Is it just me, or are people being r-slurred about "The Giving Tree"?

I decided on a whim to watch:

Target audience: Young children

Tree: Mother figure

Child: Self-insert / mirror to the reader'

The story is clearly about being grateful to your mother/parents, we are meant to be uncomfortable about the attitude of the child who takes these acts of giving for granted, and ultimately remember that it has been a while since we told our parents that we love them.

The line: "but not really" is obviously about the tree being sad the child is leaving. Happy she could help him, sad that the child is leaving for an undetermined amount of time. Silverstein didn't include this line in the animated version because he realized that it introduced ambiguity that a lot of people were evidently too retarded to resolve, and it didn't really impact the intended meaning (though it makes it less sad).

People seem to miss the fact that it is a children's book and that this must be taken into account when trying to analyze the meaning of the work. Can a child identify with a one sided romantic relationship? No, because it is a child. But mommy buying them an ice cream when they ask for one? Yes, every child has pestered their parents about getting something at some point. Even if they didn't, parents make countless small acts of self-sacrifice for their children without expecting thanks.

Am I missing something? !bookworms

The book that should really be controversial, is "The Rainbow fish". That one just has a straight up terrible message.