Government urged to drop novels with 'racial slurs' from Junior Cert syllabus

History Queen

Mulberrytree wrote: »

Yes - absolutely, your approach is fantastic and very thoughtful of your students.

The children themselves will already know what they'll be reading. Some parents may not be familiar with the subject matter. May take offense at certain words maybe without knowing context if English isn't a first language. Some parents may be perfectly fine about it. Others may want a note sent to the year that this is what well be covering, some students may be uncomfortable but this is how well approach it etc... personal preference is the latter, because it's also including parents of children without non Irish heritage and there may be parents of adopted non Irish children who may also like to know. It also let's everyone have a chance to say something or maybe ask for a different book and doesn't single out the minorities as the obvious reason for a discussion.

I like to think a good teacher will (To the extent you can get teen-agers talking!) try to get a classroom discussion going that talks about pejoratives and derogatory words in general and how much power to abuse they have in a wider conversation about prejudice. Which is why it's important that available texts from voices that have experienced this is also important. Hence the requested inclusion of other books.

Thanks a million I appreciate that feedback. Personally, I still think that books shouldn't be removed from the curriculum (I just can't shake the feeling of censorship) BUT I absolutely agree that more choice and inclusion of more diverse authors and character types should happen.

Tony EH

You're not supposed to read a book like 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or 'Of Mice and Men' and feel "comfortable" about it. These books aren't 'James and the Giant Peach'.

The themes explored in them are supposed to provoke thought and questioning within the reader's mind on an number of levels. They are not supposed to be feelgood books and were never written to be so in the first place. They were written as an illustration of the period, not a celebration of it.

TheBlackPill

I suggest maybe that is too much engagement with parents. if the parents ask, explain, but this attitude will grow legs and every little thing will require a conversation

Tombo2001

Mulberrytree wrote: »

So, really, for many of us writing in to the department, it wasn't about removing the books, but about adding voices as a more authentic alternative. By the way, Tkmb was also on my curriculum years ago but we could choose our books. I don't think anyone did.

To add to your post, the recent Booker Prize winner Girl,Woman, Other is a really fabulous book (imho), and at the core of this book to your point is the notion of adding voices. It is very readable I think for this age. It would be a great addition to the curriculum.

Tombo2001

, or

Tony EH wrote: »

You're not supposed to read a book like 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or 'Of Mice and Men' and feel "comfortable" about it. These books aren't 'James and the Giant Peach'.

The themes explored in them are supposed to provoke thought and questioning within the reader's mind on an number of levels. They are not supposed to be feelgood books and were never written to be so in the first place. They were written as an illustration of the period, not a celebration of it.

Against that, children are not supposed to be made feel uncomfortable about reading passages from books, as described earlier.

If thats the case then remove the book. I take all the points about, the problem is the bully etc etc.....but lets not pretend all schools have sophisticated and effective anti bullying policies, or that they will in the future. And it may not be a bullying issue that leads to this, it may just be a teacher thats tone deaf.

Tombo2001

Tombo2001 wrote: »

, or

Against that, children are not supposed to be made feel uncomfortable about reading passages from books, as described earlier.

If thats the case then remove the book. I take all the points about, the problem is the bully etc etc.....but lets not pretend all schools have sophisticated and effective anti bullying policies, or that they will in the future. And it may not be a bullying issue that leads to this, it may just be a teacher thats tone deaf.

These aren't exactly children though. They're essentially teenagers considering the way society has developed, with the internet and social media. Children at that age need to be learning the 'grays' of society, developing the ability to think about complex topics with more than a simplistic black/white right/wrong attitude. To appreciate the negatives of the past, so that they can be informed enough to prevent something similar from happening in the future.

This need to make avoid making people "uncomfortable" is destructive. The world is a complicated place, and children need to be gifted the tools to appreciate that complexity... and more importantly, to understand that they can step past those uncomfortable feelings through logic, rational/critical thinking, and, best of all, independent opinions, formed through experiencing, well, life. In the absence of personal experience of life, many books can provide a gateway to see something more.

Removing books such as this or topics which describe real issues within the modern world only weakens a teens chances of finding their own place in the world.. simply because by removing what is uncomfortable (not that I actually think it is), you rob them the chance to formulate their own answer to these problems.

Tony EH

Tombo2001 wrote: »

, or

Against that, children are not supposed to be made feel uncomfortable about reading passages from books, as described earlier.

If thats the case then remove the book. I take all the points about, the problem is the bully etc etc.....but lets not pretend all schools have sophisticated and effective anti bullying policies, or that they will in the future. And it may not be a bullying issue that leads to this, it may just be a teacher thats tone deaf.

These books aren't given to 5 year olds though. They're Junior Cert syllabus material and, frankly, there's nothing in them that young folk of that age can't handle, digest and discuss.

I mean, really...the objection here is, merely, to the word "nigger" being included within the vast body of words, irrespective of its context, which is an extremely poor reason to withdraw any book from anything. Especially ones that discuss and are critical of a range of prejudicial concerns, such as 'To Kill a Mockingbird' and 'Of Mice and Men'.

The idea of trying to police a possible future classroom event because of a word in a book is absurd to me and in any case, if a bully were to pick on another child because of their skin colour, they'd be likely to do it with or without reading either book or any book.

Tombo2001

[Deleted User] wrote: »

These aren't exactly children though. They're essentially teenagers considering the way society has developed, with the internet and social media. Children at that age need to be learning the 'grays' of society, developing the ability to think about complex topics with more than a simplistic black/white right/wrong attitude. To appreciate the negatives of the past, so that they can be informed enough to prevent something similar from happening in the future.

This need to make avoid making people "uncomfortable" is destructive. The world is a complicated place, and children need to be gifted the tools to appreciate that complexity... and more importantly, to understand that they can step past those uncomfortable feelings through logic, rational/critical thinking, and, best of all, independent opinions, formed through experiencing, well, life. In the absence of personal experience of life, many books can provide a gateway to see something more.

Removing books such as this or topics which describe real issues within the modern world only weakens a teens chances of finding their own place in the world.. simply because by removing what is uncomfortable (not that I actually think it is), you rob them the chance to formulate their own answer to these problems.

You are stating the obvious here, they are not 5 year olds.... but to your point, they are legally children and emotionally they are not mature. 'Considering the way society has developed' ....what does that mean...are children suddenly more empathetic because they are looking at screens all day? I doubt it....

You talk generically about 'teens' and 'people'...as if this was a generic issue...what about 'black teens' and 'black people'. Why do you think they should have to sit through this?

For sure, if there were books on the O Levels syllabus with anti Irish slurs, I am not sure 'people' here would have such a benign view. I am not sure they would see it as healthy that young English kids would read such challenging material, while the kids in the class with Irish grandparents are sitting there reading along.

Tombo2001

Tony EH wrote: »

These books aren't given to 5 year olds though. They're Junior Cert syllabus material and, frankly, there's nothing in them that young folk of that age can't handle, digest and discuss.

I mean, really...the objection here is, merely, to the word "nigger" being included within the vast body of words, irrespective of its context, which is an extremely poor reason to withdraw any book from anything. Especially ones that discuss and are critical of a range of prejudicial concerns, such as 'To Kill a Mockingbird' and 'Of Mice and Men'.

The idea of trying to police a possible future classroom event because of a word in a book is absurd to me and in any case, if a bully were to pick on another child because of their skin colour, they'd be likely to do it with or without reading either book or any book.

Apart from anything else you've said, if your two books on dealing with prejudice are both written by white American authors......hmmm.

TheBlackPill

Tombo2001 wrote: »

You are stating the obvious here, they are not 5 year olds.... but to your point, they are legally children and emotionally they are not mature. 'Considering the way society has developed' ....what does that mean...are children suddenly more empathetic because they are looking at screens all day? I doubt it....

You talk genetically about 'teens' and 'people'...as if this was a generic issue...what about 'black teens' and 'black people'. Why do you think they should have to sit through this?

For sure, if there were books on the O Levels syllabus with anti Irish slurs, I am not sure 'people' here would have such a benign view. I am not sure they would see it as healthy that young English kids would read such challenging material, while the kids in the class with Irish grandparents are sitting there reading along.

I am really disappointed with the them and us slant here. I see Bog Child is part of the prescribed reading, so something challenging for the Irish kids, and Between Shades of Gray is on the list too. I don't see people from the Baltic states demanding this novel be removed.
The list of prescribed text is very broad and diverse.
And with regard rascism in the UK against Irish, It is toned down alot. Its 25 years since I have been held at gunpoint for no reason for example, though the "that's very IRish" phrase still persists when somebody does something stupid. but just laugh it off

Tony EH

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Apart from anything else you've said, if your two books on dealing with prejudice are both written by white American authors......hmmm.

So what?

White Americans can't write about prejudice in the 20's?

Tombo2001

Tombo2001 wrote: »

You are stating the obvious here, they are not 5 year olds....

but to your point, they are legally children and emotionally they are not mature. 'Considering the way society has developed' ....what does that mean...are children suddenly more empathetic because they are looking at screens all day? I doubt it....

You seem to believe that I don't need to state the obvious, and then you write the above piece. 17 year olds are legally children too, and many of them will have developed into mature responsible people with balance views. That has to start somewhere, but you'd have them "protected" from what makes them (or you) uncomfortable. Robbing them from a safe place to develop that maturity. In the classroom, with someone to guide them in the process.

It's obvious what I said about Social media and the Internet. My 11 year old niece knows about Transgender issues, and LTGBQ movements. Young people are ever increasingly becoming exposed to ideas, and opinions, which traditionally we wouldn't have considered suitable for young children. Times change. Dealing with racism isn't a terrible topic to educate children about... seems to me, it's the adults who are projecting their own "discomfort".

You talk genetically about 'teens' and 'people'...as if this was a generic issue...what about 'black teens' and 'black people'. Why do you think they should have to sit through this?

Genetically? As for why, because we should be moving away from having a persons race as being distinctive... and that's not going to happen, as long as you reinforce that they're different. In any case, black people in Ireland, generally, won't have a shared heritage with African Americans, and thus, need to be sheltered from the issues of slavery.

For sure, if there were books on the O Levels syllabus with anti Irish slurs, I am not sure 'people' here would have such a benign view. I am not sure they would see it as healthy that young English kids would read such challenging material, while the kids in the class with Irish grandparents are sitting there reading along.

I would. I'm completely in favor of teaching people, of all ages, the uncomfortable truths of humanity's past. I'm also completely against the need to hide or remove words/concepts. (we are still talking about students at second level, aren't we? your alternating between kids and children is awfully suggestive)

Tombo2001

TheBlackPill wrote: »

I am really disappointed with the them and us slant here. I see Bog Child is part of the prescribed reading, so something challenging for the Irish kids, and Between Shades of Gray is on the list too. I don't see people from the Baltic states demanding this novel be removed.
The list of prescribed text is very broad and diverse.
And with regard rascism in the UK against Irish, It is toned down alot. Its 25 years since I have been held at gunpoint for no reason for example, though the "that's very IRish" phrase still persists when somebody does something stupid. but just laugh it off

That's easy to say when the slur doesnt refer to you. Look, I have mixed feelings also as I think it could be used for an ultimately healthy debate in a school setting, but I just dont trust that it would be. It might be just one word in the book, but you can be damn sure every kid in the class will know about that one word.

I dont think its enough for white people to say 'we should all be the same'. We dont have the same heritage. White Europeans were never rounded up in their millions to become slaves in the new world. Sure, it's a challenging term for us. But not that challenging, as it doesnt refer to us.

Tombo2001

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You seem to believe that I don't need to state the obvious, and then you write the above piece. 17 year olds are legally children too, and many of them will have developed into mature responsible people with balance views. That has to start somewhere, but you'd have them "protected" from what makes them (or you) uncomfortable. Robbing them from a safe place to develop that maturity. In the classroom, with someone to guide them in the process.

It's obvious what I said about Social media and the Internet. My 11 year old niece knows about Transgender issues, and LTGBQ movements. Young people are ever increasingly becoming exposed to ideas, and opinions, which traditionally we wouldn't have considered suitable for young children. Times change. Dealing with racism isn't a terrible topic to educate children about... seems to me, it's the adults who are projecting their own "discomfort".



Genetically? As for why, because we should be moving away from having a persons race as being distinctive... and that's not going to happen, as long as you reinforce that they're different. In any case, black people in Ireland, generally, won't have a shared heritage with African Americans, and thus, need to be sheltered from the issues of slavery.



I would. I'm completely in favor of teaching people, of all ages, the uncomfortable truths of humanity's past. I'm also completely against the need to hide or remove words/concepts. (we are still talking about students at second level, aren't we? your alternating between kids and children is awfully suggestive)

Your point on alternating btn kids and children..

Wtf is that about.

What are you trying to say.

I really dont like that comment. I didn't sign up here to be slandered.

Also, I used the word generic, not genetic.

TheBlackPill

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Your point on alternating btn kids and children..

Wtf is that about.

What are you trying to say.

I really dont like that comment. I didn't sign up here to be slandered.

Also, I used the word generic, not genetic.

Nobody is slandering you. Just because you don't like what somebody said or don't see their point of view doesn;t mean you have to take offence or be upset , like the people who don;t get the context of to Kill a MockingBird for example

TheBlackPill

Tombo2001 wrote: »

That's easy to say when the slur doesnt refer to you. Look, I have mixed feelings also as I think it could be used for an ultimately healthy debate in a school setting, but I just dont trust that it would be. It might be just one word in the book, but you can be damn sure every kid in the class will know about that one word.

I dont think its enough for white people to say 'we should all be the same'. We dont have the same heritage. White Europeans were never rounded up in their millions to become slaves in the new world. Sure, it's a challenging term for us. But not that challenging, as it doesnt refer to us.

White Europeans were rounded up in their millions and sent into slavery, for example the Islamic slavers took over 3 million people in a century from Europe
edit : What responsibility do Irish have for the Transatlantic Slave Trade? Also people of West African Origin are more likely to have had ancestors involved/profit from that trade than Irish

Tombo2001

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Your point on alternating btn kids and children..

Wtf is that about.

What are you trying to say.

I really dont like that comment. I didn't sign up here to be slandered.

Also, I used the word generic, not genetic.

Where were you slandered?

And we're back to what's obvious. Kids elicits the image of young children, whereas children has a broader scope. I asked, because, you seem to be wanting to suggest a much younger audience than Junior Cert readers.

And I quoted what you wrote in bold. I assumed it was a spelling mistake. Still... that you decide to react in such an emotional way, is very suggestive.

cursai

Should rap music not be banned in Ireland too then. As it's the single biggest propagator of racism in the world.

Tombo2001

TheBlackPill wrote: »

White Europeans were rounded up in their millions and sent into slavery, for example the Islamic slavers took over 3 million people in a century from Europe

Yes, you are slandering. The rest you can work out on your own.

TomTomTim

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Apart from anything else you've said, if your two books on dealing with prejudice are both written by white American authors......hmmm.

Jesus. You've zero self-awareness.

Tombo2001

TomTomTim wrote: »

Jesus. You've zero self-awareness.

Whatever.

Attack the post not the poster... seems to be a consistent theme around here.

Tombo2001

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Yes, you are slandering. The rest you can work out on your own.

Who are we making false or damaging statements about? You might want to check what slander actually means before throwing it around.

African tribes engaged in slavery long before the White man arrived in Africa. Throughout the M.East, slaves were purchased/taken from Africa for centuries, often being sold by African tribes themselves. The Moors, and Islamic tribes who invaded Europe through Spain, also took slaves during their conquest. When White people did appear, a large portion of slaves transported were purchased from African tribes, or from Muslim (north African) settlements.

Perhaps you should do some reading, no?

TomTomTim

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Whatever.

Attack the post not the poster... seems to be a consistent theme around here.

You spoke about prejudice, while being prejudiced. Your post showed that you the poster lacked self-awareness.

cursai

cursai wrote: »

Should rap music not be banned in Ireland too then. As it's the single biggest propagator of racism in the world.

Absurd post.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Absurd post.

I think he meant that rap music is the biggest promoter of the use of the N word. Although, he's kinda right about Rap music being racist, since it tends to project Black people in stereotypical roles (Gangsta, murderer, pimp, whore, etc) which, if anyone else said it in conversation, it would be deemed racist. It encourages people who listen to such music, to simply accept Black people in those roles, and that will be borne out in their own personal behavior/interactions, perhaps out of ignorance.

I wouldn't agree with it being the biggest propagator of racism in the world though.

TheBlackPill

Shout and scream and throw out accusations. I pity the teachers

NewbridgeIR

Sardonicat wrote: »

Lashings and lashings of ginger beer

That phrase doesn't actually appear in the books.
The Five do drink ginger beer but the "lashings of" were hard-boiled eggs and treacle.

I made sure to give my own children my 1960s & 1970s editions of Blyton's books rather than the re-writes & edits that have plagued the versions published since 1986 onwards. Never buy her books new.

Slow people are "queer in the head"
Gypsies are not to be trusted
Foreigners are dodgy
People doing menial jobs are uneducated and of lesser intelligence.

Lamentable attitudes from Blyton but they do reflect the times they were written. I don't believe in censoring the past.

Sarcozies

"The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists"

TheBlackPill

Sarcozies wrote: »

"The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists"

The fascists of today call themselves antifa

Airyfairy12

In school we didnt read aloud the derogatory words, we just said the letter 'N' instead. We all understood the meaning of the word and why it shouldnt be said, especially by white people.
I hated school but always remember reading this book in English class and feeling really effected by it, it gave me a deeper kind of empathy and understanding of my black peers. I still have my copy of it.
It would be nothing short of a travesty to remove this book from the curriculum.