|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 8, 2011 14:57:26 GMT
There are some strange inclusions there. Jack London's Call of the Wild? What on earth is there in that book to merit a ban? My guess would be that it's because of Jack London's political views. He was a very left-wing socialist and of course in America anyone to the left of Genghis Khan is considered dangerous!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2011 19:39:53 GMT
Lin, surely the days of McCarthyism are surely dead? The list of "challenged" (banned) books dates from 1990.
"Call of the Wild" is a story about a dog. I'm mystified.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jan 9, 2011 11:19:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Jan 9, 2011 17:01:20 GMT
Lin, surely the days of McCarthyism are surely dead? The list of "challenged" (banned) books dates from 1990. "Call of the Wild" is a story about a dog. I'm mystified. Well who knows.....there was an entire religious uproar about some Disney movies.....I know Little Mermaid was one.....where they thought one of the towers of the kingdom looked like a penis......then I think they saw something else in Aladdin.......personally I think those people are the ones with dirty minds that just look for those things. So who knows....maybe they thought the dog was licking himself too much.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 11, 2011 12:18:47 GMT
There are some strange inclusions there. Jack London's Call of the Wild? What on earth is there in that book to merit a ban? Yes, it's weird reading the list. But I note that it's ''the most commonly challenged'' books rather than banned. I see with deep shock that Are you there God, it's me Margaret by Judy Blume has been challenged. What a wonderful book. It's outrageous that anyone could see something wrong in this gentle but frank story of a girl turning into a teenager. There's nothing worrisome in it, it just delves into the insecure mind that we all have at that age and is greatly reassuring in that sense. There's no other book to compare to it.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 11, 2011 12:21:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 11, 2011 12:22:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 12, 2011 20:24:15 GMT
"At the age of 12 in 1963, we were forced to read Huckleberry Finn at our East London school, out loud and to the class. It's not a short book, and it took a number of weeks to get through.
As a black boy undergoing the average bullying, ie beatings and name callng, which we endured on a daily basis, the constant use of the 'n' word in that book was a humiliation too far, and I got to dread english lessons. It was as though the teachers were joining in our ostrichisation. No attempt was ever made to explain the history or context of the language, not that it would have made any difference to a class room of kids sniggering (excuse the pun) at every mention of the word and confirming to themselves the justification of its use.
To learn that its not taught any more is of great relief. To learn that some want it brought back in its original form is shocking and causes me a great deal of pain, as it did all those years ago. Please don't bring it back. There are better and more worthy books for children. If they wish to read it themselves, that's one thing, but this is not for the classroom. I would not wish the same feelings on anyone else that I, and I am sure many other black children, experienced thanks to Huckleberry Finn. And don't begin to tell me how great a writer Mark Twain was, as thanks to that experience I have never bothered to read anything else by him and never will, such is the indignation and sadness I still feel today.
Please, never return this book to the classroom, unless yes, it is polished up and the racist references are removed. Thank you. Les R"www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766774?thread=7974971&post=104830512#p104830512 wah, wah, poor baby. what a worthless piece of shyt
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 12, 2011 20:26:49 GMT
Sadie - you make me laugh Yeah....well just think of all those coyotes out there that don't know any better also...........poor misguided creatures. You know....I don't think they show Pepe Le Pew cartoons anymore either because of offending the French......is that even possible? i always cheered for wily. roadrunner was just too damn smug and cocky. of course, i also voted for the rabbit to get trix. god knows he went through hell trying to get some
|
|
|
Post by jollyroger on Jan 12, 2011 21:39:40 GMT
Yeah....well just think of all those coyotes out there that don't know any better also...........poor misguided creatures. You know....I don't think they show Pepe Le Pew cartoons anymore either because of offending the French......is that even possible? i always cheered for wily. roadrunner was just too damn smug and cocky. of course, i also voted for the rabbit to get trix. god knows he went through hell trying to get some lmao
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 13, 2011 11:08:07 GMT
"At the age of 12 in 1963, we were forced to read Huckleberry Finn at our East London school, out loud and to the class. It's not a short book, and it took a number of weeks to get through.
As a black boy undergoing the average bullying, ie beatings and name callng, which we endured on a daily basis, the constant use of the 'n' word in that book was a humiliation too far, and I got to dread english lessons. It was as though the teachers were joining in our ostrichisation. No attempt was ever made to explain the history or context of the language, not that it would have made any difference to a class room of kids sniggering (excuse the pun) at every mention of the word and confirming to themselves the justification of its use.
To learn that its not taught any more is of great relief. To learn that some want it brought back in its original form is shocking and causes me a great deal of pain, as it did all those years ago. Please don't bring it back. There are better and more worthy books for children. If they wish to read it themselves, that's one thing, but this is not for the classroom. I would not wish the same feelings on anyone else that I, and I am sure many other black children, experienced thanks to Huckleberry Finn. And don't begin to tell me how great a writer Mark Twain was, as thanks to that experience I have never bothered to read anything else by him and never will, such is the indignation and sadness I still feel today.
Please, never return this book to the classroom, unless yes, it is polished up and the racist references are removed. Thank you. Les R"www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbradio4/F2766774?thread=7974971&post=104830512#p104830512 wah, wah, poor baby. what a worthless piece of shyt lol! I don't think "worthless piece of shyt" is fair, but I admit to thinking ''whingey cry-baby'' when I read it. I suppose what we should take from his experience is that it's stupid to place ammunition - such as validation of the N-word by use in legitimate classic literature - in a classroom of immatures. (ie children). That's what I think anyway. Why poke the hornet's nest?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 13, 2011 22:46:20 GMT
wah, wah, poor baby. what a worthless piece of shyt lol! I don't think "worthless piece of shyt" is fair, but I admit to thinking ''whingey cry-baby'' when I read it. I suppose what we should take from his experience is that it's stupid to place ammunition - such as validation of the N-word by use in legitimate classic literature - in a classroom of immatures. (ie children). That's what I think anyway. Why poke the hornet's nest? no, the book should be left as is. the kids should learn that it's not nice to use the word, and that the book was written in a different time when the word was used frequently. of course, if this cry baby listens to rap shyt, he has no bitch coming no matter what anyone says
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jan 15, 2011 12:40:45 GMT
I don't think he was listening to rap in 1963: and that was a time when only racists used the word.
Earlier, at the time the book was written, you didn't have to be racist to use it; by 1963, you did. And 1963 was a time when, in the US, the KKK and their supporters were happily killing black people and civil rights campaigners. And getting away with it.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2011 21:43:30 GMT
I don't think he was listening to rap in 1963: and that was a time when only racists used the word. Earlier, at the time the book was written, you didn't have to be racist to use it; by 1963, you did. And 1963 was a time when, in the US, the KKK and their supporters were happily killing black people and civil rights campaigners. And getting away with it. it's true that there was still some violence against blacks in 1963, but it had pretty much dwindled to the isolated incident here and there. the civil rights act was passed in 1964, and the institutionalized racism ended. of course, there are still racial incidents, but the vast majority of them for the past twenty or thirty years have been committed BY blacks, a la jena louisiana
|
|