Note the start of the argument here to "challenge" the book (that's what the Left calls banning books). It wasn't written by a native author, and propagates stereotypes (nevermind that it challenged others).
That, to me, is fair criticism. But if people enjoy the book and, as this writer says, encourages them to read more on the culture, that's a gain.
Then there's this:
First the backhanded gallantry that the book would not have won the Newberry if it were published more recently. Because ooh ick it's written by a white man and brings up the ickiness of controversial treatment of natives and thus shouldn't be banned per se, but not used in the classroom in any official manner. Cloaked in the veil of "learning more about history," the book is best prefaced by some kind of official warning about how bad it is or just ignored, is what's implied here.
If you don't like the book, don't read it.
And if you don't want kids to like reading, spend your time finding perfect stories that were written by the right people at the right time and not use an imperfect book to set kids to thinking that, "Yeah, not everything in our history is neat and nifty."
This is how the Left bans books. I'm not a fan of any political movement telling me what I should or shouldn't read, or what should or shouldn't be read in schools.
I probably read books when I was a kid that would be on the naughty list today. But you know what, sitting next to those classroom bookshelves got me interested in reading, and now I read a lot and can discern for myself whether history is good or bad, and learn from it. The less we expose our children to the warts of life, the less they are likely to recognize the warts currently forming. We protect our kids at their own peril.
No comments:
Post a Comment