It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: xcavscout
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: Jdennis10
a reply to: DBCowboy
Here a quote from the book. To me this is just meaning we all all humans. Some people would read this the wrong way in their head.
Some negroes lie, some are immoral, some negro men are not be trusted around women - black and white. But this is a truth that applies to the human race and to no particular race of men. Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird (To Kill a Mockingbird #1)
There is zero reason to even suggest separation like this to a child. Or to bring back words no longer used in common conversation.
Some negroes lie, some are immoral, some negro men are not be trusted around women - black and white.
I can appreciate your concern and you have every right to do as you please. But, taking a statement out of context to try and win an argument is really a weak hand.
"Some negroes lie, some are immoral, some negro men are not be trusted around women - black and white. But this is a truth that applies to the human race and to no particular race of men. Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird (To Kill a Mockingbird #1)"
How is there a suggestion of separation when the first statement is responded to by the second, suggesting that there is no separation because there is clearly a HUMAN RACE problem? As we read classic literature the author was using a common word used in that time, but the statement was in no way singling out a race. It only looks that way if the context is removed, as you did when you quoted.
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Martin75
That's okay. I said I would remember this thread when the sex ed subject is brought up in the future. I've been here 5 years, and it pops up from time to time. I recognize the posters who are against it. They know who they are.
I am not against sex ed. I am against what some people think it is and at what age they think it should be taught.
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: xcavscout
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: Jdennis10
a reply to: DBCowboy
Here a quote from the book. To me this is just meaning we all all humans. Some people would read this the wrong way in their head.
Some negroes lie, some are immoral, some negro men are not be trusted around women - black and white. But this is a truth that applies to the human race and to no particular race of men. Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird (To Kill a Mockingbird #1)
There is zero reason to even suggest separation like this to a child. Or to bring back words no longer used in common conversation.
Some negroes lie, some are immoral, some negro men are not be trusted around women - black and white.
I can appreciate your concern and you have every right to do as you please. But, taking a statement out of context to try and win an argument is really a weak hand.
"Some negroes lie, some are immoral, some negro men are not be trusted around women - black and white. But this is a truth that applies to the human race and to no particular race of men. Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird (To Kill a Mockingbird #1)"
How is there a suggestion of separation when the first statement is responded to by the second, suggesting that there is no separation because there is clearly a HUMAN RACE problem? As we read classic literature the author was using a common word used in that time, but the statement was in no way singling out a race. It only looks that way if the context is removed, as you did when you quoted.
You want your kid to read that. Go ahead.
You honestly believe a kid is going to take in the whole meaning?
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Martin75
That's okay. I said I would remember this thread when the sex ed subject is brought up in the future. I've been here 5 years, and it pops up from time to time. I recognize the posters who are against it. They know who they are.
I am not against sex ed. I am against what some people think it is and at what age they think it should be taught.
originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Annee
HAVE YOU SEEN how quick TINY children are to learn concepts these days?
SHAME we send them to school and kill that...
originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Annee
I did it from 16 on...I never really wanted to.
originally posted by: Annee
I fully supported the Classics - - - until I ran into a personal issue. (I feel like Dr. Spock and his personal experience with his acquired teen aged step-daughter)
Personal experience can change the mind of even the most Open of an Open Mind.
This was a Hardy Boys book.
I was reading it to my 8 year old boy.
When it got to "house boy", "slave", and the "n-word" - - - I moved to a different book.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His best friends are black, Chinese, Native American, and Egyptian. He, for some unknown reason, gravitates toward "people of color".
He has told us his real name is not what we gave him, but from before he was born. Who knows?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, I have changed my mind on this because of personal experience.
I now support "modified Classics" for school age children. Probably even through high school.
originally posted by: Anathros
originally posted by: Annee
I fully supported the Classics - - - until I ran into a personal issue. (I feel like Dr. Spock and his personal experience with his acquired teen aged step-daughter)
Personal experience can change the mind of even the most Open of an Open Mind.
This was a Hardy Boys book.
I was reading it to my 8 year old boy.
When it got to "house boy", "slave", and the "n-word" - - - I moved to a different book.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
His best friends are black, Chinese, Native American, and Egyptian. He, for some unknown reason, gravitates toward "people of color".
He has told us his real name is not what we gave him, but from before he was born. Who knows?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, I have changed my mind on this because of personal experience.
I now support "modified Classics" for school age children. Probably even through high school.
Ridiculous. I wish I had more to offer but this post literally almost made me laugh out loud. Surely you don't actually believe what you posted? It's asinine on so many levels. Of course it's your opinion but good Lord, they need to start posting missing spines on milk cartons because this is pathetic.
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Annee
HAVE YOU SEEN how quick TINY children are to learn concepts these days?
SHAME we send them to school and kill that...
I'm on my 3rd generation of kid raising. Pretty sure I'm aware by now.
We also live in a society.
I was raised without rules. I know how hard that can make it on being part of society.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
Well, I can't say I'm surprised by those who endorse and want to promote censorship.
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: DBCowboy
Well, I can't say I'm surprised by those who endorse and want to promote censorship.
You'd prefer promoting hatred and prejudice - - - that we've fought hard to evolve from?
Children don't need it.
originally posted by: mahatche
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: DBCowboy
Well, I can't say I'm surprised by those who endorse and want to promote censorship.
You'd prefer promoting hatred and prejudice - - - that we've fought hard to evolve from?
Children don't need it.
You read to kill a mocking bird and came away with the idea that it promoted hatred and prejudice?
. . . when I read it in high school i fully understood the context and came away with the complete opposite feeling. I thought to kill a mocking bird offered great examples of doing whats right despite possible repercussions, it explained why we shouldn't be prejudice.