Should I weigh in on the 'is Dr. Seuss cancelled?' issue? Those who know me know I may be too close to this one.
Dr. Seuss should not be cancelled but there are racially problematic images in the books (not just in his very racist old cartoons, from before he was a children's book author.)
There are non-problematic features of the books that are made problematic by the fact that the books are so ... hegemonic in the children's section. So many Seuss stories take place in the head of some little lunatic white American boy from 1950.
We see the world askew through his eyes. But the weight of Dr. Seuss makes that view ... normative. Nothing wrong with 'go out there and get 'em, kiddo!' Just ... read something else for variety. Not every reader is some Will to Power-addled white American suburban male loon.
Adorable as I find that type to be, personally.
Before the age of 8 or so.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The books do contain negative stereotypes. It qualifies as a genuine minor dilemma. It is a fascinating, ethically fiddly topic to argue! At the same time, one of the two major parties in the US has, as its sole policy goal at present, vote suppression. 2/ apnews.com/article/dr-seu…
This generates a minor meta-dilemma. I don't want to forbid people debating the minor dilemma (just how harmful is it to small children that Seuss contains negative ethnic stereotypes?) just because voter suppression is more clear and consequential. Which it for sure is. 3/
You know, @jtlevy ought to talk more about his book in relation to contemporary politics. It seems relevant to these interesting times. 1/ books.google.com.sg/books/about/Ra…
Let me try to condense a main lesson of it, as I see it, and give an obvious, contemporary application. 2/
Liberalism (in the broad sense, not the partisan D sense) concerns the proper relationship between the individual and the state. This leave 'intermediate groups' - thick civic society - betwixt and between. 3/
The drama of 'lawful evil cleric joins party of chaotic neutral thieves for profit' has played out more than once this admin. (Jeff Sessions.) Such moral tragedy provokes audiences to ask: how to be true to law, in a crisis, yet without abandoning evil? nytimes.com/2021/01/12/us/…
OK, joking aside, do I really think Pence is evil? Like, EVIL-evil? He and I don't just have policy disagreements? Let's ask, instead: why does it make perfect sense that Jeff Sessions and Mike Pence would both get in bed with Trump, and both find the experience so debasing?
The short answer is that Pence and Sessions are not that different from Trump in SOME ways, though they are his opposite in OTHERS. (This is not a truth caught by Gary Gygax's moral compass.)
But also that Trump shouldn't get what he deserves. It's so little! a few days! But the same consideration should cut the other way: it's so little. Just a few days. Why not do the right thing?
Because the R base wants Congress NOT to do the right thing, is why. But is that a good reason not to do the right thing, on a basic point of principle? McCarthy is basically saying: our base won't tolerate their reps upholding the constitution. Well, what should leaders do?