Evaluating Seuss Land?

Tom Morrow

Well-Known Member
You can't paint all of Seuss' work with the same brush. He's done a lot of great books that generations have adored.

And nobody is doing that. I'm going to assume that you've made the mistake that so many have on this subject and have only gotten your information from Facebook memes. Nobody cancelled Dr. Seuss. The company that publishes the books, along with the Seuss estate itself, decided on their own accord to stop publishing just six out of over 50 books. These are six books that are largely unknown and forgotten, none of his famous work. They are not banned. They discontinued them because they contain harmful depictions of race. Nobody is saying "The Cat in the Hat" is offensive, for example.

Honestly people only have a problem when it comes to certain groups. But have no problem when others are made fun of (Like Italians, Irish and Rednecks).
Well, there's a pretty big leap between "haha Italians like pizza and spaghetti!" and "Africans are monkeys" (which is something one of these books portrayed).
 

JT3000

Well-Known Member
I knew it was only a matter of time before this thread was sent off the rails.

Honestly people only have a problem when it comes to certain groups. But have no problem when others are made fun of (Like Italians, Irish and Rednecks).
When did rednecks become an ethnic group? 🤔 Or undeserving of mockery?
Sorry that would not be allowed. All of those pass as white and therefore deserve anything said about them.
Sorry, sir, but we're all out of oppression for the day. Maybe if you come back tomorrow...
 
Last edited:

Frankenstein79

Well-Known Member
And nobody is doing that. I'm going to assume that you've made the mistake that so many have on this subject and have only gotten your information from Facebook memes.

Well, there's a pretty big leap between "haha Italians like pizza and spaghetti!" and "Africans are monkeys" (which is something one of these books portrayed).

Don't assume anything.

Italian Americans over 90% of the time in movies are presented as being a part of the mob or some other lawbreaking group
Irish over 90% of the time are presented as foolish drunks
Rednecks over 90% of the time are presented as having low intelligence
 
Last edited:

Frankenstein79

Well-Known Member
patf.jpg
hqdefault.jpg
 

OG Runner

Well-Known Member
I knew it was only a matter of time before this thread was sent off the rails.


When did rednecks become an ethnic group? 🤔 Or undeserving of mockery?

Sorry, sir, but we're all out of oppression for the day. Maybe if you come back tomorrow...

If you didn't keep all of the oppression for yourself there would be enough, but if I have to wait until tomorrow to
get mine I can wait. Thank you!
 

OG Runner

Well-Known Member
Nobody told them to do this. They decided to do it themselves.

I don't know how anyone is still thinking this. Well, yeah I do. FOX News.

I am sorry, if you do not understand that the current "climate" is responsible for them making these changes, you have not
been paying attention. Otherwise, explain to me why they did this now? These are not new books, "And to think that I saw it
on Mulberry Street" was published in 1937.
 

JT3000

Well-Known Member
If you didn't keep all of the oppression for yourself there would be enough, but if I have to wait until tomorrow to
get mine I can wait. Thank you!
I'm sure you can. You've already waited this long.

I am sorry, if you do not understand that the current "climate" is responsible for them making these changes, you have not
been paying attention. Otherwise, explain to me why they did this now? These are not new books, "And to think that I saw it
on Mulberry Street" was published in 1937.
This "climate" you refer to is called progress, Edward. It's what happens when you aren't stuck in your ways, thinking everything is fine & dandy just the way it is simply because you personally aren't inconvenienced (outside of a few children's books going out of publication, of course. I know how oppressive that must be.)
 

Tom Morrow

Well-Known Member
I am sorry, if you do not understand that the current "climate" is responsible for them making these changes, you have not
been paying attention. Otherwise, explain to me why they did this now? These are not new books, "And to think that I saw it
on Mulberry Street" was published in 1937.
What argument do you have for continuing to sell a children's book that portrays Africans as monkeys and savages?

You're trying to frame it as "the left wants to cancel Green Eggs & Ham!" but that isn't the situation. The books in question actually do contain offensive caricatures, and I believe the company made the right decision to re-evaluate them and decide they were unnecessary. Seuss himself published blatantly racist content in his early years, and later felt guilty about it which is why many of his later books are about inclusion and equality.
 

OG Runner

Well-Known Member
What argument do you have for continuing to sell a children's book that portrays Africans as monkeys and savages?

You're trying to frame it as "the left wants to cancel Green Eggs & Ham!" but that isn't the situation. The books in question actually do contain offensive caricatures, and I believe the company made the right decision to re-evaluate them and decide they were unnecessary. Seuss himself published blatantly racist content in his early years, and later felt guilty about it which is why many of his later books are about inclusion and equality.

Do not try and reframe what I was saying. I am saying the current politically correct climate was the reason for the change.
It was not something they just decided to do, with no outside pressure. I also am not debating the content. It amazes me
that it was published at all. I was saying there were reasons, other than they just decided to do it, that lead to them making
the changes now.
 

Tom Morrow

Well-Known Member
Do not try and reframe what I was saying. I am saying the current politically correct climate was the reason for the change.
It was not something they just decided to do, with no outside pressure. I also am not debating the content. It amazes me
that it was published at all. I was saying there were reasons, other than they just decided to do it, that lead to them making
the changes now.

I could just as easily make the argument that they did it because it was the right thing to do. Neither stance can be proven, it just depends on how cynical you want to be about it.
 

Tom Morrow

Well-Known Member
*Scapegoat Culture
Depends on the situation I guess.

In Gina Carano's case, she wouldn't have been fired if she had stopped after the multiple warnings Disney gave her. She wasn't "cancelled" for being a conservative, she was fired for making bigoted and insensitive statements multiple times when her employer asked her to stop. Consequences of her own actions.
 

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
Depends on the situation I guess.

In Gina Carano's case, she wouldn't have been fired if she had stopped after the multiple warnings Disney gave her.
Where did I bring up her name? A company putting the burden of a blame on a handful of books that didn’t sell well to begin with is “scapegoating”. A person getting fired for saying or acting inappropriately is a “consequence”. Things aren’t always the same.

Regardless, I don’t think “cancelling people” works to help people learn and improve. Marking people off is only going to make them hateful (or more hateful in her case I guess).
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom