Some Dr.Seuss books taken down

[Seliph]

That's a hard one

If I must say so he actually named the Cat in the Hat's real name after after Lovecraft's cat, citing Lovecraft as a "profound influence on his life and works". Of course you won't find this information online but I swear I didn't make it up.

I found The Lorax to be very Lovecraftian to be honest

 

[Julie_Pilgrim]

Of course you won't find this information online but I swear I didn't make it up.

Source(s):dude trust me

 

[FAST6191]

Calling bigotry callouts witch hunts? Nice Trumpian rhetoric. Completely removes any semblance of blame from the called-out, while simultaneously accusing the caller of either ignorant, needless destruction and/or deliberate targeted 'cancellation'. Thing is, it's bullshit and we all know it. I agree that the publishers should have taken a different route, but if anyone, blame them. Don't blame us, nor accuse us of being "perpetually offended", etc. There's a significant difference between the straw comparisons you and others sharing your view on this have made and what's actually happening. In this case, even if it WAS due to a direct callout or anticipation thereof, it wasn't "everything is racist and must be torn down" or anything of the sort. The offending images were in fact offending, with pretty blatant stereotypes or racist depictions in each. This really shouldn't be that hard to understand, but I guess I'm asking a little too much from mister "white privilege doesn't exist".
In addition, there's the matter of context. In this case, this small move by the publisher snowballed into people digging up Dr. Seuss's rich and absolutely wonderful history as a creator of extraordinarily racist propaganda! Ironically, had the right-wing crowd not immediately reacted as if some angry mob of torch-and-pitchfork-equipped ess-jay-double-yous dared to erase IMPORTANT LITERARY WORKS THEY HELD SO DEAR (despite the books in question being laughably obscure as is, compared to the more well known ones you mentioned that lack that kind of offensive material)... we wouldn't have the perfect contextual evidence we needed to defend against said absurd reactions!
This time, try actually putting yourself in the shoes of someone of a minority group. In a somewhat obscure book, there are images and descriptions that either paint your group in a negative light or overly generalize the entirety of your group into a stereotype that has been previously and historically USED to paint it in a negative light. Does it warrant completely stopping the book's publishing entirely? Eh, probably not, though it depends on the frequency and the context. Is it bigoted enough that taking offense to it is justified? Of course it is! If minor wrongs are allowed with zero consequences and negative reactions thereof are frowned upon, then they eventually become normalized- into the very sorts of privilege and systemic bigotry you still deny to this day.

Once more you seem kind of upset, and better upset at me despite us aligning in so many ways on what we would like to see in the world. Still amusing as ever. I will similarly reaffirm my opinions that white privilege is a historical concept at best and today if any exists it is so minor as to be lost in the noise, thus a useless world view or tool of analysis. You might also be guilty of projection or assuming I speak of certain parties, groups and mindsets when I fact do not.

Sometimes there are bigotries and idiocies that could well need calling out. Many times there are not. In recent times much of what I would see as harmless has been taken out (and that is before getting into the utterly nuts territory of "cultural appropriation"), deemed harmful and otherwise forced to adjust to a lens (which I don't necessarily agree with or see the merits in) of the day. If it is the latter then witch hunts seems a fitting term. There is a difference, I would view this as a witch hunt.
I dislike censorship, I dislike revisionism, I dislike history being lost. This even if I thought there was some harms involved.

Stereotypes. Maybe. If indeed those earlier pictures are the offending articles I not seeing the harm, or even them rising to the level of "harmful stereotype" like that stuff with the Persona game the other month or the real fun historical ones like the black brute. Not seeing them espousing a world view where those dirty non purple eyed people are inferior.
Racist. That is a harder call still from where I sit.

As far as the person. Don't give a shit in this instance. I am still on the works in question.

Similarly publishers and historical preservation groups are perpetually in need of money. If they did not deem it a necessary step then they would not have paid a consultancy firm. Jumping at shadows maybe (though you seem to think it had merit, though whether that is your own post hoc rationalisation we might debate a different day) but enough that I note it here and enough that I consider it a negative force upon the world.

 

[BlazeMasterBM]

man 2021 is crazy who even cares about Dr. Seuss anymore XD I read his books when I was 5

 

[the_randomizer]

Maybe it's time people stop reading too far into these things and grow a fucking pair for once. You know, instead of going full Fahrenheit 451 on books?

 

[FAST6191]

man 2021 is crazy who even cares about Dr. Seuss anymore XD I read his books when I was 5

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

Much the same applies to censorship. Be it from religious weirdos wanting things not ordained in their particular translation and interpretation of a given religious book, those that think a depiction of a fictional violent act will in turn make people violent, those weirdos that think having a past be accessible means the future will be tainted and whatever other reasons people have for wanting to burn books or stop the spread of information. Let it start happening and it tends not to stop, and when someone does bring out Mr Rifle to end it, or maybe just tech advances such that it is basically impossible to stop*, all you don't know what will have been lost (be it historical items or works never made/distributed) in the meantime. You also have the problem of "well you have already established a precedent that moral panics are justifiable reasons for censorship" and then the opposite political party with opposite views gets in and suddenly all you hold dear is called into question.

*the invention/introduction of the printing press back when vs the church, more recently the ability to self publish all sorts of things but not necessarily on the internet (typesetting on a press is difficult, typesetting on an electronic typewriter from the early 90s will have you begging me for even a copy of notepad on the PC but still 10000x easier than grabbing letters/words out of a case and lining it all up before messing around with ink), the breakup of cinema monopolies (see block booking) in turn more or less ending Hays code as independents could do what they like, cable/satellite TV being optional and thus not restricted by the FTC as hard and yielding the boom there, and obviously now the internet for the last few decades all being things responsible for big upsets against censorship and usually more tech based than societal shifts or shooting their way out.

So yeah we could have a debate as to the relative merits of Dr Seuss, could be interesting as his philosophy of "use a core set of words and go from there" was a fairly radical and ultimately successful step in the history of such books. Even without that though there are those that will oppose censorship on principle -- "I may not care for what you have to say, I will however defend your right to say it to the death" and all that. Whether they stick to the general principle or pick apart the specific reasoning of the instance in question might vary between people (both approaches have merit) but hey.

 

[Julie_Pilgrim]

Much the same applies to censorship

I mean, it's not like there's a huge dr.suess fan base that's gonna stick up for me if something I like gets removed

 

[Julie_Pilgrim]

shitposting aside, I think instead of removing these they could've taken the dc approach of putting a disclaimer that says something like "hey, these aren't ok now and weren't ok then"

 

[Valwinz]

Biden America where books get burn

 

[BlazeMasterBM]

shitposting aside, I think instead of removing these they could've taken the dc approach of putting a disclaimer that says something like "hey, these aren't ok now and weren't ok then"

yeah its better to educate people about history rather than pretending it didn't happen

 

[Louse]

Biden America where books get burn

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

You are the 1 MILLIONTH person who unironically quoted anti-establishment material to support the establishment!

Your prize: a free copy of 1984 to misinterpret!

 

[Bladexdsl]

Biden America where books get burn

LOL this sort of stuff has been happening for years long before biden! the snowflakes are taking ova

 

[Louse]

LOL this sort of stuff has been happening for years long before biden! the snowflakes are taking ova

good

 

[ChaosEternal]

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

You are the 1 MILLIONTH person who unironically quoted anti-establishment material to support the establishment!

Your prize: a free copy of 1984 to misinterpret!

Or perhaps over the last 70~ years that anti-establishment became the establishment. If we turned away from "book-burning" in the past and are now turning towards it again, will it only be appropriate to quote that once it has become official policy? Here's a quote from Bradbury himself, assuming you're referring to Fahrenheit 451:

I wrote this book at a time when I was worried about the way things were going in this country four years ago. Too many people were afraid of their shadows; there was a threat of book burning. Many of the books were being taken off the shelves at that time. And of course, things have changed a lot in four years. Things are going back in a very healthy direction. But at the time I wanted to do some sort of story where I could comment on what would happen to a country if we let ourselves go too far in this direction, where then all thinking stops, and the dragon swallows his tail, and we sort of vanish into a limbo and we destroy ourselves by this sort of action.

I see no reason why that warning is invalid simple because book banning is not official government policy at the moment. I don't personally think that we're at risk of returning to the days of the Red Scare, but I cannot agree that Fahrenheit 451 can only be referenced when you're referring to circumstances identical to the historical events which prompted its writing.

 

[BlazeMasterBM]

But for real, did anybody even care about these books before this happened? I've got too many things going on in my life to be worried about some old kiddies books being taken out of print