To kill a mockingbird

[stitched]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9757805/T...
I recall reading this excellent novel quite a few times over the years, any of you who missed it I strongly recommend you read it.
I think this demonstrates that the cancel culture found now in schools and universities are either illiterate or unable to comprehend.
Probably the most anti racist book of its time cancelled from a school reading list as it contains a nasty word.
Oh and the main character who chooses to risk his life and children by putting justice before race is white.
Who are the racists here?

[ATG]

I'm going to hazard a guess that the Head of English at a "top" school knows more about teaching English literature to children than some hack at the Daily Mail and 99.3% of its readers ... probably an underestimate. Given they only have time to teach a handful of texts, it would seem odd to stipulate that either text absolutely had to be taught, so choosing not to teach them is hardly a big deal in itself.

Edited by ATG on Monday 26th July 13:08

[tangerine_sedge]

I've read the article, understood the teachers argument and can see why he's chosen to remove it from the syllabus.

This is a non-story, but I'm sure there will be several pages of uninformed comment to follow...

[Crackie]

Deja Vu https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9_bI789Gog

[InitialDave]

tangerine_sedge said:

I've read the article, understood the teachers argument and can see why he's chosen to remove it from the syllabus.

This is a non-story, but I'm sure there will be several pages of uninformed comment to follow...

I understand his argument, but I'd have thought that the aim could be achieved better by specifically discussing those issues with the book, rather than dropping it from the syllabus?

E.g. compare and contrast to the book they're replacing it with.

I suppose they only have so much time/scope to work with though.

[ZedLeg]

tangerine_sedge said:

I've read the article, understood the teachers argument and can see why he's chosen to remove it from the syllabus.

This is a non-story, but I'm sure there will be several pages of uninformed comment to follow...

That, there's nothing to stop people reading these books themselves outside of school.

Showing kids that there's more to literature than books by 100 year old white men is of more value imo.

ETA I realise the To Kill a Mockingbird was written by a woman, but it's a general issue in teaching literature that the focus is primarily on books by a small group of men.

Edited by ZedLeg on Monday 26th July 12:58

[Crackie]

tangerine_sedge said:

I've read the article, understood the teachers argument and can see why he's chosen to remove it from the syllabus.

This is a non-story, but I'm sure there will be several pages of uninformed comment to follow...

I've read the article too, understood the teacher's argument and can also see why he's chosen to remove it from the syllabus.

I think he's wrong to hide from the vocabulary used..............imho leaving it in the curriculum is an ideal opportunity for education and discussion regarding how far society has progressed.

[Liokault]

ATG said:

I'm going to hazard a guess that the Head of Critical Race Theory at a "top" school knows more about teaching Progressive Radicalisation and the Decolonisation of literature to children than some fascist hack at the Daily Mail and 99.3% of its readers ... probably an underestimate. Given they only have time to indoctrinate in a handful of texts, it would seem odd to stipulate that either text absolutely had to be taught, so choosing to revolt against the white male hegemony is hardly a big deal in itself comrade.

Edited by ATG on Monday 26th July 13:08

FTFY

[Byker28i]

I had to study it at school for my English Literature exam... great book

[Jasandjules]

Oh dear. We really are sliding headlong into a dictatorship.

[Iamnotkloot]

Liokault said:

ATG said:

I'm going to hazard a guess that the Head of Critical Race Theory at a "top" school knows more about teaching Progressive Radicalisation and the Decolonisation of literature to children than some fascist hack at the Daily Mail and 99.3% of its readers ... probably an underestimate. Given they only have time to indoctrinate in a handful of texts, it would seem odd to stipulate that either text absolutely had to be taught, so choosing to revolt against the white male hegemony is hardly a big deal in itself comrade.

Edited by ATG on Monday 26th July 13:08

FTFY

Made me snigger, at least

[tangerine_sedge]

Crackie said:

tangerine_sedge said:

I've read the article, understood the teachers argument and can see why he's chosen to remove it from the syllabus.

This is a non-story, but I'm sure there will be several pages of uninformed comment to follow...

I've read the article too, understood the teacher's argument and can also see why he's chosen to remove it from the syllabus.

I think he's wrong to hide from the vocabulary used..............imho leaving it in the curriculum is an ideal opportunity for education and discussion regarding how far society has progressed.

I see your point about the vocabulary, but I think that the naughty words will likely distract some students(*1) from the other points being discussed. I havn't read the other books he's using instead, but I assume that they cover the use of racist language too, maybe they even have better rude words in them

(*1) I can distinctly remember spending happy hours looking up rude words in the dictionary instead of listening to the teacher

[anonymous-user]

In deep south USA in the 1920's and 30's, were there ANY black lawyers/(legal) defenders? I don't get the "white saviour" bit. Surely any trial down there, at that time, would have been staffed (judges, lawyers etc) entirely by white people?

[gregs656]

Jasandjules said:

Oh dear. We really are sliding headlong into a dictatorship.

TKAMB will have replaced another book. Were you worried about dictatorships when that happened?

It's a fantastic book and I have read it many times, maybe a dozen times. It is obviously progressive, and no doubt PH would have been up in arms about its introduction into schools at the time, but it is also very much of its time and I am not sure how engaging most students find it, I don't recall my class mates being particularly interested in it.

[AJL308]

Drifting of topic a bit, but I find most of the tabloid websites virtually unreadable; the pop-up's, banners, flashy things and general click-bait nonsense is overpowering in most cases. I sometimes feel like I'm getting motion sickness looking at them.

[anonymous-user]

The gammons are out in force I see.

At what point does it become acceptable to remove it from the curriculum? In the year 2246 are you going to be turning in your graves because the decision is finally made after 286 years to read something else?

Even the most stupid can ascertain that the book paints racial issues in an incredibly dated way, regardless of the eventual message. The framework of the novel is 1936. I'm sure all of the gibbering 'Dicktaturshup' morons in here can explain to me how presenting children a picture of racial issues 80 years before they were born is an absolute necessity in their education, or couldn't be achieved much more effectively in other ways.

You snowflakes just can't help yourselves. I never stumble across these stories until gammons-in-chief present them on their trawl through the Daily Mail, desperate to find something to get yourselves worked up over. It's pathetic. Get a hobby or something.

[rampageturke]

nobody reading the article is peak red-faced NP&E outrage merchant behaviour.

[Sporky]

ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:

Get a hobby or something.

An excellent post.

[s2art]

ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:

The gammons are out in force I see.

At what point does it become acceptable to remove it from the curriculum? In the year 2246 are you going to be turning in your graves because the decision is finally made after 286 years to read something else?

Even the most stupid can ascertain that the book paints racial issues in an incredibly dated way, regardless of the eventual message. The framework of the novel is 1936. I'm sure all of the gibbering 'Dicktaturshup' morons in here can explain to me how presenting children a picture of racial issues 80 years before they were born is an absolute necessity in their education, or couldn't be achieved much more effectively in other ways.

You snowflakes just can't help yourselves. I never stumble across these stories until gammons-in-chief present them on their trawl through the Daily Mail, desperate to find something to get yourselves worked up over. It's pathetic. Get a hobby or something.

Sure its dated. But what better way to understand the history of racial prejudice in the USA? And those times cast a long shadow, probably still infecting many people today.

[bitchstewie]

Has it been cancelled or have they simply decided there are other books?

I can just about remember reading it as secondary school and my assumption was that it wasn't a mandatory part of the curriculum then or now.

I don't know why not using one particular book out of the thousands available would annoy anyone