Eratosphere

Eratosphere (https://www.ablemuse.com/erato/index.php)
-   General Talk (https://www.ablemuse.com/erato/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   On beyond zebra! (https://www.ablemuse.com/erato/showthread.php?t=32897)

Martin Elster 03-31-2021 05:52 PM

On beyond zebra!
 
And then they came for ON BEYOND ZEBRA!

Racist imagery is one thing, but we must also beware performance art masquerading as enlightenment.

John McWhorter

https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p...-for-on-beyond

Roger Slater 03-31-2021 06:11 PM

He can keep his copy of the book. That doesn't mean that the Seuss estate needs to keep publishing it if they don't want to. It's not cancel culture when you choose to cancel yourself. It's just a publishing decision. No one should be forced to publish a book they don't want to.

Julie Steiner 03-31-2021 06:53 PM

Most of my brief but glorious career as a librarian was in the Geisel Library at the University of California at San Diego, which occasionally presented a display of the anti-Japanese propaganda that Theodor Geisel created during WWII. Geisel's dedication of Horton Hears a Who to his "Great Friend, Mitsugi Nakamura of Kyoto, Japan" is widely seen as a sort of atonement for some of that.

People's views evolve. Geisel's did. That of the managers of his estate now has, too, although the cynic in me suspects that this was done because they saw it as a smart business decision, more than for any other reason.

Of all the terrible things going on in the world right now, the "censorship" of a few of Dr. Seuss's minor books doesn't crack my personal top ten. If it cracks John McWhorter's, he has every right to feel that way, and to say so. But I also have the right to think his priorities might be a little out of whack, and to say so, before I turn my limited attention to things that are more important to me.

John Riley 03-31-2021 09:06 PM

His estate doesn’t want to continue publishing the books. Get over it.

Roger Slater 03-31-2021 09:17 PM

It can be a smart business decision as well as a sincerely principled decision. They want to preserve the Seuss brand as one that is untainted by values that most of Seuss's best work stands opposite.

Mark McDonnell 04-01-2021 11:50 AM

This kind of thing has always happened. I remember old 1940s Tom and Jerry cartoons with racist stereotypes on TV in the 70s when I was little and then they quietly disappeared*. Someone in charge at some point made a decision. A sensible one, I think. Maybe the key word here is "quietly". The Seuss Estate can do what it likes with its own books, of course, but I do wonder why it needed to turn this publishing decision into a very public birthday announcement:

"Today, on Dr. Seuss’s Birthday, Dr. Seuss Enterprises celebrates reading and also our mission of supporting all children and families with messages of hope, inspiration, inclusion, and friendship.
We are committed to action. To that end, Dr. Seuss Enterprises, working with a panel of experts, including educators, reviewed our catalog of titles and made the decision last year to cease publication and licensing of the following titles:And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, If I Ran the Zoo, McElligot’s Pool, On Beyond Zebra!, Scrambled Eggs Super!, and The Cat’s Quizzer.These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong."

It seemed guaranteed, almost designed, to bring out the silliest catastrophizing from both conservatives and liberals. Which it has.

From the ridiculous and permanently outraged Ben Shapiro:

"In the end, the only literature allowed will be the literature that adheres to the values of our postmodern world — a world in which we are not expected to conform to societal rules but society is expected to conform to our own acts of self-definition. That means your child reading “I Am Jazz” but never — never, Gaia forbid! — the Bible. It means goodbye to cultural icons, large and small — goodbye to all vestiges of the past, replete with their “bigoted” value systems.
It means that the purges have only just begun."

https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion...s/202103130006

From the reality-challenged Meena (niece of Kamala) Harris:

"I have two young daughters, and I’ve spent countless hours looking for books that would reflect their experiences and encourage their ambitions. As a new parent, I was surprised and frustrated by how hard it was to find those books. Often, I was forced to improvise on the fly – changing pronouns from “he” to “she” or “they,” and sometimes even resorting to coloring a White character’s skin with a brown marker. So I took this news [the Suess decision] as a small but significant milestone for the millions of other parents of color who have struggled with the same challenges…Inevitably, though, when I do read my daughters stories with representation that falls short, I encourage them to follow along with a critical eye. I ask questions about what’s missing: why don’t we know the women characters’ names? Why don’t they speak? Or even, where are they?"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spo...mp-content=amp

(Really? After "countless hours" of searching she can only find children's books with unnamed, silent female characters or no female characters at all? Apart from several that popped into my head immediately, a Google search of "strong female characters in children's books" and "strong black girls in children's books" took a matter of seconds to produce hundreds of results https://coloursofus.com/250-children...g-black-girls/
The article is basically an excuse to plug a children's book she's written.)

Equally ridiculous statements, both of them.

Some of the images in the Seuss books are dated and racially stereotyped and I understand the reasons behind withdrawing them. But if the Seuss Estate's main concern was, as Roger suggests, "to preserve the Seuss brand as one that is untainted by values that most of Seuss's best work stands opposite" then making such a public statement about their ceasing publication of these minor titles (something that barely anyone would have otherwise noticed) has backfired spectacularly. Instead, they've made Suess a pawn in the interminable culture wars. In a lot of minds he is now tainted, officially "problematic", suspect and defended only by the right and this will override his messages of tolerance, his pioneering environmentalism and his imaginative genius for words and pictures. And what has been achieved? Is America more racially harmonious? Have any people of colour had their lives improved? Nope. Just more noise and performative bullshit from all concerned.

*though they’re still available on DVD

John Riley 04-01-2021 12:16 PM

Actually, Mark, I saw a number, which I now admit I forgot, but there has been a huge and I mean really huge increase in sales of Dr. Seuss books since the BS started. I owned a publishing company for years that was directed to young readers and I wish I had thought of this. "We have decided to remove our biography of Andrew Jackson because he was a genocidal sociopath" and then found a way to let Fox News get ahold of our press release. I could have hurried back to the press for a couple hundred thousand copies and would have that beach house now.

Julie Steiner 04-01-2021 12:33 PM

Oh, what a birthday week for Dr. Seuss books -- AP
By HILLEL ITALIE
March 11, 2021

Quote:

More than 1.2 million copies of stories by the late children’s author sold in the first week of March — more than quadruple from the week before — following the news that his estate was pulling six books because of racial and ethnic stereotyping. For days virtually every book in the top 20 on Amazon’s bestseller list was by Dr. Seuss.

According to NPD BookScan, which tracks around 85% of retail sales, the top sellers weren’t even the books being withdrawn. “The Cat in the Hat” sold more than 100,000 copies, compared to just 17,000 in the previous week. “Green Eggs and Ham” topped 90,000 copies, and “One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish” sold around 88,000.

The six books going out of print are “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street,” “If I Ran the Zoo,” “McElligot’s Pool,” “On Beyond Zebra!,” “Scrambled Eggs Super!,” and “The Cat’s Quizzer.”

Dr. Seuss was born on March 2, 1904, and sales traditionally go up during his birthday week. But this year they likely received an extra shot because of those most opposed to the estate’s decision. Conservatives soon responded with allegations of “cancel culture,” as Fox News provided extensive coverage and such prominent Republicans as House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy released videos of themselves reading from Seuss books.

Mark McDonnell 04-01-2021 12:36 PM

John, that's evil-genius level double bluffing by the Seuss Grinches haha. Anyway, that's the last time I comment on politics or culture war nonsense.











(April fool)

Julie Steiner 04-01-2021 12:38 PM

Well, Mark, you can see how well I am turning my limited attention to other things, as I so sanctimoniously proclaimed a few posts ago.

James Brancheau 04-01-2021 01:07 PM

Well, it's good that Geisel's views evolved, ha. My lord. I'm sure those in the conversation here have seen those images. I think choosing to get rid of those books are in part an effort to salvage his image. A fire alarm should have gone off at least 30 years ago.

Martin Elster 04-01-2021 01:11 PM

After seeing those neat rhymes in McWhorter's article, my curiosity grew so that I wanted to read On Beyond Zebra. So I looked on Amazon last night and saw that the least expensive copy was around $250. Today it was reduced to $197. I'm not quite that curious!

Mark McDonnell 04-02-2021 07:25 AM

Quote:

Well, Mark, you can see how well I am turning my limited attention to other things, as I so sanctimoniously proclaimed a few posts ago.
Indeed, Julie. Ditto. What the hell are we doing here?

Something you said earlier made me think.

Quote:

Of all the terrible things going on in the world right now, the "censorship" of a few of Dr. Seuss's minor books doesn't crack my personal top ten. If it cracks John McWhorter's, he has every right to feel that way, and to say so. But I also have the right to think his priorities might be a little out of whack.
This argument about "priorities" is used a lot in the so-called "cancel culture" debate to dismiss or frame a different view in a negative light. But it's used by people on both sides of the debate so really it's self-defeating: "why is bemoaning the loss of some 70 year old books your priority when there is so much real injustice in the world?" versus "why is defending the withdrawal of some 70 year old books your priority when there is so much real injustice in the world?"

Really, the "why is this your priority?" argument could be used about literally anything in any circumstances. Why are you learning to juggle? Don't you know there are people starving in the world? Why are you writing an article about medieval poetry? Don't you know that malaria is killing thousands of people every day? Why are you practicing for an amateur production of the Pirates of Penzance? Don't you know... etc etc

Basically, people are allowed their interests and opinions and very few of us are saints. As someone whose areas of expertise are linguistics, semiotics and race this seems fairly well within McWhorter's remit.

I've probably used this rhetorical gambit myself, Julie, so I'm not having a go at you. It just occurred to me and struck me as interesting.

Roger Slater 04-02-2021 07:51 AM

I think that the announcement by the Suess Foundation was entirely appropriate. If you're going to do something on principle, then it makes sense to announce it. They didn't just want to quietly phase out the books and hope no one would notice, but they wanted to make a point. Either it was sincerely held principle, or it was a business judgment that the entire Seuss line was being tainted by a growing perception that Seuss was a racist. By publicly singling out a handful of titles to withdraw and stating their reasons, the suggestion is that all of Seuss's books have been reexamined with modern eyes and the remaining books pass muster. Rather than avoiding Seuss in general, because you never know where the racism will crop up, people can now be comfortable that the Seuss books remaining for sale are suitable for politically correct parents and their children.

For those of us who happen to think they made the right decision to withdraw those books, to criticize them because we assume that they made the decision for less principled and pure reasons than our own, strikes me as unfair. I would hope that all for-profit businesses decide to make business decisions, even if also financially motivated, that comport with the more elevated moral principles of those of us whose finances are unaffected.

Max Goodman 04-02-2021 09:00 AM

There's reason to hope the decision was 100% about business. We'll never take business out of business decisions. If this was purely a business decision, supporting diversity is (the Seuss folks believe) good business.

The more we speak out and show a determination to spend our money in ways that we feel support our values, the more corporate decisions will reflect our values.

Kevin Rainbow 04-02-2021 12:19 PM

There's no proof that such depictions are in any way harmful or racist in nature and motive or even suggestion, especially in the context of people who are least likely to try to read such things into them - children. Cartoonish depictions are by nature meant to exaggerate things, including physical features, which inevitably extends to race and culture - since all of us have race and cultural mannerisms. Race and culture aren't "God"; you can touch them. Merely depicting them in a playful way doesn't qualify as harmful and hateful.

When you reduce racism to benign exaggerations of physical features in the context of merely having fun and telling a story, you have really given people a reason not to think "racism" is all that serious an issue anymore. "The boy who cried wolf" is crying "racism". There's an elephant in the room, but people are pointing at a fly instead and calling it the elephant instead. Those calling the fly an elephant begin to think a fly is an elephant and those seeing a fly called an elephant more and more expect a fly when they hear "elephant". When you arrive at the scene, instead of finding real racism, what you find is merely the label slapped on some toyish thing , surrounded by mobs specially self-trained to be hypersensitive snobs engaged in politically correct nitpicking and others who pretend to be offended under peer pressure because it seems the right thing to do, and authors and creators caving under the threat to their public image. The crap on TV is fine, violent video games and movies, sleazy music, an internet flooded with porn. Let's target cartoonish depictions for, well, being cartoonish depictions including features of race and culture..

We all know it is not real racism. There's no real racist nature or motive here, and no one's brain is made prone to racism by merely viewing some cartoonish exaggerations or distortions in the context of everything else being exaggerated and distorted as well by the fact of it naturally being part of the art and medium it is in. Children can tell the difference between cartoonish depictions and real life. They don't think rabbits talk simply because they watched bugs bunny, or think humans and dinosaurs coexist because they watched flintstones.

Such superficializations of "racism" are an insult to and distractions from fighting against real racism.

Martin Elster 04-02-2021 12:35 PM

Good points, Kevin. I've been reading excerpts from John McWhorter's new book, which really gets one to think about this stuff. Here is Serial excerpt No. 4, which includes a reference to the forced resignation of the president and board chairman of the Poetry Foundation (which has been discussed in another thread).

https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p...rogressive-755

Roger Slater 04-02-2021 01:46 PM

But should we be demanding proof that racist depictions are actually creating racist attitudes in children? If that's the case, you could have an adorable Nazi cartoon figure, or a slave delighted with his servitude and loving his massa, and no one would have the right to object unless we could point to children who read these books and turned into Nazis and slave apologists. What's wrong with deciding (not being forced, mind you) not to publish a book simply because it will be offensive?

Max Goodman 04-02-2021 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Rainbow (Post 462865)
... especially in the context of people who are least likely to try to read such things into them - children.

...

We all know it is not real racism. There's no real racist nature or motive here, and no one's brain is made prone to racism by merely viewing some cartoonish exaggerations ...

You're very lucky to be so wise and certain about things others struggle and grapple with.

Martin Elster 04-02-2021 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Slater (Post 462870)
...you could have an adorable Nazi cartoon figure, or a slave delighted with his servitude and loving his massa, and no one would have the right to object unless we could point to children who read these books and turned into Nazis and slave apologists.

I agree, Roger, that those cartoons would be extremely offensive. (And how many people in the world these days would actually buy a book like that?) But from what McWhorter said about On Beyond Zebra!, there doesn't seem to be anything even remotely close to such depictions in Dr. Seuss's book. And I'm curious to read it, but now it's a collector's item and way out of my price range. It's not the end of the world if I can't read it, though. And I agree if the publisher chooses to not publish it anymore, fine. It’s their book. But I get the feeling that they were humoring or pandering to what McWhorter calls “The Elect.” If you read that chapter I linked to in my post #17, you'll have a better sense of what that term refers to.

Orwn Acra 04-02-2021 11:09 PM

While I do think they jumped the gun on On Beyond Zebra (my favorite Seuss) and maybe others (I haven't read them) it is, ultimately, up to his estate.

I do find it ridiculous that eBay has apparently banned the banned Seuss from being sold, while Birth of a Nation and Mein Kampf are available.

Julie Steiner 04-03-2021 02:05 AM

Actually, Birth of a Nation and Mein Kampf also violate eBay's policies. And encountering those Seuss depictions as an adult, within the context of decades of interactions with people of other races and cultures, is not as all the same thing as encountering them as an impressionable kindergartener.

Martin, you and John McWhorter seem to be saying that "the Elect" just want to usurp the power to make new rules that other people have to obey.

Who are these "Elect"? Asian Americans and their allies, who have no right to be killjoys and object to the presentation to children of harmless stereotypes? Has the continued normalization of the longstanding attitude that Asians are ridiculous foreigners who don't really belong in American society been harmless lately?

Are you aware that harassment and outright attacks directed against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders is a real phenomenon? Especially recently? Perhaps you don't think that Trump encouraged anti-Asian attitudes in his followers precisely because he knew he could easily build on foundations that had already been well-laid long ago. But I do.

Does the woman quoted below sound like "the Elect" when she objects to depictions in Seuss's books that are uncomfortably reminiscent of this one, which was published on Feb 13, 1942--just six days before President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 and incarcerated tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent?

https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/rockc...2.fit-560w.jpg

The 1937 image from And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street is too big to display nicely here for comparison, so here's a link to it: https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/rockc...i t-2000w.jpg

Quote:

Though Seuss’ art has been around for decades — “Mulberry Street,” his first children’s book, was published more than 80 years ago — widespread criticism of his work is relatively recent. Karen Ishizuka, chief curator at the Japanese American National Museum in Los Angeles, said Dr. Seuss' books have been able to get away with this racism for so long in part because of the persistence of anti-Asian racism in the U.S. since the 1800s.

“No doubt, the long-standing prevalence of racist Asian imagery within the larger widespread anti-Asian sentiment in the U.S. added to the delayed response to Dr. Seuss’ racism,” Ishizuka told NBC Asian America. “Generations of Americans have grown up with depictions of Asians that ranged from grotesque to comical. Especially when buffered in Seuss’ rhyming verse, his racist depictions, already normalized in U.S. society, are put forth in jest as if they are innocuous.”

Dr. Seuss eventually edited the image from “Mulberry Street” in 1978, more than 40 years after it was first published, by removing the yellow pigment from the Asian man’s skin as well as the pigtail, and changing “Chinaman” to “Chinese man.” But the character’s slanted eyes remained.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-a...m-long-rcna381
The revised image was still problematical. He's still depicted as a circus freak, just like the man on the facing page, who has a "ten-foot beard / That needs a comb." The clear message: being Chinese makes someone an oddity to be gawked at for the entertainment of "normal" (i.e., White) Americans.

In 2017, three well-known authors of children's books criticized the amended portrayal's inclusion in a mural in a Seuss-themed museum:

Quote:

The Amazing World of Dr. Seuss Museum in Springfield on Tuesday unveiled its redesigned mural, months after its previous mural, which was revealed on the museum’s inauguration, was criticized as reinforcing racial stereotypes.

The museum also installed a wall label, “Dr. Seuss in Historical Context,” which explains the evolution of the racial attitudes of the children’s book author, a Springfield native whose real name was Ted Geisel.

The museum had its grand opening in July. The first-floor indoor mural at that time featured characters from Seuss’ first book, “And To Think That I Saw It On Mulberry Street,” which was published in 1937. One of the characters was a Chinese man with slit eyes, wearing a pointy hat and holding chopsticks.

Kids’ book authors Mo Willems, Mike Curato and Lisa Yee protested. “We find this caricature of ‘The Chinaman’ deeply hurtful, and have concerns about children’s exposure to it,” Willems wrote in a letter posted on Twitter and signed by all three. “While this image may have been considered amusing to some when it was published 80 years ago, it is obviously offensive in 2017.” Yee and Curato are Asian American.

Willems, Yee and Curato withdrew their participation in the museum’s Children’s Literature Festival, which had been scheduled for October. The museum later canceled the festival.

[...]

The new mural, installed on top of the old mural, includes characters from “Mulberry Street,” as well as more than a dozen other Seuss stories. A museum statement called the new painting “a celebration of Dr. Seuss’s wonderful journey starting on Mulberry Street and ending with ‘Oh, the Places You’ll Go’.”

Beyond that statement, museum officials would not comment.

The new wall text describes Geisel’s childhood surrounded by immigrants: “Ted’s visual world was steeped in what some might now consider racially charged imagery.” It describes unnamed racial characters as exemplifying “images that were common in illustration as short-hand for ethnicity.” The wall text further explains that “The Sneetches,” written in 1961, was a parable about human dignity, which used birdlike creatures instead of people and was beloved by President Barack Obama.

“Does the fact that Dr. Seuss changed over time make it OK that his early imagery in children’s books is no longer comfortable for readers?” the text asks. “We hope all who visit will strive to see Dr. Seuss in historical context and celebrate the fact that a person can change and grow over time.”

https://www.baltimoresun.com/hc-fea-...outputType=amp
The letter on Twitter has since been taken down. It would not surprise me if it was taken down as part of the agreement to revise the mural. I did find sections of the letter quoted or paraphrased in a few news accounts:

Quote:

In their statement, the authors said they had privately appealed to have the mural taken down, or for the museum to “provide context” for the image, which shows a Chinese man with chopsticks in his hands, slits for eyes, and a pointed hat. Otherwise, they wrote, “[d]isplaying imagery this offensive damages not only Asian American children, but also non-Asian kids who absorb this caricature and could associate it with all Asians or their Asian neighbors and classmates.”

When their requests were denied, Curato, Willems, and Yee announced that they were backing out of the festival, which was slated for October 14.

In protesting the mural, the authors sought to draw a distinction between the painting and the author, noting that “the career of Ted Geisel, writing as Dr. Seuss, is a story of growth, from accepting the baser racial stereotypes of the times in his early career, to challenging those divisive impulses with work that delighted his readers and changed the times.”

With the image displayed as a standalone, however, they wrote that the museum was undermining the story of Geisel’s transformation by leaving small children to interpret it for themselves. “While this image may have been considered amusing to some when it was published 80 years ago,” they concluded, “it is obviously offensive in 2017 (the year the mural was painted).”

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...uss-mural.html
I find the three authors' objection to that image's inclusion in the mural to be pretty nuanced, not a knee-jerk reaction from cancel culture.

BTW, the decision to stop publishing these six titles was made by Dr. Seuss Enterprises (a private business), not the Dr. Seuss Foundation (a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation).

James Brancheau 04-03-2021 12:33 PM

I don't think any book, for adults, should be banned. But Julie beat me to it. Children's books are another thing entirely. (I know the Seuss books was a corporate decision, but just saying.)

Martin Elster 04-03-2021 01:07 PM

Julie, as a child, I knew nothing of Dr. Seuss. My mother sang Hungarian folk songs to my brother and me. I first encountered Dr. Seuss a few years ago, read a couple of the books, and thought they were fun. (I don’t recall which titles they were.) But now I see that Geisel had a darker side (especially the anti-Japanese propaganda he created during WWII). (I wonder if McWhorter knows anything about that side of him.) Now I have zero interest in his books. I thought the topic of this thread might generate some interesting discussion, which it certainly has!

Added in: Having read the Springfield Children’s Literature Festival article, I see that Geisel had grown and transformed. So my interest in him is maybe slightly more than zero now.

James Brancheau 04-03-2021 01:18 PM

Martin, much of Dr. Seuss is wonderful. One thing for sure lacking with kids is a lack of imagination. Or maybe I'm just getting old. Or both are true. One is true. I think that's what cancel culture is. Don't deny them of Dr. Seuss because Geisel was a flawed man.

Martin Elster 04-03-2021 01:34 PM

Quote:

Don't deny them of Dr. Seuss because Geisel was a flawed man.
Good point, James! I'll keep that in mind. The books I read of Dr. Seuss I found to be quite a lot of fun. (I wish I could remember their titles.)

Julie Steiner 04-04-2021 12:40 AM

I think Theodor Geisel is a useful role model for imperfect people (the only kind that exists) because he, too, was visibly imperfect. He kept trying to use his talents to the best of his ability to make a positive difference in the world, and that ability changed for the better over time. Martin, of Seuss's story books, I think you would particularly like the environmental parable of Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, and also Horton Hears a Who!, in which a compassionate elephant goes to great lengths to save a microscopic community facing grave existential threats because he can't convince his neighbors that it even exists, because only his ears are sensitive enough to hear it. But many of Seuss's books are playful early readers that are more about discovering the joy of language than anything else.

I am strongly opposed to book banning that is intended to restrict adult access to controversial materials. Adults should be able to access any book they want--Mein Kampf included--so that they can see what all the fuss is about firsthand and make their own judgments. (Yes, even if those judgments are not in accord with mine.)

That said, I also think adults should be made aware that certain books are controversial, and they should be given the opportunity to examine those books for themselves before deciding whether or not their own children (but not the whole community's children!) should be given or denied access to them. My own public library publishes lists of banned books for children and young adults, which I used to use to identify books that might generate interesting conversations with my young daughters.

I notice that some of the same conservatives now publicly decrying the "censorship of Dr. Seuss" have previously campaigned to get other books banned from public libraries--e.g., Daddy's Roommate, Heather Has Two Mommies, and anything glorifying witchcraft. Which makes me think that their problem is not with censorship and book-banning per se, but with whether their own team or the opposing one seems to be "winning" at it.

Jim Moonan 04-04-2021 07:19 AM

.

Kevin: “Children can tell the difference between cartoonish depictions and real life. They don't think rabbits talk simply because they watched bugs bunny, or think humans and dinosaurs coexist because they watched flintstones.”


Where to begin? This is patently false — Or at the very least grossly misleading. It smacks of simplification and indifference/ignorance about the development of the human brain and the windows of learning that present themselves from birth. It is a convenient way of dismissing adult responsibility to provide guidance, protection and context for children as they wade into the ever-widening waters of interactions with the world. It’s a laissez faire attitude towards dynamic education. It is the opposite extreme of cancel culture. Find your way back to the middle.

The Seuss books are considered a prominent resource for development of
reading/apprehension/language skills during the crucial early childhood years (0 — 5 years, which is who Seuss books are written for). What makes the Seuss canon so effective is that they attract the child’s imagination through graphic depictions that compliment word content of the books, augmenting the language with graphic pictures that are integral to forming a sturdy bridge to learning during early years.

The act of reading to your child is arguably the best activity you can engage in, not just because it develops listening/language skills and provides a window to learning about the ever-widening world, but just as importantly because it allows the parent to engage in conversation with the child about our culture, our values, indeed our reason for being in the process.
There is no single being that is the same as anyone else. Children are more nuanced and free-thinking than you give credit. Eventually, down the developmental road when enough learning has taken place and enough physiological development has taken place, then yes, they will be expected to distinguish between what is a "cartoonish depiction and real life". But no one is born with the innate ability to sort things out on their own. Cognitive, social, emotional, language and speech skills are the unfinished business of life. Indeed, it is never finished.

Where should I point you to help you begin your decidedly more difficult re-education.......? You’re smart. I’m sure you'll find it on your own if you care enough learn.

I’m buoyed by the Seuss foundation’s proactive efforts to preserve the value of Geisel’s genius.

.

Martin Elster 04-04-2021 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie Steiner (Post 462908)
I think Theodor Geisel is a useful role model for imperfect people (the only kind that exists) because he, too, was visibly imperfect. He kept trying to use his talents to the best of his ability to make a positive difference in the world, and that ability changed for the better over time. Martin, of Seuss's story books, I think you would particularly like the environmental parable of Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, and also Horton Hears a Who!, in which a compassionate elephant goes to great lengths to save a microscopic community facing grave existential threats because he can't convince his neighbors that it even exists, because only his ears are sensitive enough to hear it. But many of Seuss's books are playful early readers that are more about discovering the joy of language than anything else.

I am strongly opposed to book banning that is intended to restrict adult access to controversial materials. Adults should be able to access any book they want--Mein Kampf included--so that they can see what all the fuss is about firsthand and make their own judgments. (Yes, even if those judgments are not in accord with mine.)

That said, I also think adults should be made aware that certain books are controversial, and they should be given the opportunity to examine those books for themselves before deciding whether or not their own children (but not the whole community's children!) should be given or denied access to them. My own public library publishes lists of banned books for children and young adults, which I used to use to identify books that might generate interesting conversations with my young daughters.

I notice that some of the same conservatives now publicly decrying the "censorship of Dr. Seuss" have previously campaigned to get other books banned from public libraries--e.g., Daddy's Roommate, Heather Has Two Mommies, and anything glorifying witchcraft. Which makes me think that their problem is not with censorship and book-banning per se, but with whether their own team or the opposing one seems to be "winning" at it.

Thanks, Julie, for suggesting those storybooks. I'll check them out. I, too, am against banning books. And I agree that parents should be allowed to examine whatever books they may or may not choose to show to their children.

Censorship is bad. Trying to "win" some ideological battle is not a healthy way to live in society.

Mark McDonnell 04-05-2021 02:51 PM

I do understand the urge to say things like "His estate has withdrawn the books. Get over it" because a good proportion of the people complaining and suddenly buying up second hand copies may well be arseholes. I think it's too simplistic to think that if conservatives don't like something it must be a wholly good thing. There is also an urge to mock the idea that this is "cancel culture" (that silly phrase that only blustering conservatives use) because the Seuss Estate voluntarily made the decision to stop printing the books. I do wonder, though, exactly how voluntary it was and how much influence and pressure was exerted by the unnamed "experts and educators" mentioned in the Seuss Estate's statement. Making a gesture by sacrificing six books to protect your brand against the possible threat of constant accusations of racism isn't exactly a voluntary act. Anyway, I can't stop having a conversation with myself about this so I've come back for one last long think aloud. Whether we call it "cancel culture" or not, six books have effectively been banned. Not quietly allowed to go out of print because they weren't selling (some were and some weren't, though none were among Seuss' big sellers), but because they have very publicly been deemed "harmful and wrong". Voluntarily withdrawing a book to which you own the rights because you are convinced it is causing harm is pretty rare and seems something worth talking about. The only other example I can think of (perhaps people know others) is when Stephen King allowed his novel Rage to go out of print and convinced his own publishers to pull it. The novel, published in the 70s, is about a high school student who shoots his teacher and takes his classmates hostage. When school shootings increased in the 90s and some perpetrators were found to own the book and one actually mentioned it as an influence, King decided to pull it saying "I pulled it because in my judgment it might be hurting people, and that made it the responsible thing to do.”

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/...-printed-again


Whether you think King was right, the decision seemed to be one of sincere conscience. Certainly, the causal link between artistic product and potential harm seemed as strong as it ever can be in that case, though this area is always a controversial one. The "morally corrupting" influence of popular culture, especially youth culture, has always traditionally been the province of conservatives and the religious — attempts to ban horror comics, rap, metal and punk music, "blasphemous" films, teen fiction that "promotes" homosexuality etc — and I've always instinctively and philosophically been on the side of the artists, as I'm sure many here have. Restricting culture for moral or ideological reasons is something that should always be taken seriously and I see no reason to take a "get over it" approach just because the instinct to censor is coming from a supposedly left ideology and the people mostly pissed off are conservatives.

The Seuss Estate doesn't actually specify what parts of the withdrawn books are "harmful and wrong" which isn't exactly helpful. But I do wonder exactly how the word "harmful" fits as an accurate and justified definition of some of the images. In And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street the most likely candidate is one illustration of a "Chinese man who eats with sticks" (the image's original yellowish skin tone had already been removed and the words "Chinaman" changed to "Chinese man" in 1978).

https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.VxgaK3...id=ImgDet&rs=1

To me, he seems to be presented as an entirely friendly, benign figure. Yes, he in stereotypical traditional costume and yes, he is part of a circus-like parade of 'things seen on Mulberry Street' but in the context of Suess-world everything is a circus and everything is rendered as an oddity: birds and beasts, staircases and bridges, toppling piles of plates, men with top hats or bowler hats or turbans or giant moustaches or elongated legs. To a child, the world is a circus and things that are different are interesting. Children's lives are very centred around food — being told what to eat, when to eat, how to eat — and the notion of eating with chopsticks is fascinating to a child who has grown up with a knife and fork. It was to me. I remember being determined to master chopsticks when the McDonnell's first encountered Chinese cuisine. Yes, I realise this means the image "centers whiteness" and yes, it appears quite old-fashioned to modern sensibilities but I question whether presenting cultural difference to a child in a playful way is inherently racist or has anything at all to do with concepts like "harm" or "hate". Of course, one of the ironies of the general complaint that Seuss' world "centers whiteness" is that getting rid of all his books that feature pictures of people from other cultures on the grounds that they are "exoticised" means that the books that remain feature only white people.

The fact that we are talking about children's books rather than adult literature might make things different for some people. But I question the idea that children must necessarily have their literature shorn of any notion that some of it was written in the past, where people did and thought different things. What reasonable parents, including Chinese ones, reading to their pre-schooler and encountering this image, couldn't simply say "y'know, this is quite an old book and in the olden days when Dr Seuss wrote this, people in America and Europe used to think it was funny that Chinese people used chopsticks to eat but now we're much more used to different ideas from all around the world, aren't we?" Remember, the Chinese man isn't presented as a villain. He isn't sinister in any way. He is simply there, smiling, using chopsticks and wearing a pointy hat. Children aren't stupid. When I was growing up in the 70s British comic books were full of national and racial stereotypes: French people with onions round their necks, turbaned Indian snake charmers, smiling Chinese people in pointy hats, Australians with corks around their hats, hairy Scots in kilts, Native Americans in feathered headdresses, English toffs in bowler hats and umbrellas. Even at a young age I knew not to associate any of it with the real world and none of the images inspired suspicion or hatred in me. It was the world as a colourful circus. And by the time I moved out of my predominantly white small town and became friends with some people from other cultural backgrounds I can say with some confidence that these cartoonish images had no influence on how I reacted to them and bore no relation to how I viewed them. I realise this is anecdotal and I'm not saying we should go back to relying on these kind of silly stereotypes in current children's literature but I think there has been an overreaction in current efforts to erase the past entirely and to be so full of fear about the idea of playful depictions of "difference".

I think it's quite a leap to make the causal link between the image in Mulberry Street and a news story about a recent violent attack on an elderly Asian American woman.

McWhorter makes a good case for the images in On Beyond Zebra (which sounds brilliant btw) also being pretty harmless and Walter (the only person who appears to own the book) seems to concur.

Every case has to be taken on its own merits of course. The other Seuss books may be worse. And something like the rewriting of the Oompa Loompas in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, discussed in the article below seems more justified.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...hildrens-books

Their original presentation as an African tribe being shipped across the ocean to Wonka's factory, a fate they happily accept, could justifiably be called "harmful and wrong". It not only seems to make light of a barbaric period of history, it also has the racist implications that African people were better off as slaves and happily accepted their treatment.

Simply presenting an image of a Chinese person in traditional dress using traditional eating implements doesn't seem the same thing to me and doesn't carry the same weight. I struggle to see what is derogatory or harmful about it.

The Guardian article is interesting. It tries to make a reasonable case for why the Seuss "cancelling" is nothing new (and therefore nothing to worry about unless you're a "conservative talking head"). But all the examples it gives are of books being slightly rewritten or updated, not withdrawn completely. I wonder why this compromise wasn't possible with the Seuss books with some appropriately subtle minor changes? Would "A Chinese man doing magic tricks" be acceptable if he were dressed in a more contemporary way? It would be easy enough for a talented artist to redraw one image for future editions, surely. Basically, it does seem disproportionate, and a shame, to banish some of these books entirely from existence, Mulberry Street amongst them -- his first children's book and therefore of some historical literary significance. It seems like a gesture rather than something done to prevent a genuinely perceived potential for "harm".

Finally, given that the Seuss people have concluded that the books do need to be withdrawn, the Guardian article also, in its use of words like "quietly" and "without fanfare" inadvertently highlights another difference between these older examples and the current story. If the books must be withdrawn (rather than updated which seems a reasonable compromise to me) I stick to my original point in my first post of wondering why the big public announcement on Seuss' birthday was necessary. I think there is something in the current climate that seems to require that everything be a performative statement and I don't know if this is the best way to achieve the presumed goals of racial harmony. It seems to only add fuel to the ongoing culture wars which feel terminally divisive and are simultaneously driving us all mad and boring us all to tears.

Julie Steiner 04-08-2021 01:45 PM

Mark, in your household, did you read the original version of The Sleeping Beauty, in which the king impregnates her with twins while she's still sleeping and can't give consent, and then he murders his wife when she objects to his adultery?

No? But isn't that a classic story, too? Don't children need to stay in close touch with history, through exposure to what was once thought to be acceptable children's entertainment, but no longer is?

Times change.

The alternatives for the representation of non-Whites in children's literature were once limited to stereotypes or nothing at all. But this is no longer the case. There's no need to cling to Dr. Seuss's problematical representations by claiming that without them, there would be no diversity. That's just not true.

This passage from one of Seuss's biographers suggests that Geisel would have [Edited to say: Nah, that's too presumptuous--"might have" is more like it] been concerned if he had realized that even after his amendments to the "Chinaman," his depiction might still contribute to negative experiences for minority kids:

Quote:

Before Ted reached his tenth birthday, his family suffered a dramatic change in status, resulting from the anti-German prejudice of World War I. After the war broke out, in 1914, Geisel's German identity became a negative principle, the quicklime in which the family's reputation dissolved. Ten endured verbal abuse and threats of physical violence as he traveled to and from school each day. Schoolmates yelled, "Hun!" "Drunken Kaiser!" and, more ominously, "Kill the Kaiser's Kid!"as they threw rocks and brickbats at Ted and his sister, Marnie. Geisel's memories of his childhood would later oscillate between recollections of privileged security that derived from his paternal grandfather's status in Springfield society and the anxiety he experienced as the target of anti-German prejudice.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4141409...o_tab_contents
(The whole article is actually pretty interesting, and discusses Seuss's "Springfield Cycle" books, all three of which are among the six that are no longer being published. Everyone has free access to 100 JSTOR articles for free by logging in.)

If many (not all, but still many) people of color today say that they find Dr. Seuss's ethnic portrayals either downright offensive, or simply limiting...and if many (not all, but many) adult Asian Americans say that their White classmates took the reinforcement of stereotypes like those in Dr. Seuss's books as permission to torment them for their differences...why can't the books with problematic content be retired, to make room for some of the TONS of other good children's books (including many by Seuss himself) that are not burdened by that baggage?

Martin Elster 04-08-2021 03:28 PM

Mark and Julie,

Thanks for conveying your various thoughts and views. It’s all interesting and I’m learning things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julie Steiner (Post 463127)
If many (not all, but still many) people of color today say that they find Dr. Seuss's ethnic portrayals either downright offensive, or simply limiting...and if many (not all, but many) adult Asian Americans say that their White classmates took the reinforcement of stereotypes like those in Dr. Seuss's books as permission to torment them for their differences...why can't the books with problematic content be retired, to make room for some of the TONS of other good children's books (including many by Seuss himself) that are not burdened by that baggage?

Julie - That reminded me of this episode I just watched a couple of days ago. I think you would enjoy it. (I’ve been watching episodes from the first season the last few days on Amazon Prime Video. I especially enjoyed the Pilot Part 1 & 2, which is about residents at a retirement home called Havencrest.)

Highway to Heaven - Season 1, Episode 11: Dust Child

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp-UVhXzjog

“Dust child”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bụi_đời

Mark McDonnell 04-08-2021 03:40 PM

Hey Julie,

I suppose my last post covered everything I thought I had to say about this, including my key point that rather than being withdrawn the books could simply have been updated (like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and many others). I'd like it to be up to individual adults to decide what they read or what they allow or encourage their children to read in what will always be an imperfect world. It isn't about the folly of "clinging on" to Seuss or "making room" for other books. There's no lack of room. I'm not suggesting these books be mandatory or that individual libraries or schools be forced to promote or even stock them (hardly anyone was reading them anyway). I just don't like banning books.

I don't want to argue any more because I like you too much and I know this is a subject that's personally close to you. Also, I accept I'm probably onto an unpopular loser. As someone instinctively on the political left in most areas, I don't really want to be arguing for positions that are similar to ones that people who appear on Fox News take, and I sometimes wish they weren't the only ones taking them. I certainly don't want to be arguing for the continuation of racial bullying, if that's what you think the position I'm taking entails. All I can say is I've thought about this carefully and something just doesn't sit right with me about it, and many other things like it. You've probably gathered that by now.

Much love and respect to you.

Mark

(edited down, because for someone saying "I don't want to argue with you any more" I did a lot of arguing initially.)

Martin Elster 04-09-2021 02:01 PM

Mark, I don't like the thought of banning books, either. And I agree with this also:

Quote:

...rather than being withdrawn the books could simply have been updated (like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and many others). I'd like it to be up to individual adults to decide what they read or what they allow or encourage their children to read in what will always be an imperfect world.

James Brancheau 04-09-2021 05:07 PM

Would you want your kids to watch culturally sensitive hardcore porn, Mark? I mean, probably it's better, generally. But, banning stuff isn't necessarily along political lines. It's just common sense. I wouldn't want my kids, hypothetical kids (I think) to take that portrayal of asians to heart, for example.

Julie Steiner 04-10-2021 12:23 AM

But James, an author would surely expect pushback if they tried to put hardcore porn into a children's book.

In contrast, an author trying to expand children's cultural horizons by presenting a less limited range of humanity--surely a good impulse, but a taboo-strewn minefield if the implementation is clumsy--probably wouldn't expect that sort of pushback. Especially if their work is being judged decades later.

As authors ourselves, we are probably all at least a bit concerned about having our artistic freedom curtailed and our character impugned. It happens fairly frequently, in varying degrees, right here on our own Accomplished Members board, when people can't resist commenting on the editorial stance of a particular venue that someone has chosen to publish in. I've been on both ends of those sorts of judgments. And the idea that certain people aren't allowed to write from certain perspectives, no matter what, can rankle. The more adventurous among us will probably want to experiment to figure out the boundaries of what's acceptable and what's not. Even so, with some notable exceptions, the consequences of getting it wrong are usually far more serious for the people being misrepresented than for the authors.

Since my own kids, and 100% of my nine nieces and nephews, are half white and half Asian (either Chinese, Persian, or Indian), I'm far more interested in the perspectives of young readers, and in possible negative impacts on them and among their classmates as a result of stereotyped cultural depictions, than in the possible negative impacts for writers and artists, who are adults, and generally have more of a choice about risking negative attention.

I'm currently reading Arthur Ransome's mostly-wonderful Swallows and Amazons series to my half-Indian nieces, as I did to my half-Chinese daughters at their age, but there are frequent mentions of casual white supremacist/colonialist attitudes toward "natives" and "savages" and "Eskimos" that require some comment. And I'm skipping Peter Duck and Missee Lee entirely, since those two books are wayyyyy too racist to salvage, even though in general, Ransome's portrayal of realistic, smart, brave female characters alongside his realistic, smart, brave male characters is pretty awesome. It's quite refreshing after reading The Hobbit, in which the only named female character was Belladonna Took, Bilbo's deceased ancestor.

Mark McDonnell 04-10-2021 05:43 AM

Hey Julie,

I did say I didn't want to argue any more and I assume/hope that's why you didn't respond directly to me. I hope I didn't finally manage to piss you off, in other words. Anyway, I'm back, which is probably very annoying of me. Sorry. But I want to show where I think we are in agreement. You said

Quote:

I'm currently reading Arthur Ransome's mostly-wonderful Swallows and Amazons series to my half-Indian nieces, as I did to my half-Chinese daughters at their age, but there are frequent mentions of casual white supremacist/colonialist attitudes toward "natives" and "savages" and "Eskimos" that require some comment.
This seems like exactly the sort of good, responsible parenting (aunting?) I had in mind when I said about the Seuss "Mulberry Street" book

Quote:

I question the idea that children must necessarily have their literature shorn of any notion that some of it was written in the past, where people did and thought different things. What reasonable parents, including Chinese ones, reading to their pre-schooler and encountering this image, couldn't simply say "y'know, this is quite an old book and in the olden days when Dr Seuss wrote this, people in America and Europe used to think it was funny that Chinese people used chopsticks to eat but now we're much more used to different ideas from all around the world, aren't we?"
I suppose after all the talk it comes down to the simple question of whether one thinks the Seuss books should have been banned or not. Not whether they are culturally outdated, or should be recommended reading, or how offensive or potentially harmful any individual personally finds them on a scale of 1 to 10. But whether they should actually be banned. James, for instance, thinks it's "common sense" that they should and many seem to agree.

I know slippery slope arguments are annoying and can sound alarmist and, again, Fox News-ish but is there really any reason why, if the Seuss Estate has set this precedent, other publishers might not feel pressured into following suit? In three, or six months or a year isn't it feasible we might be having the same conversation about the Ransome novels or any number of others?

Basically, since offence and emotional/psychological harm (rather than physical harm) are in the eye of those claiming the offence, there's no reason why any book with representations that don't match up to current standards of acceptability couldn't be next.

I think there are people who would see this as a good thing and would welcome a grand, sweeping cull of books containing representations, or lack of representations, now deemed problematic. I wouldn't. I think people should be informed, I think cultural conversation and debate should happen openly and freely, I think people should be free to criticise and question and even mock the status of past cultural icons and I think diversity in current children's literature should be encouraged. And, of course, any parent is free to avoid any books that these debates have led them to believe may be harmful. But I think as a principle, the outright banning of books should always be an absolute last resort and your experience with reading Ransome to your daughters and nieces suggests you might agree.

John Riley 04-10-2021 01:02 PM

Again, guys, the heirs and executors and profit-makers decided it was in their best interest to do away with the books that are filled with very racist drawings. They decided that it is best for the Dr. Seuss image to remove them from the backlist. No one made them do it that I know of so I honestly don't know what all the hoopla is about. Right-wingers have again hooked people by the nose. There is so much silly crap going on now. I recently read a quote in which an activist said there was no difference between Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln. Now that's stupid censorship based on ignorance and I think the attempt of someone to jump out in front of the parade pushing revisionism. The fact the Suess estate did this makes perfect sense to me. They are children's books. There are plenty of remnants of Steppin' Fetchit racism out there on YouTube to enjoy if that is your thing, but these are children's books and they made a responsible decision.

Roger Slater 04-10-2021 01:21 PM

Mark, I don't know why you use the word "banned," since nothing has been banned. You can't ban yourself. If I write a poem that I conclude is in bad taste for whatever reason, and therefore I don't seek to publish it, I have not been banned. If I publish a poem in a magazine but then decide it is in bad taste so I won't put it in a collection, I have not been banned. That's such a loaded, question-begging term, and it is not accurately applied to the Seuss situation. Let's not confuse this situation with libraries and schools refusing to allow certain books on their shelves.

By the way, I think Horton Hears a Who is one of the great works of children's literature, and certainly one of the most politically correct as well. Another great work of children's literature is Browning's Pied Piper of Hamelin, in which a homocidal maniac kills all the children in a town over a contract dispute with the mayor.

Mark McDonnell 04-10-2021 03:15 PM

Roger, you're right, "ban" isn't quite the right word. I try to avoid hyperbole as much as I can and I think I've been using the word "withdrawn" up until my last post. I think I stand by my opinions otherwise. I do think the whole "you can't cancel yourself" idea is a little disingenuous. You can certainly be put under a lot of persuasive pressure to do so, as in the case of the Amanda Gorman translator recently discussed here, who "voluntarily" stepped down. I think if more publishers begin following suit with older books containing "problematic" content, then the difference between "withdrawn" and "banned" will become purely semantic. I hope that doesn't happen but I don't feel massively confident. Maybe I've just been "hooked by the nose" by right-wingers, as John says. I don't feel like I have. Most of what I've read about this has come from the BBC and the Guardian. I'm not losing sleep over this but my discomfort at it feels completely reasonable to me, though apparently not to many others.

This article suggests to me there will be other similar things to come. A "reckoning". Perhaps it is a good thing. There's no guarantee that Julie won't lose her Swallows and Amazons though.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...cancel-culture

And it seems I might lose one of my childhood favourites, The Indian in the Cupboard, a book I remember as having a clear message about tolerance and the dangers of stereotyping.

Quote:

Nel pointed to The Indian in the Cupboard series by Lynne Reid Banks – Penguin Random House titles about a toy figure of a Native American that comes alive, first published in 1980, as an example of a book that remains in print without comment or apology.
“There’s a lot of examples of contemporary as well as older work that the publishing industry should address,” he said

https://www.avclub.com/the-indian-in...d-l-1798244319


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.