Dr. Seuss and the Bible

In case you missed the news, Dr. Seuss has not been “cancelled” contrary to what some on the right would have us believe. Far from it. The decision by the owners of the Seuss franchise to stop publishing six mostly lesser known titles of the Dr. Seuss series (after an independent study concluded that they contained racist content) resulted in a large spike in sales of Seuss books. Think about that. While likely not their motivation, doing the right thing turned out to also be good for the bottom line of the corporation. I’d call that a win/win. And if more children are now reading Cat in the Hat and One Fish, Two Fish as a result, the world is a little better for it.

Meanwhile Senator Ted Cruz infamously tweeted “Who knew Joe Biden was such a great book seller?” with an image of eight best-selling Dr. Seuss books. Evidently being elected President of the U.S. also makes one CEO of Dr. Seuss Enterprises. Who knew indeed. Being an admirer of certain children’s literature should not make one a purveyor of childish behavior, which is precisely what this made up story on the cancelling of Dr. Seuss is. Read the study that led to the decision by Seuss Enterprises and decide for yourself if those six books do not in fact portray racial stereotypes that are problematic. Even more problematic is that so many white folk, especially those complaining the loudest, do not get it.

The decision to cease publication of those six books is not in any way an effort to ban Dr. Seuss from the school libraries or to tarnish the image of Theodore Seuss Geisel, the creator of Dr. Seuss. It rather simply recognizes a much deeper truth that racial bias is baked deep into our world and even in something so beloved as Dr. Seuss. He was a product of the times and the racial stereotypes he used in those books were far too common. But as the 2019 paper on the racism in his work revealed, he was not just a product of that time, he also promoted views that can only be described as racist in many of his earlier works. Rising above such bias is what human progress is about and what common decency demands. And I believe it is absolutely what Mr. Geisel would want. He might even say, “What took you so long?” Looking at the larger body of his works, you can see clues that would suggest such an evolution of the author was not only possible, but even likely.

One of the key principles I learned in seminary for interpreting scripture was to be aware of the “canon within the canon.” “Canon” refers to that body of literature one considers to be holy. Within that body are passages which you might say are holier than others, or which you use as a guide to understand the meaning of the whole. This is nothing new. Christians for centuries have generally held up the New Testament in general and the teachings of Jesus in particular to be the measure by which all other scripture is read and understood. In much the same way the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, is understood by Judaism as the guide to all else in Jewish faith.

The example I often used in preaching was to compare Psalm 137:9, “Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!” to the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” There is simply no way that one can read those two texts as equal guides for living a godly life. It helps to know that Psalm 137 is a Psalm of lament and then to read that verse as a cry of anguish directed at those who destroyed Jerusalem, killing thousands and taking more into captivity. Even then, to wish a gruesome death on the children of one’s enemies is hardly a virtue I would uphold as worthy of scriptural status. But there it is, nonetheless. The canon within the canon gives one the ability to see such a text as an honest portrayal of human grief and anger, but not as something to be upheld as the desire of God. Instead, a text like the Golden Rule as that canon within the canon enables us to read such a text and to know that such human desire for vengeance that kills innocent children is in fact NOT the will of God.

One of my Biblical professors called this “preaching against the text” and suggested that to do such was the duty of an honest preacher. I would be occasionally challenged when doing so from the pulpit, not because I dared to challenge a Biblical text as being unholy, but because, I was told, we should not have to hear such texts read in the context of worship. I typically responded that I felt it important to take a stand from the pulpit on such texts to counter some popular beliefs about divine action, as if a loving God would have no problem massacring one’s enemies or would send someone to eternal punishment for loving a person of the same gender, just to name two common misinterpretations of scripture. But that idea of what one should or should not read in the context of worship echoes the concern about children’s books and what one should or should not read to them. Yes, keep those six Seuss books for when you want to examine how the dominant class in this country once viewed people of different races, but for God’s sake and children’s sake, do not read them to children.

Is there a canon within the canon of Dr. Seuss? That might be stretching the concept a little far when considering the merits of green eggs and ham v. red fish, blue fish! But Geisel did produce a volume of other literature that may provide some clues on his values and beliefs. In Horton Hears a Who! Geisel writes, A person’s a person, no matter how small! It does not take great imagination to insert descriptions of race, gender, religion, gender identity or any other characteristic in lieu of size and to read that as an affirmation of all humanity.

Particularly interesting are the political cartoons he drew for the New York tabloid PM during WW II. These too reflect biases of the time, especially against Japanese-Americans. One of those depicted a long line of Asian characters drawn with slanted eyes along the west coast happily taking blocks of TNT, presumably to use against the U.S. One week after the publication of that cartoon, FDR ordered Japanese Americans to go to the internment camps, right up there with slavery as one of the shameful acts of our government. Geisel reportedly regretted drawing the cartoon, but said too little, too late.

On the other hand, Geisel used his cartoon platform to sharply criticize the “America First” movement of that time, widely seen as in league with the interests of Nazi Germany. One such cartoon shows a Seuss-like kangaroo labeled “America First.” In her pouch are 3 more kangaroos, each in the pouch of the one prior and labeled “Nazis, Fascists, Communists.” The caption reads, “Relatives? Naw, … just three fellers going along for the ride!” In another he depicts two men with a common beard that unites them in a carnival side show. The smiling man on the left is labeled “America First” and the sinister looking man on the ride has a large swastika on his chest. The carnival barker says to the crowd, And on this platform, folks, those most perplexing people… the Lads with the Siamese Beard! Unrelated by blood, they are joined in a manner that mystifies the mightiest minds in the land!

Finally in response to the refusal of the U.S. to accept Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany (937 Jewish refugees aboard the St. Louis were refused entry in 1939 and returned to Europe, resulting in the death of 254 of those refugees), Geisel published a cartoon showing a mother reading a book to her children. The mother is labeled “America First,” the book in entitled “Adolf the Wolf.” The mother reads, and the wolf chewed up the children and spit out their bones… but those were foreign children and it really didn’t matter.

The message could not be clearer. The “America First” movement of that time was despicable for its insensitivity to the plight of those refugees. The parallel to recent history is also abundantly clear and history will not be kind either to our treatment of refugees and would be immigrants on our borders these last few years.

Do some Dr. Seuss books reflect a racial bias? Unquestionably. But Theodore Geisel was not a bad man, flawed perhaps, as are we all, and unaware of his own biases. His willingness, however, to take on the harmful biases of the America First movement then suggest to me that he would affirm the call for racial justice today, beginning with the books of Dr. Seuss. And even if he didn’t, there is no excuse for why we don’t.