<p>imagine going through LIFE having the N word thrown at you daily, having to deal with hatred and fear for having a certain skin who</p>
<p>and to COMPLAIN about having to see it in a book? that it is hard to read it? well, it should be uncomfortable reading it, it should be uncomfortable hearing it, and until you feel that discomfort, you will never even fathom the REAL discomfort and hurt, that those that are called the N word feel</p>
<p>Empathy comes from not just reading in a history book the hatred people put upon each other, but somehow “feeling” it more deeply, and sometimes a powerful book can give an inkling of that</p>
<p>I think there’s a difference between banning a book and not putting it on a recommended reading list. There’s a lot of books that I would not have CHOSEN to have my kids read. But there’s very few I would have BANNED them from reading. And that’s my own kids. I would highly recommend quite a few to other children. There are none I would ban them from reading. It’s not my place to do so. I would hope schools carefully consider what books they ASK kids to read and none that they BAN kids from reading in or out of school.</p>
<p>my D is reading Great Gatsby- drinking, sex, liars, affairs, all the good stuff, representing a part of society </p>
<p>what about Shakespeare- murder, instest, mayhem, dishonesty, </p>
<p>the bible, now theres’ a book with some weird stuff</p>
<p>What abot the Jungle, the images in that are gruesome</p>
<p>Some wanted to discorage.ban harry potter because of the magic</p>
<p>I would rather a world of people who read books that weren’t “clean” and books that caused controversy then books that were totally uncontroversial</p>
<p>My Ds school library every year does a month long program on banned, censored, controversial books. we forget what books were seen as subversive, or dirty, or used “bad” lanuage</p>
<p>I remember when tv shows had twin beds for mom and dad, while at home, the parents shared a bed…do we hide them from reality and pretend the world is like Pleasantville?</p>
<p>At my son’s college, given a choice of Freshman Foundation discussion groups, everyone flocked to sign up for 3 sections of “Banned Books.” He was amused, and signed up for something on Spanish Colonialism without much competition.</p>
<p>“In the United States, the word ■■■■■■ was not always considered derogatory, but was instead used by some as merely denotative of black skin, as it was in other parts of the English-speaking world. In nineteenth-century literature, there are many uses of the word ■■■■■■ with no intended negative connotation. Charles Dickens, and Joseph Conrad (who published The ■■■■■■ of the ‘Narcissus’ in 1897) used the word without racist intent. Mark Twain often put the word into the mouths of his Southern characters, white and black, but did not use the word when speaking in his own voice in his autobiographical Life on the Mississippi.”</p>
<p>Today, however, the word is nearly always considered to be a racist slur. I’m currently teaching The Adventures of Tom Sawyer to my 6th grade students, and the word appears several times in dialogue. I always flinch inwardly when I see it in the novel, and it makes me uncomfortable, however, I use it to explain historical context and character intention. It is clear in the novel that the characters are not intending the word as a racial slur, it was just what they said when referring to an African-American. I make it clear to the students that to use the word today is highly offensive and labels them instantly as a racist. I said the only people who are “allowed” to use the word are African-Americans, and sometimes they do call each other that word… and then we talk about taking power away from words, etc… pretty good stuff for 11- and 12-year-olds. Probably rivals some of the discussions in AP or college classes.</p>
<p>^^^
At the time of it’s writing, the N word was unfortunately much more “acceptable” in use than it is today. People in the south used the word as a matter of fact, not necessarily in hostility (although subconsciously they had their problems with race). Nowadays, it’s considered a conscious hostile slur. Be careful about attributing today’s PC with yesterday’s PC.
You find many older people nowadays confused about what to call of other races. My grandma used to say “colored people”. That’s not used today, nor is “negro”. Honestly, if she were alive, she really wouldn’t have a clue that referring to African Americans as “coloreds” is not cool.</p>
<p>^^Perhaps another reason not use wikipedia as a source of info.</p>
<p>What term does wikipedia suggest for people whose skin is of a lighter hue?</p>
<p>Considering the black experience in the US at the time (19th century) was barely emerging from slavery, I can’t imagine the term was used as one of respect or endearment.</p>
<p>That said I believe the term has legitimate use in TKAM and twain’s work just to be historically accurate - cringes and all.</p>
<p>Perceptions from words have changed over time. Here’s an example of San Diego County honoring an ex-slave (I’ve been up this dirt mountain grade several times). Given that the NAACP petitioned to have the terminology changed in 1935, at least at that time the word must have been perceived as a negative.</p>
<p>I didn’t read TKAM until 8th grade. In 5th grade we read The Watsons Go To Birmingham. I think the part of TKAM that would be more difficult for elementary schoolers to understand is not that such horrible racism existed but the more subtle element of how sexuality and racism were connected under segregation. I think that’s not something you could fully appreciate unless you have more of an ability and the historic background to contextualize the whole thing. TKAM seems to be largely over and done with by 9th grade. That may be unfortunate. </p>
<p>I don’t recall thinking TKAM was racist but honestly it’s been some time and I was obviously not going to pick up on some things. If I read it now I may have a completely different interpretation. </p>
<p>I have seen the context that the N word was used in in other times. I realize that while it wasn’t always used in hostility, I would not agree that it wasn’t meant to be derogatory. I can’t really explain how it comes off to me, but it was patronizing. There are instances where you will see it thrown around like they mean it as a term of endearment, but it’s very patronizing. And that is how it has the connotations it does today, I think. It was a word that was meant to dehumanize people, whether it was used in hostility or however else. </p>
<p>I’ve been flipping through my copy of Eyes on the Prize, because we’re talking about some things in my seminar and so I had my parents send it to me. And I reread an article, Say Dixie Whites Are Bad Folks, or something like that, by Lew Sadler. He is basically answering to Northern accusations of racism, and it says so much about southerners at the time. He uses “Negro” but colloquially among southern whites, I think in the same context they would have used another N word. And when you read this article, he is talking about how much they were raised by black women and played with black children, but it’s so unbelievably patronizing. And you just realize, this is how people lived, this is how the way of life was justified. It was racism stripped of the violent brutality, of the lynchings and the beatings, but it was still just as powerful, just as oppressive. We know about the Emmett Tills, the assassinations, the fire hoses…but these were the people, black and white, on the periphery of that. People who were living the status quo. And I think we so rarely get the picture of how unshocking their lives were and at the same time how shocking that is. It makes you wonder. Someday what was just everyday acceptable, non-violent, non-mean spirited, to us now, will shock someone in its ideology.</p>
<p>I totally disagree with the notion that the term, ■■■■■■■■ ever carried a neutral connotation, that it simply meant someone who had black skin. There was never a time, not even during Shakespeare’s, when black people were not considered inherently inferior, and worthy of lesser social status buy virtue of that assumed inferiority. Certainly, ■■■■■■■■ was never meant to be a term of respect, just the opposite.</p>
<p>That said, I believe To Kill a Mocking Bird is an important work with an important message about its time, not at all racist in its intent. Why would anyone want to ban a book that lends itself to the teaching of valuable social, political and historical lessons? My S chose Huck Finn as one of his AP English summer reading books this past summer. He didn’t seem bothered by the use of the “N” word, having understood the broader context of its use in the story. It never occurred to me to be outraged by its presence on the reading list.</p>
<p>This thread did call up a memory concerning my purchase of one of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s, Little House On The Prairie books. D was about five, and I had been reading to her everyday from the time she was a few months old. I thought the Little House books would be good for a girl her age, and brought one home from one of my B&N trips. That afternoon, while browsing through the book, I came upon a passage in which Pa took down his fiddle and played a song by the fire for the family one cold winter’s night. It started out, “There once was a old darky…” or something to that effect, and I just closed the book in disappointment. I did not want to have to explain to my five year old what a darky was, nor the fact that in times past, she would have qualified as one. I understand that Laura Ingalls Wilder was a woman of her times, but I just decided that I had any number of other book options from which to choose for my child. I took the book by to the store and exchanged it for another. Case closed.</p>
<p>Some people may feel that I overreacted, but it was thankfully my call to make, and I chose to shield her a little bit longer.</p>
<p>I feel that the n-word always was, always is and always shall be a derogatory term. Plain and simple, it’s dehumanizing. Way back when, the term was used because using the person’s actual name wasn’t “necessary”. For example, some one might issue an order to “get the horses out to the field”. Well, it wouldn’t occur to them to call each horse by name not out of disrespect but more because the horse wasn’t human and it didn’t really deserve any respect.
Same thing happened when the same person said, “Get the n— out to the field.” No disrespect because they were property - not human beings. It makes my skin crawl thinking about it.</p>
<p>The columns weren’t about banning any books- I’ll at least give them credit for that- but whether or not To kill a mockingbird ( book & film) deserves its status in American literature.
I agree that language has been used to hurt and depersonalize parts of society to make it more acceptable to discriminate against them. Language is still being used to do that, even in books that are currently popular.
Unless you identify or are sympathetic to those groups, you may not even notice I have found.</p>
<p>This is a place where we can use the power of our voice and of the dollar- we can refrain from purchasing tickets to something we find offensive or even write the company saying why we are boycotting them. This does make a difference- for instance when companies like Abercrombie & Fitch have marketed several different tshirts with offensive phrases- they have been forced to remove them.</p>
<p>It is really interesting to read about Samuel Clemens. People assume he was terribly racist. In fact, the opposite appears to be true, if you read his papers and other thoughts on the topic.</p>
<p>The day the OP posted it I started typing a response and decided to wait. I am glad I did. I initially wanted to say that perhaps the book was a bit advanced for 5th graders. I still say this is true true for me. The movie is one thing, but the book is quite another, (IMHO). </p>
<p>As a woman of color who has taught her son not to say the “N” word, I also had to let him know that he would still hear it, see it, and experience the feeling of what that word meant to Blacks here in the U.S. And even with major entertainers using it in their lyrics, I won’t condone it in my home. It is not a term of endearment to me and never has been. I cringe when I see it or hear it. </p>
<p>But I am a reader. I love to read. I love history. I particularly love southern history. I can’t avoid the word. I can, however, decide if I would want my 5th grader reading it, (and I would not in a school setting). I might allow it as something to be read outside of school where I could provide my opinion as a parent and we could discuss it as a family.</p>
<p>mea culpa- I agree that it wasn’t appropriate for 5th graders- but I wasn’t a teacher- I was a parent volunteer who was on my own- I had never led a book group before- & picked To Kill a Mockingbird, because I thought that we could see the film after we read the book & have some interesting things to talk about.
I agree that the rape probably was perceived as the most disturbing incident in the book by most of the kids.
One of the girls actually was forbidden by her parents to read it ( she is black and also became one of my Ds best friends- Im grateful her parents didn’t hold my mistake against us)-
If I was still holding book groups- I would probably suggest it along with thematically similar books- but also for an older audience- 7th grade at least.
But her school often had them read- ( in middle school as part of a combined language arts/health class) what were to me equally disturbing books.
Speak ( rape)
Cut ( self mutilation)
Lovely Bones ( rape & murder of a young girl)
and parents were not notified- even though books were assigned by a teacher.
I feel this was a much larger error than my own for several reasons.
I was a volunteer and as I mentioned that year Ds classroom teacher was out of the building more than she was present- teachers had been teaching for years.</p>
<p>My choice was a “classic” and while the above books may be well written, as they are recent, the language and detail is much more modern and harder to ignore or overlook.</p>
<p>Cut was so disturbing to my younger daughter for example- that she saw it as validation of her occasional cutting and increased that behavior.
I didn’t even know about it, until her friends forced her to go to the school counselor.</p>
<p>For that reason alone- when teachers choose books that may be disturbing, they need to notify parents ahead of time- so that they have an opportunity to select an alternate book or prepare for additional support.</p>
<p>“For that reason alone- when teachers choose books that may be disturbing, they need to notify parents ahead of time- so that they have an opportunity to select an alternate book or prepare for additional support.”</p>
<p>I so agree with the above. I still remember the feeling I had after reading the short story, “The Lottery,” by Shirley Jackson. I hated that I had to read it, and that I had to see the film version too. I also remember the first time I read “Helter Skelter.” I did not have the same reaction as with “The Lottery,” but it was a memorable read.</p>
<p>I recently reread part of “Gone with the Wind” because I read it and loved it when I was in HS. Well, I had completely forgotten how patronising it was to blacks! It reflected a Southern author in the 30s looking back at slave days, and the difference in then and now is shocking.</p>
<p>I was going to recommend my children read it but…no. No way. They may discover it on their own (the movie is of course an epic classic) but it is definitely flawed, to say the least.</p>
<p>I also loved Gone with the Wind, both book and movie. Of course it is shockingly patronizing. But I think it gives an accurate portrayal of life on a Southern plantation around the time of the Civil War. It is more interesting to read historical fiction, for some people, than to read actual history, and if this book could open up a dialogue about life during that time period, as racist as it was, I think it is very valuable. I feel the same about TKAM.</p>
<p>Confronting the stereotypes and racism in these books is good education, I think. They reflect the time period in which they were written, and that’s what history is all about.</p>
<p>Similarly, there will be those who read the fiction or literature of the late 20th, early 21st century, some years in the future, and be equally horrified. I am sure of it. The foilbles of the past are crystal clear from a lens of the present.</p>