Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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the whole point of not teaching it is because it will most likely be taught the way you understand it, which is old and out of date.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.
I'm the poster who was initially told to "educate" myself. I haven't responded until now, and I thank the other posters who tried to ask for an explanation to the "80s" comment. I see now we aren't going to get anywhere. I was sincerely interested in finding out why my interpretation was "old." I understand a newer interpretation may be that Atticus is the "white savior," but we discussed that back when I read it... in the 90s, not 80s... and dismissed it. Atticus learns in the novel. He grows. He doesn't save anybody. If anything, his experiences save him and he handles the Boo Radley narrative at the end better because of them.
I'm willing to learn. I'm not willing to be treated rudely. I also see *major* misinterpretations in these responses. Tom Robinson is not pushed to the side of the story, as little as a mockingbird. We don't shoot mockingbirds because they are innocent and do nothing to harm society. When Tom is shot, innocence was shot. It's a symbol... a major one.
Google why white women turn every lesson about racism into them being the victim and act indignant like you are right now. Stop pretending you are a victim here. Being educated may feel uncomfortable but stop with this I’m am feeling attacked BS. You could start with White Fragility and “educate yourself”
Anonymous wrote:There are some very thoughtful opinions on both sides of this argument about what tkam means. This is the exact reason it should be taught. There’s a lot there.
Otoh, I can see a teacher not wanting to teach tkam bc it’s too easy to say the wrong thing in class or even just imply that you have the wrong opinion on a racial issue. Some kids are just waiting for a teacher to slip up so they can bask in the woke glory of getting an adult in trouble. It’s not like SR admin will back the teacher up.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?
What exactly do you think is the point of a literature class?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
I'm the poster who was initially told to "educate" myself. I haven't responded until now, and I thank the other posters who tried to ask for an explanation to the "80s" comment. I see now we aren't going to get anywhere. I was sincerely interested in finding out why my interpretation was "old." I understand a newer interpretation may be that Atticus is the "white savior," but we discussed that back when I read it... in the 90s, not 80s... and dismissed it. Atticus learns in the novel. He grows. He doesn't save anybody. If anything, his experiences save him and he handles the Boo Radley narrative at the end better because of them.
I'm willing to learn. I'm not willing to be treated rudely. I also see *major* misinterpretations in these responses. Tom Robinson is not pushed to the side of the story, as little as a mockingbird. We don't shoot mockingbirds because they are innocent and do nothing to harm society. When Tom is shot, innocence was shot. It's a symbol... a major one.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No it’s not racist. Just go educate yourself and come back and have an informed discussion.
Really you made it through the whole summer of BLM articles/protests/book recommendations and here you are asking to be “educated”.
OK, I get it: you can't debate, you don't know shit, you learned a few BLM slogans off Twitter, and you're a racist.
Good luck.
NP. I think part of the problem is that most people aren’t coming here for a “debate.” You seem to be itching to argue. If that’s what you want, start a thread in politics or off topic that explicitly asks for a debate. You’ll get better response from people who want to play in whatever game you’re trying to set up.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No it’s not racist. Just go educate yourself and come back and have an informed discussion.
Really you made it through the whole summer of BLM articles/protests/book recommendations and here you are asking to be “educated”.
OK, I get it: you can't debate, you don't know shit, you learned a few BLM slogans off Twitter, and you're a racist.
Good luck.
Anonymous wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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.
Anonymous wrote:
No it’s not racist. Just go educate yourself and come back and have an informed discussion.
Really you made it through the whole summer of BLM articles/protests/book recommendations and here you are asking to be “educated”.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
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.
"The problem with white people"????
Really?
What if I said "the problem with black people is....." Wouldn't I be immediately accused of being racist?
I am quite prepared to be educated, to learn, to "educate myself" if that's what you prefer.
But you can't make a generalized assertion, and when asked to explain, simply say "educate yourself, don't put the burden on others."
Seriously, that's not how it works.
Anonymous wrote:
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.
"The problem with white people"????