8 comments

  1. The Suess books are a terrible example of censorship because it’s not censorship. A publisher has chosen not to re-print a few books in their catalog because they have found some of the illustrations insulting to some ethnic groups, incidentally, none of the books were actually good sellers. They are not withdrawing existing editions from sale so any still in warehouses or on shelves can still be bought. So a simple economic argument can be made for not re-printing on the basis that there isn’t sufficient demand. But more to point the trustees who have decided not to re-print own the works and they have no responsibility to make more available. It should also be borne in mind that Theodor Seuss Geisel’s own views would suggest that he would recognize that some of his illustrations are offensive and wouldn’t have an issue with the decision not to reprint. If the proposal was those existing editions in libraries, bookshops or warehouses should be withdrawn and should no longer be available that it would be valid to claim censorship.

  2. Manipulation of speech is an effort to censure thought. Placing particular words in a specific context where it becomes taboo or reviled in order to dampen or destroy discussion about ideas groups find repugnant to their ideology.

  3. I am trying to figure out the Dr Seuss comments. Who said it was a white person that made the decision to remove eight books from circulation for racial stereotypical images? The company made the decision, there was no public discussion to my knowledge around it. This discussion makes a lot of assumptions about the motivations of decision makers based upon “white guilt” without actually breaking down the dynamics of the board that made the decision. Perhaps the Asian board member thought depicting africans as “ape like” was offensive. Perhaps the Indian board member thought that presenting presenting Chinese people in a line eating with chopsticks was not appropriate. I am solidly on the left, but this type of rhetoric does not help when not evidenced based. It is as useful as FOX News.

  4. Whoever in marketing thought the string of ads on this YouTube video or any video is a good marketing idea should change careers immediately! Try becoming a bodyguard (ie. Repellent.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.