The fact that you and so many others finds the actions of those police unacceptable is basically proof that they were not simply "a product of their time".
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Racist Dr. Seuss drawing up for auction upsets fans
- Thread starter Dram
- Start date
- Status
The fact that you and so many others finds the actions of those police unacceptable is basically proof that they were not simply "a product of their time".
starchild excalibur
Member
It's a shocking comic, but I'm appreciative of those posters who provided context about the idiom, as I had never heard it before. It doesn't change my overall impression of Seuss (at least not as much as hearing how he was an asshole to his first wife does), as it's more reflective of a common phrase for its time than it is a criticism of blacks.
It doesn't excuse the general ease that many people had using the word at the time, but even being black, my initial shock softens a bit once I read about the context and history of the phrase.
It doesn't excuse the general ease that many people had using the word at the time, but even being black, my initial shock softens a bit once I read about the context and history of the phrase.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Everything is a product of its time, if you really stop and think about it, but I see what you mean. I think. Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe perhaps.
AzureTranquility95
Banned
I know it's part of our history as americans, but it's utterly shameful & ignorant nonetheless. Hopefully Dr. Seuss learned his lesson at some point.
ratcliffja
Member
He absolutely did as his later comics showed. I actually respect him more knowing how much he changed and tried to repent for his earlier views.
The issue is that standards change. In 1930 the non-black majority was absolutely fine with mass abuses of civilians by white officers. In the 1930s, the National Negro Congress tried to protest this brutality, but nobody else cared.
And it's not just racial attitudes that change over time. I'd argue that the majority of fathers in the 18th century and earlier would be abusive husbands and parents by our modern standards. Even if they didn't beat their wives, they would certainly beat their children, and marital rape was expected.
Not excuse making. Context and critical thinking.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
Oh no!!! He didn't become perfect by the end of his life? Please someone think of the poor children!!!
He changed drastically as he got older and I wrote a decent amount about tolerance and understanding those different from you. It's really sad that people can't get the basic understanding that no one is perfect. Everyone in their lives have skeletons and flaws in their character and elsewhere. People get offended when someone points out their shortcomings but are horrified that another person may have had some shitty character flaws.
This doesn't mean you have to like or support them but it's a weird phenomenon that people who should know better think there's still this group of people who are perfect in every conceivable way.
User 73706
Banned
Quiet you! Obsessive geek fanbases could be destroyed if you bring up the truth!
birthday-suit
Banned
CarpeDeezNutz
Member
What. The. Fuck.
I'll assume you don't actually give a shit about the reality of racism if you wanna confine the discussion within purely academic parameters.
User 73706
Banned
There were human beings that liked black people because they were people just like you and me in the 1920s. Seuss cheated on his cancer-stricken wife publicly and drove her to suicide. Looking at this even from a purely objective standpoint, "he was a product of his time" still doesn't mean shit.
bengraven
Member
That's it. I'm burning my son's entire Dr. Seuss collection.
The difference between Dr. Seuss and any of these other people is that he never fucking killed anyone. What's wrong with you?
FunkyDealer
Banned
I don't read it as racist. Quite the opposite actually.
To me, the comic shows stupid, ignorant rich people and brings up the issue of selling humans as wares.
He may well have been a racist, but the comic isn't in my eyes.
To me, the comic shows stupid, ignorant rich people and brings up the issue of selling humans as wares.
He may well have been a racist, but the comic isn't in my eyes.
ryutaro's mama
Member
So are you saying that there was no one living in the early 1900s with non racist views?
I'm not giving dude a pass on some "product of his times" bullshit.
I think this is how I feel as well. It's important to remember that "n***r in a woodpile" was a common phrase back then, and so was caricatures of black people that way. That doesn't make either of them ok, but it helps that at least his comic was promoting a positive message than a negative one. Furthermore later on in his life he was unabashedly a proponent of equal work forces for the different races, and desegregation in general a contentious issue at the time. I guess what I'm saying is I'm certainly not a fan of the comic, but it's not entirely as bad as it looks on the surface.
I find his comics on Japanese Americans far more offensive, as it was promoting the disgusting view that every Japanese American was an agent in disguise ready to attack the US. It to me would be similar to showing a line of Arab Americans holding bombs ready to attack America today. It was pretty inexcusable then and it sure as hell is now.
That doesn't make him not an asshole. He certainly was at times, specifically regarding his actions with his late wife. But if we were to remove the works of authors because of the views they held outside of them, our libraries, and our culture would not be nearly as beautiful.
ryutaro's mama
Member
grandwizard
Member
Yep. Dehumanizing people makes it easier to rationalize treating them like shit. Imagine what the constant media bombardment over decades of awful stuff like this does for race relations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C45g3YP7JOk
His later works preach tolerance though, maybe he realized that the views he had during his twenties were fucked up. He could also be a huge piece of shit, I'm not denying that possibility.
No, he is saying that it isn't shocking that a guy living back then has racist views, just as he wrote.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
Yeah I'm not actually doing any of that. But I see what you typed before as something people tend to do all the time to, in a way, excuse the racism people exhibited at the time, and the fact they use that blanket description so often leads others to think they believe EVERYONE back then was that way, which marginalizes the people who at the time were not racists. I think it also excuses the nature of the individual in the larger context of humanity; ideals and notions of good are not intrinsically tied to a period in time, so it's insulting to say (or imply through the saying of other things) that there weren't people back at that time who had ideals that'd fit with today's modern society, or that people from today's world would unanimously revert to the stock behavior and mentality of times past.
Your explanation was partially an old, tired excuse and what I said in no way refutes or belittles the progress of people at those times who were once racist and later on corrected their ways. What I said also doesn't trivialize what minorities went through at the time; it just acknowledges the other side of the reality that not every white person was a bigoted supreme racist, even back then.
That's true, but he didn't have to be directly responsible for a person's death to play a part in it. Who do you think was reading that material at the time? A good deal of them were likely the same sort of klansmen that wound up killing black Americans during that dark period of America's supposed "greatest generation".
Now, yes, as a creative individual you can't be held directly accountable for another grown adult's actions regardless of how they interpret your work. And the truth is we don't know for sure what purpose this illustration (and other similar illustrations) was made for (although it's easy to take a guess), or how it influenced its readers when they read it, but even while taking into consideration historical context, by today's standards, it's disgusting.
We can only hope Dr. Seuss came to a point where he apologized for that illustration (that specific illustration, not other similar ones) and, at the time, he created it with the intent of educating people on the wrongs of racism, and not inciting them to commit more of it.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
You just seem to want to find outrage in anything. What Seuss did before he became a children's author is not reflected in his children's work. So why, outside of an academic discourse on common social norms in pre-Civil Rights America, does the fact that Seuss made racists cartoons matter at all?
Anyone who takes offense with this to the point where they don't want anything to do with what Seuss was famous for is too easily offended and seeking it out.
ryutaro's mama
Member
The fact that it is the beloved Dr. Seuss makes it more nuanced to me than just "oh shocking".
Tesseract
Banned
that's on you
I'm not outraged. I don't have a single post in this thread expressing any kind of anger.
I just know that it was wrong when he did it just like it would be wrong today, and I see no reason to defend or excuse him for doing it. But keep on.
if he did why cant people accept that he changed? they wont look that the dude changed his line of thinking and instead will judge the rest of his work based on some dumb shit when he did was young. i said bad shit when i was young but i dont think i should be judged for the rest of life based on some stuff when i had 0 life experience
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
I like this thing from Warner:
It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. At least it does appear he change his views. EDIT: Hope you don't think I'm attacking you! Your post just reminded me of this.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Right.
It's on me that a guy that built a career of family friendly material for all races is suddenly found out to have created racially offensive material at some point.
That's on me.
<rolls eyes>
Well, then maybe you shouldn't confuse "defend or excuse" with "explain", because the latter is what most people are doing. Especially with the argument you quoted.
Well the "suddenly" thing is certainly on you.
That's not what people are saying at all. Just because some people are progressive on an issue doesn't mean we should demonize those who aren't (ie the "average person"), especially when people like Seuss had their heart in the right place. People change and societies change. Furthermore no one is perfect. We can criticize and discuss the content of the comic without wanting to burn Seuss's books or remove them from elementary schools.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
He didn't drive her to do anything, what sensationalist garbage. There's no evidence that he did it viciously or just to drive her to suicide like you're implying. Plenty of women are cheated on, vast vast vast majority don't commit suicide in response.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Fair enough.
I have no desire to give him a pass because of the whole "product of his times" excuse.
Not gonna get into a semantic argument over the implied meaning behind using the word excuse versus the word explain. I know what's going on here when y'all try to "explain" and I don't give a damn. The shit was racist.
wanderingprostheyltite
Member
You don't really need to restate your position, we get it. Apparently people can never redeem themselves in your eyes.
I guess this whole ordeal goes back to separating artists from the person. We as people constantly look at famous people as somebody without flaws because of contributions. Sure, Dr. Suess had racist views and did foul shit but at the end of the day, dude was one of the pioneers of children's literature. Hell, the moment I found out Eldridge Cleaver was a hypocrite, it didn't change my mind that Soul on Ice was one of my favorite books of all time.
ryutaro's mama
Member
I understand all your points and still, I can't stress this enough, you are who you are, entire package. Faults and successes. He may have changed his views over the years and that is fine but the racially insensitive stuff is also part of what made Dr. Seuss, Dr. Seuss. I just can't give him a pass for that time period whereas others can.
Are we really going to defend his cheating? I think it's a terrible argument to say "well these other people weren't driven to suicide when their partner did something monstrous, so it's not his fault". It's absolutely his fault. Cheaters cause their partners a lot of pain. He had no excuse.
User 73706
Banned
You don't have to be sitting next to someone's deathbed chanting "Pull the plug! Pull the plug!" to drive someone to suicide. It's pretty clear what was responsible for her wanting to take her own life.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Muhammed Ali was against interracial marriages and race mixing and held pro racial segregation views. Does he get a pass as a product of his time, or is his legacy permenantly tainted?
User 73706
Banned
Uh, yes? What kind of question is that? You're resorting to hyperbolic phrasing, but yeah, it is.
PreFire
Member
wanderingprostheyltite
Member
A fitting user name
But seriously I don't understand this reaction at all. The quality of those works have not been diminished, most certainly not in the impact they'll have on a child. Are you going to steer them away from works of other artists that have shady things in their past? Not gonna let them listen to The Beatles cause Lennon beat his wife and was neglectful to his first son? It's all or nothing in my eyes and a futile pursuit. Almost every artist got dirt on them, I'm sure everyone here has a hero that's done some heinous shit at some point in their life. Does that negate the impact they had on you?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked