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

[Anonymous]

So now we can't have historical books that depict people different than we do today? It's not an offensive book. The people spending too much time on this image are the ones with too much time on their hands.

[Anonymous]

“Unless someone like you cares a whole lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not”

“If things start happening, don’t worry don’t stew; just go right along and you’ll start happening too.”

[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.

Interesting way to out it. How many characatures have been propagated on this thread by people who agree with you and against what group of people?

[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.

Interesting way to *out it. How many characatures have been propagated on this thread by people who agree with you and against what group of people?

*put it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Unless someone like you cares a whole lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not”

“If things start happening, don’t worry don’t stew; just go right along and you’ll start happening too.”

It doesn't mean ignore. I'm not just graduating high school or college. It was basically a comment to not let the difficulties of life get you down. Had nothing to do with taking action. He was quite political himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Unless someone like you cares a whole lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not”

“If things start happening, don’t worry don’t stew; just go right along and you’ll start happening too.”

It doesn't mean ignore. I'm not just graduating high school or college. It was basically a comment to not let the difficulties of life get you down. Had nothing to do with taking action. He was quite political himself.

I’m not sure what you think I think.

But my takeaway for the record is: he was a guy who got that things change, it’s okay and necessary to have strong opinions about the things you want to see change, and when things change that you didn’t expect to change, it’s an opportunity to learn something.

[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.

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

Interesting way to *out it. How many characatures have been propagated on this thread by people who agree with you and against what group of people?

*put it.

Sorry -- what is wrong with this? Do people in China not use chopsticks? The person is in traditional Chinese clothes for southern china.

[Anonymous]

It's not as bad as his earlier works where they're passing out TNT to all the Chinese people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Interesting way to *out it. How many characatures have been propagated on this thread by people who agree with you and against what group of people?

*put it.

Sorry -- what is wrong with this? Do people in China not use chopsticks? The person is in traditional Chinese clothes for southern china.

It doesn't say "people in China." It says "Chinaman." And the book treats eating with chopsticks as very strange, as other, something wildly outrageous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Interesting way to *out it. How many characatures have been propagated on this thread by people who agree with you and against what group of people?

*put it.

Sorry -- what is wrong with this? Do people in China not use chopsticks? The person is in traditional Chinese clothes for southern china.

It's a charactature of a Chinese person using stereotypical eating implements, therefore racist. It's really that simple, take it or leave it, but a lot of people will get offended if you don't agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Interesting way to *out it. How many characatures have been propagated on this thread by people who agree with you and against what group of people?

*put it.

Sorry -- what is wrong with this? Do people in China not use chopsticks? The person is in traditional Chinese clothes for southern china.

It doesn't say "people in China." It says "Chinaman." And the book treats eating with chopsticks as very strange, as other, something wildly outrageous.

They did change it to Chinese man. And it's not strange at all. It's just showing another place with a different custom.

[Anonymous]

It’s a reductive stereotype. The book is very quaint. Imagine your child saying the things the character says. I’d be mortified if my child expressed his curiosity about other cultures by parroting it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Interesting way to *out it. How many characatures have been propagated on this thread by people who agree with you and against what group of people?

*put it.

Sorry -- what is wrong with this? Do people in China not use chopsticks? The person is in traditional Chinese clothes for southern china.

It doesn't say "people in China." It says "Chinaman." And the book treats eating with chopsticks as very strange, as other, something wildly outrageous.

They did change it to Chinese man. And it's not strange at all. It's just showing another place with a different custom.

You haven't read the story, have you?

Look, I'll ask you the same question: What's wrong with this? What is wrong with a publisher deciding not to publish?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Interesting way to *out it. How many characatures have been propagated on this thread by people who agree with you and against what group of people?

*put it.

Sorry -- what is wrong with this? Do people in China not use chopsticks? The person is in traditional Chinese clothes for southern china.

It's a charactature of a Chinese person using stereotypical eating implements, therefore racist. It's really that simple, take it or leave it, but a lot of people will get offended if you don't agree.

How do you know when you’re looking at something that isn’t a caricature or stereotypical? And therefore is racist? Like what would an acceptable/unacceptable picture of a white man in this era look like???

I’m sincerely interested. I have some Chinese and Thai family and am more ambivalent about the drawings than many here. I’m more focused on the ugly lack of fairness in college admissions, which strikes me as even worse than the minimization of Jewish students at elite universities in the first half of the 20th century. Old cartoons by poorly traveled guys aren’t that big a deal, IMO.

[Anonymous]

“Mom! Why doesn’t that man with the slanty eyes eat with sticks and wear a pointy hat?” “Is he one of those helpers from a country with a name I can’t pronounce?” Omg 😱 Yikes.