Hijack, but is this guy “Beau” well-known enough to everyone here that you can just mention him by first name? (Because I have no idea who the heck this is and I’m trying to figure out if I’m out of touch or just too old.)
‘Same’ is used in the general sense of population. The point being that a library whose contents were serially filtered by all possible taboos would require few shelves.
If you try really hard, I’m sure you can think of cultures where a child reading a swear or seeing a nipple isn’t considered a “life-altering decision.” I’d venture to say that’s true of the majority of cultures.
And there is a difference between parents wielding the control as instrumental to child-rearing, compared to absolute parental authority to indoctrinate them separate to all outside influences of society.
If so, then it’s admittedly a generalization. And I would challenge you to approach any parent in rural TN to ask them if they let their kids see the titties in Braveheart. I’ll save you some time, the answer is “no”. Context doesn’t matter. Titties are simply verboten.
I agree with the truth of this statement, but this was pretty clearly not the point Beau was making.
There’s no shame in being both 
https://www.youtube.com/c/BeauoftheFifthColumn
The book was removed from the curriculum, not the library, assuming I’m understanding correctly.
I had a feeling someone would say that. But this isn’t about the specifics, it’s about the general notion that “parental control” over the education of minors is some sort of Southern, conservative, control-freak thing. Sure, there are many parents, educators and school boards who have no problem with the specific elements in Maus that this Tennessee one had. But while the lines might be drawn differently, there are always some lines, and it is the parents/adult overseers who determine these, and not the children themselves. Parental control - on whichever points it gets exercised - is not simply “Southern culture”.
I’m imagining somebody chose the book in the first place thinking, “It’s a comic book. It’s got cartoon cats and mice. It must be for kids!” Then at some point they actually read it, and thought, “Wait a minute…”
Yes, I wrote that there are probably multiple strands of motivation involved.
It’s important to be careful with this kind of conspiratorial thinking, but I think you’re probably right. That still doesn’t change the question… who is really driving this, and why?
At the populist level, someone’s pushing a button to get parents worked up about “parental authority”. Those buttons are things considered taboo in those cultures (titties and blasphemy). I don’t think that whoever is pushing the button cares that much about titties and blasphemy. They do very much care about getting people to vote Republican, or at least the concept of authoritarianism championed by Republicans. And of course they don’t want to let the national conversation about Republicans drift too close to uncomfortable comparisons with Nazism.
All of it works together, but what’s the primary driver? I’m not sure. Maybe there is no primary driver, maybe there’s no mastermind in the control booth, maybe it’s just a symbiotic tangle of ideas that help serve one another.
Actually, I doubt that. It’s a pretty well known book, and I’ll bet it was quite deliberately chosen.
I always assumed it meant “This isn’t just a sight gag - he actually keeps a picture of his cat on his desk!”
My daughter is 13. She is reading it as part of her English lessons right now. They’re also doing “The Book Thief”.
Thanks for the correction
Having been born and raised in southern culture (kindly do not capitalize it), I can tell you that parental authority is an explicit and conscious part of it in ways that I personally have never seen in any culture other than Islam. And the current news coverage, again, is literally referencing the affront to parental authority, not the harm to the child.
I don’t know how to explain to you the difference between “I have the right and responsibility to make decisions for my own child”, and venerating that control as a virtue sufficient unto itself, independent to the benefit of the child. I grew up in it so I know what I’m seeing, but maybe you have some different experience to share?
I also couldn’t help noticing that this decision came down less than 24 hours before International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Is this a case of button-pushing bigoted conservatives thinking that far ahead, and chosing the timing as an additional jab in the eye? Or did they genuinely not know? Either way, the optics aren’t great.
The nudity in Maus:
^^^ That whole thread is excellent and is a must read for this discussion.
You totally missed the context on that one. Spiegleman’s psychiatrist was also a Holocaust survivor. Spiegleman had guilt over his father’s suffering and the shrink was helping him come to terms with it. At one point, Spiegleman complained he couldn’t understand how truly scary an experience it was. The shrink suddenly shouted BOO and made Spiegleman jump. He said “There. It was like that, only all the time.”
The picture was not a cat, but two dogs. I think Spiegleman’s point in labelling it out was that despite going through the concentration camp horrors, the shrink had a picture of his dogs on his desk, and it was the last thing Spiegleman expected.
I hear that that particular book looks more favorably towards genocide.
It’s not whether minors make the decision, it is whether society makes the decision.
And the idea of the rights of parents to control their children vs the right of society to have educated, well adjusted children who grow up to be functional and productive adults has been all the way up and down the spectrum throughout history and cultures.
Southern culture is at the lower end of that spectrum.