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.