Now that you mention it, yeah.

[firecat]

Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird was published 50 years ago yesterday. This blog post by macon d points out some of the ways that To Kill a Mockingbird is racist. A comment by sanguinity suggests a couple of alternatives.

http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2010/07/warmly-embrace-racist-novel-to-kill.html

The comments on that post, as of right now, are mostly thoughtful.

Comments

[amethystfirefly]

I can see the OP's point. But, I think the book is an important book.

For a girl like me, who lived in a predominantly white and Native American area, the book was important because I got a glimpse of how ugly racism can truly be. I grew up with an extended family full of racists. For example, my mom's side of the family called Brazil nuts "n***** toes" and that word was thrown around liberally whenever talking about Black people. And that was just the stuff towards the Blacks.

But, to me, this was normal. I don't really think I thought about how wrong it was until I read that book. I didn't realize how far racism could go. It opened my eyes.

So to remove the books from the schools completely... I don't know if that's a good thing. But, I can see how it can easily reinforce racism by letting people pretend that things are all better now.

I think that, for its best impact, it needs to be taught in a racial studies class. But you know as well as I do that the conservatives would go insane if any public school tried to institute a racial studies class. -sighs-

So... I don't know. I can see the point of the post. I just don't know what the right solution is.

And I think I'm babbling. So I'm going to STFU. -laughs-

[amethystfirefly]

Aha! TungstenMoose on the original post said something that's along the lines of what I'd like to see done with this book:

"Perhaps the book should be taken out of the reading curriculum but to ignore the book wholly could present problems. It has affected and shaped a large portion of white thinking in North American society. It could be taught (but not required to read) to show how white racism is still pervasive and institutionalized. It is an excellent example of the white race fantasy. Using that as the example students could be taught to recognize subtle racism. Current legislation in the US, though, makes any hope of discussing such things with students dim. "

[firecat]

It is an excellent example of the white race fantasy. Using that as the example students could be taught to recognize subtle racism.

I agree with everything you said. I think it's important to discuss the ways the book is racist and consider whether it's important to teach this particular book (vs. substituting books by POC).

[trixtah]

I agree with this.

It could also be used as an example of how the context that a piece of literature was created in can be critical in understanding it - and how when the context changes, the relevance or tone of the novel can be called into question.

I think the original post was harsh - sure, critiquing the way it is currently taught is valid, but I also think its a fairly ahistorical view to characterise the novel itself as "racist" in its original context. It's certainly deeply patronising and problematic now, but was sure as hell ground-breaking then. But it should not be taught in a fashion as described in the original post (the "bad old days" vs "the good new days").

[firecat]

I agree.

As for the harshness -- it is indeed an ahistorical view, but part of the point was that some people who read the book are very upset by it. Is it right to force children to read a work that upsets them because the work includes language that attacks who they are? I don't think it's right. I liked the solution one commenter mentioned, that the book was taught but students could opt out of reading that particular book.

[flarenut]

"Is it right to force children to read a work that upsets them because the work includes language that attacks who they are?"

I'm not sure that captures things exactly -- that statement needs, I think, not to be colorblind or genderblind or blind to all the other possibilities for privilege vs oppression. Otherwise you get all kinds of false symmetry.

On the general question, I think this is also a place for nonuniversal curriculums. As with amethystfirefly, the environment where I read the book was one where "racism is really bad" was already a pretty controversial statement. I know incrementalism is sometimes worse than the ills it claims to fight, and yet. (I had a really eloquent part here about moses syndrome, which is the tendency for most people who break out of old systems to fully enter into the new system they're trying to enable, but it probably doesn't go here.)

[firecat]

that statement needs, I think, not to be colorblind or genderblind or blind to all the other possibilities for privilege vs oppression.

I'm not sure I follow this.

nonuniversal curriculums

Seems reasonable.

[flarenut]

What I meant is that being attacked for who you are is (imo) not such a bad thing for members of privileged groups to experience. And that privileged assholes or their parents can feel attacked for who they are by pretty much any decent book ever printed. So you need, somehow, to take that into account.

[firecat]

Oh! Yes. Very good point.

[bcholmes]

Have you run into this article by Malcolm Gladwell?

[firecat]

He encourages them to swap one of their prejudices for another.

Yeah.

Good article, thanks!

[sqbr]

We were taught the book, but the teaching focussed as much on how it was racist as how it was not. Mind you this was a long time ago, I can't remember how deep the analysis was. Plus I went to a fairly academically advanced private highschool, a friend at a state school was taught it uncritically.

Being Australian probably makes a big difference too: It's not a Pillar of National Literature here, and it was taught more an interesting exploration of another culture than a depiction of how racism affected our society.

Anyway, yes: definitely a racist book, and a deeply flawed for anti-racism in the past or present.

[firecat]

I'm glad it was being taught the way you describe somewhere.

[sqbr]

Well, I'm not sure it's as important for Australian students to be made aware of how racist the US is, being smug at how racist you guys are is a common Australian trick for avoiding confronting our own racism :/ Though we did poke a little at the racism in some of Great Australian Books we read too.

[firecat]

If the way the book is taught is "Look at the racist USians, at least we aren't like that," then I agree an opportunity is missed. :/

[lilacsigil]

I didn't study the book in school, but my brother did, in similar circumstances to those that sqbr describes. It's so much easier to discuss racism when it's waaaaaaay over there, in the past or across the Pacific.

ETA: That is to say, thanks for that thought-provoking link.

[clever-doberman.livejournal.com]

I didn't read the comments (seldom do, either I'm too impatient, or get bogged down wrapping my brain around everyone's nuances).

however, well, yeah, dammit, I heard the NPR interview and thought about re-reading the book. I remember hearing that Atticus Finch was the favorite role of Gregory Peck. the book was still only a few years old during the hopeful and somewhat idealized era of the 60s when I read it as a teen, believing in the possibilities of integration and harmony.

now I still think there is value in the book as a slice of history, both of the 30s and of the era in which it was written, but I do think we need to wrap a frame around it and not get sucked into the sentimentality that I admit I have felt about the story.

ah, well, studying history means having to continuously re-write the stories as we gain perspective.

[firecat]

I think there's value in teaching the book as long as the racist aspects are discussed. Although I can also see the point of the people who said they felt uncomfortable reading it because of the language and the depictions of black people.

[ailbhe]

When we did it in school - age 12 or so - we needed a lot of the race stuff explained to us; quite a few people reached that age with no clue about race in America at all. I knew a little because my aunt was head of a school in San Bruno and brought us back books from time to time.

And we all thought the Mockingbird was Boo, not black people. I'd have to reread it with the metaphor moved over to see the rest of it.

[ailbhe]

Wow, in the comments, people are equating "removing from school use" with "banning." That's... shocking.

[slfisher.livejournal.com]

Thanks so much for posting this. It crystallizes how I feel about the book (it was Boise's "Everyone reads the same book" last year, and I also got to see the movie in a theater and hear Scout speak).

[firecat]

Boise's "Everyone reads the same book"

Ew. Not sure what I think about that concept.

[slfisher.livejournal.com]

It's related to this:

http://www.neabigread.org/

and while I don't agree with all the books they choose, I like the concept.