Dr. Seuss Books pulled for racist images

[Jean in Newcastle]

5 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Well you would be disappointed with that expectation then.  

My husband and I have had people calling or visiting Oklahoma for the first time for business ask where all the teepees are bc they thought we had real indians here.  I mean we do have lots of native Americans here, but dude Oklahoma is not as seen on the Lone Ranger?!

A lot of people do not meet someone different from themselves and ask questions.  A lot of people who travel, even heavily, do not want to learn a single thing about the places they go beyond where to get American food and not have to deal with native issues. It’s a bizarre and weird thing to me but I’ve traveled just enough to know it is true for the majority of people.

I don’t mind being ignorant bc I’m happy to learn and discuss all kinds of things to reduce it. I didn’t know about slanted eyes.  Or that the Chinese man was not even wearing Chinese items. Or that someone else views this as a boy imagining weird outsiders who can’t possibly belong in his town. Now I do.  Okie dokie.🙂

 

That is very strange to me. And sad. 

[Drama Llama]

.

Edited May 8, 2021 by BaseballandHockey

[Drama Llama]

.

Edited May 8, 2021 by BaseballandHockey

[Murphy101]

Just now, BaseballandHockey said:

Have you read the book?   He’s walking home and thinking how boring his town is and how his dad is going to ask him what he saw on his walk, and he starts to think of all the fun lies he can tell.  But in the end he decides he can’t lie to his father. So he tells him the truth — all he saw was a plain horse and wagon on Mulberry Street. 

The plot is clear.  There is no actual parade.

I own the book and yes I’ve read it. I know there is no actual parade. He is a bored boy imagining what if he could tell his dad that he encountered the most amazing parade he can imagine seeing on his way home.  But it’s just pretend and he been told he mustn’t exaggerate or tell lies, so he says the truth. 🤷‍♀️

[Spy Car]

14 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Whereas I read a deeply anti-Semitic canon without any issues. People do vary on their response to this stuff.

For me it was listening to Wagner. Aside from my exposure via Bugs Bunny as a kid, my introduction to the music of Richard Wagner came though the mother of a high school girlfriend who was a German Jewish intellectual who fled just in time.

She (the mom) would blast Wagner. I was immediate enamoured with the music, and often ditched my girlfriend (pretending I needed to use the restroom) only to be found hours later sitting with her mom, in auditory ecstasy.

Then I became aware of Wagner's virulent anti-Semitism and pretty much shut him out of my life for 45 years. I suppose I may have had a copy or two of the Ring that that I listened to (while feeling guilty about it) but that was about it.

As I was about to hit 60 I kind of thought "to heck with it," I can reconcile that fact that someone can be a genius and create works of incomparable beauty while having some pretty ugly aspects to their characters.

Bill

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Spy Car

[Tanaqui]

3 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

I own the book and yes I’ve read it. I know there is no actual parade. He is a bored boy imagining what if he could tell his dad that he encountered the most amazing parade he can imagine seeing on his way home.  But it’s just pretend and he been told he mustn’t exaggerate or tell lies, so he says the truth. 🤷‍♀️

Which, by the way, his dad comes off as a major jerk. His kid just can't win, can he? Why is he supposed to see something exciting every day on his walk home from school anyway?

[HeartString]

4 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

My husband and I have had people calling or visiting Oklahoma for the first time for business ask where all the teepees are bc they thought we had real indians here.  I mean we do have lots of native Americans here, but dude Oklahoma is not as seen on the Lone Ranger?!

This is what has struck me through reading this thread. Stereotypes trap people in time.  Native Americans in teepees assumes they haven’t changed in several hundred years. The “China-man” and the depiction  of Africans in these Dr.Seuss books and other caricatures freeze those people in time hundreds of years ago.  But the white people are always depicted as modern for the time.  The white peoples aren’t shown in dress from the Middle Ages.  The caricatures and the stereotypes have allowed the white people to evolve into a modern culture.  I honestly never thought about it that way before. 

[Murphy101]

2 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

Which, by the way, his dad comes off as a major jerk. His kid just can't win, can he? Why is he supposed to see something exciting every day on his walk home from school anyway?

No argument from me there. But I think the parenting in most books sucks. Hence my PSAs when narrating all the time. LOL

2 hours ago, Cnew02 said:

This is what has struck me through reading this thread. Stereotypes trap people in time.  Native Americans in teepees assumes they haven’t changed in several hundred years. The “China-man” and the depiction  of Africans in these Dr.Seuss books and other caricatures freeze those people in time hundreds of years ago.  But the white people are always depicted as modern for the time.  The white peoples aren’t shown in dress from the Middle Ages.  The caricatures and the stereotypes have allowed the white people to evolve into a modern culture.  I honestly never thought about it that way before. 

Hmmm. I can see that. Though I have no idea how Asians in America dressed in 1930 when the book was published?

[HeartString]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

Hmmm. I can see that. Though I have no idea how Asians in America dressed in 1930 when the book was published?

This link on the Japanese Internment shows them dressed like ordinary Americans, which of course they were.  

https://www.britannica.com/event/Japanese-American-internment

 

This picture would be 1940s.  I see no reason to believe that the average Asian American in the 30s or 40s dressed in the caricatured dress shown from the time.  Google image searches show a mix of fashion even in mainland China and Japan at the time, lots of American fashion and dapper men’s suits. 

African Americans certainly dressed the same way white peoples did.  
https://orangemag.co/orangeblog/2017/2/28/100-years-of-black-womens-style-in-america

 

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Cnew02

[Murphy101]

11 minutes ago, Cnew02 said:

This link on the Japanese Internment shows them dressed like ordinary Americans, which of course they were.  

https://www.britannica.com/event/Japanese-American-internment

 

This picture would be 1940s.  I see no reason to believe that the average Asian American in the 30s or 40s dressed in the caricatured dress shown from the time.  Google image searches show a mix of fashion even in mainland China and Japan at the time, lots of American fashion and dapper men’s suits. 

African Americans certainly dressed the same way white peoples did.  
https://orangemag.co/orangeblog/2017/2/28/100-years-of-black-womens-style-in-america

 

 

Okay. Interesting.  I’ve seen pictures like that but I didn’t know if that was an accurate portrayal of their private not at work/school lives. To be clear, it wouldn’t occur to me that dressing - ethnically? not sure what word to use -  would mean they were not dressed as normal ordinary Americans bc normal ordinary Americans are from many cultures and ethnicities other than WASP. 

[SlowRiver]

I'd have said the illustration isn't meant to be an Asian-American, it's meant to be an Asian person from Asia, which would have been a rather odd thing to see in a sleepy mid-western town at that time. While the illustration isn't entirely accurate in its details, people in Asian countries in the mid 20th century did not necessarily dress like Americans. I have plenty of passed down family photos from the 50s where 99% of the people in the photos are dressed in what might be considered "stereotypically" Asian clothes. 

At the time those books were written, queues would still have been in worn within the memory of living people too - they only finally went out of style in the 20s, Geisel was born in 1911. 

It's not just attitudes that have changed since the book was published - people's exposure to other cultures was much more limited generally, there was a lot less travel, and history that now seems long gone was much closer. There's a kind of real self-centeredness involved in forgetting that.

[Pam in CT]

Welcome to WTM, @SlowRiver !

36 minutes ago, SlowRiver said:

I'd have said the illustration isn't meant to be an Asian-American, it's meant to be an Asian person from Asia, which would have been a rather odd thing to see in a sleepy mid-western town at that time. While the illustration isn't entirely accurate in its details, people in Asian countries in the mid 20th century did not necessarily dress like Americans. I have plenty of passed down family photos from the 50s where 99% of the people in the photos are dressed in what might be considered "stereotypically" Asian clothes. 

At the time those books were written, queues would still have been in worn within the memory of living people too - they only finally went out of style in the 20s, Geisel was born in 1911. 

It's not just attitudes that have changed since the book was published - people's exposure to other cultures was much more limited generally, there was a lot less travel, and history that now seems long gone was much closer. There's a kind of real self-centeredness involved in forgetting that.

I concur that the images may well at the time have been "meant" to depict people who lived in distant places rather than the then-current-day Asian Americans and black Americans in Seuss' then-current-day readership.

OTOH I strongly disagree that the Seuss estate decision to pull the images now reflects "self-centeredness involved in forgetting that."  On the contrary, its own statement

Quote

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.

Ceasing sales of these books is only part of our commitment and our broader plan to ensure Dr. Seuss Enterprises’s catalog represents and supports all communities and families.

refers to a "mission" of supporting "all children and families with messages of hope, inspiration, inclusion and friendship" and to a "broader plan to ensure..[their] catalog represents and supports all communities and families."  They state: "These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong."

 

If we take the foundation at their own word...

and presume the good intent of Seuss' family...

and refrain from impugning the motives of others...

why doubt what THEY say they are "centering"?  THEY say they are "centering" children and families who have given them feedback -- whose testimony they foundation, in turn, believes -- that these images are current-day harmful.

The foundation is saying:

Quote

We believe the current-day feedback of our current-day audience

We are privileging the current-day feedback of our current-day audience over other possible values

Some of us might not have made the same call. But that is not a "self-centered" calculation. That is "other-centered."

 

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Pam in CT
omitted words

[SKL]

3 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

Okay. Interesting.  I’ve seen pictures like that but I didn’t know if that was an accurate portrayal of their private not at work/school lives. To be clear, it wouldn’t occur to me that dressing - ethnically? not sure what word to use -  would mean they were not dressed as normal ordinary Americans bc normal ordinary Americans are from many cultures and ethnicities other than WASP. 

Many immigrants I know currently enjoy dressing in their native styles.  That's not weird either.  If I were making a picture book about different cultures present in some of the big US cities, they would and should include people dressed differently from the way I generally dress.  There's no virtue in trying to blur the diversity that actually exists, as if there is something wrong or subhuman about wearing a sari etc. n the USA.

[And I agree with the poster who suggested that maybe what Seuss meant to portray in Mulberry Street was a sight from an exotic country, not a fellow American who happened to have East Asian ancestors.  That would fit better into his story of a boy's vivid and exotic imagination.

And I also agree that we need to remember that most people were not all that worldly back in the days before electronic delivery of information.  I could see many people being unaware of the number of US citizens and residents who had Asian ancestry for example.]

Edited March 5, 2021 by SKL

[Pam in CT]

re modern-day choices by immigrants (or anyone else) on what clothing they want to wear

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

Many immigrants I know currently enjoy dressing in their native styles.  That's not weird either.  If I were making a picture book about different cultures present in some of the big US cities, they would and should include people dressed differently from the way I generally dress.  There's no virtue in trying to blur the diversity that actually exists, as if there is something wrong or subhuman about wearing a sari etc. n the USA.

I agree with all of this.

And don't understand what it has to do with the Seuss Foundation decision?

Or are you just making a more general observation about what clothes different folks feel moved to wear?

[SKL]

Just now, Pam in CT said:

re modern-day choices by immigrants (or anyone else) on what clothing they want to wear

I agree with all of this.

And don't understand what it has to do with the Seuss Foundation decision?

Or are you just making a more general observation about what clothes different folks feel moved to wear?

My point is that it is equally wrong to insist on portraying all people as following average American norms (clothing, hairstyle, or otherwise) as it is to reflect ignorant stereotypes in literature.  The idea that Seuss should have had an ethnically Asian character dress the same as everyone else, regardless of the context, or else he's a racist, is wrong.

[Murphy101]

3 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re modern-day choices by immigrants (or anyone else) on what clothing they want to wear

I agree with all of this.

And don't understand what it has to do with the Seuss Foundation decision?

Or are you just making a more general observation about what clothes different folks feel moved to wear?

I think the comment is in response to my post? Someone else said basically that the boy was portraying the Chinese man as “other” and not an ordinary American. I never would have thought that an Asian person dressed in ethnic clothing would mean they were “other” or not an ordinary American. 

[SlowRiver]

39 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

Welcome to WTM, @SlowRiver !

I concur that the images may well at the time have been "meant" to depict people who lived in distant places rather than the then-current-day Asian Americans and black Americans in Seuss' then-current-day readership.

OTOH I strongly disagree that the Seuss estate decision to pull the images now reflects "self-centeredness involved in forgetting that."  On the contrary, its own statement

refers to a "mission" of supporting "all children and families with messages of hope, inspiration, inclusion and friendship" and to a "broader plan to ensure..[their] catalog represents and supports all communities and families."  They state: "These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong."

 

If we take the foundation at their own word...

and presume the good intent of Seuss' family...

and refrain from impugning the motives of others...

why doubt what THEY say they are "centering"?  THEY say they are "centering" children and families who have given them feedback -- whose testimony they foundation, in turn, believes -- that these images are current-day harmful.

The foundation is saying:

Some of us might not have made the same call. But that is not a "self-centered" calculation. That is "other-centered."

 

 

Ah, TBH I don't really take the family's statement very seriously, I think it is disingenuous.

I think they would not have reprinted those books anyway, for the same reasons many books aren't reprinted, and were looking for publicity in making the announcement this way.  

I also think it's very common now for people to be unable to put books that are older, even a little older, in the context of their time in the most basic kind of way. Picking out that particular illustration as racist suggests to me that is part of what is going on here, whether or not others are really problematic. If others really are problematic, there is no reason to pick out other ones which aren't.  

The larger question is around the way books are being evaluated, and yes, books, including in universities, are being suppressed. This is a serious concern among many university faculty members. People are looking at this as being related, and reasonably so given the way they have chosen to approach it.

[Pam in CT]

re "publicity," whose intent is presumed to be good, vs whose motives are fair game to impugn

1 hour ago, SlowRiver said:

Ah, TBH I don't really take the family's statement very seriously, I think it is disingenuous.

I think they would not have reprinted those books anyway, for the same reasons many books aren't reprinted, and were looking for publicity in making the announcement this way. ..

Perhaps so. Perhaps the foundation was "looking for publicity" to raise awareness about the harm racist images can evoke, even if the original intent at the time of the images' creation was not to do so.

That is, after all, what the statement says.

To label that message as "self-centered" and "disingenuous" publicity is a bit... jarring. As a general matter, are you not on Team Thou Shalt Not Impugn Other Folks' Intent (as many on this board, to which you are evidently new, are)? 

Or is there something specific about foundations, or publishers, that gives rise to your cynicism here?

Or is there something specific about the foundation's expressed concern for the harm caused by racist images that gives rise to your cynicism here?

 

 

re babies v bathwater

1 hour ago, SlowRiver said:

...I also think it's very common now for people to be unable to put books that are older, even a little older, in the context of their time in the most basic kind of way. Picking out that particular illustration as racist suggests to me that is part of what is going on here, whether or not others are really problematic. If others really are problematic, there is no reason to pick out other ones which aren't. ..

I don't know if you've yet had a chance to read the parts about The Canon upthread; or about the distinction between government bans, mob burnings, or copyright holders' own decisions to cease publication for whatever reasons they choose.

All these distinctions matter.

 

 

re conflation of Seuss Foundation decision with "larger question"

1 hour ago, SlowRiver said:

..The larger question is around the way books are being evaluated, and yes, books, including in universities, are being suppressed. This is a serious concern among many university faculty members. People are looking at this as being related, and reasonably so given the way they have chosen to approach it.

This really puzzles me. How do you see Seuss pulling Seuss as "related" to universities "suppressing" books?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Pam in CT
punctuation

[Pam in CT]

re clothing

1 hour ago, SKL said:

My point is that it is equally wrong to insist on portraying all people as following average American norms (clothing, hairstyle, or otherwise) as it is to reflect ignorant stereotypes in literature.  The idea that Seuss should have had an ethnically Asian character dress the same as everyone else, regardless of the context, or else he's a racist, is wrong.

Right.  I don't think the primary, or secondary, issue is the characters' clothing.

I think it's more around the ape features and the consistent subservience of the roles. Had Asian and black kids been depicted as regular kids with regular features going about regular business, I expect clothing would fade to the tertiary status that I agree with you and murphy it warrants.

[SKL]

8 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

This really puzzles me. How do you see Seuss pulling Seuss as "related" to universities "suppressing" books?

 

I think it goes more to the backstory, i.e., before the Seuss co's statement, Seuss was being "cancelled" in some ways.  The actions of certain organizations other than the Seuss co have been over the top, and this reflects a larger trend toward erasing/distorting the past in the name of improving the present/future.

[Tanaqui]

I would say, SKL, that the past has typically been distorted and now some people are trying to fix those distortions and tell the truth for a change.

[Elfknitter.#]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

I think it goes more to the backstory, i.e., before the Seuss co's statement, Seuss was being "cancelled" in some ways.  The actions of certain organizations other than the Seuss co have been over the top, and this reflects a larger trend toward erasing/distorting the past in the name of improving the present/future.

How was Seuss being "cancelled" before this announcement?

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, Pam in CT said:

re clothing

Right.  I don't think the primary, or secondary, issue is the characters' clothing.

I think it's more around the ape features and the consistent subservience of the roles. Had Asian and black kids been depicted as regular kids with regular features going about regular business, I expect clothing would fade to the tertiary status that I agree with you and murphy it warrants.

To piggyback off of this, Asians were regularly depicted as having no chin, having buck teeth, coke bottle glasses and being actually yellow.  (Not in every image that Seuss did, but in many of them and of course stereotypically these types of images were made by many other artists as well.)  These features were "assigned" to Asians despite the fact that anyone in any race could have an undefined chin, buck teeth etc. 

Africans were depicted as ape-like, with oversized lips, huge bellies and as "savages". 

[ktgrok]

3 hours ago, SlowRiver said:

 

I also think it's very common now for people to be unable to put books that are older, even a little older, in the context of their time in the most basic kind of way.

I think that is common of 4 and 5 yr olds in general, which is another argument for NOT reading this with small children unable to grasp the context. Not an argument for continuing to expose small kids to images like this. 

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I've observed that when people say that we would ignore issues with books like the LIW books because we should place them in the context of their time, those people rarely do the work themselves to understand these books and the history. What they actually want is to enjoy the books as they are without looking deeper. LIW books are on all of the homeschooling lists. How many HSing mothers assign those books to their kids and have discussions about why Laura felt as she did about Native Americans? How many attempt to struggle with the propagandistic elements of those books. 

 

I can't speak for others, but I certainly did.  My kids are biologically Native American, so it was an important discussion for that reason, but I also do this with all kinds of books reflecting how people treated each other in history (and in the present).

[MercyA]

15 hours ago, Spy Car said:

She (the mom) would blast Wagner. I was immediate enamoured with the music, and often ditched my girlfriend (pretending I needed to use the restroom) only to be found hours later sitting with her mom, in auditory ecstasy.

Poor girlfriend! 😉 

[SlowRiver]

3 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

re "publicity," whose intent is presumed to be good, vs whose motives are fair game to impugn

Perhaps so. Perhaps the foundation was "looking for publicity" to raise awareness about the harm racist images can evoke, even if the original intent at the time of the images' creation was not to do so.

That is, after all, what the statement says.

To label that message as "self-centered" and "disingenuous" publicity is a bit... jarring. As a general matter, are you not on Team Thou Shalt Not Impugn Other Folks' Intent (as many on this board, to which you are evidently new, are)? 

Or is there something specific about foundations, or publishers, that gives rise to your cynicism here?

Or is there something specific about the foundation's expressed concern for the harm caused by racist images that gives rise to your cynicism here?

 

 

re babies v bathwater

I don't know if you've yet had a chance to read the parts about The Canon upthread; or about the distinction between government bans, mob burnings, or copyright holders' own decisions to cease publication for whatever reasons they choose.

All these distinctions matter.

 

 

re conflation of Seuss Foundation decision with "larger question"

This really puzzles me. How do you see Seuss pulling Seuss as "related" to universities "suppressing" books?

 

 

 

 

 

When there is a larger pattern, in both universities and in publishing, and also particularly within children's publishing, of demanding books not be published, boycotting publishers, evicerating authors on Twitter, and deplatforming authors, I'm not sure how a statement like the one that's been made here can avoid being seen within that context.

This is a huge issue in publishing generally, even if this was actually just totally unrelated, it would always be seen within the context of those things.

 

I am quite aware of the different ways books (and people) can be suppressed, outright government bans are not the only concerning way that can happen. Did you read the document posted upthread signed by the APA, librarians association, and several others?

As for why I am suspicious of the motives of the family, cynicism about capitalism is top of the list I suppose. But also - there was no need. As several people have pointed out, books go out of print all the time when they fall out of fashion or no longer fit social norms, or often because they don't contain much that is of value. They slip into obscurity. Most of these are books that weren't among the most popular and could easily have gone out of print (though at least one I think is among his more interesting books, but not popular so still unlikely to be reprinted.) There is something rather odd about announcing not reprinting a book you wouldn't reprint anyway.

[Melissa Louise]

I didn't find it remotely difficult to contextualize books with my preschooler/kindergarteners/primary schoolers, because that is a core task in reading aloud to children. 

I didn't read aloud any of the Suess books, but many books published prior to say, 1990, contain outrageous sexism. Stop, ask, explain discuss. This is how one reads aloud. 

If I were to only read aloud books that contained images of girls and women that were enlightened, gosh, we wouldn't have had a whole lot to read outside an extremely narrow era. So you take what is good, despite being if it's time, and you make it even better by walking through it with the child. 

I'm surprised more teachers don't do this, but hey, ho, there's a reason I think children under 7 shouldn't be in schools. 

[Melissa Louise]

2 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

RE the bolded text (bolded by me) - I just read a conversation on a homeschooling FB group about a child who was exposed to a pop culture song. Why the criticism of the inability of modern people to put old books in the "context of their time" and not popular songs? I've been a part of conservative religious circles for a long time and I've heard so many discussions about keeping certain books, movies, and songs from our children. A parent gasped when I mentioned that I did yoga with my daughter. Another mother criticized me for letting DD watch Sofia the First because it had magic. I've been a part of very earnest discussions about whether it was appropriate to allow our kids to read the Harry Potter books. 

What's the message sent when someone objects to a book with an LGBTQ character but dismisses concerns about a book with a problematic portrayal of non-white characters? 

And speaking of placing a book in the context of its time, I'm currently reading Prairie Fires which is a book about Laura Ingalls Wilder. I grew up on the LIW books but did not share them with DD. Prairie Fires is a fascinating book because it tells LIW's real life story (not the curated version of her life told in her books) and the history happening at the time. 

I've observed that when people say that we would ignore issues with books like the LIW books because we should place them in the context of their time, those people rarely do the work themselves to understand these books and the history. What they actually want is to enjoy the books as they are without looking deeper. LIW books are on all of the homeschooling lists. How many HSing mothers assign those books to their kids and have discussions about why Laura felt as she did about Native Americans? How many attempt to struggle with the propagandistic elements of those books. 

 

Well, because I am, in fact, socially liberal, I criticize BOTH. 

[SlowRiver]

2 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

RE the bolded text (bolded by me) - I just read a conversation on a homeschooling FB group about a child who was exposed to a pop culture song. Why the criticism of the inability of modern people to put old books in the "context of their time" and not popular songs? I've been a part of conservative religious circles for a long time and I've heard so many discussions about keeping certain books, movies, and songs from our children. A parent gasped when I mentioned that I did yoga with my daughter. Another mother criticized me for letting DD watch Sofia the First because it had magic. I've been a part of very earnest discussions about whether it was appropriate to allow our kids to read the Harry Potter books. 

What's the message sent when someone objects to a book with an LGBTQ character but dismisses concerns about a book with a problematic portrayal of non-white characters? 

And speaking of placing a book in the context of its time, I'm currently reading Prairie Fires which is a book about Laura Ingalls Wilder. I grew up on the LIW books but did not share them with DD. Prairie Fires is a fascinating book because it tells LIW's real life story (not the curated version of her life told in her books) and the history happening at the time. 

I've observed that when people say that we would ignore issues with books like the LIW books because we should place them in the context of their time, those people rarely do the work themselves to understand these books and the history. What they actually want is to enjoy the books as they are without looking deeper. LIW books are on all of the homeschooling lists. How many HSing mothers assign those books to their kids and have discussions about why Laura felt as she did about Native Americans? How many attempt to struggle with the propagandistic elements of those books. 

 

It's difficult to comment on the pop song without knowing the content.

 

But thee seems to be a pretty clear difference between disallowing a book to be reprinted, and saying everyone needs to read it to their kids, and a difference again  from being worried about kids exposed to explicit imagery on film or in a song.

FWIW I think not allowing kids to read books because they have magic in them is dumb, and I also think there is no good reason to avoid the LIW books. But it's not useful to claim there is one rule for every instance.

My comment was specific - there is in many cases at the moment a very shallow and reactionary type of approach to deciding an image or text is racist, even ones aimed at children. The image of the supposedly Chinese character in the parade is an example of that, and it happens because people lack discernment. The equivalent is a Chinese book for kids, written 50 years ago and set in a small town where Europeans would be a rare sight, and a boy imagines a parade with an American cowboy, or an English gentleman in a top hat and spats - romantic images from a generation ago. It's in a cartoon style because all of the books are.

I suspect responses would be better if the targets were more carefully chosen, and less performative.

 

 

[Melissa Louise]

2 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

RE the bolded text (bolded by me) - I just read a conversation on a homeschooling FB group about a child who was exposed to a pop culture song. Why the criticism of the inability of modern people to put old books in the "context of their time" and not popular songs? I've been a part of conservative religious circles for a long time and I've heard so many discussions about keeping certain books, movies, and songs from our children. A parent gasped when I mentioned that I did yoga with my daughter. Another mother criticized me for letting DD watch Sofia the First because it had magic. I've been a part of very earnest discussions about whether it was appropriate to allow our kids to read the Harry Potter books. 

What's the message sent when someone objects to a book with an LGBTQ character but dismisses concerns about a book with a problematic portrayal of non-white characters? 

And speaking of placing a book in the context of its time, I'm currently reading Prairie Fires which is a book about Laura Ingalls Wilder. I grew up on the LIW books but did not share them with DD. Prairie Fires is a fascinating book because it tells LIW's real life story (not the curated version of her life told in her books) and the history happening at the time. 

I've observed that when people say that we would ignore issues with books like the LIW books because we should place them in the context of their time, those people rarely do the work themselves to understand these books and the history. What they actually want is to enjoy the books as they are without looking deeper. LIW books are on all of the homeschooling lists. How many HSing mothers assign those books to their kids and have discussions about why Laura felt as she did about Native Americans? How many attempt to struggle with the propagandistic elements of those books. 

 

Well, apparently I'm a unicorn. 

LHP read, racism discussed, Louise Erdrich texts read to show a non-white perspective. 

You know what harmed my (mixed) kids? Actual anti-Indian prejudice in the world. Things people say and do. Or fail to say or do. Mostly in the realm of micro-aggressions, because that can be the fate of passing kids - not fair enough to avoid prejudice, not dark enough to be able to point to 'real' harm. Just a thousand tiny paper cuts. 

Do you know what didn't harm them? Exposure to literature. 

Nor pop music with obscene lyrics, I hasten to add. They apparently survived a well meaning but clueless gift.of a Lady Gaga album at 10/11.

 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Melissa Louise

[MercyA]

15 minutes ago, SlowRiver said:

My comment was specific - there is in many cases at the moment a very shallow and reactionary type of approach to deciding an image or text is racist, even ones aimed at children. The image of the supposedly Chinese character in the parade is an example of that, and it happens because people lack discernment.

Are you suggesting that Chinese people who object to stereotypical images like these are lacking in discernment? 

[Scarlett]

18 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

Well you would be disappointed with that expectation then.  

My husband and I have had people calling or visiting Oklahoma for the first time for business ask where all the teepees are bc they thought we had real indians here.  I mean we do have lots of native Americans here, but dude Oklahoma is not as seen on the Lone Ranger?!

A lot of people do not meet someone different from themselves and ask questions.  A lot of people who travel, even heavily, do not want to learn a single thing about the places they go beyond where to get American food and not have to deal with native issues. It’s a bizarre and weird thing to me but I’ve traveled just enough to know it is true for the majority of people.

I don’t mind being ignorant bc I’m happy to learn and discuss all kinds of things to reduce it. I didn’t know about slanted eyes.  Or that the Chinese man was not even wearing Chinese items. Or that someone else views this as a boy imagining weird outsiders who can’t possibly belong in his town. Now I do.  Okie dokie.🙂

 

 

18 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

That is very strange to me. And sad. 

Just chiming in to say @Murphy101's experience is similar to mine.  A lot of America is locked in their own little bubble.  And it is not just rural either.  I have cousins who were raised in Philadelphia and they are as uneducated culturally as they come.

[Melissa Louise]

The publicity has worked well for the estate, with Dr Suess books 'rocketing up the US Amazon charts'.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/04/dr-seuss-rockets-up-us-charts-after-books-pulled-over-racist-portrayals

 

[SlowRiver]

4 hours ago, MercyA said:

Are you suggesting that Chinese people who object to stereotypical images like these are lacking in discernment? 

This is rather begging the question, don't you think?

[SlowRiver]

7 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

The publicity has worked well for the estate, with Dr Suess books 'rocketing up the US Amazon charts'.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/04/dr-seuss-rockets-up-us-charts-after-books-pulled-over-racist-portrayals

 

Colour me shocked.

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, SlowRiver said:

This is rather begging the question, don't you think?

I don't think so. I genuinely want to know what you think. Take Dr. Seuss out of it. If an ethnic group makes it known that certain types of depictions of their community are stereotypical, hurtful, and offensive to them, do you consider that a lack of discernment on their part? 

I don't consider myself an expert on these things by any means. I'm ashamed to say I've only recently started paying better attention.

It just seems to me that people in positions of power or privilege shouldn't be lecturing minorities on what should or shouldn't offend them.

Edited March 6, 2021 by MercyA

[Melissa Louise]

9 minutes ago, MercyA said:

 

It just seems to me that people in positions of power shouldn't be lecturing minorities on what should or shouldn't offend them.

This kind of language doesn't make sense in many contexts. Who are the 'people in power' lecturing minorities in this thread ? Is the person you are responding to a person of power? How do you know that? What does her power consist of? 

This framing is...riddled with its own bias. 

A clearer way to say this is 'I prefer to defer to people of Chinese background on the matter of Suess' stereotypical image of a Chinese man.'

Fair enough, I tend to think that way too, though acknowledging that 'Chinese background' is not a hive Mind and there is as much diversity of thought in Chinese and Chinese-heritage culture as any other. To assume a lack of heterodox thought in other cultures is itself a subtle form of racism. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MercyA]

49 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

This kind of language doesn't make sense in many contexts. Who are the 'people in power' lecturing minorities in this thread ? Is the person you are responding to a person of power? How do you know that? What does her power consist of? 

This framing is...riddled with its own bias. 

A clearer way to say this is 'I prefer to defer to people of Chinese background on the matter of Suess' stereotypical image of a Chinese man.'

Fair enough, I tend to think that way too, though acknowledging that 'Chinese background' is not a hive Mind and there is as much diversity of thought in Chinese and Chinese-heritage culture as any other. To assume a lack of heterodox thought in other cultures is itself a subtle form of racism. 

Yes, your phrasing is better. 🙂  And, yes, I shouldn't assume I know anything about new posters other than what they've said themselves. 

It does seem to me that the vast majority of people expressing disapproval of the Seuss company's decision are white. It's strange to me when white people seem to be saying Chinese people and black people shouldn't be so offended by the imagery in the book--and that they, white people, somehow know better. It's an easy thing for them to say, being in a position of privilege (maybe privilege is a better word than power?) and not being depicted stereotypically in the books themselves. 

Thank you for your thoughts. I know you have a lot more experience thinking about these issues than me.  

Edited March 6, 2021 by MercyA

[Melissa Louise]

5 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Yes, your phrasing is better. 🙂  And, yes, I shouldn't assume I know anything about new posters other than what they've said themselves. Perhaps I will edit my post.

It does seem to me that the vast majority of people expressing disapproval of the Seuss company's decision are white. It's strange to me when white people seem to saying Chinese people and black people shouldn't be offended by the imagery in the book--and that they, white people, somehow know better. It's an easy thing for them to say, being in a position of privilege (maybe privilege is a better word than power?) and not being depicted stereotypically in the books themselves. 

Thank you for your thoughts. I know you have a lot more experience thinking about these issues than me.  

 

Offence is an interesting concept. I know non-white people who would understand the 'Chinaman' image to be a stereotype, one that has the capacity to offend. Who would also agree that it's not really a good choice for school libraries, given existing anti-Asian prejudice and stereotyping. Who also don't agree with eBay restricting sale of the book. Who are not personally offended that an image, reflecting ideas and stereotypes of the time, exists. Who think it's amusing to watch white women act like the Suess estate removing some lesser Suess is a radical act of social justice.

Of course, there are people who are not white who are offended by the image, in the here and now, think restricting sales of such images is a net positive, and feel each small step towards rectifying stereotypes children are exposed to add up to progress on social justice issues. 

What I really dislike in this issue is the narrowing of opinion to The Right One and The Heretical One. 

The issue of how we deal with the fact that the art of other eras is influenced by its own context is an interesting one, with many potentially positive answers. 

Would I buy and read these Suess titles? No. Would I replace them in a school library? No. Do I think some of the images are offensive, not only today but also at the time? I certainly do. Do I think readers should be able to make an informed choice as to what they read their children, with no archaic and racist surprises? I do. 

In large part, my actions in regards to the books would align with yours. 

I just...idk...think how we deal with literature is worth thinking through, from multiple perspectives. 

 

 

[Melissa Louise]

29 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Yes, your phrasing is better. 🙂

It does seem to me that the vast majority of people expressing disapproval of the Seuss company's decision are white. 

I don't know how one would quantify this. 

Idk, Mercy, all cultures have and express stereotypes and prejudices. Within those cultures, endless personalities and perspectives.

 

[MercyA]

19 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

I don't know how one would quantify this. 

I'm sure I can't with absolute certainty. I'm thinking for one of the racial makeup of the news network complaining most loudly and continually about Seuss Enterprise's decision, and the racial makeup of their viewers. 

[Melissa Louise]

28 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I'm sure I can't with absolute certainty. I'm thinking for one of the racial makeup of the news network complaining most loudly and continually about Seuss Enterprise's decision, and the racial makeup of their viewers. 

Ok. Well, I don't know anything about Fox TV.

The somewhat dissenting article I posted - not all of which I agreed with, btw - was from a Biden voting Russian-Jewish American journalist who is politically liberal. Fox News may be louder than some of the less popular voices from the centre and left, but those voices exist, all the same. 

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Melissa Louise

[heartlikealion]

We have a controversial book on the shelf where I was working. There’s a disclaimer in the front stating they are aware. The book depicts some racist things centering around a little black boy. It’s called Little Black Sambo. I discussed the book with a former librarian. She felt it should stay because of the history to show people what kinds of things were published. She happens to be black. My knee jerk recreation was but do we really want this here? After seeing the disclaimer I decided to leave it. No one has checked it out in many years. I read it in the building so may have scanned it as used or quarantined. Either that or I set it aside for quarantine without scanning it. Then put it back on the shelf a week later. 
 

I haven’t read all the replies. I know at one point I heard about the Dr Suess controversy in the past, but that he’d supposedly admitted errors in his ways. Also, I do believe the story of the creatures with stars on bellies vs no stars on bellies was meant to share a message about inclusivity. So to a degree you could say I’d forgiven his past transgressions to the point of “eh maybe don’t shun all his stuff” but just don’t promote/condone the controversial work. 

There’s a list of “read alikes” some of which were listed in an anti racism traveling display that came to some of our branches. I ordered “I Am Enough.” 

[heartlikealion]

This may have already been shared but this is the alternative list I saw: https://www.mother.ly/amp/alternative-books-dr-seuss-bipoc-2650893276

[Tanaqui]

Weirdly, the actual storyline of Little Black Sambo isn't the problem - it's just that the book was saddled with some very unfortunate pictures (not done by Bannerman, who anyway set the book in India where she lived) and the names are... again, unfortunate.

I know of at least three rewrites. One of them I can never remember the name of, but the other two are fairly well-known - Sam and the Tigers (objectively the superior book, and it also has an afterword explaining the racist history of the original book with the complex reality of it often being the only book Black children saw that depicted them as heroic in any way shape and form and why the author/illustrator decided to go for an updated rewrite) and The Story of Little Baba-ji, which kept the original text intact other than swapping out the names and then added updated, very India-centric illustrations.

[heartlikealion]

2 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Weirdly, the actual storyline of Little Black Sambo isn't the problem - it's just that the book was saddled with some very unfortunate pictures (not done by Bannerman, who anyway set the book in India where she lived) and the names are... again, unfortunate.

I know of at least three rewrites. One of them I can never remember the name of, but the other two are fairly well-known - Sam and the Tigers (objectively the superior book, and it also has an afterword explaining the racist history of the original book with the complex reality of it often being the only book Black children saw that depicted them as heroic in any way shape and form and why the author/illustrator decided to go for an updated rewrite) and The Story of Little Baba-ji, which kept the original text intact other than swapping out the names and then added updated, very India-centric illustrations.

Yes I vaguely remember the names being an issue and definitely art. The story was weird? but not what I expected. 

[Elfknitter.#]

Sorry, but the incorrect spelling of SEUSS is driving me nuts. Some seem to insist it’s SUESS which makes me think people are saying he’s SUS, ala the video game Among Us.

Edited March 6, 2021 by Elfknitter.#

[Roadrunner]

13 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

To piggyback off of this, Asians were regularly depicted as having no chin, having buck teeth, coke bottle glasses and being actually yellow.  (Not in every image that Seuss did, but in many of them and of course stereotypically these types of images were made by many other artists as well.)  These features were "assigned" to Asians despite the fact that anyone in any race could have an undefined chin, buck teeth etc. 

Africans were depicted as ape-like, with oversized lips, huge bellies and as "savages". 

Yes, I still can’t get over those pictures. 
 

This discussion is bringing back memories. I was taught in school (not in America) that there were four races - white, black, yellow, and red. I remember posters with people on these colors holding hands to show friendship of nations. Wow, I am old. 

[Melissa Louise]

3 hours ago, Elfknitter.# said:

Sorry, but the incorrect spelling of SEUSS is driving me nuts. Some seem to insist it’s SUESS which makes me think people are saying he’s SUS, ala the video game Among Us.

Lol, my bad.

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Melissa Louise