I remember that, too, from our own set of World Book back in the 1970s. However I also remember a similar set of transparencies for the “Frog” article, perhaps there to aid high school students in their dissection unit in Biology class. (No way for me to confirm now and pure speculation (for the motives) on my part.)
Yes, but the school board can’t remove those. They can throw their weight around by banning books.
I don’t know how to explain to you people that I’m not defending the merits of their nudity standard. I’m just pointing out that it is a longstanding and pre-existing standard, and it’s hogwash to say “all conservatives let their kids see titties” when that’s pretty clearly a false, imagined rationalization.
If you aren’t from the conservative south, you’re speaking broadly about what’s almost a foreign country that you’re visibly ignorant about.
To be fair, the whole “bad language” thing is confusing; I thought the region was rather Trumpy and thus had no problem with “locker room talk”…
I can promise you that you can go into any school library in the south and scour it for any sexualized mention of “pussy” and not find it. Or if you do find it and bring it to someone’s attention, it won’t be there for long.
This is nothing but the old “lib’rul hypocrisy” maneuver but with the shoe on the other foot. People want to detect an inconsistency to force a conclusion that they favor, and in doing so ignore every available piece of context and nuance that is inconvenient to said solution.
I believe that. I don’t believe that you will be unable to find images of humans with visible nipples that are significantly more erotic than the one in Maus. It’s very clinical, “this is what suicide looks like”.
Except that’s exactly what you are doing. And in fact, using the defense of their nudity standard to defend their censorship of this book.
When in reality, that’s just the excuse they are using to avoid their children from learning about the difficult topic of the Holocaust.
It’s hogwash to claim that that is what anyone is saying, no matter how many times you repeat it, you are just beating up the same strawman. However, what is being said is that there are in fact reference books that their kids have access to that are far more explicit than a couple of dots on a cartoon. My 7th or 8th grade health book had drawings of a nude man, woman, and children of both genders that, while clinical, were far more graphic than the picture that is supposedly such an insult to their delicate sensibilities.
Here, . . oh noes, nipples! This post must be censored!
You will not be able to find a single quote of mine in this thread where I said or implied that censorship of this book is acceptable. Not a single one. It’s neither something I believe nor something I said. So why fabulate as you’ve done above? Let me guess… you just know what I am really thinking.
If you’re unclear you could ask, but that’s not really what we’re doing here, is it.
You could have read through this thread to see the multiple instances of people insisting (without proof) that “the same” people who censored this book definitely let their children see far worse all the time. Braveheart was explicitly given as an example and then I was reproved for refuting the given example as “too easy”. The goalposts are whirling around on bumper cars at this point.
Again with the medical nudity… is it just that impossible to avoid false equivalences here?
We’re just pointing out that it’s also a selective standard.
Again, do teenagers in 2022 have no internet access?
Are they forbidden to study art history?
What you appear to me to be saying is that the only reason they want Maus censored is because it shows nudity and contains the word “goddamn”, and that there are no other reasons involved whatsoever.
Is that correct?
It’s not a false equivalence. The nudity in medical books is there for instruction. The nudity in Maus is there for instruction.
And if teenagers in Tennessee are allowed to see nudity in medical books, then the claim that children must just never be allowed to see a female nipple (except, I assume, those children who have them) is nonsense. What is actually happening, in that case, is that children are allowed to see depictions of female nipples and male genitalia in some contexts and not in others. In which case, the issue here isn’t whether they can see them, it’s whether Maus is a suitable context.
This discussion has gotten weird. As discussions sometimes do here. That’s why we love the place.
My opinion is that the nudity thing is the public reason, the one that can hypothetically be defended. “Kids may be exposed to nipples in ads and on the internet-- we can’t control that. But we the School Board are the keepers of our children’s innocence and we’re by damn not letting any free range nipples loose in the school liberry!”
The real, private reason (to me it’s obvious, but that’s just me) is they don’t want kids learning about the bogus Holocaust, which never happened, or if it did, it was just an attempt to keep society pure and rid it of undesirables, so what’s the big frickin’ deal? And anyway why expose their heretofore nipple-free minds to so-called “history” that never happened?
Carry on.
Dana Milbank’s latest op-ed talks about the blizzard of red snowflakes.
I think it’s perhaps better stated that, as more right-wing groups are increasingly comfortable with Nazism and White Power, you want less works showing that Nazism and White Power is actually really fucked up shit to ally yourself with even if it gets you some votes.
Back in the day, it used to be some schoolyard debate about which side of politics was more “Nazi” in the US. These days, you get the Proud Boys to wave their banners around at your Republican freedom rallies. Can’t have the kids wondering about the disconnect.
I’ve long had a sort of ‘canned’ response that fit a seemingly infinite number of situations. I may have to append to it now:
If you’re offended by gay people (or anybody else … simply for being who they are, rather than for anything they do), by somebody else’s marriage, by profanity, by the phrase, “Happy Holidays,” or you think that taking a statue out of the public square ‘destroys history,’ please don’t ever refer to another person as a “snowflake.”
I’ll go along with that.
And they certainly wouldn’t want their children to draw any parallels between the events and people depicted in the book, and the behavior of their parents and community.
To note that the same side that claimed that removing statues was “erasing history” are busily literally passing laws to prevent children from learning history.
So, all we need to do to get all these statues removed is to draw little " . . " nipples on them?
The southern sensibilities will absolutely insist that the statues no longer be viewable by children.
Oh, and I’ve been to the Opryland Hotel gardens. There are statues with nipples on them there. Southern sensibilities should insist that they are removed, lest some child wander by and see them.
I think many of them may be willing to have kids learn about the Holocaust – as long as it’s sanitized enough so that it’ll go into their heads as ‘this is something that happened long ago and doesn’t really have anything to do with us now.’ Just like slavery, and the European invasion, get taught; or, at least, were taught to me and a whole lot of other schoolchildren. No different from teaching them that Athens and Sparta once had a war and some people got killed. Everybody knows that, and nobody cares.
Sharing is caring… 
All standards are selective. That’s what standards do, they select certain things and not others. What you’re really pointing out here is that you are only capable of processing this situation beyond the purely literal, not considering this in the context of what certain people will allow in a school library, and why.
Let’s move the goalposts here shall we? But in this context it does bear mentioning that evangelicals very commonly censor their childrens’ internet. Yes, they have draconian firewalls in their own homes. For chrissakes they put spyware on their own devices so their spouse can police them for straying too far from Jesus. I’ve had a distant relative in Mississippi start a software company for this very purpose. You simply don’t understand who these people are.
Partially right and partially wrong. I’m getting at something broader and more nuanced than that.
I will say that if you narrowly interpret this event to mean that everyone in this school district is a closet Nazi, you’ve missed the point. If you think the main motivation is to hide the Holocaust, you’ve missed the point. If you think they’re anxious that their kids might see comparisons between them and Nazis, you’ve missed the point. If you’re intent on finding Nazis behind every bush, you may not properly see the monster that actually does jump out of the bush at some point.
To be clear, there is something insidious and authoritarian going on here. If there were one or two actual Nazis involved, acting for Nazi motivations, it would not surprise me. There are multiple overlapping strands of coercion and authoritarianism in play here. I could try to restate the nuances I’m trying to get at, but given the bad faith on display here, I’m just not interested in pushing that boulder up the hill. Good luck with the Nazi-hunting.