Oft times PC bullshit goes too far

[selena]

and this is one of those times.

I was helping my oldest find a subject to write a persuasive speech about. I couldn't believe this crap when I found it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...ewsopinion-hed

Cliff Notes:

As the 60th anniversay of "Goodnight Moon" draws near, publisher HarperCollins has decided the original photo of the illustrator cannot be used, because he is holding a cigarette. So they have altered it out.

Stupid shit like this pisses me the fuck off.

[PornoDoggy]

Hyperbole like this annoys the fuck out of me.

But when newspapers, magazines and book publishers use photos, readers have reason to believe they are seeing a genuine record, not one changed for the publisher's convenience.

The issue here is the editing of a photograph of the illistrator of a childrens book.

The book was not edited. The illustrations in the book were not edited. The appearance of the illustrator was not changed - nobody added devil horns or a goatee, changed his features, or anything like that.

They took a fucking cigarette out of his fucking hand.

So the fuck what? No harm, no foul.

Hardly seems worthy of discussion, let alone rhetoric "likening the revisions to Stalinist-era photo doctoring in the old Soviet Union."

Getting your panties in a knot over this one should qualify people for aid from the "Get A Clue Foundation."

[selena]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Hyperbole like this annoys the fuck out of me.

The issue here is the editing of a photograph of the illistrator of a childrens book.

The book was not edited. The illustrations in the book were not edited. The appearance of the illustrator was not changed - nobody added devil horns or a goatee, changed his features, or anything like that.

They took a fucking cigarette out of his fucking hand.

So the fuck what? No harm, no foul.

Hardly seems worthy of discussion, let alone rhetoric "likening the revisions to Stalinist-era photo doctoring in the old Soviet Union."

Getting your panties in a knot over this one should qualify people for aid from the "Get A Clue Foundation."

We'll mark this one up as another one you and I don't agree on. I see it as

He had a fucking cigarette in his fucking hand.

So the fuck what? No harm, no foul.

To paraphrase, of course.

[PornoDoggy]

Ah, but you see it as an either/or, and it's not.

I think it would be just as dumb to get up in arms because the unedited photo was used and childern were "exposed" to a picture of an individual with a cigarette.

Look - the picture was retouched because of the change in attitudes toward smoking. I don't see that as a bad thing.

There are truly significant issues where the concept of "PC" runs amuck. Banning a book from a school library because it uses the N word, or banning a book from a school library because it includes references to non-traditional families* are just two examples - there are many, many more.

Those are worth debating. This is simply moronic. To clarify, getting your panties in a knot over this one - whether the picture is retouched or not - should qualify people for aid from the "Get A Clue Foundation."



* While the "traditional" attacks on political correctness wouldn't include the second example, it's just as much a PC issue as the other.

[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.

[sarettah]

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".

[MorganGrayson]

Originally Posted by sarettah

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".

I *know* it's revisionist...that's why I called it that.

And sure, *you'd* have a nice talk with your child. Some would. Some...would not.

Severe knee-jerk reaction on being put in the same class as the "Moral Majority," et al...so I'll have to ponder and get back to you when the smoke clears. I sure as hell hope we haven't gotten to the point where every time somebody says "we're doing this to protect kids" they have to defend themselves against being in league with the demon-fuckers in the Moral Majority.

I had to fight to get some "protect yourself against sexual abuse" programs through the schools. A teacher took me aside and told me why. The "religious right" didn't want their kids empowered to speak up for themselves and make their own decisions. I think it took three days to get my dropped jaw up off the floor.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by sarettah

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".

Oh, that's a lovely word - revisionist.

Right wing bobbleheads and their fellow travellers love it dearly - so dearly that they keep using it over and over and over again until people quit hearing it and it loses all meaning.

The photograph in question depicts the illustrator of a children's book. Since the only thing removed from the photo was a cigarette, absolutely nothing of any significance was changed except the fact that the illustrator was a smoker.

Where's the foul?

[selena]

~claps with glee~

Oh, looky, I started a serious post!

~then pushes glasses up on nose~

I think I am close to being in agreement with you, PornoDoggy. I think. I'll have to cipher on it some more to be sure.

MorganGrayson, I think that if you are a parent, and you are reading your child this book (I can nearly recite this particular one by heart) then you point out the picture, and you say "look at the man that could draw these lovely pictures. Poor thing, he smoked. He didn't know all the bad things about smoking that we do now."

I think them being told that....followed up by countless other times of an anti smoking perspective being offered up...will do far more good than any potential harm being done by a pic of a man holding a smoke.

Especially since we are talking about a book that is written for small children. Both my boys had outgrown it by roughly age 2.5.

I wouldn't go march in the streets to put the cigarette back in the picture, but I'm not 100% comfortable with the notion of just making something go away because it is no longer a good thing to do.

Wait a minute...

I just changed my mind. I have an ex I want to revise out of history.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Oh, that's a lovely word - revisionist.

Right wing bobbleheads and their fellow travellers love it dearly - so dearly that they keep using it over and over and over again until people quit hearing it and it loses all meaning.

The photograph in question depicts the illustrator of a children's book. Since the only thing removed from the photo was a cigarette, absolutely nothing of any significance was changed except the fact that the illustrator was a smoker.

Where's the foul?

the foul is changing history to match present day realizations.

What really is the difference between that and removing the word "nigger" from Huckleberry Fin? I mean Huckleberry Finn is pretty much a book read by kids, not as young as the book in question, but still, it is a kid's book.

Why don't we just remove reference to all things that happened in our country that we didn't like because our kids might be harmed by the idea of it.

No matter what age you start doing it, it is revising history to match what we would like it to have been instead of what it was.

[PornoDoggy]

The photograph in question shows "illustrator Clement Hurd with a butt in his right hand."

Removal of the butt from the right hand of illustrator Clement Hurd does not change the book in any way, shape or form.

I don't know why the publishers didn't seek out a photo of illustrator Clement Hurd sans butt, but I suspect that if the photo was taken at about the same time, he looked the same.

To repeat yet again - arguing over the butt in illustrator Clement Hurd's right hand trivializes the issue. The fact that Clement Hurd was a smoker is just not important.