May

Even the UK wonders how an American state would choose to ban ethnic studies classes

Last week, Patricia Wiliams, a writer for the UK newspaper the Guardian wrote about Arizona politics. That’s a surprise. And strange. Why’re Arizonan politics on it and the UK’s radar? Well, she writes about America-centric subjects. But it’s also because the prospect of a state, Arizona, nixing whole subjects or specialties, ethnic studies, from public school curricula is strange and off-putting; truly, put bluntly, it’s frightening.

In December, its lawmakers passed a law where Arizona can ban classes, with their anti-ethnic studies law, HB2281, is trying to ban classes that’ll sew division or dissent. What kind of dissent scares them?

Here are the bill’s prohibitions; it bans any curricula that:

1. Promote the overthrow of the United States government.

2. Promote resentment toward a race or class of people.

3. Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.

4. Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.

Most people say that they hate censorship, or at least, that it’s bad. The idea of banning or burning books frightens and anger many people. Those books tend to push tradition hot buttons; and young, impressionable people to consider ideas that push their boundaries in a broad range of ways. Those books challenge the mainstream mindset, and are often in dispute in junior high and high school lesson plans.

This law clashes with the individualism and independence, which Americans often celebrate and say distinguishes our society from those, which are uncivilized. Pres. Reagan is revered for having warned us about the consequences of being disagreeable toward one another while we disagree. Banning whole academic subjects is disagreeable.

To create a law that bans those classes, which many moderate- and progressive-minded people consider good and, well, progressive, sounds like a 21st Century take on a tactic, which 20th Century Southern activists used against agitators. We need to ban activities that provoke trouble.

In April, The Root made an interesting point about those fans of that bill, who criticize ethnic scholarship after having read the theses or dissertations’ titles, but not the content.

Conservative people routinely praise the virtues and values of college degrees, most people with those degrees would, in addition, praise the capacity for and interest in independent, critical and creative thinking. Yet, from the manner in which this bill was written, those who wrote this have an inconsistent grasp of these skills. That seems to be a common streak in those who yearn to prohibit either actions or information, whether it is books, ideas, movies, etc.

Why won’t Anglo- or America-oriented classes, which praise Anglo-Saxon foundations of American history and cultural sensibilities breed a similar although different sort of dissent among Arizonans? Aren’t the core and mainstream classes simply specific to the majority culture? You assume that core classes are themselves ethnocentric, with a bias toward and emphasis on Anglo culture and sensibilities. They will have to be banned, too.

I believe that this is the operative question: which community’s resentment or dissent do they fear?

362 days ago Short URL 1 Comment

Censorship/criticism/Essay

anti-ethnic studies/Arizona law/current-events/Guardian newspaper/HB2281

Sep

Classic books into films on Banned Books Week

September 25 through October 2nd is Banned Books Week. Those books, which are frequently challenged, have ideas for which some young, formative minds are rarely or barely prepared. For some people this type of censorship is a matter of questioning loose morals, open minds, and an interest in or inclination toward critical thinking.

Sometimes people feel threatened by books or topics that challenge or question their home spun convictions. These books are not yet ready for primetime when it comes to young people, who are not yet sure of whom they are, their own convictions, or what they want to accomplish once they’re grown. This, at least, according to parents.

What about when those classic stories are made into films and put into movie theaters? You wonder: how much better do people respond to or accept “Of Mice and Man” or “The Scarlet Letter” or “To Kill a Mockingbird” as a film than a book, of if there is a remarkable difference? It’s that great question that I could only speculate on; it’s worthy of a coffee table conversation.

Lauren Myracle is the author of many wildly popular books, which teen and tween girls just eat up, and which parents often seem to be bent on banning.

According to her, during an interview with ABC Radio, she observed, “It’s fear, swear to God. Fear that turns into anger. …They (parents) want to keep people wrapped in a bubble condom…”

Sometimes books are knocked for simple objections to profanity, or for frank portrayals of sex or sexuality, violence, or other reasons. Reasons, which are unsuitable to the youngster’s age, or which clash with or confuse local communities’ standards. By far the parents are the main objectors, unless you consider when it comes from an institution’s voice; then, it’s the school or its library.

“To Kill a Mockingbird”: Challenged in Eden Valley, MN (1977) and temporarily banned due to words “damn” and “whore lady” used in the novel. A resident had objected to the novel’s depiction of how blacks are treated by members of a racist white community in an Alabama town during the Depression. The resident feared the book would upset black children reading it.

“Of Mice and Men”: Challenged in Greenville, SC (1977) by the Fourth Province of the Knights of the Ku Klux KIan; Vernon Verona Sherill, NY School District (1980); St. David, AZ (1981) and Tell City, IN (1982) due to “profanity and using God’s name in vain.”

The ALA has documented the voluminous reasons or rationales for challenging many of our world’s classics.

Here’s a video, from high schoolers, reminding us of why this censorship is at best or at beast silly. All but two of the classics mentioned here, “Their Eyes Were Watching God” and “Catcher in the Rye,” have been made into big screen films.