Trigger warnings put on classic childrens books at Cambridge University

Am I right in thinking that the Cambridge archived books will only be accessed by university students and academics, as they are in an archive. Surely these people are all adults and should be able to read the books in the context and time in which they were written, and to differentiate between attitudes now and in the past. If they can't do that then maybe they shouldn't be at university at all!

I have lots of my childhood books (Enid Blyton, Rupert Bear, Dickens etc etc) and I read them to my GC just as they were written, no editing. Sometimes they ask questions or comment on unfamiliar words or happenings and I simply explain it to them.

I also have lots of my mother's books, Christmas annuals, all of them over 100 years old. They tell stories of life in boarding schools; girls brought up in wealthy families with maidservants; children raised by servants in India; tiger and elephant hunts, slavery and the ivory trade. Things that are not considered 'politically correct' now but interesting to read about nevertheless. My older GC like reading them and love the illustrations. They simply accept that they are old books that reflect a way of life from the past. They're not shocked by it, and I am happy that the books are being read again by another generation.

Should history books, Shakespeare and the Bible have trigger warnings in them because Henry VIII beheaded his wives; Shakespeare's plays are often violent; and lepers were cast out as unclean in the Bible?

Should we really 'protect' children from the past and history? It has happened, it's gone. Surely we should just accept that it was different times, different attitudes.

When the UK commemorated the events of the two World Wars children of all ages took a big interest in it, often being able to relate it to past generations of their families. They learned that these were not just stories in history books, they were real people, and they took pride in their courage and their history. Yes, war is brutal, horrific and people die. But the nation sought to educate young people about it in the hope that they might learn from it. We can't have it both ways, to change the future you have to learn about the past - not hide from it, destroy it or censor it.

There is nothing in the books I've mentioned that is any more shocking or harmful to young minds than the violent games and films that children are exposed to today. Many games feature people and characters who are killed but are then 'resurrected' to play on. That gives a totally unrealistic portrayal of life and death. People in films are stabbed or shot multiple times but still carry on fighting. Is that what kids think will happen if they stab or shoot someone on the street?! It is these forms of 'entertainment' that we should be putting trigger warnings on, editing, censoring or better still destroying. And before someone says that adults also enjoy these things, my only answer is just how adult are they if they can't find anything more useful to do!

Sorry for the long rant. I'll dive behind the sofa now with me tin 'at on!

I love Agatha Christie's books but always found her portrayals of the "servants" patronising and awful - then the other day I was re-reading Death In The Clouds, and the heroine meets someone she really likes and they bond over chatting about what they share. One of the things that they share is "and they both disliked negroes...."

If I was reading a classic story to children now I would expect to stop and explain some of the attitudes to them. The way Laura Ingalls Wilder writes about native Americans sounds very racist now, but when you put it in context the family were living in isolation, miles from anywhere and must have found them terrifying.

I've been reading old editions of Agatha Christie, Josephine Tey and Marjorie Allingham and some of the racism and snobbery comes as a shock. The descriptions of Dagos, yellow faced Jews and N*****s, not to mention the forelock tugging lowers classes! And these were writers who weren't setting out to be nasty, they are just every day descriptions.

Very interesting - thank you for that.

When I pick up my DGC from school each week, they sit and colour while I read the book to them. When I read it as a child I gave no thought to the attitude to native Indians in the book - nor indeed batted an eyelid at the evil Indians in the westerns we watched on our tiny TV. But as the article says, we cannot apply 21st century standards to books written so long ago - they reflect their time.

My GC enjoy it for the same reasons as I did - the romance of living outside and cooking round a camp fire - the cozy beds in the wooden hut etc. All the same things as my DDs enjoyed when I read it to them.

I thought you might be interested in this Luckygirl

nypost.com/2018/08/07/the-real-story-behind-the-little-house-on-the-prairie-controversy/

I have been reading Little House on the Prairie to GC and have been doing a bit of editing here and there.

Chestnut

It was the most horrible advert I've ever seen! The reason given for pulling it was purely because the insurance will not cover for deliberate damage. But the advert itself was vile, with the boy destroying his house while his mother and sister just said nothing. No child should behave like that. He was dressed in girl's clothes and lipstick and behaving in an almost sexualised manner. John Lewis seemed to think this was okay because the child was 'expressing himself'.

Yes, quite. Not just the 'woke' behaviour of the boy, but it was almost condoning the kind of behaviour that no parent should be ok with.

It was the most horrible advert I've ever seen! The reason given for pulling it was purely because the insurance will not cover for deliberate damage. But the advert itself was vile, with the boy destroying his house while his mother and sister just said nothing. No child should behave like that. He was dressed in girl's clothes and lipstick and behaving in an almost sexualised manner. John Lewis seemed to think this was okay because the child was 'expressing himself'.

Here's a link

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/tv/john-lewis-advert-featuring-dancing-21990489

MaizieD

^No, I didn't mean those things at all. I was thinking of the John Lewis advert.^

Never seen it, Antonia. What is 'woke' about it?

It has been banned now, but it showed a boy in a girl's dress, rampaging through the house, accidentally smashing things. He trashed the room almost completely. His sister looked on, peacefully painting.
We were meant to infer that the insurance would cover the damage.
People had issues over the trashing of the house and the gender issues.

I hate the term woke as I think it is divisive but I do think some of the 'control' of language is about authoritarianism and that makes me uneasy. The policing of tweets from 20 years ago etc.

MaizieD

greenlady102

i think its a good compromise. People did want the books banning or heavily editing which, I think is definitely wrong.

Why is it a 'good compromise'?

The OP was about books in an academic archive, not those on sale to the public. Why should academic students need to be 'protected' by trigger warnings?

because it shuts up the "something must be done" brigade without limiting or preventing access.

No, I didn't mean those things at all. I was thinking of the John Lewis advert.

Never seen it, Antonia. What is 'woke' about it?

Galaxy

Sone of it is about control and authoritarianism mazie and they dont float my boat much. I dont think this is one of those though.

Not sure which of my posts you're responding to, Galaxy

If it's the 'woke' one can you clarify a bit for me?

MaizieD

^We are meant to be tolerant of all the 'woke' ideas now.^

You mean all those 'woke' ideas about equality before the law, freedom from racial prejudice, telling the truth about our history (or even about just telling the truth), caring about the destruction of our planet by climate change? Those 'woke ideas?

I can't see them as a Bad Thing, I'm afraid.

No, I didn't mean those things at all. I was thinking of the John Lewis advert....

Sone of it is about control and authoritarianism mazie and they dont float my boat much. I dont think this is one of those though.

greenlady102

i think its a good compromise. People did want the books banning or heavily editing which, I think is definitely wrong.

Why is it a 'good compromise'?

The OP was about books in an academic archive, not those on sale to the public. Why should academic students need to be 'protected' by trigger warnings?

We are meant to be tolerant of all the 'woke' ideas now.

You mean all those 'woke' ideas about equality before the law, freedom from racial prejudice, telling the truth about our history (or even about just telling the truth), caring about the destruction of our planet by climate change? Those 'woke ideas?

I can't see them as a Bad Thing, I'm afraid.

i think its a good compromise. People did want the books banning or heavily editing which, I think is definitely wrong.

Elegran

No, we are not. We choose other things to be tolerant or intolerant of than we used to, but our average level of tolerance hasn't increased.

Tolerance has changed. We are meant to be tolerant of all the 'woke' ideas now. I hesitate to give my true opinion on a public forum.

I’m thinking our tolerance level is a lot lower than it used to be. Possibly a result of stresses involved in our more hectic lives or the over crowding in many of the places we live in.

No, we are not. We choose other things to be tolerant or intolerant of than we used to, but our average level of tolerance hasn't increased.

Are we more tolerant and loving than previous generations ? I’m not so sure and it must be comforting to think we are. In many ways I think we are every bit as bad.

In the history of this country and most others, there have been wars in which many people have been killed in horrific circumstances, both soldiers and civilians. Does it need to be pointed out to everyone reading factual accounts or fictitious novels about the era that distressing events are included which are not to be taken as recommendations of how to behave, or copied?

Surely it is obvious to anyone with an average level of ethics and/or sheer common sense that they should not copy such behaviour? Or is it similar to "but no-one told me that putting my poodle into the microwave to dry off after a bath was a bad idea" ?

I can thoroughly recommend both Becoming and Dreams From My Father by the Obamas. I have both as audible books read by the respective authors which I think adds something.