"Congratulations: You're Cancelled Too?"

I was a huge fan of Dr. Seuss growing up. Like Harry Potter, his books shaped my formative appreciation for books and writing. I can recite almost the entirety of Green Eggs and Ham, and that’s only one of his books! It’s safe to say that he holds a dear place in my heart, essentially. And it’s for that reason that writing this piece hurts.

 

A while ago I discussed Cancel Culture on The Whitly-Verse. You can find the piece here, but something that needs reiterating is intent. To quote myself:

“When someone’s ‘cancelled’, there’s a reason for it. And when the cancelling occurs, it’s to hold that person accountable. It doesn’t always stick, it rarely does, but it’s an attempt.”

I still hold that, but I didn’t factor in self-cancelling, if you can call it that. Because that’s what Dr. Seuss’s estate has done to six of their books and many of their comics. And let’s be clear: the estate did this, not a mob. This wasn’t an “orchestrated hit on a beloved children’s icon”. No, this was a committee deciding that some of his works were inappropriate and pulling them from circulation. This doesn’t mean you can’t buy them, but that they’ll no longer be printed.

I’m split, honestly. On one hand, Dr. Seuss’s work contains racist and dated stereotypes. This is the author who drew a Chinese side-character in yellowface. This is the same author who called attention to Tibetan characters’ eyes. And this is the same author who drew African characters as Black Sambo stand-ins. The man clearly had a history here, and it’s important to acknowledge that.

On the other hand, doing this is tricky. Not only does it act like there’s no merit to teaching these works in their historical context, it also acts like they have no merits on their own. Racist material can still have lessons to teach people, even if their racism is inexcusable. I should know, I loved the Harry Potter books!

Still, I understand why this decision was made. Dr. Seuss made harmful material that influenced decades of readers. Like Walt Disney, his work had an impact that’s still being felt. And like Walt Disney, he showed no remorse while alive. It’s only in death that both their estates have started doing course correction, with varying degrees of success.

This doesn’t mean this decision was a hit piece, though. From what I’ve gathered, this was a decision years in the making. The bodies of work in question, six books and a smattering of cartoons, had been scrutinized for many years. While it might’ve taken a while, clearly someone thought it was time to remedy this. It was a careful decision on the part of the wrongdoer, not on the part of those wronged.

I’m also tired of people assuming that whenever something beloved gets changed, removed or discontinued, it’s automatically “cancellation”. True, many pieces of consumerist art have content that wouldn’t hold up to scrutiny over time. I’d argue that all art’s like that, honestly! But when the creator, directly or indirectly, decides retroactively that that content’s no longer suitable for mass consumption, that’s not “cancelling” so much as introspection. It’s not unlike the debate to have “Baby It’s Cold Outside” play on the radio during the Christmas season, or pulling Mark Twain’s novels from circulation because they casually mention the N-word. Yeah, these works were a “product of their times”, but times change. And what might’ve been “acceptable” then might not be now.

Besides, “acceptable” varies depending on who you talk to. Blackface might’ve been “acceptable” to the upper and middle classes in Hollywood for decades, but to the marginalized, in this case black people harmed by Jim Crow laws in The US South, this was never “acceptable”. The Birth of a Nation was even so insidious in its use of blackface that it led to a revival of The Klu Klux Klan, which went on to lynch, harass and murder many black people. Art has ripple effects, regardless of what someone thinks personally of it.

Which leads me back to Dr. Seuss: is removing his works the best idea? I don’t know, I’m no art historian. Do I support it? Only partly, as I’m a fan of accountability in art. But do I understand why they were pulled? Yes I do. And is it “Cancel Culture”? No, unless self-cancellation qualifies.

A lot of the backlash is also rooted in bad faith. Much like the decision by Hasbro to change Mr. Potato Head’s name to Potato Head, pulling these works from circulation is calculated and not part of some “Democratic SJW agenda”. Because the world’s changing, and what was considered “acceptable” in the 1930’s isn’t necessarily in the 2020’s. That’s not an issue, it’s progress. And I’m sure more decisions like this will be made in the future, especially as more minority voices speak out on popular subjects.

Finally, I want to stress the difference between genuine remorse and retroactive remorse. Dr. Seuss never apologized for his work while alive, nor did he make attempts at reparation. It’s only decades after his death that his work is being re-evaluated. That’s the piece of the puzzle that’s being ignored here, and it shouldn’t. Because it’s important in the discourse.

I don’t like that Dr. Seuss was racist. I enjoy Green Eggs and Ham and The Cat in the Hat, and I think The Lorax is seminal in the discussion on environmentalism. I also appreciate that Hop on Pop led to The Berenstain Bears, as they also helped shape me. Like Harry Potter, I want nothing more than to enjoy these books the same way I did as child. But I can’t do that, because that’s being naïve. And part of being an adult is breaking free from that.

If it helps, at least this decision’s bringing awareness to more people. That’s always good, isn’t it?