Anonymous wrote:
The problem is not the publisher deciding something, it's why they did it in the larger social context of racism.

You all think i's "obvious" it's racist and only an idiot or racist would disagree. I'm telling you it's not at all "obvious" it's racist. I tried to explain that as best I could, but people still think only idiots think that way.

But since I'm the supposed idiot, it guess it's obvious to all of you that there is only one way to think and you all have the right way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OR OP your opinion is just in the minority. Why do you care that people disagree with you, so much so that a publisher decides it also disagrees with you? What harm do you think is being perpetrated here? Really. I want to know. What is it you fear is being lost? There are better books in the catalogue that don’t have the same problems. No one is cancelling Seuss.

Oh, my opinion is definitely in the minority. It's an even smaller minority than you think. That's why you all keep taking wrong guesses and wonder what it "really" is. I could try to tell you, but you probably won't like it. Want me to try anyway? If you don't get it you don't, but will you think I'm idiot because you don't get it, or admit that other people might have a valid opinion too.

You made your opinion clear many times. You don’t see a problem with the books. There’s no guessing going on here.

You didn’t answer my question.

The harm is that in using a subjective standard that favors some people over others, those who are disadvantaged by this in some way also suffer a type of "harm." You call yourself empathetic because you extend your empathy to certain races. But you don't extend your empathy to others whom you disagree with. This harmful to them and they are telling you so. You think the harm to them doesn't count. It is your right to think that. I think that's wrong. Sorry I have empathy for people who don't count. It apparently makes me a bad person. I'm okay with that.

Harmful to whom and how, do tell.

Who is harmed by stopping publication?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OR OP your opinion is just in the minority. Why do you care that people disagree with you, so much so that a publisher decides it also disagrees with you? What harm do you think is being perpetrated here? Really. I want to know. What is it you fear is being lost? There are better books in the catalogue that don’t have the same problems. No one is cancelling Seuss.

Oh, my opinion is definitely in the minority. It's an even smaller minority than you think. That's why you all keep taking wrong guesses and wonder what it "really" is. I could try to tell you, but you probably won't like it. Want me to try anyway? If you don't get it you don't, but will you think I'm idiot because you don't get it, or admit that other people might have a valid opinion too.

You made your opinion clear many times. You don’t see a problem with the books. There’s no guessing going on here.

You didn’t answer my question.

The harm is that in using a subjective standard that favors some people over others, those who are disadvantaged by this in some way also suffer a type of "harm." You call yourself empathetic because you extend your empathy to certain races. But you don't extend your empathy to others whom you disagree with. This harmful to them and they are telling you so. You think the harm to them doesn't count. It is your right to think that. I think that's wrong. Sorry I have empathy for people who don't count. It apparently makes me a bad person. I'm okay with that.

Harmful to whom and how, do tell.

Anonymous wrote:Long live Dr. Seuss!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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'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.

I agree. And that it is why it's not a big deal when publishers decide to stop publishing them.

Pretty sure this is a business decision dressed up to earn woke points and next to nothing more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OR OP your opinion is just in the minority. Why do you care that people disagree with you, so much so that a publisher decides it also disagrees with you? What harm do you think is being perpetrated here? Really. I want to know. What is it you fear is being lost? There are better books in the catalogue that don’t have the same problems. No one is cancelling Seuss.

Oh, my opinion is definitely in the minority. It's an even smaller minority than you think. That's why you all keep taking wrong guesses and wonder what it "really" is. I could try to tell you, but you probably won't like it. Want me to try anyway? If you don't get it you don't, but will you think I'm idiot because you don't get it, or admit that other people might have a valid opinion too.

You made your opinion clear many times. You don’t see a problem with the books. There’s no guessing going on here.

You didn’t answer my question.

The harm is that in using a subjective standard that favors some people over others, those who are disadvantaged by this in some way also suffer a type of "harm." You call yourself empathetic because you extend your empathy to certain races. But you don't extend your empathy to others whom you disagree with. This harmful to them and they are telling you so. You think the harm to them doesn't count. It is your right to think that. I think that's wrong. Sorry I have empathy for people who don't count. It apparently makes me a bad person. I'm okay with that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp, many people have told you what they think is bad and why. You’re just ignoring them instead of engaging, because you want your opinion to appear unchallenged. It’s getting a little old.

I engaged a lot. I told that all of you have the same problem that ylu think this racist by some objective standard, but it isn't. It's totally subjective. My opinion is subjective too. That's because is there no possible objective standard. The fact that we are repeatedly using a new subjective standards while other people use other subjective standards is a big deal. But you don't realize this because you think this new standard is still objective.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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'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.

I agree. And that it is why it's not a big deal when publishers decide to stop publishing them.

Pretty sure this is a business decision dressed up to earn woke points and next to nothing more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OR OP your opinion is just in the minority. Why do you care that people disagree with you, so much so that a publisher decides it also disagrees with you? What harm do you think is being perpetrated here? Really. I want to know. What is it you fear is being lost? There are better books in the catalogue that don’t have the same problems. No one is cancelling Seuss.

Oh, my opinion is definitely in the minority. It's an even smaller minority than you think. That's why you all keep taking wrong guesses and wonder what it "really" is. I could try to tell you, but you probably won't like it. Want me to try anyway? If you don't get it you don't, but will you think I'm idiot because you don't get it, or admit that other people might have a valid opinion too.

You made your opinion clear many times. You don’t see a problem with the books. There’s no guessing going on here.

You didn’t answer my question.

Anonymous wrote:

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'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.

I agree. And that it is why it's not a big deal when publishers decide to stop publishing them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The problem is not the publisher deciding something, it's why they did it in the larger social context of racism.

You all think i's "obvious" it's racist and only an idiot or racist would disagree. I'm telling you it's not at all "obvious" it's racist. I tried to explain that as best I could, but people still think only idiots think that way.

But since I'm the supposed idiot, it guess it's obvious to all of you that there is only one way to think and you all have the right way.

With possibly racist jokes, artwork, etc. my golden rule is: would I tell this/show this to someone of that race/ethnicity?

I would definitely be ashamed to show this to a Chinese American or immigrant.

I have no problem with it and know Chinese people who don't think it's racist, they think it's just a cartoon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp, many people have told you what they think is bad and why. You’re just ignoring them instead of engaging, because you want your opinion to appear unchallenged. It’s getting a little old.

I engaged a lot. I told that all of you have the same problem that ylu think this racist by some objective standard, but it isn't. It's totally subjective. My opinion is subjective too. That's because is there no possible objective standard. The fact that we are repeatedly using a new subjective standards while other people use other subjective standards is a big deal. But you don't realize this because you think this new standard is still objective.