and the insanity continues...

 If our world were a snowglobe, then I could correctly assume that someone was picking it up and giving it a good shake just to see everything fly about in the water.

This is Read Across America week, which honors/recognizes the birthday of Theodore Seuss Geisel and his contribution to children learning to read. The foundation that continues his legacy pulled 5 of his 60+ books from publication because of content in his illustrations that would now be considered offensive.

One of those six books is one I was introduced to in Kindergarten.

 

According to WRAL, the problem with this book is the illustration that depicts and Asian man with slanted eyes. I had to go and pull out  my copy of the book, and there I saw the real offense.  Asian art often depicts themselves with very small eyes or slanted eyes, so I was puzzled why they thought that would be offensive. I quickly spotted the real problem -what Americans call the Chinese pigtail.

During the Qing dynasty, the Manchu clan ruled China. Most current Chinese associate themselves with the Han people group, though there are 55 ethnic groups in the country. One of the emperors in the Qing dynasty required all the men to shave their heads except for the braid in the back. They said this way they could tell who was friend or foe of the emperor.  This was a violation of Confucius teachings, and thousands of Chinese chose death over the haircut. Those who did endure the "humiliation" saw the requirement as symbolic of slavery, as they were not free to do as they pleased with their own bodies. Most Chinese today, especially the Han, view that hairstyle as symbolic of slavery.

Ironically, in the late 1800's, San Franciso passed a hair ordinance requiring the Chinese immigrants, many of whom were Manchu/Qing dynasty supporters, to cut the braid, which created a lot of racial tension in the city.

Since there is nothing in the words in the book itself that would be offensive, I don't understand why the foundation doesn't separate Geisel's illustrations from his writing and publish the book with a new illustrator.  That could solve the whole problem.  

I'm not familiar with the other books they are pulling, so I don't really have an opinion about those. But I'm thankful I own a copy of this book, with its character who uses his overactive imagination to create an interesting story to overcome a boring answer, but in the end sticks with the simple and boring truth.

a conspiracy theory

Every year the American Library Association celebrates banned book week. I had never heard of a book being banned until I was in college, and was quite surprised to hear that some of the books people attempted to ban were books I had already read (Huck Finn, To Kill a Mockingbird, etc).

I only remember my mother "banning" a book twice.  Once, my younger siblings checked out a picture book from our local library that were full of illustrations containing unclothed children.  Almost every page had at least one child without any pants on.  I don't think there were any frontal drawings, but my three and  four year old siblings were having monstrous giggle fits over the book.  My Mom was outraged, and we returned the book the next day while she had expressed her views of how it was inappropriate to the librarian, and the librarian huffily explained that not everyone saw things Mom's way and they couldn't remove it from the shelves.  Thereafter we had to present all books to Mom for a scan before it could be checked out.

The second ban came about in middle school.  Sweet Valley High was all the rage, and when Mom realized I was reading one every other day (my classmate had the ENTIRE series and I was in an ACE school where I had way too much free time on my hands), she read two of them.  We had a little talk about why they were inappropriate (the main characters displayed ungodly characteristics: bad-mouthing parents, slandering friends, jealousy, revenge, etc), and then I was told I needed to replace them with something else.  So I read them at school for a little while, out of parental prying eyes, all the while hearing Mom's voice in my head saying "The Bible says..." every time a character did something that was not edifying or representative of the fruit of the Spirit.

In high school during AP class, we would tell our English teacher if there was an assigned novel we were uncomfortable reading (Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath...made it through 2 pages), and he willingly allowed us to read a different book from the list.  So here's my conspiracy theory: all these "banned" books were banned by the publishers to boost book sales.

I mean, if I don't like a book, I'm not going to read it.  If a student doesn't like a book, they're going to go out and buy the cliff notes and not read the book.  In most cases, if a parent or a child truly has an issue with a book, most teachers would more than graciously allow the student to read 2 or 3 more permissible books in it's place.  Many parents would simply read the book with the child and teach them through the process how to Biblically analyze, dissect, and debate what is wrong with its content.  Everyone knows the way to make a teenager want to do something (or anyone for that matter) is to make it forbidden.

I never dreamed I would be one to submit to a conspiracy theory, but there you have it. It's all a scam.

censorship

The current discussion ensuing among the Carolina region of SCBWI is the issue of parenting vs. censorship. A parent, who is also a writer, was mortified at some books her child brought home from the school library (classified as narrative nonfiction for 4-8 grade, they are in an elementary library and discuss actual crimes that have happened and the CSI techniques used to solve them). Evidently the books are quite graphic, but the larger discussion has been over the issue of whether or not the books should be in the library at all. Does that amount to good parenting, or censorship?

When I was 12, there was a series out that I thoroughly enjoyed reading. A friend of mine had the entire set, and would loan them to me. After my Mom read one of the books, she told me she didn't approve, and why (the main characters, in HS, had no problem with gossip, lying, backstabbing, etc) and stated she really didn't want me reading such stuff. She didn't tell me I couldn't read them. And that was my loophole. I simply read them at school. But by book three after our discussion, the books didn't seems as great. I knew what the characters were going to do; I knew it wouldn't be kind or nice, and the plot seemed a little lame. By book four, the fun was gone. That was my last book in that series.

Now that I'm older, I understand the wisdom behind Mom's dislike. But I think I shocked her later by asking questions about one of her books. Having read most of ours, I simply moved up one shelf to her books. I was blessed to be surrounded by a lot of great books, but I wish I had been exposed to more classics and adventurous, fun books in Middle School.

And I guess that makes me question the assertions of some librarians that if you don't approve of a book you don't have to check it out. In theory, that is very true. But when you're dealing with a child, such as I was, then that child will find a way to check out a book they want. They may never take it home, but it will almost certainly be read. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do think that sometimes a little censorship doesn't hurt.