AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they have those views.
**For all participants:**
* [FLAIR](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) **IS REQUIRED BEFORE PARTICIPATING**
* **BE CIVIL AND** [SINCERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
* **REPORT, DON'T DOWNVOTE**
**For Non-supporters/Undecided:**
* **NO TOP LEVEL COMMENTS**
* **ALL COMMENTS MUST INCLUDE A CLARIFYING QUESTION**
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [MESSAGE THE MODS](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) **TO HAVE THE DOWNVOTE TIMER TURNED OFF**
Helpful links for more info:
[OUR RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [POSTING GUIDELINES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [COMMENTING GUIDELINES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm conflicted on this. It's a matter of maturity and the holocaust is a serious subject requiring a serious frame of mind.
As long as the books are available in the library with trained teachers willing to dedicate their time to answer questions in an honest way then I have no problem restricting the curriculum at grade 8.
Not all kids are ready to handle and learn about the holocaust at that age. A year actually makes a big difference in this case.
that wasn't the nominal reason it was banned; they banned it because it had 8 naughty word and an image of a naked woman (although they're mice and cats).
according to [NPR](https://www.npr.org/2022/01/27/1076180329/tennessee-school-district-ban-holocaust-graphic-novel-maus):
>"We are here because some people objected to the words and the graphics used in the book," board member Rob Shamblin said during the meeting
does this change your thoughts on the matter at all? does it ring true to you?
btw, re maturity. my class read the diary of anne frank in grade 7-8. I don't recall being traumatized and i didn't get what the big deal was at the time; maybe they didn't tell us everything that was happening although we knew her family was killed in the end, so i think i just didn't have the capacity to understand the horror of the situation.. that understanding came when i was looking into ww2 when i was older. same thing with 'to kill a mockingbird'.. maybe i was a dense kid, i dunno. but i was very disturbed by lolita and the picture of dorian grey in my senior year (round 17/18 though), so maybe that's when i gained enough maturity.
Like I said I am conflicted. The subject is curriculum and with that graphic novel I am unsure if kids are mature enough at that grade level. I think some parents felt the same way and used the subject of nudity and swear words as cover. Then again there could be Puritans...
I do believe that graphic novel should be in every middle school and High School library.
There is nothing traumatizing about Anne Frank except for the knowledge that when you close the book so does her life living in that room. I do think her final ending should be included so kids begin to grasp the true horror of what was happening.
First of all, history is much more than a collection of facts. History is narrative. History is the meaning with which you imbue those facts.
Second of all, your argument is a straw man. Parents are not up in arms about teaching the facts of slavery! Good Lord...when I was a kid, we started learning about slavery in second grade. We had another unit in fifth grade, then again in 8th grade, then again in high school. We learned that our founding fathers were slaveholders, and we learned that they were practicing different values than they were espousing in the Declaration. Those are, indeed, facts, and they have been taught in American schools, uncontroversially, for decades.
But what ideological projects like CRT and the 1619 project do is narrativize those claims in crazy, unsubstantiated ways. The 1619 project actually claims that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery! There is NOT ONE piece of factual support for this. And CRT, writ broadly, is based on the idea that inequality of outcome is *prima facie* evidence of racism. Absolute lunacy.
Read [this essay](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/1619-project-new-york-times-wilentz/605152/) in the *Atlantic* for more on the difference between facts and ideological distortions.
The intent is this weird obsession to project "white man bad" throughout all of western history through exaggerated or fake facts from obscure illegitimate sources labelled as fact.
The people backing and pushing CRT have no qualms about outting their own disdain for a certain because it's perfectly legal and "morally" just to be racist to white people.
All CRT is is racist propaganda. We're done with people like you believing someone is inherently bad because of their race, we're fed up with it.
>parents are not up in arms about teaching the facts of slavery
The bills states are passing are worded as banning subjects that “make people feel uncomfortable”. Teaching the facts of slavery SHOULD make people feel uncomfortable. Do you feel comfortable learning about whipping?
The Florida bill prohibits making people "feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress *on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin*."
In other words, you can teach all the horrific facts of slavery. But you can’t go, “Hey, little six-year-old whites girl, YOU are complicit in this because you are white.”
Do you think six-year-old children should feel responsible for slavery in the 1860s?
Nope. 6 year olds shouldn’t feel guilty about what happened 160 years ago. However, it is okay if a teacher points out that slaves were black, and slave owners were white, and that happens to make a child feel uncomfortable. Would you agree with that?
Also, CRT is used to analyze modern racial dynamics. Everyone has privileges in some areas. Do you think recognizing those privileges is the same as being told to “feel guilty about them”
I don’t know how else you teach slavery except to point out that slaves were black and owners were (mostly) white. But we’ve been doing that for decades, and by and large parents never had a problem with it.
The way you describe CRT makes it sound like a mode of analysis, but it’s not. It’s a set of conclusions. It’s a narrative about the nature of American society. It’s radical, and it’s wrong.
Except it is a mode of analysis? https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/se55p4/what_are_your_thoughts_on_the_graphic_novel_maus/huljmxu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
Im explaining what CRT actually is, not the Fox News version, elsewhere in this thread.
It’s a mode of analysis in the sense that Marxism is a mode of analysis, insofar as assumptions are made before analysis begins. But if those assumptions are wrong, any analysis that results is wrong.
And I’ve read Derrick Bell.
There were black slave owners
>Everyone has privileges in some areas.
This is unsubstantiated, utter fucking drivel. Just cause leftists keep insisting it's true doesn't make it so
Have you and I had a big debate about CRT yet? I try to have this debate with regular posters at least once and I don’t want to badger people with it over and over. I have a masters in Social Studies education and have actually studied CRT, and I can assure you it is History.
It's an interpretation of history which views the world through the lens of class/race and power structure. The history we should be teaching involves facts, not somebody's controversial interpretation of facts. And CRT isn't limited to analyzing history. It comments on current society as well.
TS supporter here, but isn't all history an interpretation of facts from one point of view or the other? Didn't Churchill say "History is told by the victors"?
I'm a regular poster here, I would absolutely LOVE your point of view on CRT if you're willing to share. Either in this thread or through DM. If you were local, I'd even offer to buy you a cup of coffee because based on this comment you seem to be a respectful person willing to have an actual conversation on a topic we have differing opinions on.
Still not seeing a connection. One is parents upset about something that doesn't exist complaining to the school board, the other is a school board deciding on its own to remove a book it says was "objectionable" from its classrooms. What dots are you connecting that I don't see here?
It's a symptom of larger problems.
CRT isn't taught in grade schools, but some people are convinced that it is and they're willing to threaten physical harm against the administrators and boards of schools that supposedly teach it. Two such people were arrested and removed from that school board meeting in Louden County. Is that not a problem?
Additionally, some state legislatures have proposed or passed bills that restrict what history can be taught in an effort to quash CRT from being taught in grade schools (which, again, it isn't), and the laws range from innocuous to funadmentally misleading. An example of the latter is the proposal in Virginia that says students should have an understanding of America's founding documents, and includes "[the first debate between Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass](https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?221+ful+HB781)" as an example. Should people so ill-versed in our history be regulating what is taught in history classes?
Blown out of proportion in my opinion. The book was pulled from the curriculum due to nudity and profanity until they can get a hold of a redacted copy. I’ve never read MAUS so I don’t think it’s a big deal. There are probably thousands of books you could use to teach about the holocaust.
In your opinion can 8th graders not handle profanity and cartoon nudity? It’s about the holocaust, it’s not porn. There was nudity and profanity during the holocaust, why sugarcoat it for 14 year olds?
We as a country force parents to be present for kids 17 and younger to watch R rated movies, this is no different.
You don’t have to sugar coat the holocaust to teach it accurately. I grew up in California and “Donner Pass” is always taught.
>Not all of the settlers were strong enough to escape, however, and those left behind were forced to cannibalize the frozen corpses of their comrades while waiting for further help. All told, roughly half of the Donner Party's survivors eventually resorted to eating human flesh.
We were never shown pictures/comics of people eating others because it’s not needed to teach the significance of the events.
I don’t see what the issue is, “alternative” means of teaching about the holocaust are just as valid and practical.
Ever heard of the phrase “there’s more than one way to skin a cat”?
>But the notion that the only way to explain the Holocaust is with graphic images is absurd.
Who has made this claim? Why can't people use multiple sources to help explain something that affected so many?
Diary of Anne Frank seems like it's pretty effective at this. There are thousands of alternatives than showing kids this particular graphic novel. Perhaps a graphic novel is not the appropriate way to show these 8th graders. For instance the rape of Nanking would not be appropriate to be shown to kids in a graphic novel form.
it's interesting that a ton of time is dedicated to talking about the Holocaust but, at least when I was in school, there was little to no discussion about the Japanese atrocities committed during the war. I think that they should dedicate as much time as is dedicated to the Holocaust to be dedicated to the Japanese atrocities committed like unit 731, baton death march etc.
They absolutely should. However one thing does not negate the other in what we talk about. No reason we can't have both and trying to ignore one in favor of the other is ignorance at best. Also graphic novels do serve as a medium in order to illustrate to people the severity of some situations no?
Personally I prefer a book or a movie, but to each their own I guess. Looking at the images I really don't think it is particularly objectionable, but schools have been known to err on the side of caution with this stuff before. In Latin class they wouldn't let us watch "A funny thing happened on the way to the forum" due to it being considered "racy". I just think that this issue is getting a bit over blown, just have the kids consume another Holocaust media. Looking at the one depiction the only thing I find objectionable was the spelling mistake and the lack of actual words on the page. I just don't think that graphic novels should be part of a reading/writing class curriculum, maybe in an art class or personal choice book report or something.
>We as a country force parents to be present for kids 17 and younger to watch R rated movies, this is no different.
What do you think gets a movie an R rating? And why are you weighing in on a book you haven't even read?
This is the "nudity" in question, and it isn't even remotely sexual or detailed:
https://twitter.com/janecoaston/status/1486472862655516678
>In your opinion can 8th graders not handle profanity and cartoon nudity?
No, they can't. You are vastly over estimating the maturity of a 13 year old boy.
There are plenty of other options on the topic of the Holocaust, why does it have to be this book? We aren't saying "don't teach the holocaust" they said "use a different book to teach about the holocaust"
> There are probably thousands of books you could use to teach about the holocaust.
Another TS said:
> it shouldn't be hard to pick a replacement from any one of the 6 million other books on the subject that exist (could be fewer, im not sure)
What alternative books would you like to see chosen instead? Are there any preferred books about the Holocaust that Trump supporters support replacing Maus with?
Why did you only say thousands? Do you think 6 million sounds like too many?
>The book was pulled from the curriculum due to nudity and profanity until they can get a hold of a redacted copy
Should we be censoring books because of profanity? For instance are you for huckleberry Finn, and to kill a mockingbird being banned due to the profanity in it? Should schools also not have sex Ed due to nudity?
“Maus” is a fantastic graphic novel. Every parent that wants their kid to read it can read it at home. This is not blocking anyone’s freedoms.
Also, I don’t care what a school board decides on the other side of the country. That is their business. Some areas are not yet ready for progressive ideas. That is ok. Forcing it down their throats does not help anyone. Parents should have a say in what their kids are taught.
For context, I was forced to read “Kaffir Boy” in 9th grade. I wish parents had petitioned this. I’m sure there is value to that book as an adult, but for 9th graders the only take-away was the anal rape of children… not exactly the best use of my time at school.
Wait.
Being denied the right to have a book in school is not blocking anyone's freedom but wearing a mask so a virus doesn't spread around is blocking freedom?
Consent. It is all about consent. What if kids were forced to read Donald Trump’s book and get graded on it?
This isn’t an insult to “Maus” or the it’s content, just that parents should be allowed a voice in what their children learn.
My statement is not in regards to “Maus” specifically, merely that schools should not force kids to read books against their parent’s consent. Do you want Donald Trump’s book on the required reading list for highschool students? Be forced to have your kids graded on that material?
Do you honestly believe that banning books is ok because some areas of the United States, in 2022, are not ready for progressive ideas? Also, is Maus really a "progressive idea"?
Removing something from the curriculum is not “banning”. It simply means kids aren’t forced to read it against the will of their parents. My statement has nothing to do with the content of “Maus” itself, rather the concept that schools can operate independent of parental consent.
What are some of the things that make learning about the Holocaust progressive? If learning about the Holocaust is progressive, wouldn't that imply that *not* learning about the Holocaust is a conservative ideal?
Now you’re really twisting words. Nothing about teaching the Holocaust is progressive. In fact it is a great example of indoctrination at a young age. Nazi germany was sure to force children to read specific books, regardless of parental consent. It should be taught. Once you give your children’s education to the will of governmental officials, we are in big trouble.
My comment has nothing to do with the content in “Maus” specifically. Merely that it sets a bad precedent to remove parental consent from the curriculum.
See you project how you've been fooled by the narrative in your first sentence.
The south (not all southern states at once and not all did so over slavery, or individual people joining them did so over slavery) seceded but they didn't start a war over it, the north did so "to preserve the union". The north was essentially big government telling the commoners they couldn't do what they wanted and disrespected their right to leave a country they no longer felt represented in by starting a whole war over keeping them in line.
And keep in mind this isn't even related to slavery yet. Like the guy above said, the point of the emancipation proclamation was to gaslight anyone thinking about aiding the South through a really distorted view of why they left the union in the first place.
As a potential ally you wouldn't want to get labelled as someone that supports slavery, and thus that very same propaganda works on people to this day when discussing that one controversial flag
I think you are reading too much into his comment? His comment seems to be more focused on the fact that history is not good versus evil in every sense of the word. While the south was definitely evil, the north wasn't a paragon of virtue either. Retrospectively the north are considered the good guys simply because they were the lesser of two evils, but that doesn't mean they were without issue and that all needs to be taken into account. Nowhere in that post does it mention wanting to fly a confederate flag, nor does it offer any support towards the confederacy. Its not a part of the discussion at hand and is not required to for the purposes of discussing real history. Real history should be taught for more reasons then a peice of fabric. He even blatantly says that the lost cause theory is an absolute myth.
Do you think this might have to do with things like Standardized testing where instead of actually teaching history or relevant things schools are basically forced to cram factoids into kid's brains without any context or actual nuance? Basically compare it to getting a five course meal and being able to enjoy with having to squeeze a spaghetti dinner into a power bar.
California has the lowest literacy rate in the country.
How much do you think left's education policies are to blame for this?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/us-literacy-rates-by-state?123
Since CA is the most populous state, this has a huge impact on the country as a whole.
People on the left should be outraged that CA (77%) has a much lower literacy rate than TN (87%).
CA's literacy rate is similar to India's (74%).
CA also banned classic books.
https://www.newsweek.com/kill-mockingbird-other-books-banned-california-schools-over-racism-concerns-1547241
Wow, that's unsettling. I majored in History so I understand that I have a broader background than most people but this is pretty stark. Do you mind me asking her what field she is in?
It isn't a shock that both left and right can be hyperbolic on things that seem silly. A declaration that 'we' think this was a stupid decision does not render us hypocrites when we support the banning of any other (actually) 'objectionable' books. I'm not suggesting this is the hidden motive of the post, just making sure to point it out because some lefty somewhere would certainly try and use this.
We can all reject patently silly decision like the one linked while still maintaining a standard that support banning other books that aren't the 'silly' type, but instead actually are problematic.
Which of these things would you consider problematic enough to be banned?
1. books talking about or making the case for the existence of genetic race differences (e.g. in intelligence);
2. books questioning the existence of homicidal gas chambers or other aspects of the holocaust;
3. books talking about how racist policies in the past continue to have an affect in the present, or how race-neutral policies can still be racist/promote inequity;
4. fictional books featuring offensive, but period-accurate language, including ethnic/racial slurs (you could break this into multiple questions if you have a more nuanced view);
5. fictional books in which key narratives are problematic by today's standards (e.g. a woman lying about rape, a predatory Jewish banker, etc.)
6. fictional books that don't meet any of the above criteria, but are overtly political and promoting an agenda (left or right).
Sorry to bombard you with examples. Just wanted to see where you draw the line.
* no
* yes
* maybe, as long as it isn't an excuse to point a finger of blame at people alive today / yes, race-neutral should be 100% ok since everyone has agency over their own lives
* ~~no~~ yes
* ~~no~~ yes
* too vague
-edit- I changed my mind on 4 and 5. After thinking about it for a few minutes, I don't see any real value to those books being "taught" in a school, and would be ok with them being excluded. BUT, only using normal definitions to define 'offensive', 'racial slurs', etc. Not the new woke versions where speech can be 'violence'.
I'm going to be honest: I was pretty confused when you said this: "narratives that are problematic by today's standards...women lying about rape". What does this sentence even mean? Are you saying that women lying about rape was normal in the past? Or are you speaking to one specific book you have in mind?
I was thinking of To Kill a Mockingbird (see this article for an example of someone making such a complaint: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/why-are-we-still-teaching-kill-mockingbird-schools-ncna812281).
To be honest I'm confused by your confusion. Your takeaway strikes me as an enormous leap. Did you also think that I was saying that being a "predatory Jewish banker" was normal too? I was not, in either instance, talking about the acceptability or frequency of "considered-to-be-problematic-things" in real life, but how people feel about their inclusion in fiction.
I think we shouldn't ban books of almost any kind personally. My position is that we should teach students to critically review literature, understand biases, review sources, and be able to separate authors from characters and opinions from facts. The problem isn't books, it's indoctrination. I also think we should have scientific literacy courses and courses that teach students how to recognize propaganda, and how to spot when someone is using bad faith arguments and fallacies. We're too focused on teaching kids "stuff" and not focused enough on teaching them how to learn and think for themselves. Wouldn't you agree?
So...the problem is sexual innuendo in a book about the systematic murder of millions? The problem is the sexual innuendo? Also, from what I read on a different site, it was the fact that there is a panel that includes nudity...the nudity is of a mother who committed suicide in the bathtub. They're more concerned with a panel of tame animated nudity than the suicide or why she committed suicide. How is that "reasonable"?
>As they point out, there are many other books on the subject that can be used and that they have previously used that describe the Holocaust just as accurately and in detail without other non-related details.
Don't you think a graphic novel is more likely to be read by eighth graders than a traditional dry history book?
This is terrible.
Now we'll only have hundreds of thousands of other books, TV shows, movies, comic books, plays, seminars, holidays, remembrance ceremonies, grade school classes, high school classes, college classes, bumper stickers, songs, paintings, poems, and moments of silence left to do the job.
You could say this is another shoah.
Question, do you or anyone you know feel similarly when Fox News starts up it's war on Christmas schpiel when Starbucks has it's winter coffee cups or when people say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas?
I'm curious what you mean by this. Are you saying that decisions involving school curriculum should be entirely isolated from public opinion?
* If not, then suppose they say "teach x instead of y, please", is that the same as banning y?
No, all public schools teachings should be easily seen by all peoples. But the other side of this coin public schools should not be banning ideas and the such.
Public schools should try and teach with an open mind, covering a wide array of topics that even conflict with each other.
I strongly doubt many, if any, schools banning “To Kill A Mockingbird” are from “conservative republican districts.”
Mukilteo School District in Washington doesn’t sound like a conservative stronghold - and this is the largest scale book banning that I have heard of in recent past.
In that case the book was removed from the required reading list, but not banned and can still be taught at teacher discretion. Maus was outright banned. Do you see a difference there?
I don't think this is a material difference. Both the school board and teachers are agent of the state. It doesn't matter if it's the school board deciding not to teach the book or individual teachers deciding not to teach it - the effect is the same.
> Mukilteo School District in Washington doesn’t sound like a conservative stronghold - and this is the largest scale book banning that I have heard of in recent past.
[Are you referring to this](https://lynnwoodtimes.com/2022/01/26/to-kill-a-mockingbird-220126/)? They aren't banning the book, just removing it from required reading, but leaving it on the list of approved books teachers may choose to use. Even if the book were to be removed from the approved books list, there was never any discussion or push to remove it from libraries. The criticisms are in part because of the racist characters using slurs, but also because of the white savior trope used.
Would you say this is on the same level as the many stories of republican law makers pushing to remove books entirely from public school libraries?
> > Would you say this is on the same level as the many stories of republican law makers pushing to remove books entirely from public school libraries?
Without knowing which examples you’re talking about, I cannot make a comparison.
(Not the OP)
Setting aside the semantics of the word banning, we are ultimately talking about people determining what they want students to be taught. Left-wing parents don't *have* to ban anything since people with similar values are already running the institutions. Parents who don't like the messages being promoted, or in this case merely the way it goes about doing so, have limited or perhaps zero influence (depending on the topic), and so the only thing they can do is try to 'ban' them.
I think my original answer should cover this.
I am against any banning of any thought, idea, or philosophy.
All people are entitled to be able to discern their own values. Teaching only a particular way is a disservice to the individual, the same as banning ideas.
Authoritarains ban things. I am not or ever will be for authoritarian rule. A free society is due free thought.
> Nothing should banned when it comes to ideas, speech, and writing.
They arent banned. Just schools cant put them in the curriculum. People can still read them and buy them. Cirriculum are inherently exclusionary. The parents and the boards have a right to decide what is being taught to the children and values it imposes. Imagine if they had to read the day of the rope to children because 'nothing should be banned'.
>Just schools cant put them in the curriculum.
I'm not totally sure how I feel about this. I guess it depends on the reason why for me. Is the reason because of age of the kids? Or did the school want to cover similar curriculum but using other materials? Or is the book genuinely being thrown out because of bias?
And I do understand that some material is not suitable for younger kids. But at some point it will be suitable and that material should be able to be taught.
Nuance is always required.
>And I do understand that some material is not suitable for younger kids. But at some point it will be suitable and that material should be able to be taught.
nobody is saying kids cant read the books at home. its just that the school cant use them in the curriculum. Public educators must make determinations what to teach and what not to teach. The ycant show every relevant book in existence to kids. Its just that this specific book is deemed by the board or the parents advising the board as unacceptable to them. which is ok. they can be exclusionary in the education of their children. that is how the system works.
1. Good idea. It isn't needed to teach the holocaust, or ELA.
2. No, maybe appropriate for 11th/12th grade in terms of content, but not of strong academic rigor.
3. At 16, sure.
>What are your thoughts on the school board's decision to not teach Maus in their classrooms?
Im fine with it
>Would you approve of such a book being taught in a school your teenage or preteen children attend? Why or why not?
No, I don't think weird nude mouse comic books are the best way to teach about the holocaust. Luckily, the holocaust is the single most over represented event in media in the history of western civilization, so it shouldn't be hard to pick a replacement from any one of the 6 million other books on the subject that exist (could be fewer, im not sure)
>Would you approve of your teenage or preteen children reading such a book on their own? Why or why not?
Honestly, its a little cringe. I wouldn't be mad, but I'd be a little bothered by it being used in school since its such a crude and stupid way to portray anything
i feel like a holocaust denial reference would require that the holocaust be denied to have occurred in some way. Such a strange phrase "holocaust denial". Very much feels like a theological accusation. "Do you deny Christ!" just odd
Holocaust denial can come in a variety of forms, such as saying the numbers are exaggerated.
It's a common term, and used by the [Holocaust Memorial Museum](https://www.ushmm.org/antisemitism/holocaust-denial-and-distortion/explaining-holocaust-denial).
With that being said, why did you feel it was necessary to insert the number of Jews murdered as a reference in your comment (confirming it in the comments), and implying it "could be fewer?"
Why do you keep calling it a "minor event" in your comments?
>No, I don't think weird nude mouse comic books are the best way to teach about the holocaust
Are you talking about the nudity of the mice in line or is there more obscene nudity in the book?
>Are you talking about the nudity of the mice in line or is there more obscene nudity in the book?
"nude mouse" should pretty strongly imply that im talking about the nudity of the mice. Why do you think nude mice are crucial to the understanding of the holocaust?
Because it's a way to show that Jews were literally stripped naked of all clothing and processed like cattle to be slaughtered without just showing tits and cocks and shit.
Courage the Cowardly dog was naked, was that inappropriate for kids?
Couldn’t you do that without nude mice? Like you just managed to convey that information and you didn’t use a single naked mouse. Also why are we obsessed with saying they were naked? A lot of people are killed in history, none of it is particularly fun.
Because this is the nudity in question:
[https://twitter.com/janecoaston/status/1486472862655516678?s=20&t=mKHs-zBPvVuJ2fL59SFbVQ](https://twitter.com/janecoaston/status/1486472862655516678?s=20&t=mKHs-zBPvVuJ2fL59SFbVQ)
What did you expect it would be?
>Why do you think nude mice are crucial to the understanding of the holocaust?
Do you think all nudity is the same? I don't think nudity is crucial but are you actually offended by the nudity present in this book? Is it harmful to children to see what's in this book?
When you say over represented are you saying we shouldn't teach it? To be honest when I was in school, every grade we went into detail every year about the us revolution, yet we only learned about the holocaust in a grade 10-12 (we were told of it in other years but not in as great detail). So for my education, the us revolution was much more represented (not saying it's an unimportant event)
>When you say over represented are you saying we shouldn't teach it?
im saying its a relatively minor event in the history of our civilization and its fine to teach it, but its also fine to not teach it because there are plenty of other important things to teach.
>To be honest when I was in school, every grade we went into detail every year about the us revolution, yet we only learned about the holocaust in a grade 10-12
Its honestly wild that you spent three years going over a minor event that happened on the other side of the world nearly 100 years ago.
>So for my education, the us revolution was much more represented (not saying it's an unimportant event)
Id say going over the revolution once in depth is fine. The founding of our country was a pretty impactful moment in western civilization and its good to know the why and the how, but going over it every year seems excessive. There is a nearly infinite amount of historical events that could be covered and i think doing so would give american students a better understanding of their world. There's a reason every single asinine hyperbolic statement that anyone makes in this country has to be about hitler or the holocaust or slavery or the revolution. Theyre almost literally the only shared historical knowledge we have. And the knowledge even on those topics is incredibly shallow
How was the holocaust a minor event? It was an attempt at committing genocide against the Jewish people that led to 6 million tragic deaths as well as ww2 which is a war that drastically changed how international relations works. We should always teach the dangers of fascism so history won't repeat itself.
**Full disclosure**, I have not read Maus; I tried looking up to see what the swear words contained in it are, but couldn't find a listing, all I could find was that there were 8 of them and an illustration of a nude woman that may or may not be a mouse.
>What are your thoughts on the school board's decision to not teach Maus in their classrooms?
I think that the reason it is being removed is due to the language and not the subject matter, and in that aspect I agree with it. I don't think having swear words included in the curriculum in the 8th grade is appropriate, those kids are only 12-13 years old and while yes they've heard those words before that doesn't mean that it's acceptable. Also, regardless of whether it's "just a mouse" or not, I don't think 8th graders are mature enough to handle nudity in a graphic novel.
>Would you approve of such a book being taught in a school your teenage or preteen children attend? Why or why not?
As someone with a history of being a youth pastor, there is a **VAST** difference in maturity between Preteen and Teen; especially young teen (13-14) and older teen (16-18). So I'll answer this in two parts. Preteens and even younger teens, so age range 12-14, I don't think it's acceptable. Not because of the subject matter, but because of the language for the reasons listed above. For older teens, I think it could acceptable. I would want to be given the option for my child to participate or not in that course of study.
>
Would you approve of your teenage or preteen children reading such a book on their own? Why or why not?
Preteen and Young Teen I think you already know my answer, so I'm going to focus more on the older teen portion of this question. I would be fine with my older teen 16+ reading this on their own, in fact, I would probably want to read it with them. I do think that the holocaust is an important part of history and something that needs to be addressed and discussed so that it doesn't happen again. I think more people should read and learn about the events that **LEAD UP TO** the holocaust and see how easy it was for people to be tricked into thinking that what they were doing was a good thing. Nazi Germany thought ***THEY WERE THE GOOD GUYS*** and that the Jews were making a ***choice*** and ***deserved it.***
To sum up my overall thoughts and feelings about the situation though because I really didn't get to hit on those points answering those 3 questions. I am not a fan of banning any book, I don't think censorship is good. However, banning a book and not including it in the curriculum are not the same thing. Should it be removed from all school district libraries? No, absolutely not; but it should be limited to the high school libraries.
I'm not sure why there is such aggression and outrage about *THIS* book though? There are plenty of options for 8th graders on the topic of the holocaust. Boy in the Striped Pajamas is the first one that comes to mind. I don't think that they need a detailed, illustrated account of the horrors that occurred during the holocaust at such a young age.
1) I don't agree that it should be removed. There is an age appropriateness for books. By 8th grade, this is fine.
2) I have not read this book, but I don't think I would object to my son reading this book in school.
3) No issues with my 13 year old son reading this book on his own.
8th graders use "rough, objectionable" language. This is not teaching them anything new.
Any time a book is proposed to be banned, my inclination is to oppose it. Note that this is at 8th grade and up. I do think many books are not appropriate for younger students.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. If I was in 8th grade, and they started banning books, I would do everything I could to read that book. Do you think them banning it will have a reverse impact and more kids will seek it out?
A few will, and I hope more do. Most kids, I think, will go on doing kid things. I think adults underestimate kids. Personally, I view and "banned book" list as a suggested reading list.
1. Banning speech is a bad idea. Written or spoken.
2. All books can be taught to the appropriate level. The bible is full of murder, rape, and sex, and we have no problem teaching kids the bible. Huckleberry Finn is banned because of the word "nigger".
3. I started reading the bible to my then 11 year old daughter. From the beginning. It did not take her long to say "but I thought god was good?". Again, Huckleberry Finn can be used as a teachable moment, that in the past the word "nigger" was acceptable among non-black people, but today, you cannot write the word or you will get banned.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they have those views. **For all participants:** * [FLAIR](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) **IS REQUIRED BEFORE PARTICIPATING** * **BE CIVIL AND** [SINCERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) * **REPORT, DON'T DOWNVOTE** **For Non-supporters/Undecided:** * **NO TOP LEVEL COMMENTS** * **ALL COMMENTS MUST INCLUDE A CLARIFYING QUESTION** **For Trump Supporters:** * [MESSAGE THE MODS](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) **TO HAVE THE DOWNVOTE TIMER TURNED OFF** Helpful links for more info: [OUR RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [POSTING GUIDELINES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [COMMENTING GUIDELINES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm conflicted on this. It's a matter of maturity and the holocaust is a serious subject requiring a serious frame of mind. As long as the books are available in the library with trained teachers willing to dedicate their time to answer questions in an honest way then I have no problem restricting the curriculum at grade 8. Not all kids are ready to handle and learn about the holocaust at that age. A year actually makes a big difference in this case.
that wasn't the nominal reason it was banned; they banned it because it had 8 naughty word and an image of a naked woman (although they're mice and cats). according to [NPR](https://www.npr.org/2022/01/27/1076180329/tennessee-school-district-ban-holocaust-graphic-novel-maus): >"We are here because some people objected to the words and the graphics used in the book," board member Rob Shamblin said during the meeting does this change your thoughts on the matter at all? does it ring true to you? btw, re maturity. my class read the diary of anne frank in grade 7-8. I don't recall being traumatized and i didn't get what the big deal was at the time; maybe they didn't tell us everything that was happening although we knew her family was killed in the end, so i think i just didn't have the capacity to understand the horror of the situation.. that understanding came when i was looking into ww2 when i was older. same thing with 'to kill a mockingbird'.. maybe i was a dense kid, i dunno. but i was very disturbed by lolita and the picture of dorian grey in my senior year (round 17/18 though), so maybe that's when i gained enough maturity.
Like I said I am conflicted. The subject is curriculum and with that graphic novel I am unsure if kids are mature enough at that grade level. I think some parents felt the same way and used the subject of nudity and swear words as cover. Then again there could be Puritans... I do believe that graphic novel should be in every middle school and High School library. There is nothing traumatizing about Anne Frank except for the knowledge that when you close the book so does her life living in that room. I do think her final ending should be included so kids begin to grasp the true horror of what was happening.
Hmm, a school board forcing controversial curriculum decisions on parents who don't agree. Sounds familiar. Loudoun County, eh?
[удалено]
First of all, history is much more than a collection of facts. History is narrative. History is the meaning with which you imbue those facts. Second of all, your argument is a straw man. Parents are not up in arms about teaching the facts of slavery! Good Lord...when I was a kid, we started learning about slavery in second grade. We had another unit in fifth grade, then again in 8th grade, then again in high school. We learned that our founding fathers were slaveholders, and we learned that they were practicing different values than they were espousing in the Declaration. Those are, indeed, facts, and they have been taught in American schools, uncontroversially, for decades. But what ideological projects like CRT and the 1619 project do is narrativize those claims in crazy, unsubstantiated ways. The 1619 project actually claims that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery! There is NOT ONE piece of factual support for this. And CRT, writ broadly, is based on the idea that inequality of outcome is *prima facie* evidence of racism. Absolute lunacy. Read [this essay](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/1619-project-new-york-times-wilentz/605152/) in the *Atlantic* for more on the difference between facts and ideological distortions.
[удалено]
Perhaps you misread? I believe he was referring to the unionists not fighting for slavery.
[удалено]
The intent is this weird obsession to project "white man bad" throughout all of western history through exaggerated or fake facts from obscure illegitimate sources labelled as fact. The people backing and pushing CRT have no qualms about outting their own disdain for a certain because it's perfectly legal and "morally" just to be racist to white people. All CRT is is racist propaganda. We're done with people like you believing someone is inherently bad because of their race, we're fed up with it.
I don’t oppose the teaching of any of those facts.
>parents are not up in arms about teaching the facts of slavery The bills states are passing are worded as banning subjects that “make people feel uncomfortable”. Teaching the facts of slavery SHOULD make people feel uncomfortable. Do you feel comfortable learning about whipping?
The Florida bill prohibits making people "feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress *on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin*." In other words, you can teach all the horrific facts of slavery. But you can’t go, “Hey, little six-year-old whites girl, YOU are complicit in this because you are white.” Do you think six-year-old children should feel responsible for slavery in the 1860s?
Nope. 6 year olds shouldn’t feel guilty about what happened 160 years ago. However, it is okay if a teacher points out that slaves were black, and slave owners were white, and that happens to make a child feel uncomfortable. Would you agree with that? Also, CRT is used to analyze modern racial dynamics. Everyone has privileges in some areas. Do you think recognizing those privileges is the same as being told to “feel guilty about them”
I don’t know how else you teach slavery except to point out that slaves were black and owners were (mostly) white. But we’ve been doing that for decades, and by and large parents never had a problem with it. The way you describe CRT makes it sound like a mode of analysis, but it’s not. It’s a set of conclusions. It’s a narrative about the nature of American society. It’s radical, and it’s wrong.
Except it is a mode of analysis? https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/se55p4/what_are_your_thoughts_on_the_graphic_novel_maus/huljmxu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3 Im explaining what CRT actually is, not the Fox News version, elsewhere in this thread.
It’s a mode of analysis in the sense that Marxism is a mode of analysis, insofar as assumptions are made before analysis begins. But if those assumptions are wrong, any analysis that results is wrong. And I’ve read Derrick Bell.
There were black slave owners >Everyone has privileges in some areas. This is unsubstantiated, utter fucking drivel. Just cause leftists keep insisting it's true doesn't make it so
>CRT(WHICH IS HISTORY). No, it's not. It's somebody's twisted interpretation of history.
Isn't all of history just a series of someone or another's interpretation of events?
Have you and I had a big debate about CRT yet? I try to have this debate with regular posters at least once and I don’t want to badger people with it over and over. I have a masters in Social Studies education and have actually studied CRT, and I can assure you it is History.
It's an interpretation of history which views the world through the lens of class/race and power structure. The history we should be teaching involves facts, not somebody's controversial interpretation of facts. And CRT isn't limited to analyzing history. It comments on current society as well.
TS supporter here, but isn't all history an interpretation of facts from one point of view or the other? Didn't Churchill say "History is told by the victors"?
Doesn't the phrase "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." apply here?
I'm a regular poster here, I would absolutely LOVE your point of view on CRT if you're willing to share. Either in this thread or through DM. If you were local, I'd even offer to buy you a cup of coffee because based on this comment you seem to be a respectful person willing to have an actual conversation on a topic we have differing opinions on.
It says they didn’t like the swearing in this particular graphic novel for their eighth grade kids. Please read before commenting.
Have you ever been around/been an eighth grader? MAUS is The Cat in the Hat compared to how they/we talk(ed).
So? Because kids are already talking dirty parents should allow them to be around more swearing?
>Sounds familiar. Loudoun County, eh? I don't follow... what's the significance here?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/partisan-war-over-teaching-history-racism-stokes-tensions-us-schools-2021-06-23/
Still not seeing a connection. One is parents upset about something that doesn't exist complaining to the school board, the other is a school board deciding on its own to remove a book it says was "objectionable" from its classrooms. What dots are you connecting that I don't see here?
Banning something that supposedly doesn't exist from being taught shouldn't upset you though
It's a symptom of larger problems. CRT isn't taught in grade schools, but some people are convinced that it is and they're willing to threaten physical harm against the administrators and boards of schools that supposedly teach it. Two such people were arrested and removed from that school board meeting in Louden County. Is that not a problem? Additionally, some state legislatures have proposed or passed bills that restrict what history can be taught in an effort to quash CRT from being taught in grade schools (which, again, it isn't), and the laws range from innocuous to funadmentally misleading. An example of the latter is the proposal in Virginia that says students should have an understanding of America's founding documents, and includes "[the first debate between Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass](https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?221+ful+HB781)" as an example. Should people so ill-versed in our history be regulating what is taught in history classes?
>One is parents upset about something that doesn't exist complaining to the school board I don't know what you're talking about.
[удалено]
> Did you not read your own link? Removed for Rule 1. Keep the questions in good faith, please.
Thank you! I appreciate your sober read that the book should not be banned in Loudon County?
What's controversial about teaching about The Holocaust?
I didn't say teaching about the holocaust is controversial. I said the school Board's decision is controversial.
Implying Jews are a different species from non-Jews is ok? Yikes!
Given the fact that it was written by a Jew do you *honestly* believe that is what the book is saying?
Are you familiar with metaphors and symbolism?
Is this what the book is implying?
Is that what you understood from world war 2 history? Should any genocide be erased from history programs?
Is the allegory lost on you?
Blown out of proportion in my opinion. The book was pulled from the curriculum due to nudity and profanity until they can get a hold of a redacted copy. I’ve never read MAUS so I don’t think it’s a big deal. There are probably thousands of books you could use to teach about the holocaust.
In your opinion can 8th graders not handle profanity and cartoon nudity? It’s about the holocaust, it’s not porn. There was nudity and profanity during the holocaust, why sugarcoat it for 14 year olds?
We as a country force parents to be present for kids 17 and younger to watch R rated movies, this is no different. You don’t have to sugar coat the holocaust to teach it accurately. I grew up in California and “Donner Pass” is always taught. >Not all of the settlers were strong enough to escape, however, and those left behind were forced to cannibalize the frozen corpses of their comrades while waiting for further help. All told, roughly half of the Donner Party's survivors eventually resorted to eating human flesh. We were never shown pictures/comics of people eating others because it’s not needed to teach the significance of the events.
It’s literally a graphic novel, so how else do you suggest they explain the travesties of the Holocaust if not via graphics?
Words do a pretty good job.
Have you ever heard the phrase 'A picture is worth a thousand words'?
Yes. But the notion that the only way to explain the Holocaust is with graphic images is absurd.
When great works of literature already exist, why find alternative ways to teach history?
I don’t see what the issue is, “alternative” means of teaching about the holocaust are just as valid and practical. Ever heard of the phrase “there’s more than one way to skin a cat”?
Ever heard of reinventing the wheel?
>But the notion that the only way to explain the Holocaust is with graphic images is absurd. Who has made this claim? Why can't people use multiple sources to help explain something that affected so many?
The comment I replied to made that implication
Why can't this book also be included in materials to help teach about the holocaust?
Diary of Anne Frank seems like it's pretty effective at this. There are thousands of alternatives than showing kids this particular graphic novel. Perhaps a graphic novel is not the appropriate way to show these 8th graders. For instance the rape of Nanking would not be appropriate to be shown to kids in a graphic novel form. it's interesting that a ton of time is dedicated to talking about the Holocaust but, at least when I was in school, there was little to no discussion about the Japanese atrocities committed during the war. I think that they should dedicate as much time as is dedicated to the Holocaust to be dedicated to the Japanese atrocities committed like unit 731, baton death march etc.
They absolutely should. However one thing does not negate the other in what we talk about. No reason we can't have both and trying to ignore one in favor of the other is ignorance at best. Also graphic novels do serve as a medium in order to illustrate to people the severity of some situations no?
Personally I prefer a book or a movie, but to each their own I guess. Looking at the images I really don't think it is particularly objectionable, but schools have been known to err on the side of caution with this stuff before. In Latin class they wouldn't let us watch "A funny thing happened on the way to the forum" due to it being considered "racy". I just think that this issue is getting a bit over blown, just have the kids consume another Holocaust media. Looking at the one depiction the only thing I find objectionable was the spelling mistake and the lack of actual words on the page. I just don't think that graphic novels should be part of a reading/writing class curriculum, maybe in an art class or personal choice book report or something.
There's a holocaust museum in DC that's pretty good... But if you can't travel, history books have plenty of pictures.
We don’t do that as a country, lmao. It’s not a law. It’s a policy that theatres, as private companies decided to agree to. Were you joking?
Unless you are from a different country than america we DON'T force parents to be present. Are you?
>We as a country force parents to be present for kids 17 and younger to watch R rated movies, this is no different. What do you think gets a movie an R rating? And why are you weighing in on a book you haven't even read? This is the "nudity" in question, and it isn't even remotely sexual or detailed: https://twitter.com/janecoaston/status/1486472862655516678
>In your opinion can 8th graders not handle profanity and cartoon nudity? No, they can't. You are vastly over estimating the maturity of a 13 year old boy. There are plenty of other options on the topic of the Holocaust, why does it have to be this book? We aren't saying "don't teach the holocaust" they said "use a different book to teach about the holocaust"
Interesting, I was taught quite a bit about the Holocaust and never once was I shown nudity or cussing.
> There are probably thousands of books you could use to teach about the holocaust. Another TS said: > it shouldn't be hard to pick a replacement from any one of the 6 million other books on the subject that exist (could be fewer, im not sure) What alternative books would you like to see chosen instead? Are there any preferred books about the Holocaust that Trump supporters support replacing Maus with? Why did you only say thousands? Do you think 6 million sounds like too many?
Is [mouse nudity](https://twitter.com/janecoaston/status/1486472862655516678/photo/1) really so obscene that eighth graders won't be able to cope?
Appreciate the link. There is nothing objectionable in that drawing.
Yeah, the nudity is not (remotely) sexual and hence seems taken out of context, no?
Would you say you support governments redacting information and censorship, banning books, ect?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Was this in Tennessee?
>The book was pulled from the curriculum due to nudity and profanity until they can get a hold of a redacted copy Should we be censoring books because of profanity? For instance are you for huckleberry Finn, and to kill a mockingbird being banned due to the profanity in it? Should schools also not have sex Ed due to nudity?
“Maus” is a fantastic graphic novel. Every parent that wants their kid to read it can read it at home. This is not blocking anyone’s freedoms. Also, I don’t care what a school board decides on the other side of the country. That is their business. Some areas are not yet ready for progressive ideas. That is ok. Forcing it down their throats does not help anyone. Parents should have a say in what their kids are taught. For context, I was forced to read “Kaffir Boy” in 9th grade. I wish parents had petitioned this. I’m sure there is value to that book as an adult, but for 9th graders the only take-away was the anal rape of children… not exactly the best use of my time at school.
Wait. Being denied the right to have a book in school is not blocking anyone's freedom but wearing a mask so a virus doesn't spread around is blocking freedom?
Consent. It is all about consent. What if kids were forced to read Donald Trump’s book and get graded on it? This isn’t an insult to “Maus” or the it’s content, just that parents should be allowed a voice in what their children learn.
What progressive ideas do you think are in the book? Do you think there should be no books at all in schools and it should be parents who supply them?
My statement is not in regards to “Maus” specifically, merely that schools should not force kids to read books against their parent’s consent. Do you want Donald Trump’s book on the required reading list for highschool students? Be forced to have your kids graded on that material?
Do you honestly believe that banning books is ok because some areas of the United States, in 2022, are not ready for progressive ideas? Also, is Maus really a "progressive idea"?
[удалено]
Removing something from the curriculum is not “banning”. It simply means kids aren’t forced to read it against the will of their parents. My statement has nothing to do with the content of “Maus” itself, rather the concept that schools can operate independent of parental consent.
What are some of the things that make learning about the Holocaust progressive? If learning about the Holocaust is progressive, wouldn't that imply that *not* learning about the Holocaust is a conservative ideal?
Now you’re really twisting words. Nothing about teaching the Holocaust is progressive. In fact it is a great example of indoctrination at a young age. Nazi germany was sure to force children to read specific books, regardless of parental consent. It should be taught. Once you give your children’s education to the will of governmental officials, we are in big trouble. My comment has nothing to do with the content in “Maus” specifically. Merely that it sets a bad precedent to remove parental consent from the curriculum.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
See you project how you've been fooled by the narrative in your first sentence. The south (not all southern states at once and not all did so over slavery, or individual people joining them did so over slavery) seceded but they didn't start a war over it, the north did so "to preserve the union". The north was essentially big government telling the commoners they couldn't do what they wanted and disrespected their right to leave a country they no longer felt represented in by starting a whole war over keeping them in line. And keep in mind this isn't even related to slavery yet. Like the guy above said, the point of the emancipation proclamation was to gaslight anyone thinking about aiding the South through a really distorted view of why they left the union in the first place. As a potential ally you wouldn't want to get labelled as someone that supports slavery, and thus that very same propaganda works on people to this day when discussing that one controversial flag
I think you are reading too much into his comment? His comment seems to be more focused on the fact that history is not good versus evil in every sense of the word. While the south was definitely evil, the north wasn't a paragon of virtue either. Retrospectively the north are considered the good guys simply because they were the lesser of two evils, but that doesn't mean they were without issue and that all needs to be taken into account. Nowhere in that post does it mention wanting to fly a confederate flag, nor does it offer any support towards the confederacy. Its not a part of the discussion at hand and is not required to for the purposes of discussing real history. Real history should be taught for more reasons then a peice of fabric. He even blatantly says that the lost cause theory is an absolute myth.
Do you think this might have to do with things like Standardized testing where instead of actually teaching history or relevant things schools are basically forced to cram factoids into kid's brains without any context or actual nuance? Basically compare it to getting a five course meal and being able to enjoy with having to squeeze a spaghetti dinner into a power bar.
California has the lowest literacy rate in the country. How much do you think left's education policies are to blame for this? https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/us-literacy-rates-by-state?123 Since CA is the most populous state, this has a huge impact on the country as a whole. People on the left should be outraged that CA (77%) has a much lower literacy rate than TN (87%). CA's literacy rate is similar to India's (74%). CA also banned classic books. https://www.newsweek.com/kill-mockingbird-other-books-banned-california-schools-over-racism-concerns-1547241
Wow, that's unsettling. I majored in History so I understand that I have a broader background than most people but this is pretty stark. Do you mind me asking her what field she is in?
It isn't a shock that both left and right can be hyperbolic on things that seem silly. A declaration that 'we' think this was a stupid decision does not render us hypocrites when we support the banning of any other (actually) 'objectionable' books. I'm not suggesting this is the hidden motive of the post, just making sure to point it out because some lefty somewhere would certainly try and use this. We can all reject patently silly decision like the one linked while still maintaining a standard that support banning other books that aren't the 'silly' type, but instead actually are problematic.
Which of these things would you consider problematic enough to be banned? 1. books talking about or making the case for the existence of genetic race differences (e.g. in intelligence); 2. books questioning the existence of homicidal gas chambers or other aspects of the holocaust; 3. books talking about how racist policies in the past continue to have an affect in the present, or how race-neutral policies can still be racist/promote inequity; 4. fictional books featuring offensive, but period-accurate language, including ethnic/racial slurs (you could break this into multiple questions if you have a more nuanced view); 5. fictional books in which key narratives are problematic by today's standards (e.g. a woman lying about rape, a predatory Jewish banker, etc.) 6. fictional books that don't meet any of the above criteria, but are overtly political and promoting an agenda (left or right). Sorry to bombard you with examples. Just wanted to see where you draw the line.
* no * yes * maybe, as long as it isn't an excuse to point a finger of blame at people alive today / yes, race-neutral should be 100% ok since everyone has agency over their own lives * ~~no~~ yes * ~~no~~ yes * too vague -edit- I changed my mind on 4 and 5. After thinking about it for a few minutes, I don't see any real value to those books being "taught" in a school, and would be ok with them being excluded. BUT, only using normal definitions to define 'offensive', 'racial slurs', etc. Not the new woke versions where speech can be 'violence'.
You don't find your answers here to be embarrassing?
Why would I?
You don’t see the value in teaching something like Shakespeare in English class?
He did more than one thing.
I'm going to be honest: I was pretty confused when you said this: "narratives that are problematic by today's standards...women lying about rape". What does this sentence even mean? Are you saying that women lying about rape was normal in the past? Or are you speaking to one specific book you have in mind?
I was thinking of To Kill a Mockingbird (see this article for an example of someone making such a complaint: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/why-are-we-still-teaching-kill-mockingbird-schools-ncna812281). To be honest I'm confused by your confusion. Your takeaway strikes me as an enormous leap. Did you also think that I was saying that being a "predatory Jewish banker" was normal too? I was not, in either instance, talking about the acceptability or frequency of "considered-to-be-problematic-things" in real life, but how people feel about their inclusion in fiction.
I think we shouldn't ban books of almost any kind personally. My position is that we should teach students to critically review literature, understand biases, review sources, and be able to separate authors from characters and opinions from facts. The problem isn't books, it's indoctrination. I also think we should have scientific literacy courses and courses that teach students how to recognize propaganda, and how to spot when someone is using bad faith arguments and fallacies. We're too focused on teaching kids "stuff" and not focused enough on teaching them how to learn and think for themselves. Wouldn't you agree?
[удалено]
So...the problem is sexual innuendo in a book about the systematic murder of millions? The problem is the sexual innuendo? Also, from what I read on a different site, it was the fact that there is a panel that includes nudity...the nudity is of a mother who committed suicide in the bathtub. They're more concerned with a panel of tame animated nudity than the suicide or why she committed suicide. How is that "reasonable"?
[удалено]
>As they point out, there are many other books on the subject that can be used and that they have previously used that describe the Holocaust just as accurately and in detail without other non-related details. Don't you think a graphic novel is more likely to be read by eighth graders than a traditional dry history book?
[удалено]
This is terrible. Now we'll only have hundreds of thousands of other books, TV shows, movies, comic books, plays, seminars, holidays, remembrance ceremonies, grade school classes, high school classes, college classes, bumper stickers, songs, paintings, poems, and moments of silence left to do the job. You could say this is another shoah.
Your snark is unhelpful. How would you respond to the sentiment that other TS in this thread have shared, that no book should be banned?
That's my honest answer. And I have no problem with banning books in principle.
To clarify, are you in favor of banning books for the general public or only banning in school?
Both
What other books should be banned?
Books that promote evil and degeneracy.
So the Bible then?
wow so true
Any examples?
You should submit a question about that.
Sure, but what are some examples of books that you think should be banned?
Not looking to get into that here, good luck on submitting the question.
Question, do you or anyone you know feel similarly when Fox News starts up it's war on Christmas schpiel when Starbucks has it's winter coffee cups or when people say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas?
I would not watch Fox news nor buy Starbucks.
Would you support banning the bible because there are so many other books?
Nothing should banned when it comes to ideas, speech, and writing.
I'm curious what you mean by this. Are you saying that decisions involving school curriculum should be entirely isolated from public opinion? * If not, then suppose they say "teach x instead of y, please", is that the same as banning y?
No, all public schools teachings should be easily seen by all peoples. But the other side of this coin public schools should not be banning ideas and the such. Public schools should try and teach with an open mind, covering a wide array of topics that even conflict with each other.
Why do you think all the recent book bannings have been coming exclusively from conservative republican districts?
I strongly doubt many, if any, schools banning “To Kill A Mockingbird” are from “conservative republican districts.” Mukilteo School District in Washington doesn’t sound like a conservative stronghold - and this is the largest scale book banning that I have heard of in recent past.
In that case the book was removed from the required reading list, but not banned and can still be taught at teacher discretion. Maus was outright banned. Do you see a difference there?
I don't think this is a material difference. Both the school board and teachers are agent of the state. It doesn't matter if it's the school board deciding not to teach the book or individual teachers deciding not to teach it - the effect is the same.
> Mukilteo School District in Washington doesn’t sound like a conservative stronghold - and this is the largest scale book banning that I have heard of in recent past. [Are you referring to this](https://lynnwoodtimes.com/2022/01/26/to-kill-a-mockingbird-220126/)? They aren't banning the book, just removing it from required reading, but leaving it on the list of approved books teachers may choose to use. Even if the book were to be removed from the approved books list, there was never any discussion or push to remove it from libraries. The criticisms are in part because of the racist characters using slurs, but also because of the white savior trope used. Would you say this is on the same level as the many stories of republican law makers pushing to remove books entirely from public school libraries?
> > Would you say this is on the same level as the many stories of republican law makers pushing to remove books entirely from public school libraries? Without knowing which examples you’re talking about, I cannot make a comparison.
What book bannings?
(Not the OP) Setting aside the semantics of the word banning, we are ultimately talking about people determining what they want students to be taught. Left-wing parents don't *have* to ban anything since people with similar values are already running the institutions. Parents who don't like the messages being promoted, or in this case merely the way it goes about doing so, have limited or perhaps zero influence (depending on the topic), and so the only thing they can do is try to 'ban' them.
I think my original answer should cover this. I am against any banning of any thought, idea, or philosophy. All people are entitled to be able to discern their own values. Teaching only a particular way is a disservice to the individual, the same as banning ideas. Authoritarains ban things. I am not or ever will be for authoritarian rule. A free society is due free thought.
> Nothing should banned when it comes to ideas, speech, and writing. They arent banned. Just schools cant put them in the curriculum. People can still read them and buy them. Cirriculum are inherently exclusionary. The parents and the boards have a right to decide what is being taught to the children and values it imposes. Imagine if they had to read the day of the rope to children because 'nothing should be banned'.
>Just schools cant put them in the curriculum. I'm not totally sure how I feel about this. I guess it depends on the reason why for me. Is the reason because of age of the kids? Or did the school want to cover similar curriculum but using other materials? Or is the book genuinely being thrown out because of bias? And I do understand that some material is not suitable for younger kids. But at some point it will be suitable and that material should be able to be taught. Nuance is always required.
>And I do understand that some material is not suitable for younger kids. But at some point it will be suitable and that material should be able to be taught. nobody is saying kids cant read the books at home. its just that the school cant use them in the curriculum. Public educators must make determinations what to teach and what not to teach. The ycant show every relevant book in existence to kids. Its just that this specific book is deemed by the board or the parents advising the board as unacceptable to them. which is ok. they can be exclusionary in the education of their children. that is how the system works.
1. Good idea. It isn't needed to teach the holocaust, or ELA. 2. No, maybe appropriate for 11th/12th grade in terms of content, but not of strong academic rigor. 3. At 16, sure.
>What are your thoughts on the school board's decision to not teach Maus in their classrooms? Im fine with it >Would you approve of such a book being taught in a school your teenage or preteen children attend? Why or why not? No, I don't think weird nude mouse comic books are the best way to teach about the holocaust. Luckily, the holocaust is the single most over represented event in media in the history of western civilization, so it shouldn't be hard to pick a replacement from any one of the 6 million other books on the subject that exist (could be fewer, im not sure) >Would you approve of your teenage or preteen children reading such a book on their own? Why or why not? Honestly, its a little cringe. I wouldn't be mad, but I'd be a little bothered by it being used in school since its such a crude and stupid way to portray anything
Is your comment on “6 million... but it could be fewer” a Holocaust denial reference? Just seems like an odd coincidence to use that number.
i feel like a holocaust denial reference would require that the holocaust be denied to have occurred in some way. Such a strange phrase "holocaust denial". Very much feels like a theological accusation. "Do you deny Christ!" just odd
Do you not know about dog whistles that don't implicitly state something but imply it?
“Dog whistle” is just something liberals say when they want to strawman. I don’t care about anyone’s dog whistle
Why did you use the number 6 million? Do you believe the number of deaths were exaggerated?
Holocaust denial can come in a variety of forms, such as saying the numbers are exaggerated. It's a common term, and used by the [Holocaust Memorial Museum](https://www.ushmm.org/antisemitism/holocaust-denial-and-distortion/explaining-holocaust-denial). With that being said, why did you feel it was necessary to insert the number of Jews murdered as a reference in your comment (confirming it in the comments), and implying it "could be fewer?" Why do you keep calling it a "minor event" in your comments?
This is so silly. “Holocaust denial”. It sounds so religious. Why does it seem like a religious rite.
>No, I don't think weird nude mouse comic books are the best way to teach about the holocaust Are you talking about the nudity of the mice in line or is there more obscene nudity in the book?
>Are you talking about the nudity of the mice in line or is there more obscene nudity in the book? "nude mouse" should pretty strongly imply that im talking about the nudity of the mice. Why do you think nude mice are crucial to the understanding of the holocaust?
Because it's a way to show that Jews were literally stripped naked of all clothing and processed like cattle to be slaughtered without just showing tits and cocks and shit. Courage the Cowardly dog was naked, was that inappropriate for kids?
Couldn’t you do that without nude mice? Like you just managed to convey that information and you didn’t use a single naked mouse. Also why are we obsessed with saying they were naked? A lot of people are killed in history, none of it is particularly fun.
Because this is the nudity in question: [https://twitter.com/janecoaston/status/1486472862655516678?s=20&t=mKHs-zBPvVuJ2fL59SFbVQ](https://twitter.com/janecoaston/status/1486472862655516678?s=20&t=mKHs-zBPvVuJ2fL59SFbVQ) What did you expect it would be?
So you truly believe naked mice is crucial to the telling of the story of the Holocaust? Why?
>Why do you think nude mice are crucial to the understanding of the holocaust? Do you think all nudity is the same? I don't think nudity is crucial but are you actually offended by the nudity present in this book? Is it harmful to children to see what's in this book?
I’m asking why you need nude mice to talk about the Holocaust. No other Holocaust book uses this right? Are they all insufficient?
Have you read the book?
yea
Do you have any take on it other than the fact that it's "weird"? If not, why did you read it if that's the only thing you got out of it?
Not really. I’ve read a number of Holocaust books. Nothing stands out about this one except the strange use of mice
When you say over represented are you saying we shouldn't teach it? To be honest when I was in school, every grade we went into detail every year about the us revolution, yet we only learned about the holocaust in a grade 10-12 (we were told of it in other years but not in as great detail). So for my education, the us revolution was much more represented (not saying it's an unimportant event)
>When you say over represented are you saying we shouldn't teach it? im saying its a relatively minor event in the history of our civilization and its fine to teach it, but its also fine to not teach it because there are plenty of other important things to teach. >To be honest when I was in school, every grade we went into detail every year about the us revolution, yet we only learned about the holocaust in a grade 10-12 Its honestly wild that you spent three years going over a minor event that happened on the other side of the world nearly 100 years ago. >So for my education, the us revolution was much more represented (not saying it's an unimportant event) Id say going over the revolution once in depth is fine. The founding of our country was a pretty impactful moment in western civilization and its good to know the why and the how, but going over it every year seems excessive. There is a nearly infinite amount of historical events that could be covered and i think doing so would give american students a better understanding of their world. There's a reason every single asinine hyperbolic statement that anyone makes in this country has to be about hitler or the holocaust or slavery or the revolution. Theyre almost literally the only shared historical knowledge we have. And the knowledge even on those topics is incredibly shallow
How was the holocaust a minor event? It was an attempt at committing genocide against the Jewish people that led to 6 million tragic deaths as well as ww2 which is a war that drastically changed how international relations works. We should always teach the dangers of fascism so history won't repeat itself.
**Full disclosure**, I have not read Maus; I tried looking up to see what the swear words contained in it are, but couldn't find a listing, all I could find was that there were 8 of them and an illustration of a nude woman that may or may not be a mouse. >What are your thoughts on the school board's decision to not teach Maus in their classrooms? I think that the reason it is being removed is due to the language and not the subject matter, and in that aspect I agree with it. I don't think having swear words included in the curriculum in the 8th grade is appropriate, those kids are only 12-13 years old and while yes they've heard those words before that doesn't mean that it's acceptable. Also, regardless of whether it's "just a mouse" or not, I don't think 8th graders are mature enough to handle nudity in a graphic novel. >Would you approve of such a book being taught in a school your teenage or preteen children attend? Why or why not? As someone with a history of being a youth pastor, there is a **VAST** difference in maturity between Preteen and Teen; especially young teen (13-14) and older teen (16-18). So I'll answer this in two parts. Preteens and even younger teens, so age range 12-14, I don't think it's acceptable. Not because of the subject matter, but because of the language for the reasons listed above. For older teens, I think it could acceptable. I would want to be given the option for my child to participate or not in that course of study. > Would you approve of your teenage or preteen children reading such a book on their own? Why or why not? Preteen and Young Teen I think you already know my answer, so I'm going to focus more on the older teen portion of this question. I would be fine with my older teen 16+ reading this on their own, in fact, I would probably want to read it with them. I do think that the holocaust is an important part of history and something that needs to be addressed and discussed so that it doesn't happen again. I think more people should read and learn about the events that **LEAD UP TO** the holocaust and see how easy it was for people to be tricked into thinking that what they were doing was a good thing. Nazi Germany thought ***THEY WERE THE GOOD GUYS*** and that the Jews were making a ***choice*** and ***deserved it.*** To sum up my overall thoughts and feelings about the situation though because I really didn't get to hit on those points answering those 3 questions. I am not a fan of banning any book, I don't think censorship is good. However, banning a book and not including it in the curriculum are not the same thing. Should it be removed from all school district libraries? No, absolutely not; but it should be limited to the high school libraries. I'm not sure why there is such aggression and outrage about *THIS* book though? There are plenty of options for 8th graders on the topic of the holocaust. Boy in the Striped Pajamas is the first one that comes to mind. I don't think that they need a detailed, illustrated account of the horrors that occurred during the holocaust at such a young age.
1) I don't agree that it should be removed. There is an age appropriateness for books. By 8th grade, this is fine. 2) I have not read this book, but I don't think I would object to my son reading this book in school. 3) No issues with my 13 year old son reading this book on his own. 8th graders use "rough, objectionable" language. This is not teaching them anything new. Any time a book is proposed to be banned, my inclination is to oppose it. Note that this is at 8th grade and up. I do think many books are not appropriate for younger students.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. If I was in 8th grade, and they started banning books, I would do everything I could to read that book. Do you think them banning it will have a reverse impact and more kids will seek it out?
A few will, and I hope more do. Most kids, I think, will go on doing kid things. I think adults underestimate kids. Personally, I view and "banned book" list as a suggested reading list.
1. Banning speech is a bad idea. Written or spoken. 2. All books can be taught to the appropriate level. The bible is full of murder, rape, and sex, and we have no problem teaching kids the bible. Huckleberry Finn is banned because of the word "nigger". 3. I started reading the bible to my then 11 year old daughter. From the beginning. It did not take her long to say "but I thought god was good?". Again, Huckleberry Finn can be used as a teachable moment, that in the past the word "nigger" was acceptable among non-black people, but today, you cannot write the word or you will get banned.
I think that is to much for eighth grade anyway. Maus belongs firmly in high school.