Not your story to end.
I don’t know that DrDeth’s continued twists and fallacies in trying to defend Seuss from any possible accusation that what he drew had racist connotations should be substituted for the US.
But yeah, cartoons like that were aimed at making the idea of putting millions of Japanese-American citizens into internment camps more palatable to the average citizen. How they can be justified as not being racist, when the entire point of them was to dehumanize a race, doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
Connotations? As in
an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning.?
Certainly some of those drawings can have racist Connotations today,and can today even be considered racist by some. But their original purpose and meaning was certainly not racist at all. Seuss was a anti-racist. He hated racism and fought against it.
The reasons for the Internment camps were many and varied. Of course, it was standard practice to intern enemy citizens. We also interned Germans and Italians. But why American Citizens of Japanese descent? Some legitimately thought there would be significant 5th column activity (they were wrong but we know that now), some did it to protect the Japanese from racist mobs, and others were simply racist ignorant fucks. So, ascribing all the motives as “racist!” is wrong. It was very much the wrong thing to do, we know that now, but there was violence against the Japanese on the West Coast- but surely some other solution rather than put them all into camps was possible.
You are going to force me into a debate on it? I somehow doubt that. You are claiming Seuss was really a racist?
Nobody is stopping you from leaving if you think you are done with this story…but I’m pretty sure the story itself is not “done” yet
I wish you had told me this years ago.
Dr. Seuss was a racist, and I want to call him that.
Caricatures of black African “savages” with hugely exaggerated lips and topknots, the way Seuss drew them, are pretty much inherently racist. So are caricatures of Jews with huge beaked noses and hunched shoulders, for example.
Even if an individual artist isn’t trying to make any negative claim about the group being portrayed, the fact that such visual stereotypes are already so culturally soaked in racism makes the caricature inherently racist. There’s just no way to draw a caricature of a black person with stereotypical “blubber lips” that isn’t inherently racist.
Their purpose was to denigrate and dehumanize American citizens based on their race.
That’s absolutely racist. Dehumanizing others based on their race is the very core of racism. Due to the conflict at the time, it may have been justifiable in some eyes, but that doesn’t make it not racist.
As I think about things, comparing If I Ran the Zoo to The Cat in the Hat is pretty interesting. There’s no goddamned way I’d read the former to kids, but I wouldn’t feel that weird about reading the latter to kids, even though they’ve both been accused of racism.
“But won’t someone think of the children!” is never a more apt argument than when you’re talking about children’s literature. The racism in Zoo is right there on the page: you see the only Black characters in any of Seuss’s works, and they’re bug-eyed big-lipped naked savages. Kids aren’t full of background knowledge, but they’re goddamned sponges for information and patterns and cultural norms, and they’re gonna pick up on this idea, that people who live in Africa are coal-black funny-looking naked savages. They won’t express it like that, but their little sponge-brains are also file-folder brains, and they’ll file that information away in the “Africa” folder without realizing they’re doing it.
The Cat in the Hat apparently draws on minstrelsy traditions, and there are themes of cleaning up the stains left by the Cat’s children, and people have interpreted that as talking about the racist image of the irresponsible black father whose children stain an otherwise pure neighborhood. Ehhhh, I dunno. It sounds an awful lot like the sort of literary criticism that yanks my boogers. But even if I grant all that kids aren’t going to pick up on it. Most don’t know a minstrelsy tradition existed, and the few that know about it are gonna know because their parents are teaching them at a young age to be anti-racist. The symbolism is gonna go completely over their heads, if it’s even there in the first place.
I say we focus on what’s gonna give kids fucked-up ideas, and maybe steer them toward better kidlit. There’s plenty out there.
It might help you to read this interview with a scholar who has written multiple books about Seuss. The entire interview is good, but this passage in particular is pertinent:
I think what is surprising to people is that this was a guy who throughout his work tried to do anti-racist stuff. […] Some people look at that and think, “We just must be wrong about Seuss.” That’s because they see racism as an either/or—like, you’re on Team Racism or you’re not. But you can do anti-racist work and also reproduce racist ideas in your work. And Seuss wasn’t aware that his visual imagination was so steeped in the cultures of American racism.
Done with the story? Not at all. Done with debating Dr Seuss was a racist? yep.
You dont even seem to support that you think he was a racist.
Sure, but everything is steeped in the cultures of American racism.
However that cite agrees that Seuss himself was in no way a racist.
That’d be great if that were what was being argued against.
You can do racist things even if you are not a racist. Seuss drew some pretty racist stuff. That doesn’t make him a racist, and you seem to be the only one here that is struggling with that.
No, you cant. Just like you cant do evil things without being evil. Let me give an example. It is evil to kill a baby , true? But some decades a babysitter tried to run across some train tracks, missed and got killed by the train. Did the train engineer perform a evil act?
Now yes, certainly, today, 90 or so years later, we now look upon many things as racist that werent considered racist almost a century ago. And that’s great, mankind marches on, we get more aware, considerate, caring. But that doesnt mean that 90 years ago, they were racist then.
So, let me get this straight. The copyright holder of Dr. Seuss’s works has stopped publications of a handful of his lesser known works because it found some of the imagery in them to be objectionable. The right-wing media is having a freakout about cancel culture, with the result that conservatives have been buying up Dr. Seuss books in protest to the point that they completely dominate Amazon bestseller lists, profits going to the copyright holders, and now presumably conservative moms and dads will be reading about Sneetches and the Lorax to their kidlets.
That is some master-grade jiu jitsu right there.
People are not divided into mutually exclusive categories of “racists” and “non-racists”, where the latter are completely pure and beyond criticism.
You can say that Seuss was generally quite progressive on racial issues by the standards of his times and deserves credit for that AND also acknowledge that a small portion of his stuff was hair-raisingly racist.
He’s not on trial here. It’s not about him personally being a bad person.
Sure you can, through ignorance or justification.
And I don’t know why you are hung up on this, as you are simply wrong. You agreed with the cite when you said that Seuss was not racist, but ignored it when it said:
You seem to live in a very black and white world. One in which I wouldn’t want to visit for long, and certainly wouldn’t want to live.
Then your opinion on what is and is not racist is worthless, and there’s no point talking to you.
Period. End of story.
Just because something wasn’t “considered” racist in the past doesn’t mean that it wasn’t racist. I’m sure Japanese-Americans in 1942 wouldn’t have hesitated to declare those pictures offensive and racist. The fact that most WHITE people at that time wouldn’t have had a problem with them doesn’t mean anything, other than that most white people at the time wouldn’t have had a problem with it.
No, in order for something to be racist you must have racist intent.
Biden said something that sounded like the Nword. But he didnt intend to. Thus, it wasn’t racist.