The Freedom to Read Is Good Indeed

Books are tremendously important and powerful, and we used to defend them from moralizing censors. 

By
172

Let me tell you two stories about two media cycles as a way to illustrate how the traditional defenders of basic liberal principles in America have forgotten what to care about. We’ll go chronologically.

First: According to an April 23, 2020, post from the Frontiersman News from the Mat-Su Valley in Alaska, just a little northeast of Anchorage:

The Mat-Su Borough School District School Board voted 5-2 to ban 5 books from MSBSD schools:

I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
172
By
Comments (172)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    How many recall Robert Maplethorpe and his ridiculous “Piss Christ,” which was a photo of a crucifix submerged in a vat of urine? My tax dollars had to sponsor that shit because it was art, they said.

    Indeed, art cannot be defined, nor can it be deliberately produced or cultivated by the state without becoming propaganda.

    And that’s really the point. Art modified or produced in order to please certain factions or lobbies is not art at all - it’s propaganda.

    What separates Catcher in the Rye from the DMV code of conduct? One of them forces you to think, changes your perceptions, challenges your ideas of the world. The other one just repeats the bland, antiseptic rules of the ponderous state.

    Most importantly, one of them is the product of the peculiar genius of a single individual. The other is the collective drone of the bureaucracy.

    It is worth quoting Steinbeck at length:

    “I don’t know how it will be in the years to come. There are monstrous changes taking place in the world, forces shaping a future whose face we do not know. A group can build automobiles quicker and better than one man, and bread from a huge factory is cheaper and more uniofrm. When our food and clothing and housing all are born in the complication of mass production, mass method is bound to get into our thinking and to eliminate all other thinking. In our time mass or collective production has entered our economics, our politics, and even our religion, so that some nations have substituted the idea collective for the idea God. This in my time is the danger. There is great tension in the world toward a breaking point, and men are unhappy and confused.

    At such a time it seems natural and good to me to ask myself these questions. What do I believe in? What must I fight for and what must I fight against?

    Our species is the only creative species, and it has only one creative instrument, the individual mind and spirit of a man. Nothing was ever created by two men. There are no good collaborations, whether in music, in art, in poetry, in mathematics, in philosophy. Once the miracle of creation has taken place, the group can build and extend it, but the group never invents anything. The preciousness lies in the lonely mind of a man.

    And now the forces marshaled around the concept of the group have declared a war of extermination on that preciousness, the mind of man. By disparagement, by starvation, by repressions, forced direction, and the stunning hammerblows of conditioning, the free, roving mind is being pursued, roped, blunted, drugged. It is a sad suicidal course our species seems to have taken.

    And this I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual. This is what I am and what I am about. I can understand why a system built on a pattern must try to destroy the free mind, for that is one thing which can by inspection destroy such a system. Surely I can understand this, and I hate it and I will fight against it to preserve the one thing that separates us from the uncreative beasts. If the glory can be killed, we are lost.”

    Collapse
    1. Mendicant Caligula

      This first bit is not entirely germane to the larger discussion, but I think you brought up an interesting point, so I will bracket it for those who are not interested.
      [
      "Immersion (Piss Christ), is a photograph by Andres Serrano, not Robert Mapplethorpe, and it was not "sponsored" by the government, as far as I am aware. It did win a competition, and therefore an award, from the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art that was partially funded through a government grant, but I think it's a stretch to claim that it was sponsored on that basis. Similarly, Serrano himself was the recipient of an NEA grant in 1986, but I can't track down a copy of his grant application, so I'm not sure whether it was made to fund, and therefore sponsor, Piss Christ in particular, or if it was merely something he subsequently decided to make. If you are able to do so, please let me know as I would be interested, although it's quite a digression.

      I also find Piss Christ to be an objectively beautiful photograph and wonder if your obvious revulsion at "that shit" might not be more related to the circumstances of its production or its supposed blasphemous qualities, rather than its aesthetic merits. That tension seems to be something Serrano is explicitly trying to explore, and it appears to me that one of his works' major preoccupations is to try and break us out of a mindset which elides the two.

      I am generally more sympathetic to the attempts to censure/"cancel" Mapplethorpe, but mostly because I think his art is bad. I will see your Steinbeck quote, and raise you a Zizek quote: "Is there anything more dull and sterile than the incessant invention of new artistic transgressions--the performance artist masturbating on stage, the sculptor displaying human excrement?" Mapplethorpe's work with children is transgression for transgression's sake, and therefore incredibly trite. His BDSM work is worse: it completely fails to provoke me, 30+ years later, and consequently is even more dull and uninteresting. Part of that perception, to be fair, probably has to do with having grown up in a post-Mapplethorpe and -Serrano world. As I said above, I do find Serrano's work to be aesthetically interesting, although he has literally worked with feces and semen, and to still be worthy of consideration. To each their own.

      I also think you may have quoted Steinbeck too much for my edification: "There are no good collaborations, whether in music, in art, in poetry, in mathematics, in philosophy"... what an incredibly arrogant and ignorant thing to have written. I have trouble taking the rest of the quote seriously, even though I agree with most of it. When you crash into a brick wall of stupidity, the wheels of your argument start coming off.
      ]

      What has been entirely missing from every conservative discussion I have seen on this issue is evidence of some actual SJW woke-mob. I have seen dozens of articles and comment sections of conservatives losing their minds over this decision, but have yet to see any example of the supposed outrage from the left. Show me the twitter users calling for cancellation of "McElligot's Pool". Show me the radicals who were threatening to boycott Seuss's books unless "On Beyond Zebra!" was removed from circulation. I'm willing to accept, for the sake of debate, your proposition that "Art modified or produced in order to please certain factions or lobbies is not art at all - it’s propaganda", although I think it's reductive. It is conservatives who are literally trying to force the Seuss estate to produce books which it would rather not. Unless you can show me strong evidence of this left-wing outrage, and of the Seuss estate bending to it against its will, I must conclude that conservatives are the ones propagandizing Seuss (look how this episode is being used to fan the cultural grievance/"cancel culture" flames), by your own criteria, and your arguments against cancellation merely pretense for your own censorship.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        The Bell Tower

        Thank you for a deeply thoughtful and insightful response and also, thanks for setting me straight on Serrano v Mapplethorpe - there certainly is a difference in their work.

        And you are right, I call it “that shit” because I was aggravated at the time it came out when I was a much younger, more ignorant and impatient kid. I did consider your point that the outrage sort of exemplifies the intent. It’s a good point.

        I can find the claims that Serrano received funding from the NEA which generated the outrage though I really have no idea if that money funded Piss Christ or if people were merely upset that an artist who produced such a work received federal funding.

        But why shouldn’t Mapplethorpe also receive funding for even more offensive or terrible art? Who is the state to tell him his work is or is not art - or even good art?

        I have seen no evidence that the Seuss folks pulled the specific books because of specific pressures from some mob but it seems obvious that the existence of so much outrage about such art played a factor if it wasn’t the sole reason.

        And I would certainly not refute the point that conservatives are making as much hay over this as anyone.

        Someone on here pointed out correctly I think that the performative nature of the move really created the controversy. They could have just done it quietly as so many publishers do on the regular and Sean Hannity would never have noticed.

        That’s worse in a way. Not because the Seuss estate can’t do whatever they want with their own material but the why. Erasing the currently offensive stuff unfairly burnishes Geisel’s reputation sort of like deleting a Tweet that embarrasses you attempts to hide the truth.

        That’s the crux of my issue with this - and I do not have nor can I suggest a solution. It’s another symptom of the general sickness of illiberalism that plagues America.

        America’s instinct should be to publish as much as possible - especially the most offensive junk. I have the “works” of Julius Streicher on my book shelf not because I admire that bastard’s work but because we should never forget how such an awful person came to wield such influence.

        The difference of course is that Streichers crap is clear, intended propaganda. I still think there is value in understanding it.

        Surely the Seuss estate could have made the decision entirely based on the business notion that there just isn’t much money to be made on Asian stereotypes. I still have an issue with it for the reasons stated.

        I also agree in part with your comments about Steinbeck. I’ve made a career out of building and coaching teams to create and produce all sorts of creative material. Just look at Disney Imagineering if you doubt the power of such creation.

        However, the value of the single creative force that Steinbeck eloquently articulates is still of inestimable value and menaced by the collective - especially when it’s the collective wielding the force of the state.

        It’s hard to find work that isn’t stereotypical in some way. What is Peter Griffin if not a rank stereotype of drunk, Irish north-easterners? I can imagine all sorts of issues with Lord of the Rings if I try. It’s only a matter of time before someone else does.

        As the market settles, perhaps I will still be able to get hold of the various canceled (discontinued if it makes some people feel better) Seuss books but that really doesn’t much matter to me.

        Our tendency to flinch rather than absorb things that challenge our perceptions - just as you pointed out I did with Piss Christ - is of concern. It isn’t new but in the 90’s we were talking about public funding whereas today, we’re openly wondering if certain work should be available at all.

        Collapse
        1. Mendicant Caligula

          Thank you for a long and similarly thoughtful reply. I was a bit aggressive in my first response, and I'm sorry for that. I'm also sorry for correcting you on Serrano vs. Mapplethorpe; there's nothing more obnoxious than someone correcting you on the internet. I appreciate your grace on the issue.

          I don't think Mapplethorpe should be precluded from receiving government funding because of the salacious nature of his work. I agree as well with the precedent that once funding has been given to an artist, it cannot be clawed back because the government does not approve of their speech. I just don't personally think his work is very good, and I wonder if there might have been artists more deserving of that funding. But I'm not an art critic or anything, and it seems plenty of other people find value in it. I half-jokingly referred to it as "cancelling" him because, although I don't think it is and I have no wish to actually cancel him, I'm sure that some, especially those more concerned with cancel culture, would consider it as such.

          In my more cynical moments, I also wonder if the move by the Seuss estate wasn't performative: they were sure to win points with the left, and they might have guessed the right would rush out to buy these censored books. It seems possible.

          I hadn't considered the argument that removing these books is unfairly kind to Geisel, in the sense of burnishing his reputation. Usually the argument seems to run the opposite, that accusing historical figures of racism unfairly tarnishes their reputation by not acknowledging the social particularities of their time period. I don't think the intent is to cleanse his reputation, or sanitize him, but I acknowledge that I am more willing to be sympathetic and forgiving to Geisel because I perceive him as being essentially repentant of his racism.

          On the flip side, defenses of free speech/attacks on cancel culture often fall on my ears as cynical arguments to burnish the reputation of some individuals by refusing to hold them to account. It feels as though some are so scared of violating freedom of speech that they will enable any speech, which seems equally wrong-headed. Does respecting free speech entail refusing to vote out politicians who are revealed to attend white supremacy conventions, or to be unable to demand their resignation? Steve King's views weren't a secret, but he still kept winning elections for quite a while. It is for that reason that I generally agree about freedom of speech and Streicher; a few years ago I probably would have unconditionally agreed, but many more people than I realized attempt to hide support for his ideas behind a winking grin, and too few are willing to name it what it is. I'm not happy with my position, but the alternative seems worse. I imagine those who disagree with me feel the same.

          I've watched Leni Riefenstahl's work and I see no reason for it to be banned, but I think part of that comfort rests on a shared presumption that no one will actually be convinced by it today. If Streicher's works became bestsellers and people took his ideas seriously, would you still feel comfortable having his books on your shelves? Maybe you would, I don't know (not to suggest you are Nazi, but rather that you believe so strongly in free speech).

          I was also harsh on Steinbeck. I registered my frustration with his quote but not my approval. He is a powerful writer and articulates the importance of a free mind beautifully. I'm just more pessimistic than he is. There is nothing to fear from a free mind, or to discourage it from contemplating, but self-criticism is a deeply challenging activity and I think free minds are contingent on that capacity. If that sounds patronizing to you, it does to me as well.

          I am sympathetic to the idea that we should be more comfortable being uncomfortable with a work of art. Certain provocations, I think, can be meaningful, such as Serrano's work. Others' work, more akin to Mapplethorpe's, I'm not sure I see the value in. But who am I to make these decisions? Who could possibly do so? I also think it's very easy for me to have this as discussion as an intellectual exercise, as I did not grow up surrounded by negative representations of my race, nor have I ever meaningfully been the victim of racism. I'm not someone who has been made to flinch from the blows of racism and I'm not sure how I'd feel if I had.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            The Bell Tower

            Actually, I was surprised about Mapplethorpe since I’d had that story in my head for so long. Serves me right for not cross checking.

            My argument comes from my long held belief that government should abstain from the arts altogether. I used to say things like “Just because Beethoven’s art is widely acclaimed doesn’t mean it should be sanctioned by subsidies to orchestras.” Lo and behold, some people are calling classical music too white and racist now - a turn I didn’t expect but probably should have.

            I’m definitely a free speech purist. If Streicher’s work became a best seller through admiration of his product, we would have much larger problems than the work itself.

            That’s my issue with the Seuss thing. A free republic is incapable of policing this sort of thing. The people must show restraint. The instinct for an artist’s estate to erase his work is the problem.

            Guns are another example of this. If private citizens are going to use the blessings of the second amendment to shoot up schools and rob banks, there is little a republic can do.

            Americans are increasingly incapable of being responsible with their freedoms. They seem to require supervision but a republic has no mechanism for such supervision.

            Take misinformation as yet another example. If the people are going to believe Donald Trump’s November criminals myth about a stolen election, the state is powerless to address it. The attempt to do so sends us further towards the abyss.

            As an aside, check out Tom Wolfe’s The Painted Word. I’m no art critic either but I loved that book.

            Collapse
  2. Ty

    Have any of you guys seen the picture of Africans that looks exactly like a monkey in one of his books? The estate made a reasonable decision. I could see them publishing with an addendum explaining the inappropriateness of the pictures but I don't see how they could continue publishing that without any context given.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    rlritt

    Generally if a School decides not to include or removes a book from the curriculum, it's because parents complained about them. "The Things We Carried" was an excellent book but the subject matter was difficult. It was also very much anti war and defended draft dodgers. One very religious and conservative Co worker wouldn't let her older children read it from that reason. My point being its not just liberal people censoring books. My brother homeschooled his kids because he didn't want his kids reading anything he didn't approve of. They couldn't watch the Harry Potter movies because they were about devil worship.

    Collapse
  4. cb76

    I'm sorry, but I just don't see my inability to purchase a brand spanking new copy of If I Ran the Zoo as some kind of fascist tragedy. This is not "banning." Media goes out of print all the time. It's how used book and record stores have traditionally stayed in business. And yes I know prices for these books on ebay are nuts right now. Give it six months and well used editions will be back to the sub 1 dollar price you could have gotten them for in January. Or better yet, head to your local library. I'm betting they still have their copy.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Jess

      If I Ran the Circus is very similar, if you're pining for that sort of thing ;)

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Mudskipper

      Unless it's been stolen already to resell at an inflated price....

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    rlritt

    When I was young I went to Mass on Sunday and in the bulletin was a brief list of current banned books and movies. I never heard anyone complain about that.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    rlritt

    I hear that those six Seuss titles are selling for a premium. I guess a sucker is born every minute.

    Having worked for a publisher, the real reason is probably that they are not profitable.

    But hey, if making the decision political sells existing inventory to people who probably never would have thought to buy them, then it's a great idea.

    Collapse
  7. LucyTrice

    Within children's publishing, there are ongoing concerns about racial and cultural diversity. Are kids from all backgrounds going to find someone like them within the pages of the story? Are excellent authors who happen to be black or brown or Asian or otherwise not white being overlooked by publishers?

    Cutting these Dr. Suess books may be a business decision but I wonder if the Big Announcement aspect has something to do with these diversity concerns within the industry.

    Collapse
  8. @fakeJohn

    Some of these books are in need of updating. For example the picture of the Chinese man is clearly a dated racist trope. A sensible update would be to change it to Winnie the Pooh marching a Uyghur down Mulberry Street at gunpoint.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    Progressives are engaging in digital and cultural book burning.

    There is no other way to put it. It is shameful.

    Liberals, please stand up to this madness.

    The argument, that it is a private company and can do what it wants, can only go so far.

    Can anyone name a person that became more racist or hateful of Chinese people because of Dr. Seuss? Or can you name someone legitimately grieved by pictures from any of his books? Has his books not inspired hundred of thousands to read and never think one white about stereotypes?

    If you think your 4 year old is agonizing about pictures of imaginary beings that don’t exist but take on characteristics of things in real life which, spoiler alert, all fiction does, you are doing parenting wrong.

    The author, himself a liberal in his life and vehemently against racism, all of a sudden must be wiped off the face of the earth?

    But you say, “It’s only 6 books.”

    To which I say, if George Orwell only had one booked banned, 1984, would you accept that he had others so get rid of it?

    Book burning, or banning, is never good. And the people on the worst side of history engages in this practice. Whether private business or a governmental one, there should be an outcry. Just because we don’t have physical book burnings anymore, does not mean a small group of IT specialists pressing the “delete” button is not the same thing.

    Because any society is only good as it’s morality, and it is clear that the Neo Racists of “anti-racism”, has infected all across the corporate sector, that bend the will to a minority mob.

    That’s why Parler was removed. That why cancel culture is a thing. That’s why people in the public sphere won’t just come out and say a man through surgery cannot physically become a woman and vice versa: because the chilling effect of losing your job to an insane small mob is too much a price to pay for truth.

    Wake up. This is how you get something worse than Trump. And yes, Dr. Seuss is a part of that cultural war.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      JohnF

      Victor, AWS kicked Parler off of its services because it was being used by people to plot crimes and threaten public and non-public figures with rape and murder and the people who were running Parler 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠.
      There are much better examples of "cancel culture" that can be used to frame an argument, but Parler isn't one of them.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        Ah, so then why not pull Twitter that also uses AWS servers and also hosted similar if not more content?

        And, Parler was ramping up their efforts. The former CEO of Parler actually addresses this, that the week of Jan 6th when they were hit by another notice (they had been hit by previous ones, and had in the past communicated and was responsive to Amazons requests by hiring more people to censor), they had a spike in traffic. So what does Amazon do?

        Cut them off anyways, but ignored twitter.

        Now, I think there is an argument there about not being able to keep up with the influx, (Twitter is good at mass banning), but Parler was a newer company and had not yet been operating in the black. They were still borrowing money til Parler could turn a real profit. A judge though, looking at a contract signed would be little concerned about this. You sign the contract you can get terminated even if you have legitimate grievances.

        The other thing about the case, is that everyone looking at the lawsuit Parler filed, pretty much said it wasn’t going to work. The Anti-trust lawsuit just wasn’t there, and some of the charges Parler would have a hard time proving.

        This is covered when Megyn Kelly interviewed CEO of Parler John Matze, and she even tells him he is not going to win his case, and would have a better shot on 1st Amendment grounds.

        https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tech-censorship-independent-media-glenn-greenwald-ceos/id1532976305?i=1000505187244

        Furthermore, after the lawyers get through with it, there is very little doubt that Amazon was facing pressure from its own employees about kicking Parler off (not Twitter which also had planning). So I 100% doubt the excuses made by Amazon. Even if it’s their lawyers making them. Parler is again suing Amazon today on different grounds.

        https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/01/09/amazon-employees-demand-company-drop-parler-after-capitol-riot.html

        Of course, Amazon holds all the cards in the older lawsuit. From the contract to communications, it will win in court based on the bad choice to try for Anti-trust against them. The newer suit might fare better.

        The planning of Jan 6th on Parler, was an excuse to get rid of it due to internal pressure as well as how Amazon, Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter have worked (whether knowingly or not is hard to determine but I bet they do communicate) in tandem for purges in the past and simultaneously locking down of accounts (most famously the Infowars crazy Alex Jones).

        26,000 violations seems like a lot (and Parler was removing posts, not quick enough is Amazons argument, while Parler counter argument is you did not give us time). But on a platform of millions, like Twitter is 26,000 a number that can be really cited when Twitter suspended 70,000 accounts around Jan. 12th dealing with the same thing?

        And, as another reminder: the majority of planning for Jan. 6th, by the current DC investigations, show out of 200 filed charges:

        73 were in tandem with Facebook.

        24 for Youtube.

        And Parler at 20.

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/07/sheryl-sandberg-downplayed-facebooks-role-in-the-capitol-hill-siege-justice-department-files-tell-a-very-different-story/amp/

        Of course, Facebook and Youtube are not on AWS as is Twitter, and the filings are still ongoing or have yet to finish.

        But democrats were pushing to remove Parler in congress also, while Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter they just demand censorship or else government intervention. Because they know Silicon Valley is more to their left. Parler was/is not.

        So I see it as a hit job to remove a rival. Silicone Valley can be cut throat too.

        Finally, noticed what Amazon is arguing: Breach of contract. In other words:

        “Nya nya nyaaaa you can’t prove what you allege in court because we hold all the cards and we can terminate you for almost anything that breaches contract”.

        Ok so I paraphrased but that is exactly how I read this suit.

        Thanks for linking it by the way. I would like to do a bigger dive into it on my own time.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        JohnF

        https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/gov.uscourts.wawd_.294664.10.0_1.pdf
        It's worth reading Amazon's legal response. Parler was aware of at least 26,000 violations of its own code of conduct and admitted that it was unable to address them.

        Collapse
    2. Scroop Moth

      Allowing these books to go out of print isn’t “book burning” nor is it “banning” or censorship. No authority will forbid possession. The books will remain in circulation and be available for sale on used book exchanges. Many libraries will retain them in their collections, although many will withdraw them from their collections, as they perpetually withdraw books.

      It will be interesting to see what public libraries do with withdrawn items. Such items ordinarily are sold to the public. I’m certain there won’t be any burnings.

      When the books pass into the public domain, anyone can publish them. Until then, they are the intellectual property of the creator’s heirs.

      Writers will cross out words, sentences, and chapters of their manuscripts. Sometimes they suppress an entire work, published I’d unpublished. They have a right, as do their executors, to make such judgments about their own creative legacies.

      Collapse
    3. Shaybult

      "Progressives are engaging in digital and cultural book burning"

      That's your interpretation of a company deciding it doesn't want to re-print 6 books? We're not talking about taking them off library shelves, or making it illegal to possess them, or even adding them to some sort of "do not read" list. We're talking about simply choosing not to print additional copies of books that (1) weren't selling well and (2) in the judgement of those who own the rights, weren't what they wanted to produce any longer.

      You're overreacting.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        Ebay is actively removing it off their stores.

        And it was not a choice to simply removed them. The estate is saying the 6 books are racist.

        https://www.rollingstone.com/product-recommendations/books/buy-dr-seuss-books-online-1136080/

        The funny thing about Ebay, is they will sell Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but goodness, that Dr. Suess guy? Racist evidently.

        I shake my head at all these foolish moves. Like How the NBA will say they are for inclusion and equity, and then proceed to be mute on China that is engaged in actual cultural genocide while taking their money.

        We can see the hypocrisy here from these companies. After all, if these 6 books are racists, then perhaps they should ax the whole catalog of that old democrat that in his lifetime, came out against racism. When many other democrats in his day, didn't.

        Collapse
        1. Shaybult

          The estate said "These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong." It therefore chose to stop printing them. I still don't see that as digital book burning.

          If Ebay is refusing to sell them, I think that's ridiculous (although of course their right as a private company). And yet, that still isn't digital book burning.

          Again, I think you're overreacting.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Victor Clairmont

            Sure well, wait till the next banning. Guarantee we will have this conversation again.

            The White House removed the books from Teach for America, after all.

            So you see it as overreaction. That's fine. Hey, if it's an overreaction, I just have to say, "Whew, thank God I was wrong. I am sorry all sincerely I was wrong." And apologize when necessary. And stop the warnings.

            But if I'm right, as the terrible nature of history seems to be moving, as polarization is still going up and not dying down, from anti racism infecting corporations to Washington DC, from equity being put over equality, from education's top down failures across the board, I see this as one more flash point in that culture war. And the more people that stand up to it, the better. I think I will prefer to get out of the water when I see the fins and err on caution. Maybe it's a dolphin. Maybe it's a shark.

            After all, last summer we have riots unseen in half a century, and this year we had quite the event on Jan. 6th.

            I'm betting it's a shark that's coming if history is any guide.

            Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Paul Reichardt

      I look out for this too. I like Matt Taibbi’s take—in essence that we liberal-minded Gen-Xers used to laugh at the tone-deaf culture war puritans and Church Ladys (the SNL character) who would go after Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest albums as the spawn of Satan, but now we watch in despair as its our side that’s doing it.

      That said, I think of the Dr. Seuss subset of books as a parent reading to my kids. I wouldn’t choose to read “If I Ran To The Zoo” to my kids though it was read to me when I was young. The kids wouldn’t even give the classically stereotypical cultural depictions a second glance, but to me it reminds me of similar cultural depictions that were commonplace in a less enlightened era. I also probably wouldn’t choose to watch “Animal House” in front of my children for its various racist and anti-woman depictions though I loved it as a kid.

      It’s everywhere now that you look for it—the Mamey character in “It’s a Wonderful Life” or the Asians as depicted in the “It’s a Small World” ride at Disneyland. “That doesn’t look like my friend Dave down the street. Why does it exaggerate facial features of people like him to make them look so ugly?” Who wants to explain that to their children? I also think the Seuss company has to look out for their brand and legacy into posterity—it’s a sensible move motivated by dollars and cents primarily.

      I think popular culture is changing for better and for worse, though I see it mostly for the better so far. I wish there were a lot fewer Twitter mobs, witch trials, and government dictats being used and a lot more grace, compassion, and humanism on display.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald (who I confess I did not like much years ago), have actually been really solid on a whole slew of issues (sometimes much to my chagrin).

        Glenn did a podcast with Taibbi, where he recalled how he sat down in a multi-ethic group and the jokes they told about each other made him almost immediately go, "You can' say that."

        And then he realized this is just how normal folks are. Normally people are thick skinned, they are not reading Doctor Suess and thinking "Oh my god the Asian has chopsticks". Their going, "Hey this is a fun book for my kids".

        I feel the fights we have in the culture war, 90% of them most people, working a full 5 day a week job, don't even realize it is going on until....

        Dr. Suess gets banned. Then you see his book selling for $1500 on Amazon. Don't wait for the shark to bite you before you harpoon it.

        AND we could always use more grace and compassion, zero disagreement from me there and this thoughtful post.

        Collapse
    5. @fakeJohn

      Glad you got that off your chest, hope it was cathartic. What exactly is your solution to a private company making a business decision to stop publishing some books?

      Collapse
    6. Avatar photo
      BrandonAlleman

      I think this is a good time to follow your advice of earlier this winter. Stay calm. Sit back. Everything will be alright. I'm at a point now for me where 'cancel culture' has jumped the shark and has just been absorbed into the right wing culture of grievance. If this helps a Trump or worse candidate it's just as much because conservative media is gleefully walking down the street banging pans in a performative chicken little dance.
      Dr. S will continue to be an avatar and source of inspirational and whimsical children's literature. You can disagree with the decision by those who are entitled to edit his collection to do so, but one person's principled objection is anothers minority mob.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        "I think this is a good time to follow your advice of earlier this winter. Stay calm. Sit back."

        One can be calm and voiciferiously criticized a terrible policy or choice of a private company, that is in large part of a huge shift not to the left, or to the right, but straight into crazytown. And the more push back against it, the better.

        "Dr. S will continue to be an avatar and source of inspirational and whimsical children's literature. You can disagree with the decision by those who are entitled to edit his collection to do so, but one person's principled objection is anothers minority mob."

        If the White House removes it from it's readings (It has), and educations begin to remove it from it's own curricula (some are), at what point would you prefer to try to harpoon the shark?

        When it's biting your leg, or when a good distance away?

        Harpoon the shark when it comes to literature and don't let digital book burners get away with zero push back. And also, push to reform copyright laws.

        Collapse
    7. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      So what, you want Republicans to make it illegal for an author to control their own works?

      Parler was removed from Amazon's servers because they violated their contract with Amazon. Now they are on some other company's servers.

      What you are essentially proposing here used to be called.... "socialism"....

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        "So what, you want Republicans to make it illegal for an author to control their own works?"

        Suess is dead and no longer in control of his works. Someone else is.

        "Parler was removed from Amazon's servers because they violated their contract with Amazon. Now they are on some other company's servers."

        Parler was removed because it was a competition to Amazon's other primary caregiver's on the internet.

        Because then they should have also removed Twitter then, since more organized there than on Parler, and Twitter uses AWS servers from Amazon:

        https://www.contino.io/insights/whos-using-aws

        I don't by the way, care if republicans or democrats change the copyright laws so that if a private company removes a book, after around 2 or more years, it becomes public domain automatically.

        Changing laws to protect liberties, is a boon. Siding with digital book burners, is not.

        Collapse
        1. @fakeJohn

          Demanding sweeping changes to laws as a response to a couple of isolated events is pretty much the opposite of conservatism.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Victor Clairmont

            I'm not a conservative, or a republican.

            And it's not one thing, it's a slew of events moving together.

            Collapse
        2. Sarah S

          I think changing copyright laws in that way would be crazy - 'Dr. Seuss' is not simply a set of books but a brand, as as a brand it gets to try to protect and shape its image. I think they would have every right to argue that, should someone else publish a book they want to retire because of objectionable content that hurts their brand - which is totally within their rights to make that call - then one is causing real damage to its image and brand equity. You basically would be saying that an author, or an author's estate, in this case, gets to have no control over its assets during the usual 75 year copyright period. To say that after 2 years anyone can be allowed to publish material whether the estate or author likes it or not would be horrible law, especially if you value property rights.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Victor Clairmont

            "...then one is causing real damage to its image and brand equity."

            What damage is Dr. Suess books causing to it's brand when it was one of the most popular (still is) books in America?

            Does any normal American think this racism in his books is a serious thing? Or is it a small progressive band of inquisitors unhappy with anything deemed systemically racist?

            "To say that after 2 years anyone can be allowed to publish material whether the estate or author likes it or not would be horrible law, especially if you value property rights."

            It's a solution, it doesn't have to be the only one. If people still want the 20 year mark, fine. But to see progressivism keep going after it's own liberal writers and thinkers, is watching the snake eat it's tail. It's sad. Watching statues of Lincoln or Washington get graffiti'd or toppled last summer, to digital book bannings' and current cancel culture, it's becoming such a mockery of the old freedom liberals championed.

            And it seems (not saying you Sarah) in general, liberals and conservatives and many in America, just keep letting these incremental changes go on and on with zero legal or public challenge, until the snowball is so huge it crushes opposition.

            After all, when corporations such as Silicone Valley seem more powerful than the federal government in the digital world and censoring, we have a problem.

            And Dr. Suess, is just one more casualty in this absolutely disgusting cultural shift into who knows what.

            Collapse
        3. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          Seuss left his works to others when he was alive per his instructions. This is what *he* wanted for his works. Should he have been instead forced to leave his works with a government entity so some appointee in the government could better control them?

          Parler violated the terms of their agreement with Amazon. Should companies not be allowed to have contracts that result in the temporary downtime of a popular service?

          Should *you* be allowed to delete a TD comment you don't like? Would it be okay if TD put it back up after two years?

          Also, who in the government should decide what books can be banned and which must be forced to be made available by anybody they say? How do they decide this?

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Victor Clairmont

            "Seuss left his works to others when he was alive per his instructions. This is what *he* wanted for his works. Should he have been instead forced to leave his works with a government entity so some appointee in the government could better control them?"

            Do you think Seuss, who was a defender against racism, would have liked his books pulled because of supposed racism through pictures? How on earth is the estate dedicated to getting the books out, square that circle?


            Pat Riot7 min ago
            Seuss left his works to others when he was alive per his instructions. This is what *he* wanted for his works. Should he have been instead forced to leave his works with a government entity so some appointee in the government could better control them?

            "Parler violated the terms of their agreement with Amazon. Should companies not be allowed to have contracts that result in the temporary downtime of a popular service?"

            It was a bull crap violation of the service. It was petty and vindictive, for all those that have followed it. Sure, legal, but take Trump in real estate in the 1990's and early 2000s, how he ran the market and didn't pay debts he owed and screwed contractors a lot. Something might be legal and still be wrong.

            "Should *you* be allowed to delete a TD comment you don't like? Would it be okay if TD put it back up after two years?"

            I'm still alive Dr. Suess. aka Theodor Seuss Geisel, is not. Furthermore, my comments here are not a work of literature (though peraps I should flatter myself and say they are) or art. If you wall want to examine my comments after I'm dead after two years, go to town.

            "Also, who in the government should decide what books can be banned and which must be forced to be made available by anybody they say? How do they decide this?"

            I'm the one arguing for NOT banning books, what on earth does this question have to do with what I said? Making things available is not banning, it's opening them up.

            Collapse
        4. Avatar photo
          Victor Clairmont

          *more organized there than on Parler in reference to Jan. 6th.

          Also from the previous CEO's mouth they were in compliance with Amazon until one week (literally) Amazon decided to pull the rug (Jan, 6th), when before, Amazon had always let them know if they were violating something and gave them time to fix it. Such as needing more people to help police it's own Parler posts (it was a growing company after all).

          It was a nasty, vindictive move. Legally fine, but a nasty move none the less.

          Collapse
    8. teddytruther

      I used to believe that this kind of vigorous (classical) liberal policing of the boundaries of society was essential to maintaining our core civic freedoms. In some domains, like criminal prosecution, that's clearly still true. We have to ensure the rights of terrorists and murderers to protect our own.

      But by broadly conflating the normal generational tussle over our values with illiberalism, classical liberals have done a grave disservice to the cause. When you overload every transiently salient point of cultural friction with weight it cannot bear, it hampers our ability to assess and respond to actual threats to our freedom. When every single YA publisher, school board, student group, or Twitter hashtag is the next Mao, it's hard to see the real next Mao coming.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        "...hard to see the real next Mao coming."

        Isn't that what me and other's argued when so many of you called Trump a fascist? Because I would agree about calling wolf so many times.

        In terms of the cultural revolution that is infecting corporate America, the take over is slow and not swift however.

        After all, we almost started distributing vaccines based on skin color and not age from the CDC.

        One cannot argue that there is not a huge problem here, and the Dr. Seuss sage is one more coin flipped in the wrong direction of less liberty, not more.

        Collapse
        1. teddytruther

          "Isn't that what me and other's argued when so many of you called Trump a fascist? Because I would agree about calling wolf so many times."

          I agree!* I think the fact that you (and many others) were stubbornly downplaying the threat posed by Trump's post-election behavior kind of proves that point. The progressive left burned a lot of its powder on silly fights over Trump's tweets, rather than focusing on his substantial material criminality and corruption. The difference is that the left's problem with Trump was a problem of message discipline and incentives (a lot of opportunistic #Resistance grifters would use any minor outrage as grist for their Tweet mills), whereas Dr. Seuss - and the dozens of silly campus outrage stories before it - are clearly the main thing that the right wing media wants to focus on. They'd rather fight the culture war than explain why they're against a higher minimum wage or a child allowance - but classical liberals mistake the right wing's political opportunism for a good faith defense of our civic norms.

          I appreciate the need to be vigilant for insidious erosion of our core freedoms and rights, but it's called the slippery slope *fallacy* for a reason. The Dr. Seuss case is particularly ludicrous, because it's so abstracted from any real point of concern. There was no government intervention, no effort to recall or confiscate existing books in circulation, no attempt to expunge the (now widely circulating) offensive images themselves from the Internet, not even any pressure from a Twitter mob. The point being made seems to be "I don't like it when organizations make decisions for this specific set of cultural reasons", which has very little to do with concrete freedom and much more to do with your personal ideological priors.


          *For the record, I have never and will never call Trump (or any modern politician) a fascist - it's too freighted a term to be useful or descriptive. But it takes some effort to ignore Trump's embrace of authoritarian, nationalist, and populist motifs in his Presidency.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Victor Clairmont

            "I agree!* I think the fact that you (and many others) were stubbornly downplaying the threat posed by Trump's post-election behavior kind of proves that point"

            I actually went back to my defense of Dec. 14th election integrity a few weeks back to make sure I wasn't going crazy since people don't remember the arguments I was making.

            And I was 100% right to let things play out till Dec. 14th. legally. All Trumps lawsuits tossed, all his vainglorious attempts debunked. Jan 6th was a new goal post put down for others, not me. Because legally Jan 6th was ceremonial. People were led to believe a lie that Pence could do anything about it. And, God forbid, if the Capitol Building had been overrun, America wouldn't fall. A country with the most powerful military, and laws planted thick from coast to coast, doesn't fall to stupid viking man on the senate floor. This country survives by it's citizenry and respect for the rule of law. The Capital Building, as beautiful and historic as it is, is just one small piece to the most powerful country the world has ever seen (even if with all our flaws!).

            "*For the record, I have never and will never call Trump (or any modern politician) a fascist - "

            I actually have noted that about you Teddy. When it came to this hyperbole, you were one of the few that did not give into that temptation, and it makes these forums better for it.

            As for perhaps why I am heated about our core freedoms, it is simply because in my lifetime, our core freedoms keep being taken away inch by inch. If there is a drawing point for me where civility takes a semi-back seat and cutting words take a front seat, go after any core liberty in the public square, and I am decidedly on the old liberals side. Full stop. Do not cross go. do not remove the fence. Line in the sand for me. People say they are making America better going after, yes, Dr. Suess, but is America better when everyone's politically at each other throats? Again, this all snowballs.

            From republicans and Bush unleashing the NSA on us after 9-11 to invade our privacy almost at will, to democrats and Obama suspending the right to trial by jury for a citizen over sea deemed a terrorist, to the Jan. 6th riots seemingly being wielded as a club against opposition and talks of domestic terrorism being used against some people in the US and not others (rather it not be used at all), I am guilty of absolutely wanting to defend core values.

            And so, I am again the book banning, even from the private sector in this case. Of course, perhaps there is a case by case basis somewhere here.

            Collapse
        2. Sarah S

          Don't you think one way to protect the maximum amount of liberty is to protect the rights of companies to make their own decisions?

          Collapse
          1. Mads Lindstrøm

            I do not. My view of copyright is pretty much in line with the US constitution:

            "[the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

            Copyright is, constitutionally speaking, *not* for protection of creators, but for incentivizing "Progress of Science and useful Arts" (for the "common good"). Congress may protect the creators right (copyright) only as an aim to achieve "Progress of Science and useful Arts", but it is not an aim onto itself.

            Note that copyright is not really a right in a conventional sense. E.g. it is not like the 1st amendment.

            Also note that, moving works to the public domain if they are not in print for a period of time (as Mr. Clairmont mentioned earlier), is completely in line with the US constitution. Some may even say it requires it, though I am almost 100% sure that the Supreme Court would not.

            The reason I think the constitution is right, is that intellectual property is non-rivalrous, whereas ordinary physical property is rivalrous. The type of goods are fundamentally different and should not be equated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics) .

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Victor Clairmont

            Not if the companies are against the core belief of America and undermine it. Such as the NBA locking hands with China.

            At some point, even corporations need to answer to blood money. If China, is influencing universities through Confucian schools for propaganda purposes, it is within the right of the federal government to step in.

            If private companies, such as the NBA, wish to back Black Lives Matter, but then totally ignore genocide in China for ticket sales and stay silent, helping to prop up a enemy economy, then it is up to us as the public to put pressure on them or to petition our own government to do something about it.

            If Disney, wishes to lecture us at home about morality, but then thank the CCP for making their movies, selling their merchandise, and censoring their own movies to fit totalitarianism, I think at the minimum, Disney should receive push back from us.

            Capitalism, and even corporate rights, are only as strong as the social and moral's of the society that they live. When corporations begin to go the way of censorship to appease the worse of the world, it goes against the nature of freedom American's have fought and strove for.

            And Dr. Suess again, is just one small part to and even bigger problem, as another flash point in the culture war.

            Collapse
    9. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      Removing 6 books from his VAST published ouvre does NOT mean Dr. Seuss is "wiped off the face of this earth". And again, what is your solution, to force his estate to keep publishing them? Who should force them?

      The only argument I have seen that actually does make sense is to reform copyright laws so that books go into public domain sooner after an author dies, and if someone really wants to cater to the Right Wing culture warriors by republishing these 6 books, they can do that. There are self-published copies of "Little Black Sambo" for sale on Amazon because that story is in public domain.

      And BTW Parler is back since they found a new company to host them.

      Collapse
      1. Diane Hansen

        Aylene, that's not really the point. The Little House Series was not banned, but removed from a Library Award. Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird" and Mark Twain has been removed from reading lists. The Little House series along with Gene Stratton Porter's "Girl of the Limberlost" I singularly credit for putting me on the pathway to a lifetime of reading. The material point is that I did not elect the Library Association or a "unspecific group of experts" to determine what I read, nor do I want them to have that sort of leverage and power. The Little House series was a reflection of Laura Ingalls Wilder's era ....as was Jane Austin, James Fennimore Cooper, and Charles Dickens. In 100 yrs, books and art will be a reflection of our era...I should hope that we will be past nanny state police dictates, otherwise our glimpse into the past will be gone....

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Aylene Wright

          First of all, how in the world does the ALA removing Wilder's name from the award determine whether you can read her books or not? And the books you lament being taken off reading lists, were only there in the first place because an "unspecific group of experts" decided they belonged there, it's not like God Himself decreed these books should be read by all schoolchildren.

          The "experts" always had that "leverage and power", the only difference is that you once agreed with the decisions of those in power, and now you don't. But taking a book off a school reading list doesn't mean kids who read it on their spare time will be punished. Not even the author of this article claims that is "book banning".

          Collapse
          1. Diane Hansen

            Wow Aylene, you are way overreacting, and you totally missed my point. I didn't say that taking the award away from the Little House series meant I can't still read the books. What I said was that a group of culture warrior educators have, without authority, determined that a few 1870 references to Indians disqualifies Laura Ingalls Wilder. Wilder was on the list because the books she wrote, were joyful, beloved, and read by generations of young people, and took children into a past world they will never experience, but their ancestors did. I never agreed or disagreed with experts putting her on the list...she was there because millions of children loved her books, she is now off because a few progressive determined that their 21st century values have to apply to 1870. I equally disagree with the Catholic Church taking Harry Potter off the reading list...how does a fantasy in anyway threaten religion? It doesn't. Suggested reading lists have to be age appropriate, but culture warrior politics have no place...that was my point.

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        You missed the:

        "--But you say, “It’s only 6 books.”

        To which I say, if George Orwell only had one booked banned, 1984, would you accept that he had others so get rid of it?---"

        I am actually i favor of reforming copyright laws. If a private company removes a book, after two years, make it public domain.

        "And BTW Parler is back since they found a new company to host them."

        Russian servers that they came under fire for using. Furthermore, Parler was removed due to Jan. 6th based on the false assertion that it was the primary method of insurrectionists planning and plotting on it, when it should have been Facebook and Youtube removed by that reasoning, that even David French was wrong to push.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/13/facebook-role-in-capitol-protest/

        But this moves to a further point, again, whether private or public, the absolute reasoning for some of the banning's is nuts.

        There was a pastor that trying to burn Harry Potter books when it first came out for witch craft. He got much push back (rightly so), for book burning. Today, many of the same people you would be happy to want to censor or try to ban Harry Potter, because the author is against transgenderism infringing on woman's rights. I don't even like Harry Potter and it is wrong.

        The more public push back, and yes, laws such as changing the copyright laws as they stand, the better.

        More freedom in literature, not less.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Aylene Wright

          I didn't miss it, but I also didn't miss the claim that Seuss is being wiped off the face of the earth, which is just not true. Anyway, I do think tweaking the copyright laws may be a good idea here, though more for the general principle of it than as a workaround against this kind of move by the copyright holder. That doesn't force anyone to publish anything. As I noted elsewhere, the book "The Story of Little Black Sambo" is available in many forms because it's in the public domain.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Victor Clairmont

            Ayelene, that's metaphorical, as I acknowledge that the secondary argument after it (only 6 books). Here, force Steve Hayes to give us an edit button and I will put *metaphorical* in front of it!

            Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Ethan

    Herge's "Tintin in the Congo" was published in 1931, when the Belgians were still nearly 30 years away from withdrawing from the colony. It presents an intensely racialized caricature of Africans, in their appearance, manner, speech, and in the way that European characters interact with them. It is similarly blasé about big-game hunting, though I suspect the objections to such portrayals are less strenuous than to insensitive human ones. I read a fair bit of early 20th Century material, and even from my knee-jerk conservative, somewhat inured-to-shock perspective, it offends the modern sensibility in a way that makes it pretty hard to read at times. As a result, it's something of a difficult book to come by. I have two copies; one in the original drawing and another that had been re-drawn and colored in 1946. Neither is any better than the other, but in all modern publications of the book, the publisher, Casterman, included a paragraph-long preface to the comic that effectively says, "This book has aged poorly, but it reflects the sensibility of a particular time and place whose presentation of the world is important to preserve." This strikes me as the clearly correct path forward. The book is not banned; it is still printed, as far as I know, though in low quantities. The preface addresses modern concerns, and it braces the reader for potentially shocking material. It does not endorse Herge's depictions, but it does present them as valuable, both as a window into the past and as a sort of yard stick by which our social understanding might be better understood. As Mr. Clairmont points out, to simply ban things is to preclude our grappling with them as representations of real ideas that were held and advocated for by genuine authors and intellectuals. How unsure must one be of his moral rightness to banish incidental hundred-year-old challenges to it?

    Collapse
    1. Sarah S

      The difference I see is that 'DEr Seuss' is a hugely profitable multinational brand that represents a type of family-friendly unobjectionable imprint for films, merchandise, and yes, books. In that way, it is like Disney. They are protecting the reputation of that brand's equity as they see it - the brand is not required to preserve all its holdings but to continually curate what it licenses and owns to maximize the brand's equity. How would holding onto these titles increase that? Tintin, by contrast, probably only has equity as a relic of a bygone era and not as a current merchandising company trying to appeal to millions (if not billions) worldwide and not simply in the US.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Aylene Wright

        The Disney Company made a very similar decision when they put "Song of the South" in the vault. I can imagine that fifty years from now, they may decide to put the cartoon version of "Mulan" in the vault because people complain the depiction of Chinese characters in the original movie is racist, or put the live-action version of "Mulan" in the vault, because they decide that having actively filmed it in an area where genocide was happening is bad optics. I wouldn't necessarily agree with that decision, but I understand they have the right to make it.

        I also find the brouhaha over commercial for-profit companies changing their logos to be more "politically correct" to be mostly silly. The Aunt Jemima logo was changed multiple times to make it less racially stereotypical, until they finally decided to retire her altogether. I don't recall anyone tearing their hair out about the prior changes to the logo.

        I did think it was a legitimate critique of such moves, that the killing of Floyd has mostly resulted only in these cosmetic PR changes and didn't actually result in any changes in the system, but that doesn't mean the decisions by the corporations meant they had "caved to the Woke Mob" or that "it's only a matter of time before they cancel ALL mascots" or whatever.

        Collapse
    2. teddytruther

      This is the approach taken by Hollywood to its movies and films. I suspect much of the difference between the studios and the Seuss estate comes down to the fact that it's profitable to continue to show your movie on a streaming service, but costly to continue publishing a book that's not selling. If the principle value of a book is for preservationist and archival purposes, it doesn't seem fair to insist publishers lose money. There are numerous organizations dedicated to the literary historical record who can do that work.

      And if an author's estate decides that a given work is no longer consistent with their values, they are free to discontinue its publication. When the work leaves copyright, it can be republished by interested parties. But there's a reason why a vast majority of open source intellectual property goes unpropagated - most cultural and artistic works have a limited shelf-life. Mass entertainment from the early 20th century is now largely the provenance of historians, cinephiles, and bookworms.

      Collapse
Load More