Colbert could use profanity on his show, but CBS doesn’t let him, not the FCC.
And so?
I can see a legitimate complaint that they are employing, by modern standards, stereotypes that are less than flattering. But I don’t think caricatures of different groups, in the style Dr. Seuss did, are inherently racist. There are folks who live in the jungle. They do dress and adorn themselves drastically differently.
That said… the larger context can’t be ignored and that it appears that the majority of the time Dr. Seuss illustrated members of different cultures or races they were done so as to highlight their exoticness. Is that a problem? It’s problematic but not to the point where the material needs to be pulled or prevented from being sold.
If all little kids had were a comprehensive set of Dr. Seuss books and they used that to forge their vision of the reality of the world I’d consider a problem. Hell, National Graphic could be considered guilty of the same thing to some degree.
I dislike censorship. That’s not going to change. I do have problems with a tremendous amount of material that I’ve seen. No, I won’t link. But I think the alternatives to it being available are typically worse.
Who else remembers when the ‘right’ truly understood the danger of the good Dr?
I think we mostly agree he wasnt racist and that the illustrations - in their time- werent considered so either.
But some are very much non-politically correct and a few are rather cringeworthy, IMHO. The stereotypes there are sometimes pretty bad.
After looking at the pictures, I think most of the books could be printed with a warning label.
And now we have Ted Cruz laying the blame on Biden, and conservatives going on a Seuss buying binge.
Owning the libs by promoting the economic interests of companies acting according to “liberal values”.
Doesn’t matter what you don’t think. They are.
Even “jungle” is a loaded word. Of course, when you say it, the “bunny” is silent, I’m sure…
There’s “drastically different” (talk about Othering 
) and then there’s this straight-up racist shit that doesn’t represent any real Africans:
Cognitive dissonance much?
Do you not remember the interjection that you yourself made, and the context it was made in?
Your statement, “That has to due more with the FCCs legal control over broadcast TV and radio.” is not in fact the case, as there is a fair amount of self censorship well above and beyond what the FCC demands.
Your contention that you specified broadcast even further waters down your claim that it is more to do with the FCC, as the FCC only controls a small portion of what is put out there through various media, and yet, it is still bleeped, or have scenes cut out.
Does the FCC have anything to do with why certain lyrics are bleeped if you buy a CD at Wal-Mart, or hear a song on Spotify?
USA Network used to be fairly notorious for buying up the rights to b-grade movies with nude scenes, and cutting out the nude scenes. Did that have anything to do with the FCC?
It is different and I see no issue with recognizing differences. You’ve seen documentary on tribal/primitive folk haven’t you? Hell, we got some in the US in the mountains of Appalachia. I’m not disparaging people for different practices, dress, or adornments.
And what do you mean jungle is a problematic word? Tribes of people still live in jungles. Did I miss the memo on the proper term for jungle now? It’s almost a catch 22. If folks in traditional garb can’t be depicted or described because all such depictions are racist yet if they are excluded from being described or depicted and now that exclusion is racist you have a bit of a paradox.
And no recognizing that something in isolation may not be a problem but in a larger context may be problematic is not cognitive dissonance. It’s cognitive harmony.
I assume that you are not including the “n” in the woodpile comic? I can’t see any time or place when that wouldn’t be racist. I can see times and places where that type of racism was acceptable, but it absolutely is racist.
The dogwhistles keep piling up. Ooh, ooh, do “savage” next, that’s always a laugh
Not up on your Said and Achebe? I understand. I mean, An Image of Africa was only delivered in 1975…
So, nothing like the Africans Seuss drew, you mean?
Of course it doesn’t—the “African island of Yerka” is made-up.
I’m not convinced that the picture you “quoted” is “straight-up racist shit.” It’s problematic, but for reasons that are complicated enough that I’m not surprised not everyone understands them.
You don’t have to be convinced. It straight-up is.
You say this like it doesn’t reinforce my point.
No, it’s way past that.
As a whole, I don’t like censorship, either, but I don’t see censorship here. The books are still around. You will still be able to find them at libraries. They are still currently being sold on Amazon. And I’m sure there will be a secondary market for these little-known ere now tomes of Dr. Seuss for the completist. Many, many books go out of print for one reason or another. You can’t get a new copy of Madonna’s “Sex” or Cameron Crowe’s “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” or Carl Sagan’s “Murmurs of Earther” and so on and so forth. Add these to the list. This is much ado about nothing.
Aren’t you the poster who thinks male and female are taboo words? C’mon now. I’m not sure your sensibilities are in any way prescriptive. You don’t deny the existence of tribal folk. You just critique the traditional and common English words used to describe said folk. That combined with a liberal dose of ad-hominem attacks.
Here is a stock photo of a Mbuti Pygmy in traditional garb. Yes, what Dr. Seuss drew was not exactly this photograph and there are some exaggerations. But practically every illustration that Dr. Seuss drew was weirdly exaggerated.
Yes… yes… they don’t have a creature on a pole. But if Dr. Seuss illustrated that scene with very little exaggeration you’d be calling that intrinsically racist when it’s nothing more than a photograph of folks going about their lives as they have for however many years.
Errm, no? Do you have me confused for someone else, or have you woefully misinterpreted me objecting to someone calling a woman “a female”?
That is not “traditional garb”, it’s special clothing for a cultural/religious ceremony. It is no more “traditional garb” than white robes and a pointed hood is “traditional Spanish clothing”.
Are these particular illustrations intended to represent “a particular group of people who live in the jungle and have certain cultural traditions” or “black people”?
Can you point to any illustrations in any of these books where non-white people are depicted as anything OTHER THAN these strange, exotic, exaggerated caricatures?
No, I see that as poking fun at racists.
We know Seuss wasnt a racist and poked fun at racism at every opportunity.
Thus using Occams razor, the only possible conclusion is that he was poking fun at racism, not espousing it.
I have no idea how you think it reinforces your point.
Do we know this?
He likely wasn’t intentionally racist and what he drew was perfectly fine by the standards of the time. The problem is that those standards were themselves pretty damn racist in hindsight.