It robs us from seeing the author’s own narrative journey—his mistakes, the realization of them, and efforts to right his wrongs—and allows us to falsely believe, the man was perfect, just like his prose.
Dr. Seuss Enterprises, which handles all of the late children's book authors' published materials, announced today—Dr. Seuss's birthday—that they would stop selling six of the author's books due to racist implications that contradict the writer and illustrator's other messages of hope, inclusion, and friendship.
"Dr. Seuss Enterprises, working with a panel of experts, including educators, reviewed our catalog of titles and made the decision last year to cease publication and licensing of the following titles: And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, If I Ran the Zoo, McElligot's Pool, On Beyond Zebra!, Scrambled Eggs Super!, and The Cat's Quizzer. These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong," Dr. Seuss Enterprises said in a statement.
"Ceasing sales of these books is only part of our commitment and our broader plan to ensure Dr. Seuss Enterprises's catalog represents and supports all communities and families," the statement concluded.
Of course, Dr. Seuss Enterprise can do whatever it likes with its own material. However, this immediately developed into a much larger story involving literature, cancel culture, and progressive politics. Many liberals immediately began applauding the cancellation of these books with such zeal it was as if they too had stopped buying them or even had been leading a campaign against reading them, they were so racist and repulsive.
“And to Think That I Saw It On Mulberry Street” (1st published in 1937) was my favorite Dr. Seuss book as a kid. I can still recite parts of it from memory. But looking at it with a modern perspective, it’s impossible to ignore the overt racial stereotypes #DrSeuss pic.twitter.com/TRLWLOdHVp
— Give Tara Dublin Josh Hawley’s Book Deal (@taradublinrocks)
I wish stories like this would explain exactly what is wrong with these books. The zoo one, for instance, has caricatures of black people that look damn near inhuman out on display in the zoo. https://t.co/6enqXLLwTk
— Maggie Koerth (@maggiekb1)
Yet few calls for the cancellation of Seuss that I know of have ever been at play. In fact, Dr. Seuss Enterprises has always known and acknowledged some of Dr. Seuss's racist works point out that while the author had previously erred in his bigoted illustrations of people, he later learned from his mistakes and evolved. This is posted on the Dr. Seuss Enterprises' website under the page, "Dr. Seuss Use of Racist Images:"
"While the vast majority of the works he produced are positive and inspiring, Ted Geisel also drew a handful of early images, which are disturbing. These racially stereotypical drawings were hurtful then and are still hurtful today. However, Ted's cartoons and books also reflect his evolution. Later works, such as The Sneetches or Horton Hears a Who!, emphasize inclusion and acceptance. Ted would later edit some of his inappropriate images, depicting his characters in a more respectful manner."
Herein lies the rub with "canceling" Dr. Seuss for mistakes he not only acknowledged but corrected: Scrubbing books from his own record gaslights the public into believing he was always on point, always a good man, always accurate in his portrayal of humanity. He was not. He admittedly was not. Allowing his "controversial" books to remain in circulation and to continue to be purchased, along with his later books, where he shows a restorative spirit towards humanity, demonstrates an artist's capability to learn, adapt, change, and reform. Banning controversial books cuts short the author's full developmental arc: What good is atonement without a previously acknowledged sin?
Furthermore, the eager cancelation of a great man's illustrations from the typical, leftist crowd is, at the very least hypocritical: These are the same people who claimed "Cuties," via Netflix, was adorable—a show that sexualized young girls. These are the same people who suggest that anything other than the celebration of Desmond, the pre-teen drag "queen" who has been wearing drag since he was a toddler, is bigotry. These are the same people who claim the sexual exploitation of children, even entertainment with explicit sexual content fails to adversely affect children. Either it does affect children, and it must be dealt with, discussed, even regulated—or it does not, and there is no need to applaud the decision to stop publishing some of Dr. Seuss's material.
In other words, these folks are arguing that Dr. Seuss can promote racism but exposure to sexually explicit material has no effect - on kids, no less.
These are mutually exclusive positions.
— Dan Isett (@DanIsett)
In many ways I feel for the estates and enterprises of famous authors, actors, or others in the literary and entertainment industry: Cancel culture has proven it will come for us all—sometimes before we get to it. It's not clear what spurred this decision but if it was the belief that if Dr. Seuss Enterprise was not proactive in canceling themselves, they would be canceled by the woke, rage mob, who can blame them?
Even still, the wild, passionate agreement with the organization's decision to cancel Dr. Seuss is hypocritical: either art, literature, and entertainment has grave influence on children or it does not. The decision to stop publishing these books in an attempt to appease cancel culture is also unfortunate: It robs us from seeing the author's own narrative journey—his mistakes, the realization of them, and efforts to right his wrongs—and allows us to falsely believe, the man was perfect, just like his prose. Seeing a man's own attempt at restorative justice, in light of his own flaws and failures, is far more powerful than gaslighting the public into believing it never happened.
Libby’s Desk
Commentary and must-reads from Libby’s desk, straight to your inbox.
TPM Newsletter
The Post Millennial’s top stories, delivered to your inbox.