Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2017 22:26:17 GMT -5
I have nothing but outrage for robovowels. In all sincerity, though, I DO have sympathy with Melania with regard to this situation. She was genuinely trying to do a perfectly nice, First-Ladyish thing here. As a matter of fact, she SUCCEEDED in making a perfectly nice, appropriate, First-Ladyish gesture. It was also from the heart -- she read those books to her own child. She did not deserve to be mortified for it by having her gift thrust back at her. If the librarian wanted to share her political views on Trump's policy, or even her personal views on Dr. Seuss, fine. She could do it on her own goddamn time and in her capacity as a citizen. (Hell, I've shared plenty of my views with Trump on Twitter.) But the librarian was way out of line rejecting those books. You know who agrees with me on that? The school, who hastened to distance themselves from her letter and to state that the librarian was not authorized to reject the gift: Ooops. On Obama's reaction, yeah, we are both guessing. But I think the tea leaves favor my guess, for the reasons I gave e.g., that he likes the books himself, has read them aloud and praised them himself, and himself accepted a gift from Melania without a lecture. And the Kanye thing -- well, I brought it up as a joke, but actually I think it's telling of Obama's likely view on the librarian's statement. I would bet my entire 401K that he probably agrees that Beyonce is more talented than Taylor Swift, and moreover, that black artists often get screwed over when it comes to award time. Hell, I agree with that, too. But what did he think about Kanye's getting up on stage to say so? Mind you, that wasn't a statement meant to be public. He wasn't saying that because he felt he had to in order to please people. That was his privately expressed view: Kanye acted like a jackass. My guess: sure, he no doubt dislikes Trump's politics and almost certainly Trump himself. But that doesn't mean he would think this librarian was right to publicly humiliate Melania for a well-intended gesture (and a gesture the Obamas have made themselves to schools, for pete's sake). I'm betting his private comment was to the effect of "she's a jackass."
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Sept 30, 2017 22:27:56 GMT -5
Here is an article about Seuss's past. www.businessinsider.com/before-dr-seuss-was-famous-he-drew-these-sad-racist-ads-2012-3He was a liberal Democrat, but a man of his time, which meant that he did indeed have some tired stereotypes in his head which came out in his career drawing political cartoons and advertisements during the 1920s-40s, particularly with regard to the Japanese during WWII. He repudiated and regretted the cartoons later in life, and drew anti-racist cartoons. And gotta say I don't see a trace of racism in his children's books (and neither, apparently, does President Obama). ETA: I didn't know anything about his past until tonight. I cringed looking at the cartoons. But given his repudiation of it, and given that it was so unfortunately typical of the era, I'm still not inclined to flush his excellent children's books down the toilet. The man lived, learned, and regretted. That's nice Ted Geisel regretted his racist past. In the end so did George Wallace and Lee Atwater. Lots of us regret when we're old the dumb stuff we did when we were young. Setting aside Geisel's excellent children books, I enjoyed them too and I read Dr. Seuss to my kids. I expect my kids will probably read those books to their kids. They hold and they're timeless. I still laugh at Bugs Bunny and the Looney Tunes crew. Can't top the classics. Here's a classic. "All This and Rabbit Stew." I didn't laugh at that one. The past matters. John Wayne was a racist. Hugh Hefner made millions off of the airbrushed flesh of women. Miles Davis was not only a jazz genius, he liked to beat on women. Frank Sinatra was all mobbed up. And so on and so on. The art lives on and it doesn't stop being art because the artist wasn't as pure as the driven snow. Just like Jefferson was a slave-owning rapist and MLK cheated on his wife just as JFK cheated on his and just like Michael Jackson was a pedophile and Mother Teresa was somewhat less than saintly. Sorry if the truth hurts about Dr. Seuss, but I'm not sorry someone made a point of it. At some point it's best to stop believing in Santa Claus. 4. Lots of books are cliche AND racist. Simply because Dr. Seuss was your beloved children's book doesn't mean Theodore Geisel wasn't in his own way problematic in some of his work. The refusal to face or acknowledge that problematic issue doesn't mean it no longer exists. The only knock against Geisel that I'm aware of is that during World War II, he drew some pretty racist anti-Japanese cartoons. He later regretted that. Weighed against his life's work and the messages in his books, I think it's really stretching to read Dr. Seuss as "problematic" and inappropriate for children today. It's not like you have to pretend he was a saint who never harbored a single bad thought, but I think hardly a single author alive or dead could pass that level of scrutiny unless they have spent their entire lives in a state of woke. Now, Dr. Dolittle.... if you've never read the original book, well, that was some racist shit. Don't read it if you don't want to tarnish your memories of the Disney movie. Regrets are fine. But this is still racist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2017 22:35:52 GMT -5
Yes. It is.
But no one disputes that. Including Theodore Geisel himself, who repudiated such cartoons and expressed regret at having drawn them. (Also, to put them in context, they were drawn as editorial cartoons while we were at war with Japan. Yeah, they make me cringe too, but they weren't drawn because he just hated Asians. More importantly, they later made Geisel himself cringe.)
And it is not evidence that his children's books (written much later, when he got woke) are racist.
If they are, apparently the Obamas didn't see it any more than I do.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 30, 2017 22:39:07 GMT -5
Yes, it is. Are you saying his books are racist and inappropriate for children because he drew that cartoon during the war? Or that his books do not belong in a library because he was once the man who drew that cartoon? If so, I hope you're not put in charge of any libraries because I think those libraries would have awfully sparse shelves, but I doubt the actual librarian in question was even really upset at Theodore Geisel's wartime propaganda work. I suspect it was a lot more about who was donating the books.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 30, 2017 22:53:11 GMT -5
Further proof that this librarian's rant was nothing more than political posturing and virtue-signalling bullshit. Here she is in 2015 not only celebrating Dr. Seuss' birthday, but she's dressed as... ...wait for it... ...wait for it... ...The Cat in the Hat. According to her logic, is she dressed in "literary blackface?" Isn't she perpetuating "illustrations [that] are steeped in racist propaganda, caricatures, and harmful stereotypes," or is this more like "cultural appropriation?" Either way, it's fucking hilariously hypocritical.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2017 23:06:02 GMT -5
You have just amused me. For that, you get a karma point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2017 23:16:20 GMT -5
Further proof that this librarian's rant was nothing more than political posturing and virtue-signalling bullshit. Here she is in 2015 not only celebrating Dr. Seuss' birthday, but she's dressed as... ...wait for it... ...wait for it... ...The Cat in the Hat. According to her logic, is she dressed in "literary blackface?" Isn't she perpetuating "illustrations [that] are steeped in racist propaganda, caricatures, and harmful stereotypes," or is this more like "cultural appropriation?" Either way, it's fucking hilariously hypocritical.
But, I mean, be fair, Opty. Maybe, like the Obamas, she got all woke since then and realized the harmfulness of her former Seussian allegiance. And now she's just trying to get Melania all woke and prevent further harm to the little urchins in her care. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt. Not Theodore Geisel, though. He was probably a Nazi just feigning regret so he could peddle his thinly-veiled racist propaganda in the guise of kiddie books. ETA: And pfft, clearly we can't cut Melania any slack because obviously her whole goal was to infect the kiddies with racism. I mean, no one really believes she was just encouraging them to like reading, amirite? Such a hypocrite. But this librarian -- well, she clearly got woke and yet all these meanie mcmeanies are not recognizing her righteous wokeness and they're just piling on her. Unfair! I'm going to write someone somewhere a strongly-worded letter.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 1, 2017 9:28:19 GMT -5
On Obama's reaction, yeah, we are both guessing. But I think the tea leaves favor my guess, for the reasons I gave e.g., that he likes the books himself, has read them aloud and praised them himself, and himself accepted a gift from Melania without a lecture. And the Kanye thing -- well, I brought it up as a joke, but actually I think it's telling of Obama's likely view on the librarian's statement. I would bet my entire 401K that he probably agrees that Beyonce is more talented than Taylor Swift, and moreover, that black artists often get screwed over when it comes to award time. Hell, I agree with that, too. But what did he think about Kanye's getting up on stage to say so? Mind you, that wasn't a statement meant to be public. He wasn't saying that because he felt he had to in order to please people. That was his privately expressed view: Kanye acted like a jackass. My guess: sure, he no doubt dislikes Trump's politics and almost certainly Trump himself. But that doesn't mean he would think this librarian was right to publicly humiliate Melania for a well-intended gesture (and a gesture the Obamas have made themselves to schools, for pete's sake). I'm betting his private comment was to the effect of "she's a jackass." Yes. It is. But no one disputes that. Including Theodore Geisel himself, who repudiated such cartoons and expressed regret at having drawn them. (Also, to put them in context, they were drawn as editorial cartoons while we were at war with Japan. Yeah, they make me cringe too, but they weren't drawn because he just hated Asians. More importantly, they later made Geisel himself cringe.) And it is not evidence that his children's books (written much later, when he got woke) are racist. If they are, apparently the Obamas didn't see it any more than I do. You're really funny when you get all up in your feelings and play this game of " But...but teh Obamas agree with ME." You have nothing but your baseless speculation that because Barack and Michelle Obama read Dr. Seuss, surely that must mean they don't have any problem with Dr. Seuss doing racist cartoons back in the day and because the president called Kanye West a "jackass" for rudely upstaging Taylor Swift ( and this is relevant to the topic...how, exactly?) that reveals his true feelings about a school librarian not being nice to The First Trophy Wife? Torture logic and coincidences long enough and I guess they'll say what you want them to. The flaw in your contention is you haven't asked them that specific question. You have only speculated that must be how they would respond. You put enough puzzle pieces together and eventually it may make a complete picture even if parts have come from a different puzzle. This is you projecting your agenda upon two Black people of respect and held in high regard by many Americans as you attempt to borrow some of their credibility to support your statements which are long on emotion, short on substance. You have no more insights into how the Obamas regard Geisel's problematic past than anyone else. But if you can drag them into this to justify your butt-hurt outrage over a school librarian graciously declining a "gift" of books she does not want or need from Melania, you certainly will. Because it's convenient for White people to utilize Black people as cardboard cut-outs to prop up their unsubstantiated and incredibly petty grievances. Kind of the way the White Right props up delusional fools like H.K. Edgerton. Who is H.K. Edgerton? Apparently, the purpose Barack and Michelle Obama now serve is to bolster your own transparently feeble and poorly reasoned argument because they once treated Melania nicely they surely would agree with you she was treated rudely by the librarian who rejected her books. (a) does not logically follow (b), but you're in Full Outrage Mode please go on trying to pound that square peg into the round hole. Pearls will be clutched and couches will be fainted on. Oh, and while you strain to be "hip" you really don't have Clue One what being "woke" is, do you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2017 9:41:02 GMT -5
Trust me, my use of "woke" here is entirely intended ironically. And I have never had any interest whatsoever in being hip.
We're both speculating, but I've given reasons for my speculation based on the Obamas' past gracious, courteous, and diplomatic behavior and previous endorsements of Seuss. You've given nada except your own dislike for The Donald and your assumption that the Obamas not only share it but would act as you would.
It's actually you reducing the Obamas to cardboard cut-out representatives of Black people here.
ETA:
Also, it is you getting outraged and angry, and projecting it on me. But whatever. Picture me in inarticulate fits of rage if it makes you happy.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 1, 2017 9:47:20 GMT -5
Apparently, the purpose Barack and Michelle Obama now serve is to bolster your own transparently feeble and poorly reasoned argument because they once treated Melania nicely they surely would agree with you she was treated rudely by the librarian who rejected her books. (a) does not logically follow (b), but you're in Full Outrage Mode please go on trying to pound that square peg into the round hole. Pearls will be clutched and couches will be fainted on. Oh, and while you strain to be "hip" you really don't have Clue One what being "woke" is, do you? Serious question: do you think the librarian was actually concerned that Dr. Seuss books contain racist problematic subtext, or that endorsing them is problematic because of Geisel's wartime cartoons, or do you think that she was taking a stand against Melania Trump and would have responded the same to pretty much any donation from her?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2017 12:28:25 GMT -5
With great difficulty, I'm going to set aside my beloved snark for a minute.
Besides my preference for gracious behavior, I think acts like this librarian's are bad for the resistance, and so is the gleeful cheering for it by some on the left. (Indeed, the latter is more problematic because the librarian is just one woman. But the left's embrace of her causes her action to reflect on all of them.) It plays into Trump supporters' narrative of "look at those nasty resisters -- clearly there is nothing Trump could do to please them. Even a perfectly nice gesture by the First Lady, they have to throw it back in her face with a snotty comment. Just roll your eyes and ignore them." The fact that the librarian just two years ago dressed up as the Cat in the Hat, the fact that the Obamas read and praised Seuss -- that just redoubles support for the idea that the librarian was a ridiculous hypocrite and those cheering her on deserve contempt.
And frankly, I wouldn't care so much if it weren't for the fact that the middle -- the people the resistance needs badly to come through for them in 2018 and 2020 -- is likely to be turned off by gestures like this. Forget the unmovable alt-right. Think about the independents, those who increasingly think both sides suck, and those who are torn between their party loyalty and their disgust at Trump's rhetoric and actions. Seriously, if die-hard Trump haters like me think this was ridiculous and a turn-off, what will they think? I'm thinking they'll stay home and keep their money in their wallets.
And what purpose did it serve? A few die-hard lefties who don't need convincing are cheering. The rest of us are wincing and/or jeering.
That. Is. Not. The. Way. We. Win.
The resistance should be trying to convince people they are better than the Trump supporters, not more self-righteous (which plays just exactly into the Trump supporters' hands). They go low, we go high, remember? How does throwing books back at the first lady -- books that the damn librarian herself endorsed two years before! -- with snide remarks that they are racist cliches accomplish that? It does the opposite.
So. Jokes aside, Obama didn't really write me a letter (I know, surprise). In fact, he can't be bothered commenting on this silly librarian and her wokeness or lack thereof. Because what is it he and Michelle are doing? They're publicly linking arms with the Bushes and the other ex-presidents, again and again, to show friendship, unity, and shared values. To me that is a clear rallying call from them: "let's cut the bullshit posturing and the personal crap and put our energies forward in a productive way, including, when we can, those on the other side of the aisle. Let's all of us oppose the shit that matters, the stuff we can all agree sucks, work together on stuff all reasonable people think needs to get done (e.g., Puerto Rico relief), and let's actually get something done. This isn't about party -- it's about country."
And THAT rallying cry speaks to me and to a lot of us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2017 13:06:28 GMT -5
^ For similar reasons, I winced at Hillary's "deplorables" comment.
Now, let's be clear. I TOTALLY know who she meant. She meant that neo-Nazi who plowed down protesters with his car. She meant white supremacists who embrace racist ideology. And yeppers, she's right -- those people are deplorable. (And let's be clear, despite my own wincing, I voted for her because I thought she'd be a way better president than Trump.)
Trouble is, it wasn't just those people who heard it and took it personally. It was taken to apply to perfectly nice people like our c.e.lawson with sincerely held values, who are neither racists nor ruffians. It was taken to apply to hard-working people in the rust belt who are struggling to get by. It was taken to apply to pretty much anyone who was even considering voting for a third party or who didn't care for Hillary herself. And a lot of those people either turned out for Trump, voted third party, or STAYED HOME.
Was it JUST her "deplorable" remark that did that? Of course not. But the trouble was, it played right into Trump and his supporter's depiction of Hillary as a sneering elitist who hates the middle class and working people who aren't minorities. And it accomplished...nothing.
It wasn't just that Trump had some new supporters Mitt Romney didn't. It was that Obama's coalition didn't turn out in full force for Hillary (there are cites demonstrating this in some old threads. If anyone needs them, I'll dig them out again). If they had, she would have won. She didn't speak to them as he did, and despite many of them having distaste for Trump, they voted third party or STAYED HOME.
Really, truly, has the left learned nothing at all about the pointlessness and counter-productivity of self-righteousness for the sake of self-righteousness?
Bill Clinton and Obama knew how to rouse enthusiasm and confidence among the middle and independents. That's why they won. That's why they weathered the storm and remain overall popular figures, despite the right disliking them. THAT's what's needed, not self-righteousness and pretentiousness.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Oct 1, 2017 16:36:37 GMT -5
We're both speculating, but I've given reasons for my speculation based on the Obamas' past gracious, courteous, and diplomatic behavior and previous endorsements of Seuss. You've given nada except your own dislike for The Donald and your assumption that the Obamas not only share it but would act as you would. Yeah, I mean I think it's fine if one were to argue that Obama is wrong on the merits of Dr. Seuss. He doesn't have to be right about everything, after all. But he clearly doesn't share the same view on the Dr. Seuss books as the librarian. And apparently, neither does she. Funny stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Oct 1, 2017 16:57:09 GMT -5
With great difficulty, I'm going to set aside my beloved snark for a minute. Besides my preference for gracious behavior, I think acts like this librarian's are bad for the resistance, and so is the gleeful cheering for it by some on the left. (Indeed, the latter is more problematic because the librarian is just one woman. But the left's embrace of her causes her action to reflect on all of them.) It plays into Trump supporters' narrative of "look at those nasty resisters -- clearly there is nothing Trump could do to please them. Even a perfectly nice gesture by the First Lady, they have to throw it back in her face with a snotty comment. Just roll your eyes and ignore them." The fact that the librarian just two years ago dressed up as the Cat in the Hat, the fact that the Obamas read and praised Seuss -- that just redoubles support for the idea that the librarian was a ridiculous hypocrite and those cheering her on deserve contempt. And frankly, I wouldn't care so much if it weren't for the fact that the middle -- the people the resistance needs badly to come through for them in 2018 and 2020 -- is likely to be turned off by gestures like this. Forget the unmovable alt-right. Think about the independents, those who increasingly think both sides suck, and those who are torn between their party loyalty and their disgust at Trump's rhetoric and actions. Seriously, if die-hard Trump haters like me think this was ridiculous and a turn-off, what will they think? I'm thinking they'll stay home and keep their money in their wallets. And what purpose did it serve? A few die-hard lefties who don't need convincing are cheering. The rest of us are wincing and/or jeering. That. Is. Not. The. Way. We. Win. The resistance should be trying to convince people they are better than the Trump supporters, not more self-righteous (which plays just exactly into the Trump supporters' hands). They go low, we go high, remember? How does throwing books back at the first lady -- books that the damn librarian herself endorsed two years before! -- with snide remarks that they are racist cliches accomplish that? It does the opposite. So. Jokes aside, Obama didn't really write me a letter (I know, surprise). In fact, he can't be bothered commenting on this silly librarian and her wokeness or lack thereof. Because what is it he and Michelle are doing? They're publicly linking arms with the Bushes and the other ex-presidents, again and again, to show friendship, unity, and shared values. To me that is a clear rallying call from them: "let's cut the bullshit posturing and the personal crap and put our energies forward in a productive way, including, when we can, those on the other side of the aisle. Let's all of us oppose the shit that matters, the stuff we can all agree sucks, work together on stuff all reasonable people think needs to get done (e.g., Puerto Rico relief), and let's actually get something done. This isn't about party -- it's about country." And THAT rallying cry speaks to me and to a lot of us. Agree. Stuff like what the librarian did is not doing anything but help Trump. It speaks to the people who already hate him, and nothing will reach a segment of those solidly in his corner. However, it's those people who are more passive, just want to live their lives and aren't consumed by politics until it directly affects them. Crap like this makes people tune out the critics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2017 17:05:37 GMT -5
We're both speculating, but I've given reasons for my speculation based on the Obamas' past gracious, courteous, and diplomatic behavior and previous endorsements of Seuss. You've given nada except your own dislike for The Donald and your assumption that the Obamas not only share it but would act as you would. Yeah, I mean I think it's fine if one were to argue that Obama is wrong on the merits of Dr. Seuss. He doesn't have to be right about everything, after all. But he clearly doesn't share the same view on the Dr. Seuss books as the librarian. And apparently, neither does she. Funny stuff. Indeed. One could parse out several different questions going on in this thread, and the answer to one doesn't necessarily demand the same answer to the rest. e.g. (with my answers in parens) -- -- Did Theodore Geisel engage in racist speech at any point in time? ( I think we'd all agree that yes, he did, in those cartoons.) -- Was Geisel's later repudiation of that speech sincere, and if so, is he still an evil racist despite his regret? ( I believe yes, it was, and that no, he's a former racist -- as alas were most white people of that era -- who reformed.) -- Are the Dr. Seuss books racist? ( I say no. The Obamas apparently think the same.) -- Does the librarian think the Dr. Seuss books are racist? ( Well, she apparently didn't used to think they are...) -- Even if the books aren't racist, and Geisel didn't harbor racist views when he wrote them, must we still shun the books because he once, before he wrote the books, was racist? ( I think not.) -- Would the librarian have rejected the same "racist" books if Michelle Obama had presented them? ( Pffft. No. No, she would not have. Come on.) -- Did the librarian actually change her view about Dr. Seuss books since 2015. ( Yeah, I don't believe it for a minute.) Or... -- ... was the librarian acting out of dislike for the Trumps? ( Umm, yeah. Yeah, she was.) -- Would the Obamas applaud the librarian's rejection of the books? ( I think not, obviously.) -- Is snubbing Melania just to snub Melania helpful to Democrats, liberals, or candidates who are not Donald Trump? ( I think not -- indeed, if anything, quite the opposite is true.) -- Is it rude to snub someone by returning their gift with a lecture? ( In my book, yep, damn straight.) -- Even if the lecture is sincere? ( Yep. Rejecting a gift, in etiquette land is a rejection of the person giving it.) -- But isn't that a good thing, given how horribly bad Donald Trump is? Ya know, to make a statement and shit. ( Um, no, actually, it's not. Taking aside the fact that Melania is not her husband, taking aside etiquette, it's also the case that the librarian was not acting in her capacity as a private citizen. She was acting as a representative of the school, and rejecting those books, as the school pointed out, was not hers to do.)
|
|