8 ms·

Can you expand on how not continuing to distribute materials with racial representations from a time when skin color determined humanity / slavery is a poor dec

by nawgz 6y ago

Can you expand on how not continuing to distribute materials with racial representations from a time when skin color determined humanity / slavery is a poor decision? I do not like to see what I am seeing in this HN thread. I think that not propagating offensive, dehumanizing views publicly seems perfectly wise.

NeverFade 6y ago
This newfound moral outrage is hilarious. President Obama praised and recommended Dr. Seuss books in an official press release as recently as 2015, his last year as president. Now they are suddenly "outrageous and unacceptable".
- nawgz 6y ago
  I don’t think I used that quote, implied Dr Seuss doesn’t have all time classics without ethical issues, nor acted morally outraged. I did ask a question. “Hilarious” how you missed that.
  - skyde 6y ago
    if you associate Black people with literal monkeys you are the one that is racist. All the book is explicitly saying is that it would be a good idea to hire a person of African origin to work at the zoo. This have some logic to it in a child mind because they could assume they would know best how to take care of those animals. It's obviously a caricature but nowhere does it say African people are animals or monkey. This is all originating from your own racism.
    - nawgz 6y ago
      > If you associate Black people with literal monkeys you are the one that is racist Man, isn't it just fantastic how easily you make my point for me. This is also the viewpoint that Dr Seuss' publishers imagined the public at large would hold, so accordingly they have ceased to publish a book that represents "Africans" with this picture: https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/content/DrSuess_Board_2.png https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/content/DrSuess_Board_2.png So, now you see the issue yes? Article I pulled the image from: https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/post/six-dr.-seuss-books-will-no-longer-be-published-due-to-racist-images https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/post/six-dr.-seuss-books-will-no... Edit: I am unable to respond directly. The Africans are the monkeys holding the rod in that picture, that is the entire point of this whole "ceasing publication" business
      - skyde 6y ago
        Where do you see African in this picture all I see is imaginary animals. also link to full page https://blogs.slj.com/afuse8production/files/2014/09/IfRanZoo1-500x350.png https://blogs.slj.com/afuse8production/files/2014/09/IfRanZo... nothing in the text mention the monkey are actual people! Are you going to say the cat in the hat is offensive for people with Cleft lip ?
        nawgz 6y ago
        The monkeys in that picture were the picture representation of the "Africans" in that book. Your ridiculous deflection is saddening. You yourself stated the criteria the publisher made their decision under, and now you will act like you have not said it Edit: the very image you linked shows "the African island of Yerka", where they're retrieving the bird from, and you expect me to believe you can't see the implication that the monkeys in skirts holding the shaped bar the bird resides on are the African residents of that island?
        skyde 6y ago
        Did you read the book? I just did and did not find the page where it refer to an African Man. I might be wrong or it already got modified in recent copy of the book.
- AshWolfy 6y ago
  They didnt discontinue all his books, just a couple of older, obscure books, his classics will continue to be read and enjoyed
  - NeverFade 6y ago
    One of the books they banned, "And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street", was Dr. Seuss's breakthrough work, and certainly not "obscure". Another, "If I Ran the Zoo", is widely considered among his best. These are both very much among his classics.
    - AshWolfy 6y ago
      thats just revisionism, i dont remember either of them, and ive never seen anyone reference them until these past few days. after the controversy is over, nobody will miss them
      - NeverFade 6y ago
        No, revisionism is pretending canonical books like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_to_Think_That_I_Saw_It_on_Mulberry_Street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_to_Think_That_I_Saw_It_on_... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Ran_the_Zoo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Ran_the_Zoo are not important just because you don't remember them. Nobody will miss these books because they have been erased. Nobody missed banned books in the USSR either.
        nawgz 6y ago
        How are you acting as if a publisher ceasing to generate material that it wishes to ethically distance itself from, executed as a perfectly legal maneuver by a private corporation, is in any way analogous to the USSR's centralized government banning books? I'm sure some people will miss these books, but for those people they can go ahead and find a collector's copy on a marketplace, use a library which has them, find some other private holder, or use the internet to enjoy them in whatever capacity. This is because these books are not banned by a centralized government, but instead have been selected to cease publication by a private corporation.
everdrive 6y ago
Caricature and racism are not identical. I think that would be my primary counterpoint. Just because it's fallen out of fashion to draw people in such caricatured ways, does not necessarily mean that there was any negative or racist intent by the artist. I think this matters quite a bit. Dr. Seuss is not evil because he could not predict where the moral zeitgeist would lead us. People who actually supported slavery, or Jim Crow, I would say are in fact evil, regardless of whether those views were acceptable in some circles. You really must pay attention to intent, and this is a major failing of the modern edge of these progressive movements. If suddenly, some phrase quickly falls out of fashion, an I use the old antiquated phrase, it must matter whether I actually had any racist intent. Just the fact that I haven't kept up with the newest moral outrage is not enough on its own.
- nawgz 6y ago
  > Caricature and racism are not identical Ok, sure, this is a fair point in general, but how is it exactly applicable here? Let's take the example of "If I Ran the Zoo", since it's one of the only images [0][1] I can find. The synopsis of the book seems to be a child daydreaming about the animals he would keep at his zoo. Whether or not the "Africans" in this book are one of those animals is not clear to me, but this is a representation of African / Black people as literal monkeys. How you can try to imply that representing black people as monkeys is not racism, given the hundreds of years of insults in that vein, pseudoscience from slave owners and sympathizers suggesting the same, and indeed all the folk with the moral failings of the time that you suggest who would hold and perpetuate this viewpoint? > Dr Suess is not evil because he could not predict where the moral zeitgeist would lead us I completely fail to see how you can infer that a publisher not generating additional copies of prose that has found itself in a morally compromised position implies that Dr Suess is evil, or that anyone thinks that. Indeed, I believe Dr Suess to have published 60 or more books in his career, so merely 10% of his career publications have been selected to cease being replicated further because they partook and perpetuated the darker side of a slaver society's worldview. This is not saying the man was evil or that his works were nefarious, it is saying that science and society have moved us beyond those viewpoints and propagating them further does us no good. Indeed, I'm not even sure how this is being portrayed as "canceling" or any such thing. A publisher with control over the book rights stopped producing the book rights. Your entire rant is predicated around this being a retaliatory act for perceived evils, but that's incredibly lacking in nuance. Children develop their worldview thru the mediums of information they interact with, and to for a publisher to refine its selection to prevent children growing up with unconscious cognitive biases that are dated, far outside, and even contrary to mainstream societal views of our time is just a complete non-issue. [0] image: https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/content/DrSuess_Board_2.png https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/content/DrSuess_Board_2.png [1] article: https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/post/six-dr.-seuss-books-will-no-longer-be-published-due-to-racist-images https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/post/six-dr.-seuss-books-will-no...
lgleason 6y ago
You and a large number of people feel those views repugnant. That said, there are likely certain views you have, that you feel you should have the right to express freely that a large group of people feel are equally repugnant and offensive. Freedom of speech provides a natural check and balance by letting the best ideas thrive via an open market of ideas, not a large un-elected ministry acceptability. History shows that wielding the weapon of censorship tends to have a boomerang effect long term and can have other consequence, such as radicalizing people. On a personal note, when I see groups banning ideas and views I automatically discredit the group and ideas behind the banning. The reason is that if a view truly has merit it should be able to stand up to healthy debate on it's own merits.
- ModernMech 6y ago
  > Freedom of speech provides a natural check and balance by letting the best ideas thrive via an open market of ideas, not a large un-elected ministry acceptability. I agree with what you wrote here, but if you believe this I'm confused why you would take issue with what happened here. This is exactly what has played out. These books were created and published in an open market. Remember, in free markets there is the possibility of failure. That's what you're seeing right here. The publisher of these ideas have determined that they have failed in the market. So what's the problem? No "large un-elected ministry acceptability" caused this to happen. It was the marketplace that rejected these ideas, and the publisher didn't want to bear the cost of continued publication, which they are free to do. Everyone involved exercised their individual freedoms in the marketplace. The system is working as intended. Where is the failure?
  - lenkite 6y ago
    "These books were created and published in an open market." Sorry, but this is utterly false. The extraordinarily extended periods of copyright-terms enforced by the government make this the very opposite of the open market. The marketplace hasn't rejected these ideas. The holders of the copyright - a law enforced by the government - have rejected these ideas and no one can oppose them. Because of copyright, no other publisher can publish these books in the marketplace. Ergo - no free market and an effective ban on the books.

by nawgz 6y ago

NeverFade 6y ago

This newfound moral outrage is hilarious. President Obama praised and recommended Dr. Seuss books in an official press release as recently as 2015, his last year as president. Now they are suddenly "outrageous and unacceptable".

nawgz 6y ago
I don’t think I used that quote, implied Dr Seuss doesn’t have all time classics without ethical issues, nor acted morally outraged. I did ask a question. “Hilarious” how you missed that.
- skyde 6y ago
  if you associate Black people with literal monkeys you are the one that is racist. All the book is explicitly saying is that it would be a good idea to hire a person of African origin to work at the zoo. This have some logic to it in a child mind because they could assume they would know best how to take care of those animals. It's obviously a caricature but nowhere does it say African people are animals or monkey. This is all originating from your own racism.
  - nawgz 6y ago
    > If you associate Black people with literal monkeys you are the one that is racist Man, isn't it just fantastic how easily you make my point for me. This is also the viewpoint that Dr Seuss' publishers imagined the public at large would hold, so accordingly they have ceased to publish a book that represents "Africans" with this picture: https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/content/DrSuess_Board_2.png https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/content/DrSuess_Board_2.png So, now you see the issue yes? Article I pulled the image from: https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/post/six-dr.-seuss-books-will-no-longer-be-published-due-to-racist-images https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/post/six-dr.-seuss-books-will-no... Edit: I am unable to respond directly. The Africans are the monkeys holding the rod in that picture, that is the entire point of this whole "ceasing publication" business
    - skyde 6y ago
      Where do you see African in this picture all I see is imaginary animals. also link to full page https://blogs.slj.com/afuse8production/files/2014/09/IfRanZoo1-500x350.png https://blogs.slj.com/afuse8production/files/2014/09/IfRanZo... nothing in the text mention the monkey are actual people! Are you going to say the cat in the hat is offensive for people with Cleft lip ?
      - nawgz 6y ago
        The monkeys in that picture were the picture representation of the "Africans" in that book. Your ridiculous deflection is saddening. You yourself stated the criteria the publisher made their decision under, and now you will act like you have not said it Edit: the very image you linked shows "the African island of Yerka", where they're retrieving the bird from, and you expect me to believe you can't see the implication that the monkeys in skirts holding the shaped bar the bird resides on are the African residents of that island?
        skyde 6y ago
        Did you read the book? I just did and did not find the page where it refer to an African Man. I might be wrong or it already got modified in recent copy of the book.
AshWolfy 6y ago
They didnt discontinue all his books, just a couple of older, obscure books, his classics will continue to be read and enjoyed
- NeverFade 6y ago
  One of the books they banned, "And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street", was Dr. Seuss's breakthrough work, and certainly not "obscure". Another, "If I Ran the Zoo", is widely considered among his best. These are both very much among his classics.
  - AshWolfy 6y ago
    thats just revisionism, i dont remember either of them, and ive never seen anyone reference them until these past few days. after the controversy is over, nobody will miss them
    - NeverFade 6y ago
      No, revisionism is pretending canonical books like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_to_Think_That_I_Saw_It_on_Mulberry_Street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_to_Think_That_I_Saw_It_on_... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Ran_the_Zoo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Ran_the_Zoo are not important just because you don't remember them. Nobody will miss these books because they have been erased. Nobody missed banned books in the USSR either.
      - nawgz 6y ago
        How are you acting as if a publisher ceasing to generate material that it wishes to ethically distance itself from, executed as a perfectly legal maneuver by a private corporation, is in any way analogous to the USSR's centralized government banning books? I'm sure some people will miss these books, but for those people they can go ahead and find a collector's copy on a marketplace, use a library which has them, find some other private holder, or use the internet to enjoy them in whatever capacity. This is because these books are not banned by a centralized government, but instead have been selected to cease publication by a private corporation.

everdrive 6y ago

Caricature and racism are not identical. I think that would be my primary counterpoint. Just because it's fallen out of fashion to draw people in such caricatured ways, does not necessarily mean that there was any negative or racist intent by the artist. I think this matters quite a bit. Dr. Seuss is not evil because he could not predict where the moral zeitgeist would lead us. People who actually supported slavery, or Jim Crow, I would say are in fact evil, regardless of whether those views were acceptable in some circles. You really must pay attention to intent, and this is a major failing of the modern edge of these progressive movements. If suddenly, some phrase quickly falls out of fashion, an I use the old antiquated phrase, it must matter whether I actually had any racist intent. Just the fact that I haven't kept up with the newest moral outrage is not enough on its own.

nawgz 6y ago
> Caricature and racism are not identical Ok, sure, this is a fair point in general, but how is it exactly applicable here? Let's take the example of "If I Ran the Zoo", since it's one of the only images [0][1] I can find. The synopsis of the book seems to be a child daydreaming about the animals he would keep at his zoo. Whether or not the "Africans" in this book are one of those animals is not clear to me, but this is a representation of African / Black people as literal monkeys. How you can try to imply that representing black people as monkeys is not racism, given the hundreds of years of insults in that vein, pseudoscience from slave owners and sympathizers suggesting the same, and indeed all the folk with the moral failings of the time that you suggest who would hold and perpetuate this viewpoint? > Dr Suess is not evil because he could not predict where the moral zeitgeist would lead us I completely fail to see how you can infer that a publisher not generating additional copies of prose that has found itself in a morally compromised position implies that Dr Suess is evil, or that anyone thinks that. Indeed, I believe Dr Suess to have published 60 or more books in his career, so merely 10% of his career publications have been selected to cease being replicated further because they partook and perpetuated the darker side of a slaver society's worldview. This is not saying the man was evil or that his works were nefarious, it is saying that science and society have moved us beyond those viewpoints and propagating them further does us no good. Indeed, I'm not even sure how this is being portrayed as "canceling" or any such thing. A publisher with control over the book rights stopped producing the book rights. Your entire rant is predicated around this being a retaliatory act for perceived evils, but that's incredibly lacking in nuance. Children develop their worldview thru the mediums of information they interact with, and to for a publisher to refine its selection to prevent children growing up with unconscious cognitive biases that are dated, far outside, and even contrary to mainstream societal views of our time is just a complete non-issue. [0] image: https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/content/DrSuess_Board_2.png https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/content/DrSuess_Board_2.png [1] article: https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/post/six-dr.-seuss-books-will-no-longer-be-published-due-to-racist-images https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/post/six-dr.-seuss-books-will-no...

lgleason 6y ago

You and a large number of people feel those views repugnant. That said, there are likely certain views you have, that you feel you should have the right to express freely that a large group of people feel are equally repugnant and offensive. Freedom of speech provides a natural check and balance by letting the best ideas thrive via an open market of ideas, not a large un-elected ministry acceptability. History shows that wielding the weapon of censorship tends to have a boomerang effect long term and can have other consequence, such as radicalizing people. On a personal note, when I see groups banning ideas and views I automatically discredit the group and ideas behind the banning. The reason is that if a view truly has merit it should be able to stand up to healthy debate on it's own merits.

ModernMech 6y ago
> Freedom of speech provides a natural check and balance by letting the best ideas thrive via an open market of ideas, not a large un-elected ministry acceptability. I agree with what you wrote here, but if you believe this I'm confused why you would take issue with what happened here. This is exactly what has played out. These books were created and published in an open market. Remember, in free markets there is the possibility of failure. That's what you're seeing right here. The publisher of these ideas have determined that they have failed in the market. So what's the problem? No "large un-elected ministry acceptability" caused this to happen. It was the marketplace that rejected these ideas, and the publisher didn't want to bear the cost of continued publication, which they are free to do. Everyone involved exercised their individual freedoms in the marketplace. The system is working as intended. Where is the failure?
- lenkite 6y ago
  "These books were created and published in an open market." Sorry, but this is utterly false. The extraordinarily extended periods of copyright-terms enforced by the government make this the very opposite of the open market. The marketplace hasn't rejected these ideas. The holders of the copyright - a law enforced by the government - have rejected these ideas and no one can oppose them. Because of copyright, no other publisher can publish these books in the marketplace. Ergo - no free market and an effective ban on the books.