More on Maus:
…
[Author Art] Spiegelman told CNBC that he was heartened by the response, noting it’s not the first of its kind.“The schoolboard could’ve checked with their book-banning predecessor, [Russian President] Vladimir Putin,” he wrote. “He made the Russian edition of Maus illegal in 2015 (also with good intentions — banning swastikas) and the small publisher sold out immediately and has had to reprint repeatedly.”
…
Hehe.
People keep stating it as fact that conservatives will let their children watch media with bare breasts in it, and I’m just here to scream “cite” because this is the exact opposite of my own experience. My own high school library wasn’t in any kind of reactionary area, maybe a little conservative, and non-medical nudity simply wasn’t a thing. Come to think of it, comic books weren’t even a thing. Parents are really controlling about that stuff down there.
The stated rationale is that they don’t like nudity or blasphemy in the high school library. They’ve also stated they have no issue whatsoever with the Holocaust. I think you (and others) lack a good explanation to back up the assertion “They’re not saying this, but I know what they’re REALLY thinking.”
This may have started with one pro-Nazi parent complaining about the book, but I don’t think the school system itself is pro-Nazi. I’m sure you can go into this book’s library and find Diary of Anne Frank and tons of other holocaust literature. Just none that depict non-medical nudity or blasphemous language (and southerners do consider “goddamn” to be a third-rail swear that’s every bit as bad as the F-bomb, because it contains “god”).
According to Disney, Goofy is a “Dawg” not a dog.
I am of two minds about this- I am not a fan of the book or the artist. And I feel some books should be kept away from kids of certain ages without due care- the KJ Bible for instance is not really a book for Elementary school kids and the Anarchist’s cookbook is not a book that should be handed out except to adults. And Maus wasn’t banned, it was removed from curriculum. So not “censorship”. Not every book can be part of the curriculum. I expect “The Further adventures of Popeye” isn’t either.
However, even though not a fan, it seems a reasonable way to introduce school kids to the Holocaust. (In my HS we saw a french film taken right after the Allied forces got in, including nazi filmed scenes of bodies being buried with bulldozers- quite a few students had to leave- it was very strong and powerful, but maybe not for HS kids?). Not for elementary kids, but HS kids can handle it.
We agree on this.
Right, This is not banning nor censorship. But I am not sure if it is a good decision.
Note that Maus is not without its critics:
According to writer Arie Kaplan, some Holocaust survivors objected to Spiegelman making a comic book out of their tragedy.[185] Literary critics such as Hillel Halkin objected that the animal metaphor was “doubly dehumanizing”, reinforcing the Nazi belief that the atrocities were perpetrated by one species on another, when they were actually done by humans against humans.[186] Comics writer and critic Harvey Pekar and others saw Spiegelman’s use of animals as potentially reinforcing stereotypes.[187][188] Pekar was also disdainful of Spiegelman’s overwhelmingly negative portrayal of his father,[189] calling him disingenuous and hypocritical for such a portrayal in a book that presents itself as objective.[190] Comics critic R. C. Harvey argued that Spiegelman’s animal metaphor threatened “to erode [ Maus 's] moral underpinnings”,[191] and played “directly into [the Nazis’] racist vision”.[192]
Commentators such as Peter Obst and Lawrence Weschler expressed concern over the Poles’ depiction as pigs,[193] which reviewer Marek Kohn saw as an ethnic slur[194] and The Norton Anthology of American Literature called “a calculated insult”.[195] Jewish culture views pigs and pork as non-kosher, or unclean —a point of which the Jewish Spiegelman was unlikely to be ignorant.[193] C
No piece of… anything… is without its critics. I don’t think anyone was saying it was a piece of art that no man could dare speak any ill of. But none of those criticisms (most of which are the same criticism, people not liking the animal metaphor) relate at all to why the book was removed. To the contrary, most people would argue that the animal metaphor helps make the book more accessible (though obviously some people disagree).
That is what I didn’t like. IRL- Mice are pests. Cats are pets. And showing them as different species kinda makes Hitler’s point. And Poles are pigs? 
However, it did show the Holocaust in a strong but digestible manner. So, it is not by any means to be scorned.
Have you seen the picture of the naked woman in Maus? It is less erotic than the instructional insert that comes with a box of tampons, or other typical “medical” illustrations. So i find it extremely hard to accept that anyone objected to this incredibly disturbing book based on a tiny and dispassionate picture of a dead woman in a bathtub full of blood. Especially if that person would accept “medical” nudity.
Except the book makes explicit that it’s just a metaphor multiple times (Art saying so explicitly, the humans in Prisoner on a Hell Planet, Art talking to his wife about what sort of animal she should be drawn as, times when they are wearing masks to pass as Poles, etc). So Spiegelman is very obviously NOT saying that they’re actually different species but rather is using imagery to depict circumstances.
I mean, it’s fine not to like the idea. Trying to say it makes Hitler’s point just suggests missing the point entirely. Being of Polish heritage, albeit in the US, I wasn’t bothered by the pig thing at all but, again, different people get upset about different stuff 'cause it’s a big world.
Arguably, this is still a powerful realization for the reader. That the stereotyping of cultures and ethnicities into groups of “other” is what seduced ordinary people, like the reader, into accepting Hitler’s message.
Literary critics such as Hillel Halkin objected that the animal metaphor was “doubly dehumanizing”, reinforcing the Nazi belief that the atrocities were perpetrated by one species on another, when they were actually done by humans against humans. From my wiki cite above.
The fifth grade puberty videos that everyone has seen are far more erotic (while still being completely non-erotic) than Maus. The period at the end of this sentence is a nipple \textcolor{red}. You’ve been warned \textcolor{red}! Oh crap, that’s a dick and a ball. Cover your eyes, kiddies.
Sure. I disagree. Just like most critics seemed to think Maus was a strong positive work and it won a Pulitzer and Halkin disagrees with them. Again, none of this has anything to do with the school board’s decisions though so it’s all pretty moot.
You said in your first post that the Holocaust was part of it. That was the whole reason I used it in my post, to point out that you couldn’t explain why conservatives were reluctant on that topic.
I’ve not actually mentioned human nudity. But I can. Encyclopedias. They always have nude people in them. But, because they are for learning, they get to stay.
I can also note all the movies that get the breasts censored, and then they are fine. So why didn’t they propose just covering up that one panel?
So now I’ve addressed all their supposed concerns: animal nudity, human nudity, and mild curse words. Hence there is nothing left for them to use as an excuse.
What’s left is the way we agreed they treat the Holocaust, like teaching it is some attack from liberals. And Beau gives a reason why.
I see no reason to take their claims at face value. They needed an excuse.
No art history books in your school?
Maybe there weren’t. But do teenagers in Tennessee in 2022 have no access to the internet?
And, as others have said: the nudity in Maus is no more erotic, and considerably less detailed, than that in any basic medical text.
I agree it is a strong positive work. But a few people, myself included, have some issues with it.
Look, if the school board had said “well, we are pulling this from the curriculum as it shows Polish people as pigs” I would have bought it. But this bullshit about mouse nipples is just lame and stupid.
This is a side track, but I have to ask: They do? We had the World Book encyclopedia at home when I was a teenager. I read it practically cover to cover and I’m virtually certain it had no nude pictures.
I have, for whatever reason, a copy of Collier’s Encyclopedia from 1956. Very dusty, but it was where I thought it was.
Figuring out what to look under took a bit of doing. Human anatomy, nope. Puberty, says see physical development, nope. Human reproduction – no pictures. Sculpture –
quite a clear picture in there of Michelangelo’s Dawn.
I thought we had the World Book when I was young. Maybe it was a different flavor. It definitely had a nude male and female in it in the anatomy section because it had cool transparent pages that let you uncover the skin, muscles, organs (including genitals) and down to the skeletal structure. Was the only part of the whole set with pages like that so it stuck with me.
I get ads on the Straight Dope that have more nudity, obscenity, and blasphemy than Maus. So do all the kids in that school district.
Hmm, I remember that too, now. I only remember the internal organs showing, I can’t remember if it showed the whole outer nude bodies.