Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This novel along with 'Huckleberry Finn' was one of the top anti-racist novels ever written in American English and it made the irrationality of racialism obviously plain to anyone that would read them. I knew a kid whose parents were known Kluxers who would not speak of these beliefs he had after reading the books. The books made him ashamed into silence.
But as white racialism returns in the guise of White Nationalism, these books are ironically enough being banned and held back from kids by leftwing Identity Politics morons who object to the realistic language of that time.
The left has gone totally and completely insane and even their top leadership is so deep intot he Twilight Zone that they cannot see Reality any more and dont care to anyway.
To Kill A Mockingbird: How An Anti-Racist Book Became A Target For 'Anti-Racists' - Breitbart
The American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom keeps track of complaints against Harper Lee’s most famous novel and the list of challenges to teaching the novel has been steadily growing since at least 1977. Indeed, To Kill A Mockingbird is one of the most banned books in America, mostly because of its alleged racism.
Let this stark irony not be lost on us. To ban Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird (1960) could not possibly be a more misjudged estimation of its worthiness as a novel about the odious nature of racism. To kill this good book by removing it from library shelves—as seems to be happening this week in my native Virginia—is to kill reason itself.
One recalls John Milton’s stirring words from his Areopagitica (1644): “[A]s good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book; who kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, God’s Image; but he who destroys a good Book, kills reason itself, kills the Image of God, as it were in the eye.”
That reason is not only a Platonic Form and an Enlightenment Ideal. It is carefully woven into Lee’s novel in the beautiful passages where the main characters are being kind, open-minded and reasonable with one another. In that reasonableness we find a counterpoint to the very ignorance, shallowness and unreasonableness of those who are moved to kill To Kill A Mockingbird.
In the misplaced zeal to do away with the alleged racial bigotry of the novel, censors tend to focus on individual words—especially the dreaded ‘n—–‘ word—and think their work of censorship is done. This microscopic, literalist view of language is a kind of parody of the spirit-letter distinction, focusing, as it does, on single elements in a narrative rather than on the general and generous spirit of an entire passage of the novel itself.
Anyone who has actually read all of To Kill A Mockingbird knows that the novel is a thoroughgoing critique of racism, not an advertisement for it. We are meant to feel the most profound sympathy for Tom Robinson, especially in the famous courtroom scene where Atticus Finch so compellingly defends him against the false accusation of the rape of a white woman....
It staggers the imagination how the novelist’s representation of fairness and its moral condemnation of racism can be easily twisted into its opposite. One simply cannot imagine a more desperately ignorant reading of the novel.
All of which goes to prove that one should never underestimate the power of liberal stupidity.
Emily, this thread is a leftist smear that bears little semblance to reality. If I remember Mockingbird correctly, there is no attempt to see the world through a black man's eyes. It is all through the eyes of a white kid. Some people have moved (unsuccessfully) to ban it due to the town's bigotry, but equally because Jim was arrested for RAPE. OOOHHHHH, careful of putting that in front of teenagers. LOLThis novel along with 'Huckleberry Finn' was one of the top anti-racist novels ever written in American English and it made the irrationality of racialism obviously plain to anyone that would read them. I knew a kid whose parents were known Kluxers who would not speak of these beliefs he had after reading the books. The books made him ashamed into silence.
But as white racialism returns in the guise of White Nationalism, these books are ironically enough being banned and held back from kids by leftwing Identity Politics morons who object to the realistic language of that time.
The left has gone totally and completely insane and even their top leadership is so deep intot he Twilight Zone that they cannot see Reality any more and dont care to anyway.
To Kill A Mockingbird: How An Anti-Racist Book Became A Target For 'Anti-Racists' - Breitbart
The American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom keeps track of complaints against Harper Lee’s most famous novel and the list of challenges to teaching the novel has been steadily growing since at least 1977. Indeed, To Kill A Mockingbird is one of the most banned books in America, mostly because of its alleged racism.
Let this stark irony not be lost on us. To ban Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird (1960) could not possibly be a more misjudged estimation of its worthiness as a novel about the odious nature of racism. To kill this good book by removing it from library shelves—as seems to be happening this week in my native Virginia—is to kill reason itself.
One recalls John Milton’s stirring words from his Areopagitica (1644): “[A]s good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book; who kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, God’s Image; but he who destroys a good Book, kills reason itself, kills the Image of God, as it were in the eye.”
That reason is not only a Platonic Form and an Enlightenment Ideal. It is carefully woven into Lee’s novel in the beautiful passages where the main characters are being kind, open-minded and reasonable with one another. In that reasonableness we find a counterpoint to the very ignorance, shallowness and unreasonableness of those who are moved to kill To Kill A Mockingbird.
In the misplaced zeal to do away with the alleged racial bigotry of the novel, censors tend to focus on individual words—especially the dreaded ‘n—–‘ word—and think their work of censorship is done. This microscopic, literalist view of language is a kind of parody of the spirit-letter distinction, focusing, as it does, on single elements in a narrative rather than on the general and generous spirit of an entire passage of the novel itself.
Anyone who has actually read all of To Kill A Mockingbird knows that the novel is a thoroughgoing critique of racism, not an advertisement for it. We are meant to feel the most profound sympathy for Tom Robinson, especially in the famous courtroom scene where Atticus Finch so compellingly defends him against the false accusation of the rape of a white woman....
It staggers the imagination how the novelist’s representation of fairness and its moral condemnation of racism can be easily twisted into its opposite. One simply cannot imagine a more desperately ignorant reading of the novel.
All of which goes to prove that one should never underestimate the power of liberal stupidity.
I guess if it were written by a Black author, such as Audrey Lourde,
then it would be understood and acceptable.
But White people and European writers, regardless if they are historical satirists from Mark Twain to Shakespeare,
aren't allowed to make statements about race since "they don't know what it feels like to be a minority person of color."
This is automatically deemed as racially biased, from a "predominantly White" perspective.
Closedmindedness shows in thinking the solution is to censor, shut down and cut these views out -- instead of opening the dialogue to ADD and include more in.
But if that is the minority reaction, to respond by attack and exclusion,
then by inclusion of cultural diversity of expression,
this "reaction" has to be allowed as their way of expressing their experience!
Same problem with LGBT responding to exclusion by seeking the equal
and opposite pattern of ATTACKS, rejection and even penalties against "anti-gay" advocates.
Instead of treating these as equal beliefs and expressions, and allowing both equally,
the same problem occurs with trying to exclude one and only defend the other as the right position.
Emily, this thread is a leftist smear that bears little semblance to reality. If I remember Mockingbird correctly, there is no attempt to see the world through a black man's eyes. It is all through the eyes of a white kid. Some people have moved (unsuccessfully) to ban it due to the town's bigotry, but equally because Jim was arrested for RAPE. OOOHHHHH, careful of putting that in front of teenagers. LOLThis novel along with 'Huckleberry Finn' was one of the top anti-racist novels ever written in American English and it made the irrationality of racialism obviously plain to anyone that would read them. I knew a kid whose parents were known Kluxers who would not speak of these beliefs he had after reading the books. The books made him ashamed into silence.
But as white racialism returns in the guise of White Nationalism, these books are ironically enough being banned and held back from kids by leftwing Identity Politics morons who object to the realistic language of that time.
The left has gone totally and completely insane and even their top leadership is so deep intot he Twilight Zone that they cannot see Reality any more and dont care to anyway.
To Kill A Mockingbird: How An Anti-Racist Book Became A Target For 'Anti-Racists' - Breitbart
The American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom keeps track of complaints against Harper Lee’s most famous novel and the list of challenges to teaching the novel has been steadily growing since at least 1977. Indeed, To Kill A Mockingbird is one of the most banned books in America, mostly because of its alleged racism.
Let this stark irony not be lost on us. To ban Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird (1960) could not possibly be a more misjudged estimation of its worthiness as a novel about the odious nature of racism. To kill this good book by removing it from library shelves—as seems to be happening this week in my native Virginia—is to kill reason itself.
One recalls John Milton’s stirring words from his Areopagitica (1644): “[A]s good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book; who kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, God’s Image; but he who destroys a good Book, kills reason itself, kills the Image of God, as it were in the eye.”
That reason is not only a Platonic Form and an Enlightenment Ideal. It is carefully woven into Lee’s novel in the beautiful passages where the main characters are being kind, open-minded and reasonable with one another. In that reasonableness we find a counterpoint to the very ignorance, shallowness and unreasonableness of those who are moved to kill To Kill A Mockingbird.
In the misplaced zeal to do away with the alleged racial bigotry of the novel, censors tend to focus on individual words—especially the dreaded ‘n—–‘ word—and think their work of censorship is done. This microscopic, literalist view of language is a kind of parody of the spirit-letter distinction, focusing, as it does, on single elements in a narrative rather than on the general and generous spirit of an entire passage of the novel itself.
Anyone who has actually read all of To Kill A Mockingbird knows that the novel is a thoroughgoing critique of racism, not an advertisement for it. We are meant to feel the most profound sympathy for Tom Robinson, especially in the famous courtroom scene where Atticus Finch so compellingly defends him against the false accusation of the rape of a white woman....
It staggers the imagination how the novelist’s representation of fairness and its moral condemnation of racism can be easily twisted into its opposite. One simply cannot imagine a more desperately ignorant reading of the novel.
All of which goes to prove that one should never underestimate the power of liberal stupidity.
I guess if it were written by a Black author, such as Audrey Lourde,
then it would be understood and acceptable.
But White people and European writers, regardless if they are historical satirists from Mark Twain to Shakespeare,
aren't allowed to make statements about race since "they don't know what it feels like to be a minority person of color."
This is automatically deemed as racially biased, from a "predominantly White" perspective.
Closedmindedness shows in thinking the solution is to censor, shut down and cut these views out -- instead of opening the dialogue to ADD and include more in.
But if that is the minority reaction, to respond by attack and exclusion,
then by inclusion of cultural diversity of expression,
this "reaction" has to be allowed as their way of expressing their experience!
Same problem with LGBT responding to exclusion by seeking the equal
and opposite pattern of ATTACKS, rejection and even penalties against "anti-gay" advocates.
Instead of treating these as equal beliefs and expressions, and allowing both equally,
the same problem occurs with trying to exclude one and only defend the other as the right position.
Mockingbird is a book about standing up against racism, doing the right thing regardless, but it wasn't in any way trying to give a "phony" black perspective. Anyone making that argument for the book didn't read it. (And sometimes the people bringing the complaint DON'T read the book--that happens more than you think. They just hear about it on their website or at their church group and they're off to the races.)
Have you read her other book, which was published recently, after her death? Any good?Emily, this thread is a leftist smear that bears little semblance to reality. If I remember Mockingbird correctly, there is no attempt to see the world through a black man's eyes. It is all through the eyes of a white kid. Some people have moved (unsuccessfully) to ban it due to the town's bigotry, but equally because Jim was arrested for RAPE. OOOHHHHH, careful of putting that in front of teenagers. LOLThis novel along with 'Huckleberry Finn' was one of the top anti-racist novels ever written in American English and it made the irrationality of racialism obviously plain to anyone that would read them. I knew a kid whose parents were known Kluxers who would not speak of these beliefs he had after reading the books. The books made him ashamed into silence.
But as white racialism returns in the guise of White Nationalism, these books are ironically enough being banned and held back from kids by leftwing Identity Politics morons who object to the realistic language of that time.
The left has gone totally and completely insane and even their top leadership is so deep intot he Twilight Zone that they cannot see Reality any more and dont care to anyway.
To Kill A Mockingbird: How An Anti-Racist Book Became A Target For 'Anti-Racists' - Breitbart
The American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom keeps track of complaints against Harper Lee’s most famous novel and the list of challenges to teaching the novel has been steadily growing since at least 1977. Indeed, To Kill A Mockingbird is one of the most banned books in America, mostly because of its alleged racism.
Let this stark irony not be lost on us. To ban Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird (1960) could not possibly be a more misjudged estimation of its worthiness as a novel about the odious nature of racism. To kill this good book by removing it from library shelves—as seems to be happening this week in my native Virginia—is to kill reason itself.
One recalls John Milton’s stirring words from his Areopagitica (1644): “[A]s good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book; who kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, God’s Image; but he who destroys a good Book, kills reason itself, kills the Image of God, as it were in the eye.”
That reason is not only a Platonic Form and an Enlightenment Ideal. It is carefully woven into Lee’s novel in the beautiful passages where the main characters are being kind, open-minded and reasonable with one another. In that reasonableness we find a counterpoint to the very ignorance, shallowness and unreasonableness of those who are moved to kill To Kill A Mockingbird.
In the misplaced zeal to do away with the alleged racial bigotry of the novel, censors tend to focus on individual words—especially the dreaded ‘n—–‘ word—and think their work of censorship is done. This microscopic, literalist view of language is a kind of parody of the spirit-letter distinction, focusing, as it does, on single elements in a narrative rather than on the general and generous spirit of an entire passage of the novel itself.
Anyone who has actually read all of To Kill A Mockingbird knows that the novel is a thoroughgoing critique of racism, not an advertisement for it. We are meant to feel the most profound sympathy for Tom Robinson, especially in the famous courtroom scene where Atticus Finch so compellingly defends him against the false accusation of the rape of a white woman....
It staggers the imagination how the novelist’s representation of fairness and its moral condemnation of racism can be easily twisted into its opposite. One simply cannot imagine a more desperately ignorant reading of the novel.
All of which goes to prove that one should never underestimate the power of liberal stupidity.
I guess if it were written by a Black author, such as Audrey Lourde,
then it would be understood and acceptable.
But White people and European writers, regardless if they are historical satirists from Mark Twain to Shakespeare,
aren't allowed to make statements about race since "they don't know what it feels like to be a minority person of color."
This is automatically deemed as racially biased, from a "predominantly White" perspective.
Closedmindedness shows in thinking the solution is to censor, shut down and cut these views out -- instead of opening the dialogue to ADD and include more in.
But if that is the minority reaction, to respond by attack and exclusion,
then by inclusion of cultural diversity of expression,
this "reaction" has to be allowed as their way of expressing their experience!
Same problem with LGBT responding to exclusion by seeking the equal
and opposite pattern of ATTACKS, rejection and even penalties against "anti-gay" advocates.
Instead of treating these as equal beliefs and expressions, and allowing both equally,
the same problem occurs with trying to exclude one and only defend the other as the right position.
Mockingbird is a book about standing up against racism, doing the right thing regardless, but it wasn't in any way trying to give a "phony" black perspective. Anyone making that argument for the book didn't read it. (And sometimes the people bringing the complaint DON'T read the book--that happens more than you think. They just hear about it on their website or at their church group and they're off to the races.)
The book is a classic and a great read that everyone should read.
This novel along with 'Huckleberry Finn' was one of the top anti-racist novels ever written in American English and it made the irrationality of racialism obviously plain to anyone that would read them. I knew a kid whose parents were known Kluxers who would not speak of these beliefs he had after reading the books. The books made him ashamed into silence.
But as white racialism returns in the guise of White Nationalism, these books are ironically enough being banned and held back from kids by leftwing Identity Politics morons who object to the realistic language of that time.
All of which goes to prove that one should never underestimate the power of liberal stupidity.
We all went running for Tropic of Capricorn as soon as the ban got lifted. Or was it Tropic of Cancer? Banning fuels curiosity. Did you ever read Naked and the Dead? To get it published, he had to change "fuck" to "fug" and you read the entire book battling the impression that all the characters have bad head colds.At times, the books have been banned. Mark Twain was in favor of banning his book because it increased sales.The banning of such books, by either the left wing or the alt right, like the JimmaBowies, is wrong, yes.
White Nationalism is normally found on the right, while Black Nationalism can be found on either wing.
And look, nothing got banned, not even close.
Have you read her other book, which was published recently, after her death? Any good?Emily, this thread is a leftist smear that bears little semblance to reality. If I remember Mockingbird correctly, there is no attempt to see the world through a black man's eyes. It is all through the eyes of a white kid. Some people have moved (unsuccessfully) to ban it due to the town's bigotry, but equally because Jim was arrested for RAPE. OOOHHHHH, careful of putting that in front of teenagers. LOLThis novel along with 'Huckleberry Finn' was one of the top anti-racist novels ever written in American English and it made the irrationality of racialism obviously plain to anyone that would read them. I knew a kid whose parents were known Kluxers who would not speak of these beliefs he had after reading the books. The books made him ashamed into silence.
But as white racialism returns in the guise of White Nationalism, these books are ironically enough being banned and held back from kids by leftwing Identity Politics morons who object to the realistic language of that time.
The left has gone totally and completely insane and even their top leadership is so deep intot he Twilight Zone that they cannot see Reality any more and dont care to anyway.
To Kill A Mockingbird: How An Anti-Racist Book Became A Target For 'Anti-Racists' - Breitbart
The American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom keeps track of complaints against Harper Lee’s most famous novel and the list of challenges to teaching the novel has been steadily growing since at least 1977. Indeed, To Kill A Mockingbird is one of the most banned books in America, mostly because of its alleged racism.
Let this stark irony not be lost on us. To ban Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird (1960) could not possibly be a more misjudged estimation of its worthiness as a novel about the odious nature of racism. To kill this good book by removing it from library shelves—as seems to be happening this week in my native Virginia—is to kill reason itself.
One recalls John Milton’s stirring words from his Areopagitica (1644): “[A]s good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book; who kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, God’s Image; but he who destroys a good Book, kills reason itself, kills the Image of God, as it were in the eye.”
That reason is not only a Platonic Form and an Enlightenment Ideal. It is carefully woven into Lee’s novel in the beautiful passages where the main characters are being kind, open-minded and reasonable with one another. In that reasonableness we find a counterpoint to the very ignorance, shallowness and unreasonableness of those who are moved to kill To Kill A Mockingbird.
In the misplaced zeal to do away with the alleged racial bigotry of the novel, censors tend to focus on individual words—especially the dreaded ‘n—–‘ word—and think their work of censorship is done. This microscopic, literalist view of language is a kind of parody of the spirit-letter distinction, focusing, as it does, on single elements in a narrative rather than on the general and generous spirit of an entire passage of the novel itself.
Anyone who has actually read all of To Kill A Mockingbird knows that the novel is a thoroughgoing critique of racism, not an advertisement for it. We are meant to feel the most profound sympathy for Tom Robinson, especially in the famous courtroom scene where Atticus Finch so compellingly defends him against the false accusation of the rape of a white woman....
It staggers the imagination how the novelist’s representation of fairness and its moral condemnation of racism can be easily twisted into its opposite. One simply cannot imagine a more desperately ignorant reading of the novel.
All of which goes to prove that one should never underestimate the power of liberal stupidity.
I guess if it were written by a Black author, such as Audrey Lourde,
then it would be understood and acceptable.
But White people and European writers, regardless if they are historical satirists from Mark Twain to Shakespeare,
aren't allowed to make statements about race since "they don't know what it feels like to be a minority person of color."
This is automatically deemed as racially biased, from a "predominantly White" perspective.
Closedmindedness shows in thinking the solution is to censor, shut down and cut these views out -- instead of opening the dialogue to ADD and include more in.
But if that is the minority reaction, to respond by attack and exclusion,
then by inclusion of cultural diversity of expression,
this "reaction" has to be allowed as their way of expressing their experience!
Same problem with LGBT responding to exclusion by seeking the equal
and opposite pattern of ATTACKS, rejection and even penalties against "anti-gay" advocates.
Instead of treating these as equal beliefs and expressions, and allowing both equally,
the same problem occurs with trying to exclude one and only defend the other as the right position.
Mockingbird is a book about standing up against racism, doing the right thing regardless, but it wasn't in any way trying to give a "phony" black perspective. Anyone making that argument for the book didn't read it. (And sometimes the people bringing the complaint DON'T read the book--that happens more than you think. They just hear about it on their website or at their church group and they're off to the races.)
The book is a classic and a great read that everyone should read.
"In The Heat Of The Night" was another prime example of Democrats and their ways.
At times, the books have been banned. Mark Twain was in favor of banning his book because it increased sales.The banning of such books, by either the left wing or the alt right, like the JimmaBowies, is wrong, yes.
White Nationalism is normally found on the right, while Black Nationalism can be found on either wing.
And look, nothing got banned, not even close.
"In The Heat Of The Night" was another prime example of Democrats and their ways.
Yes, let's bask in blacks' exquisite grievances against whites a little longer- just in case anyone missed Roots, Do the Right Thing, Amistad, The Color Purple, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?, Mississippi Burning, The Hurricane, Malcolm X, Monster's Ball, A Raisin in the Sun, To Kill a Mockingbird, Tuskegee Airmen, Ghosts of Mississippi, Ali, The Green Mile and every ABC after-school special ever produced (except the ones about eating disorders) as well as your entire college education and the last fifty years of the New York Times and all other mainstream media outlets issuing hysterical updates on the unending civil rights struggle.
In the last two decades, the Times has run more than 250 articles about the Selma march alone. Selma happened nearly half a century ago."
Coulter
lolWow!
A ban is a ban, and sometimes are overturned. So the answer was not "successfully banned" . . .At times, the books have been banned. Mark Twain was in favor of banning his book because it increased sales.The banning of such books, by either the left wing or the alt right, like the JimmaBowies, is wrong, yes.
White Nationalism is normally found on the right, while Black Nationalism can be found on either wing.
And look, nothing got banned, not even close.
Then it was never successfully banned was it now.
Well thank God these libtards are not being successful, dude, but it still supports the main point; Identity Politics has gone so far left that it is actually working to undo the reasons that held racism back and rid it from the political landscape except for the case of minority racism.When you see an article on Breitbart, it's good to go to the source. ALA.org is offline at the moment, but there's this from PBS
'To Kill A Mockingbird' remains among top banned classical novels
Note that the "Challenged" incidents were NOT successful in banning the book. This is not a groundswell of ignorant libtards trying to prevent sharing of an American classic. Just Breitbart's imaginative spin, per usual.
This novel along with 'Huckleberry Finn' was one of the top anti-racist novels ever written in American English and it made the irrationality of racialism obviously plain to anyone that would read them. I knew a kid whose parents were known Kluxers who would not speak of these beliefs he had after reading the books. The books made him ashamed into silence.
But as white racialism returns in the guise of White Nationalism, these books are ironically enough being banned and held back from kids by leftwing Identity Politics morons who object to the realistic language of that time.
The left has gone totally and completely insane and even their top leadership is so deep intot he Twilight Zone that they cannot see Reality any more and dont care to anyway.
To Kill A Mockingbird: How An Anti-Racist Book Became A Target For 'Anti-Racists' - Breitbart
The American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom keeps track of complaints against Harper Lee’s most famous novel and the list of challenges to teaching the novel has been steadily growing since at least 1977. Indeed, To Kill A Mockingbird is one of the most banned books in America, mostly because of its alleged racism.
Let this stark irony not be lost on us. To ban Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird (1960) could not possibly be a more misjudged estimation of its worthiness as a novel about the odious nature of racism. To kill this good book by removing it from library shelves—as seems to be happening this week in my native Virginia—is to kill reason itself.
One recalls John Milton’s stirring words from his Areopagitica (1644): “[A]s good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book; who kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, God’s Image; but he who destroys a good Book, kills reason itself, kills the Image of God, as it were in the eye.”
That reason is not only a Platonic Form and an Enlightenment Ideal. It is carefully woven into Lee’s novel in the beautiful passages where the main characters are being kind, open-minded and reasonable with one another. In that reasonableness we find a counterpoint to the very ignorance, shallowness and unreasonableness of those who are moved to kill To Kill A Mockingbird.
In the misplaced zeal to do away with the alleged racial bigotry of the novel, censors tend to focus on individual words—especially the dreaded ‘n—–‘ word—and think their work of censorship is done. This microscopic, literalist view of language is a kind of parody of the spirit-letter distinction, focusing, as it does, on single elements in a narrative rather than on the general and generous spirit of an entire passage of the novel itself.
Anyone who has actually read all of To Kill A Mockingbird knows that the novel is a thoroughgoing critique of racism, not an advertisement for it. We are meant to feel the most profound sympathy for Tom Robinson, especially in the famous courtroom scene where Atticus Finch so compellingly defends him against the false accusation of the rape of a white woman....
It staggers the imagination how the novelist’s representation of fairness and its moral condemnation of racism can be easily twisted into its opposite. One simply cannot imagine a more desperately ignorant reading of the novel.
All of which goes to prove that one should never underestimate the power of liberal stupidity.
Socially engineered weak minds keep getting loonier by the second. .
But, but, but it has the N-WORD IN IT!The book is fine, and very easy to find, nice read.
It's a classic. I read it in Highschool.
Some folks need to get over it and understand the historical background of these great books.
"In The Heat Of The Night" was another prime example of Democrats and their ways.
"Yes, let's bask in blacks' exquisite grievances against whites a little longer- just in case anyone missed Roots, Do the Right Thing, Amistad, The Color Purple, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?, Mississippi Burning, The Hurricane, Malcolm X, Monster's Ball, A Raisin in the Sun, To Kill a Mockingbird, Tuskegee Airmen, Ghosts of Mississippi, Ali, The Green Mile and every ABC after-school special ever produced (except the ones about eating disorders) as well as your entire college education and the last fifty years of the New York Times and all other mainstream media outlets issuing hysterical updates on the unending civil rights struggle.
In the last two decades, the Times has run more than 250 articles about the Selma march alone. Selma happened nearly half a century ago."
Coulter
Well thank God these libtards are not being successful, dude, but it still supports the main point; Identity Politics has gone so far left that it is actually working to undo the reasons that held racism back and rid it from the political landscape except for the case of minority racism.When you see an article on Breitbart, it's good to go to the source. ALA.org is offline at the moment, but there's this from PBS
'To Kill A Mockingbird' remains among top banned classical novels
Note that the "Challenged" incidents were NOT successful in banning the book. This is not a groundswell of ignorant libtards trying to prevent sharing of an American classic. Just Breitbart's imaginative spin, per usual.
