The Dr. Seuss issue

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The howling group on social media really isn't all that different that the small group of people fixated on communism during the McCarthy period. They will keep misbehaving until someone firmly smacks them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. So far, we haven't hit the tipping point that McCarthy hit when he was asked if he had no decency. I would like to think we will hit that point.

And yet you expect people to respond to your posts without snark.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The howling group on social media really isn't all that different that the small group of people fixated on communism during the McCarthy period. They will keep misbehaving until someone firmly smacks them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

I've only seen one group howling on social media about this decision, and I'm pretty sure it's not the people you're referring to.

But go ahead and boycott the Seuss rights-holders. I suspect they'll continue to do just fine without you.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by shalym

Hmmm...I don't see where the government forced Astrid Lindgren (or even *asked* her) to remove the word. Her publisher asked her to, and she consented.

Censorship need not come from the government. It need not even forced. It may simply be an influence, from society, or a subset of society with significant influence, such as we see with social media influencers. But clearly there is an influence, and as such, the publishers made the decision to censor the word "negro." I think they made the correct decision to censor that word. It has by general agreement become outdated, and has negative historical connotations.

Originally Posted by shalym

It is definitely a change to the book, but since the author herself authorized the change, it is not censorship. It is, rather, an edit to the text of the book. If the author or copyright holder were *forced* to make the change, then that would be censorship.

This comes down to semantics. The published and author were *influenced* to alter the word. The author self-censored, as did the publisher. Nothing wrong with that; we all self-censor at times (well, some more than others )

Originally Posted by shalym

Or are you trying to say that all changes suggested to authors by publishers are censorship?
Shari

Clearly there is a difference between changing the word "black" to "African-American", and changing the word "nail" to "screw".

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I agree.

It doesn't change how anyone would interpret the message of her book. So I wouldn't see it as book suppression, even if done by heirs.

I will add that almost certainly there have been cases where a publisher and author approved a change to a work not because they really approved of the change, but rather because they feared a negative consequence.

In this particular case, I suspect that both were at play, as they were in the Seuss withdrawal. They both feared a consequence, and they personally approved the change. And I would also not call it suppression as you have, I would call it censorship, or to be more exact, self-censorship, which is still censorship. Anyway, it's semantics, but words, as we have seen, are important

[crane3]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

Censorship need not come from the government. It need not even forced. It may simply be an influence, from society, or a subset of society with significant influence, such as we see with social media influencers. But clearly there is an influence, and as such, the publishers made the decision to censor the word "negro." I think they made the correct decision to censor that word. It has by general agreement become outdated, and has negative historical connotations.



This comes down to semantics. The published and author were *influenced* to alter the word. The author self-censored, as did the publisher. Nothing wrong with that; we all self-censor at times (well, some more than others )




Clearly there is a difference between changing the word "black" to "African-American", and changing the word "nail" to "screw".

So why does the UNCF (United Negro College Foundation) still exist with the word "negro"? The news media also censor the "negro".

I think that using "Black" to refer to people is also catering to racism, just as using "white", yellow or red. Have read that the color coding of the human species was done by a Danish biologist who did the color coding for his convenience. As "white" meant European supremacy; "yellow" is for the Asian barbarians who cannot be considered white as they were not equal to the European whites; same with the "brown" Indians, etc.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by crane3

So why does the UNCF (United Negro College Foundation) still exist with the word "negro"? The news media also censor the "negro".

I think that using "Black" to refer to people is also catering to racism, just as using "white", yellow or red. Have read that the color coding of the human species was done by a Danish biologist who did the color coding for his convenience. As "white" meant European supremacy; "yellow" is for the Asian barbarians who cannot be considered white as they were not equal to the European whites; same with the "brown" Indians, etc.

Let’s not continue this line of argument. Subsequent posts on this offshoot will be deleted.

[arjaybe]

Next someone will blame the Enlightenment.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by meeera

Deciding not to reprint an old book something is not censorship, "self-" or otherwise.

Out of print Nury Vittachi:

North Wind: What the Hong Kong Media Doesn't Want You to Know

In print Nury Vittachi:

The Other Side of the Story: A Secret War in Hong Kong

Why he went from a regime critic to apologist, I don't know. It could be they threatened his family. It could be that he is a sincere convert.

I could rummage through U.S.S.R. history for similar examples.

Can't happen here? That is a question we might disagree on.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Question Mark

So you read all the same articles, including the one which specifically stated that complaints had been made to Dr. Seuss Enterprises and giving an example of one from 2014, and yet you still don't "see where outside pressure was put on the Seuss foundation."

Interesting...

Yes, because none of the articles you cite mention any of the six dropped books except Mulberry Street (the only one that was somewhat popular). They do regularly punch The Cat in the Hat though. And that one is still published. So...

[Question Mark]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Yes, because none of the articles you cite mention any of the six dropped books except Mulberry Street (the only one that was somewhat popular). They do regularly punch The Cat in the Hat though. And that one is still published. So...

You may want to reread this excerpt from an article which I previously quoted in a former post to you:

The removal was not made abruptly, as, according to Dr. Seuss Enterprises, the company made the decision last year. There had already been various complaints raised by the likes of teachers regarding the content of certain books. For example, If I Ran the Zoo was challenged at the Vancouver Public Library in 2014 for racist Asian stereotypes.

https://www.cbr.com/dr-seuss-stepdau...s-publication/

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Are you being ironic or is that your actual position?

A little from column A, a little from column B.

Look, I'm sure the Seuss Foundation has noticed stories popping up here and there and reviewed the books on their own and decided six of them are too dated to continue to be published today. My guess would be they would have no problem with the books continuing to be published for adults and I would bet they will be brought back in some form.

However, since these are children's books and when something similar happened to Tintin in the Congo it was stuck in the children's section anyway, for now their best course of action is to withdraw those books.

That is not the same as:

Originally Posted by Question Mark

It does seem that a lot of outside pressure was being put on Dr. Seuss Enterprises and that it wasn't a simple business decision on their part.

I just don't buy it. It's not 'cancel culture' and people flogging it as such are just trying to make money by stoking outrage.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Question Mark

You may want to reread this excerpt from an article which I previously quoted in a former post to you:

And yet The Cat in the Hat which steadily gets more heat is $5.90 at Amazon.

Why is that never addressed by you?

Anyway, post #191 says what I have to say.

[Question Mark]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Look, I'm sure the Seuss Foundation has noticed stories popping up here and there and reviewed the books on their own and decided six of them are too dated to continue to be published today.

Except Dr. Seuss Enterprises specifically stated that they listened and took "feedback" from their various audiences and then enlisted the help of an expert panel to review their catalogue, a process that involved "months of discussion." The word "feedback" suggests direct communication.

The decision to cease publication and sales of the books was made last year after months of discussion, the company told AP.

"Dr. Seuss Enterprises listened and took feedback from our audiences including teachers, academics and specialists in the field as part of our review process. We then worked with a panel of experts, including educators, to review our catalog of titles," it said.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dr-seus...se-publishing/

Presumably the "feedback" which they listened to and then acted upon was not favourable. Thus, it would seem to have been negative/critical feedback. In other words, outside pressure.

Had there not been that outside pressure/"feedback", would they have undertaken such a review of their catalogue? Seems unlikely.

Did they decide to stop publishing every title which has come under criticism? Clearly not. Some of the criticisms of other titles may have been judged to be unfounded.

In this regard, apparently some patrons of a library in Toronto thought that Hop on Pop should be banned because they felt that it encouraged violence against fathers. Fortunately, the library had more sense and likely realized that the request for a ban was not serious, but was made to drive home a point.

Dr. Seuss book Hop on Pop does not encourage 'violence against fathers,' library says in rejecting ban request

https://nationalpost.com/news/toront...ng-ban-request

[sun surfer]

Honestly I never really cared for Dr. Seuss, even when I was young (of what I remember anyway). I know I read a few of his books like Green Eggs & Ham (and did enjoy having green eggs and ham, and green milk, once when little), The Cat in the Hat, The Grinch (probably my favourite of the bunch) and some others. So I really don't care if the estate decides to pull some of them, or all of them. There's a million other good books children can read, and these'll still be available somewhere used if anyone really wants to read them, and they're not banned or burned by the government. If there's racist imagery then to me it seems like the right call.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by meeera

I've only seen one group howling on social media about this decision, and I'm pretty sure it's not the people you're referring to.

But go ahead and boycott the Seuss rights-holders. I suspect they'll continue to do just fine without you.

When we agree with a group, then they tend to be making a rational point, it's only groups we disagree with that we notice howling.

I'm a little old for Dr Seuss, so I never was going to buy the books.