New Youngkin ad starring a parent who wanted Toni Morrison's 'Beloved' removed from schools because

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the ones that need advanced classes should absolutely be educated with exposure to advanced novels like beloved. If a kid is not ready for advanced lit classes, that is fine but some are ready.

Why is it advanced? The sex?

DP. It is advanced because it is complex piece of literature that addresses issues like slavery in an unsanitized way. Sexual violence was a fact of life for slaves, and sophisticated literature shouldn’t shy away from that because it will make people uncomfortable. Frankly, important literature should make people uncomfortable - it should force them to confront the ways in which they’ve shielded themselves from atrocities in order to ignore their own biases and justify things like continuing to glorify confederate generals. When those people fought to maintain slavery, part of what they were fighting to maintain was the victimization of people like those in Beloved (which was inspired by a true story). It’s important that we fully understand what that era was about beyond the profitability of cotton and tobacco. Glossing over what happened to slave with a passing reference to “he sexually violated her” and then moving on lets people continue to pretend it wasn’t as bad as it was.

It’s uncomfortable for you to read about it or think about it? Good. Imagine how “uncomfortable” it is for those who lived it. Imagine how uncomfortable it still is for some people who are the descendants of it.

I'm sure we can find equally advanced novels on the topic that don't contain explicit sex. I had to read Beloved in high school and honestly it was atrocious. The grammar was so poor it was barely English.

If you don’t understand why Beloved was written that way, the book must have gone completely over your head. That you were unable to understand Beloved isn’t a ringing endorsement for your position here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the ones that need advanced classes should absolutely be educated with exposure to advanced novels like beloved. If a kid is not ready for advanced lit classes, that is fine but some are ready.

Why is it advanced? The sex?

DP. It is advanced because it is complex piece of literature that addresses issues like slavery in an unsanitized way. Sexual violence was a fact of life for slaves, and sophisticated literature shouldn’t shy away from that because it will make people uncomfortable. Frankly, important literature should make people uncomfortable - it should force them to confront the ways in which they’ve shielded themselves from atrocities in order to ignore their own biases and justify things like continuing to glorify confederate generals. When those people fought to maintain slavery, part of what they were fighting to maintain was the victimization of people like those in Beloved (which was inspired by a true story). It’s important that we fully understand what that era was about beyond the profitability of cotton and tobacco. Glossing over what happened to slave with a passing reference to “he sexually violated her” and then moving on lets people continue to pretend it wasn’t as bad as it was.

It’s uncomfortable for you to read about it or think about it? Good. Imagine how “uncomfortable” it is for those who lived it. Imagine how uncomfortable it still is for some people who are the descendants of it.

I'm sure we can find equally advanced novels on the topic that don't contain explicit sex. I had to read Beloved in high school and honestly it was atrocious. The grammar was so poor it was barely English.

Interesting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the ones that need advanced classes should absolutely be educated with exposure to advanced novels like beloved. If a kid is not ready for advanced lit classes, that is fine but some are ready.

Why is it advanced? The sex?

DP. It is advanced because it is complex piece of literature that addresses issues like slavery in an unsanitized way. Sexual violence was a fact of life for slaves, and sophisticated literature shouldn’t shy away from that because it will make people uncomfortable. Frankly, important literature should make people uncomfortable - it should force them to confront the ways in which they’ve shielded themselves from atrocities in order to ignore their own biases and justify things like continuing to glorify confederate generals. When those people fought to maintain slavery, part of what they were fighting to maintain was the victimization of people like those in Beloved (which was inspired by a true story). It’s important that we fully understand what that era was about beyond the profitability of cotton and tobacco. Glossing over what happened to slave with a passing reference to “he sexually violated her” and then moving on lets people continue to pretend it wasn’t as bad as it was.

It’s uncomfortable for you to read about it or think about it? Good. Imagine how “uncomfortable” it is for those who lived it. Imagine how uncomfortable it still is for some people who are the descendants of it.

I'm sure we can find equally advanced novels on the topic that don't contain explicit sex. I had to read Beloved in high school and honestly it was atrocious. The grammar was so poor it was barely English.

Chaucer and Shakespeare are hard to read also. I guess we can throw those out with Beloved.

[Anonymous]

Beloved was deliberately written in a stream-of-consciousness style, similar to poetry. This was a choice on Toni Morrison's part, not because she doesn't understand standard grammar. Ulysses by James Joyce, or the Sound and the fury by Faulkner are other examples, and would be an aspect of the book that students would discuss if they read the it in an AP class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm sure we can find equally advanced novels on the topic that don't contain explicit sex. I had to read Beloved in high school and honestly it was atrocious. The grammar was so poor it was barely English.

I personally hate The Grapes of Wrath.

And it uses non-standard English. For example, the famous speech of Tom Joad: "Then it don’ matter. Then I’ll be all aroun’ in the dark. I’ll be ever’where— wherever you look. Wherever they’s a fight so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Wherever they’s a cop bearin’ up a guy, I’ll be there. If Casy knowed, why, I’ll be in the way guys yell when they’re mad an’— I’ll be in the way kids laugh when they’re hungry an’ they know supper’s ready. An’ when our folks eat the stuff they raise an’ live in the houses they build— why, I’ll be there. See? God, I’m talkin’ like Casy. Comes of thinkin’ about him so much. Seems like I can see him sometimes.”

Ban The Grapes of Wrath!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm sure we can find equally advanced novels on the topic that don't contain explicit sex. I had to read Beloved in high school and honestly it was atrocious. The grammar was so poor it was barely English.

I personally hate The Grapes of Wrath.

And it uses non-standard English. For example, the famous speech of Tom Joad: "Then it don’ matter. Then I’ll be all aroun’ in the dark. I’ll be ever’where— wherever you look. Wherever they’s a fight so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Wherever they’s a cop bearin’ up a guy, I’ll be there. If Casy knowed, why, I’ll be in the way guys yell when they’re mad an’— I’ll be in the way kids laugh when they’re hungry an’ they know supper’s ready. An’ when our folks eat the stuff they raise an’ live in the houses they build— why, I’ll be there. See? God, I’m talkin’ like Casy. Comes of thinkin’ about him so much. Seems like I can see him sometimes.”

Ban The Grapes of Wrath!

Yes! High schoolers do not need to read about women breastfeeding grown men. Sicko perverts!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I was undecided who to vote for in this election, but for Youngkin to placate the entitlement of mothers like this?
Well, it's sealed the deal for me.

This ad was a huge mistake.

+1,000,000. Youngkin just lost my vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm sure we can find equally advanced novels on the topic that don't contain explicit sex. I had to read Beloved in high school and honestly it was atrocious. The grammar was so poor it was barely English.

I personally hate The Grapes of Wrath.

And it uses non-standard English. For example, the famous speech of Tom Joad: "Then it don’ matter. Then I’ll be all aroun’ in the dark. I’ll be ever’where— wherever you look. Wherever they’s a fight so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Wherever they’s a cop bearin’ up a guy, I’ll be there. If Casy knowed, why, I’ll be in the way guys yell when they’re mad an’— I’ll be in the way kids laugh when they’re hungry an’ they know supper’s ready. An’ when our folks eat the stuff they raise an’ live in the houses they build— why, I’ll be there. See? God, I’m talkin’ like Casy. Comes of thinkin’ about him so much. Seems like I can see him sometimes.”

Ban The Grapes of Wrath!

Y’all ain’t right in the knocker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked by the level of helicopter parenting here that is being humored.

My mother was a Christian fundamentalist helicopter parent before it was even socially acceptable and it would not have ever even occurred to her to lobby for banning books. I’m sure she had no idea what we were reading in school.

Oh how the times have changed.

No one is talking about banning books. The law that was vetoed would simply allow parents to be notified that a particular book with graphic content was going to be assigned in a class and to allow the parent to decide that they want their kid to not read it and choose an alternate book.

+1. Families have choices thanks to this law. I’m not Christian, R voter or helicopter parent. I simply want to teach and keep family values.

In other words, you are a book burner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I was undecided who to vote for in this election, but for Youngkin to placate the entitlement of mothers like this?
Well, it's sealed the deal for me.

This ad was a huge mistake.

+1,000,000. Youngkin just lost my vote.

I was never really on the fence but I didn’t like McAuliffe and wasn’t sure if I was going to vote at all. This ad would be laughable if it wasn’t so disgusting. Shame on Youngkin and anyone who supports him for thinking this is what “suburban moms“ want.

[jsteele]

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1011307.page