The reckoning with Dr. Seuss' racist imagery has been years in the making

[Artyczar]

I'm sorry, I'm no conservative but I'm not going to wring my hands with white American liberal guilt. I don't recall having any racist feelings from reading Dr. Seuss or watching Warner Brothers cartoons, and I will not be labeled a closet racist by anybody without a fight.

Who labeled you anything?

 

[musket]

Nobody here. Mostly it's being done and being promoted in the hallowed halls of academe, by "experts" like Professor Thomas, cited in the first article.

"In Dr. Seuss’ books, we have a kind of sensibility which is oriented toward centering the white child and decentering everyone else,” said Ebony Thomas, a professor of children’s and young adult literature at the University of Pennsylvania. She is the author of “The Dark Fantastic: Race and the Imagination from Harry Potter to the Hunger Games."

“Dr. Seuss was shaped by a completely immersive white supremacist culture," Thomas said. "Even during that time, our ancestors and elders were protesting racist works and producing alternative stories for our children. How do we decide what endures and what doesn’t endure? It’s our responsibility to decide what kind of books to put in front of kids.”

Puh-leeze.

By all means, promote those alternative stories. But spare me the hype about "a completely immersive white supremacist culture." Also, spare me "decentering."

Let's ban Margaret Sanger. After all, despite her groundbreaking fight for women's right to control their own bodies, she was a strong supporter of eugenics, and very likely a racist.

 

[snoball]

Your baby is a little bit racist, science says​

Your baby is a little bit racist, science says

Could babies start showing racist traits before they mumble their first word? That’s the finding of two new studies out of the University of Toronto, published recently in the journal Child Develop…

nypost.com

Racism/tribalism is inherent to the human animal. We instinctively prefer those that look like us, that could be in our tribe.

I don't believe that for a minute. Until the parents start making comments and teaching prejudice to their children, they don't even notice the difference. Children are generally innocent until they are taught to hate.

 

[musket]

Yep. Complete academic BS.

It pains me to say this, since I've been a lefty all my life, but these people are just as extreme and nutty as their counterparts on the right. They seem absolutely determined to find racism under every rock. If you go turning over rocks looking for copperheads, eventually you're bound to find one.

Those among us who know their Civil War history know who the Copperheads were. I have little doubt that somewhere, some harebrained academician would pounce on my remark as indication of subconscious racial bias.

 

[brianvds]

The books can't really be racist because the very concept of racism as we understand it today did not exist at the time. No, I think it is just one more example of the war on western culture, waged by, rather weirdly, westerners themselves.

Anyway, I bet you those books will soon be freely available all over the web, if they aren't already. We live in the post-censorship and post-copyright era, whether that's a good thing or not.

I guess Tintin in the Congo is next (admittedly, it is cringeworthy, as much of a Tintin fan as I am).

 

[john]

Mommy's face is white or black or some other color. We like Mommy best. Our family looks familiar. The kids we play with usually look like us. We literally take sides at a football game. I've seen fights when fans get in the wrong section. We like being tribal and competing for our team. It's a natural part of the human animal. It's a way to serve our own genes and those like them. Tribal wars are wars over genetic preservation and dominance. We don't like to think of ourselves as animals, but we are and are subject to the same biological principles that have controlled things for millions of years.

The key is to know this so that we can overcome it.

 

[Artyczar]

Nobody here. Mostly it's being done and being promoted in the hallowed halls of academe, by "experts" like Professor Thomas, cited in the first article.

"In Dr. Seuss’ books, we have a kind of sensibility which is oriented toward centering the white child and decentering everyone else,” said Ebony Thomas, a professor of children’s and young adult literature at the University of Pennsylvania. She is the author of “The Dark Fantastic: Race and the Imagination from Harry Potter to the Hunger Games."

“Dr. Seuss was shaped by a completely immersive white supremacist culture," Thomas said. "Even during that time, our ancestors and elders were protesting racist works and producing alternative stories for our children. How do we decide what endures and what doesn’t endure? It’s our responsibility to decide what kind of books to put in front of kids.”

Puh-leeze.

By all means, promote those alternative stories. But spare me the hype about "a completely immersive white supremacist culture." Also, spare me "decentering."

Let's ban Margaret Sanger. After all, despite her groundbreaking fight for women's right to control their own bodies, she was a strong supporter of eugenics, and very likely a racist.

I understand your view, I suppose. It's not unlike many I've heard. The reaction, "I'm not going to wring my hands with white American liberal guilt..." and "...I will not be labeled a closet racist by anybody without a fight." Is an interesting one, if that is in fact yours to the first article. Sounds like it is because of your follow-up post in terms of Thomas's words about a "white supremist culture."

I don't think (almost know) there would be something I could say to change your stance. I can only say that I thoroughly understand the other side and do not consider it academia in any way. I consider it the view of most people of color that I know, educated or not. That has been their experience. You can easier replace the saying "white supremacist culture" with white privilege. I don't know if you have seen the six books mentioned in the Suess article, or any of the imagery, but it is a matter of white people having the privilege to depict people of color in a nasty way. If you were a person of color and you are growing up seeing yourself in this light, it doesn't represent you correctly and it is terribly hurtful, especially taking into account the history of your culture.

It doesn't hurt you, or any other white person to be sensitive to this. I actually don't understand why putting up a fight would be a stance to choose. No one is trying to make one feel guilty. I only see changes being suggested to support a better future.

 

[Artyczar]

The books can't really be racist because the very concept of racism as we understand it today did not exist at the time.

(The bold is mine) So the images were never hurtful to black people because masses of white people didn't come to recognize it until fairly recently? Does that mean slavery was fair and just during the time it was legal?

 

[Artyczar]

Mommy's face is white or black or some other color. We like Mommy best. Our family looks familiar. The kids we play with usually look like us. We literally take sides at a football game. I've seen fights when fans get in the wrong section. We like being tribal and competing for our team. It's a natural part of the human animal. It's a way to serve our own genes and those like them. Tribal wars are wars over genetic preservation and dominance. We don't like to think of ourselves as animals, but we are and are subject to the same biological principles that have controlled things for millions of years.

The key is to know this so that we can overcome it.

Are you saying it's natural to be hateful towards others then? Or just protective of our own? Apples and oranges IMO. In any event, what's the point? Does any of this make it okay to be hateful? No. We live in a civil society where killing people is not tolerated, so most of us do not do it. We live with our choices and can be influenced by our environments. I think the point is to learn from our protectors, our peers, our parents, teachers, others in the society, etc. Overcome bad habits (if we have them) and not pass them down to our children. I still don't believe hate and racism is inborn.

 

[Iain]

One of my most favourite paintings is A plethora of cats. Here he is working on it. I like to think one day there will be no collective identities, only individuals with life histories.

 

[Artyczar]

I still love his art and books. So there's that.

 

[snoball]

The Lorax is one of my favorite books of all time. Such a lesson in it besides the sing song reading.

 

[brianvds]

(The bold is mine) So the images were never hurtful to black people because masses of white people didn't come to recognize it until fairly recently? Does that mean slavery was fair and just during the time it was legal?

We cannot judge people of the past by our own standards. That does not mean we cannot learn from them. But calling Dr. Seuss a racist is a bit like calling Leonardo a scientist: it adds to the confusion rather than helping to clear it up.

There are many, many cultural products, in all societies, that are offensive by today's standards, not least of which is the Bible. I do hope they don't ban that one too.

 

[stlukesguild]

I don't know if you have seen the six books mentioned in the Suess article, or any of the imagery, but it is a matter of white people having the privilege to depict people of color in a nasty way. If you were a person of color and you are growing up seeing yourself in this light, it doesn't represent you correctly and it is terribly hurtful, especially taking into account the history of your culture.

My question here would be just who is being offended and calling for censorship? I agree to a good extent with Musket. More often than not it is white academia. More often than not, it seems such outrage is rooted less in self-loathing or guilt and more in a desire to appear "holier than thou"... more "woke" than others. The school I teach at is well over 95% Black. All the white teachers use the term "African American" in spite of the fact that the Black students and adults far more frequently use the term "Black". Martin Luther King rejected the term "African American" as a hyphenated term. White Americans rarely refer to themselves as Italian-Americans or French-Americans. But "African-American" is deemed more "woke"... perhaps even "morally superior"... than "Black".

Art, literature, music... and certainly comedy are full of stereotypes. Are we really expected to eliminate all of these? I cannot even imagine a Mel Brooks film without stereotypes of every ilk: racial, cultural, religious, sexual, etc... I like this skit on "being offended":

Where do we draw the line? Almost anything can and will offend someone somewhere. And again... who makes these decisions as to what is so offensive or hurtful that it should be censored or deleted? I showed this image... one of those cited from Dr. Seuss... to my Chinese friend:

Seuss himself eliminated the yellow skin tone, the long ponytail, and replaced the phrase "A Chinaman" with "A Chinese boy..." My Chinese friend pointed out that there are Chinese who still dress this way... and there are many... like himself... who dress like an average American... whatever that may be. It is impossible to portray an image of someone from any group (racial, sexual, national, etc...) that is not a stereotype. How does one portray Everyman or Everywoman? My Chinese friend did not feel the image to be hurtful... but someone else might.

There are many serious elements of prejudice that we face: police brutality and its lack of consequences, voter suppression, redlining, limiting the rights of women... or other minorities, etc... Too often it seems these little outrages about imagined offences detract from the real issues at hand... and I often suspect Leftist or Liberal extremism is itself partially responsible for the backlash in the opposite direction.

 

[stlukesguild]

There are many, many cultural products, in all societies, that are offensive by today's standards...

And what we might do well to remember is that we are not the pinnacle of civilization. Societies, cultures, and civilizations will continue to evolve and change and some of that which we accept without question will be deemed ignorant and offensive by future cultures.

 

[Claude J Greengrass]

The Lorax is one of my favorite books of all time. Such a lesson in it besides the sing song reading.

I remember reading "On beyond Zebra" in junior school, but cannot recall a single element of that particular book.

 

[Artyczar]

I don't think I personally called Suess a racist, nor did the article, did it? Did I? Just that there were racist depictions of black people and other people of color, right? Or am I misunderstanding? I didn't mean to. I don't even think Suess meant to purposely be racist at the time, and probably would have edited if he knew he was offending a whole culture of people, but I can't speak for him, of course. Times have changed. People change and begin to understand how things might not be appropriate. I still don't think this is a "holier than thou" or academic view, but say what you wish. I don't personally feel that way. I am not an academic, and as I have said many, many times before, I do not want to talk about politics here or have people getting into political debates. I will not disclose my political views, but I am not a liberal extremist, I'll tell you that much. Not at all. I only say that because you are pointing out that this view comes from "those" people. I'm NOT one of "those" people. There also isn't anything to be ashamed of if some white people are getting on board, "woke" as you say, with trying to understand the black experience in this country. What is wrong with that? Why is this a negative?

Maybe you should not answer that because you have already given your opinion that it's a party line thing: "I often suspect Leftist or Liberal extremism is itself partially responsible for the backlash in the opposite direction." So maybe we should just leave this be. I understand your perspective and maybe you can understand mine? I don't consider myself in this grouping of people you have made a case for and I guess that is my real point.

 

[musket]

I agree that this is turning into a debate and should probably be dropped, since debate isn't what this forum is about.

Before that happens, if it happens... going back to Seuss, I'm not in favor of censorship. I'm not in favor of banning books, no matter how offensive some people may find them. Mein Kampf is obviously deeply offensive to Jews. But speaking as a Jew myself, I'm not in favor of banning it.

Here is a list of twelve novels which have been banned or challenged, not only in schools and school libraries, but banned on occasion in public libraries. Note that as usual, Huckleberry Finn is near the very top of the list. Some of the other titles may come as a surprise.

https://www.thoughtco.com/banned-books-in-american-schools-7704

Free speech is for everyone (remember, shouting "Fire!" in a theater which isn't on fire doesn't qualify). Or so my generation was taught. It appears this is no longer the case, according to some. In no way do I intend this to mean that racism, sexism, and other social problems are not real and do not need addressing. But the notion of microaggressions and trigger words is taking things too far towards the realm of the Thought Police. I am still with Dr. King--people should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. And that includes white people.

At no point was I addressing you personally, Arty.

 

[Artyczar]

I agree we should leave this be. I could argue more points about this too, but it's kind of pointless and too much of a debate.

 

[brianvds]

There are many, many cultural products, in all societies, that are offensive by today's standards...

And what we might do well to remember is that we are not the pinnacle of civilization. Societies, cultures, and civilizations will continue to evolve and change and some of that which we accept without question will be deemed ignorant and offensive by future cultures.

Yes, indeed: I wonder what we'll be harshly judged on a hundred years from now.

I see this poll about terminology:

I.e. black folks themselves don't care about the issue. I will never use the unwieldy term "African-American" again, unless an actual black person requests me to. (Here in South Africa we all had a very good laugh when an American journalist once referred to black South Africans as "African-American South Africans." )

Racial terminology is of course a cultural construction anyway. Around here, someone like Obama would not count as black. Neither do the remaining indigenous Khoisan people here think of themselves as black. But if this bloke emigrated to America, no doubt he'd get saddled with the term African-American, probably to his irritation:

Now as others have pointed out, we are getting dangerously close to politics here, though I suppose it is okay as long as it doesn't descend into party politics - that is usually where the sparks start flying.

Anyway, nowadays I don't get too worked up about such issues. They tend to work themselves out in the longer run, and history is frequently cyclical rather than linear, i.e. society cycles between ideas instead of irreversibly going from one to another. Furthermore, pretty much all banned books, whether banned by government or simply by social pressure, are nowadays freely available on the web anyway, so to some extent the whole debate is moot.

I'll close by this point, which is more philosophical than political: it seems to me that in the humanities, the entire point of an education is to be confronted with something else than what you already believe, and by the fact that in other times and places, there are people who hold to beliefs very different from your own. We should be careful about not "protecting" people from getting an education.