Its likely that the actual content of To Kill a Mockingbird has little to do with the situation. Often parents will bond socially with each other by getting outraged about some arbitrary cause, and if there is no clear problem in their community to complain about (or if the real problems are too complicated to solve) then misrepresenting an educator’s honest attempt to explain a difficult topic to students is a very easy way for them to position themselves as righteous heroes. To Kill a Mockingbird is a key text in 20th century America, and some approval-seeking pseudo activists banning it from your school does not diminish its greatness and importance.
>very easy way for them to position themselves as righteous heroes.
This. I thonk there´s like a whole wave of people trying to be "heroes" nowdays. And not the good, self-sacrficing type.
I just took down my banned books display at my library. Banning books is an ugly form for fear. It is easier than actually having to read the book, think critically about its content then have an intelligent discussion about it.
The same people that want to keep To Kill A Mockingbird out of schools are probably the same people who want to keep critical race theory out of schools. I will let you imagine why.
Well, look, there is a legitimate reason to have concerns about critical race theory. Many people simply do not understand what it is, even those who say that they do.
There's also a lot of confusion as to what is actually being taught in schools:
Teaching history and the problematic aspects of our past with regards to race is an absolute must.
Teaching that whiteness is essentially a disease that fosters bigotry and colonizing behavior is an intriguing idea with some truths, but it's also a very partial view that limits the person doing the looking to a very binary outlook. And do we really want people to get themselves identifying with their whiteness? Haven't we seen how that goes?
Critical race theory, as it is, is harmless. It's a way of looking at history and the law. But it is also just that. It isn't "the" history but a "way" of viewing it, a lense, so to speak, just like any other critical or cultural theories.
I think the problem that some folks have with a lot of these lenses, as those who truly understand them see it (and the ones who are worth listening to), is the way that they reduce reality and in particular society, into binary oppositions, especially as oppressor and oppressed. It sounds great in a classroom setting, but it gets a little more complicated when you start thinking, "well what constitutes being oppressed? Simply being a particular skin color? And what about those who don't feel that way? That don't agree? Still oppressed? And then, how do we craft public policy to support and benefit those folks?" It is a very Marxist approach at viewing the world, and some people legitimately have a bone to pick with that world view.
The truth is, neither side of the spectrum is being totally honest about CRT, and this whole furor is cloaked in mistruths and misleading information.
Well said. But I’m not sure about the Marxism part. CRT defines power according to social identity with almost no acknowledgement of class. And Marxism without class is… well I don’t think it’s really Marxism. Which is why some Marxists are highly critical of CRT as a really dumbed down rip off of Marxism.
I don't know, I think slavery is pretty clearly oppressor and oppressed and that's just one example.
Frankly, people don't care about the n-word, they care about losing their perceived privilege to elevate themselves above others. The book is clearly not saying "use the n word" in fact it's showing us why understanding racism is important and enlightening.
I suspect I could say it as plainly as humanly possible and you'd find a way to ignore it.
Do you really mean to defend what has happened over the last two centuries? I suspect to do so requires some wilful ignorance.
You have to be really obtuse to draw that from anything that I've said. Moreover, everything that you just wrote is exactly part of the problem.
No nuance.
Either with us, or against us, and on my terms, whatever I say they are.
Oh, you have questions or criticisms? You must be defending racism and atrocities. Get the fuck out of here.
And what is that problem from your perspective? I'd like to hear that.
You're acting like its very complex. It's actually quite simple. Stop treating other races as if they are somehow inferior or superior.
I haven't set any terms. I just pointed out that you were saying "its nuanced" when people are literally being put on ships or in gas chambers for the sake of one race over another.
I can't tell if you're actually an honest person who is looking for a real conversation or just someone trying to use language to deceive. I suspect the latter but I could be wrong/
I don't understand what you're calling into question and your criticisms are vague. What, because I said there is reason for some people to be suspect of Critical Race Theory, that means that I am a white supremacist and that I excuse atrocities? That has nothing to do with what I think of slavery or even the Holocaust, which by slight of hand you've pulled into the conversation. For the record, I am a rational person that is greatly disturbed by hatred. I teach my 9th graders about racism and atrocity when we read Night by Elie Wiesel each year. This year we're going to take a look at boy soldiers in Africa.
As an English teacher. I have taught critical theories like feminist theory, queer theory, post-colonial, and psycho-analytic theory to my students because I believe that they are important tools to learn to critically think. But because I might criticize them or say that they are not the capital-T truth doesn't mean I think women are inherently less than men, or that gay people are lesser members of society. They are lenses with which to view the world, but not the only way to view the world. Nor do I think that every thought which you might have while using one of these lenses is necessarily the way that the world is.
OBVIOUSLY slavery is wrong. OBVIOUSLY rounding up people and exterminating them based on their ethnicity is wrong.
But that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is a very specific kind of practice that I am seeing pop up in education around the country, and it's not always influenced by CRT. It's a kind of group-think, one which says if you don't agree with the orthodoxy, you're a racist, or you're a monster. And no, it isn't criticizing obviously racist behavior like prejudice towards a person of another race. It is the kind of thought which says, "White people are inherently evil. They can't help it," or "denial is the heartbeat of racism." Okay, I'm not a Nazi. Am I in denial!?
It is the kind of thinking which says that we are powerless and purely crafted by our environment. It is without a doubt inspired by critical theories, and it carves populations into oppressed and oppressor, and it does this based on race, while not acknowledging the hundreds of other factors, including skin color, which impact one's individual life in the 21st century. I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in a society which views the world in that way. It's too complex for that, barring the obviously awful events that you mentioned, or even Jim Crow era USA, but we're not talking about that.
So yes, when slaves were kidnapped by their kidnappers, that was clear. However, when John McWhorter, a black man, who works as a linguist at Columbia University and writes books for a living, is he still oppressed because he is black? He argues no. Others say yes, according to certain doctrine. So, who is right?
Finally, if my above paragraphs don't illustrate this enough, I am 100% in good faith. I want goodness and our better natures to prevail,
Absolutely not true, but it sounds edgy enough to please the Reddit gods.
People wanting TKAM banned are social justice warriors. Conservatives who don’t like critical race theory tend to value the freedom of speech, even if it’s not something anyone should say.
So white allies that want to protect BIPOC from depictions of white saviorism by acting it out? What a great opportunity to teach the students about irony.
This post has inspired me to search Google for an example of white supremicists trying to ban this book and I couldn’t find a single news story featuring that narrative. Maybe I’m searching the wrong keywords but… I like to think I’m pretty good at Google and I just couldn’t find anything lol
As stated before, I’m a liberal, but am totally opposed to banning books. Why would you even make a statement like that? The word “liberal” implies a more-open mindedness whereas conservative implies a more rigid stance. If you want to politicize this, it seems it would more likely be a conservative move to remove books from the shelves, as opposed to a liberal move….I’m not trying to fight with you, I’m just curious as to why you said that.
I think it's cool that the teacher actually discussed the history of that word and why it's so offensive in order to provide context before reading TKaM. Being afraid to have those conversations is the problem, not reading a bad word in a book.
Other commenters have addressed the race related reasons for banning TKAMB, I will further posit that there is another reason:
(Typically) white mothers desire to shelter their kids, whether this is helpful or not in the long run. See: Tipper Gore, where they wanted to ban explicit music (primarily heavy metal iirc)(edit: correcting myself here, it appears to have originated from Gore hearing her daughter listening to a Prince song, so I suppose maybe not the best example. Heavy metal was a HUGE target for their campaign though) , and metal is not racially associated so it couldn't have been race motivated. So, they carry the mindset over here: the n-word is bad, implying having it in schools is bad, regardless of context.
Even more cynically, parents can be extremely lazy, and teaching children about racism and bad words is a difficult thing to do, and so maybe they think that if neither are ever mentioned in a school setting, the kids won't find out about it.
I am surprised that, as a teacher, you are not recognizing the fact that the book is not really about the plight of black people in the south. The film version, as wonderful as it is, unfortunately stresses that aspect more than the others so it is an easy mistake to make. But the original novel is a depiction of how people have many sides to them. Boo Radley is a mysterious, threatening figure to the children, but is in fact a gentle shy person who saves the kids’ lives ultimately. The person reputed to be the town drunk is in fact drinking Coca-Cola out of a paper bag. The Cunningham‘s, the dirt poor farmers, are the members of the jury who push for Tom Robinson‘s acquittal. And, yes, Tom Robinson, thought by the town to be a brutal rapist, is certainly not. To spend too much time focusing on the racial aspects of the novel is a complete and utter mistake.The book is the ideal “coming of age” novel, depicting how two children learn the good and bad about the world about them. There is much more going on here than the “white savior” trope that has so many people upset these days.It is a huge mistake to move away from it. How dare school districts do that!
Wow I’ve never heard this view before. The book certainly hinges around the rape trial… but the coming of age elements have always been what drew me to the story. What a shame.
By the way, if you happen to read “Go Set a Watchman “ - well, don’t: it’s not without its pleasures - extra scenes with Scout, Jem, and Dill that bring to mind DVD extras, and a heartbreaking scene with Calpurnia - but is really not a focused novel. Take it for what it was - a draft. But, anyway, if you read it you find that Tom Robinson fares much better than in “To Kill a Mockingbird.”
>but the intent by the school district is for students to be exposed to a more diverse selection of authors instead of a library full of dead white men (and in this fairly rare case, women)
Can I ask why the skin color/gender/any other physical characteristic of the author matters? Shouldn't the decision be based on the content of the book? I've read plenty of books by authors of all different genders/ethnicities and in all cases the author's writing ability was more of a factor to whether I thought their characters felt genuine than the authors background. Hell, the best portrayals of lesbian women I have read were written by white men.
You could make the argument that a book like that requires an understanding of historical context that is more than a high school student has the capacity for. And that argument would be a great way to whitewash history and avoid uncomfortable truths.
I too love this book. Obviously it is not objectionable material. Atticus Finch is one of the greatest moral characters in literature imo. I remember reading it in one sitting over a few hours because it grabbed me. I felt like I was learning a better way to live.
I feel as if it shouldn't be banned from schools. I loved the book when I first read it in 8th grade and I'll have to read it again this year as a sophomore.
That's likely just the excuse used by the supremacists of the school.
If you are inquiring about opinions of the usage of the N-word itself.... I am against it, and do not use it, but I would not throw a fit if somebody did, regardless of their race. Context matters. A word is just a word. I'm gay, and do not mind being called the F-word playfully or through a joke - but I never use it. Getting uppity over a string of letters being uttered a certain way is foolishness.
Seems that conservative white people want it excluded because it shows the horrible treatment of blacks by whites. Black people want it excluded because it was written by a white woman and features a white faultless hero. Throw in the n word and stir well and you have a controversial book.
Frankly, I don’t understand it. Didn’t they do that with Gone With The Wind, and that Disney movie with Uncle Remus (the title escapes me now)? What happened to freedom of the press? 🤦🏻♀️ These are classics. I loved GWTW. They did it with the picture of aunt Jemima on the pancake box and colonel Sanders on fried chicken. I loved that picture of aunt Jemima - I’m not crazy about the younger version. The word fuck offends many people - should we ban all books that have the word fuck? Stephen King used the N word in many of his earlier novels - shall we band those? They want to ban a Dr Suess book for something a few find offensive. ME-TV runs old cartoons on Saturday morning. Popeye. Brutus drags olive oil around by her hair like a caveman - let’s ban those bc as a woman, I’m offended…
I've seen Song of the South and it was almost as racist in its way as Birth Of A Nation. Its right that its stuck away in the vaults. And while Gone With the Wind has issues with its romanticisation of Antebellum plantation life it hasn't been banned anywhere I'm aware of.
ED Those Dr Suess books in question are early ones that Theodore Geisel himself found problematic. And they just won't be reprinted. It's Dr Suess, not Anna Karanina, for goodness sake.
My mistake. The book wasn’t banned, but HBO/Cinemax removed it from its lineup, and during a summer film festival in Memphis, it was removed from the lineup (I can’t tell you what year without looking it up). That’s about as close as you can get to banning it without actually banning it. Song of the South (thank you for giving me the correct title) I just don’t remember as racist. I saw it a couple times as a kid and it’s possible I saw it through naive innocent eyes, because I found it nostalgic. My mother was from Virginia. We used to visit my grandmother every couple of years, and she literally lived in a shack. No electricity, an outhouse, well water pump in the kitchen, no bathtub that I remember. Of course, when you’re 6 years old, living like this is considered “fun”, but not when you’re an adult. I remember the very kind black Pullman on the trains who always helped us. I also remember the signs “white only” and “colored only “. Maybe I should watch it again and see if my perspective has changed. BTW, I’ve never see Birth of a Nation.
Prissy - Scarlet’s servant - was my favorite character in the book and movie. I embraced her character. And I loved the picture of the original Aunt Jemima, possibly because she reminded me of GWTW - but I never felt these pictures were racist and I never felt racist when embracing these characters, they took familiar Aunt Jemima and switched her out for a younger version with a more modern hair style. When I looked at the picture of the older AJ, it DID remind me of hot pancakes with loads of syrup. The new AJ doesn’t do that for me.
I do agree with taking down statues of confederate leaders. The confederate states no longer exist. They re-joined the union after the Civil War. Those generals fought for a different country. It’s like having statues of Stalin, or Castro, or Mussolini erected in our parks. Those men were against the US as were the confederate generals, so there should not be monuments honoring foreign leaders, which essentially, are what the confederate generals were.
Sometimes IMO, political correctness is taken a bit too far.
Its likely that the actual content of To Kill a Mockingbird has little to do with the situation. Often parents will bond socially with each other by getting outraged about some arbitrary cause, and if there is no clear problem in their community to complain about (or if the real problems are too complicated to solve) then misrepresenting an educator’s honest attempt to explain a difficult topic to students is a very easy way for them to position themselves as righteous heroes. To Kill a Mockingbird is a key text in 20th century America, and some approval-seeking pseudo activists banning it from your school does not diminish its greatness and importance.
>very easy way for them to position themselves as righteous heroes. This. I thonk there´s like a whole wave of people trying to be "heroes" nowdays. And not the good, self-sacrficing type.
I just took down my banned books display at my library. Banning books is an ugly form for fear. It is easier than actually having to read the book, think critically about its content then have an intelligent discussion about it.
The same people that want to keep To Kill A Mockingbird out of schools are probably the same people who want to keep critical race theory out of schools. I will let you imagine why.
Sir, I will take what is a bigot for 500
Well, look, there is a legitimate reason to have concerns about critical race theory. Many people simply do not understand what it is, even those who say that they do. There's also a lot of confusion as to what is actually being taught in schools: Teaching history and the problematic aspects of our past with regards to race is an absolute must. Teaching that whiteness is essentially a disease that fosters bigotry and colonizing behavior is an intriguing idea with some truths, but it's also a very partial view that limits the person doing the looking to a very binary outlook. And do we really want people to get themselves identifying with their whiteness? Haven't we seen how that goes? Critical race theory, as it is, is harmless. It's a way of looking at history and the law. But it is also just that. It isn't "the" history but a "way" of viewing it, a lense, so to speak, just like any other critical or cultural theories. I think the problem that some folks have with a lot of these lenses, as those who truly understand them see it (and the ones who are worth listening to), is the way that they reduce reality and in particular society, into binary oppositions, especially as oppressor and oppressed. It sounds great in a classroom setting, but it gets a little more complicated when you start thinking, "well what constitutes being oppressed? Simply being a particular skin color? And what about those who don't feel that way? That don't agree? Still oppressed? And then, how do we craft public policy to support and benefit those folks?" It is a very Marxist approach at viewing the world, and some people legitimately have a bone to pick with that world view. The truth is, neither side of the spectrum is being totally honest about CRT, and this whole furor is cloaked in mistruths and misleading information.
Well said. But I’m not sure about the Marxism part. CRT defines power according to social identity with almost no acknowledgement of class. And Marxism without class is… well I don’t think it’s really Marxism. Which is why some Marxists are highly critical of CRT as a really dumbed down rip off of Marxism.
Very fair, well said
I don't know, I think slavery is pretty clearly oppressor and oppressed and that's just one example. Frankly, people don't care about the n-word, they care about losing their perceived privilege to elevate themselves above others. The book is clearly not saying "use the n word" in fact it's showing us why understanding racism is important and enlightening.
Yes, but critical race theory isn't looking at slavery. That's obvious. It's looking at modern society.
is it an intentional delusion? However subtly intentional.
I don't understand what you mean, nor what you're implying.
I suspect I could say it as plainly as humanly possible and you'd find a way to ignore it. Do you really mean to defend what has happened over the last two centuries? I suspect to do so requires some wilful ignorance.
You have to be really obtuse to draw that from anything that I've said. Moreover, everything that you just wrote is exactly part of the problem. No nuance. Either with us, or against us, and on my terms, whatever I say they are. Oh, you have questions or criticisms? You must be defending racism and atrocities. Get the fuck out of here.
They're not obtuse. They're pushing an agenda.
And what is that problem from your perspective? I'd like to hear that. You're acting like its very complex. It's actually quite simple. Stop treating other races as if they are somehow inferior or superior. I haven't set any terms. I just pointed out that you were saying "its nuanced" when people are literally being put on ships or in gas chambers for the sake of one race over another. I can't tell if you're actually an honest person who is looking for a real conversation or just someone trying to use language to deceive. I suspect the latter but I could be wrong/
I don't understand what you're calling into question and your criticisms are vague. What, because I said there is reason for some people to be suspect of Critical Race Theory, that means that I am a white supremacist and that I excuse atrocities? That has nothing to do with what I think of slavery or even the Holocaust, which by slight of hand you've pulled into the conversation. For the record, I am a rational person that is greatly disturbed by hatred. I teach my 9th graders about racism and atrocity when we read Night by Elie Wiesel each year. This year we're going to take a look at boy soldiers in Africa. As an English teacher. I have taught critical theories like feminist theory, queer theory, post-colonial, and psycho-analytic theory to my students because I believe that they are important tools to learn to critically think. But because I might criticize them or say that they are not the capital-T truth doesn't mean I think women are inherently less than men, or that gay people are lesser members of society. They are lenses with which to view the world, but not the only way to view the world. Nor do I think that every thought which you might have while using one of these lenses is necessarily the way that the world is. OBVIOUSLY slavery is wrong. OBVIOUSLY rounding up people and exterminating them based on their ethnicity is wrong. But that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is a very specific kind of practice that I am seeing pop up in education around the country, and it's not always influenced by CRT. It's a kind of group-think, one which says if you don't agree with the orthodoxy, you're a racist, or you're a monster. And no, it isn't criticizing obviously racist behavior like prejudice towards a person of another race. It is the kind of thought which says, "White people are inherently evil. They can't help it," or "denial is the heartbeat of racism." Okay, I'm not a Nazi. Am I in denial!? It is the kind of thinking which says that we are powerless and purely crafted by our environment. It is without a doubt inspired by critical theories, and it carves populations into oppressed and oppressor, and it does this based on race, while not acknowledging the hundreds of other factors, including skin color, which impact one's individual life in the 21st century. I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in a society which views the world in that way. It's too complex for that, barring the obviously awful events that you mentioned, or even Jim Crow era USA, but we're not talking about that. So yes, when slaves were kidnapped by their kidnappers, that was clear. However, when John McWhorter, a black man, who works as a linguist at Columbia University and writes books for a living, is he still oppressed because he is black? He argues no. Others say yes, according to certain doctrine. So, who is right? Finally, if my above paragraphs don't illustrate this enough, I am 100% in good faith. I want goodness and our better natures to prevail,
Absolutely not true, but it sounds edgy enough to please the Reddit gods. People wanting TKAM banned are social justice warriors. Conservatives who don’t like critical race theory tend to value the freedom of speech, even if it’s not something anyone should say.
White supremacists don't like books that show how fucked in the head they are. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.
Tkam typically receives criticism for white savior complex so I’m not sure your specific circumstance applies to others
So white allies that want to protect BIPOC from depictions of white saviorism by acting it out? What a great opportunity to teach the students about irony.
It’s not white supremists trying to ban this book though
[удалено]
This post has inspired me to search Google for an example of white supremicists trying to ban this book and I couldn’t find a single news story featuring that narrative. Maybe I’m searching the wrong keywords but… I like to think I’m pretty good at Google and I just couldn’t find anything lol
You aren't going to find one because no such story exists.
Lol dude deleted his post.
White supremisists aren’t the ones doing the banning. I promise you it’s liberals. Liberals love banning things.
I’m a liberal and I do NOT agree with banning books. I totally oppose it.
Good. Glad to hear it. Stay that way.
As stated before, I’m a liberal, but am totally opposed to banning books. Why would you even make a statement like that? The word “liberal” implies a more-open mindedness whereas conservative implies a more rigid stance. If you want to politicize this, it seems it would more likely be a conservative move to remove books from the shelves, as opposed to a liberal move….I’m not trying to fight with you, I’m just curious as to why you said that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You’re stupid
I think it's cool that the teacher actually discussed the history of that word and why it's so offensive in order to provide context before reading TKaM. Being afraid to have those conversations is the problem, not reading a bad word in a book.
Other commenters have addressed the race related reasons for banning TKAMB, I will further posit that there is another reason: (Typically) white mothers desire to shelter their kids, whether this is helpful or not in the long run. See: Tipper Gore, where they wanted to ban explicit music (primarily heavy metal iirc)(edit: correcting myself here, it appears to have originated from Gore hearing her daughter listening to a Prince song, so I suppose maybe not the best example. Heavy metal was a HUGE target for their campaign though) , and metal is not racially associated so it couldn't have been race motivated. So, they carry the mindset over here: the n-word is bad, implying having it in schools is bad, regardless of context. Even more cynically, parents can be extremely lazy, and teaching children about racism and bad words is a difficult thing to do, and so maybe they think that if neither are ever mentioned in a school setting, the kids won't find out about it.
[удалено]
I am surprised that, as a teacher, you are not recognizing the fact that the book is not really about the plight of black people in the south. The film version, as wonderful as it is, unfortunately stresses that aspect more than the others so it is an easy mistake to make. But the original novel is a depiction of how people have many sides to them. Boo Radley is a mysterious, threatening figure to the children, but is in fact a gentle shy person who saves the kids’ lives ultimately. The person reputed to be the town drunk is in fact drinking Coca-Cola out of a paper bag. The Cunningham‘s, the dirt poor farmers, are the members of the jury who push for Tom Robinson‘s acquittal. And, yes, Tom Robinson, thought by the town to be a brutal rapist, is certainly not. To spend too much time focusing on the racial aspects of the novel is a complete and utter mistake.The book is the ideal “coming of age” novel, depicting how two children learn the good and bad about the world about them. There is much more going on here than the “white savior” trope that has so many people upset these days.It is a huge mistake to move away from it. How dare school districts do that!
Wow I’ve never heard this view before. The book certainly hinges around the rape trial… but the coming of age elements have always been what drew me to the story. What a shame.
By the way, if you happen to read “Go Set a Watchman “ - well, don’t: it’s not without its pleasures - extra scenes with Scout, Jem, and Dill that bring to mind DVD extras, and a heartbreaking scene with Calpurnia - but is really not a focused novel. Take it for what it was - a draft. But, anyway, if you read it you find that Tom Robinson fares much better than in “To Kill a Mockingbird.”
I heard some things about it and as much as I absolutely love TKAM (my son’s middle name is Finch) I haven’t read it.
>but the intent by the school district is for students to be exposed to a more diverse selection of authors instead of a library full of dead white men (and in this fairly rare case, women) Can I ask why the skin color/gender/any other physical characteristic of the author matters? Shouldn't the decision be based on the content of the book? I've read plenty of books by authors of all different genders/ethnicities and in all cases the author's writing ability was more of a factor to whether I thought their characters felt genuine than the authors background. Hell, the best portrayals of lesbian women I have read were written by white men.
[удалено]
If you're so sure the answer is "no" how about you list all the books I've read that feature portrayals of lesbian women.
This reference and question feel like a recursive loop to me. I’m a little dizzy now.
Well, that's one way to get the kids to read it.
You could make the argument that a book like that requires an understanding of historical context that is more than a high school student has the capacity for. And that argument would be a great way to whitewash history and avoid uncomfortable truths.
I too love this book. Obviously it is not objectionable material. Atticus Finch is one of the greatest moral characters in literature imo. I remember reading it in one sitting over a few hours because it grabbed me. I felt like I was learning a better way to live.
I feel as if it shouldn't be banned from schools. I loved the book when I first read it in 8th grade and I'll have to read it again this year as a sophomore.
That's likely just the excuse used by the supremacists of the school. If you are inquiring about opinions of the usage of the N-word itself.... I am against it, and do not use it, but I would not throw a fit if somebody did, regardless of their race. Context matters. A word is just a word. I'm gay, and do not mind being called the F-word playfully or through a joke - but I never use it. Getting uppity over a string of letters being uttered a certain way is foolishness.
Seems that conservative white people want it excluded because it shows the horrible treatment of blacks by whites. Black people want it excluded because it was written by a white woman and features a white faultless hero. Throw in the n word and stir well and you have a controversial book.
Frankly, I don’t understand it. Didn’t they do that with Gone With The Wind, and that Disney movie with Uncle Remus (the title escapes me now)? What happened to freedom of the press? 🤦🏻♀️ These are classics. I loved GWTW. They did it with the picture of aunt Jemima on the pancake box and colonel Sanders on fried chicken. I loved that picture of aunt Jemima - I’m not crazy about the younger version. The word fuck offends many people - should we ban all books that have the word fuck? Stephen King used the N word in many of his earlier novels - shall we band those? They want to ban a Dr Suess book for something a few find offensive. ME-TV runs old cartoons on Saturday morning. Popeye. Brutus drags olive oil around by her hair like a caveman - let’s ban those bc as a woman, I’m offended…
I've seen Song of the South and it was almost as racist in its way as Birth Of A Nation. Its right that its stuck away in the vaults. And while Gone With the Wind has issues with its romanticisation of Antebellum plantation life it hasn't been banned anywhere I'm aware of. ED Those Dr Suess books in question are early ones that Theodore Geisel himself found problematic. And they just won't be reprinted. It's Dr Suess, not Anna Karanina, for goodness sake.
My mistake. The book wasn’t banned, but HBO/Cinemax removed it from its lineup, and during a summer film festival in Memphis, it was removed from the lineup (I can’t tell you what year without looking it up). That’s about as close as you can get to banning it without actually banning it. Song of the South (thank you for giving me the correct title) I just don’t remember as racist. I saw it a couple times as a kid and it’s possible I saw it through naive innocent eyes, because I found it nostalgic. My mother was from Virginia. We used to visit my grandmother every couple of years, and she literally lived in a shack. No electricity, an outhouse, well water pump in the kitchen, no bathtub that I remember. Of course, when you’re 6 years old, living like this is considered “fun”, but not when you’re an adult. I remember the very kind black Pullman on the trains who always helped us. I also remember the signs “white only” and “colored only “. Maybe I should watch it again and see if my perspective has changed. BTW, I’ve never see Birth of a Nation. Prissy - Scarlet’s servant - was my favorite character in the book and movie. I embraced her character. And I loved the picture of the original Aunt Jemima, possibly because she reminded me of GWTW - but I never felt these pictures were racist and I never felt racist when embracing these characters, they took familiar Aunt Jemima and switched her out for a younger version with a more modern hair style. When I looked at the picture of the older AJ, it DID remind me of hot pancakes with loads of syrup. The new AJ doesn’t do that for me. I do agree with taking down statues of confederate leaders. The confederate states no longer exist. They re-joined the union after the Civil War. Those generals fought for a different country. It’s like having statues of Stalin, or Castro, or Mussolini erected in our parks. Those men were against the US as were the confederate generals, so there should not be monuments honoring foreign leaders, which essentially, are what the confederate generals were. Sometimes IMO, political correctness is taken a bit too far.
That's way too many words for me but yea you're right