I’m a liberal democrat horrified by the current Dr Seuss drama and normalization of censorship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The original line that OP quoted was actually pretty offensive. It was apparently revised in 1978. Here is the original text and drawing:



According to Wikipedia:

"The book has received only one textual revision. In 1978, Geisel agreed to a slight rewording, renaming the character who appears near the end of the story a "Chinese man" instead of a "Chinaman".[14] He also agreed to remove the character's pigtail and the yellow coloring from the character's skin."

The book was pointing out how diverse Mulberry Street was in a dream. It wasn't saying anything derogatory about the person. It was showing how a child was enthralled by all the diversity of the world he dreamed about. The reality of Mulberry Street was that there was no Chinaman or Chinese Man. It was a boring street. The book was wishing the child could meet diverse people and see diverse things. So to me, taking it out signifies that we really just want to experience Mulberry Street as it really was.

The man wrote a book about all the places you could go. All the houses you could live in. He wrote about Sneetches and accepting everyone regardless of the look of your skin. He definitely appreciated cultures. It's all ridiculous.

The issue isn't the wish for diversity, it is the characatures that propagate falsehoods about a race or group of people.

[Anonymous]

What really bothers me about this is that the man was a complex person with many anti-racist views. It's like people can't even think anymore. They can't even imagine Mulberry Street 70 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The original line that OP quoted was actually pretty offensive. It was apparently revised in 1978. Here is the original text and drawing:



According to Wikipedia:

"The book has received only one textual revision. In 1978, Geisel agreed to a slight rewording, renaming the character who appears near the end of the story a "Chinese man" instead of a "Chinaman".[14] He also agreed to remove the character's pigtail and the yellow coloring from the character's skin."

The book was pointing out how diverse Mulberry Street was in a dream. It wasn't saying anything derogatory about the person. It was showing how a child was enthralled by all the diversity of the world he dreamed about. The reality of Mulberry Street was that there was no Chinaman or Chinese Man. It was a boring street. The book was wishing the child could meet diverse people and see diverse things. So to me, taking it out signifies that we really just want to experience Mulberry Street as it really was.

The man wrote a book about all the places you could go. All the houses you could live in. He wrote about Sneetches and accepting everyone regardless of the look of your skin. He definitely appreciated cultures. It's all ridiculous.

The issue isn't the wish for diversity, it is the characatures that propagate falsehoods about a race or group of people.

Umm. No its not and this is why it's a problem. Have you read the book? It's about a boy who is bored on his way to school or somewhere and he wishes his village was more interesting and the world came to him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh brother. You don't even know who you are. As the others have said, your words do say something about you. You are not the only ones who may glean meanings.

Grow up. This is is not your father's Civil Righs movement. It is yours. Your opponents are different too. The world really has changed, including the people you hate.

Actually, the opponents haven't changed. Still generally white male, feeling aggrieved, or being manipulated to feel aggrieved.

You think I don't listen to reason, but you also don't listen. You just think you right because you ignore all the changes to focus on the similarities. It would be helpful if you looked at that and talked to the people in front of you, not people from the past. Stop the hate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What really bothers me about this is that the man was a complex person with many anti-racist views. It's like people can't even think anymore. They can't even imagine Mulberry Street 70 years ago.

Nobody is calling Dr. Seuss racist, only talking heads on Fox News are propagating that lie. The issue surrounds the use of racist caricatures in children's books. Please try to keep up.

[Anonymous]

And Dr. Seuss himself was ridiculed for being German as a child here. I think it affected his thinking and most of his books are anti-racist, not the opposite. It's just that things change in terms of wording, but if you actually read them, the message still carries on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The original line that OP quoted was actually pretty offensive. It was apparently revised in 1978. Here is the original text and drawing:



According to Wikipedia:

"The book has received only one textual revision. In 1978, Geisel agreed to a slight rewording, renaming the character who appears near the end of the story a "Chinese man" instead of a "Chinaman".[14] He also agreed to remove the character's pigtail and the yellow coloring from the character's skin."

The book was pointing out how diverse Mulberry Street was in a dream. It wasn't saying anything derogatory about the person. It was showing how a child was enthralled by all the diversity of the world he dreamed about. The reality of Mulberry Street was that there was no Chinaman or Chinese Man. It was a boring street. The book was wishing the child could meet diverse people and see diverse things. So to me, taking it out signifies that we really just want to experience Mulberry Street as it really was.

The man wrote a book about all the places you could go. All the houses you could live in. He wrote about Sneetches and accepting everyone regardless of the look of your skin. He definitely appreciated cultures. It's all ridiculous.

It’s not all ridiculous at all. He regretted a lot of what he wrote in his early years, and evolved. You can have great intentions and a really great message, but still screw up in the delivery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Words and images have meaning when put into context. Meanings are debatable and sometimes objectionable, so sometimes people refrain from using them for reasons that are entirely...reasonable. Goodness. Who knew. Don’t let these revelations scare you. Use them for good.

If you stop imagining I'm scared or whatever, you'd understand me a lot better.

Oh was I talking to you? I doubt you’re my audience. I’m talking to the guys you’re trying to influence.

Oh I get it. You understand what I said and are afraid of it. Yes, meaning are debatable, and we usually use a rational standard to decide. The new standard isn't rational. That's why these debates are getting worse. That should scare if you don't see a way out. But there is a way out. You won't see it though until you admit the truth that we are not rational creatures and are not scared by it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Words and images have meaning when put into context. Meanings are debatable and sometimes objectionable, so sometimes people refrain from using them for reasons that are entirely...reasonable. Goodness. Who knew. Don’t let these revelations scare you. Use them for good.

If you stop imagining I'm scared or whatever, you'd understand me a lot better.

Oh was I talking to you? I doubt you’re my audience. I’m talking to the guys you’re trying to influence.

Oh I get it. You understand what I said and are afraid of it. Yes, meaning are debatable, and we usually use a rational standard to decide. The new standard isn't rational. That's why these debates are getting worse. That should scare if you don't see a way out. But there is a way out. You won't see it though until you admit the truth that we are not rational creatures and are not scared by it.

Lol, I’m not scared of someone telling me my opinions are not rational. I’m a women, been hearing it since birth. 😒

get new material.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The original line that OP quoted was actually pretty offensive. It was apparently revised in 1978. Here is the original text and drawing:



According to Wikipedia:

"The book has received only one textual revision. In 1978, Geisel agreed to a slight rewording, renaming the character who appears near the end of the story a "Chinese man" instead of a "Chinaman".[14] He also agreed to remove the character's pigtail and the yellow coloring from the character's skin."

The book was pointing out how diverse Mulberry Street was in a dream. It wasn't saying anything derogatory about the person. It was showing how a child was enthralled by all the diversity of the world he dreamed about. The reality of Mulberry Street was that there was no Chinaman or Chinese Man. It was a boring street. The book was wishing the child could meet diverse people and see diverse things. So to me, taking it out signifies that we really just want to experience Mulberry Street as it really was.

The man wrote a book about all the places you could go. All the houses you could live in. He wrote about Sneetches and accepting everyone regardless of the look of your skin. He definitely appreciated cultures. It's all ridiculous.

It’s not all ridiculous at all. He regretted a lot of what he wrote in his early years, and evolved. You can have great intentions and a really great message, but still screw up in the delivery.

He changed some of the pictures and wording, but he didn't take them out of print, so presumably he would think they are okay now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What really bothers me about this is that the man was a complex person with many anti-racist views. It's like people can't even think anymore. They can't even imagine Mulberry Street 70 years ago.

Nobody is calling Dr. Seuss racist, only talking heads on Fox News are propagating that lie. The issue surrounds the use of racist caricatures in children's books. Please try to keep up.

Yes, they are. Did you not remember the teacher who wouldn't read Dr. Seuss when Trump sent a book because she thought he was a racist? And the cat in the hat was not about that. If anything it was anti-government and conforming. https://www.biography.com/news/story-behind-dr-seuss-cat-in-the-hat

There are plenty of books that depict Asian people as yellow even in Asia. Shouldn't we celebrate diversity? Do all characters need to be white?

There is nothing hurtful about that image either its original image or the new one. It's just semantics that people were offended by.

This person gets it right. Dr. Seuss not only talked about accepting diversity. He drew about it.:
https://qz.com/1090745/the-progressive-argument-for-reading-dr-seuss-books-to-kids/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Words and images have meaning when put into context. Meanings are debatable and sometimes objectionable, so sometimes people refrain from using them for reasons that are entirely...reasonable. Goodness. Who knew. Don’t let these revelations scare you. Use them for good.

If you stop imagining I'm scared or whatever, you'd understand me a lot better.

Oh was I talking to you? I doubt you’re my audience. I’m talking to the guys you’re trying to influence.

Oh I get it. You understand what I said and are afraid of it. Yes, meaning are debatable, and we usually use a rational standard to decide. The new standard isn't rational. That's why these debates are getting worse. That should scare if you don't see a way out. But there is a way out. You won't see it though until you admit the truth that we are not rational creatures and are not scared by it.

Lol, I’m not scared of someone telling me my opinions are not rational. I’m a women, been hearing it since birth. 😒

get new material.

Then what are you telling people not to be scared of?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The original line that OP quoted was actually pretty offensive. It was apparently revised in 1978. Here is the original text and drawing:



According to Wikipedia:

"The book has received only one textual revision. In 1978, Geisel agreed to a slight rewording, renaming the character who appears near the end of the story a "Chinese man" instead of a "Chinaman".[14] He also agreed to remove the character's pigtail and the yellow coloring from the character's skin."

The book was pointing out how diverse Mulberry Street was in a dream. It wasn't saying anything derogatory about the person. It was showing how a child was enthralled by all the diversity of the world he dreamed about. The reality of Mulberry Street was that there was no Chinaman or Chinese Man. It was a boring street. The book was wishing the child could meet diverse people and see diverse things. So to me, taking it out signifies that we really just want to experience Mulberry Street as it really was.

The man wrote a book about all the places you could go. All the houses you could live in. He wrote about Sneetches and accepting everyone regardless of the look of your skin. He definitely appreciated cultures. It's all ridiculous.

It’s not all ridiculous at all. He regretted a lot of what he wrote in his early years, and evolved. You can have great intentions and a really great message, but still screw up in the delivery.

He changed some of the pictures and wording, but he didn't take them out of print, so presumably he would think they are okay now.

No I don’t think he would, because his messages evolved with the times. He was really a shining example for our kids. His estate, and the people that are in charge of making decisions about it, are carrying on his tradition here. I applaud it. It’s an empathetic move. One he’d likely approve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The original line that OP quoted was actually pretty offensive. It was apparently revised in 1978. Here is the original text and drawing:



According to Wikipedia:

"The book has received only one textual revision. In 1978, Geisel agreed to a slight rewording, renaming the character who appears near the end of the story a "Chinese man" instead of a "Chinaman".[14] He also agreed to remove the character's pigtail and the yellow coloring from the character's skin."

The book was pointing out how diverse Mulberry Street was in a dream. It wasn't saying anything derogatory about the person. It was showing how a child was enthralled by all the diversity of the world he dreamed about. The reality of Mulberry Street was that there was no Chinaman or Chinese Man. It was a boring street. The book was wishing the child could meet diverse people and see diverse things. So to me, taking it out signifies that we really just want to experience Mulberry Street as it really was.

The man wrote a book about all the places you could go. All the houses you could live in. He wrote about Sneetches and accepting everyone regardless of the look of your skin. He definitely appreciated cultures. It's all ridiculous.

The issue isn't the wish for diversity, it is the characatures that propagate falsehoods about a race or group of people.

Umm. No its not and this is why it's a problem. Have you read the book? It's about a boy who is bored on his way to school or somewhere and he wishes his village was more interesting and the world came to him.

Right. So the issue is how the world that came to him was depicted in the book as it relates to 21 century sensibilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The original line that OP quoted was actually pretty offensive. It was apparently revised in 1978. Here is the original text and drawing:



According to Wikipedia:

"The book has received only one textual revision. In 1978, Geisel agreed to a slight rewording, renaming the character who appears near the end of the story a "Chinese man" instead of a "Chinaman".[14] He also agreed to remove the character's pigtail and the yellow coloring from the character's skin."

The book was pointing out how diverse Mulberry Street was in a dream. It wasn't saying anything derogatory about the person. It was showing how a child was enthralled by all the diversity of the world he dreamed about. The reality of Mulberry Street was that there was no Chinaman or Chinese Man. It was a boring street. The book was wishing the child could meet diverse people and see diverse things. So to me, taking it out signifies that we really just want to experience Mulberry Street as it really was.

The man wrote a book about all the places you could go. All the houses you could live in. He wrote about Sneetches and accepting everyone regardless of the look of your skin. He definitely appreciated cultures. It's all ridiculous.

It’s not all ridiculous at all. He regretted a lot of what he wrote in his early years, and evolved. You can have great intentions and a really great message, but still screw up in the delivery.

He changed some of the pictures and wording, but he didn't take them out of print, so presumably he would think they are okay now.

No I don’t think he would, because his messages evolved with the times. He was really a shining example for our kids. His estate, and the people that are in charge of making decisions about it, are carrying on his tradition here. I applaud it. It’s an empathetic move. One he’d likely approve.

Maybe, maybe not. We can't really know. True it's an empathetic move. But empathy isn't everything. That's heresy in some circles. I'm very empathetic. But I'm also a heretic.