Banning YA and younger books

[Alia]

This reminds me of a conversation I had with my mother just a few weekends ago. She was preparing the house for the arrival of my nephew, and one of the things she'd done was blunt the cat's claws to "prevent damage." My attitude to that was that someday he's going to have to learn that cats have claws.

There is such a thing as Cat's Claw Fever. Your mother is a smart woman! Children get very sick from this! Let me explain briefly what Cat's Claw Fever is... A cat goes potty... he uses his paws to cover it up... fetises gets on them... they go and scratch a child... ouch! I'm sure you can take it from there. A friend of mine son just got over it. He ran an extremely high fever for almost 7 days and that's on meds. They had to watch him closely for several weeks. It's serious stuff and nothing to fool around with.

Although, Mikeo, I agree with you on certain things children should be able to do... Like get dirty, play in the mud, explore, experience life. But as a parent, with wisedom and knowledge it's our duty to protect and teach. I teach my children that that the stove is hot and outlets are dangerous. Could you imagine what would happen if they didn't have me telling them that.

Same goes for books... We need to direct and teach. I let my daughter read the Good Earth by Pearl S Buck. We talked and discussed about the culture. I see no issue with her reading this classic. But I do see an issue with her reading about rape... especially of infants...

my two cents.

 

[mikeo]

There is such a thing as Cat's Claw Fever. Your mother is a smart woman! Children get very sick from this! Let me explain briefly what Cat's Claw Fever is... A cat goes potty... he uses his paws to cover it up... fetises gets on them... they go and scratch a child... ouch! I'm sure you can take it from there. A friend of mine son just got over it. He ran an extremely high fever for almost 7 days and that's on meds. They had to watch him closely for several weeks. It's serious stuff and nothing to fool around with.

Interesting! I should have known my mom was one step ahead of me... Is this something only young children (with young immune systems) are vulnerable to?

I have to agree that there are some things young children shouldn't read about - there's no way to justify claims to the contrary, really. Still, where to draw the line is difficult, and I think the line of what is/isn't acceptable will vary hugely from child to child, making bans a poor choice.

I also feel that by the time someone reached their teens, they've likely been exposed to most of what you'll find in books these days, unless they've been locked in their rooms. I know I had been, and I grew up in a tiny little rural town of 5000 people! Who knows what the life of a child in London is like these days...

 

[Alia]

Is this something only young children (with young immune systems) are vulnerable to?

No, adults can get this too... but children are more likely to get it because of their young immune systems I was a daycare provider for 10 years and this is something I had to watch for because I had a cat... I had him declawed.

 

[the smiling weirwood]

I should probably never have children, they'd be corrupted by the time they were seven.

 

[littlemissattitude]

I might not be the right person to even comment on this, as I don't have children. Also, I was brought up in a household where my reading was never regulated.

The library tried. First of all, I had largely moved on to the adult section of the library by the time I was seven years old. The librarians made me prove to them that I could read the books and understand them before they would allow me to check them out. And then, around the time I was ten or eleven, there were books I wanted to read that they just wouldn't let me check out. Rosemary's Baby was one; The Graduate was another; a third was M*A*S*H, on which the movie was based. Those were just beyond the pale, as far as the librarians were concerned. So, I just sat and read them in the library.

I don't recall there ever being any controversy over any books at school. Nobody batted an eyelash when my ninth-grade English teacher had us read Catcher in the Rye. Hated the book myself, and didn't realize until much later that there was any controversy about it at all. Although I did notice that when she taught Romeo and Juliet, the text that was in our English book had a few things missing.

My parents never forbade me to read anything, although I think they got a little nervous when I was reading Soul on Ice, by Eldrige Cleaver in about the eighth grade, as well as some other fairly radical political stuff, but they never said anything to me to indicate that they didn't want me to read those things.

So, I'm not that much of an advocate of banning books in schools or anywhere else. I do think that the fundamentalist Christians take more hits than they need to over wanting things taken out of the classroom; at least as many of the attempts to ban books in schools are initiated by non-conservatives who are motivated by the wish to see that students never see anything that is politically incorrect. For example, one of the huge reasons that there have been attempts to ban Laura Ingalls Wilder's Little House books is that there is a place in at least one of them where Laura's Ma says that "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." Not a nice sentiment, to be sure. But that was a widespread attitude at the time, and it bothers me that there are folks who don't want kids to know that it was a prevalent attitude at that point in history. You can't wipe out prejudice and bigotry by pretending that it never existed.

I suppose all this is just a long, rambling way of saying that I don't approve of the censorship of books by a government agency, for example, the schools. If a parent does not want their child or children to read something, I think it is their right to express that and to try to obtain alternate assignments when that occurs. But I am very uncomfortable with the idea that one or a few parents can prohibit entire classrooms of children from reading what they don't want their child to read.

 

[the smiling weirwood]

What's the controversy about Catcher in the Rye? I've never heard about this.

 

[littlemissattitude]

For a short synopsis of some of the reasons why parents have wanted to get Catcher in the Rye out of their children's classrooms look here (scroll down to "controversy". Basically, Holden Caulfield is seen as a very bad example for teenagers; he smokes, he drinks, he flouts authority. It is reputed to be one of the most banned books in the United States.

 

[BookStop]

I suppose all this is just a long, rambling way of saying that I don't approve of the censorship of books by a government agency, for example, the schools. If a parent does not want their child or children to read something, I think it is their right to express that and to try to obtain alternate assignments when that occurs. But I am very uncomfortable with the idea that one or a few parents can prohibit entire classrooms of children from reading what they don't want their child to read.

No, generally I don't agree with censorship either. I'm not saying I know what's best for all ninth-graders out there, just mine. Mine will be prohibited from reading The Bean Trees because she is not mature enough to be exposed to sexual abuse on an infant. I imagine lots of young teens are in the same maturity boat. They aren't allowed to watch R rated movies yet, don't date at 13 or 14, and have parents that are cautious about what they read.

 

[the smiling weirwood]

For a short synopsis of some of the reasons why parents have wanted to get Catcher in the Rye out of their children's classrooms look here (scroll down to "controversy". Basically, Holden Caulfield is seen as a very bad example for teenagers; he smokes, he drinks, he flouts authority. It is reputed to be one of the most banned books in the United States.

That's ridiculous! I see worse every day on MTV, and who bans that?

 

[mikeo]

No, adults can get this too... but children are more likely to get it because of their young immune systems I was a daycare provider for 10 years and this is something I had to watch for because I had a cat... I had him declawed.

Yay!

http://www.declawing.com/

I'm sort of opposed to amputation for convenience. It's also illegal here in the UK, and in a lot of Europe as it is judged to be inhumane. Mind you, I've heard of people in the US even having their dog's vocal cords cut to stop them from barking, so I shouldn't be surprised that this still happens in the US.

Sorry, I have strong feelings on this.

(I've also done some reading up on cat scratch fever. All the medical sites I've found thus far have described it to be generally unremarkable, though sometimes presenting complications - up to 2% of cases which are reported developing encephalitis. Judging from the symptoms, I'd guess the reporting rate is not terribly high.)

Anyways, I'm pretty off topic here, so I'll shut up...

 

[BookStop]

Yay!

http://www.declawing.com/

I'm sort of opposed to amputation for convenience. It's also illegal here in the UK, and in a lot of Europe as it is judged to be inhumane. Mind you, I've heard of people in the US even having their dog's vocal cords cut to stop them from barking, so I shouldn't be surprised that this still happens in the US.

Sorry, I have strong feelings on this.

It isn't legal everywhere in the US, but the states that still do it argue that it's better than the cat being dead, which is highly likely if an owner won't learn to live their kitties occasional indiscretions. Animal shelters here are so over-crowded with cats and dogs, that pets that can't be kept by one owner because of clawing, or allergies, or whatever, might be euthanized. It's a sad situation.

 

[Alia]

Yay!

http://www.declawing.com/

I'm sort of opposed to amputation for convenience. It's also illegal here in the UK, and in a lot of Europe as it is judged to be inhumane. Mind you, I've heard of people in the US even having their dog's vocal cords cut to stop them from barking, so I shouldn't be surprised that this still happens in the US.

Sorry, I have strong feelings on this.

(I've also done some reading up on cat scratch fever. All the medical sites I've found thus far have described it to be generally unremarkable, though sometimes presenting complications - up to 2% of cases which are reported developing encephalitis. Judging from the symptoms, I'd guess the reporting rate is not terribly high.)

Anyways, I'm pretty off topic here, so I'll shut up...

I respect your thoughts Mikeo.

My cat is very well loved, catches mice, and can protect himself. I understand your feelings on declawing, but I wanted to keep him. In order for me to do so I felt strong on having him declawed. The week before he was to be declawed he scratched a boy's face from the eye down to the jaw playing with him. The mother was very understanding and the appointment had been made the week before so nothing was made of the issue (and the child didn't come down with cat claw fever either ~ in fact I thought it was a wive's tale until my friend's son came down with it just a few weeks ago).

I love my cat... and he stays inside with me. He is the only cat I have ever done it too... I am glad for the decision.

I also had him neutered at the same time.

I know it sounds like I don't love him but I really do. He eats off of a gold plate.

 

[the smiling weirwood]

No matter how pampered they are, cats are still animals, and to punish them for their natural behavior(i.e. clawing) is much more inhumane than declawing them. It's not as if we're declawing tigers, or sawing off deer's antlers. Domestic cats don't NEED claws, just the way people don't NEED an appendix. If it becomes a problem, I don't see why it shouldn't be removed.

 

[Alia]

Okay... a gentle reminder to stay to the subject... I'm guilty on changing the subject, so I'm sorry. If you want to continue this debate I can have this part of the discussion removed and put in a more proper forum. I don't mind... just let me know.

Thanks

 

[the smiling weirwood]

Actually it was Mikeo who derailed it, we just helped!;D

 

[littlemissattitude]

No, generally I don't agree with censorship either. I'm not saying I know what's best for all ninth-graders out there, just mine. Mine will be prohibited from reading The Bean Trees because she is not mature enough to be exposed to sexual abuse on an infant. I imagine lots of young teens are in the same maturity boat. They aren't allowed to watch R rated movies yet, don't date at 13 or 14, and have parents that are cautious about what they read.

I apologize if it seemed like my comment was aimed at you, Book Stop. It wasn't, but was more of a general comment. Your approach is the one I would approve. Certainly, just because I was raised with no limitations on my reading it does not mean I advocate that for all children, although I don't think it harmed me in any way. Also, things were different back then (in the 1960s and early 1970s, when dinosaurs still roamed the earth). I'm sure there are things available now that, if I had children, I wouldn't want them reading until they were ready for them.

Again, I'm sorry if I caused any offense.

 

[the smiling weirwood]

I live in littlemissattiude's camp on this one. Although, I wasn't raised in the 60's and 70's.

 

[Alia]

Littlemiss was actually born in the 70's Smiling, nice going.

 

[BookStop]

I apologize if it seemed like my comment was aimed at you, Book Stop. It wasn't, but was more of a general comment. Your approach is the one I would approve. Certainly, just because I was raised with no limitations on my reading it does not mean I advocate that for all children, although I don't think it harmed me in any way. Also, things were different back then (in the 1960s and early 1970s, when dinosaurs still roamed the earth). I'm sure there are things available now that, if I had children, I wouldn't want them reading until they were ready for them.

Again, I'm sorry if I caused any offense.

Nope- no offense taken. I just didn't want y'all to think I thought myself to know what's best for everyone. Alas, if it were true, I'd rule the world - Mwaahaahaa

 

[Carolyn Hill]

There's another sort of censorship going on that this thread might be interested in: publishers who want to sell anthologies of literature and other textbooks to be assigned as reading in U.S. schools self-censor the contents of those books. The publishers want to sell books, and they know that anthologies that stir up controversy aren't likely to be purchased and assigned by school districts, so they do all that they can to make sure that the stories in those anthologies are as inoffensive as possible.

In considering what's offensive, they try to please both the liberal left and the conservative right--which is darn near impossible to do simultaneously. The publishers aren't just worrying about sex or violence or religion or overtly problematic content. They're worrying about gender balance, ethnic balance, avoiding stereotypes and sexism and ageism and regional bias . . . all of which are good things to be concerned about. The problem is that the publishers prioritize statistical balance over literary or educational merit, so weaker stories that enable them to achieve a statistical balance often end up in the anthology instead of stories with greater merit that don't contribute to the statistical balance--even when those more-literary stories and more-educational essays have absolutely nothing offensive or problematic in them.

Statistical balance means exactly what it sounds like: if there are 150 female characters in the anthology, there should be 150 male characters. Imagine the difficulty in achieving that goal. Then add to that difficulty the goal of filling the other items on the statistical checklist. The truly important goal of teaching children how to read and think takes a backseat to publishers' (admittedly understandable) desire for profits and to avoid controversy.

Diane Ravitch, who has published several books on the history of education in the U.S., offers some amusing (or horrifying) examples of this sort of self-censorship in The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn (2003). For example, a Holt, Rinehart, and Winston checklist mentions foods to avoid in textbooks, including gravies and pickles and salt. A Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley checklist mentions words to avoid, such as "huts" and "senior citizen" and "dogma." The American Institutes for Research checklist bans the word "soda" as being regionally biased. A panel charged with choosing passages for a fourth-grade reading test rejected a factual passage about owls because owls are images of death in certain cultures. That same panel rejected a true story about a young blind man who climbed Mount McKinley; even though the man is clearly an admirable person who triumphed over adversity, the panel didn't want to suggest that people with disabilities are at a disadvantage compared to people without. The National Evaluation System rejects depictions of older people who are "retired, fussy, charming, have aches and pains, or take afternoon naps." Riverside Publishing rejects depictions of boys as "strong, brave, and silent," and the New York Board of Education rejects depictions of boys as "curious, ingenious, and able to overcome obstacles." Macmillan-McGraw rejects stories that depict girls as neat.

You get the idea. Some girls are neat. Some boys are curious. Many stories that matter take place in a specific region of the world, and, thus, contain regional bias. Some stories are about disability or old age or other life events of great importance to us all. Sometimes an owl is just an owl. And salt--who can live without salt?

I'm not suggesting that stories without sex, violence, and bias can't have literary merit. And I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't care about sexism or ageism or the other ills in society. Like Ravitch, I'm saying that attempting to avoid any and all controversy is impossible and that reducing literature and other reading material to a statistical checklist and then choosing material primarily on that basis undermines the goal of teaching kids to read and appreciate the written word.