Sherlock Holmes Removed from School Reading List

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Lets also remove anything that mentions the Spanish Inquisition.
It's derogatory.

To whom? Who is going to be offended by it?

You have to put things into context. Is it right to give a reading assignment to children which gives the impression that a popular religious movement engages in kidnapping, extortion, and murder? I can fully understand that many may think it isn't. By all means assign it when they're older and can appreciate its historical context, but I think 11 is too young for this kind of stuff.

[TimW]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Lets also remove anything that mentions the Spanish Inquisition.
It's derogatory.

"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

I'm sorry, I just couldn't let resist a Monty Python reference.

[ttomm46]

yep....let's only read what the pc crowd wants us to.

[Daithi]

I personally am fine with removing the book from a reading list. Educators shouldn't be in the position of recommending kids read books that they know will justifiably offend members of their community. The only problem is that "justifiably" is pretty darn hard to pin down. Do you ban The Crucible because it makes Christians look like nuts? How about Uncle Tom's Cabin or Huckleberry Finn because they contain the "N" word, even though the books are about fighting racism? Or how about books like Slaughterhouse Five? How about books that teach Intelligent Design? Should these decisions be in the hands of local school boards?

BTW, here's an interesting article on the Danites (related to the incident Doyle was writing about). I had no idea Mormonism had these links. It seems like a far cry from the Mormons I know today.

[jgaiser]

And reading assignments are not discussed in class? Are books just handed to children to read?

Come on. Let's be realistic. Books (old and new) are filled with ideas that makes lots of people uncomfortable. If we start removing uncomfortable books, there will be nothing for children to read, and learn from, but Dick and Jane and Uncle Wiggly.

I don't think it's PC, as much as parents and teachers not willing answer the difficult questions.

[Daithi]

Oh, one more thing-- my dog's name is Padre, and he's pretty religious. He belongs to a doggy offshoot of the Mormons called the Church of Latter Day St. Bernards.
Their slogan is "Have you found Dog?"

Yes, I probably just offended a bunch of people, but I can't help myself.
_
_
_

[wodin]

History is rife with dark episodes disparaging one group or another, usually written by the victors. There was the Roman oppression of the Jews and the sacking of Jerusalem , the sack of Rome, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the thirty and hundred year wars, slavery in America (and elsewhere), the Nazi occupation and holocaust, and the Vichy collaboration with that; the list goes on.

Do you see a pattern here? Most of those entail religious or racial oppression; and all have had historical fiction written about them, most of which rightly or wrongly demonizes one side or the other. Are we to ban this great body of literature just because it might offend someone? Going down that road would have us ban history; after all, it was written by the victors.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by wodin

History is rife with dark episodes disparaging one group or another, usually written by the victors. There was the Roman oppression of the Jews and the sacking of Jerusalem , the sack of Rome, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the thirty and hundred year wars, slavery in America (and elsewhere), the Nazi occupation and holocaust, and the Vichy collaboration with that; the list goes on.

Do you see a pattern here? Most of those entail religious or racial oppression; and all have had historical fiction written about them, most of which rightly or wrongly demonizes one side or the other. Are we to ban this great body of literature just because it might offend someone? Going down that road would have us ban history; after all, it was written by the victors.

Nobody's saying that anything should be banned. The question is whether it's suitable material for reading assignments for young children. Was the specific reason that "A Study in Scarlet" was assigned BECAUSE of its subject matter of the alleged criminal practices of the Mormons, or was it because of Sherlock Holmes? If it's the latter, there are 3 other Sherlock Holmes novels and 56 short stories that you can equally assign which don't contain the Mormon issue.

[MrsJoseph]

It really doesn't bother me at all. The books were not "banned." They were not even removed from the school library. They just are not TEACHING it in 6th grade. They also don't teach "Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came" or "leaves of grass" so I can get over it.

I think this is an important distinction.

Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that it is the burden of the parent to ensure a child's well-rounded and moral education. Not the state.

[wodin]

So your answer is to stop teaching history to twelve year olds? It’s the teacher’s job to put these works into perspective, how can that happen if they’re not taught in the first place?

Oh, but then we would have to rely on the teacher to have the proper perspective!

[Jozawun]

First, it wasn't censored because it was historically inaccurate. We can put that canard to bed; it WAS historically accurate (allowing for literary exaggeration).

Second, it was removed after a complaint that it was "offensive to Mormons"; if it was removed for that reason, then that would be thoroughly obnoxious. All we owe the dead is the truth, and it is simply ludicrous to censor the truth because it hurts someone's feelings (be they religious, political or whatever). It would open the door to censoring almost any serious work of literature, science or opinion.

Thirdly, the claimed reason for removing the book from the list was that it was age-inappropriate. This, of course, raises a whole set of different questions, the answers to which will depend on an individual's own moral preconceptions. But really, it boils down to the fact that by this age, intelligent kids will see the book for what it is, stupid kids won't, and the in-betweens should be helped with notes on the reading guide. After all, I assume that the reading guide is meant to be part of an educational process.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by wodin

So your answer is to stop teaching history to twelve year olds? It’s the teacher’s job to put these works into perspective, how can that happen if they’re not taught in the first place?

Oh, but then we would have to rely on the teacher to have the proper perspective!

I'm sorry. Are "Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came" or "leaves of grass" history books? I said "well-rounded and moral."

Last I checked Sherlock Holmes isn't going to help anyone ace a history test nor is it history. It is a fictional account of a fictional person doing fictional and quite illegal things. Guess what? No one will die over Sherlock Holmes.

[RDaneel54]

Literature is rife with cultural biases, exagerations and downright prejudice/discriminatory actions.

History is rife with cultural biases, exagerations and downright prejudice/discriminatory actions.

Let's not talk about these things to our kids. They might actually understand and learn about the past and possibly avoid those mistakes in their own lives.

Imagine the lives of the children that lived through slavery, religious persecution (the Mormons got it from state to state before they settled in Utah), genocide, etc. By teaching children how these acts are evil maybe they can avoid some of it in future.

Or we could push their heads into the sand and hope for the best.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I'm sorry. Are "Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came" or "leaves of grass" history books? I said "well-rounded and moral."

Last I checked Sherlock Holmes isn't going to help anyone ace a history test nor is it history. It is a fictional account of a fictional person doing fictional and quite illegal things. Guess what? No one will die over Sherlock Holmes.

Sorry, I was commenting on Harry’s post above yours, you just happened to hit the send button before me.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There's no doubt that it is VERY derogatory towards Mormons.

But unjustified? The Mormon church in its first years was very different to what it is now.

Or perhaps you haven't comes across accounts of the 1857 massacre of 140 men, women and children over 7?

Which they finally apologised for in 2007.