Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I dont think it was getting played for laughs, but it was used as a device to identify that character as Asian. If you would have put him in a baseball cap and Burmuda shorts would it be recognizable? And don't forget, The illustrations in Seuss' books were based on the written sentences which usually leaned heavy on rhyming, alliteration and other language devices to get children to read easier.
I wonder how they'd draw Polish Catholics. Probably with the same zeal for caricature. I wouldn't find it offensive. Ah, but you are part of the dominant class, they would argue. "I was?" I'd retort. And then we'd go an ad nauseam about the whole thing.
As an aside I’d love to cancel Green Eggs and Ham but not because it’s racist. Because it’s annoying and rude. I don’t think children should be taught to bully people after they say no. “Come on, just try it.” The dude said he doesn’t want to. Why can’t he leave him the #### alone?
Caricatures are intentionally simplified drawings. Nothing in Suess' library are overly illustrated with any major detail. Hence when you simplify things, you need to highlight on obvious features or characteristics like period or culture specific clothing or accessories.
The big assumption in your statement is that the stuff being censored is truly offensive to most reasonable people. In actuality it’s usually a small number of very confused individuals playing the woke card. The Dr. Seuss campaign was started by one person - a black woman who admitted the other night on CNN that 6 years ago when she first Re ad the books she didn’t even notice anything offensive.
Again, literally the opposite of what I did. I posited one alternate theory as a possible explanation and asked how the original asserter knew his/her assertion was correct?
Actually, that's what I always thought reading the book, but we're not your average person, even if what you say is in jest. I found the interrogator annoying.
And now we get to the heart of the matter: telling the truth about people is not the same as tarnishing their reputations, because people are complicated, history is complicated, and we need to recognize that as a society:
Well maybe you just gave more refined sensibilities than me. I don’t know - I guess I’d ask - what harm is that picture doing? Who cares about this #### anyway? You do know that there’s no end to this stuff. Subsequent generations are always going to view prior ones as not Progressive enough. Someday tim’s grandchildren are going to think he was a bigoted dummy and lobby Joe Bryant III to have all of his 450,000 posts removed.
Full stop. Any racism from Lincoln can generally be attributed to the political realities and sensibilities of the time. The man was put in an impossible situation, that of trying to get other men to recognize the humanity of an out-group upon whose slave labor they depended. Any campaign speeches or political sentiments about sending black people back to Liberia is wildly overstated by literalists and radicals. C'mon. You know better than this. Or are you reading too much historical fiction from filtered sources and not enough primary material? I suspect I know which one...
Nothing that I wrote is false. Neither is your reaction to it. As I wrote these are complicated issues. There is no American in our history I respect more than honest Abe.
All of that is not true. They are gross exaggerations by a person who views the world through the myopic lens of modern Progressive activism. Sorry but it’s true. Lincoln and racist should never be in the same sentence. This wokeness crap has dumbed down an entire generation of otherwise intelligent people.
Yes it is. You claimed he was a virulent "racist" who wanted to deport black people to a foreign country. I assume you're talking about his speeches where he discusses sending slaves to Liberia and the entertainment of that notion, and I'm assuring you he did not free slaves as somebody who then sought to dehumanize those very same people. It's called statesmanship and expediency. Look at his actions: He launched one of the bloodiest civil wars in the world, suspended the most basic rights of the Constitution to do it out of necessity, and you're going to believe a speech or two or private musings into journals he knew people would read? It beggars belief that the man who took such action on the side of humanity was a racist. Lincoln saw the inherent humanity of black people and refused to yield, believing their freedom necessary for a God-fearing nation.
@timschochet's overall point is a good one. People are complicated. Most people have good qualities and bad qualities. Some have more of one and vice versa. No one is perfect. People are going to be even less perfect-seeming when viewed in hindsight. Whitewashing negative qualities doesn't benefit anyone. We should be nuanced to be able to say something like "Dr. Seuss was a phenomenal children's author and did a world of good things, but some of his drawings, while they may have been largely a product of the times, may be offensive to certain groups of people today." We should also be nuanced to recognize that such a statement isn't attacking Dr. Seuss, smearing him, or tarnishing his reputation.
In this case, the nuance is the cudgel by which one must submit to the vagaries of the application of profoundly modern values to historical texts and drawings. I won't abide nuance in this instance because there is very little objectionable, prima facie, about these books. Did Seuss do racist cartoons? Perhaps, and that is where we can add nuance to a biographical treatment. But nuance in this case means no books, and the ends are as important as the consideration upon which they are predicated.
I disagree with this take. If one book here or there is flagrantly racist, that's not at all the same as "ban all 50+ Dr. Seuss books". Again, nuance is appropriate.
You're shifting the premises of the argument and then rebutting your own premises. I never said anything remotely like this and you're putting premises in my mouth (and my mouf don't like it).
I understand that. The point is that no one is out there shouting "ban all Dr. Seuss books" or "Dr. Seuss was evil" or out to tarnish Dr. Seuss's reputation, which was something one poster specifically claimed here.
You wrote "But nuance in this case means no books". I took that to mean you were suggesting adding nuance to the equation of how we view Dr. Seuss would necessarily lead to all of his books being banned/removed. If that's not what you intended, it was simply a misunderstanding. I admit that your style of writing frequently confuses me regarding what you're actually advocating, so maybe I should ask "Do you mean X?" first.
Ah, I meant the six books now out of print. I thought we were talking about that. If you want to ask me direct questions, feel free. I'm not offended by misunderstanding either. The "mouf" thing was a joke. I was confused about your seeming shifting of premises, which was actually me not being clear enough about what I was referring to.
Nobody cares about the logistics of it, sho. It's been discussed about eighty ####### times in the thread. You'd have to be a complete dumb ### to be in the thread and miss that point. The point is, what discretion is the publisher using? It sounds like something less than generosity to the author.
Yes i know. Nobody cares about the facts. Better to complain and act as if stores are pulling them and people have been making a big deal about it instead. And seems clear it dod need to be pointed out given what I responded to.
You don’t need people shouting “ban all Dr. Seuss books" or "Dr. Seuss was evil" in order for the man’s reputation to be tarnished. Many people will just hear that his books were removed due to racist imagery.
Other than stating im not getting the point and saying someone would have to be a dumb ### to miss the point?
Last I checked...I wasn’t talking to you until you jumped in to sling crap...as you have been lately and taking it to insults often. Feel free to ignore me to end such nonsense.
So your argument is that we should continue to promote racist things because some geniuses aren't smart enough to educate themselves as to why nuanced positions were applied and specific racist items were discontinued? That seems... off?
Its not freaking censorship...thats the point.
I didn't say you weren't getting the point. Nowhere did I say that. I said a hypothetical person would have to be a dumb ### to miss the point that's already been made about twenty times. Not "you" as in "you, sho," but "you" as a generalized pronoun plural.
Except you are leaving out that there was no mob that forced this or Disney or Hasbro others lately that some of you are getting all bent out of shape about.
The bolded is where you lose me. You're making what I consider to be a highly questionable assumption.
It's hyperbole and a bit tongue-in-cheek, but serious. If there wasn't the Sword of Damocles hanging over everybody, this never happens.
Agreed. In fact, I blame this book for rampant drug use today. If the character never succumbed to the peer pressure and held firm at "no" we'd no doubt be living in a drug free utopia today.
See, I'm just not buying this. Isn't it just as possible the publisher wanted some free publicity? Isn't it just as possible the publisher legitimately feels those specific books are, in fact, racist or offensive?
You think one illustrated page in a Dr. Seuss book depicting an Asian in a traditional Asian hat with chop sticks is promoting racism? And that determination, held by a very small minority of people, gets to override the large percentage of people who see no problem with it? That seems... way off.
The determination was made by the publisher. They do, in fact, get to override everyone else.
The publisher is running scared. They don’t want to be labeled as “promoting racism” by the geniuses.
https://twitter.com/patagonia/status/1364969688451670020?s=20
