It makes some people more uncomfortable than others. It’s also a good way to teach other kids how to taunt the darker kids next to them when they see that reaction.
I’m sure that’s why the book is taught, because it’s a good way to teach how to taunt. I think we can all agree that it takes discussing To Kill A Mockingbird in class for the lighter-skinned kids to learn that they can taunt the darker-skinned kids with the N word. Oh, if only we could hide away these literary works, no one would ever use the N word again!
This kind of reaction is, to me, unfortunately what strengthens the conservative attitude that we are too concerned about political correctness. Political correctness is about being sensitive and respectful. It’s not about denying history and works of art that comment on our past.
Your kind of reaction, to me, is why I think it’s questionable that some liberal attitudes claim they want difference point-of-views but reject them immediately when they get them. I’m not saying these books shouldn’t be taught. I am simply telling you my experience. You may do with that what you will.
Perhaps I overreacted. My apologies. It seemed to me you were siding with the idea that these kinds of books shouldn’t be taught.
It would have been easier to understand if you had said you were basing this on your own experience. Probably a more powerful way of stating it as well.
Why?
I mean I have already exposed a fair amount of information about myself here as it is, and some of that is actually used against me in other conversations…but why do I have to tell you that yes, after the reading of books like Huck Finn, a biracial girl in an area where the black population is somewhere south of .1 percent, that’s less than one percent, exposed some of the kids to new and interesting words they would later think it was funny as hell to use against anyone who wasn’t white. That can’t possibly surprise anyone… right? These words hurt. And it’s not in some sort of academic outrage way, it’s about being told you don’t belong for decades by people who refer to you as dirty, tell you go to an continent you’ve never been to, and it’s always the continent because most these people couldn’t name more than 2 or 3 countries there if they tried, and of course the endless taunting of being labeled an animal.
So yes, if the teacher and parents aren’t prepared to deal with that, aren’t willing to deal with that, they might need to rethink how to approach these books if to approach them at all. And the experience of some white kids could differ wildly from kids who are not white. One uncomfortable is not equal to another’s uncomfortable when you’re the only nigger in the class. And by the way, they learned you were the only nigger in the class because the teacher told them, just then, what it meant, why it hurts and the source of the word. One day of teaching is not going to do a lot of good if the parents didn’t start that process at home; a lot of parents don’t seem to discuss this at home.
It might have been easier if you just gave me the benefit of the doubt rather than think I should expose some of the more painful childhood experiences I went through, so you could decide if my point of view had value.
Do you really expect me to know this about you? Do you think I comb through Qt3 and try to memorize stuff and associate it with the pseudonyms here? You don’t seem to be giving me much benefit of the doubt here if you really expected me to know this. Because I didn’t in this case. Sometimes I do, but not this time. At least not that I remember.
I still stand by what I wrote, even now that I understand you have a more personal history behind this. I thought you were implying that these books shouldn’t be taught, and I disagreed with that, strongly. If you think it’s ok to teach these books, I’m sorry I misunderstood.
We can probably both agree that if you’re going to teach controversial books, do a good job of it. That goes without saying almost, doesn’t it?
We can agree that controversial books should be taught well or not at all; however, I gave you a lot more of a benefit of a doubt than you gave me. I did not require you to qualify your position.
There is uncomfortable and then there is uncomfortable. I made the assumption that majority of those agreeing with your position may not have the experiences I and others have had and will continue to have for the rest of our lives and therefore are unlucky enough to know the heart of what these terms go for, like the deep internal self-loathing you learn as a child when you realize these terms are meant to dehumanize you, and the thing is, you will believe them if you don’t have strong positive influences in your life or you might go the other route and just get angry.
If there a lot of kids feeling uncomfortable and the parents are not comfortable, then the teacher doesn’t have their trust. I don’t know how you can teach this material without some level of trust. And while I give most teachers the benefit of the doubt I don’t know I can give the benefit of the doubt to a number of school systems down south. They actually change the curriculum, print special textbooks, for some of those states, teach something entirely different to those kids and give them a shall we say altered version of history, and you trust them with this?
Let me tell you how much I love Israel. Also:
Can you imagine how Reagan would have reacted to some douchebag like Rohrabacher? The dude is pretty much an open Russian agent.
Start bombing in 5 minutes?
I like the article in how it asks if Rohrabacher knew who Johnson was. Yeah, that was kind of the point.
I’ve now seen Cernovich material posted on FB by two former high school classmates. Amazing how these formerly fringe lunatics are now mainstream.
The fact that this fucker won a nomination and is running even with anyone is the most damning thing for supposed “conservatives” that has ever been.
This is a big name jumping ship.
(To be clear, very unlikely to be a party flip on this seat, but that Tiberi is leaving so abruptly speaks volumes.)
Is that a gun shoved into his pants pocket?
Of course it is.
The best part of the article is when Tom Cole says that the job of the US house reps is super hard, and the fact that they haven’t gotten raises in a decade is hard on their families.
They get paid a salary of $174,000 a year, not including benefits. Boo hoo.
This.
To be fair, the cost of living in DC is insane, but once that initial hurdle is overcome the rest of your income is disposable. $174k easily overcomes that.
Yes, even including the cost of living, when folks say that they are enduring hardships because they “only” earn $174k a year, it means they are totally out of touch with the general population.