We've all heard, "That's what she said" thrown into a casual conversation. This phrase has two meanings: 1. the girl said that or 2. the girl said that with a sexual connotation. It's all in how you look at it; it can mean something perfectly innocent or something sexual. After reviewing the Scholastic magazine in class, I came to the realization that there should be more diversity in Children's Literature. I absolutely agree that the white middle class (myself included) has a lot to learn about other cultures. However, I think there is a distinction between culture and lifestyle; it's all in how you look at it. Two things are diverse when they are not identical, but, oftentimes, ideas become perverted in the name of "diversity." In class, we spent time analyzing
The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein, which can be looked at through multiple perspectives. It can be viewed as a mother's unconditional love for her son or with the message that the abuse of women is acceptable. While I understand that Shel Silverstein was once a
playboy artist, an innocent child will view the story from a unconditional love standpoint unless told otherwise. I read the story as a child, and it was not until this class that I started thinking of the book differently. So, I ask: why pervert what is good?
The Giving Tree is an excellent book that entertains young children and has a morally good lesson. So, why present another view that distorts what was meant for good? Some may say, "Well, we don't know what Shel Silverstein meant when he wrote this book, and considering his past, it could have a negative connotation." However, the book sold over
5.6 million copies, and those 5.6 million copies brought good to children's lives whether or not Silverstein meant for the good. Good came of it, so why harm the good?
I want to make one last comment in regards to Scholastic's decision not to put the words "gay" or "cocaine" in a Children's literature book. According to the
2005 U.S. Census statistics, 5% of the U.S. population considered themselves gay, lesbian, or bisexual. While this number has increased since 2005, the gay, lesbian, or bisexual population is still relatively small, and in the US, there is still a great deal of controversy about this issue. Therefore, I support Scholastic for not publishing books promoting these ideals because 95% of the population is not gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and of that 95%, many are opposed to that type of lifestyle. In regards to the word "cocaine" being placed in Children's Literature books; I would never want my five-year old child to read about drugs. Is "cocaine" really a matter of diversity? It is unhealthy and illegal. While those who do crack have a diverse lifestyle, using the word "cocaine" in a Children's literature book is not promoting diversity; it is promoting something that is wrong from a legal, moral, and health standpoint. Most parents would not want their five year old child to read about crack.
There is a poem by Robert Frost called "
Nothing Gold can Stay" and it starts off saying, "Nature's green is gold/Her hardest hue to hold/Her early leaf's a flower/But only so an hour," and the last line of the poem says, "Nothing gold can stay." Children will grow up; they cannot stay sheltered forever. Let's not snatch that innocence too soon.
Posts
6 comments:
While I understand where you're coming from in terms of keeping gay literature (or literature that promotes a gay cultural understanding or diversity) out of the grasp of a child's literature choices, I can't say that I agree with it. I like that after the statistic you use (that the 2005 census shows that only 5% of the population considered themselves of an alternate sexuality) that you also elude to the fact that it is now 2010 and that number has probably changed towards an increase. What is neglected is who is answering the question? I have never had a census taker come to my house and ask me if I even exist let alone my sexual preferences. I have never had a letter sent to me with a box to check whether or not I identify as straight, gay, bisexual or otherwise that I could in turn send back so that they can use it for "analytical purposes". And while I think statistics are interesting, as it has been said millions of times, they can be used to prove anything. You can take any statistic you want about any subject you're trying to prove otherwise and the result remains the same: your statistic becomes inherently false if it isn't used in fairness with other statistics to counter-argue and/or support your claim. This being said, we live in a country where, while we like to say "all men are created equal" it’s a sentiment that doesn't get passed around the table in equal proportions. While the statistic of 5% of people being of an "other" sexual preference reported themselves in 2005 I wonder how many people who are of those diversity groups DIDN'T report themselves for varying different reasons, i.e. they didn't have access to the necessary papers and check lists, they were never asked, they didn’t want to lose their jobs, insurance, benefits etc… or, more likely, they feared a backlash against their disclosures either physical or verbal which is, sadly, all too synonymous with that kind of revelation even now in 2010.
One of the reasons the "95%" of the population that is not from an "other" sexual orientated group are: "opposed to that type of lifestyle" as you say is because many of them haven't been around that kind of lifestyle and have no understanding of it other than rudimentary, elementary, learned cliches. In an outstanding speech on reading children's literature Nigerian-born author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s speaks of her own experiences growing up reading literature about her home country but from the US and the UK. In speaking about how people only see Nigeria as a war-torn, desolate country she says: "show a group of people one way over and over again and that is what they become." Perhaps if Scholastic chose to include books about kids struggling with sexual orientation or books about kids who had same-sex parents or books about kids who have a sexual orientation but aren't bound by what it means to be "of that group" then bigotry and prejudice could be nipped in the bud at a much earlier age. While I don't think it's necessary to explain to a five-year old how sex works physically between a woman and a man or a woman and a woman or even - yikes! - a man and a man, simply opening young eyes to the fact that people don't necessarily fit the mold of what it means to be a good boy or girl is leagues beyond what could and should be done. If someone had taught that simple understanding to the murderers of Matthew Shepard maybe he wouldn't have been robbed, beaten and tied to a fence, still breathing, to be left for dead overnight and into the following morning. Or maybe, just maybe, out of the 9,961 hate crimes that were actually reported to the Department of Justice in 2008 (who knows about the ones that weren't reported) the 1,706 for sexual orientation (and indeed the others that make up the total 9,961) could have been spared altogether. Now that’s a statistic to ponder…
I find it interesting that you bring up drugs in relation to children's literature. I agree with you, I would also not like for my children to read about drugs. But why do we feel this way? Well, the answer is obvious: we don't think children should know about these things at such a young age, right? It is natural for parents to protect their children, especially in relation to the material that they read. But in my CEP261 class (Drugs and Society), we looked into children and drug use, abuse and knowledge. Children know about drugs; they learn from friends, television, etc. You cannot constantly shelter your children from all of the evils in the world. Now I am not saying that Scholastic should mention drugs by a means of promotion, but why not books about the harm drugs cause (for older readers, not 5 year olds!). Children know about drugs, and sometimes what they pick up about them is not always true. We argued in CEP261 about drug education and awareness to younger ages and wether or not it would be helpful in use and abuse prevention. If children are going to hear words like "cocaine" and "heroin", shouldn't they also be educated in a professional way about the harm they can cause?
I realize that my post was very controversial; I am conservative in my beliefs. Adolescents already read about drug-related topics. Just to clarify, my intent was that if an author were to write about drugs in a book like "Charlotte's Web" or "The Giving Tree," I believe that the books would lose something.
Now let’s be honest here, there is no debate that most of us, if not all of us would not want our five year old child reading about cocaine (if at five years old they could even grasp that concept). That is not the issue I see with Scholastic’s decision to ban the word cocaine, in my opinion it’s trying to undermine the idea that something like cocaine (drugs in general) exists. Drugs are part of our world and a factor in many children’s lives as sad as that sounds. I understand censoring to a point, but trying to ignore and remove an issue is not the way to handle it. Scholastic’s has not banned the word from young children’s books, but all book they sell, which can target kids well into their teenage years, plenty old enough to understand, and sadly many of them have already been exposed to such substances.
I feel even more strongly about banning and entire lifestyle! Banning book about gay families is just as offensive as banning a book about a divorced family, or a multiracial family. You cannot ignore an entire lifestyle, and you should not single it out from any other based on a silly statistic. So what if 95% of people aren’t gay, 5% are so representation is important, if they exist and they do, they disserve a voice, isn’t that the whole idea anyways. Just as I sad with the cocaine issue, you cannot simply ignore something because a few people don’t believe its “right”. Well as far as I’m concerned, nothing is “right” anymore, a parent has the right to censor his child in his own manor, and I personally find it offensive that Scholastic think they can do it for me.
Why pervert these stories?
I do not believe by analyzing the connotation and underlying meaning within The Giving Tree is perverting the story. While I agree with you that most children will not pick up on the perversion that is arguably hidden throughout the text, I do believe that the text could reinforce some common stereotypes and/or sexist ideals.
We need to analyze these stories because we want to know what we are exposing our students and children to. Just because they might not understand the severity of the book's connotation, does not mean that it is not there and that it will not lead a child to believe the stereotypes.
And, who is to say that a child will not pick up on degradation of women throughout the book?
To start off I understand where you are coming from by "using" drugs in children's literature as not appropriate. I, like many others, would probably agree that your right 5 years olds probably shouldn't be reading about drugs, such as cocaine until they are able to understand fully what it all means. However, if we informed children about these things earlier in life, through reading, could we help prevent them from using drugs in the future. Now, I'm not saying that explaining to children what drugs are at age 5 through children's literature is the best way to go about that. But it may help or it may not. I'm just saying that with the ever-changing world, students are being exposed to more and more at younger ages than we ever were. I can't say I completely agree with Scholastics choice on the matter, but I understand where they are coming from.
On the other hand not promoting books about gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc families is unethical. Yes, 95% of the population isn't one of these, but we have seen how important it is for children to read books where characters are like them or similar. How can we help stop discrimination against those who are deemed "different" if children are not exposed to it. I think there should be a diversity of books published by Scholastics, instead of the more conservative view. Not saying that being conservative is wrong, but they should include other views as well.
Post a Comment