Anonymous wrote:Ironically the speaker who called the Catholic Church racist to the SR middle school was a white person who unlike Harper Lee actually was “speaking to the black experience” but that’s okay at SR if you’re pushing progressive politics and trendy racial ideology. Not so much if you authored a classic American novel.

If SR was half as serious about teaching girls math and science as it was about teaching them woke grievance politics and how they all are victims, SR students of all colors wouldn’t have to worry so much about being victims bc they would have the tools to succeed.

Anonymous wrote:

Oh good, we have the Catholic police out again attacking Stone Ridge. Wouldn't be a SR thread without it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To some people it isnt an insane suggestion. Again, unless you indicate that it is ironic or insane people are going to take what you wrote seriously.

I am not a mind reader.

Well I guess we've really jumped the shark when people think that a proposal to demolish Mount Vernon is serious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What are you talking about? I never said not to assign The Bluest eye or invisible man. We are talking about To kill a mockingbird which some peope think it is no longer worth reading. I disagree.

Got it?

Do you think that a book has to be assigned by school to be considered worth reading? Deciding not to read in this year's curriculum it does not mean anyone thinks it isn't worth reading.

I'm an AA woman and I think TKAM is a great book to assign - we can talk about all those things about it that are flawed and how thinking about race has evolved. I'm also happy not to assign it and instead delve into some of the hundreds of other great books.

Let's face it pp. Most parents are working and aren't going to force their 12 year old to read TKMB. They wont have the time or energy. Teachers can provide background and provide necessary talking points.

If schools don't assign it than most kids won't read it. And that is a shame.

Enough with the working parent excuses. It’s 2021. Most parents are working parents. No one works 24/7.

If it’s important to you to have your kid read TKAM, you’ll make time and do it. If it isn’t, you won’t. You don’t need the schools to choose the books you want your kids to read.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What are you talking about? I never said not to assign The Bluest eye or invisible man. We are talking about To kill a mockingbird which some peope think it is no longer worth reading. I disagree.

Got it?

Do you think that a book has to be assigned by school to be considered worth reading? Deciding not to read in this year's curriculum it does not mean anyone thinks it isn't worth reading.

I'm an AA woman and I think TKAM is a great book to assign - we can talk about all those things about it that are flawed and how thinking about race has evolved. I'm also happy not to assign it and instead delve into some of the hundreds of other great books.

Let's face it pp. Most parents are working and aren't going to force their 12 year old to read TKMB. They wont have the time or energy. Teachers can provide background and provide necessary talking points.

If schools don't assign it than most kids won't read it. And that is a shame.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Another +. I am very disappointed that SR is taking this radical track. The speaker that called the Catholic Church racist to a bunch of middle schoolers a few weeks back was over the top and a terrible message fir young girls exploring their faith.

Hardly surprising. Stone Ridge is extremely loosely Catholic, does not adhere to the teachings of the Church, and openly supports and endorses positions that are directly at odds with the teaching of the Magisterium.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Ironically the speaker who called the Catholic Church racist to the SR middle school was a white person who unlike Harper Lee actually was “speaking to the black experience” but that’s okay at SR if you’re pushing progressive politics and trendy racial ideology. Not so much if you authored a classic American novel.

If SR was half as serious about teaching girls math and science as it was about teaching them woke grievance politics and how they all are victims, SR students of all colors wouldn’t have to worry so much about being victims bc they would have the tools to succeed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Another +. I am very disappointed that SR is taking this radical track. The speaker that called the Catholic Church racist to a bunch of middle schoolers a few weeks back was over the top and a terrible message fir young girls exploring their faith.

Hardly surprising. Stone Ridge is extremely loosely Catholic, does not adhere to the teachings of the Church, and openly supports and endorses positions that are directly at odds with the teaching of the Magisterium.

Anonymous wrote:

Another +. I am very disappointed that SR is taking this radical track. The speaker that called the Catholic Church racist to a bunch of middle schoolers a few weeks back was over the top and a terrible message fir young girls exploring their faith.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But also pretty accurate...

-SR parent

+1

+100

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But also pretty accurate...

-SR parent

+1