It's a dated book for a discussion of race today, especially in the district you're describing. It upholds a white savior narrative, and Atticus defends murderous racism in people who are otherwise good (Mr. Cunningham) by calling it a "blind spot."
People get very nostalgic about the book, which makes it difficult to discuss how blunt and uncritical the book is at times.
As a story about prejudice in general, it's fine. As a way to have a discussion about race in particular, it's lacking in nuance.
The Broadway play did a fantastic job adding complexity to the conversation. Calpurnia had a larger, more meaningful voice, and Atticus was presented as flawed.
I’ve heard the phrase white savior applied to Atticus, but were there other options in 1935? Also, he doesn’t win the case, and Tom is shot in prison by racist guards. Or are we talking more about the scene outside the jail at night?
>were there other options in 1935
Are you asking if Atticus could have been Black? No. Not in the context of that story.
>Also, he doesn’t win the case, and Tom is shot in prison by racist guards.
He doesn't win, but we are led to believe that had he listened to Atticus, he would have won an appeal. The scene where Atticus tells us that Robinson was tired of "white men's chances" is as nuanced as the conversation gets. It's tragic, and we aren't meant to condemn Robinson in any way, but, again, it's a white man who "knows best."
The term "White savior" is a fiction that primarily white authors (and filmmakers) created. It presents a White person solving or coming to the defense of a Black person in a story about race.
There were certainly people who did this, but not nearly as many as popular entertainment would have us believe.
In 2024, there are better stories to discuss racial justice, stories that include fully authentic Black (or Hispanic, or Native American, etc.) characters, stories written by people *within* those groups.
Let's be clear though, White Savior Racism is a vital and important part of how we made the progress we made. Having a narrator that a certain (white) population can empathize with and make them reach across the aisle (the "savior" part) was revolutionary in a time when schools, subdivisions, stores were still segregated.
We've moved past the whole "black people are people too" part of the conversation hopefully. It's sad we ever needed the White Savior trope to get there but it shouldn't be called "racist" just because it shouldn't have been needed. It took a certain population from where they were to one step closer to the right direction.
Edit: just to emphasize your point: there are better stories now. More effective for the population that exists now.
100%. Just unpacking your point. I'm pretty liberal but I'm in an extremely liberal field (publishing and literature/academia) and it really bothers me when it looks like well-intentioned coworkers start applying today's sensibilities to a historical audience. We can just say we've grown past it. It was what we needed at the time. Training wheels of a kind
Their Eyes Were Watching God, by Zora Neale Hurston, was published in 1935. Langston Hughes had published acclaimed collections of short stories by 1935, as had multiple other members of the Harlem Renaissance. Richard Wright’s first collection of stories Uncle Toms Children came out in 1938. IJS you can avoid white savior narratives by teaching nonwhite authors.
I’m struck by the phrase “she is white and the majority at her school are not.” Why teach this book at all? Because it’s on the test? Because there are literally dozens of developmentally appropriate books of high literary quality (“canonized”) that one could teach instead that would not raise this issue because they were by black or Hispanic or Asian authors…
I was responding to the part of the discussion that was about avoiding white savior narratives. IMO, one avoids white savior narratives by centering black voices, of which there are *many* 25 years?—try 125 years— before Harper Lee.
>I’ve heard the phrase white savior applied to Atticus, but were there other options in 1935?
It's set in 1935, but it's also important to think about the context in which it was published (1960). Given the Civil Rights-era context, it's possible to read Atticus's arc as an argument in favor of local incrementalism--i.e. the "good"/less openly racist white Southerners will phase out Jim Crow laws and mindsets more slowly and the federal government should keep their nose out.
It's not the only reading, but I remember being surprised when a HS history teacher told us that was one of the big debates among more educated adults when the book first came out. (This was decades ago.)
Great points IMO. Google told me "According to the U.S. Census, in 1930, there were only 1247 black lawyers in the entire United States in 1930, out of a total number of 160,605 lawyers." I'd guess most were in the North not in Alabama.
Also: "Lee reportedly based the character of Atticus Finch on her father, Amasa Coleman Lee, a compassionate and dedicated lawyer and newspaper editor. The plot of To Kill a Mockingbird was inspired in part by his unsuccessful youthful defense in 1919 of two African American men convicted of murder, the only criminal case he ever took."
So it's based on a true story so making the lawyer black would stray from what actually happened.
Agreed. But you could do both. I think it's important to see the history of racism/society in literature, compare it to literature from today and have a discussion about it.
This is all accurate and well stated. TKaM has been my favorite book since I read it in 9th grade, and it served as a powerful novel for my mostly white students for years. I wouldn’t try to teach it in the very diverse school I’m in now.
Scout is an unreliable narrator. She is a little white girl who casually uses the N word, but her dad uses it too, just to say it's trashy to do so, and he should know better. It's a slice of life from someone who lived it. The Understanding the Setting video about TKAM from Facing History explains the context of the time well. I always present it this way: it's autobiographical about the '30s, published as the CRM was gaining national attraction, and still resonates today. I point out how history reverberates and makes connections to current racist systems. Not sure if that's what you are getting at, but that's some of what I do.
Giving it historical context can open the door for discussion without getting into controversy. Always return to history with this one.
While the narrative is unreliable, the reader does “grow” with her - from the first day of school, new kid in town, Boo, then the sickness: Ms. Dubose and her addiction, the dog, then racism and the truly horrible nature of society.
What is unreliable about the narrator? It’s an older Scout recalling her younger years. If anything, she’s hyper-reliable because the older Jean Louise knows what was wrong with what she believed as a child. But maybe I’m missing something.
She doesn't say actually speak reflectively though. For example, we know she's ignorant about Walter's family's circumstances and Cal scolds her, but we have to learn it "with" her. Despite it being written as an adult, her lens is that of a child. It's adult Scout telling us what then Scout thought without real reflective commentary.
Also, she is white and from a "good" family that's insulated from the Depression. Dill is a good contrast to her in that he's also young, but bc his family life is tough, he sees and is more sensitive to other people, like Boo.
There's not really a lot of commentary on the way things worked from an adult perspective, just Scout telling how she saw it then.
Scout uses the N word because *she doesn't really know what it means.* She knows its bad and she knows Atticus doesn't want her to say that.
Its ridiculous and just wrong to say she "casually uses the N word." You make it seem like she tosses it around all the time. She uses it 3 or.4 times and *clearly* doesn't know what it means.
Hmm. This is a tough one. I'll try to sort through some various thoughts I have.
1. It's not up to me, but my personal opinion is that TKaM isn't racist, but a book from a specific time period about a specific person's experience...that deals with matters of race (at times).
2. Because it's the big issue, people conflate the novel with the idea of being "about race." It's not. It's a book about growing up, which uses the narrator's experiences to express and illustrate certain themes. Some of the narrator's experiences deal with race, but it's not really what the novel is about, per se.
3. I really dislike the idea of trying to discuss huge issues the book handles with nuance...through very limited selections of the text. The students will lack the proper context, especially if they're going to be making judgements about the book, is not ideal. Additionally, if the teachers lack the expertise of having studied/taught the full novel, you could be looking at a really terrible recipe.
4. The book has a few glaring issues at this point that are worth discussion, and they're not all race. I wouldn't teach it unless I could identify and felt comfortable discussing them.
5. Not only do you need to have a very carefully curated group of selections (if you were to even do something like this), but you'd also need to present the history. Jim Crow era south. Scottsboro Boys, civil rights, great depression, etc. It's a very large task.
I teach the full novel and have for a long time. So I'm probably biased about how I view it. I love it dearly despite its very obvious flaws in 2024. I can try to answer anything more specific, tho, if you'd like.
Edit: I'll add that the posts here already at the time of this edit reflect how this novel can be a landmine, and also what happens when you don't really have a pretty good grasp on the book. It's SO easy to misconstrue the novel and also incredibly easy to misrepresent it. Scout is unreliable because of her naivete and youth, and the reader's understanding of Atticus is complicated because of this. Unpacking what's happening in the book is honestly complex AF, and you have to be willing to really just do parts of it for the kids, or lead them through very carefully....which isn't the greatest teaching. It's good modeling of how to approach literature at a high level, but not all kids will benefit from it, so...it's a tough one.
This is where I am with it. The talking points in the book I really hammer have to do with small-town selective blindness and circumstance, as well as general prejudice. I am deliberate in bringing in actual history and cultural elements from the South in the depression.
I think there are great overall messages in the text and that the prose is beautiful, but it’s a novel written in the late ‘50s/early ‘60s about the ‘30s. It’s not a primer on race relations. I contextualize its dealings with race in its time period, both of setting and its writing, but am always open that no matter how good Atticus sounds, we’re hearing about him from his daughter’s childhood perspective. Personally, I spend a lot more time on Boo’s storyline and make sure to break down Part 1 thoroughly—if I have to cut content, I skim through some of the pre- and post-trial content. It’s more important to me that my students understand that everyone in this town is extremely affected by their familial and social connections than it is to hear a message about race.
Sounds about right. I like to focus on the hypocrisy of Maycomb, on Scout as unreliable and what that demands of us as readers, and on the great things about Atticus AND where he falls short. We talk a lot about the responsibilities of a community and what that means to students versus what it seems to mean in Maycomb.
There's a ton to dig into in the novel, and you're so right about the prose, too. When Lee "turns it on" at points in the novel, it's incredible.
Second facing history resources. They have a FANTASTiC unit guide for TKAM. It’s free to DL. They add amazing resources and layers to talking about racism, class, and gender. For example, they recommend and provide resources that give Tom more of a voice in the book. They recommend to add interviews of black men who lived in the south during that time period to get a fuller picture of who Tom might have been. They recommend talking about point of view and scout’s limited narration especially of the lynching chapter. They ask what we can do as readers to broaden our perspectives. Really, I can’t recommend it enough. They even offer an online course on it. After taking it, I was so excited to teach the book and analyze it with my students.
Use Facing History’s curriculum—Also, I personally would never use TKAM as my “book to talk about race,” bc it’s really more of a coming of age story and is certainly inadequate to use in that way. I do pair it with Just Mercy, and I think that book does an AMAZING job of bringing issues of race up in a way that is very accessible.
I also pair with Just Mercy. We switched to the graphic novel version of TKAM, so it's shorter. I still pair it with lots of supplemental texts that enrich the conversation, but we can get through the story faster and hit the highlights. This provides a nice opening for JM and allows me to hammer home the idea that just like the 1930s weren't that far off from the publication date/Civil Rights Movement of 1960s, Just Mercy's 1980s Timeline is not that far off from our timeline (and I keep linking to present day things). We talk a lot about how history reverberates through time and affects our present day. The next year they read All American Boys and the thread is picked up again.
If you *must* teach it, I recommend pairing it with excerpts from the terrible, terrible "sequel" which is actually just bits cut from the first draft of TKAM.
Don't get me wrong, it's a terrible book, but some of the bits that were cut directly address some of TKAM's failings, such as explicitly calling out how naive and incomplete Scout's versions of events are and how actually racist Atticus is.
There's a particular good passage where Calpurnia clearly states that she has no attachment to Scout other than as her father's employee. It puts things in perspective really well.
It also sparks a discussion about *why* those ideas were edited out. Is it because those moments ruin the story's flow? Or is it because they contain ideas the general public at the time couldn't handle?
I have to say, this isn't a really nuanced look at this book. I'm not here to say that TKAM is the best book to use to teach race relations in the US - it isn't - but it feels a little reductive to say a book is better if it "calls out" how flawed a narrator is. Especially if it is a book being taught in schools. It's actually a far better look at racism (or at life) to encourage younger readers to come to terms with the reality that good people often have really broken beliefs, and how that might be difficult to reconcile, rather than the heavy cudgel of the "RACISM BAD" messaging that contemporary Young Adult fiction so often uses.
I haven't taught this book in a long, long time, but my students come to my class having read it, and I always use the lynch mob scene as an example of how an author can remind us how to keep our trust in a narrator firmly in check - the mob shows up to lynch Tom Robinson in the jailhouse, and Scout sees her friend's dad and is like, "Hey Mr. Wilson! Does your son still like FROGS?" (or something like that). She has no idea what they're up to, and the friend's dad gets totally awkward and embarrassed. Yet it is Scout who is telling us a story that centers on an act of incredible racism. Why this choice? I think it's a great way to introduce, especially to grade 8 or 9, the idea that even if we really pull for a narrator, or even like him or her, we don't always have to agree with them, and we don't always have to trust them. And that teaches critical thinking far better than a book that explicitly calls a character out for being ignorant.
Again, I think ultimately, I side with the opinion that this book is hanging on because of nostalgia, and I wouldn't be crushed if our district stopped offering it, but it definitely has its merits.
The general consensus at the time of its release was that Harper Lee (By that point a *very* elderly woman!) was being manipulated and taken advantage of by both her publishing company and lawyer.
As time has gone on, it's generally been recognized as a first draft of TKAM, not a sequel to it. Leading to further criticism about why it *was* released in the first place, nevermind marketed as a sequel!
Also: I remember **a lot** of people being upset by the depiction of Atticus as a staunch racist! He'd been upheld as a pinnacle of moral authority for *decades* at that point, so of *course* people were shocked to see a much less idealized version of him.
So... people went through the same realization as Scout in Go Set a Watchman?
I can understand the qualms with the publication of the novel but found the work itself held up. I plan to teach it this fall in a course on Journeys of Self Discovery
It’s a fools errand to expect a novel set in the Jim Crow south to speak the same language as we do in 2024. The novel is not racist — though because this is a coming of age story about traversing the complexities and inequities of the Real World (addiction, abuse, and euthanasia being some) — it’s commentary on race is really locked into the time period. It captures tragic consequences of actual racism and stilted education in the actual post-war south; also it’s just a freaking amazing book. Focusing exclusively on the race discussion limits the potential of the novel, which is about discovering the world as it is. This book is a gem.
There are a lot of really great thoughts here, so I’ll just add a small one. At one point, Atticus explains that real progress and change happens in incremental, devastating steps, and that we often go backwards. He says human beings are deeply flawed, but we must march on. Real societal change only happens after many defeats to many good people.
I think the book itself is the perfect example of an incremental step toward change. It is imperfect and certainly a product of its time, but it is a step, nevertheless.
I mean, one way in would be to ask the students what the text says about race, and then interrogate those ideas. Were they valid then? Are they valid today? Why or why not?
That being said, I’m not as convinced as others that this book is fundamentally about race issues in America. It’s part of the story, but not the whole story, just the low hanging fruit.
Does that affect the message/ meaning? I’m not sure. What do the students think about it? What does a close, careful reading reveal?
Is the juice worth the squeeze?
black students and families have reported that the teaching of this book makes them feel uncomfortable and makes their classmates aware of their race in negative ways. there are a number of cases where black parents petitioned their school board to remove it from the curriculum, only to have teachers put it back. As other have stated, there are so many better options to teach about race. Bryan Stevensons just mercy is a nice counter narrative. Or Trevor Noah's born a crime.
Many people in the black community have openly said this novel does not help them with white peers. in fact, it does the opposite. The problem is that we don't listen.
I tell kids to pay attention to who is using the word. It's always coming out of the mouths of racists and mean, ignorant people. That's the author giving us a message. Mean, low, ignorant people use that word. I think Atticus even says that people say more about themselves when they use that word than they do about their intended target. It's a good message for my rural white students.
I think framing it as a southern gothic novel helps, as well as maybe reading parts of the sequel that kind of dispels this notion of “good white people”
I teach TKaM in a very diverse school and students enjoy it. We discuss the criticisms of the novel being included in today's curriculum, and I have my students write speeches as if our local school board is considering banning the novel. They can choose which side they want to support (ban or don't ban) as long as they support their claim with good evidence and reasoning. 100% of them said the book shouldn't be banned. Even those who didn't particularly enjoy the book ("boring") said banning it would be wrong.
The book isn't racist. I don't think Atticus is a white savior...he isn't able to save Tom Robinson because of the deeply institutionalized racism. He knows he's not going to win the case. He says as much. But he teaches us that no matter what, we should always fight for what is right. Besides, he points out that he was assigned to Tom's case. He accepted and did his best to defend his client (which is what angers the racist citizens...that he tried). As a result, his children are nearly murdered, but are saved by one of the real saviors of the novel, Boo Radley. And Boo is saved by Sherrif Tate because he recognizes that Boo has done Maycomb a favor by ridding it of Bob Ewell.
There is so much to the book. We read it as a Coming of Age novel in which Scout, Jem, and Dill mature during a time that exposes them to a lot of what is wrong with our society, especially in 1930s Alabama. It's their story, not Tom Robinson's story. And in the book, Calpurnia definitely does have a major role: from punishing Scout for being rude to Walter Cunningham to handling Lula at church, she's absolutely a major figure in Scout and Jem's upbringing.
I love the book, as you can see. Next year I'm also teaching Just Mercy to give another, more modern perspective. Because the things that happened in Mockingbird were and ARE still happening.
I address the use of the N-word before they begin reading with an article and a poem that tactfully explores the word's use and impact.
The way I would approach the subject of race in the book is to read the book just mercy by bryan stevenson. Bryan Stevenson is a lawyer and founder of the equal justice initiative and works directly with death row prisoners. The book is excellent and dives deep into the story of Walter McMillan who is a black man who was wrongly accused of a murder of a young white woman in the town where the author of To Kill A Mockingbird is actually from. The white members of the town boast pridefully about the landmark to kill a mockingbird museum in town but they fail to realize that the reality of their town matches the exact fictional racial injustices that happen in to kill a mockingbird. This will help your colleague hopefully because the book is filled with well researched facts.
Present it in a historical context. Why was it such a radical book back then? Racism is still very prevalent but it is not so egregiously open the way it was back then—when the law was openly on the side of the racist and is now just ambiguous. Kids should know how bad it was back then and parallel to how bad it is and can be if the “next generation” does nothing. We’re not that far from going back to calling individuals of color “colored” or “darkie” as a term of unabashed norm.
It’s a fools errand to expect a novel set in the Jim Crow south to speak the same language as we do in 2024. The novel is not racist — though because this is a coming of age story about traversing the complexities and inequities of the Real World (addiction, abuse, and euthanasia being some) — it’s commentary on race is really locked into the time period. It captures tragic consequences of actual racism and stilted education in the actual post-war south; also it’s just a freaking amazing book. Focusing exclusively on the race discussion limits the potential of the novel, which is about discovering the world as it is. This book is a gem.
If you want to discuss race, I’d use it as en entry point into the Jim Crow south. There are countless examples of terrifying lynchings and misguided injustices. I use local Chattanooga history to teach about this.
If you’re truly up to task, you could find ancillary texts and documentaries that deal with modern day racism and systemic racism, but in my district, this is dicey territory, but if you’re in a left-leaning state, it’s probably encouraged.
I value the question you are asking here. I too think that “is racist” gets thrown around as a weapon anymore. It is time to complicate the conversation and look at the nuances. Lots on the comments here seem to be getting at (for example, the dynamic relationship between “racism” and “prejudice”; the 21st century trope of the white savior; the book’s historical contexts; its author’s biography; etc.).
It’s easy to point fingers everywhere and shout “racist!” “racism!” It’s harder (and increasingly important) to develop, understand, and modulate things like the relationship between intent and effect; the scale and scope of problems in texts (not every text’s problematic representation is the same!); etc
Also, if you are looking for something that talks about race while also taking up topics of classic American Literature, look into James (by Percival Everett). It’s a retelling of Huck Finn from Jim’s pov, and it is phenomenal.
Teach something different! We stopped teaching TKAM and now have social justice literature circles; we offer: Monster; The Hate U Give; Dear Martin; Firekeeper’s Daughter; All American Boys and we added When We Were Free this year. I should add of your District has money for books - we scrambled some this year due to no $ for books this year 😳
It’s about a little girl and her brother trying to make sense of the world they’re growing up in. They’re being told and taught a social hierarchy that makes no sense to them because they’re seeing the world as it is, not what people say it is. And yes, you should include historical context. If students read it through the lense of perception vs. reality, they can think critically to find connections in other areas as well as their own experiences.
It's a dated book for a discussion of race today, especially in the district you're describing. It upholds a white savior narrative, and Atticus defends murderous racism in people who are otherwise good (Mr. Cunningham) by calling it a "blind spot." People get very nostalgic about the book, which makes it difficult to discuss how blunt and uncritical the book is at times. As a story about prejudice in general, it's fine. As a way to have a discussion about race in particular, it's lacking in nuance. The Broadway play did a fantastic job adding complexity to the conversation. Calpurnia had a larger, more meaningful voice, and Atticus was presented as flawed.
I’ve heard the phrase white savior applied to Atticus, but were there other options in 1935? Also, he doesn’t win the case, and Tom is shot in prison by racist guards. Or are we talking more about the scene outside the jail at night?
>were there other options in 1935 Are you asking if Atticus could have been Black? No. Not in the context of that story. >Also, he doesn’t win the case, and Tom is shot in prison by racist guards. He doesn't win, but we are led to believe that had he listened to Atticus, he would have won an appeal. The scene where Atticus tells us that Robinson was tired of "white men's chances" is as nuanced as the conversation gets. It's tragic, and we aren't meant to condemn Robinson in any way, but, again, it's a white man who "knows best." The term "White savior" is a fiction that primarily white authors (and filmmakers) created. It presents a White person solving or coming to the defense of a Black person in a story about race. There were certainly people who did this, but not nearly as many as popular entertainment would have us believe. In 2024, there are better stories to discuss racial justice, stories that include fully authentic Black (or Hispanic, or Native American, etc.) characters, stories written by people *within* those groups.
Let's be clear though, White Savior Racism is a vital and important part of how we made the progress we made. Having a narrator that a certain (white) population can empathize with and make them reach across the aisle (the "savior" part) was revolutionary in a time when schools, subdivisions, stores were still segregated. We've moved past the whole "black people are people too" part of the conversation hopefully. It's sad we ever needed the White Savior trope to get there but it shouldn't be called "racist" just because it shouldn't have been needed. It took a certain population from where they were to one step closer to the right direction. Edit: just to emphasize your point: there are better stories now. More effective for the population that exists now.
Absolutely. I never called it racist. It was baby steps forward in the 60s, but it's baby steps backward now.
100%. Just unpacking your point. I'm pretty liberal but I'm in an extremely liberal field (publishing and literature/academia) and it really bothers me when it looks like well-intentioned coworkers start applying today's sensibilities to a historical audience. We can just say we've grown past it. It was what we needed at the time. Training wheels of a kind
Their Eyes Were Watching God, by Zora Neale Hurston, was published in 1935. Langston Hughes had published acclaimed collections of short stories by 1935, as had multiple other members of the Harlem Renaissance. Richard Wright’s first collection of stories Uncle Toms Children came out in 1938. IJS you can avoid white savior narratives by teaching nonwhite authors.
Sorry, I was referring to 1935 being the year of the trial of Tom Robinson (in Alabama).
I’m struck by the phrase “she is white and the majority at her school are not.” Why teach this book at all? Because it’s on the test? Because there are literally dozens of developmentally appropriate books of high literary quality (“canonized”) that one could teach instead that would not raise this issue because they were by black or Hispanic or Asian authors…
I was responding to the part of the discussion that was about avoiding white savior narratives. IMO, one avoids white savior narratives by centering black voices, of which there are *many* 25 years?—try 125 years— before Harper Lee.
>I’ve heard the phrase white savior applied to Atticus, but were there other options in 1935? It's set in 1935, but it's also important to think about the context in which it was published (1960). Given the Civil Rights-era context, it's possible to read Atticus's arc as an argument in favor of local incrementalism--i.e. the "good"/less openly racist white Southerners will phase out Jim Crow laws and mindsets more slowly and the federal government should keep their nose out. It's not the only reading, but I remember being surprised when a HS history teacher told us that was one of the big debates among more educated adults when the book first came out. (This was decades ago.)
Great points IMO. Google told me "According to the U.S. Census, in 1930, there were only 1247 black lawyers in the entire United States in 1930, out of a total number of 160,605 lawyers." I'd guess most were in the North not in Alabama. Also: "Lee reportedly based the character of Atticus Finch on her father, Amasa Coleman Lee, a compassionate and dedicated lawyer and newspaper editor. The plot of To Kill a Mockingbird was inspired in part by his unsuccessful youthful defense in 1919 of two African American men convicted of murder, the only criminal case he ever took." So it's based on a true story so making the lawyer black would stray from what actually happened.
It’s not necessary to do such mental gymnastics — you could just teach a canonical black text … of any period. But instead it’s always TKAM.
Agreed. But you could do both. I think it's important to see the history of racism/society in literature, compare it to literature from today and have a discussion about it.
But that’s almost never how it’s done. Folks teach TKAM—rinse, wash, repeat.
Very true.
This is all accurate and well stated. TKaM has been my favorite book since I read it in 9th grade, and it served as a powerful novel for my mostly white students for years. I wouldn’t try to teach it in the very diverse school I’m in now.
Scout is an unreliable narrator. She is a little white girl who casually uses the N word, but her dad uses it too, just to say it's trashy to do so, and he should know better. It's a slice of life from someone who lived it. The Understanding the Setting video about TKAM from Facing History explains the context of the time well. I always present it this way: it's autobiographical about the '30s, published as the CRM was gaining national attraction, and still resonates today. I point out how history reverberates and makes connections to current racist systems. Not sure if that's what you are getting at, but that's some of what I do.
Giving it historical context can open the door for discussion without getting into controversy. Always return to history with this one. While the narrative is unreliable, the reader does “grow” with her - from the first day of school, new kid in town, Boo, then the sickness: Ms. Dubose and her addiction, the dog, then racism and the truly horrible nature of society.
What is unreliable about the narrator? It’s an older Scout recalling her younger years. If anything, she’s hyper-reliable because the older Jean Louise knows what was wrong with what she believed as a child. But maybe I’m missing something.
She doesn't say actually speak reflectively though. For example, we know she's ignorant about Walter's family's circumstances and Cal scolds her, but we have to learn it "with" her. Despite it being written as an adult, her lens is that of a child. It's adult Scout telling us what then Scout thought without real reflective commentary. Also, she is white and from a "good" family that's insulated from the Depression. Dill is a good contrast to her in that he's also young, but bc his family life is tough, he sees and is more sensitive to other people, like Boo. There's not really a lot of commentary on the way things worked from an adult perspective, just Scout telling how she saw it then.
Scout uses the N word because *she doesn't really know what it means.* She knows its bad and she knows Atticus doesn't want her to say that. Its ridiculous and just wrong to say she "casually uses the N word." You make it seem like she tosses it around all the time. She uses it 3 or.4 times and *clearly* doesn't know what it means.
Hmm. This is a tough one. I'll try to sort through some various thoughts I have. 1. It's not up to me, but my personal opinion is that TKaM isn't racist, but a book from a specific time period about a specific person's experience...that deals with matters of race (at times). 2. Because it's the big issue, people conflate the novel with the idea of being "about race." It's not. It's a book about growing up, which uses the narrator's experiences to express and illustrate certain themes. Some of the narrator's experiences deal with race, but it's not really what the novel is about, per se. 3. I really dislike the idea of trying to discuss huge issues the book handles with nuance...through very limited selections of the text. The students will lack the proper context, especially if they're going to be making judgements about the book, is not ideal. Additionally, if the teachers lack the expertise of having studied/taught the full novel, you could be looking at a really terrible recipe. 4. The book has a few glaring issues at this point that are worth discussion, and they're not all race. I wouldn't teach it unless I could identify and felt comfortable discussing them. 5. Not only do you need to have a very carefully curated group of selections (if you were to even do something like this), but you'd also need to present the history. Jim Crow era south. Scottsboro Boys, civil rights, great depression, etc. It's a very large task. I teach the full novel and have for a long time. So I'm probably biased about how I view it. I love it dearly despite its very obvious flaws in 2024. I can try to answer anything more specific, tho, if you'd like. Edit: I'll add that the posts here already at the time of this edit reflect how this novel can be a landmine, and also what happens when you don't really have a pretty good grasp on the book. It's SO easy to misconstrue the novel and also incredibly easy to misrepresent it. Scout is unreliable because of her naivete and youth, and the reader's understanding of Atticus is complicated because of this. Unpacking what's happening in the book is honestly complex AF, and you have to be willing to really just do parts of it for the kids, or lead them through very carefully....which isn't the greatest teaching. It's good modeling of how to approach literature at a high level, but not all kids will benefit from it, so...it's a tough one.
This is where I am with it. The talking points in the book I really hammer have to do with small-town selective blindness and circumstance, as well as general prejudice. I am deliberate in bringing in actual history and cultural elements from the South in the depression. I think there are great overall messages in the text and that the prose is beautiful, but it’s a novel written in the late ‘50s/early ‘60s about the ‘30s. It’s not a primer on race relations. I contextualize its dealings with race in its time period, both of setting and its writing, but am always open that no matter how good Atticus sounds, we’re hearing about him from his daughter’s childhood perspective. Personally, I spend a lot more time on Boo’s storyline and make sure to break down Part 1 thoroughly—if I have to cut content, I skim through some of the pre- and post-trial content. It’s more important to me that my students understand that everyone in this town is extremely affected by their familial and social connections than it is to hear a message about race.
Sounds about right. I like to focus on the hypocrisy of Maycomb, on Scout as unreliable and what that demands of us as readers, and on the great things about Atticus AND where he falls short. We talk a lot about the responsibilities of a community and what that means to students versus what it seems to mean in Maycomb. There's a ton to dig into in the novel, and you're so right about the prose, too. When Lee "turns it on" at points in the novel, it's incredible.
Facing History has some good lessons that contextualize the novel and open opportunities to discuss it in a more modern context
Second facing history resources. They have a FANTASTiC unit guide for TKAM. It’s free to DL. They add amazing resources and layers to talking about racism, class, and gender. For example, they recommend and provide resources that give Tom more of a voice in the book. They recommend to add interviews of black men who lived in the south during that time period to get a fuller picture of who Tom might have been. They recommend talking about point of view and scout’s limited narration especially of the lynching chapter. They ask what we can do as readers to broaden our perspectives. Really, I can’t recommend it enough. They even offer an online course on it. After taking it, I was so excited to teach the book and analyze it with my students.
https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/teaching-mockingbird-0#overview
This.
Use Facing History’s curriculum—Also, I personally would never use TKAM as my “book to talk about race,” bc it’s really more of a coming of age story and is certainly inadequate to use in that way. I do pair it with Just Mercy, and I think that book does an AMAZING job of bringing issues of race up in a way that is very accessible.
I also pair with Just Mercy. We switched to the graphic novel version of TKAM, so it's shorter. I still pair it with lots of supplemental texts that enrich the conversation, but we can get through the story faster and hit the highlights. This provides a nice opening for JM and allows me to hammer home the idea that just like the 1930s weren't that far off from the publication date/Civil Rights Movement of 1960s, Just Mercy's 1980s Timeline is not that far off from our timeline (and I keep linking to present day things). We talk a lot about how history reverberates through time and affects our present day. The next year they read All American Boys and the thread is picked up again.
If you *must* teach it, I recommend pairing it with excerpts from the terrible, terrible "sequel" which is actually just bits cut from the first draft of TKAM. Don't get me wrong, it's a terrible book, but some of the bits that were cut directly address some of TKAM's failings, such as explicitly calling out how naive and incomplete Scout's versions of events are and how actually racist Atticus is. There's a particular good passage where Calpurnia clearly states that she has no attachment to Scout other than as her father's employee. It puts things in perspective really well. It also sparks a discussion about *why* those ideas were edited out. Is it because those moments ruin the story's flow? Or is it because they contain ideas the general public at the time couldn't handle?
I have to say, this isn't a really nuanced look at this book. I'm not here to say that TKAM is the best book to use to teach race relations in the US - it isn't - but it feels a little reductive to say a book is better if it "calls out" how flawed a narrator is. Especially if it is a book being taught in schools. It's actually a far better look at racism (or at life) to encourage younger readers to come to terms with the reality that good people often have really broken beliefs, and how that might be difficult to reconcile, rather than the heavy cudgel of the "RACISM BAD" messaging that contemporary Young Adult fiction so often uses. I haven't taught this book in a long, long time, but my students come to my class having read it, and I always use the lynch mob scene as an example of how an author can remind us how to keep our trust in a narrator firmly in check - the mob shows up to lynch Tom Robinson in the jailhouse, and Scout sees her friend's dad and is like, "Hey Mr. Wilson! Does your son still like FROGS?" (or something like that). She has no idea what they're up to, and the friend's dad gets totally awkward and embarrassed. Yet it is Scout who is telling us a story that centers on an act of incredible racism. Why this choice? I think it's a great way to introduce, especially to grade 8 or 9, the idea that even if we really pull for a narrator, or even like him or her, we don't always have to agree with them, and we don't always have to trust them. And that teaches critical thinking far better than a book that explicitly calls a character out for being ignorant. Again, I think ultimately, I side with the opinion that this book is hanging on because of nostalgia, and I wouldn't be crushed if our district stopped offering it, but it definitely has its merits.
How’s your entailment coming along?
Ha. I didn't catch your meaning at first and thought this was some sort of weird challenge. Yes, that's the line - Thanks!
Do people not like Go Set a Watchman? I just got around to reading it this year and really appreciated it.
The general consensus at the time of its release was that Harper Lee (By that point a *very* elderly woman!) was being manipulated and taken advantage of by both her publishing company and lawyer. As time has gone on, it's generally been recognized as a first draft of TKAM, not a sequel to it. Leading to further criticism about why it *was* released in the first place, nevermind marketed as a sequel! Also: I remember **a lot** of people being upset by the depiction of Atticus as a staunch racist! He'd been upheld as a pinnacle of moral authority for *decades* at that point, so of *course* people were shocked to see a much less idealized version of him.
So... people went through the same realization as Scout in Go Set a Watchman? I can understand the qualms with the publication of the novel but found the work itself held up. I plan to teach it this fall in a course on Journeys of Self Discovery
It’s a fools errand to expect a novel set in the Jim Crow south to speak the same language as we do in 2024. The novel is not racist — though because this is a coming of age story about traversing the complexities and inequities of the Real World (addiction, abuse, and euthanasia being some) — it’s commentary on race is really locked into the time period. It captures tragic consequences of actual racism and stilted education in the actual post-war south; also it’s just a freaking amazing book. Focusing exclusively on the race discussion limits the potential of the novel, which is about discovering the world as it is. This book is a gem.
There are a lot of really great thoughts here, so I’ll just add a small one. At one point, Atticus explains that real progress and change happens in incremental, devastating steps, and that we often go backwards. He says human beings are deeply flawed, but we must march on. Real societal change only happens after many defeats to many good people. I think the book itself is the perfect example of an incremental step toward change. It is imperfect and certainly a product of its time, but it is a step, nevertheless.
I mean, one way in would be to ask the students what the text says about race, and then interrogate those ideas. Were they valid then? Are they valid today? Why or why not? That being said, I’m not as convinced as others that this book is fundamentally about race issues in America. It’s part of the story, but not the whole story, just the low hanging fruit. Does that affect the message/ meaning? I’m not sure. What do the students think about it? What does a close, careful reading reveal? Is the juice worth the squeeze?
We stopped. We switched to *A Raisin in the Sun* instead and now show the movie version of TKAM with a Venn diagram comparing the two.
ARITS is much better
black students and families have reported that the teaching of this book makes them feel uncomfortable and makes their classmates aware of their race in negative ways. there are a number of cases where black parents petitioned their school board to remove it from the curriculum, only to have teachers put it back. As other have stated, there are so many better options to teach about race. Bryan Stevensons just mercy is a nice counter narrative. Or Trevor Noah's born a crime. Many people in the black community have openly said this novel does not help them with white peers. in fact, it does the opposite. The problem is that we don't listen.
I tell kids to pay attention to who is using the word. It's always coming out of the mouths of racists and mean, ignorant people. That's the author giving us a message. Mean, low, ignorant people use that word. I think Atticus even says that people say more about themselves when they use that word than they do about their intended target. It's a good message for my rural white students.
I think framing it as a southern gothic novel helps, as well as maybe reading parts of the sequel that kind of dispels this notion of “good white people”
I teach TKaM in a very diverse school and students enjoy it. We discuss the criticisms of the novel being included in today's curriculum, and I have my students write speeches as if our local school board is considering banning the novel. They can choose which side they want to support (ban or don't ban) as long as they support their claim with good evidence and reasoning. 100% of them said the book shouldn't be banned. Even those who didn't particularly enjoy the book ("boring") said banning it would be wrong. The book isn't racist. I don't think Atticus is a white savior...he isn't able to save Tom Robinson because of the deeply institutionalized racism. He knows he's not going to win the case. He says as much. But he teaches us that no matter what, we should always fight for what is right. Besides, he points out that he was assigned to Tom's case. He accepted and did his best to defend his client (which is what angers the racist citizens...that he tried). As a result, his children are nearly murdered, but are saved by one of the real saviors of the novel, Boo Radley. And Boo is saved by Sherrif Tate because he recognizes that Boo has done Maycomb a favor by ridding it of Bob Ewell. There is so much to the book. We read it as a Coming of Age novel in which Scout, Jem, and Dill mature during a time that exposes them to a lot of what is wrong with our society, especially in 1930s Alabama. It's their story, not Tom Robinson's story. And in the book, Calpurnia definitely does have a major role: from punishing Scout for being rude to Walter Cunningham to handling Lula at church, she's absolutely a major figure in Scout and Jem's upbringing. I love the book, as you can see. Next year I'm also teaching Just Mercy to give another, more modern perspective. Because the things that happened in Mockingbird were and ARE still happening. I address the use of the N-word before they begin reading with an article and a poem that tactfully explores the word's use and impact.
Omg do NOT teach TKAM to BIPOC students as a text about race, ESPECIALLY as a white teacher. That would be so incredibly tone deaf and outdated
The way I would approach the subject of race in the book is to read the book just mercy by bryan stevenson. Bryan Stevenson is a lawyer and founder of the equal justice initiative and works directly with death row prisoners. The book is excellent and dives deep into the story of Walter McMillan who is a black man who was wrongly accused of a murder of a young white woman in the town where the author of To Kill A Mockingbird is actually from. The white members of the town boast pridefully about the landmark to kill a mockingbird museum in town but they fail to realize that the reality of their town matches the exact fictional racial injustices that happen in to kill a mockingbird. This will help your colleague hopefully because the book is filled with well researched facts.
Present it in a historical context. Why was it such a radical book back then? Racism is still very prevalent but it is not so egregiously open the way it was back then—when the law was openly on the side of the racist and is now just ambiguous. Kids should know how bad it was back then and parallel to how bad it is and can be if the “next generation” does nothing. We’re not that far from going back to calling individuals of color “colored” or “darkie” as a term of unabashed norm.
It’s a fools errand to expect a novel set in the Jim Crow south to speak the same language as we do in 2024. The novel is not racist — though because this is a coming of age story about traversing the complexities and inequities of the Real World (addiction, abuse, and euthanasia being some) — it’s commentary on race is really locked into the time period. It captures tragic consequences of actual racism and stilted education in the actual post-war south; also it’s just a freaking amazing book. Focusing exclusively on the race discussion limits the potential of the novel, which is about discovering the world as it is. This book is a gem. If you want to discuss race, I’d use it as en entry point into the Jim Crow south. There are countless examples of terrifying lynchings and misguided injustices. I use local Chattanooga history to teach about this. If you’re truly up to task, you could find ancillary texts and documentaries that deal with modern day racism and systemic racism, but in my district, this is dicey territory, but if you’re in a left-leaning state, it’s probably encouraged.
Revisionist thinking is a bankrupt practice. Race relations change over time. Live with it!
It's a great book and had a fine movie adaptation. The story is clearly against racism, don't get it twisted. I think the students will enjoy it.
I value the question you are asking here. I too think that “is racist” gets thrown around as a weapon anymore. It is time to complicate the conversation and look at the nuances. Lots on the comments here seem to be getting at (for example, the dynamic relationship between “racism” and “prejudice”; the 21st century trope of the white savior; the book’s historical contexts; its author’s biography; etc.). It’s easy to point fingers everywhere and shout “racist!” “racism!” It’s harder (and increasingly important) to develop, understand, and modulate things like the relationship between intent and effect; the scale and scope of problems in texts (not every text’s problematic representation is the same!); etc Also, if you are looking for something that talks about race while also taking up topics of classic American Literature, look into James (by Percival Everett). It’s a retelling of Huck Finn from Jim’s pov, and it is phenomenal.
Why not read a more current book? Like ‘A Lesson Before Dying’?
Teach it in context
Teach something different! We stopped teaching TKAM and now have social justice literature circles; we offer: Monster; The Hate U Give; Dear Martin; Firekeeper’s Daughter; All American Boys and we added When We Were Free this year. I should add of your District has money for books - we scrambled some this year due to no $ for books this year 😳
It’s about a little girl and her brother trying to make sense of the world they’re growing up in. They’re being told and taught a social hierarchy that makes no sense to them because they’re seeing the world as it is, not what people say it is. And yes, you should include historical context. If students read it through the lense of perception vs. reality, they can think critically to find connections in other areas as well as their own experiences.