Curious what was offensive I found the books are on youtube and I'm guessing it's drawing Chinese https://youtu.be/Vl6wD6EGOVk?t=228 and tribal Africans https://youtu.be/Vl6wD6EGOVk?t=519 looking like cartoon versions of those. Does this means cartoon caricatures are only acceptable if they are of white westerners?
I mean I can understand the publishers thinking they may get in trouble and it's easier to drop those lines but the thing seems to be getting a bit out of hand.
They're not just cartoons. They're caricatures associated with racist tropes, which have been used in conjunction with discrimination and even violence. The African pictures in particular look like minstrel shows, which were deliberately intended to demean black people in America.
It's not that the publishers were afraid of getting in trouble. It's that they were ashamed of their own book -- with good reason.
The book is explicitly depicting people from abroad, not African-Americans. As Dr. Seuss’s surviving family has attested to his character and wordliness, and his other books like “Horton Hears a Who” promote tolerance and the acceptance of minorities, I’m inclined to go with a simpler, more innocent explanation for these images.
Nitpicking and a pet-peeve but Elon Musk is an African-American.
You probably mean "black". They are not from Africa simply because they are black and for clarity we should stop being politically correct (especially when critical-race theory is so keen on language defining reality)
Sure, anyone can read the books. Just buy them. You just have to open your own bookstore, your own rental operation for the building its in and your own payment processor. Also your own supplier, publisher and hosting provider for the company website residing in your own datacenter wired up by your own isp. Noone can claim he's being censored, it's not the government after all ;)
> Does this means cartoon caricatures are only acceptable if they are of white westerners?
They cancelled Apu from the Simpson’s without understanding that his presence on the show demonstrated a mainstreaming of Indian immigrants, in a similar way that the uncanceled Groundskeeper Willie, Mayor Quimby, and McBain demonstrate the mainstream acceptance of Scottish, Irish, and Austrian immigrants.
> They cancelled Apu from the Simpson’s without understanding that his presence on the show demonstrated a mainstreaming of Indian immigrants, in a similar way that the uncanceled Groundskeeper Willie, Mayor Quimby, and McBain demonstrate the mainstream acceptance of Scottish, Irish, and Austrian immigrants.
The guy who voiced Apu, Hank Azaria, decided to stop doing it. Nobody "cancelled" him. He is an articulate guy and describes why he reached the decision in this interview:
I watched The Simpsons religiously growing up and I never realised Mayor Quimby is supposed to be an Irish immigrant. Where is that established? He doesn't have an Irish accent.
Not only whites can be racist. Any race in power, anywhere, becomes the new "white man" when powers are tipped. There is nothing fundamental to your skin color: all of us bear the seeds of our future cruelty. And until we address desire and deconstitute it atom by atom, none of us will ever be free.
I don't understand the need for the "in power" qualification. It specifically is saying that discrimination based on race is not racist unless they are the majority.
So does this mean that if an asian man murders a black man, specifically because he is black, that this is not racism?
Some people call any discrimination discrimination and systemic discrimination racism. Some people call any discrimination racism and don't talk much about systemic discrimination.
People in group 2 think people in group 1 mean it's impossible to discriminate against someone in the majority. But they don't.
People in group 1 think people in group 2 mean systemic discrimination doesn't exist. But not all of them do.
Some people in group 2 say people in group 1 should come up with a new word for systemic discrimination. But people in group 1 don't bother because it wouldn't change what people believe.
I don't understand the need for the "in power" qualification. It specifically is saying that discrimination based on race is not racist unless they are the majority.
In a time and place where a local hegemonic group has a history of bigotry towards and/or oppression of a local minority or disempowered group, it could be argued that the hegemonic group has a greater moral authority to be sensitive to the oppressed/disempowered group.
I believe that's a big part of the moral reasoning that is applied in these cases. There is a logic to it that goes further and has more integrity than than "people just want to take other people down".
Why do people always get tripped up on this. Racism is institutional and prejudice is personal. No one is saying an arbitrary person can't be prejudiced - ask the right people and you'll get an earful about how prejudiced x ethnicity is against y ethnicity. But a powerless group can't be racist because they don't control any institutions; for example there's no coordinated group of black landlords that don't rent to Asians. Would there exist such a thing if there were enough black landlords? Maybe. No one is denying that anyone can be cruel and hateful. What people do deny is that certain ethnicities have the same means to enact that cruelty. Again I don't see how this isn't manifestly obviously true.
Yes, I'm asking you to repeat it because what you're saying is absolutely insane and completely detached from the rest of the world. You might check the definition other people around you are using, I'll even give you a handy link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
"Today, some scholars of racism prefer to use the concept in the plural racisms, in order to emphasize its many different forms that do not easily fall under a single definition. They also argue that different forms of racism have characterized different historical periods and geographical areas.[24] Garner (2009: p. 11) summarizes different existing definitions of racism and identifies three common elements contained in those definitions of racism. First, a historical, hierarchical power relationship between groups; second, a set of ideas (an ideology) about racial differences; and, third, discriminatory actions (practices).[13]"
This is exactly what the OP is talking about -- they are pointing out that some forms of racism are worse than others, and one thing that makes one form of racism worse than other forms is when there's a power imbalance that historically has resulted in the oppression of one group. Two individuals in a marginalized group getting into a scuff over an issue of race is one kind of racism, yes, but the damage is localized between themselves. One group of people, from a position of power an authority, subjugating and oppressing another group of people over an issue of race is a completely different matter.
Okay. Some scholars also think we should get rid of any and all market restrictions. The wide consensus as understood by literally everyone except those few very special scholars is still different.
You characterized the position of the other poster as "absolutely insane and completely detached from the rest of the world". Yet their view is at least supported by some scholars in academia and I'll also add is the majority viewpoint in my social circles and most of the academics and authors I read.
From my point of view, your point of view is the one that is the minority view. But I recognize it as valid point of view rather than characterizing you as "absolutely insane" and out of touch with "literally everyone except those few very special scholars".
Can you even prove that the view you espouse is the majority view? You've stated this multiple times as a reason for discounting the other poster's (and by extension my own) point of view, but you haven't made any effort to back up your assertion.
Well, I can say for sure that the classical interpretation is the official corriculum in school in germany, finland, france, england, russia , austria, switzerland, poland, slovakia and denmark. Those are all countries I know people in to discuss such matters. Since the whole population of those countries (and probably a lot more) has learned the regular meaning of the word, I'd say they are probably more than some group of scholars who really like their theory.
But you still haven't made a case for "the regular meaning" of racism, such that it makes what the other poster said "absolutely insane". To me, "absolutely insane" is a very extreme thing to say. The absolute insanity I've experienced in the past is on the level of believing your cats are microchipped by the CIA to spy on you. So when you characterize someone as "absolutely insane", and it's shown that there is credible scholarly research that supports their claim, I think you are under a burden to state your case at a higher level than pointing out you have friends in other countries who believe the same as you. You've made an appeal to popularity by pointing to your friends and making a leap to say everyone thinks like you and them. I also have friends in the above countries who do not think the same as you and your friends. Now where does that leave us? Nowhere.
Here's what I'm getting at. There is a difference between what you and I believe, and it doesn't come down to "absolute insanity". We can each make a logical, principled case for our positions. I implore you to open your self up to the other side instead of dismissing it with the vitriol you have exhibited.
I'm from one of those countries and while, on one hand, it seems perfectly logical to argue "racism is racism is racism", I think there's a widespread recognition here that it's not as simple as that. If you consider racism as part of the human condition, something that is exhibited by people regardless of their own race, then you must also realise that its impact is far more significant when the majority exhibits it than when the minority does. In that sense there's, if you like, two 'sides' to racism: 'motive' (or 'intent') and effect. The first may be broadly equal across groups of different sizes, but the latter certainly isn't.
>Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the *superiority* of one race over another.
in your hypothetical about being assaulted by a black woman did you really mean that she believed herself to be of a *superior* race? or did you mean something else?
Incorrect. Systemic and institutional racism are systemic, and racism is personal.
Here's the definition of racism according to Google:
> prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
When most people say racism, they mean the dictionary (also, the colloquial and correct) definition, not the definition that sociology textbooks have tried to propagate.
Given that qualifier it is atypical that marginalized or minority aren't operative. Does that really pass the threshold in your mind necessary for me to be incorrect in what I'm claiming?
It's hilarious to me that the reactionary position on this (wherein people are quoting dictionary definitions and wiki articles) manifestly hinges on trivialities.
It's also amazing to me when people point to a dictionary definition, they don't seem to consider where that definition comes from. In this case, Google's definitions come from Oxford Languages, which describe their process:
"We take an evidence-based approach to language content creation, looking at real examples of the ways words are used in context to provide an accurate picture of a language.
To gather this evidence, our corpora – massive collections of spoken and written language data – track and record the very latest language developments across an enormous variety of publications, covering everything from specialist journals to newspapers to social media posts."
So let me get this straight: Oxford comes up with their definitions by consulting people who have the power and agency to write and publish media. Wouldn't this exclude marginalized people? Incarcerated people? People who are not rich enough, educated enough, or connected enough to be able to afford the ability to publish in the mediums Oxford adds to their corpus?
If the definition comes from books, journals, newspapers, and social media posts, then its going to reflect the thoughts and opinions of authors, journalists, and people rich enough to afford a computer and internet connection.
All this is saying is that the definition changes depending who you ask. So when we want the definition of a word that has a clear power component involved, it behooves us to ask both sides of that divide as to their definition of the term.
> I mean I can understand the publishers thinking they may get in trouble and it's easier to drop those lines but the thing seems to be getting a bit out of hand.
But they dropped whole books. If they had changed a line in one of the books and cut out or changed a few illustrations, I'm sure fewer people would bother. Taking whole books off the market because (at least in one case) a single illustration could be deemed offensive seems a bit over the top.
Curious what was offensive I found the books are on youtube and I'm guessing it's drawing Chinese https://youtu.be/Vl6wD6EGOVk?t=228 and tribal Africans https://youtu.be/Vl6wD6EGOVk?t=519 looking like cartoon versions of those. Does this means cartoon caricatures are only acceptable if they are of white westerners?
I mean I can understand the publishers thinking they may get in trouble and it's easier to drop those lines but the thing seems to be getting a bit out of hand.