To tell the truth. I hadn’t even heard of some of these, and I’d only seen On Beyond Zebra once. But And to Think that I Saw it on Mulberry Street was one of the first books I got out of the library. Appropriately, it was Seuss’ first published children’s book. And I knew exactly why this book was picked. It has, among the many exotic things Marco imagines in the Mulberry St. parade, “A Chinese Man who eats with sticks” . He’s dressed in those traditional raised shoes, conical hat, robe, and with a bowl and chopsticks. He’s also drawn in a caricatured slant-eyed (actually, slit-slant-eyed) style. Not PC, but, then again, he wrote the book in 1937.
If you want to see what’s being retired and why, have a look at this piece from 2019:
(Here, by the way, is her description of the Mulberry Street illustration:
I don’t know what makes the chopsticks “exaggerated”, but they’re not straight.
Yeah, I had that book too.
The only other one I recognize is McElligot’s Pool, because Stephen King mentioned it as being a favorite. I haven’t read it myself.
I wonder if they can’t edit these things out and keep the books?
I’d far rather, if they’re still in print at all (and I admit I’d never heard of some of these books), that they be published with a new foreword about evolving standards and racism, and with a bibliography at the end of anti-racism books and websites. I’m opposed to burial or suppression of a part of our past that makes us uncomfortable, especially when it is part of the life’s work of a very accomplished and significant artist, as I think Dr. Seuss is.
I don’t think a message works too well for books aimed at beginner readers.
For Huckleberry Finn that is a great idea. For To think I Saw it on Mulberry Street, I don’t think it works as well.
good point. I absolutely disagree with banning Tom Sawyer / Huck Finn - I think those are absolutely vital works in explaining the societal differences between antebellum US and today, and work well in a classroom setting. I can agree with a “these are historical books - for more information go here” type message. The target audience of those books is probably 10-yr-old to adult (is a 10-year-old even going to understand “the Duke and the Dolphin”? Heck, most adults would probably need to be educated on the Dauphin), where they can understand the difference between “this is the way it was” and now, and maybe even learn why “the way it was” was wrong. The target audience for Mulberry Street is more like 4-year-olds, where that lesson would be lost. I don’t think that “Mulberry Street” should be BANNED (i.e. the Government saying “thou shalt not print”), but I applaud the decision by the copyright holders to not publish.
If I Ran The Zoo is pretty horrific, both in terms of pictures and text. There were certain pages I tended to skip when reading to my daughter in her earlier years.
The Cat’s Quizzer is one of my favorites. I wonder what the offending part is.
This decision does disappoint me. It seems we’ve decided that racial stereotypes are necessarily racist, even if there was no ill intent or negative trait being depicted. And of course, while racial stereotyping has problems, are historical examples really so offensive that they must be hidden away? Even if the surrounding work has great merit?
See, I find this idea similar to the statue argument. As long as the the history itself is preserved–which in this case would mean the originals are still available–I see no problem in having new editions that make changes. I’d much rather than the other result, which is that they aren’t published at all.
It’s not like the concept of modifications for new editions is a new concept. I noticed there are corrections in later versions of A Christmas Carol after I got an annotated version. Dickens himself seems to have decided that the seven with Belle being happy with her husband and children didn’t really fit. (It would fit more as part of Christmas Present, if anything.)
In some books, at least, it seemed like the problems were more with the images, not the writing, and I would definitely think it would be okay to release a version with altered illustrations. That has happened to New versions of books even more than large changes to the text.
Books no longer being printed because society is no longer interested in them (if it ever was) is the norm. For probably 99.999% of books ever written, that end came much sooner than it did for these.
If it is then exactly what ‘ill intent or negative trait is being depicted’?
BTW I’m going with racist because blacks, fried chicken, and watermelon caricatures don’t require ill intent, and often do portray negative traits, to be offensive.
It’s the racial stereotyping itself that’s offensive.
I don’t think people are claiming that there was any racist intent by Dr. Seuss, but that’s not overly relevant here. The problem is that the books are targeted for small children who won’t appreciate the historical setting. They are impacted by what they see and read, and these images aren’t appropriate. How do you present this to a small child in a way that teaches them why it is wrong? The great merit in those books is greatly tempered by the fact that showing them to children remains problematic.
Adults still have access to the content and it can be studied and discussed. But why print new copies for the original intended use?
As others have said, this is specifically for young children’s literature. A child will generally assume anything it sees an adult doing is okay. And it’s hard to discuss why racial stereotyping is wrong. Heck, it’s hard to discuss with adults and actually reach an understanding.
I would presume it would not actually be considered a racist stereotype if it was not portraying something negative in its depiction. And while the original users may have meant no harm, the implications would be there regardless. It’s just that people didn’t object to those implications at the time.
Do I know what all of these negative implications are? No. But I trust those who are the subject of the stereotyping to decide what is and is not harmful.
I know – the name is in the portion I quoted later in the post. But I don’t generally know the name of that footwear, so this represents my thoughts without looking anything up.
That impresses me as an extremely reasonable approach. Which is probably sufficient reason that it will have no chance of being taken!
Isn’t an element of the discussion of racism today that we are supposed to examine and discuss conditions existing in the recent and remote past? As opposed to simply sweeping it under the rug?
The responsibility falls, as it often must, on the parents who will likely be reading to the child. Eventually, when the child is old enough, he or she will see the framing info and be able to look into it further, if interested.
