While everyone is flipping out over Dr Seuss, who portrayed a "harmful stereotype" of "A Chinese man wearing a conical hat and eating rice from a bowl with chopsticks" sort of like this:


Which is common all over parts of Asia, actually, and is even featured in upcoming Disney movies...

Anyway, they ignored the image that could be considered to be very racist, with stereotypes of black people with what were then called golliwog lips, and the N word.  Of course, that was from a comic, and if you actually look at the comic, it was a commentary on linguistic weirdness and metaphors, which is a totally valid thing for a writer of his stature at the time to explore.  Was it offensive then? Yes, that was sort of the point, that these metaphors didn't make a lot of sense. (The comic was in the form of a store, where one could buy, among other things, "A wrench to throw in your works" with actual wrenches for sale, and "A nigger for your woodpile."  And yeah, holy shit that's offensive then, and more so now, and there's a perfect lesson to be learned by analyzing and commenting on that, rather than deleting it and pretending it never existed.

But none of the articles I've seen mention that. They obsess over "Chinese man eating rice from a bowl with chopsticks is racist!!" 

Gee, I wonder who'd be pushing a narrative that a perfectly innocent, traditional act is "harmful"?  Vs say an American in a baseball cap eating a hot dog?

And this is followed by all the shrieking about Pepe le Pew, and Miss Piggy, and...



One of the sitters my youngest had when a baby was a very competent, educated, older (50s) black lady, who was absolutely wonderful at playing, interacting, and entertaining the little girl.

One day I was sitting in my office, and I heard her singing, in a very sweet voice, "Ten Little Indian Boys."

I was amused, and noted, "Actually, Jess is Choctaw." (And Cherokee, but not enrolled).

The lady was apologetic, and I said, "It's not a problem, I'm just amused." (And so was Jess).  It was a perfectly common kids' song from when she and I were young, and before that, and there was no harm intended. (BTW, there's a version of the song turned into a mystery by Agatha Christie. Wait until the Wokies find out what THAT was titled.)


Yeah, stuff that was acceptable in the past is offensive now, and the reverse would be true with the way "fuck" and "shit" are liberally littered through common literature.

Apparently, I'm not allowed to be upset about how Americans wear kilts and skirts that are called kilts, etc, even though I'm actually from Scotland. (Not that I actually give a shit, not being that sensitive and wimpy, but I use that as a repeated example.)  But present something from a different timeframe and all hell breaks loose.  

This fits my hypothesis that the Wokies are largely privileged and ignorant. "OMG! Can you believe how they used to treat/refer to people in the 1920s?!?" 

Um, yeah.

"NO, I mean it was SO OFFENSIVE!"

Yup.  Known about that for a long time.


Nope, just educated and understand the context between then and now.


They were people. People can be wonderful and horrible, and they are bound within their culture to various degrees.

Those cultures were different.  Studying them is useful and valid.  And losing your shit because their rules were not ours is juvenile.

Stop being George Lucas and editing the story to fit the newest narrative.


#1 Kristophr 2021-03-13 05:04
The past IS a different country.

Not just an aphorism.

You have no rights to post comments