Have Your Say

Like this?

An analysis of Baa Baa Black Sheep from a post-colonial, critical theory perspective.

As we know, many children’s stories – and indeed adult works, have been deemed offensive from the above perspectives and have required editing in order to conform to modern sensibilities. Examples include works by Dr Seuss and Ian Fleming.

There has been little however, in the way of critical evaluation of children’s nursery rhymes. Today, we examine the well-known rhyme, “Baa Baa Black Sheep” and look for problematic content within it.

First off we have “Baa Baa”. “Baa baas” is a shorthand for “Barbarians”, which sounds very much like a cultural slight, and perhaps a racist, nationalist dog-whistle to boot.

Then we have “black sheep”. Clearly grossly offensive. Not only is there a reference to the sheep’s colour, but a “black sheep” is traditionally the bad member of a family. So clearly “black sheep” is being used here in a derogatory sense.

Next we have the question, “Have you any wool?”. The sheep may or may not have produced any wool, and asking it whether it has may provoke anxiety in the sheep – undoubtedly a micro-aggression. Further, there is the implication that the sheep SHOULD have produced wool and therefore the sheep’s worth is being measured solely by that criterion and not others, such as whether the sheep does charity work, or is trans.

“Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full”. Obviously the sheep is being oppressed, as it speaks submissively, using “sir”, and repeats the word as if almost anxious about replying. It then continues with “three bags full” – this is clearly a reference to the Holy Trinity. There should be no place for religious references in children’s rhymes; besides which, as we have already noted, the contribution of the sheep to society should not be judged solely by its wool output. Such ideas are inherently cis-white male constructs.

Even more concerning is the next line – “One for the master”. This is a throwback to a colonial era where the black sheep was subjugated and exploited by a colonial male oppressor. Enough said.

“One for the dame”. Quite apart from having gendered the master and now, subsequently, the dame, the reference to “dame” again suggests subservience and obeisance by the sheep. And of course any reference to nobility is undesirable – there must be equality of outcome

“And one for the little boy”. More gendering. It’s also a boy receiving some wool – not a girl or a trans-woman. Further, the sheep as the actual producer of the wool has yet to see any benefit from its production – it hasn’t received a share, or at least we are not told whether it has. Were the sheep to be part of a collective, it could share the bounty, rather than producing wealth for the colonialist oppressors.

“Who lives down the lane”. The word “lane” evokes images of a country village. The countryside has been deemed to be racist so the imagery is disturbing.

Having dissected the rhyme, we may now suggest a revised version, more in keeping with today’s ideals:

Morena rainbow sheep*
I hope you’re well, today
Yes thanks, yes thanks, it’s great to be gay
My pronouns are they/them
And I’m vegan
And f**k your systemically racist, patriarchal, colonial society

*the animal identifies as a sheep.

Reproduced with permission 🙂