the lands desolate and uninhabitable.

Because of this ‘Bikini’ connection, SpongeBob SquarePants is an apologist for colonialism and its legacy, apparently: ‘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 US hegemonic powers to extend their military and colonial interests in the postwar era.’

You read that right. The affable, erratic, talking sea sponge who lives in a pineapple-shaped house with his pet snail is spreading imperialist and militarist ideas to your children before they shoot off to school every morning. My mum should have pulled me away from the telly when she had the chance.

At least Baker’s article – ‘Unsettling SpongeBob and the legacies of violence on Bikini Bottom’, to give it its full title – acknowledges that the show’s writers were probably unaware that they were promoting such themes. Nevertheless, Baker fears that children are unknowingly being ‘acculturated to an ideology’ of US hegemony. If that wasn’t bad enough, Baker also worries about the careless cultural appropriation practised by Bikini Bottom’s residents, especially as the show features lots of anthropomorphised fish wearing Hawaiian shirts. Meanwhile, SpongeBob’s neighbour, Squidward Tentacles, lives in an Easter Island head.

Baker’s bizarre article is a shocking reminder of the institutional dominance of wokeness in academia and the humanities in particular. Academics increasingly see it as their duty not to understand and explain artworks but rather to expose their moral failings – even something as innocent as a cartoon about a talking sea sponge is now scoured for evidence of racism.

It also illustrates how wokeness is degrading education. There is a similar internet fan theory, believed to have originated on Reddit, that connects Bikini Bottom to Bikini Atoll. The theory goes that the underwater sea world inhabited by SpongeBob is the product of US nuclear testing – and the radiation caused him and his strange friends to come to life. But while such theories might be a fun distraction for internet users, why are they being taken seriously in academia?

‘Unsettling SpongeBob’ recalls the so-called Sokal Squared hoax performed by three academics last year. Helen Pluckrose, James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian submitted pseudo-academic papers to woke journals. Titles of articles included ‘fat bodybuilding’ and ‘the infrequency of male anal masturbation’. One accepted submission was a feminist revision of a chapter in Mein Kempf. We can assume Baker’s report, on the other hand, is meant to be taken seriously. In an article in the Conversation, she says she has discussed these ideas with her anthropology students.

While Baker’s attack on SpongeBob Squarepants may seem amusing, the prevalence of wokeness in academia is a serious problem. We need to confront the nonsense of wokeness and stand up for rigorous educational standards, for the humanities – and for SpongeBob.

Callum Breese is a writer based in Sheffield.

Let’s cancel cancel culture

Free speech is under attack from all sides – from illiberal laws, from a stifling climate of conformity, and from a powerful, prevailing fear of being outed as a heretic online, in the workplace, or even among friends, for uttering a dissenting thought. This is why we at spiked are stepping up our fight for speech, expanding our output and remaking the case for this most foundational liberty. But to do that we need your help. spiked – unlike so many things these days – is free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you want to support us, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even £5 per month can be a huge help. You can find out more and sign up here. Thank you! And keep speaking freely.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Ven Oods

30th October 2019 at 8:16 pm

Am I the only one surprised that the bikini ‘swimwear’ didn’t also merit a woke-mauling?
Open goal missed there, I fear.

Jane 70

30th October 2019 at 3:02 pm

Can we expect an intersectional post modern deconstructionist woke critique of Flat Stanley any time soon?
His experiences must be suitable for a dodgy Ph,D thesis.

Alvin McNeely

30th October 2019 at 12:54 pm

Understanding the absurdity of Ms. Baker’s paper would best be understood if read in the “accent” SpongeBob had to use to communicate with the inhabitants of the really deep part of the ocean when he and Patrick Star visited the BalloonWorld amusement park. As the kids would comment, jus’ sayin’.

Michael Lynch

30th October 2019 at 9:40 am

Is it any wonder that Universities have been churning out self righteous morons for the last decade.

Jonathan Smith

30th October 2019 at 9:31 am

Back in the day, when I was at university and the tyranny of post-modernism was just getting into it’s stride, people lapped up this thin gruel as if it were prime steak. Those who chew on rags and stones will want for nourishment… And teeth.

Dominic Straiton

30th October 2019 at 9:10 am

I could guess correctly Ms Bakers opinion on everything.

Ian Wilson

30th October 2019 at 6:21 am

I appreciate the point being made in the article, but do you actually think anyone will take this idiot person seriously? If someone is so stupid as to actually believe this rubbish, then there is nothing any of us can do to stop it – let common sense prevail.

Philip Humphrey

30th October 2019 at 8:52 am

Fat chance of that in academia. Ms Barker may have absolutely nothing meaningful or relevant to contribute to our understanding of the human condition, but there are plenty more like her. “Critical theory”, so common in academia is really a pseudo scientific /moralistic way of looking at the world by dividing people into “oppressors” and “oppressed” and seeing everything in those terms. And if you see everything in terms of hatred, then you end up with nonsense like seeing an innocent and rather funny children’s cartoon as an imperialist propaganda piece by the oppressors.

Weyland Smith

30th October 2019 at 9:12 am

Amelia Cantor will be along shortly …

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.

Deplorables — a spiked film