Overprotection

The estate of Dr. Seuss has decided to no longer publish six of his books due to stereotypical imagery that many people might find offensive.  It's certainly within their rights to do so, and they feel that it's in line with modern sensibilities.

I understand why, but I also have to ask: what are you so afraid of?  That people might take these images as commonplace?  Or that the images might actually cause people to think about their attitudes?

Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence was banned in many countries until 1960 because of its sexual language and use of then-unprintable four-letter words.  That book is tame in comparison to many published works today.

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee was heavily censored because of its depictions of class systems and racial injustice.  Now in many places it's taught as part of the high-school curriculum.

The Harry Potter series was banned in many places because of the depiction of "witchcraft".  Seriously?  It's a work of fiction.  It's no less an espousal of magic as, let's say, the Xanth books by Piers Anthony or the works of Edith Nesbit.

The mathematician and satirist Tom Lehrer once sang, "When correctly viewed, everything is lewd."  I've always taken that to mean that anything can be found offensive if one looks hard enough, and that seems to be happening with increasing frequency.  Not to mention the hypocrisy of challenging certain works while leaving out others.

If we ban Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men for vulgarity and racism, why not ban Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice for its slander of Jews?  If we ban Huckleberry Finn for its use of the N-word, why not ban the Bible for its portrayal of slavery and the patriarchal domination of women?

Where does it end?  Should The Flintstones be censored because one of the episodes depicts a judo instructor with squinty eyes, big teeth, and an accent?  Should The Honeymooners be banned because Ralph Kramden frequently threatened his wife?

Just because sensibilities evolve doesn't mean the past needs to be removed or erased.  We have to accept that in certain eras and cultures, people are portrayed in a certain way in some people's opinions.  We don't have to share those opinions.  Instead, use them as a teaching moment to say "this is wrong now, and here's why".  Don't sweep it under the rug.

Some have said: "A disclaimer on a kids' book?  Really?"

Yes, really.  There are disclaimers on the Looney Tunes, on many TV shows from the 60s and 70s, and even The Muppet Show (which had an episode removed from the lineup because the guest was later convicted as a sex offender).  I grew up on such shows and could well understand the difference between uninformed attitudes and satire, but many people do not.

Instead of locking "objectionable" material in a vault, people need to be taught how to think for themselves and view the world in the shades of grey that it is, not in black and white.

Incidentally, Dr. Seuss also wrote Horton Hears a Who, that declares "A person is a person no matter how small" and Come Over to My House that offers "Some houses are marble, some are just tin, but they're all alike when a friend asks you in".  It's entirely possible that he became aware of his own questionable content during his frequent travels and wrote certain books as a kind of implicit apology for what had come before.

Try to understand the work for what it is, not for the perception or the politics.