Another Dr. Seuss FAIL

[smltwnrckr]

Just to be clear, I would not be for pulling this book from shelves or libraries. Despite what I'm sure I'll be accused of.

But I was just reading this book with my son today. It's not by Seuss himself... it is part of the newer Cat in the Hat line, written and published only a few years ago.  It's about all the great inventions and inventors throughout history. The cover is here.

 

The wild part is this page about Eli Whitney. WTF. I'm starting to think they actually do need to teach CRT in elementary schools (which they don't) if this is the kind of stuff they're reading.

 

[son of a gun]

Oof. Yeah. That needs a whole lot more context then what it gives.

[Nevada Convert]

2 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

Just to be clear, I would not be for pulling this book from shelves or libraries. Despite what I'm sure I'll be accused of.

But I was just reading this book with my son today. It's not by Seuss himself... it is part of the newer Cat in the Hat line, written and published only a few years ago.  It's about all the great inventions and inventors throughout history. The cover is here.

 

The wild part is this page about Eli Whitney. WTF. I'm starting to think they actually do need to teach CRT in elementary schools (which they don't) if this is the kind of stuff they're reading.

 

“OK kids, see if you can find the 4 micro aggressions in these two pages and then point out all the blatant white supremacy you can find. If the winner is white, he/she gets to be the first to go in front of class and get white privilege shamed Dr. Seuss style! This is what makes learning so much fun, boys and girls!”

[CV147]

I'd just question why they'd choose that invention. Yes it was a great one, but there were numerous other great inventions in the history that were far more important than the cotton gin.

I'm wondering if they included it because they wanted slavery explored/discussed?

[HR_Poke]

Idk, it didn't cover much more than my 7th grade history class. Only so much context you can include in two paragraphs.

[East Coast Aztec]

3 hours ago, CV147 said:

I'd just question why they'd choose that invention. Yes it was a great one, but there were numerous other great inventions in the history that were far more important than the cotton gin.

I'm wondering if they included it because they wanted slavery explored/discussed?

Cotton gin was pretty important.  It ramped up the southern economy (warts and all).  I just don't know how you do anything more to have little kids grasp the context.  Changing the demographic makeup of the slaves wouldn't do anything, and removing them in general also doesn't contextualize reality either.  Bump up a few years where kids can be more critical and have a teacher, or better yet the parents, mention what those pages also spoke on. 

 

Which means Texas, Florida and Virginia will not.  

[Spaztecs]

3 hours ago, HR_Poke said:

Idk, it didn't cover much more than my 7th grade history class. Only so much context you can include in two paragraphs.

I don't know about 7th grade class. My 10th grade history teacher pointed out that the Cotton Gin led to an expansion of slavery instead of Whitney's desire to eliminate slavery.

I'll bet he would have been ratted out.

[smltwnrckr]

58 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Cotton gin was pretty important.  It ramped up the southern economy (warts and all).  I just don't know how you do anything more to have little kids grasp the context.  Changing the demographic makeup of the slaves wouldn't do anything, and removing them in general also doesn't contextualize reality either.  Bump up a few years where kids can be more critical and have a teacher, or better yet the parents, mention what those pages also spoke on. 

 

Which means Texas, Florida and Virginia will not.  

I mean, one thing you can do is not have a fun, jaunty, rhyming page with lots of exclamation points about the machine that made slavery more prevalent and more brutal in the antebellum south. Without mentioning whose hands were picking the cotton?

Think about the work this line is doing - "turned a slow, dirty job into one quick and clean." 

My vote is that you pick another inventor instead of Eli Whitney for a cute book about inventions. Seriously, the only reason anyone knows who that guy is anymore is because every elementary school history book had an info box telling them that Eli Whitney invented the Cotton Gin.

But, of course, that would be considered "erasing" history by our friends on the right. While the stuff in the book is just teaching history to kids. Fun!

[smltwnrckr]

3 hours ago, HR_Poke said:

Idk, it didn't cover much more than my 7th grade history class. Only so much context you can include in two paragraphs.

Kinda the point, though. The problem is that the context is the only thing that really matters here. I specifically recall through Jr high knowing that Eli Whitney invented the Cotton Gin. In fact, thats really the only factoid I remember learning between the American Revolution and the Civil War. But the Cotton Gin is important to American History for very specific reasons, reasons that are not self evident today. Why would you teach the name of the guy who invented a machine, but not teach the reasons the machine was historically significant?

And that's not even taking into consideration the fact that the page basically says that the Cotton Gin was cool because it made processing cotton more efficient. 

[HR_Poke]

8 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

I mean, one thing you can do is not have a fun, jaunty, rhyming page with lots of exclamation points about the machine that made slavery more prevalent and more brutal in the antebellum south. Without mentioning whose hands were picking the cotton?

Think about the work this line is doing - "turned a slow, dirty job into one quick and clean." 

My vote is that you pick another inventor instead of Eli Whitney for a cute book about inventions. Seriously, the only reason anyone knows who that guy is anymore is because every elementary school history book had an info box telling them that Eli Whitney invented the Cotton Gin.

But, of course, that would be considered "erasing" history by our friends on the right. While the stuff in the book is just teaching history to kids. Fun!

Wouldn't avoiding his invention all together be "Erasing" history?  I think we all get caught up in things meant for kids lacking context simply because we as adults know more.  I mean I don't get bent out of shape when a book my 8 year old daughter got at the library says the world is a sphere.

[smltwnrckr]

OK, @tailingpermit and @Aslowhiteguy. Make your case.

For all of @Nevada Convert's faults, at leas the dude has the balls to come out and basically say he thinks it's fine to make slavery fun again. 

[HR_Poke]

1 minute ago, smltwnrckr said:

Kinda the point, though. The problem is that the context is the only thing that really matters here. I specifically recall through Jr high knowing that Eli Whitney invented the Cotton Gin. In fact, thats really the only factoid I remember learning between the American Revolution and the Civil War. But the Cotton Gin is important to American History for very specific reasons, reasons that are not self evident today. Why would you teach the name of the guy who invented a machine, but not teach the reasons the machine was historically significant?

And that's not even taking into consideration the fact that the page basically says that the Cotton Gin was cool because it made processing cotton more efficient. 

Because it's geared towards small children.  Have you personally tried to explain something with that much context to your son?  I know I tried recently when my daughter asked questions about slavery and the civil war.  She got super confused really fast and didn't grasp any of the context related to my answer.  Same when I tried discussing Roman gladiators and the Roman Legion.  

[Aslowhiteguy]

1 minute ago, smltwnrckr said:

OK, @tailingpermit and @Aslowhiteguy. Make your case.

For all of @Nevada Convert's faults, at leas the dude has the balls to come out and basically say he thinks it's fine to make slavery fun again. 

You seem to be suggesting that it is wrong to teach kids about the invention of the cotton gin.

As far as @Nevada Convert approving of slavery, which post(s) are you referencing?    

[smltwnrckr]

2 minutes ago, HR_Poke said:

Wouldn't avoiding his invention all together be "Erasing" history?  I think we all get caught up in things meant for kids lacking context simply because we as adults know more.  I mean I don't get bent out of shape when a book my 8 year old daughter got at the library says the world is a sphere.

I think in a children's book about how inventions made the world a better place, if we don't want to get into the brutality of slavery, I'm OK with it. I mean, we don't have the name of the guy who invented the chain gang. We don't have the name of the guy who invented the iron maiden, or the guy who invented the machine gun. Why isn't there a page for Oppenheimer? 

I'm fine with trying to find a way to teach why the Cotton Gin matters to American History to children if someone can come up with it. But this is not it. 

The fact that people are going to bat for this is pretty wild. 

[smltwnrckr]

6 minutes ago, HR_Poke said:

Because it's geared towards small children.  Have you personally tried to explain something with that much context to your son?  I know I tried recently when my daughter asked questions about slavery and the civil war.  She got super confused really fast and didn't grasp any of the context related to my answer.  Same when I tried discussing Roman gladiators and the Roman Legion.  

And I'm on the record here arguing that it's fine to wait to tackle these subjects til the kids are older. I have friends who give us kids' books where they literally talk about genocide, and I think that's stupid. But would it not also be stupid if you had a kids' book about Roman gladiators that had them wrestling and then enjoying some fruit snacks afterwards? Yes, it would be. Which is why there are not kids' books about Gladiators, or not many. Oh, but erasing history and so on. 

[Bob]

What am I missing

[HR_Poke]

1 minute ago, smltwnrckr said:

I think in a children's book about how inventions made the world a better place, if we don't want to get into the brutality of slavery, I'm OK with it. I mean, we don't have the name of the guy who invented the chain gang. We don't have the name of the guy who invented the iron maiden, or the guy who invented the machine gun. Why isn't there a page for Oppenheimer? 

I'm fine with trying to find a way to teach why the Cotton Gin matters to American History to children if someone can come up with it. But this is not it. 

The fact that people are going to bat for this is pretty wild. 

I'm not going to bat for it. I just honestly don't know how you convey context to small children about something like this in two paragraphs.

[smltwnrckr]

3 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

You seem to be suggesting that it is wrong to teach kids about the invention of the cotton gin.

As far as @Nevada Convert approving of slavery, which post(s) are you referencing?    

You seem to be dense. 

[tailingpermit]

16 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

OK, @tailingpermit and @Aslowhiteguy. Make your case.

For all of @Nevada Convert's faults, at leas the dude has the balls to come out and basically say he thinks it's fine to make slavery fun again. 

EDIT: Whoops, wrong thread!

I'm just facepalming the book, not your post.

[AztecAlien]

9 minutes ago, HR_Poke said:

I think we all get caught up in things meant for kids lacking context simply because we as adults know more. 

I don't about this. Mr. Spinckr would be a prim example where kids actually may know more.