<p>^^^ I agree Alllmusic.
I’m convinced that 200 years from now, we’ll all be considered horrible, misguided, cruel people in some way. Culture is a funny thing. The social mores that we accept now will in some ways be considered barbaric and offensive. I wonder which ones?</p>
<p>I wasn’t bothered by the plantation-era thinking so much as by the 1930s thinking, which hadn’t changed all that much. I can’t cite quotes from memory, but when Margaret Mitchell had a character refer to the freed “darkies” as needing to be taken care of like children, I felt it was the author’s current belief as well. And I cringed.</p>
<p>And while I can enjoy the book (and the movie!) as a love story and dramatic representation of the Civil War, I don’t think that would be enough for my kids to enjoy it. I think they would be disappointed in it–“This is the great Gone with the Wind?” </p>
<p>Times change, and sometimes for the better.</p>
<p>I remember reading GWTW on a road trip to drop off or pick up my oldest brother from the Citadel. Since I had never even ventured out of Florida, much less the South, I was absorbed in the whole plantation thing, especially since we passed sights such as “Magnolia Plantation”, and visited the old Battery and Marketplace in Charleston. Maybe it’s because I was all of 10 or 11 (my brother was 8 years ahead of me), but I never really picked up on the racism. It was all about Scarlett and Rhett for me, boy was it ever! Wowsie. And Ashley too, although I always thought he was a dweeb (although I loved Melanie).</p>
<p>to answer the OP’s question</p>
<p>No. There are issues of racism in the book, certainly, but it is not racist.</p>
<p>I read TKAM as a 5th grader (on my own, not for class), and it became one of my favorite books.</p>
<p>Yes, I understood the the way race and sexuality tied in together. I had read Mildred Taylor’s Logan family novels, which are intended to be children’s literature (the first won the Newberry Medal) and refer to some of the same themes. I had read a lot of “black history” books.</p>
<p>I would probably not choose it for a class of 5th graders unless it was a pretty advanced class, because otherwise I wouldn’t know if they had the reading ability, and even then I would probably hold some history lessons beforehand to give them context. But most books are disturbing to somebody. I’ve heard people say that kids shouldn’t read Bridge to Terebithia (a book cited earlier in this thread as more appropriate for 5th graders) because it portrays an atheist sympathetically (one of the reasons I liked it so much as a kid!), or because they believe the girl is a lesbian. Judy Blume’s Blubber and Robert Cormier’s The Chocolate War are highly disturbing to me because of the realistic portrayals of cruelty among children, but I am glad to have read them and would even WANT children to read them, to be disturbed by them, so that they might learn from them.</p>
<p>This has always seemed an odd argument to me. No one complains about the anti-semtism in “Schindler’s List”. </p>
<p>You have to show the racism and hate for what they are to contrast what has to be done to oppose them. Read “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “Huck Finn” carefully. Both these novels are the most anti-racist literary statements of their generation.</p>
<p>That said, there are some adult themes in both books and they probably should be saved until high school. YMMV</p>
<p>I’ve heard people say that kids shouldn’t read Bridge to Terebithia (a book cited earlier in this thread as more appropriate for 5th graders) because it portrays an atheist sympathetically</p>
<p>I thought religious freedom went hand in hand with freedom * from* religion- so why not an atheist?</p>
<p>I remember reading Diary of Anne Frank in 5th grade- I think it was a class assignment- but now days kids are reading things like Gossip Girls. ( of course I read Valley of the Dolls & the Story of O when I was in 5th grade- not a lot in our house to read :eek: )</p>
<p>[How</a> to kill a Mockingbird](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/~scodary/tkam.htm]How”>http://www.stanford.edu/~scodary/tkam.htm)</p>
<p>Well, here’s my perspective, for what is worth.</p>
<p>I lam about 85 miles from Harper Lee’s hometown where she lives in relative obscurity. She has given a couple of interviews locally in the past 5 years or so, and accepted an award - very low key. The entire town conspires to fiercely protect her desire for privacy. The entire town also works hard to protect the image of the book. They do the play in the old town courthouse, with local people serving as the actors - the inhabitants of Monroeville, black and white. are are proud to be chosen as a principal. The play is incredibly moving in that setting. (Another great Alabama experience is to see “The Miracle Worker” done on the grounds of Ivy Green, with the famous pump in fromt of you.)</p>
<p>In my kids’ school, they used to read TKAM as summer middle school reading, but learned several years ago that things in the South had changed enough that the students didn’t “get it”, so they began reading it in class.
Knowing where and when Harper Lee lived, I know that TKAM is a great expression of anti-racism, and anti-bigotry, one of the finest ever written. That little Southern town does appreciate what that book means.</p>
<p>fwiw ditto -</p>
<p>I live in a Southern town and grew up in the South. TKAM, book and movie, were all time favorites of mine, and I read TKAM for pleasure; it was never rqd. I think my kids’ school read it in 8th grade. My current Southern town has a black mayor and about half the city council and public school board are black, as are quite a few of the prominent businessmen. Our town has done something called “One book, one city” for the last two or so years, and last year the book selected was TKAM. It seemed to me that the powers that be selected it specifically to open up racial dialogue and sharing, and I certainly don’t recall anyone complaining about the book being racist. Indeed, there seemed to be a common understanding that this book (and the movie) had gone very far indeed in helping to get rid of racism and improve things (or start the momentum for improvement).</p>
<p>My personal take on this book is that it stands more than anything for the proposition of not judging people by outer appearances or stereotypes, and by evidence instead. It stands for having principles and sticking to them. It stands for charity towards thy neighbor, and that doesn’t mean pity, it means treating people correctly at all times.</p>
<p>Boo Radley was not a monster anymore than the defendant was a rapist. Why doesn’t anybody look at what people were thinking about the town recluse? Likewise a stereotype subject to the vagaries of imagination.</p>
<p>Maybe folks who grew up in these parts understand the message more. jmho</p>