Anonymous wrote:Eh, I went to an excellent private school many moons ago and got a great education in Literature and writing. And in school I didn’t read To Kill a Mockingbird, or Lord of the Flies, or many other 20th century “Classics” that people love to moan about kids missing. I have read quite a few since then, and don’t feel at all sad about having missed them in classes.

And that’s because I got to read lots of other great literature and have meaningful, educational, interesting conversations about the books I did read and the ideas they contained. Which all sat me up well for being a lifelong reader and learner. There are many ways to teach critical reading and thinking and no one book is a must-do.

Anonymous wrote:OK, I just checked and it still has five stars on Amazon. I don't understand why they are cancelling a classic.

Anonymous wrote:OK, I just checked and it still has five stars on Amazon. I don't understand why they are cancelling a classic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Would you want to walk past a statue of the man that raped your mom?

Nobody has to ever walk past a statue of a man who raped their mother. Literally nobody.

Yes. Black peoples walk past statues of men who raped and killed their family. Literally all of them.

Which means they are their ancestors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white and never thought that it would offend non-whites.

Hopefully now you can see why it would, and try to consider things from others’ perspectives.

It would only offend those perpetually seeking offense.

And if taught properly as a white savior novel with a racist “hero” you would be that person.

dp It is not taught that way. My dd read it in middle school in 2016 and it was not presented that way. Now you are making things up.

Anonymous wrote:

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whole point of not teaching it is because it will most likely be taught the way you understand it, which is old and out of date.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

There is literally no person here claiming they are victims. We are discussing the merits of the book. Maybe you should think why your first reaction is calling white women racist. Kinda ironic, don't you think? Debate the issues, please. The book, brings up many uncomfortable moments and I think that is good. White Fragility has been proven it is bunk written by someone who wants to make lots of money. Read this review from a Black author from the Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/



Have you written why TKAM is no longer relevant? Why are you afraid of having kids assigned this book? And bonus points if you don't attack white people just for the sake of attacking white people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white and never thought that it would offend non-whites.

Hopefully now you can see why it would, and try to consider things from others’ perspectives.

It would only offend those perpetually seeking offense.

And if taught properly as a white savior novel with a racist “hero” you would be that person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Would you want to walk past a statue of the man that raped your mom?

Nobody has to ever walk past a statue of a man who raped their mother. Literally nobody.

Yes. Black peoples walk past statues of men who raped and killed their family. Literally all of them.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am white and never thought that it would offend non-whites.

Hopefully now you can see why it would, and try to consider things from others’ perspectives.

It would only offend those perpetually seeking offense.