- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
- Messages
- 37,165
- Reaction score
- 25,335
Books aren't being banned from society.You're welcome to explain how they differ when it comes to book banning and media control.
Books aren't being banned from society.You're welcome to explain how they differ when it comes to book banning and media control.
The SA boys were a bunch of butt grabbers lol. They hated marxist socialism, which is not the only way to define socialism. As a matter of fact they were against capitalism and marxism in equal measure. Socialism didn’t come to life because of feminism, it has nothing to do with it. The French revolution and the first feminist wave are almost 200 years apart lmao. The nazis were quite open about collaboration between different nations. Your “they hated x” is a bunch of dogs. There were soldiers of every background fighting for the nazis.Even though they hated communism, feminism, gays, jews, slavs, people with handicaps they were leftists. Because of the S in the name, you see.
Nothing you said in any way proved they were leftists or socialists. The cossacks were/are notoriously anti-semitic so I'm really not sure what that's supposed to mean. Nazis were far right. It's a historical consensus and this whole "nazis were left wing" was started by trolls and is perpetuated by trolls like you.The SA boys were a bunch of butt grabbers lol. They hated marxist socialism, which is not the only way to define socialism. As a matter of fact they were against capitalism and marxism in equal measure. Socialism didn’t come to life because of feminism, it has nothing to do with it. The French revolution and the first feminist wave are almost 200 years apart lmao. The nazis were quite open about collaboration between different nations. Your “they hated x” is a bunch of dogs. There were soldiers of every background fighting for the nazis.
you had cossacks
muslims
Even indians
Is this joggin your noggin?
Just because you don’t like the fact that nazis were true socialists it doesn’t change the fact that they were.
Huck Finn takes place in the 1800s and reflects upon that time period from a white perspective I agree. Certainly one should be able to find African American literature reflecting the same period that can act as a counter-point and cultural perspective of the time period. From a curriculum standpoint have a student read both then discuss the differences in how the authors approach those time periods and societal issues. Same for 19th century literature that someone finds problematic from a racial and or cultural perspective.
this is basically indirect banning without actually calling it banning. come on, man.Imagine being such a hysterical little nancy boy that you equate changing curriculum with book banning like the Nazis did.
this is basically indirect banning without actually calling it banning. come on, man.
hilarious coming from a demImagine being such a hysterical little nancy boy that you equate changing curriculum with book banning like the Nazis did.
hilarious coming from a dem
I don't think the problem is that they are removed from the curriculum so much as the apparent reason for that removal. They're not being removed because of a general need to prune or refresh the assigned reading but rather because of at least one instance of problematic behavior related to the reading and issues of racial perspective and or insensitivity brought up by a few families. Rather than having the difficult conversations about those periods and using these books as real learning opportunities about the perspectives of White and African American experiences during those times they are just cut out. That isn't learning, its just sweeping that potential conversation under the rug.This thread is a mess. Book banning is bad, but some things to remember for people who care about getting things right:
1. No books are banned. Anyone who wants to read the books can read the books. They're not being removed from libraries or book stores. They're just not being assigned in Burbank.
2. The Burbank school district doesn't speak for the entire left or even the entire Democratic Party.
3. A curriculum is necessary severely limited. Not every book can be included, and there are many potentially worthy candidates.
IMO, at least a couple of the books on that list are absolute classics that everyone should read (and, NB, they're coming from a liberal perspective, and a lot of the nutters screeching about this decision almost certainly haven't read and wouldn't like them). However, to decide whether they're *more* worthy of inclusion in the curriculum than other candidates requires more information than the story provides.
Literally none of this is unique to the dems only.The democratic party is the new NSDAP.
Ban books. Check
Violent riots. Check
Media censorship. Check
Punish dissent with more violence. Check
Start a war somewhere. Pending
I don't think the problem is that they are removed from the curriculum so much as the apparent reason for that removal. They're not being removed because of a general need to prune or refresh the assigned reading but rather because of at least one instance of problematic behavior related to the reading and issues of racial perspective and or insensitivity brought up by a few families. Rather than having the difficult conversations about those periods and using these books as real learning opportunities about the perspectives of White and African American experiences during those times they are just cut out. That isn't learning, its just sweeping that potential conversation under the rug.
Removed from the reading curriculum. As I mentioned already, the problem isn't so much the removal of a particular book but rather the reason for that removal. To simply sweep the problem those books apparently represent under the rug rather than using them as a unique learning opportunity to address those very problems is lazy on the part of educators and disservice to the students who should be challenged to look beyond their immediate perceptions of the material.Banned or removed from teaching plan? Those are two different things. We read none of the above in school btw.
Make no mistake academics are trying to change the culture now that very few people are actually a part of their children's education. But those who teach their children put them at a huge advantage.
If you're a parent it is your responsibility to make sure your child is properly educated.
I think there can be a real discussion from this point, but when you have this hysterical reaction equating the decision with actual book banning or Nazi activity (!), it's impossible to have a rational discussion.
I think part of the underlying story here is that there are so many books that would be worthy of inclusion in the curriculum that aren't in it that it's very easy to just push anything out on the slightest objection. But like I said, we really don't know enough to evaluate the decision. How much thought was put into it, what was the thinking, what books are replacing the ones removed, etc.
Removed from the reading curriculum. As I mentioned already, the problem isn't so much the removal of a particular book but rather the reason for that removal. To simply sweep the problem those books apparently represent under the rug rather than using them as a unique learning opportunity to address those very problems is lazy on the part of educators and disservice to the students who should be challenged to look beyond their immediate perceptions of the material.
For instance, could Huck Finn have had the "adventure" he did if he had been black? No? Why? Learning about the society of that time period, how would the story have likely developed for Huck over the course of the narrative if he had been black. Has the ability to have that sort of "adventure" changed for young African Americans since that time? Yes? How? No? Why?
The nazis were socialists. The S in NSDAP stands for socialist. The European Union was actually modelled after the European Confederation plan of Von Ribbentrop. As painful for you it is to admit, the nazis were leftists.
I think the real interesting story is how these books are state mandated and thus artificially create demand for these old shitty books. Propping up these old shitty book companies for decades and making kids read old shitty books they don't even want to read.
It's like communism but for old shitty books.
copeNo one cares what you have to say about literally anything.
To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn are two of the greatest American novels, but I get the point that the curriculum should be at least open to change.