The other day someone questioned whether the 2019 Katie Ishizuka/Ramon Stephens study exposing alleged racism in "Dr. Seuss" was related to the anti-#DrSeuss push. Why, yes it is. (It began in 2017 when Ishizuka's first version of the paper appeared.)
learningforjustice.org/magazine/its-t…
learningforjustice.org/magazine/its-t…
The Ishizuka paper is not only a paranoid exercise in decoding "harmful" tropes everywhere, it's also wildly fraudulent. Here, for instance, is a passage about the racist symbolism of ink stains in a Cat in the Hat sequel... which forgets to mention that the ink is PINK.
Am I concerned about what a rights holder does with some mostly minor works? Maybe not, but I'm certainly concerned when a classic author is targeted for a takedown that peddles lies and omits important details such as Dr Seuss's anti-racist work.
FWIW, here is Ishizuka's 2017 paper, *specifically* prepared as a presentation to argue for uncoupling Dr Seuss from Read Across America (which, remember, was originally started *in tribute to him*).
pragmaticmom.com/wp-content/upl…
pragmaticmom.com/wp-content/upl…
Seriously, read the section called "Racial Analysis of The Cat in the Hat as Blackface Minstrel."
It's about as sane as "If you play certain rock 'n' roll Vinyl records backwards, you can hear Satanic messages."
Yet this is treated seriously by the National Education Association.
It's about as sane as "If you play certain rock 'n' roll Vinyl records backwards, you can hear Satanic messages."
Yet this is treated seriously by the National Education Association.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
