5 ms·

It's not their use alone that is damaging, it's their use to make them into stereotypical evil characters.

mc32 6y ago
I don’t see Seuss making them into evil characters. I do see woodcuts using the same eye rendering for demons and other underworld characters, but I hope those don’t get banned by a foreign culture because it thinks it misrepresents its own people. At this point people are on a veritable ‘witch-hunt’ looking for their witches and waiting for Bradburys Firemen to come burn them.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >I don’t see Seuss making them into evil characters He was making anti-Japan propaganda, there's no doubt he made them into evil characters. Proof http://keyeventsofworldwar2.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/6/4/19640425/689958544.jpg http://keyeventsofworldwar2.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/6/4/19640...
  - nec4b 6y ago
    Do you have a problem with anti Japan war propaganda?
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      Much of it is extremely racist?
      - nec4b 6y ago
        Isn't that what war propaganda is about? To highlight differences and paint an enemy in the worst possible light as a way to rally against a fanatical enemy who doesn't consider you human.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        Though I find issue with how you view dehumanizing the enemy as acceptable as you say they don't consider us human, and I'd argue that such dehumanization always causes more harm then benefit, neither of those points matter here. If that's how you view war propaganda, clearly nearly a century after the war things influenced by such propaganda should not be exposed to young children.
- scottious 6y ago
  Evil, maybe not explicitly... but over-emphasizing asian-ness in order to portray them as a one-dimensional "other" is not a culturally sensitive way to handle it. I don't even think there's anything wrong with them being asian, it's the caricature aspect of it where it emphasizes race above all else. Those woodcuts you are referring to have a much different context. There's a big difference between a white man caracituring based on race and an asian culture using this depiction on their own terms.
  - mc32 6y ago
    I disagree here. I don’t see him putting people in there as one dimensional characters. And I don’t think things can only be described by people on their own terms. If it were the case then only descendants of imperialists (Japanese in Asia, Britons in India and America, etc) could talk about the aftermath. And only Africans can talk about things Africans and only Mexicans about Mexico, etc. That’s untenable.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      > I don’t see him putting people in there as one dimensional characters. How are you just ignoring his WWII career as a propaganda artist? I linked you one of the tamer examples, but he was creating cartoons depicting both Japanese and Germans as the evil enemy.
      - skyde 6y ago
        we are talking about the book that just got banned for no reason not his other obviously racist work.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        Right, obviously we should ignore his clearly racist work when judging whether his other work employs harmful racist stereotypes.
      - mc32 6y ago
Chris2048 6y ago
This is a slippery-slope and it's already played out in other contexts e.g. black-sploitation. Even "bad guys" can be good characters [0], the most complex/nuanced characters are also complex. Start dictating that <x> characters can't have negative attributes, and you end up with boring, simplistic caricatures of <x> thrown in as tokens, but never managing the highlight (because why would you want boring, restricted characters to be in central roles?). [0]: Is Gregory House a good character? Is "Dexter"? What about characters from the shield, or breaking bad?
skyde 6y ago
how did Dr Seuss make them stereotypical evil characters in his book ?

mc32 6y ago

I don’t see Seuss making them into evil characters. I do see woodcuts using the same eye rendering for demons and other underworld characters, but I hope those don’t get banned by a foreign culture because it thinks it misrepresents its own people. At this point people are on a veritable ‘witch-hunt’ looking for their witches and waiting for Bradburys Firemen to come burn them.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>I don’t see Seuss making them into evil characters He was making anti-Japan propaganda, there's no doubt he made them into evil characters. Proof http://keyeventsofworldwar2.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/6/4/19640425/689958544.jpg http://keyeventsofworldwar2.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/6/4/19640...
- nec4b 6y ago
  Do you have a problem with anti Japan war propaganda?
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    Much of it is extremely racist?
    - nec4b 6y ago
      Isn't that what war propaganda is about? To highlight differences and paint an enemy in the worst possible light as a way to rally against a fanatical enemy who doesn't consider you human.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        Though I find issue with how you view dehumanizing the enemy as acceptable as you say they don't consider us human, and I'd argue that such dehumanization always causes more harm then benefit, neither of those points matter here. If that's how you view war propaganda, clearly nearly a century after the war things influenced by such propaganda should not be exposed to young children.
scottious 6y ago
Evil, maybe not explicitly... but over-emphasizing asian-ness in order to portray them as a one-dimensional "other" is not a culturally sensitive way to handle it. I don't even think there's anything wrong with them being asian, it's the caricature aspect of it where it emphasizes race above all else. Those woodcuts you are referring to have a much different context. There's a big difference between a white man caracituring based on race and an asian culture using this depiction on their own terms.
- mc32 6y ago
  I disagree here. I don’t see him putting people in there as one dimensional characters. And I don’t think things can only be described by people on their own terms. If it were the case then only descendants of imperialists (Japanese in Asia, Britons in India and America, etc) could talk about the aftermath. And only Africans can talk about things Africans and only Mexicans about Mexico, etc. That’s untenable.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    > I don’t see him putting people in there as one dimensional characters. How are you just ignoring his WWII career as a propaganda artist? I linked you one of the tamer examples, but he was creating cartoons depicting both Japanese and Germans as the evil enemy.
    - skyde 6y ago
      we are talking about the book that just got banned for no reason not his other obviously racist work.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        Right, obviously we should ignore his clearly racist work when judging whether his other work employs harmful racist stereotypes.
    - mc32 6y ago

Chris2048 6y ago

This is a slippery-slope and it's already played out in other contexts e.g. black-sploitation. Even "bad guys" can be good characters [0], the most complex/nuanced characters are also complex. Start dictating that <x> characters can't have negative attributes, and you end up with boring, simplistic caricatures of <x> thrown in as tokens, but never managing the highlight (because why would you want boring, restricted characters to be in central roles?). [0]: Is Gregory House a good character? Is "Dexter"? What about characters from the shield, or breaking bad?

skyde 6y ago

how did Dr Seuss make them stereotypical evil characters in his book ?