Another great article. If I can give two cents: I don't believe that what the Seuss estate is doing is right. They're basically doing what Disney does with movies like Song of the South: Pretend that it never happened. And that's wrong. Warner Bros whenever they released classic cartoons on DVD, they always had a disclaimer stating that while the stereotypes and racist imagery were wrong then and are still wrong today, they decided NOT to edit them and released them in their original state because pretending that they never happened is just as wrong and that we should learn from those mistakes. More companies need to learn this.
I completely agree it's better to err on the side of protecting art and history. Putting a warning in there instead of simply removing it and so forth.
Eric, you’re a gifted writer and I enjoy and appreciate your perspective. Of course, you should write about whatever you so choose. Here’s the but... These books are really racist. No one denies that. I’m sure they don’t sell well. So why exactly do the publishers need to keep printing them? They’re not being burned. They just aren’t going to print new copies. You suggest no longer being able to read them. But that’s not true. You lament tearing down bad statues (I can only assume you mean confederates) and painting over poems of colonialists. These are public displays. Public displays put up for veneration and in the case of confederate generals for intimidation as well. I think it important to consider the views of the people most directly impacted by these symbols, the people who suffered grievous harm from the purveyors of racism and outdated norms. White racial aggrievement (which I do not ascribe to you) is dangerous and I think it important to keep in mind when discussing these issues.
I don't actually "lament" the tearing down of statues. As I noted in a previous piece, I don't think tearing down statues is quite the same as censoring a book or whitewashing history. Statues glorify people and often those people should not be glorified. I'm not sure tearing them down has much more than symbolic meaning but that's fine. As to your other points, sure these are racist images in these books. Nobody (least of all me) is denying that. I think by removing them from circulation, though, we very much risk painting Dr. Seuss himself as a much tamer, less controversial figure. I guess to me it seems like we should have the good with the bad, warts and all, and be able to discuss rather than sweep under the rug. And I also don't disagree that white racial aggrievement is a problem, though I do wonder what the best way to deal with it is (and often disagree with some on the left's tactics).
for instance, even adding a "warning symbol" or notice will be more costly than just removing entire pieces of the story / show / video / audio / whatever.
deletion is almost always easier than adding anything in media... thus, cost-effective / more profitable.
First off, another great article. I look at this from a different vantage point. It is important to remember that messages contained in this type of art are not mere words in a book or movies on a screen. The messages go along with an era where basic human rights were being denied on the basis of race. The messages and symbolism helped perpetuate this denial of basic human rights. Often, someone will say that we need to understand the historical context or era in which these books were published as a way to excuse the author and continue to “enjoy” these works of art. However, that is a one-sided view of history. The victims that were denied their basic human rights knew that the messages were discriminatory and racist. However, they had no voice to protest. To say that these books were accepted back in the day is a false statement. They were accepted by a majority white population that had the power to discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities. They were not accepted by the racial and ethnic minorities. What was wrong back then is wrong today. The Seuss estate is right to stop publishing those books just as Disney is right to stop showing Song of the South.
Thanks, Bill, and really great comment. I think while you see this as a way to "excuse" Seuss and others like him (by saying "it was just a product of the time") I see it as a way to examine that time and the authors and artists and thinkers of that time and just think critically about them. They were both good and bad and so were the works they created. I don't want to sweep any of it under the rug, but I also certainly don't want to pretend like it was all just fine and dandy, either.
Well said, Bill. I was struggling to find a way to articulate what you said so eloquently.
My initial gut was to say that the republishing certain art with adequate disclaimers, offending imagery changed/erased, or even with 'parental guides' to help discuss the topic with children was the correct course, but I couldn't hit the 'post' button because there was an aspect of 'normalization' to this that wasn't sitting well for me - your comment and context helped immensely.
Another great article. If I can give two cents: I don't believe that what the Seuss estate is doing is right. They're basically doing what Disney does with movies like Song of the South: Pretend that it never happened. And that's wrong. Warner Bros whenever they released classic cartoons on DVD, they always had a disclaimer stating that while the stereotypes and racist imagery were wrong then and are still wrong today, they decided NOT to edit them and released them in their original state because pretending that they never happened is just as wrong and that we should learn from those mistakes. More companies need to learn this.
I completely agree it's better to err on the side of protecting art and history. Putting a warning in there instead of simply removing it and so forth.
Eric, you’re a gifted writer and I enjoy and appreciate your perspective. Of course, you should write about whatever you so choose. Here’s the but... These books are really racist. No one denies that. I’m sure they don’t sell well. So why exactly do the publishers need to keep printing them? They’re not being burned. They just aren’t going to print new copies. You suggest no longer being able to read them. But that’s not true. You lament tearing down bad statues (I can only assume you mean confederates) and painting over poems of colonialists. These are public displays. Public displays put up for veneration and in the case of confederate generals for intimidation as well. I think it important to consider the views of the people most directly impacted by these symbols, the people who suffered grievous harm from the purveyors of racism and outdated norms. White racial aggrievement (which I do not ascribe to you) is dangerous and I think it important to keep in mind when discussing these issues.
I don't actually "lament" the tearing down of statues. As I noted in a previous piece, I don't think tearing down statues is quite the same as censoring a book or whitewashing history. Statues glorify people and often those people should not be glorified. I'm not sure tearing them down has much more than symbolic meaning but that's fine. As to your other points, sure these are racist images in these books. Nobody (least of all me) is denying that. I think by removing them from circulation, though, we very much risk painting Dr. Seuss himself as a much tamer, less controversial figure. I guess to me it seems like we should have the good with the bad, warts and all, and be able to discuss rather than sweep under the rug. And I also don't disagree that white racial aggrievement is a problem, though I do wonder what the best way to deal with it is (and often disagree with some on the left's tactics).
revisionist history is profitable... so few companies will do this. sadly.
How do you mean?
for instance, even adding a "warning symbol" or notice will be more costly than just removing entire pieces of the story / show / video / audio / whatever.
deletion is almost always easier than adding anything in media... thus, cost-effective / more profitable.
Gotcha.
First off, another great article. I look at this from a different vantage point. It is important to remember that messages contained in this type of art are not mere words in a book or movies on a screen. The messages go along with an era where basic human rights were being denied on the basis of race. The messages and symbolism helped perpetuate this denial of basic human rights. Often, someone will say that we need to understand the historical context or era in which these books were published as a way to excuse the author and continue to “enjoy” these works of art. However, that is a one-sided view of history. The victims that were denied their basic human rights knew that the messages were discriminatory and racist. However, they had no voice to protest. To say that these books were accepted back in the day is a false statement. They were accepted by a majority white population that had the power to discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities. They were not accepted by the racial and ethnic minorities. What was wrong back then is wrong today. The Seuss estate is right to stop publishing those books just as Disney is right to stop showing Song of the South.
Thanks, Bill, and really great comment. I think while you see this as a way to "excuse" Seuss and others like him (by saying "it was just a product of the time") I see it as a way to examine that time and the authors and artists and thinkers of that time and just think critically about them. They were both good and bad and so were the works they created. I don't want to sweep any of it under the rug, but I also certainly don't want to pretend like it was all just fine and dandy, either.
Well said, Bill. I was struggling to find a way to articulate what you said so eloquently.
My initial gut was to say that the republishing certain art with adequate disclaimers, offending imagery changed/erased, or even with 'parental guides' to help discuss the topic with children was the correct course, but I couldn't hit the 'post' button because there was an aspect of 'normalization' to this that wasn't sitting well for me - your comment and context helped immensely.