Get up out of that so I can take one more punch at you!

Sadly, Everett would need to wait for the Fair Housing Act of 1968 for this landlord’s behavior to be federally illegal. It’s unclear what state Mr. True lives in (besides anger, obviously).

  • macarthur_park@lemmy.worldOP
    3·
    3 months ago

    Yeah, I was hoping that maybe back then the term was meant to refer more to the “human race”, so a concern about population growth.

    But some quick googling indicates the eugenics-meaning version of the term was coined around 1900. Honestly not a good look for Everett.

    • HandwovenConsensus@lemm.ee
      2·
      2 months ago

      I’ve seen other comics where Everett rejected the concept. One was when he told a woman he believed in it (in the sense of wanting it to happen) and threatened to kill children, and another when he told a man who brought it up that he was introducing him to race homicide. (I guess the term “genocide” hadn’t entered the vocabulary.)

    • Rolando@lemmy.world
      1·
      3 months ago

      Well, according to that Wikipedia page, people who used the term “race suicide” believed that “desirable” people were having too few kids and “undesirable” people were having too many kids.

      So Interpretation A of this cartoon is the following:

      1. the Landlord believes in the “race suicide” concept, and believes that Everett is an “undesirable” person who has too many kids. The Landlord is insincere when he says that Everett is “estimable” and a “desirable tenant”.
      2. Everett scorns the “race suicide” concept, and argues for his kids’ right to exist.

      And Interpretation B is:

      1. the Landlord sincerely thinks Everett is “estimable” and a “desirable” tenant, but just doesn’t want his kids to live there for some reason
      2. Everett believes in the “race suicide” concept, and is telling the Landlord that without his kids, “race suicide” would occur.

      I’m leaning slightly towards Interpretation A because I think the Landlord is being insincere, but I could be convinced otherwise.

      Edit: on second thought, I don’t think Interpretation B Point 1 relies on the Landlord believing Everett is “estimable” and a “desirable” tenant, only on the undesireability of the kids living there.