Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[Parasaurolophus]

So if a children's book in another country has a bit about Americans, and shows them in cowboy hats riding horses, is that racist? If it shows a French person wearing a beret and eating a baguette is that racist? If it shows a Pacific islander (from any number of small nations) in a fishing boat, is that racist? If shows a Canadian playing hockey, is that racist?

Racism is prejudice or discrimination based on race. The examples you're asking about feature national stereotypes, but they don't yet show that those stereotypes are important building blocks in prejudicial or discriminatory practices. But even if they were, that wouldn't be racism, because 'American', 'French', and 'Canadian' are not races.

Can we stop pretending this is as hard as you like to pretend it is? It really isn't.

Is showing a woman in a dress sexist?  Is showing domestic assault as a man attacking a woman sexist?

Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on sex. These examples do not yet show that's what's going on. So, in and of themselves, no, they aren't sexist. But they could be, depending on the surrounding context. Again, it's really not that hard.

At what point does showing an individual exhibiting some stereotypes of a particular group to which they belong count as some sort of bigotry?

When it grounds or is grounded in prejudicial or discriminatory practices. One last time: it's really not that hard.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Totalitarianism? Lol. Get a grip man. We're talking about a publisher making a decision to stop printing new copies of racist books.

Look, the company chose to stop printing books that they decided are racially insensitive (with some advising from teachers - how scary!). They did that because they don't want to be seen as a racist company, because being seen as a racist company isn't good for sales. You can blame the left for creating an atmosphere where racism is frowned on (racism should be frowned on, of course), but none of that matters unless consumers are moved. The company thinks consumers will prefer to buy from a company that disavows racism, so they made the choice that reflects that.

So if a children's book in another country has a bit about Americans, and shows them in cowboy hats riding horses, is that racist? If it shows a French person wearing a beret and eating a baguette is that racist? If it shows a Pacific islander (from any number of small nations) in a fishing boat, is that racist? If shows a Canadian playing hockey, is that racist?

Is showing a woman in a dress sexist?  Is showing domestic assault as a man attacking a woman sexist?

At what point does showing an individual exhibiting some stereotypes of a particular group to which they belong count as some sort of bigotry? What kind of disclaimer would be needed to clarify that any specific individual from that group might not, in fact, exhibit any of those characteristics?

In this country it is up to the company to decide what is best for their business, with reference to societal norms.

I also wasn't aware that Canadian is a race or that playing hockey has been historically used to belittle Canadians.

[dismalist]

Two of the six discontinued Seuss titles was among the top 20 Amazon sellers. Thus, the company is throwing away money. People don't throw away money voluntarily.

[marshwiggle]

In this country it is up to the company to decide what is best for their business, with reference to societal norms.

As it should be. But one of the "racist" items which has gotten mentioned is about "people who eat with sticks". When I was in China a few years ago, eating with sticks was pretty common. Restaurants in other countries serving Chinese food, including expensive ones, tend to serve the food with sticks, so it's hard to see how that is somehow disparaging. (In fact, I'd say that for most people in the West, being able to eat with chopsticks is associated with being more cultured; people who aren't able to eat with chopsticks are seen as backward.)

I also wasn't aware that Canadian is a race or that playing hockey has been historically used to belittle Canadians.

As people have pointed out for decades, "race" is a term that has virtually no meaning scientifically, since external physical characteristics vary due to many different genes, and so how similar two people look is very weakly correlated with their genetic (i.e. "racial") similarity.
And it also varies across time, where groups who are considered "other" at one point in history are considered part of the "normal" community at later times.

[Sun_Worshiper]

In this country it is up to the company to decide what is best for their business, with reference to societal norms.

As it should be. But one of the "racist" items which has gotten mentioned is about "people who eat with sticks". When I was in China a few years ago, eating with sticks was pretty common. Restaurants in other countries serving Chinese food, including expensive ones, tend to serve the food with sticks, so it's hard to see how that is somehow disparaging. (In fact, I'd say that for most people in the West, being able to eat with chopsticks is associated with being more cultured; people who aren't able to eat with chopsticks are seen as backward.)

I also wasn't aware that Canadian is a race or that playing hockey has been historically used to belittle Canadians.

As people have pointed out for decades, "race" is a term that has virtually no meaning scientifically, since external physical characteristics vary due to many different genes, and so how similar two people look is very weakly correlated with their genetic (i.e. "racial") similarity.
And it also varies across time, where groups who are considered "other" at one point in history are considered part of the "normal" community at later times.

You are right that race is socially constructed. But it nevertheless does have a socially constructed meaning.

And you can argue till you're blue in the face that the books aren't actually racist. But it isn't up to you or to me as individuals to decide. The company thinks that the public will be put off by these books, so they stopped printing new copies of them. It is a business decision. There was no cancelling by "the left," unless the company itself is the left or a critical mass of consumers in a capitalist economy are the left.

[ergative]

Two of the six discontinued Seuss titles was among the top 20 Amazon sellers. Thus, the company is throwing away money. People don't throw away money voluntarily.

I mean, some do.

What are we really arguing about here? Do we want to believe that the Seuss estate/company/publisher (don't know its official status) thinks outdated racial stereotypes are Bad, Actually, and no longer want to be associated with them? Or do we want to believe that they actually are A-Ok with perpetuating racism, but are somehow incapable of discovering the Fox News viewer market to continue selling them?

If we are really Seuss Estate stans, it seems that the more charitable interpretation of the events is to say that Seuss Estate is more sympathetic to wokeness than to racism.

[dismalist]

Two of the six discontinued Seuss titles was among the top 20 Amazon sellers. Thus, the company is throwing away money. People don't throw away money voluntarily.

I mean, some do.

What are we really arguing about here? Do we want to believe that the Seuss estate/company/publisher (don't know its official status) thinks outdated racial stereotypes are Bad, Actually, and no longer want to be associated with them? Or do we want to believe that they actually are A-Ok with perpetuating racism, but are somehow incapable of discovering the Fox News viewer market to continue selling them?

If we are really Seuss Estate stans, it seems that the more charitable interpretation of the events is to say that Seuss Estate is more sympathetic to wokeness than to racism.

Ah, Mr. Penzey is being charitable. He is giving away stuff to others. [Buys advertising, too. :-)] Seuss is destroying money -- no one has it. The income from the discontinued books is gone.

Why should one interpret Seuss, or any other company, charitably, then? They just wanna make money. Seuss feels compelled to be woke.

[Parasaurolophus]

So what?

[jimbogumbo]

Sorry if this has already been cited (from Cheatseat):

The Dr. Seuss books that have been pulled were not very popular. Last year, Green Eggs and Ham sold 338,000 copies, while Oh, the Places You'll Go! sold 513,000 copies, the New York Times reported. In comparison, And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street sold 5,000 copies, while lesser-known titles like McElligot's Pool and The Cat's Quizzer "haven't sold in years" through retailers BookScan tracks.

[ergative]

Two of the six discontinued Seuss titles was among the top 20 Amazon sellers. Thus, the company is throwing away money. People don't throw away money voluntarily.

I mean, some do.

What are we really arguing about here? Do we want to believe that the Seuss estate/company/publisher (don't know its official status) thinks outdated racial stereotypes are Bad, Actually, and no longer want to be associated with them? Or do we want to believe that they actually are A-Ok with perpetuating racism, but are somehow incapable of discovering the Fox News viewer market to continue selling them?

If we are really Seuss Estate stans, it seems that the more charitable interpretation of the events is to say that Seuss Estate is more sympathetic to wokeness than to racism.

Ah, Mr. Penzey is being charitable. He is giving away stuff to others. [Buys advertising, too. :-)] Seuss is destroying money -- no one has it. The income from the discontinued books is gone.

Why should one interpret Seuss, or any other company, charitably, then? They just wanna make money. Seuss feels compelled to be woke.

I don't fully understand your reasoning. You just said that Penzey was being charitable, but in the next line suggest that we shouldn't interpret any company's behavior as charitable. You said in a previous post that two of the six discontinued Seuss titles were among the top Amazon sellers, but then in the next post say that companies 'just wannna make money', which is inconsistent with discontinuing those top-selling titles.

I think we can all agree that companies want to make money first, sure, but since the Seuss estate's behavior is evidently not about that, then we have to look for other reasons. And that brings us back again to the question of wokeness vs. racism: Does Seuss estate feel 'compelled to be woke' because they recognize that perpetuating racism is bad, or do they feel 'compelled to be woke' because of societal pressure against the racism they'd actually prefer to perpetuate?

Since that societal pressure has evidently not been strong enough to overcome all or even most systemically racist structures, then in the event that we adopt the second interpretation, we must also admit that the Seuss estate evidently lacks the courage of its convictions, to have folded to that pressure so quickly!

[mahagonny]

Two of the six discontinued Seuss titles was among the top 20 Amazon sellers. Thus, the company is throwing away money. People don't throw away money voluntarily.

I mean, some do.

What are we really arguing about here? Do we want to believe that the Seuss estate/company/publisher (don't know its official status) thinks outdated racial stereotypes are Bad, Actually, and no longer want to be associated with them? Or do we want to believe that they actually are A-Ok with perpetuating racism, but are somehow incapable of discovering the Fox News viewer market to continue selling them?

If we are really Seuss Estate stans, it seems that the more charitable interpretation of the events is to say that Seuss Estate is more sympathetic to wokeness than to racism.

Those aren't the only two choices. There's no irrefutable evidence that the publisher thinks the images are racist or that all of the images being discussed are racist.

[marshwiggle]

I think we can all agree that companies want to make money first, sure, but since the Seuss estate's behavior is evidently not about that, then we have to look for other reasons. And that brings us back again to the question of wokeness vs. racism: Does Seuss estate feel 'compelled to be woke' because they recognize that perpetuating racism is bad, or do they feel 'compelled to be woke' because of societal pressure against the racism they'd actually prefer to perpetuate?

This avoids the much more likely alternative to wokeness; not sympathy for racism, but the unwillingness to label basically any sort of depiction of any identifiable group of people as "racist". Other than a very small fringe, you'd be hard pressed to find people who "prefer to perpetuate racism", but you can find lots of people who would roll their eyes at the equivalent of calling the movie "White Men Can't Jump" racist.

Since that societal pressure has evidently not been strong enough to overcome all or even most systemically racist structures, then in the event that we adopt the second interpretation, we must also admit that the Seuss estate evidently lacks the courage of its convictions, to have folded to that pressure so quickly!

If the books weren't selling much, then it may have been shrewd business to discontinue them and then virtue signal to get woke points as well!

[dismalist]

Two of the six discontinued Seuss titles was among the top 20 Amazon sellers. Thus, the company is throwing away money. People don't throw away money voluntarily.

I mean, some do.

What are we really arguing about here? Do we want to believe that the Seuss estate/company/publisher (don't know its official status) thinks outdated racial stereotypes are Bad, Actually, and no longer want to be associated with them? Or do we want to believe that they actually are A-Ok with perpetuating racism, but are somehow incapable of discovering the Fox News viewer market to continue selling them?

If we are really Seuss Estate stans, it seems that the more charitable interpretation of the events is to say that Seuss Estate is more sympathetic to wokeness than to racism.

Ah, Mr. Penzey is being charitable. He is giving away stuff to others. [Buys advertising, too. :-)] Seuss is destroying money -- no one has it. The income from the discontinued books is gone.

Why should one interpret Seuss, or any other company, charitably, then? They just wanna make money. Seuss feels compelled to be woke.

I don't fully understand your reasoning. You just said that Penzey was being charitable, but in the next line suggest that we shouldn't interpret any company's behavior as charitable. You said in a previous post that two of the six discontinued Seuss titles were among the top Amazon sellers, but then in the next post say that companies 'just wannna make money', which is inconsistent with discontinuing those top-selling titles.

I think we can all agree that companies want to make money first, sure, but since the Seuss estate's behavior is evidently not about that, then we have to look for other reasons. And that brings us back again to the question of wokeness vs. racism: Does Seuss estate feel 'compelled to be woke' because they recognize that perpetuating racism is bad, or do they feel 'compelled to be woke' because of societal pressure against the racism they'd actually prefer to perpetuate?

Since that societal pressure has evidently not been strong enough to overcome all or even most systemically racist structures, then in the event that we adopt the second interpretation, we must also admit that the Seuss estate evidently lacks the courage of its convictions, to have folded to that pressure so quickly!

-I said we shouldn't interpret any companies behavior charitably, talking about us, not about the companies.

-Yeah, Seuss stops some profitable lines to evade the sword of Damacles emanating from the woke crowd. It's the best Seuss can do under the circumstances.

This last is completely devoid of motive other than wanting to make money. Publicized motives are mere window dressing.

[jimbogumbo]

Two of the six discontinued Seuss titles was among the top 20 Amazon sellers. Thus, the company is throwing away money. People don't throw away money voluntarily.

Here's a link to Amazon's top selling Children's books. I'm not seeing what you are seeing. I don't think the estate is giving up much of anything in the way of profits.

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Childrens/zgbs/books/4/ref=zg_bs_nav_b_1_b

[apl68]

Sorry if this has already been cited (from Cheatseat):

The Dr. Seuss books that have been pulled were not very popular. Last year, Green Eggs and Ham sold 338,000 copies, while Oh, the Places You'll Go! sold 513,000 copies, the New York Times reported. In comparison, And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street sold 5,000 copies, while lesser-known titles like McElligot's Pool and The Cat's Quizzer "haven't sold in years" through retailers BookScan tracks.

Very surprised to hear that To Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street was selling that poorly.  Relatively speaking--5,000 copies a year is not bad for a back-list title that's over 80 years old.