Giovenith wrote:The fact that they were the ones who made the call makes it a personal decision, nobody has the legal authority to halt publication of those books but them, so of course it was their decision. What you're really asking is whether or not they internally agree with this decision in their hearts and minds or if they only agreed to it for the cameras: This is something that nobody can know for sure because nobody can read minds. However, there is no reason to suspect that they don't mean exactly what they say.
When it's a person. Sure; you kind of take them at their word. When it's an entity in this time. It's easier to take the less combative approach and simply say "hey we are doing this" This avoids adding fuel to the existing fire which I am sure they expected.
When someone gives you their opinion or states their motivation behind their actions, it's really not reasonable for you to presume ambivalence or untruthfulness on their part when nothing they've said or done has implied a contradictory sentiment. That's just putting words in someone's mouth.
That's a rather glib interpretation. There is nothing wrong with wondering the motivation for action.
There is a great deal of effort to hunt for racism in these works. I read one article where somebody was suggesting the Cat in the Hat was a reference to a black man. If you check with the library association; they even get complaints for having the books and they should be removed.
Clearly a lot of people do agree that at least quite a few of the images are objectionable, so why couldn't or wouldn't they possess similar standards as those people?
I guess the problem is the intent versus the perception.
And even if they didn't really personally care and only made this decision after someone else convinced them to do so, that's still their call to make. They are allowed to value input from others and take it into consideration even if they don't completely understand it. I know that this is increasingly rare trait as public discourse becomes an increasingly hostile appeal-to-personal-confidence wankfest, but some people actually do care about being accommodating and not just assuming that their gut reaction always makes the best bets. Maybe you would have made a different decision under similar circumstances, but that doesn't make the Seuss family's decision any less of a legitimate one.
Well the problem is this growing trend of being offended by anything. It would be one thing if said drawings taught racism. The books taught racism. The problem? That tends to be taught by the family. I read most of his works growing up and didn't have thoughts of racism. Just a whimsical land with outlandish images. That might be I was also raised to be color blind when it came to people.
If they were pulled because they weren't selling; nobody would be having a fit.
The shame is a couple of the books might be good tools for starting discussions on matters of racism. We are not going to eliminate the problem with the adults. Some sure. Many will remain the same way. Would not the starting point be the children?
Well? If it was an electric car?. Still it's wrong.
when she saw the image. She said her two kids didn't think anything of them as they "fit" in the scene (I guess they meant the exaggerations of the scene). The woman admitted she didn't like it and yet it wasn't as offensive as others she had seen. She said she had mixed views as her children weren't bothered by them as she talked to them. Even she thought it could be used for a discussion about the problems. She wasn't sure removing them would make any impact with the problems.