Cold off the press
Mar. 2nd, 2021 12:49 pmIf you want your children to have a complete set of Dr. Seuss books in their home library, you'll have to act fast. Six of them will henceforth no longer be published, as they apparently contain racist images:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/dr-seuss-books-publication-racist-images-1.5933033
I find it all quite interesting really. In my young day, the censors railed on about children's literature that lacked literary merit. Chief among them were series books like Nancy Drew, Hardy Boys, Bobbsey Twins, Cherry Ames, Trixie Belden, Donna Parker... plus many more that I've either forgotten about or never encountered. Mind you, if literary merit were the prime consideration, it's difficult to understand how Dick and Jane gained such a foothold in the educational system. But I digress.
Fast forward to the next generation. With the GenX and Millennial sets, it seemed the censors were more worried about promoting "family values", a phrase they interpreted in a very limited way. Books were if anything censored for being TOO progressive. Families with gay or transgendered parents or youngsters were definite no-nos and even incidental mention of monogamous heterosexuality could be cause for concern. Nudity was suspect, although allowed in some circumstances - I'm remembering the furore over the Show Me books in the 70s. And believe it or not, even a seemingly innocuous Beatrix Potter classic once landed us in hot water with Children's Aid.
Maybe that's part of the reason that many 21st century parents are so quick to censor any works that involve stereotypes, regardless of their literary merit or their capacity to inform or entertain. In fact, it's not only children's books that we are taking this approach with (abolition of the "N-word", anyone?) Would it not be better to use those stereotyped depictions and descriptions as a springboard for thoughtful discussion, reflection and planning for the society we want moving forward?
It's said that we must know our history if we are to avoid repeating it. It's also been postulated that the myths, fairy tales, nursery rhymes, songs and other elements of the republic of childhood reflect certain universal aspects of our human psyche. Without question, they are an important aspect of our shared cultural heritage. But are they realistic? Certainly not, if we mean the question in a literal sense. We don't mingle with dragons and unicorns on a day-to-day basis. Stepmothers are not necessarily wicked and godmothers are not necessarily fairies.
But whoever said literature had to be realistic?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/dr-seuss-books-publication-racist-images-1.5933033
I find it all quite interesting really. In my young day, the censors railed on about children's literature that lacked literary merit. Chief among them were series books like Nancy Drew, Hardy Boys, Bobbsey Twins, Cherry Ames, Trixie Belden, Donna Parker... plus many more that I've either forgotten about or never encountered. Mind you, if literary merit were the prime consideration, it's difficult to understand how Dick and Jane gained such a foothold in the educational system. But I digress.
Fast forward to the next generation. With the GenX and Millennial sets, it seemed the censors were more worried about promoting "family values", a phrase they interpreted in a very limited way. Books were if anything censored for being TOO progressive. Families with gay or transgendered parents or youngsters were definite no-nos and even incidental mention of monogamous heterosexuality could be cause for concern. Nudity was suspect, although allowed in some circumstances - I'm remembering the furore over the Show Me books in the 70s. And believe it or not, even a seemingly innocuous Beatrix Potter classic once landed us in hot water with Children's Aid.
Maybe that's part of the reason that many 21st century parents are so quick to censor any works that involve stereotypes, regardless of their literary merit or their capacity to inform or entertain. In fact, it's not only children's books that we are taking this approach with (abolition of the "N-word", anyone?) Would it not be better to use those stereotyped depictions and descriptions as a springboard for thoughtful discussion, reflection and planning for the society we want moving forward?
It's said that we must know our history if we are to avoid repeating it. It's also been postulated that the myths, fairy tales, nursery rhymes, songs and other elements of the republic of childhood reflect certain universal aspects of our human psyche. Without question, they are an important aspect of our shared cultural heritage. But are they realistic? Certainly not, if we mean the question in a literal sense. We don't mingle with dragons and unicorns on a day-to-day basis. Stepmothers are not necessarily wicked and godmothers are not necessarily fairies.
But whoever said literature had to be realistic?