Book banning in Scotland, almost but not quite

[TSwizzle]

When does this madness end ? Hard to believe this is happening in a country that played a huge part in the enlightenment. But then again, this is the city that renamed David Hume Tower because Hume had some iffy views about negroes.

A top Edinburgh school will no longer teach pupils To Kill A Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men due to dated representations of race within those texts. Allan Crosbie, curriculum leader for English at James Gillespie's High School, believes certain novels are "problematical" and not what he wants to be teaching third year pupils anymore. As reported by The Herald the aim is to "decolonise" the curriculum with a focus on learning material which better represents the full range of human experience.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/edinburgh-school-no-longer-teach-20978722

No wonder so many people opt out of state schools.

 

[repoman]

I think this is partly a celebration parallax from you on this. I thought you wanted less racial discussion.

There is a balance between having upsetting unvarnished truths about history (for growing kids not wanting to be only a victim/perpetrator of history) and on the other hand never broaching these topics.

 

[bilby]

When does this madness end ? Hard to believe this is happening in a country that played a huge part in the enlightenment. But then again, this is the city that renamed David Hume Tower because Hume had some iffy views about negroes.

A top Edinburgh school will no longer teach pupils To Kill A Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men due to dated representations of race within those texts. Allan Crosbie, curriculum leader for English at James Gillespie's High School, believes certain novels are "problematical" and not what he wants to be teaching third year pupils anymore. As reported by The Herald the aim is to "decolonise" the curriculum with a focus on learning material which better represents the full range of human experience.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/edinburgh-school-no-longer-teach-20978722

No wonder so many people opt out of state schools.

A school (singular) has removed direct discussion of two fairly old foreign novels from its English curriculum, to be replaced with more recent texts, and you are characterising the decision as "book banning"?

Perhaps you should have paid more attention in your English classes, because your description of this has almost no relation whatsoever to the actual events.

No books have been banned in Scotland, nor even in the one scottish school that is the subject of the linked article. Indeed the article itself quotes a head teacher at a Scottish school saying "I'm not saying that we'd ban To Kill a Mockingbird or Of Mice and Men", which rather suggests that they're not saying that they'd ban To Kill a Mockingbird or Of Mice and Men. At least, that's my interpretation of that statement.

The only madness that needs to end is the hyperbolic snowflake meltdowns from the alt-right at any hint that any aspect of any curriculum might change, in any way that is less supportive of the dated attitudes the right wingers grew up with.

 

[Swammerdami]

No books have been banned in Scotland, nor even in the one scottish school that is the subject of the linked article. Indeed the article itself quotes a head teacher at a Scottish school saying "I'm not saying that we'd ban To Kill a Mockingbird or Of Mice and Men", which rather suggests that they're not saying that they'd ban To Kill a Mockingbird or Of Mice and Men. At least, that's my interpretation of that statement.

I'm quoting this as an example of how liberals jump to conclusions. What left-wing syllogism pattern did you rely on for your interpretation, pray tell?

I know you don't live in the U.S.A. but you can still order a signet decoding ring on-line to decode what that head teacher is really saying. The ring is available at Don Jr.'s website for only $19.99 plus shipping and handling. (Be sure and uncheck the 'Recurring payment' boxes.)

 

[Keith&Co.]

This is Dr. Seuss all over again.
One school decides not to concentrate their curricula on a couple books, some others agree with their reason, suddenly there are whiny little snowflakes making a banning mountain out of a redirecting molehill.

 

[TomC]

A top Edinburgh school will no longer teach pupils To Kill A Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men due to dated representations of race within those texts.

In what universe is a school in Scotland changing their literature curriculum anything like "book banning"?

Tom

 

[laughing dog]

A top Edinburgh school will no longer teach pupils To Kill A Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men due to dated representations of race within those texts.

In what universe is a school in Scotland changing their literature curriculum anything like "book banning"?

Tom

The conservative snowflake universe.

 

[TSwizzle]

This is Dr. Seuss all over again.

You’re comparing TKAM to Dr Seuss ?

One school decides not to concentrate their curricula on a couple books, some others agree with their reason, suddenly there are whiny little snowflakes making a banning mountain out of a redirecting molehill.

Yup, left wing authoritarians love this shit.

But in any event, the reasons given for taking the books out of the curriculum are ridiculous and the epitome of woke virtue signaling. If the teacher had an actual ounce of integrity he wouldn’t be teaching at that school considering the founder’s background.

 

[TomC]

Book banning in Scotland, almost but not quite
When does this madness end ? Hard to believe this is happening in a country that played a huge part in the enlightenment.

Does this mean that you're a left wing authoritarian?

Or just a snowflake?

Yup, left wing authoritarians love this shit.

You "love this shit" enough to start a thread about it.

What is it that you find important?

Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh boo fucking hoo.

So, whatever pearls OP clutches, maybe they should clutch those pearls a little less tightly. The fact is "literature" does not in any way distinguish itself from the better prose of the 21st century. Whitman might qualify, but the heavy-handed delivery specifically of those two stories is what I see as one of the greatest disappointments with regards to my education in the written word.

If you were born in, say, 1945, I can see a great deal of progressive thought in those books.... But again, that's "if you were born in 1945".

The fact is, I see media that was good in 1995 that is no longer good now.

It's something I've thought a lot about. Even if we are just getting down to the prose here, the fact is, there is an order of magnitude -- more than an order of magnitude -- more people alive today. There are ten times as many people writing prose. There are ten times as many opportunities to see true genius born, and shine, and be magnificent.

The "classics" are but the biggest fish in a small, stagnant pond. Today, the pond is bigger, and there are bigger fish in it.

I wouldn't drop these books from the curriculum because they are "racist" though they are, in a pernicious way worse even than actual intentional racism. I would drop them, rather, because it is just a plain fact that there are better books to teach from.

As to why this is worse than even intentional racism: I can see when someone is being awful on purpose, generally speaking. It's kind of the point most times, anyway. If they aren't telegraphing it, it would make them awful at being awful. It has taken years and years, however, to discern behaviors and thought patterns I got from those very titles as "trying, and failing, to be the right thing". I cannot, in a state of naivete without experience, discern bad advice but well-meaning, from good advice.

If people want to read them on their own time, I will gladly provide copies, alongside plentiful discussion on how the contents of them have been dated. I will not, however, ever assign such.

 

[TSwizzle]

Oh boo fucking hoo.

So, whatever pearls OP clutches, maybe they should clutch those pearls a little less tightly.

Dry your eyes, no pearls were clutched.

As you say, there are many valid reasons to drop these books from the curriculum, not a problem. The stupidity lies with the woke virtue signaling teacher that finds the books “problematical”.

No wonder parents homeschool or opt go to private schools.

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh boo fucking hoo.

So, whatever pearls OP clutches, maybe they should clutch those pearls a little less tightly.

Dry your eyes, no pearls were clutched.

As you say, there are many valid reasons to drop these books from the curriculum, not a problem. The stupidity lies with the woke virtue signaling teacher that finds the books “problematical”.

No wonder parents homeschool or opt go to private schools.

Nice job, ignoring the whole part of my post where I describe why they are problematic.

Bravo.

Your argument hinges on the idea that they are not actually a problem. I was just giving additional reasons as to why this is a giant vat of crocodile tears. You are bemoaning "right hing for the wrong reasons" when the reasons are, in fact, right on multiple levels.


Just a reminder, since you apparently didn't want this seen after the cut:

As to why this is worse than even intentional racism: I can see when someone is being awful on purpose, generally speaking. It's kind of the point most times, anyway. If they aren't telegraphing it, it would make them awful at being awful. It has taken years and years, however, to discern behaviors and thought patterns I got from those very titles as "trying, and failing, to be the right thing". I cannot, in a state of naivete without experience, discern bad advice but well-meaning, from good advice.

 

[Patooka]

No wonder parents homeschool or opt go to private schools.

You're right. 99% of people who decide to homeschool their kid are motivated to do so because of what some high school in fucking Scotland does. Were you homeschooled out of curiosity? Because if not, I believe I could find a clearer example extolling the benefits which might help your argument.

 

[TSwizzle]

No wonder parents homeschool or opt go to private schools.

You're right. 99% of people who decide to homeschool their kid are motivated to do so because of what some high school in fucking Scotland does. Were you homeschooled out of curiosity? Because if not, I believe I could find a clearer example extolling the benefits which might help your argument.

No, I went to school when schools were actually teaching knowledge and not virtue signaling wokeism. I do know people that attended that school. It was a well regarded school. But of course the founder is “problematical”. The school should be razed all things considered.

 

[Patooka]

Uh huh. Please show me on the doll where virtue signalling hurt you.

 

[Jarhyn]

No wonder parents homeschool or opt go to private schools.

You're right. 99% of people who decide to homeschool their kid are motivated to do so because of what some high school in fucking Scotland does. Were you homeschooled out of curiosity? Because if not, I believe I could find a clearer example extolling the benefits which might help your argument.

No, I went to school when schools were actually teaching knowledge and not virtue signaling wokeism. I do know people that attended that school. It was a well regarded school. But of course the founder is “problematical”. The school should be razed all things considered.

So burn down a school just because people are starting to realize that the anti-racism efforts of the mid-20th are still racially troubling in comparison to the anti-racism efforts of the early 21st?

So troubled by this that you condone burning down a school?

For doing the right thing for what it would be delusional to think was a wrong reason?

Maybe it's just a function of being born in a day and age where the world had already started to advance past what I was taught even while I was being taught it, but I can recognize when those things I learned and valued are to be set aside as childish things.

 

[Bomb#20]

I wouldn't drop these books from the curriculum because they are "racist" though they are, in a pernicious way worse even than actual intentional racism.

I haven't read Of Mice and Men, so I won't comment on it; but it takes an astounding level of religious zealotry to call To Kill A Mockingbird racist.

 

[Jarhyn]

I wouldn't drop these books from the curriculum because they are "racist" though they are, in a pernicious way worse even than actual intentional racism.

I haven't read Of Mice and Men, so I won't comment on it; but it takes an astounding level of religious zealotry to call To Kill A Mockingbird racist.

It takes an astonishing amount of feigned ignorance to respond to the thesis and not the support. You and TSwizzle, I swear, making me quote this twice in the same cut...

As to why this is worse than even intentional racism: I can see when someone is being awful on purpose, generally speaking. It's kind of the point most times, anyway. If they aren't telegraphing it, it would make them awful at being awful. It has taken years and years, however, to discern behaviors and thought patterns I got from those very titles as "trying, and failing, to be the right thing". I cannot, in a state of naivete without experience, discern bad advice but well-meaning, from good advice.

It was still in my GD clipboard shame on you.

If you can't seem to connect the dots to where I'm going with this, "therefore it is much more pernicious to get bad advice that is well meaning, as it will be actioned more readily than an example of clearly malicious advice that would be dismissed out of hand"

Or, I have ended up hurting people in racist ways because of these books.

 

[Bomb#20]

It takes an astonishing amount of feigned ignorance to respond to the thesis and not the support. You and TSwizzle, I swear, making me quote this twice in the same cut...

Oh, for the love of god, quoting your own opinion does not qualify as support! What the bejesus could possibly make you think it does?

As to why this is worse than even intentional racism: I can see when someone is being awful on purpose, generally speaking. It's kind of the point most times, anyway. If they aren't telegraphing it, it would make them awful at being awful. It has taken years and years, however, to discern behaviors and thought patterns I got from those very titles as "trying, and failing, to be the right thing". I cannot, in a state of naivete without experience, discern bad advice but well-meaning, from good advice.

That is not support. That is autobiography.

It was still in my GD clipboard shame on you.

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh, for the love of god, quoting your own opinion does not qualify as support! What the bejesus could possibly make you think it does?


That is not support. That is autobiography.

It was still in my GD clipboard shame on you.

Ah, so facts aren't support. So, you are calling me a liar just say it. "Jarhyn is a liar" if you want to insinuate it.

But moreover, you didn't even quote the autobiographical part. Merely the logical deconstruction of the mechanism.

You didn't even speak to the point.