Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MorganGrayson
selena, my darling, although I do understand your gut reaction to historical revisionism, which I despise, I'm with PD on this one. This wasn't a "PC" decision, it was a "health decision" based on information that has been available for some time. It wasn't 60 years ago. This is a *children's* book, and obviously a good one, or the anniversary wouldn't be celebrated. Children are powerfully affected by books, as they should be. Seeing a cigarette in the hand of an author of a beloved book gives them the subliminal message that smoking is approved by this author, recommended by this author, and will carry more weight than the people saying "smoking is bad for you."
There is, in fact, "harm" in publishing the photograph today as it was. The removal of the cigarette does not alter the image of the author. It just removes any potential harm to children. I support that.
|
Bullshit.
It is revisionist.
If it was my child and the picture had the guy with the cigarette, it gives me the perfect opportunity to point out to my child that at one time in our history smoking was very popular but nowadays we mostly know better.
Framing it as "removing potential harm" from the children is no different then the shit Congress and the Moral minority put out there in the name of "it's to protect the children".