Seriously , you're dead on. Anyone who says shit like that clearly never worked there which is why they use it as an insult. Such a lazy attempt to cover their ass, oh I worked there. Sureee, fuck off. And I'm sure she has tons of friends who work at McDonald's so she has a ton of respect for the field.

Why are you trying so hard to die on this hill? honest question.

“Let the hate flow through you child”.

Yes, yes you are. You’re a tiresome child who thinks she understands the world and is pissed that the world doesn’t subscribe to exactly everything you’re favorite cool professors taught you, which is garbage. Go fuck yourself.

The whole article is like an undergrad essay: “Baby’s First Postcolonialism: ENGLISH 357.” Somewhat surprised I didn’t see “subaltern” used a few dozen times here.

Nah. She’s going after Jane Austin’s lack of feminism next week.

Oh, I’ve worked at McDonald’s. I know all about it. I’m not judging people who work there.

You took an easy shot at a lazy stereotype, punching downwards. It’s brilliantly hypocritical to the rest of your position on this “article".

It is in its southern black stereotypes, but Uncle Remus is clearly the hero of that movie. All the white people are assholes.

It says nothing. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears to me that you’re saying that anyone (up to and including GEORGE ORWELL) who expresses admiration for Kipling’s powers as a poet and writer is a crypto-imperialist. Is that accurate? Am I a racist for appreciating the revolutionary power of Lovecraft’s…

Super hot take here. I’m glad someone finally had the courage to say that people born in the 1800s had regressive social mores that we might find laughable or repugnant today.

God, io9 has gone downhill. This whole dumb article, like almost everything on Gawker these days, is just narcissistic virtue signaling. You know these idiot writers get giddy every time an opportunity arises to indicate to their mass audience how not-racist, not-sexist, not-homophobic, anti-imperialist and…

I’ve...got some problems with this article. First, it’s not entirely clear what you’re advocating. On the one hand you say that Kipling shouldn’t be censored, but on the other hand you say, in the following paragraph, that a story in which a white person exoticizes a country and its people shouldn’t pass muster in…

It definitely seems you feel very strongly about this subject. I am seeing you comment on just about every other comment.

My God, Katharine, if I was grading this in a first year English lit. paper you’d be getting a hard F. Yes, Kipling was an imperialist Englishman with some seriously unlovely views that were entirely typical of a man of his age and background.

There’s a particular irony of that: The Brother Remus stories were written down precisely to make sure that they WOULDN’T be forgotten, and the memory of the unique culture that developed in the South during that time would be preserved.

This... Exactly this.

I think if you’re going to lead with something as vulgar as “Rudyard Kipling was a racist fuck and Jungle Book is imperialist garbage” you have to balance it out with a more intellectually robust analysis. You might have a sound point but without a substantial argument, it just comes across like empty trolling.

I’m not saying that Kipling should be censored...

The man and his opinions changed drastically over his life, especially after Jack was killed in WWI. Same story as Mark Twain. As the men got older and saw more examples of how things can go wrong, they distanced themselves further and further from imperialist policy.