Political Correctness thread

[Irish#1]

Are you serious? When was the last time you saw the murals? Because they aren't just painting of Columbus. They are paintings of him as a sort of messianic figure with Native Americans bowing down to him. Besides being inaccurate, they are just odd. The last time I was there I remember they just struck me and my friends as being out of place. There was no obvious connection or context on how they fit with the school. An italian explorer being praised by native americans is somehow a central part of a french founded school called the fighting irish. It was confusing, odd, and really stuck with me which probably isn't the impression the school wants when people first walk in.

I really don't get the anger at removing them. They are not planning on destroying them or using them as a propaganda piece or disrespect them. The plan is literally to put them in an art museum so people can appreciate them for their artistic value as well as have a better understanding of the context around the pieces. If anything, in an era where we now understand that Columbus was not actually the first to discover america and his importance is fading to the background, putting these pieces in a museum will likely help to retain an understanding of what people once thought of Columbus whereas leaving them in place without context could further dilute the understanding of the paintings.

As for the general argument that we are just going to destroy everything in our history, I think that is a bit of slippery slope fallacy. I think now we are weighing the good that people have done against the historical context of the bad they have done or allowed to be done. For the vast majority of our founders the good they have done vastly outweighs the things we now think are bad. I recently listened to a debate about this very thing concerning Thomas Jefferson. There is no doubt he did a great many good things, but he was also a slave owner, so how do we justify still holding him up. And the answer is pretty simple: he knew slavery was wrong, but he did not think he could change it and instead of using his talents and abilities to fruitlessly attempt that he used them to do a great many other things. Had he attempted to end slavery he may (likely) have not been able to do all the other great things he did, so should we hold that against him? It's pretty obvious that the answer to that is no. Nobody is perfect and nobody can correct all the ills in the world. We are all prisoners of our present context, so holding that against someone when their achievements and accomplishments help move us to the future is asinine and counterproductive.

Yet, even if he knew it was wrong, he continued to maintain them for his own benefit. Seems somewhat ironic.

The problem I have is everyone is selective in what should and shouldn't be preserved. Those that find those representations offensive don't consider leaving those representations in place and using them as a teaching tool. They stand fast that if it's left for the public to view, then you condone what happened and are for maintaining that. Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it?

 

[Bishop2b5]

he knew slavery was wrong, but he did not think he could change it and instead of using his talents and abilities to fruitlessly attempt that he used them to do a great many other things.

I disagree with this somewhat. Jefferson may or may not have believed slavery to be wrong, but the idea that people in general knew it was and continued engaging in it is almost certainly inaccurate for the most part. Slavery has been common in every part of the world and in almost every culture since the dawn of civilization. It's only been in the past few centuries that it's begun to be criticized and abolished. I'm not arguing that it wasn't wrong. I'm arguing that it was so widespread and accepted over time and distance that most people thought of it as normal and the natural order of things, not something evil.

 

[Irish YJ]

I disagree with this somewhat. Jefferson may or may not have believed slavery to be wrong, but the idea that people in general knew it was and continued engaging in it is almost certainly inaccurate for the most part. Slavery has been common in every part of the world and in almost every culture since the dawn of civilization. It's only been in the past few centuries that it's begun to be criticized and abolished. I'm not arguing that it wasn't wrong. I'm arguing that it was so widespread and accepted over time and distance that most people thought of it as normal and the natural order of things, not something evil.

At some point, people need to forgive the past and move on. We all know NOW that slavery is wrong. Long ago, not so much. Even the Bible sends mixed messages about slavery. Slavery began long before white westerners joined the party. The Greek era is the first civilization that we actually know a lot about (when it comes to slavery), but it occurred long before then in African and in the ME. Regardless, slavery still happens even today, and the overwhelming majority of it happens in non-western cultures. It's a little concerning that 99% of the conversation today about slavery is what happened in the states 100+ years ago, and not focused at ending what still occurs.

 

[IrishLax]

At some point, people need to forgive the past and move on. We all know NOW that slavery is wrong. Long ago, not so much. Even the Bible sends mixed messages about slavery. Slavery began long before white westerners joined the party. The Greek era is the first civilization that we actually know a lot about (when it comes to slavery), but it occurred long before then in African and in the ME. Regardless, slavery still happens even today, and the overwhelming majority of it happens in non-western cultures. It's a little concerning that 99% of the conversation today about slavery is what happened in the states 100+ years ago, and not focused at ending what still occurs.

One thing no one talks about is that the primary reason that the invading Spanish were initially successful against a much larger force is that the Aztecs were absolutely brutal rulers who had enslaved a huge portion of the population they had conquered... and those people rose up and joined the Spanish. So slavery in the Americas actually goes back to before Europeans ever stepped foot on this soil.

 

[Irish YJ]

One thing no one talks about is that the primary reason that the invading Spanish were initially successful against a much larger force is that the Aztecs were absolutely brutal rulers who had enslaved a huge portion of the population they had conquered... and those people rose up and joined the Spanish. So slavery in the Americas actually goes back to before Europeans ever stepped foot on this soil.

Yup. And that's only one history of 100s that are pushed to the back. Sub Saharan Africans participated in widespread slavery long before the ME and Euros showed up. Many indigenous groups in the Americas (Aztecs, Mayans, and even Comanche, Pawnee, and other N American tribes) participated long before the Europeans showed up. Slavery in the ME goes back to at least 18BC. China, India, Korea, Japan, and SE Asia all did as well. Even ancient Hawaii did.... It's harder to find a country, or a people that did not participate at one time of another.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Yup. And that's only one history of 100s that are pushed to the back. Sub Saharan Africans participated in widespread slavery long before the ME and Euros showed up. Many indigenous groups in the Americas (Aztecs, Mayans, and even Comanche, Pawnee, and other N American tribes) participated long before the Europeans showed up. Slavery in the ME goes back to at least 18BC. China, India, Korea, Japan, and SE Asia all did as well. Even ancient Hawaii did.... It's harder to find a country, or a people that did not participate at one time of another.

This is 100% true, not only as slave owners, but as slaves. The European and Japanese feudal systems were a form of slavery. It was common across almost the entire ancient world that captives of war, whether they be defeated soldiers or the citizenry of defeated cities/tribes/villages/nations, were enslaved. ALL of us come from a long line of people who were both slaves and slave owners at one time or another. It was such a common, widespread and accepted practice throughout human history that I'm unwilling to denounce our founding fathers as evil and wipe them from the history books. They were just a product of their time.

 

[Bluto]

One thing no one talks about is that the primary reason that the invading Spanish were initially successful against a much larger force is that the Aztecs were absolutely brutal rulers who had enslaved a huge portion of the population they had conquered... and those people rose up and joined the Spanish. So slavery in the Americas actually goes back to before Europeans ever stepped foot on this soil.

From what I recall the slave caste was not bound to a “race” as we understand the term today among the Aztecs and in the ancient world in general. That is a critical difference between what slavery was and what it evolved into during the trans Atlantic slave trade. In that sense the trans Atlantic slave trade took a super shitty institution and made it even shittier in that the primacy of the owner was now bound to the false construct of race and the idea of white supremacy.

Anyhow, the Aztecs were indeed brutal.

 

[Bluto]

This is 100% true, not only as slave owners, but as slaves. The European and Japanese feudal systems were a form of slavery. It was common across almost the entire ancient world that captives of war, whether they be defeated soldiers or the citizenry of defeated cities/tribes/villages/nations, were enslaved. ALL of us come from a long line of people who were both slaves and slave owners at one time or another. It was such a common, widespread and accepted practice throughout human history that I'm unwilling to denounce our founding fathers as evil and wipe them from the history books. They were just a product of their time.

Nobody I am aware of is advocating “wiping” the founding fathers from the history books. Having an honest conversation about what they did and how that still impacts American society for better or for worse would be nice. I’ve always found it odd that they were elevated to diety status complete with creation myths (Washington and his inability to lie for example).

Anyhow, are you seriously attempting to equate the legacy of slavery in say Ancient Rome and its impacts on American society in the here and now with that of the trans Atlantic slave trade and its legacy on American society in the here and now?

 

[IrishLax]

From what I recall the slave caste was not bound to a “race” as we understand the term today among the Aztecs and in the ancient world in general. That is a critical difference between what slavery was and what it evolved into during the trans Atlantic slave trade. In that sense the trans Atlantic slave trade took a super shitty institution and made it even shittier in that the primacy of the owner was now bound to the false construct of race and the idea of white supremacy.

Anyhow, the Aztecs were indeed brutal.

I don’t disagree at all. The reason people still give a shit about the trans Atlantic slave trade was that it persisted past the rest of “Western” society agreeing slavery was immoral and was justified on the “science” of Africans being lesser humans. The British used similar “science” to justify their subjugation of the Irish, Native Americans, etc. And that legacy is still felt today. I was more just trying to comment on the idea of Columbus being uniquely evil... pretty much everyone with any power back in that era was a shit person that did unspeakable things by 21st century morality.

I will say that tribalism/racism is a complicated topic. While not done how we currently classify races of people, the caste systems in some Eastern cultures and how China did their slavery could arguably called “racist.” You has a ruling class of people who labeled another ethnic group as lesser and then oppressed/exploited them.

 

[Irish YJ]

Nobody I am aware of is advocating “wiping” the founding fathers from the history books. Having an honest conversation about what they did and how that still impacts American society would be nice.

Anyhow, are you seriously attempting to equate the legacy of slavery in say Ancient Rome and its impacts of American society in the here and now with that of the trans Atlantic slave trade and its legacy on American society in the here and now?

The point I think most people are trying to make, is that more energy should be placed on moving forward, than looking back. And looking back is a full time job for some. The US seems to dwell on the past more than most cultures. And as we know, just about every culture has a history of slavery. And it isn't all ancient, and it doesn't all predate the US.

Simple question. Why doesn't the contingent in America that dwells on slavery in the US's past, rally in support of fighting slavery where it still exists in their native homeland?

Hell, Mauritania just outlawed slavery officially in the 80s (only due to intl pressure), but it still exists in the open, kids are still born into slavery, and is not prosecuted. Outside of African, India, China, and Uzbekistan still have cultures built around slavery. Libya still has slave auctions... NK not only has forced labor, but even exports slaves to other countries... This is all egregious evil that should be stopped. But hey, let's focus on 150+ years ago.

 

[Bluto]

The point I think most people are trying to make, is that more energy should be placed on moving forward, than looking back. And looking back is a full time job for some. The US seems to dwell on the past more than most cultures. And as we know, just about every culture has a history of slavery. And it isn't all ancient, and it doesn't all predate the US.

Simple question. Why doesn't the contingent in America that dwells on slavery in the US's past, rally in support of fighting slavery where it still exists in their native homeland?

Hell, Mauritania just outlawed slavery officially in the 80s (only due to intl pressure), but it still exists in the open, kids are still born into slavery, and is not prosecuted. Outside of African, India, China, and Uzbekistan still have cultures built around slavery. Libya still has slave auctions... NK not only has forced labor, but even exports slaves to other countries... This is all egregious evil that should be stopped. But hey, let's focus on 150+ years ago.

Slavery in the US was unique in the ways articulated by myself and Lax above. Now, moving forward in this country would be great. Here is my simple answer to your simple question, one of the big obstacles to moving on from “slavery” is that a significant portion of “white” America has refused/failed to do so from the time slavery was abolished right into the present.

Anyhow, you are conflating two different conversations on two different topics. This is something you do regularly and it makes it extremely difficult to have an honest, focused and constructive conversation with you. If you wish to delve deeper on this feel free to look up my old posts (assuming they are still available) explaining all this same stuff to Kmoose, Buster, Rally, Irish Pat and a couple others I can’t remember.

Enjoy.

 

[Bluto]

I don’t disagree at all. The reason people still give a shit about the trans Atlantic slave trade was that it persisted past the rest of “Western” society agreeing slavery was immoral and was justified on the “science” of Africans being lesser humans. The British used similar “science” to justify their subjugation of the Irish, Native Americans, etc. And that legacy is still felt today. I was more just trying to comment on the idea of Columbus being uniquely evil... pretty much everyone with any power back in that era was a shit person that did unspeakable things by 21st century morality.

I will say that tribalism/racism is a complicated topic. While not done how we currently classify races of people, the caste systems in some Eastern cultures and how China did their slavery could arguably called “racist.” You has a ruling class of people who labeled another ethnic group as lesser and then oppressed/exploited them.

Interesting take. Thanks.

Edit: I will say that the best rationale I can come up with for removing and or covering the murals (which to be honest I found kind of odd when I first saw them) is that they are more propaganda as opposed to an even remotely accurate depiction of historical events. In my opinion that doesn’t square too well with the mission of any University.

 

[Wild Bill]

I don’t disagree at all. The reason people still give a shit about the trans Atlantic slave trade was that it persisted past the rest of “Western” society agreeing slavery was immoral and was justified on the “science” of Africans being lesser humans. The British used similar “science” to justify their subjugation of the Irish, Native Americans, etc. And that legacy is still felt today. I was more just trying to comment on the idea of Columbus being uniquely evil... pretty much everyone with any power back in that era was a shit person that did unspeakable things by 21st century morality.

I will say that tribalism/racism is a complicated topic. While not done how we currently classify races of people, the caste systems in some Eastern cultures and how China did their slavery could arguably called “racist.” You has a ruling class of people who labeled another ethnic group as lesser and then oppressed/exploited them.

And it's a great way to gain access to power, status and money. If Arabs were as easily manipulated as white Americans, Africans and slavs would be peddling historical grievances with a similar narrative. The Arabs just don't care.

At the peak of slavery, less than 2% of white Americans owned slaves. Those people and their families are relatively easy to trace. Find them, prove it, and dispossess them. I'll even help you shake them down. That's not as lucrative as guilting an entire population for crimes neither they nor their ancestors committed.

Slavery in the US was unique in the ways articulated by myself and Lax above. Now, moving forward in this country would be great. Here is my simple answer to your simple question, one of the big obstacles to moving on from “slavery” is that a significant portion of “white” America has refused/failed to do so from the time slavery was abolished right into the present.

Anyhow, you are conflating two different conversations on two different topics. This is something you do regularly and it makes it extremely difficult to have an honest, focused and constructive conversation with you. If you wish to delve deeper on this feel free to look up my old posts (assuming they are still available) explaining all this same stuff to Kmoose, Buster, Rally, Irish Pat and a couple others I can’t remember.

Enjoy.

I'm a bit lost here. What can whites do to move on?

 

[Irish YJ]

Slavery in the US was unique in the ways articulated by myself and Lax above. Now, moving forward in this country would be great. Here is my simple answer to your simple question, one of the big obstacles to moving on from “slavery” is that a significant portion of “white” America has refused/failed to do so from the time slavery was abolished right into the present.

Anyhow, you are confusing two different conversations on two different topics. This is something you do regularly and it makes it extremely difficult to have an honest conversation with you. If you wish to delve deeper on this feel free to look up my old posts (assuming they are still available) explaining all this same stuff to Kmoose, Buster, Rally, Irish Pat and a couple others I can’t remember.

Enjoy.

I've read your past posts, you've been all over the place, and you tend to comment off topic regularly. If you'd like, I can go back, and list the tangents you've taken on the topic. If you'd like to stay on one specific element, name it (specifically) and we can have the discussion. US slavery is not as unique as you make it out to be if you are willing to have conversations about other cultures. Having an honest conversation is having a willingness to look at all info, and not going exit stage left when facts counter your narrative.

Having married an African American that went to a historical AA college (Howard) and who was a bit of an activist, I'd say I have a bit more perspective than most white folk. I'm also pretty well read on the topic.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Nobody I am aware of is advocating “wiping” the founding fathers from the history books. Having an honest conversation about what they did and how that still impacts American society for better or for worse would be nice. I’ve always found it odd that they were elevated to diety status complete with creation myths (Washington and his inability to lie for example).

Anyhow, are you seriously attempting to equate the legacy of slavery in say Ancient Rome and its impacts on American society in the here and now with that of the trans Atlantic slave trade and its legacy on American society in the here and now?

No, my entire point is that our founding fathers and other slave owners in the US weren't being knowingly or intentionally evil. They were simply doing what had long been considered normal and acceptable due to civilization having a long history of engaging in slavery as a common practice. To judge them by today's views on the subject is unfair.

The political leaders, authors, generals, inventors, entertainers, artists, and etc. of every past generation held views that were common and normal for their time, but completely at odds with some of today's views. I don't want to see them denounced, dishonored, removed from our history books, their names taken off schools, their reputations impugned, their works denounced, or their statues taken down all because they didn't have a crystal ball to peer into the future and know how society would view things down the road.

It's all too much like the USSR, Mao's China, or Orwell's 1984 where history was constantly rewritten and heroes of the past raised or toppled according to ever-shifting agendas, outlooks, and political expediency. People are a product of their time. There's a HUGE difference between knowingly and intentionally doing something evil versus doing what's normal in your time, but having it become unacceptable or unpopular in later eras.

 

[Irish YJ]

I don’t disagree at all. The reason people still give a shit about the trans Atlantic slave trade was that it persisted past the rest of “Western” society agreeing slavery was immoral and was justified on the “science” of Africans being lesser humans. The British used similar “science” to justify their subjugation of the Irish, Native Americans, etc. And that legacy is still felt today. I was more just trying to comment on the idea of Columbus being uniquely evil... pretty much everyone with any power back in that era was a shit person that did unspeakable things by 21st century morality.

I will say that tribalism/racism is a complicated topic. While not done how we currently classify races of people, the caste systems in some Eastern cultures and how China did their slavery could arguably called “racist.” You has a ruling class of people who labeled another ethnic group as lesser and then oppressed/exploited them.

Historically speaking, the timing of US enlightenment vs "Western" enlightenment is not so far apart. A lot of countries abolished slavery in-country, but still allowed it in colonies.

France - back on forth on the issue, finally abolished for god in 1848
Britain - 1833/38 in the UK, but still allowed it in India until 1843
Portugal - 1869
Spain - 1886
Netherlands - 1863 mainland, 1873 colonies.
US - 1863/65

Historically speaking, each country had drivers pushing them in different directions. A lot of people like to credit Britain for being the drivers, but if you look deeper, there's a lot more to the story. After they freed slaves in 33/38, most slaves left and the farms were without labor. What did they do, they imported indentured servants from Asia. British elitist still resident in Africa kept slaves into the 1900s, and the good old mainland turned a blind eye. Indentured servants in colonial India went on far past Britain's 43 abolition.

In short, we weren't the first of the Western countries, but we were not the last. And, US Quakers (in the 1600s) were among the first to actively and vocally work to abolish slavery.

 

[Irish YJ]

Notre Dame president defends covering Columbus murals
https://www.foxnews.com/us/notre-dame-president-defends-covering-columbus-murals

feel like a lot of mental and verbal gymnastics....

 

[Irish#1]

Notre Dame president defends covering Columbus murals
https://www.foxnews.com/us/notre-dame-president-defends-covering-columbus-murals

feel like a lot of mental and verbal gymnastics....

Yep

 

[wizards8507]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It takes 156 days for social justice parody to become social justice reality. Godfrey was a prophet<br>h/t <a href="https://twitter.com/this_toxic?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@this_toxic</a> & <a href="https://twitter.com/neontaster?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@neontaster</a> <a href="https://t.co/iVOoAAxZvj">pic.twitter.com/iVOoAAxZvj</a></p>— F. Bill McMorris (@FBillMcMorris) <a href="https://twitter.com/FBillMcMorris/status/1090644682219106304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[ulukinatme]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It takes 156 days for social justice parody to become social justice reality. Godfrey was a prophet<br>h/t <a href="https://twitter.com/this_toxic?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@this_toxic</a> & <a href="https://twitter.com/neontaster?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@neontaster</a> <a href="https://t.co/iVOoAAxZvj">pic.twitter.com/iVOoAAxZvj</a></p>— F. Bill McMorris (@FBillMcMorris) <a href="https://twitter.com/FBillMcMorris/status/1090644682219106304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Idiots!

 

[wizards8507]

Can someone embed?

https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1090716544945045531?s=19

Highly recommend going down the rabbit hole of tweets and replies. Truly Orwellian stuff.

 

[Irish YJ]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">WOW. The woman who got raked over the YA Twitter coals because people apparently made up a bunch of stuff about her and her highly anticipated debut novel has agreed to not publish it at all! <a href="https://t.co/ccbPmKEEEv">https://t.co/ccbPmKEEEv</a></p>— Jesse Singal (@jessesingal) <a href="https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1090716544945045531?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Can someone embed?

https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1090716544945045531?s=19

Highly recommend going down the rabbit hole of tweets and replies. Truly Orwellian stuff.

 

[BeauBenken]

For anyone looking for a short run down of things because they genuinely don't know what this is our what's going on (like me about fifteen minutes ago), don't worry I did all the research for you.

The complaints are: the book is anti-black, the book lacks appropriate representation of "queer, gender queer, or disabled" people, and there are signs of plagiarism with one quote being straight from LOTR and scenes similar to Hunger Games.

To quickly explain these arguments made by people:

Anti-blackness:
- main character and others who all experience harsh treatment, ostracization, and even slavery are described as dark complected
- people being treated this way are apparently treated this way because they are magical and using magic to explain the poor treatment of people is apparently "unrealistic" and "lazy" and belittles those who have experienced it

Lack of queer, gender queer, or disabled representation:

- ...I mean, I guess? The main villain or boyfriend (? - hard to determine, maybe both) walks with a cane but it's not stressed whether he "really needs it or not"

Plagiarism:
- sounds like some legitimate complaints. The book is apparently similar to some others I've never read and has a death scene similar to Rue's in the Hunger Games and a quote from LOTR
- my personal side note: our world is pretty devoid of original ideas so this shouldn't be surprising

Ohh ALSO (I forgot about this huge complaint by a couple of users)

Bad Russian:
- the author doesn't correctly gender Russian last names (which the characters are supposed to be) because they don't speak Russian


Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[ACamp1900]

Or one could realize it’s one freakin book and there are greater things to worry about...

 

[connor_in]

For anyone looking for a short run down of things because they genuinely don't know what this is our what's going on (like me about fifteen minutes ago), don't worry I did all the research for you.

The complaints are: the book is anti-black, the book lacks appropriate representation of "queer, gender queer, or disabled" people, and there are signs of plagiarism with one quote being straight from LOTR and scenes similar to Hunger Games.

To quickly explain these arguments made by people:

Anti-blackness:
- main character and others who all experience harsh treatment, ostracization, and even slavery are described as dark complected
- people being treated this way are apparently treated this way because they are magical and using magic to explain the poor treatment of people is apparently "unrealistic" and "lazy" and belittles those who have experienced it

Lack of queer, gender queer, or disabled representation:

- ...I mean, I guess? The main villain or boyfriend (? - hard to determine, maybe both) walks with a cane but it's not stressed whether he "really needs it or not"

Plagiarism:
- sounds like some legitimate complaints. The book is apparently similar to some others I've never read and has a death scene similar to Rue's in the Hunger Games and a quote from LOTR
- my personal side note: our world is pretty devoid of original ideas so this shouldn't be surprising

Ohh ALSO (I forgot about this huge complaint by a couple of users)

Bad Russian:
- the author doesn't correctly gender Russian last names (which the characters are supposed to be) because they don't speak Russian


Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

My wife reads A TON of books online via Amazon. Some of which are barely above self published. The plots of many are extremely derivative from very popular books and quote or reference pop culture lines/characters/jokes. I have no idea about what they have as characters genders, but as they tend to be romantic books, I would assume mostly normal male and female characters. So my question is, why the big stink over this? Also, are these the people who try to make it so people can't read classic like Huck Finn in school because of normal references at the time that are deemed offensive now?

 

[IrishLax]

My wife reads A TON of books online via Amazon. Some of which are barely above self published. The plots of many are extremely derivative from very popular books and quote or reference pop culture lines/characters/jokes. I have no idea about what they have as characters genders, but as they tend to be romantic books, I would assume mostly normal male and female characters. So my question is, why the big stink over this? Also, are these the people who try to make it so people can't read classic like Huck Finn in school because of normal references at the time that are deemed offensive now?

There is no rhyme or reason to it... same thing with Bryan Cranston being shit on for playing a guy in a wheelchair but no one gave a crap about Sam Claflin doing the same thing in "Me Before You"... or the hundreds of other movies where an able bodied person plays someone who has had an "accident" or is otherwise handicapped.

It's just about the whim of the internet mob at any given time. Don't try to understand it.

 

[IrishLion]

My wife reads A TON of books online via Amazon. Some of which are barely above self published. The plots of many are extremely derivative from very popular books and quote or reference pop culture lines/characters/jokes. I have no idea about what they have as characters genders, but as they tend to be romantic books, I would assume mostly normal male and female characters. So my question is, why the big stink over this? Also, are these the people who try to make it so people can't read classic like Huck Finn in school because of normal references at the time that are deemed offensive now?

There is no rhyme or reason to it... same thing with Bryan Cranston being shit on for playing a guy in a wheelchair but no one gave a crap about Sam Claflin doing the same thing in "Me Before You"... or the hundreds of other movies where an able bodied person plays someone who has had an "accident" or is otherwise handicapped.

It's just about the whim of the internet mob at any given time. Don't try to understand it.

To add a bit more context:

This isn't just a current "internet mob" thing. This has always been the case with literature, particularly YA books, dating back to the late 50's. In this case, Twitter just makes the issue closer to home, rather than something you'd have to be in a related profession to really know about.

I work in an academic library, and we have a big "Banned Books Week" celebration every year that our Learning Resource Librarian leads, because the ALA publishes a list of banned and challenged books every year.

Every year, since novels became common tools for teaching in classrooms and since libraries became prevalent in grade schools, there are complaints submitted about EVERY popular book. Once they get enough complaints, or once a school/teacher bans a book outright, it goes on a list.

It brings the issues of "censorship" and "political correctness" to a place that professionals can legitimately discuss among themselves, and with students, to create a better environment for teaching, learning, and publishing.

I'll be interested to see what our Learning Resource Librarian makes of this current situation.

 

[Irish#1]

There is no rhyme or reason to it... same thing with Bryan Cranston being shit on for playing a guy in a wheelchair but no one gave a crap about Sam Claflin doing the same thing in "Me Before You"... or the hundreds of other movies where an able bodied person plays someone who has had an "accident" or is otherwise handicapped.

It's just about the whim of the internet mob at any given time. Don't try to understand it.

Thank goodness the tv series The Sopranos didn't fall prey to this. The russian lady who cared for Tony Sopranos mom actually had a prosthetic leg.

 

[connor_in]

Thank goodness the tv series The Sopranos didn't fall prey to this. The russian lady who cared for Tony Sopranos mom actually had a prosthetic leg.

Don't forget, there were some people out there upset that The Rock played a guy with an artificial leg in Skyscraper.

(Have not seen it yet personally. Maybe when on Amazon Prime, Hulu, or Netflix)

 

[wizards8507]