Welcome to the zigbeenuthouse!!! Our discussion board has topics on ALL Sports and teams from college to pros, Reds, Buckeyes, Bengals, Browns, Food, US politics, religion, news, AND MORE! You MUST register with an acct. to post here. The access to read as non member is open. Please register and gain an acct. with user name to post and ENJOY this site. (June 11, 2019)

Quote of the day: A positive outlook is what leads to positive results.

WELCOME new member AMaizawing (April 03, 2020)


Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Good Op-ed from John McWhorter
#1
Pretty long, but good. 

The Right Likes Book Bans. That Fuels the Leftâ€s Cancel Culture.


Growing up in the 1970s, one got a good snootful of what today might be wrongly described as critical race theory: The film “Sounder,” in the wake of a prominent novel, offered a searing depiction of sharecropping. The made-for-TV epic “The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman,” also based on a novel, took us through a sweep of history from slavery to segregation. The “Roots” mini-series, watched by millions (all at the same time, in a way thatâ€s probably hard to imagine for those too young to remember life before D.V.R.s), portrayed the trans-Atlantic slave trade and plantation barbarity in a way American audiences hadnâ€t seen. As Charlayne Hunter-Gault reported for The Times in 1977, a Black economist in Philadelphia said, “It has made the brutality of slavery more vivid for me than anything Iâ€ve seen or read.” To refresh a sense of what an event “Roots” was at the time, recall that the cast included some of the biggest names of the day, including John Amos, Lloyd Bridges and Sandy Duncan. Cicely Tyson, who passed away last year, starred in “Sounder,” “Miss Jane Pittman” and “Roots.”

Meanwhile, the novelist Judy Blume pushed the envelope with coming-of-age stories — what we might now call “Y.A.” fiction — including 1970â€s “Are You There God? Itâ€s Me, Margaret.” and an even more envelope-pushing one, 1975â€s “Forever …” that depicted teenagers embarking on a sexual relationship. I recall “Forever …,” especially, getting around as a kind of contraband among curious adolescents, with its unblushingly frank descriptions. And it was part of a general trope of the time: For example, in 1978, the network TV series “James at 16” (previously titled “James at 15”) depicted a young man losing his virginity.


No doubt, these offerings gave a broader audience a different awareness of racism and sexuality. It was a new American popular culture, and one felt enlightened to be a part of it. Did “Roots” cause some Black people (and maybe some white people) to doubt or even denounce the American experiment? Maybe. At the time, reportedly, Ronald Reagan said, “I thought the bias of all the good people being one color and all the bad people being another was rather destructive.” Towering figure though he was, that seems like the wrong takeaway from the mini-series. And I doubt anyone today traces any kind of woke oppositional sentiment to that show or others of the time. Did “Forever …” encourage some teenagers to try what its characters did? Maybe. And clearly some take issue with that — itâ€s on one of the American Library Associationâ€s lists of “most frequently challenged books.” But surely it was more that “Forever …” reflected what people were already doing (The Pill, anyone?) than that the book suddenly transformed the culture.


So we should consider whether “Roots” and “Forever …” were really dangerous when assessing todayâ€s penchant for book-banning on the political right. “Ruby Bridges Goes to School: My True Story,” a childrenâ€s book recounting the authorâ€s experiences as a 6-year-old desegregating a school in New Orleans, was characterized as anti-white by a Tennessee Moms for Liberty chapter trying to prevent it from being taught in schools. But consider that “Roots” negatively portrayed white people who were either enslavers or who tolerated slavery, and Iâ€m not aware of any effort now to ban it. There was even a 2016 “Roots” reboot on the History channel.


As The Timesâ€s Elizabeth A. Harris and Alexandra Alter reported this month, an array of books, including Sherman Alexieâ€s “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian,” which won the 2007 National Book Award for young peopleâ€s literature, have explicit references to sex and, as a result, have been challenged. But consider that in the â€70s, lots of teenagers read “Forever …” and the world somehow kept spinning.

More books today encourage acceptance of homosexuality and gender fluidity. But the worries some have about these things now — the overheated “grooming” debate that has sprung up around Floridaâ€s so-called Donâ€t Say Gay law, for instance — will one day probably seem as out of step as the worries some may have had about books like “Forever ….” Then: Should young readers be passing around a paperback in which two teenagers having premarital sex is portrayed without moral judgment? Now: Should young readers know and accept that some people question the traditional gender binary? Of course, parents have a right to instill their children with their values, including those that run counter to cultural change. But thereâ€s a pretty wide gulf between parenting and trying to get books or shows banned. At a certain level, todayâ€s cavil will look no nobler than yesterdayâ€s.


When it comes to race, book banners on the right claim that their issue is with something specific: critical race theory and its teaching that we must revise our conceptions of justice and morality based on subordinated groups†communal narrative of oppression. But as I wrote in November, the right says “CRT” with an extended meaning, referring not just to the academic body of work but also to a multiplicity of ideas or classroom materials that might assign guilt to white people about racism overall by stressing its role in our national history.


But understandable though even that impulse is, it means, too often, questioning teachers who dwell in any way on racism and its past and present. I recall a white acquaintance whose view on race matters was sympathetic in the way expected of someone of a particular social class, but not especially nuanced. To even dwell on race issues was to “stir that stuff up.” Since racism had been duly tamped down and was headed for dissolution, the thought went, the problem was with certain hotheaded activists and scholarly types who insist on shoveling everything back up to the surface. You know: [i]Itâ€s all in the past, people talk too much about their “feelings,”[/i] and so on.


I sense this same perspective in some on the right who seem to be hoping that schoolkids wonâ€t ever learn anything about “that stuff.” But a true education requires knowing about slavery, segregation and the civil rights movement. After all, that stuff did happen, and it did matter; it did shape our present. And thereâ€s no reason to presume that learning about it will turn kids or anyone else into hyper-woke partisans, happily canceling anyone who dares question hard-leftist proselytizing on race. I, a Montessori and Quaker school kid, was raised on this stuff, as were many of my private-school classmates, mostly white, and few of us are now hoping America will be shaped by “antiracist” struggle sessions. Lots of people who grew up in the â€70s, â€80s, â€90s and aughts read and saw plenty of eye-opening, difficult material and turned out fine.


Which is what the book-banning right must urgently come to grips with, because its increasingly illiberal streak parallels the excesses of the hard leftâ€s engaging in hyper-woke partisanship in the guise of progress and social justice.


And the left is definitely no model: Last week, the book “Bad and Boujee: Toward a Trap Feminist Theology,” written by a white academic, Jennifer Buck, was canceled — pulled from circulation by its publisher. As Alter and Harris reported for The Times, the bookâ€s blurb says it “engages with the overlap of Black experience, hip-hop music, ethics and feminism” but it was “widely condemned on social media as poorly executed and as an example of cultural appropriation.” The question is why the book, whatever its flaws and whatever criticisms it faces, should be utterly disallowed from further distribution. Perhaps the author sounds some notes that reveal her as an outsider to the culture she describes; perhaps the book just isnâ€t very good — but whence this idea that it should be zapped out of existence?


These cancellations are part of a larger project, seeking to muzzle opinions antithetical to the woke quest to eternally contest power differentials and endlessly expand the definition of white supremacy. People on the right are duly appalled by this mind-set. But they miss that their book bans are just as tinny, just as local to petty concerns of our moment and just as, well, unjust. And by revving up its own cancel culture, the anti-woke right is providing the woke left with bulletin-board material: The left, when called on its excesses, can just point to the rightâ€s school-board crusades to justify its own inquisitional zeal. [i]Donâ€t ban “Bad and Boujee”? How about: Donâ€t ban “The Bluest Eye”! [/i]Iâ€ve encountered endless renditions of this argument in the wake of my book, “Woke Racism.”


The conflict-shy left-of-center onlooker, alarmed by — but unprepared to confront — wokeism on his or her own “side,” winds up finding a certain comfort in what the right is doing. If right-wing zealots are as out-of-bounds as left-wing zealots, theyâ€re able to classify hyper-wokeism as but one symptom of a pox on both ideological houses — a larger, equal-opportunity puritanism. This, in seeming rather hopelessly general, and a matter of a national mood rather than a particular fault of a woke agenda, evinces less desire to face it down. It seems too protean to productively oppose, and all you can do is shake your head and move on.


So hereâ€s a question for right-wing book banners: Do you honestly think the world without your book bans would be a terrible place?
Because if you donâ€t, and if what youâ€re really doing is a combination of virtue signaling, panning for gratifying retweets and ginning up wedge issues to help win elections, then you are mirroring what the hard left has been overdosing on since two springs ago. Youâ€re distracting focus from the way the left continues to shred our cultural fabric. There is no better way to sponsor recreational woke puritanism than by fostering a right-wing version of the same.
1
Reply
#2
Input into what your kids are learning in school isn't "book banning".  A steady diet of books that oppose what white Christian parents believe that are fed to their kids in school is not acceptable although that is exactly has happened and what will continue to happen in our Leftist controlled government schools.
"Hightop can reduce an entire message board of men to mudsharks. It's actually pretty funny to watch."


1
Reply
#3
(04-20-2022, 11:20 AM)Hightop77 Wrote: Input into what your kids are learning in school isn't "book banning".  A steady diet of books that oppose what white Christian parents believe that are fed to their kids in school is not acceptable although that is exactly has happened and what will continue to happen in our Leftist controlled government schools.

When the input results in the banning of books, that is book banning.

Florida rejects 54 math books, claiming critical race theory appeared in some
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/18/109327744...-textbooks
Reply
#4
(04-20-2022, 11:40 AM)P1tchblack Wrote:
(04-20-2022, 11:20 AM)Hightop77 Wrote: Input into what your kids are learning in school isn't "book banning".  A steady diet of books that oppose what white Christian parents believe that are fed to their kids in school is not acceptable although that is exactly has happened and what will continue to happen in our Leftist controlled government schools.

When the input results in the banning of books, that is book banning.

Florida rejects 54 math books, claiming critical race theory appeared in some
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/18/109327744...-textbooks

That's my point.  This is why I keep saying you can ban CRT but it won't stop the Bolsheviks from brainwashing your kids in school because they will include the propaganda into other subjects even mathematics.  Every class and every textbook must be reviewed and monitored to stop these communists.  What Florida is doing should be done in every state.
"Hightop can reduce an entire message board of men to mudsharks. It's actually pretty funny to watch."


1
Reply
#5
If we are talking about taking things out of a library that kids can rent themselves free from outside influence of teachers and whatnot, I don't think we should "ban" books in that context. If we are talking about what is being taught in class, I certainly think things should be contained to what parents find appropriate for their kids.
1
Reply
#6
Sounder is an awesome book-Old Yeller + Jim Crow Georgia rednecks
Reply
#7
(04-20-2022, 11:40 AM)P1tchblack Wrote:
(04-20-2022, 11:20 AM)Hightop77 Wrote: Input into what your kids are learning in school isn't "book banning".  A steady diet of books that oppose what white Christian parents believe that are fed to their kids in school is not acceptable although that is exactly has happened and what will continue to happen in our Leftist controlled government schools.

When the input results in the banning of books, that is book banning.

Florida rejects 54 math books, claiming critical race theory appeared in some
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/18/109327744...-textbooks

I saw examples of what were in those books.  Did you?
Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State...



- Benito Mussolini
Reply
#8
The left began banning books from school libraries many years ago.

"US school stops teaching Huckleberry Finn because of 'use of the N-word' | Mark Twain | The Guardian" https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/d...sts-n-word
Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State...



- Benito Mussolini
Reply
#9
That there is questionable stuff in math books tells you everything you need to know. No wonder we as an educational system are falling behind our peers more and more each year. Teach math. Math is agnostic to social sciences. Leave it that way.

No longer GroupThink 'woke'.  but it was fun while it lasted.
1
Reply
#10
(04-20-2022, 01:39 PM)Alabuckeye Wrote: That there is questionable stuff in math books tells you everything you need to know. No wonder we as an educational system are falling behind our peers more and more each year. Teach math. Math is agnostic to social sciences. Leave it that way.

The left cannot do that.  Their dark, spiritual, masters compel them to warp the minds of children and to lead them away from God.
Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State...



- Benito Mussolini
Reply
#11
(04-20-2022, 01:39 PM)Alabuckeye Wrote: That there is questionable stuff in math books tells you everything you need to know. No wonder we as an educational system are falling behind our peers more and more each year. Teach math. Math is agnostic to social sciences. Leave it that way.

It's the word problems, Ala!!

"Tyron sells 5 grams of crack cocaine and is beat for 10 minutes by a white police officer.  How soon will he be discriminated against by the court system."
1
Reply
#12
(04-20-2022, 01:47 PM)P1tchblack Wrote:
(04-20-2022, 01:39 PM)Alabuckeye Wrote: That there is questionable stuff in math books tells you everything you need to know. No wonder we as an educational system are falling behind our peers more and more each year. Teach math. Math is agnostic to social sciences. Leave it that way.

It's the word problems, Ala!!

"Tyron sells 5 grams of crack cocaine and is beat for 10 minutes by a white police officer.  How soon will he be discriminated against by the court system."
See, thatâ€s what I figured  and that has no place in math. Thatâ€s a sociology problem. Wait….I are these questions a collaboration between BLM and Stormfront?

No longer GroupThink 'woke'.  but it was fun while it lasted.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Is John Fetterman brain dead? K9Buck 115 2,380 03-12-2024, 08:19 AM
Last Post: Syncro
  Marty Brennaman - Good read. unc4corners 10 164 02-03-2024, 09:43 PM
Last Post: unc4corners
  Gene Therapy - Good or End of the World Sanitarian2 4 124 12-09-2023, 12:03 AM
Last Post: ChinaBuck
  Good series on Hulu P1tchblack 3 70 09-01-2023, 04:15 PM
Last Post: P1tchblack
  Find 3 pandas not wearing sun glasses.......GOOD LUCK zigbee 7 150 07-29-2023, 10:23 PM
Last Post: ChinaBuck
  Good read on Kennedy Jr. antivaxxer TcSoup 23 403 07-19-2023, 01:00 PM
Last Post: P1tchblack
  John Durham crap show continues TcSoup 115 2,234 06-22-2023, 08:17 PM
Last Post: ChinaBuck
  End of the John Durham fraud ... Hightop77 56 886 06-22-2023, 09:50 AM
Last Post: 3rdgensooner
  This is a good look for Macron! K9Buck 2 91 06-16-2023, 04:53 PM
Last Post: maize
  WLW radio found good news anchor for the weekends. Big Reds fan and Bengals fan zigbee 4 131 05-15-2023, 08:31 AM
Last Post: ScarletHayes

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
https://www.facebook.com/Zigbeenuthousecom-425755324858973/?modal=admin_todo_tour