5 ms·

They're not saying it's "inappropriate" as in bad for children. They're saying it's not a good way to teach racial history. To Kill a Mockingbird portrays the s

They're not saying it's "inappropriate" as in bad for children. They're saying it's not a good way to teach racial history. To Kill a Mockingbird portrays the situation as a white people problem, with the blacks as passive victims requiring good, white actors to save them. There's no doubt, To Kill a Mockingbird is written to antagonize racism. But some are arguing the means by which it accomplishes this are not representative of where we'd want to be; echoing the generally vast liberal/conservative argument whereby most conservatives are not racist, in that they do not believe minorities are intrinsically worse or less deserving than whites, but they support the continuation of power structures that make it systematically difficult for minorities to have equal levels of opportunity. This is a nuance that most people on both sides generally fail to understand. The harsh gut reaction to someone saying "this is no longer good" will bring out an angry response in many because they don't think it's bad and they know they're not racist AND they are not in fact racist. But there's additional levels of depth here and asking for change is a good thing, though it falls flat to anyone not interested or aware of the depth.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
To Kill a Mockingbird portrays the situation as a white people problem, with the blacks as passive victims requiring good, white actors to save them. No it doesn't. It portrays a trial from the perspective of a lawyer's daughter. The fact that it's portrayed from a white person's point of view doesn't somehow invalidate the story unless you're just anti-white. they support the continuation of power structures that make it systematically difficult for minorities to have equal levels of opportunity. This is a nuance that most people on both sides generally fail to understand. You're projecting an opinion that people with different political opinions are just ignorant of the facts, which is itself ignorant. There are plenty of educated people who disagree with you. To ban this book is to further narrow the field of political opinions acceptable to the liberal educational elites.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  You don't actually address the claim gp made. The point of view isn't directly relevant to the story being told. Certainly it helps, but one could imagine a story told from the daughters point of view where the black characters were more active. That's the criticism GP is leveling, and it's nuanced and well informed, and as far as I can tell you didn't actually understand it fully. Lashing out at them as ignorant when you failed to grasp the point they were making is really rude. There book might fit in a curriculum where you look at the representation of black people in media over time, say how they go bad or caricature to sort of flat and irrelevant to ultimately complex and human, but that's probably a college level course, if only because it would require devoting 3-4 books to the same subtopic.
  - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
    one could imagine a story told from the daughters point of view where the black characters were more active. That's the criticism GP is leveling I understood their point perfectly, and I'm saying it's wrong. Racism doesn't only have to be described from black people's perspective, and complaining about how there aren't enough central black roles in a story about a young privileged girl learning about racism isn't productive.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      You've managed to miss the point again. > Racism doesn't only have to be described from black people's perspective. This was not the complaint. This was never the complaint. I was explicitly stating that when you claimed this was the complaint, you were misunderstanding. A story told about racism from a white persons POV is fine! What is less okay, and at a minimum needs to be taught in a larger context is a story about racism that treats race and racism as a sort of thing-to-be-observed, both in that Scout is primarily "learning about racism" instead of experiencing it, and black characters who are flat. The white-saviorness of Atticus can't really be denied (especially when you draw in the larger context that Atticus was based on Harper Lee's father, and the novel was quasi-biographical). And it's not even conclusion that Scout draws on her own. She feels justice and fairness for all is good not because she learns through some experience, but because her father tells her so, and she greatly reveres him and respects his authority. Scouts willingness to fight for justice isn't born out of a dislike of racism, but of a need to defend her dad. Like I said, in part of a curriculum that focuses on race in America, I think TKAM is a vital book to teach, but if it's the only exposure to literature-that-focuses-on-race-in-america, which for a lot of people it will be, it's not a good tool, because you aren't going to get exposed to the criticism I just provided in a high school context.
      - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
        racism as a sort of thing-to-be-observed, both in that Scout is primarily "learning about racism" instead of experiencing it If you're trying to teach white people and people who haven't experienced racism about racism, then this is a pretty good way to do it IMO. They're more likely to identify with the main character, and they can follow the logic that makes her think racism is bad. The white-saviorness of Atticus can't really be denied Your bias is showing here, it's not cool.. There were plenty of unsavory characters in the book. Scouts willingness to fight for justice isn't born out of a dislike of racism, but of a need to defend her dad. It starts like this, but they also go into the logic of why her dad thinks this way. She's a girl who learns from her family like all kids. If there are other, better books to read, then recommend other books. Don't ban this one because you don't think it goes far enough.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  > The fact that it's portrayed from a white person's point of view doesn't somehow invalidate the story unless you're just anti-white. It doesn't invalidate the story. But if you're having a conversation about race, you would probably benefit from having black perspectives. Otherwise you convey an undertone that outcomes for blacks are for white people to choose. The message we want to teach kids is deeper than racism is bad. This is vaguely addressed in the book's pseudo sequel, go set a watchman, in which Atticus reveals a bigoted side opposing integration. > You're projecting an opinion that people with different political opinions are just ignorant of the facts, which is itself ignorant. There are plenty of educated people who disagree with you. I'm not saying people ignorant of facts, I'm saying they're ignorant of nuance, and I'm saying this is a large chunk of people on both sides. Hence liberal perception of racism and conservative outrage. It doesn't matter if educated people disagree with me. The fact that "the continuation of power structures that make it systematically difficult for minorities to have equal levels of opportunity" is the fundamental argument behind recent race relations conversations.
  - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
    Thank you for this comment. In this conentious sub-thread, you addressed the root of my comment directly without adding to the outrage, which is much appreciated. you would probably benefit from having black perspectives. Otherwise you convey an undertone that outcomes for blacks are for white people to choose. The message we want to teach kids is deeper than racism is bad. Counterargument to this: we all have a certain extent of power and influence on those around us. The target demographic for these books is to teach people who aren't discriminated against about racism. Wouldn't it make sense to show a story about a display of personal power and influence to make the world a better place? The outcomes of blacks, whites, and everyone else depends on how we all influence each other, not just how we influence ourselves.
jjk166 6y ago
Well let's temporarily set aside the fact that the study of literature serves a purpose beyond a didactic lesson in morality, or that just because you read a message into a book doesn't mean that everyone else would come to the same conclusion. If the problem really was simply that To Kill A Mockingbird isn't a good way to teach racial history, then the obvious thing to do would be to propose a better book for that purpose. No one would complain if a school said they would swap out To Kill A Mockingbird for some other book so long as that other book was better. While I'm not sure exactly what book that would be, I'm sure one has been produced in the past 60 years. However, people aren't complaining about To Kill A Mockingbird being replaced, they are complaining about To Kill A Mockingbird being explicitly barred from even potentially being used in a curriculum with no argument as to the merits of any alternative. There are countless books that could be but aren't in the curriculum because some better option took their spot, and they don't need to be specifically banned. To Kill A Mockingbird is at worst sub-optimal, but it is by no means inappropriate. Only someone completely incapable of critical thinking would lump To Kill A Mockingbird into the same category as Mein Kampf.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Many schools give teachers freedom to modify their curricula. As such, you cannot replace to kill a mockingbird at the district level without banning it. I'm sure some teachers were already using a different novel (The Hate U Give is apparently popular, but is also banned in some places because it is supposedly anti-police). By barring the book from the curriculum, they force teachers to use better tools. > Only someone completely incapable of critical thinking would lump To Kill A Mockingbird into the same category as Mein Kampf. I don't see anyone doing that.
  - jjk166 6y ago
    1. You can give teachers the freedom to modify their curricula while still mandating that some books make it into the curriculum. 2. Banning the book forces the teachers to use a different option, but not necessarily a better option. The ones voluntarily using the "better" book(s) aren't in any way aided by the book being banned, the only teachers the ban affects are those who deliberately decided against the better books. Now imagine, if a teacher gets told that a book is problematic and some alternative is less racist, and that teacher says 'nah, I'm going to stick with the more racist one' do you really trust that teacher to move in the correct direction when given the freedom to select any other unbanned book? 3. Mein Kampf and comparable works are books that fall into the "objectively unnacceptable in the classroom" category that logically should be banned outright from the curriculum. These are books that are not only inferior to other options, they should not be taught in schools even if they were the last books on Earth. GP comment was arguing TKAM belongs in this category, which prompted my initial comment.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago

To Kill a Mockingbird portrays the situation as a white people problem, with the blacks as passive victims requiring good, white actors to save them. No it doesn't. It portrays a trial from the perspective of a lawyer's daughter. The fact that it's portrayed from a white person's point of view doesn't somehow invalidate the story unless you're just anti-white. they support the continuation of power structures that make it systematically difficult for minorities to have equal levels of opportunity. This is a nuance that most people on both sides generally fail to understand. You're projecting an opinion that people with different political opinions are just ignorant of the facts, which is itself ignorant. There are plenty of educated people who disagree with you. To ban this book is to further narrow the field of political opinions acceptable to the liberal educational elites.

joshuamorton 6y ago
You don't actually address the claim gp made. The point of view isn't directly relevant to the story being told. Certainly it helps, but one could imagine a story told from the daughters point of view where the black characters were more active. That's the criticism GP is leveling, and it's nuanced and well informed, and as far as I can tell you didn't actually understand it fully. Lashing out at them as ignorant when you failed to grasp the point they were making is really rude. There book might fit in a curriculum where you look at the representation of black people in media over time, say how they go bad or caricature to sort of flat and irrelevant to ultimately complex and human, but that's probably a college level course, if only because it would require devoting 3-4 books to the same subtopic.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  one could imagine a story told from the daughters point of view where the black characters were more active. That's the criticism GP is leveling I understood their point perfectly, and I'm saying it's wrong. Racism doesn't only have to be described from black people's perspective, and complaining about how there aren't enough central black roles in a story about a young privileged girl learning about racism isn't productive.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    You've managed to miss the point again. > Racism doesn't only have to be described from black people's perspective. This was not the complaint. This was never the complaint. I was explicitly stating that when you claimed this was the complaint, you were misunderstanding. A story told about racism from a white persons POV is fine! What is less okay, and at a minimum needs to be taught in a larger context is a story about racism that treats race and racism as a sort of thing-to-be-observed, both in that Scout is primarily "learning about racism" instead of experiencing it, and black characters who are flat. The white-saviorness of Atticus can't really be denied (especially when you draw in the larger context that Atticus was based on Harper Lee's father, and the novel was quasi-biographical). And it's not even conclusion that Scout draws on her own. She feels justice and fairness for all is good not because she learns through some experience, but because her father tells her so, and she greatly reveres him and respects his authority. Scouts willingness to fight for justice isn't born out of a dislike of racism, but of a need to defend her dad. Like I said, in part of a curriculum that focuses on race in America, I think TKAM is a vital book to teach, but if it's the only exposure to literature-that-focuses-on-race-in-america, which for a lot of people it will be, it's not a good tool, because you aren't going to get exposed to the criticism I just provided in a high school context.
    - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
      racism as a sort of thing-to-be-observed, both in that Scout is primarily "learning about racism" instead of experiencing it If you're trying to teach white people and people who haven't experienced racism about racism, then this is a pretty good way to do it IMO. They're more likely to identify with the main character, and they can follow the logic that makes her think racism is bad. The white-saviorness of Atticus can't really be denied Your bias is showing here, it's not cool.. There were plenty of unsavory characters in the book. Scouts willingness to fight for justice isn't born out of a dislike of racism, but of a need to defend her dad. It starts like this, but they also go into the logic of why her dad thinks this way. She's a girl who learns from her family like all kids. If there are other, better books to read, then recommend other books. Don't ban this one because you don't think it goes far enough.
klmadfejno 6y ago
> The fact that it's portrayed from a white person's point of view doesn't somehow invalidate the story unless you're just anti-white. It doesn't invalidate the story. But if you're having a conversation about race, you would probably benefit from having black perspectives. Otherwise you convey an undertone that outcomes for blacks are for white people to choose. The message we want to teach kids is deeper than racism is bad. This is vaguely addressed in the book's pseudo sequel, go set a watchman, in which Atticus reveals a bigoted side opposing integration. > You're projecting an opinion that people with different political opinions are just ignorant of the facts, which is itself ignorant. There are plenty of educated people who disagree with you. I'm not saying people ignorant of facts, I'm saying they're ignorant of nuance, and I'm saying this is a large chunk of people on both sides. Hence liberal perception of racism and conservative outrage. It doesn't matter if educated people disagree with me. The fact that "the continuation of power structures that make it systematically difficult for minorities to have equal levels of opportunity" is the fundamental argument behind recent race relations conversations.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  Thank you for this comment. In this conentious sub-thread, you addressed the root of my comment directly without adding to the outrage, which is much appreciated. you would probably benefit from having black perspectives. Otherwise you convey an undertone that outcomes for blacks are for white people to choose. The message we want to teach kids is deeper than racism is bad. Counterargument to this: we all have a certain extent of power and influence on those around us. The target demographic for these books is to teach people who aren't discriminated against about racism. Wouldn't it make sense to show a story about a display of personal power and influence to make the world a better place? The outcomes of blacks, whites, and everyone else depends on how we all influence each other, not just how we influence ourselves.

jjk166 6y ago

Well let's temporarily set aside the fact that the study of literature serves a purpose beyond a didactic lesson in morality, or that just because you read a message into a book doesn't mean that everyone else would come to the same conclusion. If the problem really was simply that To Kill A Mockingbird isn't a good way to teach racial history, then the obvious thing to do would be to propose a better book for that purpose. No one would complain if a school said they would swap out To Kill A Mockingbird for some other book so long as that other book was better. While I'm not sure exactly what book that would be, I'm sure one has been produced in the past 60 years. However, people aren't complaining about To Kill A Mockingbird being replaced, they are complaining about To Kill A Mockingbird being explicitly barred from even potentially being used in a curriculum with no argument as to the merits of any alternative. There are countless books that could be but aren't in the curriculum because some better option took their spot, and they don't need to be specifically banned. To Kill A Mockingbird is at worst sub-optimal, but it is by no means inappropriate. Only someone completely incapable of critical thinking would lump To Kill A Mockingbird into the same category as Mein Kampf.

joshuamorton 6y ago
Many schools give teachers freedom to modify their curricula. As such, you cannot replace to kill a mockingbird at the district level without banning it. I'm sure some teachers were already using a different novel (The Hate U Give is apparently popular, but is also banned in some places because it is supposedly anti-police). By barring the book from the curriculum, they force teachers to use better tools. > Only someone completely incapable of critical thinking would lump To Kill A Mockingbird into the same category as Mein Kampf. I don't see anyone doing that.
- jjk166 6y ago
  1. You can give teachers the freedom to modify their curricula while still mandating that some books make it into the curriculum. 2. Banning the book forces the teachers to use a different option, but not necessarily a better option. The ones voluntarily using the "better" book(s) aren't in any way aided by the book being banned, the only teachers the ban affects are those who deliberately decided against the better books. Now imagine, if a teacher gets told that a book is problematic and some alternative is less racist, and that teacher says 'nah, I'm going to stick with the more racist one' do you really trust that teacher to move in the correct direction when given the freedom to select any other unbanned book? 3. Mein Kampf and comparable works are books that fall into the "objectively unnacceptable in the classroom" category that logically should be banned outright from the curriculum. These are books that are not only inferior to other options, they should not be taught in schools even if they were the last books on Earth. GP comment was arguing TKAM belongs in this category, which prompted my initial comment.