The Dr. Seuss issue

[Apache]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I tend to find the groups objecting to those as being close to the "if God meant man to eat cooked food, we'd be born with stoves in our throats" group.

My favorite quote along those lines is: "If God had meant us to run around naked we would have been born that way."
Apache

[DNSB]

Out of curiosity, has anyone else other than myself posting in this thread actually talked to someone with Chinese ancestry about how they felt about the illustration before regurgitating how offensive it is?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Question Mark

Which was it? Who knows? Given the history of events over the last few years, I have my suspicions. But they remain just that.

Again... I'm perfectly content with believing it was a little of both. Not willing to concede that it must be either/or.

[Tarana]

Mine is Green Eggs and Ham. I still know it almost by heart Sam I am.

[pata]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I know it's true because of stories like that were linked in this thread. It's not a shadowy group who is pressuring, of course, they are quite open about it. But calling it shadowy does let you imply that anyone who noticed the campaign is obviously some sort of conspiracy nut.

Yes, I am quite concerned about the cancel culture, no scare quotes needed. We need to get back to the old ACLU ideal of "I don't believe in what you say, but I defend your right to say it". Kind of funny that back then, it was considered enlightened and liberal, but now it's just a bunch of conservative conspiracy nuts who believe it.

I assume you say this in jest? Conservatives have always been the biggest proponents of 'cancel culture' from banning metal/rap/'parental advisory' music to burning Harry Potter books to ostracizing The Dixie Chicks. You can stop with the revisionism

The ACLU ideal still stands, unless you misunderstood it:

[Question Mark]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Again... I'm perfectly content with believing it was a little of both. Not willing to concede that it must be either/or.

Could well be the case. Things are seldom either black or white.

The unfortunate thing is that those on both sides of the debate with axes to grind have needlessly politicized the issue. And the only people who really suffer out of this sad state of affairs are the children.

[Question Mark]

Originally Posted by Apache

My favorite quote along those lines is: "If God had meant us to run around naked we would have been born that way."
Apache

Will have to remember that one. Thanks for sharing.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Thanks. Good to know. But I was mostly addressing pwalker8's mistaken assumption that I was saying Dr. Seuss in general didn't sell well when I was (pretty clearly) talking about the 6 books in question specifically.

Oh, I'm largely agreeing with you. We have a large Seuss library, and these books are in excellent condition because they're just not very good. Many of the others have been read over and over again.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by pata

I assume you say this in jest? Conservatives have always been the biggest proponents of 'cancel culture' from banning metal/rap/'parental advisory' music to burning Harry Potter books to ostracizing The Dixie Chicks.

Absolutely. The most cursory look at recent banned and challenged books lists shows that it's predominantly conservatives and religious bigots objecting to books with LGBTQ+ content, antiracism content, *whispers* sex, and, erm, magic. With the strongest focus being on anything queer.

If you want to tackle cancel culture, start here:

http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/f...gedbooks/top10

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by meeera

The most cursory look at recent banned and challenged books lists shows that it's predominantly conservatives and religious bigots objecting to books with LGBTQ+ content, antiracism content, *whispers* sex, and, erm, magic. With the strongest focus being on anything queer.

Dr. Seuss has been hit from both sides:

“Green Eggs and Ham” was banned briefly in California in the early 90s when it was considered to involve a homosexual seduction plot. A California school district also pulled “The Lorax” by Dr. Seuss because of content that it believed made the forest industry appear criminal.

Same with J.K. Rowling.

I'm against book/eBook (and newspaper) suppression and self-censorship regardless of whether it is corporate or governmental, left or right. I guess we could discuss political motives over at the political forum, but in terms of a web board promoting Mobile Reading, I don't think motive is the big issue. The issue is, for me, freedom to read.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I know it's true because of stories like that were linked in this thread. It's not a shadowy group who is pressuring, of course, they are quite open about it. But calling it shadowy does let you imply that anyone who noticed the campaign is obviously some sort of conspiracy nut.

I read the same articles you did and still didn't see where outside pressure was put on the Seuss foundation. I did see this:

You don’t have to burn your favorite Thing One shirt or get rid of all of your Dr. Seuss books or cut Green Eggs and Ham from your diet...

If the foundation were responding to outside agitators, why is The Cat in the Hat still safe?

Yes, I am quite concerned about the cancel culture, no scare quotes needed. We need to get back to the old ACLU ideal of "I don't believe in what you say, but I defend your right to say it".

I do think cancel culture is a real thing. Blocking abhorrent people like Ann Coulter from speaking at colleges after they have been invited isn't good.

I just don't see that with Dr. Seuss, or Potato Head for that matter. Artists (or rights holders) are capable of making changes on their own without a Twitter mob coming after them.

Kind of funny that back then, it was considered enlightened and liberal, but now it's just a bunch of conservative conspiracy nuts who believe it.

I'd say trying to call out cancel culture in places where it clearly doesn't fit, just because it is thought it will help score points in a news cycle, begins to water down and weaken the concept. Much like what has happened to the term 'fake news'.

[Question Mark]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I read the same articles you did and still didn't see where outside pressure was put on the Seuss foundation.

Just curious. What do you make then of the Cambridge elementary school librarian who publicly refused Melania Trump's gift of Dr. Seuss books, writing an open letter explaining how harmful they were despite two years earlier hosting a Green Eggs and Ham breakfast for students while dressed up as the Cat in the Hat?

https://thefederalist.com/2017/09/29...thday-costume/

Seems very much like outside pressure to score cheap political points to me. Do you really think that the Seuss foundation would have overlooked those events?

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Dr. Seuss has been hit from both sides:



Same with J.K. Rowling.

I'm against book/eBook (and newspaper) suppression and self-censorship regardless of whether it is corporate or governmental, left or right. I guess we could discuss political motives over at the political forum, but in terms of a web board promoting Mobile Reading, I don't think motive is the big issue. The issue is, for me, freedom to read.

“The censors of our age do not yet burn books, they attempt to restrict speech in the name of "offense". The tactics may be different but the desire for control is the same.”
― Carmine Savastano, Two Princes And A King: A Concise Review of Three Political Assassinations

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I wish The KLF still sold their music.

Can't buy, but can now stream: https://open.spotify.com/artist/6dYrdRlNZSKaVxYg5IrvCH

[joblack]

It's a book censorship and burning.

On a historical perspective the Nazi dictatorship used book burnings to try to erase information they didn't want others to know.

So I don't like a lot of books but I don't want them to be 'canceled'. I just don't buy them.