Here is what I don't see a lot of people saying in response to the Dr. Seuss books that the publisher will no longer be making. Theodore Geisel was a very progressive, liberal-minded person, anti-racist in the most literal sense of that term. Yet he portrayed people in ways that we today recognize to be stereotypical and somewhat offensive. People have been calling him a racist for years, when his views were anything but. How could the author of the Sneetches, an explicitly anti-racist story in the literal sense of that term, be counted as a racist just because he had absorbed some of the stereotypical imagery of his day and brought it out in his depictions of people from around the world when wanting to expose children to multi-cultural stuff and to think more globally?
Tuesday, March 09, 2021
Pierce on Dr. Seuss
Jeremy Pierce:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hawk—
ReplyDelete1. We are hypersensitive as a culture to anything that smacks of racism, even tangentially. Such being the case, appropriate forms of ridicule are made extraordinarily difficult. Political cartoonists had a hard time lampooning Obama because no one knows—I’m not sure anyone CAN know—when caricature becomes racist caricature. It’s not like Potter Stewart’s criterion for spotting hard-core pornography: “I know it when I see it.”
By 21st-century standards, Dr. Seuss’s images ARE pretty egregious and probably racist (especially the African tribesmen in “If I Ran the Zoo”). But they are intended to be exotic, comedic, even ludicrous, in an over-the-top sort of way.
On the other hand, I remember going on a church retreat one time, chaperoned by several white pastors, who spent half the night regaling us with jokes about black incompetence and imbecility. And the “humor” was accompanied by over-the-top descriptions of flat noses and humongous lips. Hyperbole and embellishment does NOT NECESSARILY mean that the underlying content shouldn’t be scrutinized. (As in “Oh, come on, it’s just a joke.”)
2. The Sneetches are part of the problem in the so-called Left’s desire to rid us of these books. The Sneetches embody a sort of colorblind anti-racism, which has been discarded as de facto racism. The woke crowd wishes to reinterpret MLK’s phrase “judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character” and to redefine colorblindness as some sort of Borg-like assimilationism with an accompanying blindness to injustice, To be quite frank, the woke cult is inherently racist and ought not to be termed progressive. It exalts intercultural division and interracial hatred and should be universally condemned.
Thanks, Eric. Good points.
DeleteAs Jeremy Pierce points out, Geisel wasn't racist, but he "portrayed people in ways that we today recognize to be stereotypical and somewhat offensive". It's possible to be "racially problematic" or racially insensitive or the like without being racist. That's something some conservatives could improve on.
That said, the left has a different definition of racism (CRT, systemic racism, power and prejudice) than the traditional definition. The left's definition certainly deserves criticism. And the left is arguably quite dangerous in how they're using their own faulty definition of racism in a brazen attempt to radically transform American society (e.g. cancel culture, the 1619 Project, BLM Marxism).
Not only do they redefine words, sometimes they toggle back and forth between a new meaning and an old meaning in order to paint a whole group “guilty by association.”
ReplyDeleteWhite supremacy now means anything developed by Western civilization, good or bad. Classical music, any kind of a work or study ethic, punctuality, good penmanship, personal ambition and responsibility—almost any endeavor that displays excellence or integrity—is deemed a product of “white supremacy.” Then, once they have painted with such broad strokes, they paint all of us newly minted “white supremacists” into a corner. And that corner is the corner of extremism. All of a sudden, we are lumped in with Richard Spencer and Unite the Right. Merely because we are proud to have worked hard to accomplish something in our life, all of a sudden we are neo-Nazis.
Then they will turn on us for our criticism of BLM and CRT, saying faux meekly: “How can you criticize us for being against white supremacy? Aren’t you against white supremacy, too? All CRT does is condemn white supremacy....”
Well said, Eric! And I've been called a white supremacist, even though I'm not white! Not exactly sure how that works, but at least it's amusing. :)
DeleteI’ve heard Candace Owens say exactly that.
ReplyDeleteI’m guessing you’re seen as at least deeply confused...if not as a willing and willful collaborator with the oppressor and his ilk.
Evidently, it is almost impossible to advocate against racism unless one fully embraces CRT. Here is Jemar Tisby pontificating against a joint declaration from the SBC seminary presidents (several of whom are fairly woke) critiquing CRT:
“By highlighting Critical Race Theory as particularly acute threats to Southern Baptist orthodoxy, the seminary presidents take aim at virtually anyone who advocates for racial justice beyond hugs, handshakes, and symbolic statements."
Thus, those of us who stand against a thoroughly secular and unbiblical movement are reduced to the employment of greetings and frivolous rhetoric as our weapons of choice in combatting the relentless scourge of racism. What a pathetic lot we are!
By the by, do you know of anyone who is striving vigorously against racism without accepting CRT?
ReplyDeleteI know of the following:
1. Voddie Baukham (Fault Lines)
2. Miles McPherson (The Third Option)
3. Thaddeus Williams (Confronting Injustice without Compromising Truth)
Any others? Tony Evans, perhaps?
Hm, I'm not sure about Tony Evans, but I assume he wouldn't accept CRT and he'd definitely be against racism. I used to listen to his sermons, but I haven't listened to them in a while, so I haven't kept up with him.
DeleteAnother is Neil Shenvi. Shenvi is one of the leading critics of CRT. Shenvi is part white and part Indian (subcontinental), I think.
Pat Sawyer is against CRT and racism too.
I think guys like Kevin DeYoung, Gerald McDermott, and Carl Trueman have written critically (pardon the pun) against CRT.
Of course, Jeremy Pierce (whom I quoted in this post) is against racism and (afaik) doesn't accept CRT. His wife is also black and his kids are black-white.
Hawk—
DeleteThanks for the list. I’m always in need of sound new voices to check out.
I should have been more clear though. Neil Shenvi is an incredibly articulate apologist, an able combatant in the fight against CRT (who is also anti-racist). What I’m hoping to find, however, is someone—anyone—whom we can trust to be a staunch crusader against racism (who is also anti-CRT). Do you see the difference?
In reaction to the late 19th and early 20th-century Social Gospel Movement, the traditionalists opted to get out of the social justice business altogether rather than come up with a viable biblical alternative. Now, it seems, history is repeating itself. We have plenty of volunteers to rail against the looming dangers of CRT but few with hands held high to take up the cause of neighbors who labor under the burden of poverty and oppression.
My other concern is to find a way to be able to “take up arms” safely. So many who have gone into multiracial ministries have found themselves infected by the worldly, feel-good solutions that surround them. Reformed heroes like Matt Chandler, David Platt, Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, Tim Keller, and maybe even Albert Mohler have fallen under the sway of the virus to one extent or another. The Gospel Coalition is eat up with it (though Kevin DeYoung has remained steadfast, as far as I can tell).
Is there a risk in simply becoming friends with black theologians (most of whom have been influenced by CRT to a significant degree)? It certainly looks that way. How are we to step into the breach without taking on friendly fire?
I have been shocked of late to see how many Evangelical institutions are hiring full-on advocates for CRT. Men like Walter Strickland at SEBTS and Nathan Luis Cartagena at Wheaton College. What in all that’s holy is going on?
Ah, thanks, I think I see what you mean. There are many evangelical leaders who have gone soft on these issues. I completely agree with you about this. I guess it's similar to how guys like Chandler often criticize men but praise women, even though it's not as if females are somehow perfect creatures untouched by sin, hence many Christian men are understandably driven away from the church and to the manosphere. Maybe someone like Doug Wilson is still solid in terms of racism, but I'm not entirely sure about all his theology in general.
Delete> "...and (afaik) doesn't accept CRT."
ReplyDelete~ He does not.