Over the weekend, as I’m sure you’ve heard, a new development in the controversy about an image from “And to Think that I Saw It on Mulberry Street” emerged.

The drawing of a Chinese man caused three children’s authors and illustrators to cancel their involvement in a children’s literary event at the Springfield Museums and there have been calls to remove the mural based on the drawing from the book.

Mayor Domenic Sarno reacted by saying, “You can’t have it both ways – one week we are proudly waving our Dr. Seuss flag and now an ‘about-face.’ I do not agree with the decision rendered. We should not have acquiesced to these authors’ demands. It’s their choice – their prerogative not to be part of the event. Again, where do we draw the line? This is political correctness at its worst, and this is what is wrong with our country. We have extreme fringe groups on both the right and the left dictating an agenda to divide instead of working together towards the betterment of our country. We as a city, state, nation and world have more important ‘life and death’ issues to deal with and resolve. You would never have heard boo from me if the Cambridge librarian had simply said ‘Thank you’ and these authors had said ‘No, thank you.’ I would ask Dr. Seuss Enterprises and our museums to reconsider their decision.”

That was on Friday and on Saturday, Sarno conducted a press conference with Peter Picknelly and Andy Yee at their restaurant, The Student Prince, at which Picknelly and Yee said they would buy and display the mural in question if it is removed from the museum.

At the middle of this swirl are some basic questions that most of us have a hard time answering: what is acceptable and what is not in terms of racial, ethnic and sexual imagery that is politically correct and what is not.

One of my closest friends is an African-American woman who does not accept the use of the N-word. Clearly, though, that word is polarizing within the black community as some people believe its use takes away the word’s power, while others see it as an ultimate insult.

So what is right? Using it or not using it? Yes, there is our freedom of expression, but what does one do when a word such as that represents hate speech to some and empowerment to others?

If you see a racial caricature or ethnic humor that is linked to stereotypes in an old movie or book should that book or movie be banned or censored? You tell me.

As a kid I loved the “Charlie Chan” movies and yet today they represent “yellow face” or the use of white actors to portray Asian characters. Years ago I had the opportunity of interviewing Keye Luke, A Chinese-American actor who worked alongside Swedish actor Warner Oland in the Charlie Chan series in the 1930s. I asked him if it ever bothered him that a white actor was playing the lead role of a Chinese-American.        

He replied, “There were no Oriental actors who had the talent or the box office attraction, you see. You must remember that films are made for a white audience and Oriental players are necessarily supporting players. Once in a while there’s a fine part and I’ve done some of those, but generally they are just simply supporting parts.

“Now, of course, the situation is changed, There are many fine Asian actors who are qualified to play the finest parts you can give.”

I don’t know if Asian-Americans today would agree with Luke’s assessment.

Dr. Seuss, prior to his career as a renowned children’s author, was an illustrator and cartoonist. He did illustrations that did use ethic stereotypes that are offensive today. In particular, in his work as a political cartoonist for a New York newspaper during WWII, Seuss drew cartoons depicting Japanese soldiers as being less than human, a relatively common theme for the time.

He didn’t draw German or Italian soldiers in the same way. His work reflects an attitude of that era that saw Japanese as some sort of monsters.

In one damning cartoon, which I’ve included here, Seuss makes the assertion that Japanese-Americans were potential traitors, a view made official by the government when they forced loyal Americans off their properties and made them live in prison camps.

I hope you know that Japanese-Americans were as loyal as any other Americans during WWII and served in the military with great honor.

So does this make Dr. Seuss a racist? It would be unfair for me to make such a judgement without many more facts, but I can say he clearly represented in his political cartoons a prejudice against the Japanese that he did not display when portraying German or Italian subjects.

Here is my advice, not that anyone would take it: museums are for education and for the presentation and interpretation of history. The Dr. Seuss Museum should be allowed to do that job. Tackle the thorny issue of illustrations that might offend some people. Talk about the imagery and context. Stage a debate and allow people to discuss it. Perhaps a consensus can be reached or perhaps not. Only by actually discussing an issue, rather than the announcement of judgments can an organization such as The Springfield Museum fully exercise their charge.

As usual these are my opinions and mine alone? Got one of your own? Send it to me at news@thereminder.com.