Banning books in schools (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Optimus Prime

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    20,410
    Reaction score
    26,521
    Age
    49
    Location
    Washington DC Metro
    Online
    Excellent article I thought deserved its own thread
    =========================

    On the surface, it would appear that book censors and censored authors like myself can agree on one thing: Books are powerful.

    Particularly books for children and teens.

    Why else would people like me spend so much time and energy writing them?

    Why else would censors spend so much time and energy trying to keep them out of kids’ hands?

    In a country where the average adult is reading fewer and fewer books, it’s a surprise to find Americans arguing so much about them.

    In this election year, parents and politicians — so many politicians — are jumping into the fray to say how powerful books can be.

    Granted, politicians often make what I do sound like witchcraft, but I take this as a compliment.

    I’ll admit, one of my first thoughts about the current wildfire of attempted censorship was: How quaint.

    Conservatives seemed to be dusting off their playbook from 1958, when the only way our stories could get to kids was through schools and libraries.

    While both are still crucial sanctuaries for readers, they’re hardly the only options. Plenty of booksellers supply titles that are taken off school shelves.

    And words can be very widely shared free of charge on social media and the rest of the internet. If you take my book off a shelf, you keep it away from that shelf, but you hardly keep it away from readers.

    As censorship wars have raged in so many communities, damaging the lives of countless teachers, librarians, parents and children, it’s begun to feel less and less quaint.

    This is not your father’s book censorship…..

    Here’s something I never thought I’d be nostalgic for: sincere censors. When my first novel, “Boy Meets Boy,” was published in 2003, it was immediately the subject of many challenges, some of which kept the book from ever getting on a shelf in the first place.

    At the time, a challenge usually meant one parent trying to get a book pulled from a school or a library, going through a formal process.

    I often reminded myself to try to find some sympathy for these parents; yes, they were wrong, and their desire to control what other people in the community got to read was wrong — but more often than not, the challenge was coming from fear of a changing world, a genuine (if incorrect) belief that being gay would lead kids straight to ruination and hell, and/or the misbegotten notion that if all the books that challenged the (homophobic, racist) status quo went away, then the status quo would remain intact.

    It was, in some ways, as personal to them as it was to those of us on the other side of the challenge.

    And nine times out of 10, the book would remain on the shelf.

    It’s not like that now. What I’ve come to believe, as I’ve talked to authors and librarians and teachers, is that attacks are less and less about the actual books.

    We’re being used as targets in a much larger proxy war.

    The goal of that war isn’t just to curtail intellectual freedom but to eviscerate the public education system in this country.

    Censors are scorching the earth, without care for how many kids get burned.

    Racism and homophobia are still very much present, but it’s also a power grab, a money grab. The goal for many is a for-profit, more authoritarian and much less diverse culture, one in which truth is whatever you’re told it is, your identity is determined by its acceptability and the past is a lie that the future is forced to emulate.

    The politicians who holler and post and draw up their lists of “harmful” books aren’t actually scared of our books.

    They are using our books to scare people.

     
    Last edited:
    I mainly wanted to hear which excuse you would use.

    So because the south needed the slaves for the cotton business it was ok to hold people in bondage? And states rights allowed that. You know you are actually defending slavery in support of economics, right ?
    Again. Putting words in my mouth. Nobody is defending slavery.
     
    Are you honestly so ignorant you have to ask that question? Really? No it is not okay. Nobody is saying it was okay. It is part of the history. Honest complete and accurate history. It is part of understanding how one group of people came to enslave another group of people. Did you really need someone to tell you in high school that slavery wasn’t okay? I grew up in the South and I never needed anyone to explain to me that slavery was not okay. Maybe the kids in Knox County were different.

    You were the one saying that we should understand how it came to be and why it was important for the south. You are also the one who defend keeping all the confederat monuments. Monuments to a political creed that supported and build a society on slavery and kept black people from having equal rights far into the 19th century.
     
    Are you honestly so ignorant you have to ask that question? Really? No it is not okay. Nobody is saying it was okay. It is part of the history. Honest complete and accurate history. It is part of understanding how one group of people came to enslave another group of people. Did you really need someone to tell you in high school that slavery wasn’t okay? I grew up in the South and I never needed anyone to explain to me that slavery was not okay. Maybe the kids in Knox County were different.

    What was the chief reason for the Civil War, Joe? You keep saying states' rights, but what right was it that the states wanted to preserve?
     
    If I supported whitewashing history I would say so.
    No one who supports whitewashing history will ever utter the words "I support the whitewashing of history" in public.

    Instead, they will speak in the code of stereotypes, dog whistles and subtext. They will defend the things that lead to the whitewashing of history without ever saying, "I'm defending these things, because I support the whitewashing of history."

    It's absurd to think that someone who supports the whitewashing of history would openly admit that they do. Those who support authoritarianism and racism don't publicly admit that they do. Honesty and forthrightness is not how authoritarians and racists roll.

    Authoritarians and racists hide in the shadows of deception and dishonesty.
     
    You were the one saying that we should understand how it came to be and why it was important for the south. You are also the one who defend keeping all the confederat monuments. Monuments to a political creed that supported and build a society on slavery and kept black people from having equal rights far into the 19th century.
    I didn’t defend keeping monuments. I merely pointed out they were removed because they made some people uncomfortable and asked you how you felt about that. That wasn’t defending them. You really need to learn to read. And understanding the why people do the things they do is in no way a defense. We always look for motive in criminal trials. That doesn’t mean we excuse the crime. Do you not see the difference.

    See on the one hand you speak about honesty in teaching and honesty in debate and then you spend page after page misrepresenting what I post. You don’t ask if that’s my position. You make statements as if I said something or took a position I never took. That is deliberately misrepresenting what I posted. Especially when I asked you to stop which you ignored. So that’s not just getting your facts wrong. That’s a purposeful lie.

    Then you tell me that I should trust democrats such as yourself to honestly teach history to other peoples kids without injecting political ideology because that’s what YOU believe is honest.

    I don’t think you know the meaning of the word.
     
    What about removing civil war statues? Isn’t that “whitewashing history”?
    No it isn't whitewashing history, it's being honest about history. Putting up statutes to honor traitors and enemies of our country is the whitewashing of history.

    This is one of those statements that reveal a person's true thoughts and beliefs. The statement clearly indicates that the person making the statement thinks it's wrong to take down the statues that honor traitors and enemies of our country. That tells you in a nutshell which side they truly stand on.

    What about all these higher level educational institutions that shout down speakers who don’t share their point of view? What about all those?
    This statement is defending the rights of right wingers to speak without opposition. This statement clearly illustrates which side the person who said it stands on. It clearly reveals an unspoken truth when a person displays a pattern of only defended one side.

    Yesterday the NAACP encouraged black athletes to boycott SEC universities to protest Gerrymandering.
    That has nothing to do with what library books or curriculum are taught. And once again, it shows a clear bias against one side and support for the other. When someone consistently complains about what one side does while consistently defending the other, then that person clearly stands with the side they constantly defend. Their denials are betrayed by their constant and persistent actions.

    If you read a history book written by a historian from the perspective of the South pre civil war, you will get one perspective. If you read a book from the perspective of a slave for that same period of time, you will get another.
    Which is why all perspectives should be included, but the Republicans want to eliminate all perspectives that aren't from the slave owner's perspective.

    If you read still another book on the same time frame from the perspective of the North, you will get another version. One time frame in history with three very Distict versions of the same events.
    The Nazi's have their own version of events. No reasonable, unbiased person thinks the Nazi's version of events is a valid version of events. The version of events from slave owners and racists are not a valid version of events for the same reason the Nazi's version of events are.

    Does any sane, rational person defend the Manson Family based on the Manson Family's version of events? Of course not, because that would be insane, irrational and just plain sick.

    All of them should be presented objectively and dispassionately in order for the student to fully understand history.
    See the above to see how wrong minded this statement is.
     
    Last edited:
    You did mention states’ rights though. Which is the magic phrase used by people who sympathize with the South in the civil war.

    Do you think a state has the right to enable slavery?
    It isn’t a magic phrase. That is just another talking point. Anyone who has honestly studied the history of that time knows it was about the southern states belief that they had every right to own slaves. They go hand in hand. That isn’t a defense of slavery.

    And southern states were heavily dependent on that slave labor on cotton plantations that were predominantly in southern states and which made up a sizable amount of the southern states gdp. Again. Not an excuse.

    Lastly as to the whole traitor argument. The nation at the time was less than 100 years old. However states existed as colonies before 1776. Many southerners had more allegiance to their state than they did to the republic. So they were forced to choose between allegiances. So in some communities, people who chose the north over their state were viewed as traitors.

    So unless you look into the dynamics and understand how the world was viewed in the eyes of people who lived and participated in the actual events that took place, you don’t have a true picture of history. Honest history is neither right or wrong. It just is what it is. We are free to judge it as we choose. I’m just saying we might be better off with a complete understanding of all the facts.

    Thousands of Americans died on both sides of the battle line in that war. Might help if we understood it better instead of assuming we know how it was 150 years before you were born.
     
    To be clear - it's important to understand slavery if you want an honest understanding of history and of slavery.
    We don't need to know the Manson Family's or the Nazi's version of events to have an honest understanding of the horrors and murder the inflicted on people.

    We don't need to know the Confederate's version of events to understand the horror and murder they inflicted on slaves and the rest of the country by waging a war against us simply because the democratic process kept them from getting their way.

    This poster has not been truly advocating for an honest understanding. This poster has been advocating for giving the slave owners's version of slavery equal consideration. That would be just like giving the Manson Family's and the Nazi's version of events equal consideration. That's not necessary to have an honest understanding of the history of the Manson Family nor the Nazis, and no sane, rational, unbiased person would ever claim that it is.

    The war was fought and decided 150 years ago. No need to refight it again today.
    Tell that to the Confederate states, because they never stopped fighting, you know, "the South shall rise again."
     
    And yet our inner city schools still fail to educate.
    There's that prejudice and bias again. The rural schools are not doing any a better of a job of education in the state of Tennessee, than the urban schools are. Why not just say urban? Why specifically say "inner city?" Nobody every says "outer city." "Inner city" is a code word that people hide behind.

    Other municipalities like Nashville, Knoxville, Chattanooga, Jackson seem to figure out how to make this work better. But Memphis lags.
    That's completely false according to objective statistical surveys.

    Memphis students are on par in literacy and numeracy as the students in the rest of the state. What's different about Memphis? It has a lot more black students than other areas of the state.

    There's a prejudicial presumption going on here that blacks students are less educated than white students and predominantly black schools are worse than predominantly white schools. Objective statistical surveys say that in Memphis and the rest of Tennessee, that's simply not true.

    And as been mentioned, families who have school age children, don't move into the city if they can avoid it.
    That's the avoidance part of white flight. It has very little to do with education and everything to do with racial prejudices.
     
    That dawg don’t hunt.
    The only "dawg that don't hunt" is the constantly repeated false claim that Memphis students are less educated than students in the rest of the state. The students in Memphis score the same in literacy and numeracy as the students in the rest of the state.

    The only difference between students and schools in Memphis and the rest of the state is that the schools and students in Memphis are predominantly black, so some people falsely and prejudicially believe those students are not as smart and educated as white students are.

    There's no other rational explanation for why someone would believe Memphis schools and students are performing lower than the rest of the state, when Memphis students perform just as well in literacy and numeracy as students in the rest of Tennessee.
     
    Do you doubt there was a southern perspective on slavery and the civil war?
    I no more doubt there was a southern perspective on slavery and the civil war, than I doubt that there was a Nazi perspective on the Nazi's and World War II. Not all perspectives have equal validity or worth.

    For instance, the perspective that Memphis schools and students are doing worse than the rest of the state of Tennessee has no worth or validity, because it's objectively and factually false. The students in Memphis are at the same level of literacy and numeracy as students in the rest of the state.

    I previously provided objective factual information from the Dept of Education that shows that. It's obvious that some people didn't even bother to accurately inform themselves by looking at that data. An uniformed, misinformed and/or dishonest perspective is not a valid or worthy perspective. That's why the perspective of slave owners is not a valid or worthy perspective when teaching about the objective realities of slavery.

    It has to do with states rights and it also has a lot to do with economics and the cotton business which was labor intensive.
    The "states' rights" issue was that the southern states wanted to keep up their slavery even though the democratic process of the country was moving towards making them end it. The "economics" was that the slavery was the only thing keeping the southern plantations profitable.

    Slavery was the issue that lead to the civil war. The "economics" is why the southern states mounted an insurrection to maintain their slavery and the "states' rights" was the bogus reason given by the southern states to justify their insurrection against the country. If slavery didn't exist, then the south would have never waged war on the rest of the country.

    Falsely claiming the south waged a war against the country over "states' rights" and "economics" is whitewashing the truth of the civil war and clearly shows which side the person doing the whitewashing stands on. They stand on the side of the slave owners of the south. There's no other reason to repeat that false talking point as an excuse to defend the genocide and the traitorous insurgency by the southern states.
     
    It isn’t a magic phrase. That is just another talking point. Anyone who has honestly studied the history of that time knows it was about the southern states belief that they had every right to own slaves. They go hand in hand. That isn’t a defense of slavery.
    Yes, it most certainly is a defense of slavery. By saying states rights in this instance people are giving permission to the states to enable slavery. That is a defense of slavery.

    States rights is just a talking point to give people who support slavery cover - they can say they support states rights without having to say they support slavery, because as you noted, nobody wants to say they support slavery.

    There was a history professor who used to post on SR from Mississippi I think. He would teach people on here who would say the civil war was about states rights. It was about slavery. Point blank. States rights is the talking point. I will take his word for it, since he has spent his life studying this era.
     
    Yes, it most certainly is a defense of slavery. By saying states rights in this instance people are giving permission to the states to enable slavery. That is a defense of slavery.

    States rights is just a talking point to give people who support slavery cover - they can say they support states rights without having to say they support slavery, because as you noted, nobody wants to say they support slavery.

    There was a history professor who used to post on SR from Mississippi I think. He would teach people on here who would say the civil war was about states rights. It was about slavery. Point blank. States rights is the talking point. I will take his word for it, since he has spent his life studying this era.
    Iirc, South Carolina had the guts to state that secession was about slavery. The states rights crap occurred at the time of the Lost Cause as southerners tried to polish the turd of treason.
     
    Iirc, South Carolina had the guts to state that secession was about slavery. The states rights crap occurred at the time of the Lost Cause as southerners tried to polish the turd of treason.
    I think this is why historians are pretty united on slavery being the cause of secession.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom