Postby MurphOnMillerAve » Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:34 pm
Challenge well addressed. I consider myself better informed, now. Thanks. You did a good job, Wayne.
Does that excuse the bad manners of the librarian ? The return couldn't have been done quietly? Or maybe the public dressing-down of the First Lady was good taste and an opportune moment for change - a "teachable moment"?
And if you are calling me stupid ("What is the theme of this thread?"), you did an effective job. I certainly did a good job of setting myself up for the hit, huh. You see, I had only a passing actual knowledge of the Dr. Seuss series, having considered it acceptable by judging from its wide acceptance around me. For example, there is a man and his son on OGR Forum who proudly wear Seuss hats to many model train occasions, and as an avatar photo, and at meets/shows like the TCA Meet at York, PA, as well as to restaurants that modelers have group meals at. Are they racists for wearing those hats, appearing to endorse an allegedly racist author? No excuse for me, though, to have accepted Seuss at face-value. Thanks for the heads-up. This was a good lesson for me, to make sure I am more specifically and personally informed before coming to the defense of children's literature again.
More specifically, however, regarding some of the images you showed us in this thread:
Concerning the image of what might be presented as a running "Asian" person - man/boy (both labels are used):
1.) Haven't millions of Asians (100's of millions ?) of various Asian ethnicities worn such conical hats ? (For example, I believe I just saw many wearing such hats in the Burns Vietnam series this past week.) The depiction in the cartoon might be cliché, but racist? Not in my opinion.
2.) Don't millions of Asians eat using chopsticks? (It was expected of patrons, in a Chinese restaurant in Boston, when I was there several years ago, to eat using chopsticks, instead of cutlery.) And don't Asians eat from bowls, at times, like others of us do (though I doubt many folks do so while running, as the caricature you provided depicts.)
So, where is the racism in that cartoon?
The images of what might be concluded to be some Black people shocked me, at first, and seem deplorable.
However, looking at the two potbellied males,
1.) is it the potbellies that you find to be offensive? Well, believe me, there are plenty of folk who have potbellies that could identify (including me).
2.) It certainly couldn't be the hair-do's you are suggesting by showing that cartoon that are racist since something like that style is worn by numerous Blacks and Caucasians, to say the least, in this country, and many with the tufts even higher - much, higher.
3.) The man standing on the small island: What are you suggesting is racist?
The man carrying the big bird down the yellow hillside: He has a handsome face. I have no idea if there are folks who wear such clothing and tufted hats, but he seems happy and strong. It's the bird that is the focus for me, because he seems quite a character. I'd have to hear what an Asian might say about the depiction of the human being, to learn if he or she felt the cartoon was unflattering or cliché or racist.
Can you be specific, not simply emotional and/or condescending? What is it about the cartoons that you consider racist? Educate me.
And what's next to complain about as allegedly "racist"? Aunt Jemima? The original Black woman selected to represent the brand was a former slave, Nancy Green. Other handsome Black women have been utilized since her, but since the symbol could be considered by some to still harken back to slavery, is that racist to continue its use as a label?
Colonel Sanders> He wears a white suit and speaks in something of an "accent". Shall he be considered a racist symbol because his image suggests "The Old South" and a time of slavery? Time to change him too?
Last edited by
MurphOnMillerAve on Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:47 am, edited 21 times in total.