When the Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy took to YouTube to play the "Seuss card" he read from "Green Eggs and Ham."

But that's not one of the 6 Dr Seuss books that were discontinued by Dr Seuss Enterprises.

Why did Kevin McCarthy read from "Green Eggs and Ham" and not one of the newly discontinued books like "If I Ran the Zoo"..? Or “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street"..?

Could it be because if Kevin McCarthy had gone on YouTube with any of the 6 discontinued Dr Seuss books in hand, other people could have gone on YouTube, or Twitter, or on-air at CNN or MSNBC, or in print at the New York Times and other newspapers, to point out some of the illustrations in those books? Illustrations of native Africans like--well, this:

CLICK FOR FULL SIZE

Or illustrations of Chinese men organized as teams of porters, carrying zoo animals in cages and obviously Caucasian zookeepers on their obviously Chinese backs?

Of course, people could have done that anyway, and I guess already have, but it would have had extra "punch" if Kevin McCarthy had used any of the 6 newly discontinued books as his stage prop, instead of "Green Eggs and Ham."

It's like Kevin McCarthy wanted to protest some public school's disposition of "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by reading from "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court."

Makes perfect sense--to ReTrumplicans.

'Kevin McCarthy’s Dr. Seuss Stunt Leaves People Very, Very Puzzled'
Lee Moran for the Huffington Post; March 6, 2021.
https://www.huffpost.com/en...3b1cc5b6429d083388e8

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-08-2021).]

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-09-2021).]

"Lawmakers Push to Ban ‘1619 Project’ From Schools"
Sarah Schwartz for EducationWeek; February 3, 2021.

quote The school curriculum linked to the New York Times’ 1619 Project— an initiative that aims to reframe U.S. history by putting the legacy of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at its center—is once again the target of Republican lawmakers, who seek to ban the materials in three states. The three bills, recently introduced by state legislators in Arkansas, Iowa, and Mississippi, argue that the lessons misrepresent U.S. history. The Arkansas and Mississippi bills call the 1619 Project “a racially divisive and revisionist account;” the Iowa bill claims that it “attempts to deny or obfuscate the fundamental principles upon which the United States was founded.” All propose that school districts choosing to use the curriculum lose part of their state funding, in proportion to the time and resources devoted to teaching the material. . . . The bills all use the same or similar language as legislation proposed in July by U.S. Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, who sought to ban all U.S. schools from using the materials.

The article continues online:
https://www.edweek.org/teac...from-schools/2021/02

Now you may not like what you've seen or heard about the 1619 Project. You may not like it because it's connected to the New York Times. You may agree with the language in these bills that have been put before state legislatures, that the 1619 Project is "a racially divisive and revisionist account" and that it "attempts to deny or obfuscate the fundamental principles upon which the United States was founded."

But don't pretend that it's only "Leftists" that want to ban books and literature (etc.) that they do not like or agree with.

Unless you think that these Republican state legislators in Arkansas, Mississippi and Iowa are "Leftists."

More excerpts from the article:

quote Stefanie Wager, the president of the National Council for the Social Studies, said that she sees “a little bit of irony in the bills.” While Republican lawmakers usually champion the right to free speech, they’re now attempting to quell dissenting voices in the classroom, she said. Wager has heard frustration from members in state councils that lawmakers are choosing to intervene on this one resource, when materials selection is “normally a non-issue” in these states. The Iowa Council for the Social Studies mentioned this in a statement to Education Week, writing that the proposed legislation would “take away local control and dictate what can and cannot be taught in Iowa,” which would be “inconsistent” with the ICSS’ values. . . . While the 1619 Project has seen popularity with many teachers, it’s also faced criticism from some historians, who object to the interpretations and conclusions that the essays draw—such as the claim that one of the primary reasons the colonies decided to declare independence was to preserve the institution of slavery. But these critiques shouldn’t preclude teachers from bringing the material into their classrooms, Zimmerman said. Teachers don’t have to—and in fact, shouldn’t—present the 1619 Project’s conclusions as “unalloyed truth,” Zimmerman argues. The goal isn’t just to replace one narrative with another. “Any good social studies teacher is certainly using a variety of things in their classroom, and asking their students to critique what they are reading,” said Wager of NCSS. “The work of historians, the work of social studies teachers, is engaging students in uncovering that evidence, and challenging and weighing that evidence. To try to squash that, or stop that in any way, is not the mark of a quality social studies educator.”

quote Originally posted by randye:

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-09-2021).]