To kill a mockingbird at SR

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am personally tired of being told by those who have never experienced racism, what racism is or feels like. Those who choose to remain willfully ignorant are the problem. The frequent fieldtrips to Mt. Vernon with the gleeful tour of the slave quarters where the true conditions of slavery are down played to the reading of TKPMB

Gleeful tour of the slave quarters? Please expand on this.

Different P: When I was about 7, I went to Mt. Vernon for a school trip. I remember a white woman coming over to me and asking: “Don’t you wish you lived here back then?” I looked her in the eye for a moment and said “No”. I don’t know if she imagined that I would imagine myself “back then” as a white Southern belle, if she thought I’d be delighted by the prospect of envisioning myself as a slave, or something else. I hope the tour guides have upped their game since then?

Go read Mt Vernons webpage, the section on slaves. Let’s just say they have not upped their game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When Harper Lee wrote the novel, she did it in part to get the story of the Scottsboro trial into the hands of white Americans who may not otherwise pay much attention to the true account of nine black boys being falsely accused of rape and subsequently thrown into jail for decades. This story highlights injustice, but it does so through the flawed, young eyes of a white protagonist, somebody who is learning the injustices of her surroundings as well as her own privilege. In the first third of the novel, Atticus talks to Scout several times about their privilege in Maycomb society, and he does so in a way that acknowledges the past injustices committed by their ancestors and the false graces granted to the Finch name. (In the first chapter, the adult Scout references the fact one of their ancestors owned 3 slaves.) Atticus understands his society. In fact, he knows he is going to lose Tom Robinson’s case, saying that Tom lost “a hundred years ago.” He represents a man trying to teach his children right from wrong.

The book discusses racism in a remarkable way for the 1960s, if we are to judge the book by its own time. The title itself is a reference to innocence and the fact society often kills it, a statement that can apply to either Tom Robinson or Boo Radley.

Atticus says that we can’t really know somebody until we walk a mile in their place. I read that when I was a high schooler MANY years ago, and I admit that statement helped me develop a moral compass. It encourages a person to see past their own anger, misunderstandings, and prejudice. I am a better person because I remember that lesson and it puts a check on my own bad thoughts. I understand why some schools may remove it, but in my own family I didn’t wait for schools to teach it. We read it last summer.

This is exactly the way they would teach it which is why it can’t be taught right now. This poster still have a 1980’s understanding of the text.

If they could update the teaching to be more current it might be able to be taught, but “you can’t handle the truth” right now, so it can’t be taught

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When Harper Lee wrote the novel, she did it in part to get the story of the Scottsboro trial into the hands of white Americans who may not otherwise pay much attention to the true account of nine black boys being falsely accused of rape and subsequently thrown into jail for decades. This story highlights injustice, but it does so through the flawed, young eyes of a white protagonist, somebody who is learning the injustices of her surroundings as well as her own privilege. In the first third of the novel, Atticus talks to Scout several times about their privilege in Maycomb society, and he does so in a way that acknowledges the past injustices committed by their ancestors and the false graces granted to the Finch name. (In the first chapter, the adult Scout references the fact one of their ancestors owned 3 slaves.) Atticus understands his society. In fact, he knows he is going to lose Tom Robinson’s case, saying that Tom lost “a hundred years ago.” He represents a man trying to teach his children right from wrong.

The book discusses racism in a remarkable way for the 1960s, if we are to judge the book by its own time. The title itself is a reference to innocence and the fact society often kills it, a statement that can apply to either Tom Robinson or Boo Radley.

Atticus says that we can’t really know somebody until we walk a mile in their place. I read that when I was a high schooler MANY years ago, and I admit that statement helped me develop a moral compass. It encourages a person to see past their own anger, misunderstandings, and prejudice. I am a better person because I remember that lesson and it puts a check on my own bad thoughts. I understand why some schools may remove it, but in my own family I didn’t wait for schools to teach it. We read it last summer.

This is exactly the way they would teach it which is why it can’t be taught right now. This poster still have a 1980’s understanding of the text.

If they could update the teaching to be more current it might be able to be taught, but “you can’t handle the truth” right now, so it can’t be taught

This is confusing. How is acknowledging the evils of slavery, racism, and segregation a 1980s response? How would you recommend we update the teaching so this novel can still be taught?

[Anonymous]

Silly for All Girls Schools in particular to ban a book by a rare female writer. Message-- oooo racism is bad. Sexism-- no problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When Harper Lee wrote the novel, she did it in part to get the story of the Scottsboro trial into the hands of white Americans who may not otherwise pay much attention to the true account of nine black boys being falsely accused of rape and subsequently thrown into jail for decades. This story highlights injustice, but it does so through the flawed, young eyes of a white protagonist, somebody who is learning the injustices of her surroundings as well as her own privilege. In the first third of the novel, Atticus talks to Scout several times about their privilege in Maycomb society, and he does so in a way that acknowledges the past injustices committed by their ancestors and the false graces granted to the Finch name. (In the first chapter, the adult Scout references the fact one of their ancestors owned 3 slaves.) Atticus understands his society. In fact, he knows he is going to lose Tom Robinson’s case, saying that Tom lost “a hundred years ago.” He represents a man trying to teach his children right from wrong.

The book discusses racism in a remarkable way for the 1960s, if we are to judge the book by its own time. The title itself is a reference to innocence and the fact society often kills it, a statement that can apply to either Tom Robinson or Boo Radley.

Atticus says that we can’t really know somebody until we walk a mile in their place. I read that when I was a high schooler MANY years ago, and I admit that statement helped me develop a moral compass. It encourages a person to see past their own anger, misunderstandings, and prejudice. I am a better person because I remember that lesson and it puts a check on my own bad thoughts. I understand why some schools may remove it, but in my own family I didn’t wait for schools to teach it. We read it last summer.

This is exactly the way they would teach it which is why it can’t be taught right now. This poster still have a 1980’s understanding of the text.

If they could update the teaching to be more current it might be able to be taught, but “you can’t handle the truth” right now, so it can’t be taught

This is confusing. How is acknowledging the evils of slavery, racism, and segregation a 1980s response? How would you recommend we update the teaching so this novel can still be taught?

There have been posts about this already. Did you post without reading the thread?

It’s how you view things about racism, slavery and segregation through 80’s eyes. Just like the book is written through the eyes of someone in the 60’s. You don’t even address Hitler or how Harper Lee’s views are flawed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When Harper Lee wrote the novel, she did it in part to get the story of the Scottsboro trial into the hands of white Americans who may not otherwise pay much attention to the true account of nine black boys being falsely accused of rape and subsequently thrown into jail for decades. This story highlights injustice, but it does so through the flawed, young eyes of a white protagonist, somebody who is learning the injustices of her surroundings as well as her own privilege. In the first third of the novel, Atticus talks to Scout several times about their privilege in Maycomb society, and he does so in a way that acknowledges the past injustices committed by their ancestors and the false graces granted to the Finch name. (In the first chapter, the adult Scout references the fact one of their ancestors owned 3 slaves.) Atticus understands his society. In fact, he knows he is going to lose Tom Robinson’s case, saying that Tom lost “a hundred years ago.” He represents a man trying to teach his children right from wrong.

The book discusses racism in a remarkable way for the 1960s, if we are to judge the book by its own time. The title itself is a reference to innocence and the fact society often kills it, a statement that can apply to either Tom Robinson or Boo Radley.

Atticus says that we can’t really know somebody until we walk a mile in their place. I read that when I was a high schooler MANY years ago, and I admit that statement helped me develop a moral compass. It encourages a person to see past their own anger, misunderstandings, and prejudice. I am a better person because I remember that lesson and it puts a check on my own bad thoughts. I understand why some schools may remove it, but in my own family I didn’t wait for schools to teach it. We read it last summer.

This is exactly the way they would teach it which is why it can’t be taught right now. This poster still have a 1980’s understanding of the text.

If they could update the teaching to be more current it might be able to be taught, but “you can’t handle the truth” right now, so it can’t be taught

This is confusing. How is acknowledging the evils of slavery, racism, and segregation a 1980s response? How would you recommend we update the teaching so this novel can still be taught?

There have been posts about this already. Did you post without reading the thread?

It’s how you view things about racism, slavery and segregation through 80’s eyes. Just like the book is written through the eyes of someone in the 60’s. You don’t even address Hitler or how Harper Lee’s views are flawed.

I did read the entire thread. I like to be informed before I post. What I see is that there are obviously many people who have read the novel and there are valid arguments for and against its inclusion in a curriculum. It's also obvious there are posters who don't remember the story clearly... or they haven't read it. I'll comment on the Hitler reference since you mentioned it. When Hitler is brought up in the novel, Atticus scowls. He calls Hitler a "maniac," yet he also says it isn't okay to hate anybody. I have always had trouble with that statement, but I think Lee is showing Atticus's flaws here. (He can't hate anybody? At some point, is it "bad" to be so unrelentingly "good"? Is it possible that Atticus is stubborn and flawed himself?) Yet Scout also has trouble with Atticus's answer and goes elsewhere... to Jem. Scout, in the process of learning about the world around her, had noticed her teacher's hypocrisy. Her teacher truly hates Hitler, but she makes derogatory comments toward the African Americans in her own community. Scout wants somebody to explain to her how somebody can be livid about Hitler's treatment of the Jews, but then actively support discrimination and persecution in their own town. It's one of two times Scout notices the hypocrisy of the white community. (The other is the book club, which is performatively worried about Africa but not Helen Robinson.)

I'm still confused about 80s eyes, though. All I've done is reference the novel directly.

[Anonymous]

That’s a very thoughtful response. It discusses tkam like it would hopefully be taught by a good teacher. It also shows the layers and nuance in tkam that have made it a classic. It’s not a book that can or should be reduced to a one sentence description, and the characters in the book are the same way.

I think some people here and I assume the admin at SR don’t like tkam because they only want books that relentlessly push a specific racial narrative and include shallow and unrealistic characters that are all good or all bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When Harper Lee wrote the novel, she did it in part to get the story of the Scottsboro trial into the hands of white Americans who may not otherwise pay much attention to the true account of nine black boys being falsely accused of rape and subsequently thrown into jail for decades. This story highlights injustice, but it does so through the flawed, young eyes of a white protagonist, somebody who is learning the injustices of her surroundings as well as her own privilege. In the first third of the novel, Atticus talks to Scout several times about their privilege in Maycomb society, and he does so in a way that acknowledges the past injustices committed by their ancestors and the false graces granted to the Finch name. (In the first chapter, the adult Scout references the fact one of their ancestors owned 3 slaves.) Atticus understands his society. In fact, he knows he is going to lose Tom Robinson’s case, saying that Tom lost “a hundred years ago.” He represents a man trying to teach his children right from wrong.

The book discusses racism in a remarkable way for the 1960s, if we are to judge the book by its own time. The title itself is a reference to innocence and the fact society often kills it, a statement that can apply to either Tom Robinson or Boo Radley.

Atticus says that we can’t really know somebody until we walk a mile in their place. I read that when I was a high schooler MANY years ago, and I admit that statement helped me develop a moral compass. It encourages a person to see past their own anger, misunderstandings, and prejudice. I am a better person because I remember that lesson and it puts a check on my own bad thoughts. I understand why some schools may remove it, but in my own family I didn’t wait for schools to teach it. We read it last summer.

This is exactly the way they would teach it which is why it can’t be taught right now. This poster still have a 1980’s understanding of the text.

If they could update the teaching to be more current it might be able to be taught, but “you can’t handle the truth” right now, so it can’t be taught

This is confusing. How is acknowledging the evils of slavery, racism, and segregation a 1980s response? How would you recommend we update the teaching so this novel can still be taught?

There have been posts about this already. Did you post without reading the thread?

It’s how you view things about racism, slavery and segregation through 80’s eyes. Just like the book is written through the eyes of someone in the 60’s. You don’t even address Hitler or how Harper Lee’s views are flawed.

I did read the entire thread. I like to be informed before I post. What I see is that there are obviously many people who have read the novel and there are valid arguments for and against its inclusion in a curriculum. It's also obvious there are posters who don't remember the story clearly... or they haven't read it. I'll comment on the Hitler reference since you mentioned it. When Hitler is brought up in the novel, Atticus scowls. He calls Hitler a "maniac," yet he also says it isn't okay to hate anybody. I have always had trouble with that statement, but I think Lee is showing Atticus's flaws here. (He can't hate anybody? At some point, is it "bad" to be so unrelentingly "good"? Is it possible that Atticus is stubborn and flawed himself?) Yet Scout also has trouble with Atticus's answer and goes elsewhere... to Jem. Scout, in the process of learning about the world around her, had noticed her teacher's hypocrisy. Her teacher truly hates Hitler, but she makes derogatory comments toward the African Americans in her own community. Scout wants somebody to explain to her how somebody can be livid about Hitler's treatment of the Jews, but then actively support discrimination and persecution in their own town. It's one of two times Scout notices the hypocrisy of the white community. (The other is the book club, which is performatively worried about Africa but not Helen Robinson.)

I'm still confused about 80s eyes, though. All I've done is reference the novel directly.

Np here. Thank you for this admirably clear and thoughtful post. I don’t get the 80s point either - I think maybe that poster wants a fight but doesn’t actually have a clear argument?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When Harper Lee wrote the novel, she did it in part to get the story of the Scottsboro trial into the hands of white Americans who may not otherwise pay much attention to the true account of nine black boys being falsely accused of rape and subsequently thrown into jail for decades. This story highlights injustice, but it does so through the flawed, young eyes of a white protagonist, somebody who is learning the injustices of her surroundings as well as her own privilege. In the first third of the novel, Atticus talks to Scout several times about their privilege in Maycomb society, and he does so in a way that acknowledges the past injustices committed by their ancestors and the false graces granted to the Finch name. (In the first chapter, the adult Scout references the fact one of their ancestors owned 3 slaves.) Atticus understands his society. In fact, he knows he is going to lose Tom Robinson’s case, saying that Tom lost “a hundred years ago.” He represents a man trying to teach his children right from wrong.

The book discusses racism in a remarkable way for the 1960s, if we are to judge the book by its own time. The title itself is a reference to innocence and the fact society often kills it, a statement that can apply to either Tom Robinson or Boo Radley.

Atticus says that we can’t really know somebody until we walk a mile in their place. I read that when I was a high schooler MANY years ago, and I admit that statement helped me develop a moral compass. It encourages a person to see past their own anger, misunderstandings, and prejudice. I am a better person because I remember that lesson and it puts a check on my own bad thoughts. I understand why some schools may remove it, but in my own family I didn’t wait for schools to teach it. We read it last summer.

This is exactly the way they would teach it which is why it can’t be taught right now. This poster still have a 1980’s understanding of the text.

If they could update the teaching to be more current it might be able to be taught, but “you can’t handle the truth” right now, so it can’t be taught

This is confusing. How is acknowledging the evils of slavery, racism, and segregation a 1980s response? How would you recommend we update the teaching so this novel can still be taught?

There have been posts about this already. Did you post without reading the thread?

It’s how you view things about racism, slavery and segregation through 80’s eyes. Just like the book is written through the eyes of someone in the 60’s. You don’t even address Hitler or how Harper Lee’s views are flawed.

I did read the entire thread. I like to be informed before I post. What I see is that there are obviously many people who have read the novel and there are valid arguments for and against its inclusion in a curriculum. It's also obvious there are posters who don't remember the story clearly... or they haven't read it. I'll comment on the Hitler reference since you mentioned it. When Hitler is brought up in the novel, Atticus scowls. He calls Hitler a "maniac," yet he also says it isn't okay to hate anybody. I have always had trouble with that statement, but I think Lee is showing Atticus's flaws here. (He can't hate anybody? At some point, is it "bad" to be so unrelentingly "good"? Is it possible that Atticus is stubborn and flawed himself?) Yet Scout also has trouble with Atticus's answer and goes elsewhere... to Jem. Scout, in the process of learning about the world around her, had noticed her teacher's hypocrisy. Her teacher truly hates Hitler, but she makes derogatory comments toward the African Americans in her own community. Scout wants somebody to explain to her how somebody can be livid about Hitler's treatment of the Jews, but then actively support discrimination and persecution in their own town. It's one of two times Scout notices the hypocrisy of the white community. (The other is the book club, which is performatively worried about Africa but not Helen Robinson.)

I'm still confused about 80s eyes, though. All I've done is reference the novel directly.

You’ve completely missed the point of the whole Hitler portion of the book, but it’s probably how you learned that view in the 80’s.

Google it, educate yourself. But the whole point of not teaching it is because it will most likely be taught the way you understand it, which is old and out of date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s a very thoughtful response. It discusses tkam like it would hopefully be taught by a good teacher. It also shows the layers and nuance in tkam that have made it a classic. It’s not a book that can or should be reduced to a one sentence description, and the characters in the book are the same way.

I think some people here and I assume the admin at SR don’t like tkam because they only want books that relentlessly push a specific racial narrative and include shallow and unrealistic characters that are all good or all bad.

That sounds right to me. We desperately need more books and discussions about ambiguity, imperfection, shades of gray, and differing perspectives, not fewer—and yet we are headed in the opposite direction. What a mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When Harper Lee wrote the novel, she did it in part to get the story of the Scottsboro trial into the hands of white Americans who may not otherwise pay much attention to the true account of nine black boys being falsely accused of rape and subsequently thrown into jail for decades. This story highlights injustice, but it does so through the flawed, young eyes of a white protagonist, somebody who is learning the injustices of her surroundings as well as her own privilege. In the first third of the novel, Atticus talks to Scout several times about their privilege in Maycomb society, and he does so in a way that acknowledges the past injustices committed by their ancestors and the false graces granted to the Finch name. (In the first chapter, the adult Scout references the fact one of their ancestors owned 3 slaves.) Atticus understands his society. In fact, he knows he is going to lose Tom Robinson’s case, saying that Tom lost “a hundred years ago.” He represents a man trying to teach his children right from wrong.

The book discusses racism in a remarkable way for the 1960s, if we are to judge the book by its own time. The title itself is a reference to innocence and the fact society often kills it, a statement that can apply to either Tom Robinson or Boo Radley.

Atticus says that we can’t really know somebody until we walk a mile in their place. I read that when I was a high schooler MANY years ago, and I admit that statement helped me develop a moral compass. It encourages a person to see past their own anger, misunderstandings, and prejudice. I am a better person because I remember that lesson and it puts a check on my own bad thoughts. I understand why some schools may remove it, but in my own family I didn’t wait for schools to teach it. We read it last summer.

This is exactly the way they would teach it which is why it can’t be taught right now. This poster still have a 1980’s understanding of the text.

If they could update the teaching to be more current it might be able to be taught, but “you can’t handle the truth” right now, so it can’t be taught

This is confusing. How is acknowledging the evils of slavery, racism, and segregation a 1980s response? How would you recommend we update the teaching so this novel can still be taught?

There have been posts about this already. Did you post without reading the thread?

It’s how you view things about racism, slavery and segregation through 80’s eyes. Just like the book is written through the eyes of someone in the 60’s. You don’t even address Hitler or how Harper Lee’s views are flawed.

I did read the entire thread. I like to be informed before I post. What I see is that there are obviously many people who have read the novel and there are valid arguments for and against its inclusion in a curriculum. It's also obvious there are posters who don't remember the story clearly... or they haven't read it. I'll comment on the Hitler reference since you mentioned it. When Hitler is brought up in the novel, Atticus scowls. He calls Hitler a "maniac," yet he also says it isn't okay to hate anybody. I have always had trouble with that statement, but I think Lee is showing Atticus's flaws here. (He can't hate anybody? At some point, is it "bad" to be so unrelentingly "good"? Is it possible that Atticus is stubborn and flawed himself?) Yet Scout also has trouble with Atticus's answer and goes elsewhere... to Jem. Scout, in the process of learning about the world around her, had noticed her teacher's hypocrisy. Her teacher truly hates Hitler, but she makes derogatory comments toward the African Americans in her own community. Scout wants somebody to explain to her how somebody can be livid about Hitler's treatment of the Jews, but then actively support discrimination and persecution in their own town. It's one of two times Scout notices the hypocrisy of the white community. (The other is the book club, which is performatively worried about Africa but not Helen Robinson.)

I'm still confused about 80s eyes, though. All I've done is reference the novel directly.

You’ve completely missed the point of the whole Hitler portion of the book, but it’s probably how you learned that view in the 80’s.

Google it, educate yourself. But the whole point of not teaching it is because it will most likely be taught the way you understand it, which is old and out of date.

Dp. If you have time to keep raising this point I think you have time to articulate it. Please, what is 80s about above? Put in a link if that’s easier. Don’t just tell people to “google it” as that tends to be code for “I can’t back up my argument.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When Harper Lee wrote the novel, she did it in part to get the story of the Scottsboro trial into the hands of white Americans who may not otherwise pay much attention to the true account of nine black boys being falsely accused of rape and subsequently thrown into jail for decades. This story highlights injustice, but it does so through the flawed, young eyes of a white protagonist, somebody who is learning the injustices of her surroundings as well as her own privilege. In the first third of the novel, Atticus talks to Scout several times about their privilege in Maycomb society, and he does so in a way that acknowledges the past injustices committed by their ancestors and the false graces granted to the Finch name. (In the first chapter, the adult Scout references the fact one of their ancestors owned 3 slaves.) Atticus understands his society. In fact, he knows he is going to lose Tom Robinson’s case, saying that Tom lost “a hundred years ago.” He represents a man trying to teach his children right from wrong.

The book discusses racism in a remarkable way for the 1960s, if we are to judge the book by its own time. The title itself is a reference to innocence and the fact society often kills it, a statement that can apply to either Tom Robinson or Boo Radley.

Atticus says that we can’t really know somebody until we walk a mile in their place. I read that when I was a high schooler MANY years ago, and I admit that statement helped me develop a moral compass. It encourages a person to see past their own anger, misunderstandings, and prejudice. I am a better person because I remember that lesson and it puts a check on my own bad thoughts. I understand why some schools may remove it, but in my own family I didn’t wait for schools to teach it. We read it last summer.

This is exactly the way they would teach it which is why it can’t be taught right now. This poster still have a 1980’s understanding of the text.

If they could update the teaching to be more current it might be able to be taught, but “you can’t handle the truth” right now, so it can’t be taught

This is confusing. How is acknowledging the evils of slavery, racism, and segregation a 1980s response? How would you recommend we update the teaching so this novel can still be taught?

There have been posts about this already. Did you post without reading the thread?

It’s how you view things about racism, slavery and segregation through 80’s eyes. Just like the book is written through the eyes of someone in the 60’s. You don’t even address Hitler or how Harper Lee’s views are flawed.

I did read the entire thread. I like to be informed before I post. What I see is that there are obviously many people who have read the novel and there are valid arguments for and against its inclusion in a curriculum. It's also obvious there are posters who don't remember the story clearly... or they haven't read it. I'll comment on the Hitler reference since you mentioned it. When Hitler is brought up in the novel, Atticus scowls. He calls Hitler a "maniac," yet he also says it isn't okay to hate anybody. I have always had trouble with that statement, but I think Lee is showing Atticus's flaws here. (He can't hate anybody? At some point, is it "bad" to be so unrelentingly "good"? Is it possible that Atticus is stubborn and flawed himself?) Yet Scout also has trouble with Atticus's answer and goes elsewhere... to Jem. Scout, in the process of learning about the world around her, had noticed her teacher's hypocrisy. Her teacher truly hates Hitler, but she makes derogatory comments toward the African Americans in her own community. Scout wants somebody to explain to her how somebody can be livid about Hitler's treatment of the Jews, but then actively support discrimination and persecution in their own town. It's one of two times Scout notices the hypocrisy of the white community. (The other is the book club, which is performatively worried about Africa but not Helen Robinson.)

I'm still confused about 80s eyes, though. All I've done is reference the novel directly.

You’ve completely missed the point of the whole Hitler portion of the book, but it’s probably how you learned that view in the 80’s.

Google it, educate yourself. But the whole point of not teaching it is because it will most likely be taught the way you understand it, which is old and out of date.

Sigh. Do you really think people cannot engage directly with literature and come up with their own interpretations? I had read tkam a few times over the course of my life and found new things to appreciate and wrestle with each time. On no occasion did anyone tell me how to think about it! If your own experience with literature has been limited to receiving didactic instruction I am (and I say this genuinely and with love) so sorry for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Google it, educate yourself. But the whole point of not teaching it is because it will most likely be taught the way you understand it, which is old and out of date.

No, that's not good enough. That is not an adequate answer in the context of a debate.

Explain your premise. Nobody knows what you mean by an "80s idea of the novel". You need to explain what you mean by using facts and examples.

There are many thoughtful posts in this thread that show a willingness to listen and learn.

Conversely, there are posts like yours which are insulting, generalized, and ignorant.

Telling someone to Google something is the usual response of those who either don't know or can't explain.

[Anonymous]

You know Atticus is not the moral, kind, etc person you describe.

Atticus is a racist... he says the KKK is a political organization, he says they don’t exist anymore in his town.

He’s not a good guy, he’s a bad guy who did a good thing.

Plus it’s a white savior role, which is a flaw in the whole narrative of the book. All classics are flawed. You didn’t learn why TKAM is flawed?

What is the major flaw? It’s a white savior book who dehumanizes and ignores all black characters. The story is about a black man falsely accused, but he is on the fringe of the story... portrayed as helpless, stupid and as useful as a mockingbird.

How is that a problem/flaw in the writing of the book?

Did you learn any of that in the 80’s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Google it, educate yourself. But the whole point of not teaching it is because it will most likely be taught the way you understand it, which is old and out of date.

No, that's not good enough. That is not an adequate answer in the context of a debate.

Explain your premise. Nobody knows what you mean by an "80s idea of the novel". You need to explain what you mean by using facts and examples.

There are many thoughtful posts in this thread that show a willingness to listen and learn.

Conversely, there are posts like yours which are insulting, generalized, and ignorant.

Telling someone to Google something is the usual response of those who either don't know or can't explain.

Here is a “taste” and here is the problem with white people they refuse to educate themselves, they put the burden on others. DO.THE.WORK.YOURSELF

WORK ON YOURSELF.