Dr. Seuss Books pulled for racist images

[katilac]

I am absolutely not caught up on this thread, but I thought I'd hop in and say that, in between this and Disney+ deciding to not have Peter Pan and a few others as choices on profiles for kids under 7, an amusing percentage of my Facebook feed is losing its mind. If this hasn't come up yet, there are not pulling the movies, you can absolutely let your kids watch it, they just think some parents might want to choose not to, or be prepared to offer some context. 

[Pam in CT]

1 minute ago, katilac said:

I am absolutely not caught up on this thread, but I thought I'd hop in and say that, in between this and Disney+ deciding to not have Peter Pan and a few others as choices on profiles for kids under 7, an amusing percentage of my Facebook feed is losing its mind. If this hasn't come up yet, there are not pulling the movies, you can absolutely let your kids watch it, they just think some parents might want to choose not to, or be prepared to offer some context. 

(looking around in utter confusion)

Oh, was there an original topic to this thread?  LOL

 

Sorry OP... I fear the horse has left the barn at this point.

[Not_a_Number]

12 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

This isn't middle school.  @Not_a_Number  is more than capable of speaking for herself, whether it's to me or to @Sneezyone or anyone else, about the substance of an opinion she holds or the phrasing of a prior post she feels has been misunderstood or a bruised feeling or anything else. She's not some damsel in distress who needs a translator. 

I can speak for myself, yes 🙂 . In fact, I have spoken for myself... and what I said was that I really ought to get my combinatorics presentation for my Zoom class tomorrow done, or they'll get a presentation on minority status instead, since I'll accidentally type that into my file 😉 . 

Anyway, I think I've said all I have on the subject at hand 🙂 . 

[MercyA]

FWIW, I don't think it's necessarily middle-schoolish to "defend" one another. I know when I am in a discussion IRL, and someone misunderstands me, it can be helpful to have someone else say, "I see where Mercy is coming from--I think she just meant...." and etc. IDK. I think many women are just that way. I don't see it as a bad thing.

And I know I have been personally called out for the way my words came across, and I appreciated it. It's helped me learn how to converse better (I hope). Is this what you mean by "tone policing," @Pam in CT? 

Edited March 6, 2021 by MercyA

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, MercyA said:

FWIW, I don't think it's necessarily middle-schoolish to "defend" one another. I know when I am in a discussion IRL, and someone misunderstands me, it can be helpful to have someone else say, "I see where Mercy is coming from--I think she just meant...." and etc. IDK. I think many women are just that way. I don't see it as a bad thing.

I agree with that. I don't think hurt feelings disappear at the end of middle school, never to return again 😉 . 

 

Just now, MercyA said:

And I know I have been personally called out for the way my words came across, and I appreciated it. It's helped me learn how to converse better (I hope).

Same. More times than I can count. I usually appreciate it in the long term even if I'm embarrassed in the short term. Unless, of course, I decide on reflection that the criticism wasn't fair. 

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, MercyA said:

FWIW, I don't think it's necessarily middle-schoolish to "defend" one another. I know when I am in a discussion IRL, and someone misunderstands me, it can be helpful to have someone else say, "I see where Mercy is coming from--I think she just meant...." and etc. IDK. I think many women are just that way. I don't see it as a bad thing.

And I know I have been personally called out for the way my words came across, and I appreciated it. It's helped me learn how to converse better (I hope). Is this what you mean by "tone policing," @Pam in CT? 

Tone policing tends to be more along the lines of, “I would listen to you and maybe agree with you but you were mean to me so now your point is dead to me.”

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Tone policing tends to be more along the lines of, “I would listen to you and maybe agree with you but you were mean to me so now your point is dead to me.”

l don't do that, for what it's worth. It's not even a virtue -- it's not how I function. My DH, on the other hand... 😉 

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

l don't do that, for what it's worth. It's not even a virtue -- it's not how I function. My DH, on the other hand... 😉 

Yeah, I obv. have next to no patience for it. It’s used far too often to fend off the vapors at the expense of hearing and addressing concerns that should inspire righteous indignation vs mild curiosity. This is why the men who marry into this family are adoring, long-suffering types.

Edited March 6, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Yeah, I obv. have next to no patience for it. It’s used far too often to fend off the vapors at the expense of hearing and addressing concerns that should inspire righteous indignation vs mild curiosity.

Well, as you shouldn't. The specific phrasing has no relationship to the seriousness of the issue. Plus, as a very patient person, I have noticed that people who claim not to be listening because you're angry don't listen when you keep things calm, either.

That being said, I do try to keep calm. I do think it's more effective in the long term. (On the other hand, I think some righteous indignation can be just the right tone to jog someone out of their complacency.) 

[Pam in CT]

re "manners" vs "effective communication" vs "tone policing"

21 minutes ago, MercyA said:

...And I know I have been personally called out for the way my words came across, and I appreciated it. It's helped me learn how to converse better (I hope). Is this what you mean by "tone policing," @Pam in CT? 

Me too.

To my mind, "tone-policing" is quite different -- barely even related -- to "manners"; and "effective communication" is yet another, sometimes-related-but-not-synonymous, thing.  I am a huge proponent of both manners and effective communication.  Nearly always, even difficult content can be conveyed with reasonable manners, so long as both parties engage in even approximate good faith and sustained commitment to the dialogue.  It is definitely possible to disagree without being disagreeable... so long as both partners in the engagement are actually willing to be disagreed-with without going all defensive or tetchy or flouncing or whatever.

Tone-policing OTOH boils down to some variant of, maybe your message maybe might have some validity, but, due to your tone, you're driving "well intentioned" people such as myself away.  Tone-policing pushes the content of the dialogue AWAY.  Sometimes there's a concern trolling element. Often it also has some variant of that "rushing in to defend someone else's possibly bruised feelings" middle school element.

But the most important aspect of tone-policing is that it functions to sustain the existing order. It is children who are taught to "be seen and not heard." Women who are trained to be "nice" and to "catch flies with honey not vinegar."  Women who are "shrill," POC who are "angry" or "uppity" and etc.  It is the party with lesser power whose tone is policed, the party of greater power that claims the mantle of determining what "tone" is within bounds.

And:

7 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

...I have noticed that people who claim not to be listening because you're angry don't listen when you keep things calm, either...

Indeed.  (That is actually the test, to determine if the tone-policing really is about manners, vs if it is merely concern trolling.  This is, of course, only something you learn about another person over time, and many interactions.)

 

 

re damsels in distress

21 minutes ago, MercyA said:

...FWIW, I don't think it's necessarily middle-schoolish to "defend" one another. I know when I am in a discussion IRL, and someone misunderstands me, it can be helpful to have someone else say, "I see where Mercy is coming from--I think she just meant...." and etc. IDK. I think many women are just that way. I don't see it as a bad thing...

Sure, it's always nice to feel like someone's at your back on the substance of an idea.  And when one person is building on, or attempting to replay to check for understanding, or to clarify somebody else's IDEA... that isn't the damsel-in-distress dynamic.

The damsel-in-distress dynamic involves one person rushing in to defend someone else's possibly-bruised feelz.  I agree with your observation that many women are that way -- it's not a dynamic I see in men's interactions with men. 

19 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I agree with that. I don't think hurt feelings disappear at the end of middle school, never to return again 😉 . ..

No, of course not.

The challenge of adulthood is to figure how to conduct ourselves through the difficult landmines, including those hurt feelings.

 

[Melissa Louise]

1 hour ago, Pam in CT said:

re "calling in" vs "tone policing"

That may be the rub. The changing of minds is not my goal.

 

 

We're all grownups here. There is no need to rush to "defend" one another, or to try to explain what we think somebody else "meant," or to validate somebody else's possibly bruised feelings or whatever.

This isn't middle school.  @Not_a_Number  is more than capable of speaking for herself, whether it's to me or to @Sneezyone or anyone else, about the substance of an opinion she holds or the phrasing of a prior post she feels has been misunderstood or a bruised feeling or anything else. She's not some damsel in distress who needs a translator. 

I say that not to be harsh but BECAUSE I RESPECT HER.  She is more than able to hold her own in dialogue that might veer into raising-hackles territory. If my poor phrasing strikes HER as "condescension," she can tell me so, publicly or privately. Or not, if she opts not to for tactical reasons or the thread has moved on or whatever.

 

 

 

Related yet separate: Here's a hypothesis - maybe different "minorities" also have different collective experiences and traditions re style of argument. Maybe the insistence on "humility" is culture-framed. Maybe that construct resonates differently to different religious traditions, or maybe it feels different depending on where one is on the power spectrum. Just a thought.

 

 

 

 

I'm confused why you'd think I was defending anyone. Numbers is more than capable of handling her own self, as no doubt is sneezy. I certainly see neither as damsels. 

Frankly, I also find this insistence on framing the discussion through a very particular political lens of 'power', where actual access to resources (the basis of) is ignored in favour of using a single correlated proxy, puzzling. 

Threads usually move on, after many pages of on topic discussion. It's disingenuous to behave with mock shock about it. 

On the point of humility resonating more with some faith traditions than others, well, yes. It's a Catholic value, certainly. I believe it's a value in many religious faiths and sects. It's also a useful secular value, at times. 

On the point of 'where one is on the power spectrum', that's....well...it's that's a 'you do you' situation. Respectfully, your lens (like my own) is not the only way to understand human behaviour.

 

 

 

[MercyA]

22 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

Tone-policing OTOH boils down to some variant of, maybe your message maybe might have some validity, but, due to your tone, you're driving "well intentioned" people such as myself away.  Tone-policing pushes the content of the dialogue AWAY.  

Thank you so much for your whole post, Pam! That was super helpful. 🙂

Re: the bolded--I understand this now, and I personally find it very irritating. I came across it recently in a discussion I was attempting to have with a friend about Covid. "This isn't the way to convince me!" she said. "You're brow-beating me!" I really don't think I was...and I don't think she would have been open to what I was saying regardless of my tone. 😞 

Sometimes the time for mincing words is long past.

Edited March 7, 2021 by MercyA

[SlowRiver]

On 3/5/2021 at 10:16 PM, MercyA said:

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.

Right.

I suppose I think the first point is that I would say that it is dangerous to take at face value the idea that a whole group of people think that all of these depictions are racist or problematic, just because some person has identified them as such. There is a tendency to take the voices of section of people as representative of the views of "the x  community" and yet very often, they aren't. There are often all kinds of different points of view. In the worst case scenarios this can involve suppressing certain viewpoints within those communities and that can unfortunately involve all kinds of power struggles the public at large is unaware of. Who gets to speak for a community is not a clear question and very often it comes down to who says what the people shaping the conversation want to hear.

 I've seen an instance in recent times where this tendency was actually consciously exploited by one faction in a local community dispute where there was a significant battle as to which faction would represent the community in government negotiations - the tendency of the wider public to not ask questions and the media to prefer a simple narrative meant that one faction was able to present themselves as if they were the legitimate representatives of the community being and the state was, for bigoted reasons, was unwilling to recognise them - and it came very close to pushing the government into doing so.  

That's perhaps not a typical example, but in general it's worth being suspicious of any simple statements of what "the x community" says or thinks. There are almost always go-to voices that the media represent as leaders in these communities as if they are representative.

The only way to really avoid this, and a better practice in any case in terms of really looking at problems, is simply to listen to what people say without attempting to impose some kind of unified voice, and also to subject ideas, whomever they come from, to tests like how do they relate to fist principles, do they make historical sense, are they applying this in context, are they mistaking what is meant to be a metaphor or ironic comment for a literal statement. And then there are larger questions, like what would be the effect overall of taking the action being proposed by those who dislike the image, because very often there are other, non-neutral outcomes. There are also thought exersises that can be useful, such as what would we think of a similar document from a similar period from another culture, or issues that can be difficult to understand at all and may need some expert input, such as, are we adding a modern gloss to this text or image that is just wholly anachronistic?

My objection here with that image is particularly with some of the comments made - the idea that it's an offensive image because it depicts this imaginary vision as exotic, or shows them in dress that is out of date, or gets the shoes wrong. I would maintain that it is not offensive for a child in a book to imagine a person from a generation ago who they would never be likely to see in their town, and for it to be depicted as  improbably and fun and exotic. Nor it is offensive that the illustrator didn't get all the details of dress right - not only was there less easy access to images at that time, and the style of image isn't realism anyway, but the focus on that kind of detail as being deeply important is only about five minutes old - to impose it on illustrators from any culture from more than half a century ago is inappropriate. (And as far as the earlier article posted about The Cat in the Hat, that is an embarrassment to scholarship and should be ripped to shreds by any literary critic - there is no way it should be allowed to stand as representative of what any community thinks about that book.)

That's not to say there isn't more to think about those particular images, and I think picking apart the general tendency for all the images in the books to be exaggerated cartoons (yes, even the ones that are depicting white people) makes it particularly difficult with Seuss. But the willingness to accept reasoning like that above is a little disturbing. And the unwillingness to engage with the context of the decisions: the problems at the moment in children't publishing generally; the way young employees of publishers are threatening their publishing houses for publishing authors they disapprove of; the fact that what seems likely to be a financial decision is being presented as something else; and I think especially the very good APA letter copied earlier in the discussion which touches on the current environment in libraries and publishing houses, to the point of multiple posters simply denying that there is any cause for concern at all, there is a terribly passive attitude to considering what is really going on with this.

Even the claim that it doesn't matter because they weren't popular books anyway. Even without asking whether they were worthwhile books, it's a strange statement. If no one was reading them, why the need for the statement? They weren't influencing people they just fall out of fashion like so many books do. If many people were reading them, then maybe they were valuable in some way or many people disagree that the problems in them are so serious, and so then you are talking about restricting texts. 

[MercyA]

@SlowRiver, I understand your point about the Chinese clothing. Honestly, out of all the problematic elements of the illustrations, the clothing is the most difficult aspect for me to understand. 

That said, I can't see the Seuss company's decision to cease publishing depictions of African people as monkeys and Chinese people with yellow skin as anything but a Very Good Thing. There's nothing sacred about the images. They are hurtful and damaging. It would be wrong, IMO, for the company to continue to profit from them.  

I'm all for free speech. I spent a portion of my life as an activist, and the images we chose to use were sometimes deemed "offensive." However, we found their use to be effective in changing minds, and to us that outweighed any offense they might cause. They had redeeming value. It was my right as an American citizen to use them or not use them, based on my own judgment.

Seuss Enterprises has the same right. If we take them at the word, they apparently fail to see any redeeming value in continuing to use such denigrating images. They are already preserved for posterity to learn from, if necessary. There is no good or noble reason to continue to profit from the images and disseminate them to young children. 

Edited March 7, 2021 by MercyA

[Dmmetler]

1 minute ago, MercyA said:

@SlowRiver, I understand your point about the Chinese clothing. Honestly, out of all the problematic elements of the illustrations, the clothing is the most difficult aspect for me to understand. 

That said, I can't see the Seuss company's decision to cease publishing depictions of African people as monkeys and Chinese people with yellow skin as anything but a Very Good Thing. There's nothing sacred about the images. They are hurtful and damaging. It would be wrong, IMO, for the company to continue to profit from them.  

I'm all for free speech. I spent a portion of my life as an activist, and the images we chose to use were sometimes deemed "offensive." However, we found their use to be effective in changing minds, and to us that outweighed any offense they might cause. They had redeeming value. It was my right as an American citizen to use them or not use them, based on my own judgment.

Seuss Enterprises has the same right. If we take them at the word, they apparently they fail to see any redeeming value in continuing to use such denigrating images. They are already preserved for posterity to learn from, if necessary. There is no good or noble reason to continue to profit from the images and disseminate them to young children. 

I also imagine they had to make a choice-do we allow these images to be edited, allow them to stand, or remove them entirely. 

 

A couple of years ago, we got to see a gallery show of original art from some of the books (primarily the beginner books).  They were amazingly beautiful and detailed in a way that doesn't come through completely in the printed versions. I can understand why the estate chose not to go the "editing" route-and if they had already decided, based on feedback that these images were hurtful to some, that they could not stand, the only other option is to stop publishing those books. 

[MercyA]

1 minute ago, Dmmetler said:

I also imagine they had to make a choice-do we allow these images to be edited, allow them to stand, or remove them entirely. 

Yes! Very true. 

That sounds like a neat exhibit! 

[Tanaqui]

If a person does not want to work for an employer who engages in what they consider to be unethical actions, that is their right. If they would like to inform the employer that they will cease working there if things are not remedied, that is also their right. That's not "threatening" anybody, that's one entity exercising their right of free association.

[Melissa Louise]

2 hours ago, MercyA said:

@SlowRiver, I understand your point about the Chinese clothing. Honestly, out of all the problematic elements of the illustrations, the clothing is the most difficult aspect for me to understand. 

That said, I can't see the Seuss company's decision to cease publishing depictions of African people as monkeys and Chinese people with yellow skin as anything but a Very Good Thing. There's nothing sacred about the images. They are hurtful and damaging. It would be wrong, IMO, for the company to continue to profit from them.  

I'm all for free speech. I spent a portion of my life as an activist, and the images we chose to use were sometimes deemed "offensive." However, we found their use to be effective in changing minds, and to us that outweighed any offense they might cause. They had redeeming value. It was my right as an American citizen to use them or not use them, based on my own judgment.

Seuss Enterprises has the same right. If we take them at the word, they apparently fail to see any redeeming value in continuing to use such denigrating images. They are already preserved for posterity to learn from, if necessary. There is no good or noble reason to continue to profit from the images and disseminate them to young children. 

I'm going to push back on the idea that  images cause hurt/harm, even while acknowledging potential for images to cause offence. 

This circles back round to blasphemy law, something the secular West should not be tolerant of.

Tolerating blasphemy law was behind the shameful but commonly expressed idea that although the Charlie Hebdo massacre was tragic and tasteless, they sadly 'brought it on themselves' to an extent, through their 'harmful imagery'. 

We don't need de facto blasphemy law. One way a culture avoids it is to avoid the idea that any particular word or image can itself cause harm.

 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Melissa Louise

[Tanaqui]

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that words and images are so powerful that they need special protection at all times, because they share ideas and open minds - and then also say that they are harmless.

[Melissa Louise]

You can say that the human ability to create art is precious and worth protecting from even the shadow of the censors hand. 

Looking at everything through a power lens is limiting. Imo. It's useful for some forms of analysis and not others. 

 

[mitten]

...

Edited March 7, 2021 by mitten

[Corraleno]

24 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

I'm going to push back on the idea that  images cause hurt/harm, even while acknowledging potential for images to cause offence. 

The claim that depicting Black people as ape-like characters in grass skirts with rings through their noses does not actually cause harm or hurt is indefensible.

[Sneezyone]

12 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The claim that depicting Black people as ape-like characters in grass skirts with rings through their noses does not actually cause harm or hurt is indefensible.

Particularly so when those same images are used to mercilessly attack people, verbally and otherwise, in and out of public life. These very images and terms are used as weapons against others. How quickly we forget the depictions of the last first couple and their own, documented, reactions to it/feelings about it. No harm, right? BULLSHIT. Anytime you step out of line and get too uppity the first socially acceptable slur people reach for is monkey. It is dehumanizing, intentionally so, and that absolutely does impact how people are treated.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Sneezyone

[MercyA]

39 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

I'm going to push back on the idea that  images cause hurt/harm, even while acknowledging potential for images to cause offence. 

This circles back round to blasphemy law, something the secular West should not be tolerant of.

Tolerating blasphemy law was behind the shameful but commonly expressed idea that although the Charlie He do massacre was tragic and tasteless, they sadly 'brought it on themselves' to an extent, through their 'harmful imagery'. 

We don't need de facto blasphemy law. One way a culture avoids it is to avoid the idea that any particular word or image can itself cause harm.

Hmm. I understand where you're coming from, but I do think images can cause real harm. They can cause people to internalize racism or (in the case of p*rn) disrupt normal sexual functioning or incite hatred.

That doesn't mean certain images or certain types of speech should be actually outlawed, and I don't think anyone in this conversation has advocated for that. 

People have the freedom to create and also the freedom to choose to discontinue creating what they now believe to be wrong. 

I'm not sure it has to be a slippery slope. 

Edited March 7, 2021 by MercyA

[Sneezyone]

We acknowledge words and images cause harm every time we prohibit false advertising/misleading claims. Apparently it’s only a problem acknowledging the harm when it relates to race/ethnicity. It’s not enough to deny the rights of a private company now. We’ve moved on to denying the existence/reality of people who say they are harmed. Denial seems to be a theme here.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Melissa Louise]

39 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Hmm. I understand where you're coming from, but I do think images can cause real harm. They can cause people to internalize racism or (in the case of p*rn) disrupt normal sexual functioning or incite hatred.

That doesn't mean certain images or certain types of speech should be actually outlawed, and I don't think anyone in this conversation has advocated for that. 

People have the freedom to create and also the freedom to choose to discontinue creating what they now believe to be wrong. 

I'm not sure it has to be a slippery slope. 

I thought this way too, until I saw people of my own political persuasion using the 'but they kinda deserved it ', first on Rushdie, then on Hebdo victims and survivors. It's funny, because I grew up thinking the spirit of censoriousness belonged to my ideological opponents - the kind of people who wanted to ban P**  Christ, and stop kids listening to 'evil, harmful' metal. 

Pornography isn't art, btw. It's a commercial abuse industry. 

I absolutely agree with you that nothing much will happen if some minor Seuss books go OOP. I absolutely agree with you that some Seuss images reflect cultural racism. I absolutely agree with you that overtly racist images are unsuitable read-aloud material in kindergarten. 

I'm just sharing why 'with much fanfare, remove images causing harm' is not a framing without its own harmful history and costs. 

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Melissa Louise
Errant apostrophe

[Sneezyone]

By that logic, this isn’t art either. It’s part of a long and storied history of commercial abuse and exploitation of people.

[Melissa Louise]

30 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The claim that depicting Black people as ape-like characters in grass skirts with rings through their noses does not actually cause harm or hurt is indefensible.

No, it doesn't cause harm. It's literally ink on the page. From eighty years ago. In the same way a cartoon of Mohammed doesn't cause harm. Or Andrea Chu writing words that define 'woman' as 'the state of being blank, expectant, a hole' doesn't cause harm. 

It is, however, offensive. It's a racist depiction. I've said a zillion times, I wouldn't be buying or reading it to kids. It's not been in any bookshop I've worked in for the past 15 years. I don't think any child should have compelled exposure to racist images, so I support its removal from school libraries.

Still, I'm not going to head down the path of ascribing an action to an image.

[Melissa Louise]

6 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

By that logic, this isn’t art either. It’s part of a long and storied history of commercial abuse and exploitation of people.

Now that's an article I'd want to read. Publishing is often exploitative, and I'd find this a really interesting (and possibly persuasive) approach. 

[Pam in CT]

mere words/images causing "harm" vs "offense"

1 hour ago, Melissa Louise said:

I'm going to push back on the idea that  images cause hurt/harm, even while acknowledging potential for images to cause offence. 

This circles back round to blasphemy law, something the secular West should not be tolerant of.

Tolerating blasphemy law was behind the shameful but commonly expressed idea that although the Charlie Hebdo massacre was tragic and tasteless, they sadly 'brought it on themselves' to an extent, through their 'harmful imagery'. 

We don't need de facto blasphemy law. One way a culture avoids it is to avoid the idea that any particular word or image can itself cause harm.

Our culture entrenches and codifies the idea that the use of particular words/images have potential to cause harm in all sorts of realms.  Child pornography laws. Libel laws. Extortion laws. The protection of copyright materials from pirating or unauthorized use.  Harassment laws. Some of those codified "harms" are commercial in scope; others reputational; others acknowledge the proximity of, say, extorting words to threats of FUTURE "action", or the proximity of, say, child pornography to the possibility of some slippery slope between reading about raping a baby leading to the actual future "action" of physically raping a baby.  But as a culture we limit the use of words and images ALL THE TIME. 

Even though it's literally just ink on a page.

54 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

We acknowledge words and images cause harm every time we prohibit false advertising/misleading claims. Apparently it’s only a problem acknowledging the harm when it relates to race/ethnicity. It’s not enough to deny the rights of a private company now. We’ve moved on to denying the existence/reality of people who say they are harmed. Denial seems to be a theme here.

 

20 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

No, it doesn't cause harm. It's literally ink on the page. From eighty years ago. In the same way a cartoon of Mohammed doesn't cause harm. Or Andrea Chu writing words that define 'woman' as 'the state of being blank, expectant, a hole' doesn't cause harm. 

It is, however, offensive. It's a racist depiction. I've said a zillion times, I wouldn't be buying or reading it to kids. It's not been in any bookshop I've worked in for the past 15 years. I don't think any child should have compelled exposure to racist images, so I support its removal from school libraries.

Still, I'm not going to head down the path of ascribing an action to an image.

I am not following the logic of this part.

Is your argument that only physical "actions" count as "harm"... and mere words/images on a page can merely cause "offense"?  Like, is copyright theft -- merely printed inked words on a page -- just "offence," rather than "harm"? 

 

 

[Melissa Louise]

20 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

mere words/images causing "harm" vs "offense"

Our culture entrenches and codifies the idea that the use of particular words/images have potential to cause harm in all sorts of realms.  Child pornography laws. Libel laws. Extortion laws. The protection of copyright materials from pirating or unauthorized use.  Harassment laws. Some of those codified "harms" are commercial in scope; others reputational; others acknowledge the proximity of, say, extorting words to threats of FUTURE "action", or the proximity of, say, child pornography to the possibility of some slippery slope between reading about raping a baby leading to the actual future "action" of physically raping a baby.  But as a culture we limit the use of words and images ALL THE TIME. 

Even though it's literally just ink on a page.

 

I am not following the logic of this part.

Is your argument that only physical "actions" count as "harm"... and mere words/images on a page can merely cause "offense"?  Like, is copyright theft -- merely printed inked words on a page -- just "offence," rather than "harm"? 

 

 

My thoughts are  that liberals ought to strongly self-reflect on the merits of adopting a spirit of censoriousness.

And that literature and art more generally should and must fall outside of that censoriousness. Even at some social cost. With the power over literature and art merely that of the individual who can close the book or walk away from the image, and create their own answering art. 

I find Chu, for example, incredibly offensive. I think Chu's infamous description of woman is the most obnoxious misogyny. If enough women claimed the words harmed us, and were violent towards us, perhaps a publisher would refuse to reprint it (ha! as if misogyny is ever taken seriously).

But why would I do that? It's illiberal. A liberal response is to keep social control over art to the absolute minimum. 

My personal opinion, despite finding much of literature both classist and misogynist, is that claims of harm in the realm of books should be restricted to direct incitement to violence and defamation of named individuals. 

As always, you are welcome to disagree. 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Melissa Louise
Typos

[Melissa Louise]

5 hours ago, MercyA said:

@SlowRiver, I understand your point about the Chinese clothing. Honestly, out of all the problematic elements of the illustrations, the clothing is the most difficult aspect for me to understand. 

That said, I can't see the Seuss company's decision to cease publishing depictions of African people as monkeys and Chinese people with yellow skin as anything but a Very Good Thing. There's nothing sacred about the images. They are hurtful and damaging. It would be wrong, IMO, for the company to continue to profit from them.  

I'm all for free speech. I spent a portion of my life as an activist, and the images we chose to use were sometimes deemed "offensive." However, we found their use to be effective in changing minds, and to us that outweighed any offense they might cause. They had redeeming value. It was my right as an American citizen to use them or not use them, based on my own judgment.

Seuss Enterprises has the same right. If we take them at the word, they apparently fail to see any redeeming value in continuing to use such denigrating images. They are already preserved for posterity to learn from, if necessary. There is no good or noble reason to continue to profit from the images and disseminate them to young children. 

You're conflating issues. 

The argument about profit is one discrete issue.

One notes the irony of the increased profits for the Seuss estate this week. 

The issue of disseminating them to young children is a separate issue. 

Tbh, I'm still agog that books I've not seen on shelves anywhere for decades are still apparently being forced on small children in the US.

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

During the interview process for a new job I went to lunch with some of the executives. One of them remarked that I kept saying "we." I can't remember what she said but she implied that it meant that I was inexperienced. I didn't get the job despite being the top candidate before the lunch interview. I was taken aback by what she said because I'd never noticed that I used "we" more than "I" when discussing my accomplishments. After considering it, I realized that I felt strange saying "I" when discussing successes. It felt presumptuous and like I was tempting fate. I think it's cultural, "Don't brag about yourself," "be humble."

My immigrant friend gave me hell for saying "I" instead of "we" when discussing my contributions to something or other.  ("I" was factually true, and I had no motive other than conveying facts.  I have always been far more likely to put myself down than to lift myself up at others' expense.)  I learned to say "we" whenever credit was to be given for anything, even if no other person touched whatever it was.  On the other hand, my friend was always ready to praise me to others.  So as long as it works both ways in the relevant culture, "we" is a fine way to approach things.

I'm not sure if "we" ever caused me problems in mainstream Western culture.  I do know that there have been people who took credit for my ideas and work, as well as blaming me for things that weren't my fault.  But maybe that would have happened regardless of my choice of pronoun.

In an interview, I guess it depends on what the interviewer values.  I don't think it's wrong to say "I, I, I" in an interview, as long as it's the truth.  But when working as a team, I don't like it; it rubs me the wrong way if I hear it too much.

Edited March 8, 2021 by SKL