this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2024
129 points (93.9% liked)

Everett True Comics

706 readers
46 users here now

A place to appreciate the twentieth century comic character Everett True of "The Outbursts of Everett True." Feel free to check out the sticky.

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
 

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).

all 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] qooqie 42 points 2 months ago (3 children)
[–] macarthur_park 63 points 2 months ago (8 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I mean, he's punching a guy he thinks believes that, not espousing the belief

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I thought this at first too, but what he's accusing the guy of is wanting him to kill his children, so associating it with race suicide makes it more like one of his beliefs not the other guy's (ie. "you want me to kill my children, you must be someone who's in favor of race suicide - which I believe in!" )

[–] Rolando 22 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] johannesvanderwhales 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"Too bad my children had to be born" definitely suggests interpretation A.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Thank you. Everett is the one standing up for renter's rights. It's illegal in the US to discriminate against potential renters because they have kids, or don't have kids.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

This comic is from the early 1900s, when they didn’t have those protections. The Federal Fair Housing Act wasn’t passed until the 60s, and it wasn’t expanded to include families with children until the 80s.

It’s possible he is defending renter’s rights here, but it’s important to remember that prior to WWII eugenics was considered a progressive cause, and it was championed by other progressive groups at the time as well, like feminist groups. The idea was that you could reduce suffering by not causing people with undesirable traits (mostly disabilities) to be born to begin with. If True was a eugenicist, it wouldn’t be out of place in the historical context of things.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

People who believed in race suicide used it as a justification to have more white kids, not get rid of white kids. Your point A1 doesn't make sense unless they are different races, but they both look white to me. So it's gotta be B.

[–] Rolando 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Hmmm good point. But I think the eugenics of the time was also based on class, ethnicity, and personal characteristics:

In the United States, "unfit" races have historically included minorities such as immigrants and African Americans, people with mental and physical disabilities, people in poverty, institutionalized people, and/or people convicted of crimes. Eugenics sought to eliminate these people, such that their "undesirable traits and behaviors" would be effectively weeded out of the human population over time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_suicide

Note the 1903 illustration on that page "Concerning Race Suicide". Everybody seems to be of European descent, but the wealthier people on one side have no children but the people on the other side -- who seem to be coded as lower-class recent immigrants -- have many chidren. I think that is being presented as a bad thing, though everybody seems to be happy and well-fed (if a bit crowded).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Touché. I don't read the "you'd make a desirable tenant, but..." as insincere, so I tend to view it as the landlord saying he likes Everett fine but doesn't want Everett's children around.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago

Everett is protesting against the concept. He's the one asking the other man, "Dude, are you for eugenics? You must hate kids. Taste my fist."

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 months ago (2 children)

He was definitely a man of his times.

[–] ripcord 1 points 2 months ago

He did appear to bring another day, another night, another fight.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I feel like Everett is held back by the views and vocabulary of the times here. His point is less to-do with race relations or politics and is really about how it is ridiculous that a man with kids is being turned down from housing just for having kids. I'm assuming he just wanted to be as insulting as possible, and that was a heavily fear-mongered issue at the time.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Cool motive. Still eugenics

[–] [email protected] 2 points 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.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Woof 😞 , certainly a sour note here. Good reminder of how things have (or fucking haven't) changed

[–] mipadaitu 17 points 2 months ago

Probably one of those early types of "great replacement" racism things.

[–] Diplomjodler3 13 points 2 months ago

Do you think our present day fascists invented any of that stuff themselves?

[–] [email protected] 38 points 2 months ago (1 children)

did he just forget his third child

[–] TexasDrunk 26 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Klear 7 points 2 months ago

New lore just dropped.

[–] tetrachromacy 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't have kids and won't. In my experience as a tenant renting various crap shacks, both children and adults can be loud and annoying, so it's not like renting to adults only will bring the noise level down. Kids run around and scream, but adults work on endless home improvement projects, or have lots of loud argumentative sex, or play an electric drum kit until 2am. Lots of variety. Point being that anyone has the potential to be a bad neighbor.

[–] TexasDrunk 13 points 2 months ago

adults work on endless home improvement projects, or have lots of loud argumentative sex, or play an electric drum kit until 2am.

I'd like to humbly apologize for my behavior from 2009 to 2013. I was in a house but I was definitely doing all of these. I did use headphones for my electric drum kit, though.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Is anybody surprised Everett is fashy?

[–] thesporkeffect 3 points 2 months ago

I don't think he is, but maybe he's a little quick on the draw to read the landlord out for a racist

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

isn't age discrimination still allowed, just not against the old people?

[–] Srh 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

In housingin the us you can't discriminate based on familial status (that law was passed way after this comic). What I think you are talking about would be in the work place title 7.

[–] CoffeeJunkie 1 points 2 months ago

All sorts of discrimination can occur, it should just never be articulated or put into writing. Unless it's just egregious, discrimination is pretty damn difficult to prove.

...but no, most discrimination is not allowed. Especially when it comes to basic things like age, race, gender, marital/family status, religion, sexual orientation.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago