Dr. Seuss Books are Racist

globalnews.ca...
www.npr.org...
www.inquisitr.com...
people.com...

"Dr. Seuss once said, “You can steer yourself any direction you choose.”
"And, according to a new study from St. Catherine University, that should be away from Dr. Seuss books. The study, published in the journal for Research on Diversity in Youth Literature, analyzes 50 books and more than 2,200 characters created by Dr. Seuss. Of those characters, only 45 are of colour." - Global News

"As Dr. Seuss’ birthday approaches on March 2, a new study argues that many of the author’s classic children’s books are racist and problematic — and only two percent of his characters represent people of color." - People

I was running on the treadmill this morning when this New study from St. Catherine University was being discussed. The new study being that Dr. Seuss books are racist.

I about fell off of the treadmill.

This is another example of using Today's overbearing PC culture to grade and degrade any and all things regardless of the time frame of their origins. I am sick and tired of the overly offended lashing out all things.

I guess its just another milestone for the PC culture to ban, like Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn and Little House on the Prairie which are all equally offensive I guess along with all teenage angst films from the 80's.

Let's just forget about the history and past cultures and start rewriting it so no one gets offended.

a reply to: wdkirk

But....
But......

Thing 1, and Thing 2!

originally posted by: Cygnis
a reply to: wdkirk

But....
But......

Thing 1, and Thing 2!

I am offended by that. Thing 1 and thing 2 are clearly up to no good and stereotype something....I may not know what something but I am sure it is bad.

a reply to: wdkirk

Ummm...they were all blue werent they?! And was the cat not black AND white? Jeeezus. Thank god for beer...else i would be depressed.

a reply to: wdkirk

The grinch was green.

But then, he was the bad guy in the story. Clearly racist.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: wdkirk

Ummm...they were all blue werent they?! And was the cat not black AND white? Jeeezus. Thank god for beer...else i would be depressed.

I agree. I think Universities should spend their time and money on something more worth while. However, I am a White male and therefore my answer is invalid.

originally posted by: Monsieur Neary
a reply to: wdkirk

The grinch was green.

But then, he was the bad guy in the show. Clearly racist.

He lives in a cave which surely is symbolic of the ghetto and he clearly wants what the white town folk have because of white privilege.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: wdkirk

Ummm...they were all blue werent they?! And was the cat not black AND white? Jeeezus. Thank god for beer...else i would be depressed.

Clearly racist. Blue Hair and red jump suits. Someone is clearly being made fun of. Not sure who, but, someone.

a reply to: wdkirk

You know what's racist? the tv movie "Roots". The whites are all shown to be either slave owners or klansmen. What kind of thing is that?


I think it's really a dangerous and dark place to go down when people are going after things written in the past. That's how groups start to justify book burnings, history revisions, and flat out removal of important cultural events. Groups will focus on the struggles of the Black slaves, but in the same stroke will ignore the Chinese slaves that were brought in to build the west coast, nor will these people even both to understand the effects of the Irish slaves (or indentured servants as they were called) since the beginning of the colonizing of the America's. They also seem to forget that one of the first registered slave owners in the colonies was a black man.

This going back and removing or labeling something racist, to me at least, seems to be a pattern of removing history, or rewriting history. It's a dangerous and dark place to go to indeed.

a reply to: wdkirk

It isn't hyperbole when I say that the left is anti-freedom book-burning assholes.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: wdkirk

You know what's racist? the tv movie "Roots". The whites are all shown to be either slave owners or klansmen. What kind of thing is that?


I think it's really a dangerous and dark place to go down when people are going after things written in the past. That's how groups start to justify book burnings, history revisions, and flat out removal of important cultural events. Groups will focus on the struggles of the Black slaves, but in the same stroke will ignore the Chinese slaves that were brought in to build the west coast, nor will these people even both to understand the effects of the Irish slaves (or indentured servants as they were called) since the beginning of the colonizing of the America's. They also seem to forget that one of the first registered slave owners in the colonies was a black man.

This going back and removing or labeling something racist, to me at least, seems to be a pattern of removing history, or rewriting history. It's a dangerous and dark place to go to indeed.

I agree. Removing visual and written images of the past does not change the past. Hiding it behind the banner of "what is good for our children" is a smoke screen at best.

a reply to: wdkirk

Can you spot why Enid Blyton's " Noddy Books " are now regarded as racist ?



Most children's authors from 50 years or more ago are regarded as either racist, sexist or not PC.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: wdkirk

It isn't hyperbole when I say that the left is anti-freedom book-burning assholes.

They are not. They want it all their way. No give and all take.

Further proof that it's far easier to make up a premise about how someone who achieved something great in the past is racist and light a fire to make yourself feel good and morally superior than it is to really achieve something noteworthy yourself.

"Did you write super popular children's literature that makes learning to read fun?"

"No. I just tore down the guy who did and exposed him for the terrible racist Nazi he actually was."

"..."

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: wdkirk

Can you spot why Enid Blyton's " Noddy Books " are now regarded as racist ?

Most children's authors from 50 years or more ago are regarded as either racist, sexist or not PC.

Its the checkered parachute pants isn't it? Clearly MC hammer style and being made fun of.

JK.

Yes, it would appear that we need to cleanse the world of any author that wrote popular books during an era in history when things were not as they are now. Burn them all.

a reply to: alldaylong

But Enid Blyton is not Dr. Seuss or his children's books.

Clearly a picture of the haves and have nots.

Sneetches with a star are the top 1% of the wealth in Seuss land where as those without a start are clearly the bottom feeders.

I am sure some liberal somewhere thinks that.

a reply to: ketsuko

The point is,not matter where you look, authors, illustrators etc from years ago are not acceptable by today's standards.

Sad but true,

a reply to: wdkirk

The PC culture is so backwards.

Racism is treating someone differently because of the color of their skin.

So technically whomever it was that came to this conclusion is, in fact, racist.

Or the color of the cartoon characters wouldn't matter.

They should treated the same, after all.

Someone should also point out to the brilliant person behind this conclusion that cartoon characters have no race.

They are not people... they are drawings.

This is ridicules.
Its clear that the left has become opposed with racial politics.
Whats next? is the Simpsons racist to?