Art is NOT political. Art may be political or not, that is a choice the artist makes. And what is political about a child’s drawing? The child in your example loves his or her mother and thinks unicorns are cool. How can anybody suggest either of those statements is political and expect to be taken seriously.
It is typical of left wing activists to try to make a political issue of everything, but it quickly becomes ridiculous. It somebody has a dump on their national flag, that is political (and likely to get you killed in many third world countries,) but having a dump is not a political act although I have heard left wing activists try to suggest it is.
Grits? African American? Well the name of the dish may be but that’s the only thing American about it. Grain ground into powder and prepared in this way was eaten all over Europe from the neolithic era (some time before Europeans settled the Americas I think,), although probably not in its modern form in Scotland where they would have used oatmeal rather than cornmeal. Same with collard greens, the plant it native to Spain, Portugal and southern France although similar plant species grow everywhere in Europe, but not in Africa. So what is your point? That freed slaves renamed stuff poor whites ate?
Well the truth is academics are wrong 99% of the time because they spend all their lives in libraries with their noses buried in books and so know nothing of real life.
Don’t get me wrong here, I love to read and have learned a lot from reading, but experiencing real life lets me put what I learn from reading into context. When JMW Turner painted a rainbow in the early 19th century it was just a picture of a rainbow. Now any depiction of a rainbow could be given a political meaning, but to suggest Turner’s rainbow expressed support for LGBT causes would be wrong. That’s context