Nudity is a state. There is nothing objectionable about it. Do you think it only exists for titillation? Considering the topic in question is that of the corpse of the author's mother, that's a hell of a stretch.
Thank you. Having seen it -- if this is the "worst" example that can be found -- then I think the parents are either overreacting, or, more likely, are looking for a pretext.
There were examples of books that the conservatives banned because they really were sexually explicit. This doesn't seem to be one of them.
I think this is one of multiple objections that were raised to the book. It is, frankly, absurd to think they were "looking for a pretext" to ban Maus. They have taught and will continue to teach module(s) on the Holocaust. There's absolutely no evidence anyone is trying to conceal it or that any of the parents or administrators are Nazis.
If they’re really serious about teaching the Holocaust, it seems pretty dumb to ban Maus because it’s one of the most effective books for teaching it to students at that age.
I don't really have an opinion on how to choose school curriculum. That's not my wheelhouse. As I've said, I've not read Maus, so I don't have an opinion on that either.
I do have an opinion on the meta level though. That is, I have an opinion about the "controversy" which is that it has been sensationalized. A school board decided to sideline this book if they could find a suitable replacement and use it if not. They are the proper authorities to set the curriculum and they seem to be following a reasonable approach (listening to complaints from parents, and taking time to see if they can find a solution, defaulting to what they have if they can't). There is absolutely no reason for this to repeatedly hit national news outlets. Further, I think it's perverse to sensationalize non-events like this and act like they are censorious or evidence of latent-Nazi'ism.
I disagree. School boards are supposed to be leaders in a mission to provide the best education to their students, and should be influenced primarily by educational experts and the “boots on the ground,” i.e., school administrators, teachers, and other leaders with training and experience in curriculum development and education. While parents’ opinions do matter, they aren’t experts in education, and school boards should be influencing the parents instead of the other way around. Otherwise education is going to be beholden to irrational whims, fads, and politics, and I believe society will be far worse off as a result.
And that’s really the story here - that politics, rather than educational effectiveness, seems to be prevailing with this and other school boards across the U.S.
You should read Maus if you haven't already. It's an excellent book.
That panel comes from a short sequence in the book called Prisoner on Hell Planet. I first read Maus as a child (10 or 11 years old, so younger than 8th grade) and I found that whole sequence incredibly confronting. The characters are suddenly depicted as humans (the rest of the book they are anthropomorphic animals), the art style changes to become harsher and scarier, and it depicts the suicide of the artist's mother, including the author's last memory of her alive and his feelings of guilt over her death. When I read the book as a child that sequence stuck out to me as particularly graphic and disturbing, and on my subsequent readings I would skip it. I think it's a really important part of the book precisely because it's so jarring and intensely personal. I also think it's a great book to have in a school curriculum, but it doesn't surprise me that parents would complain.
What I found somewhat bemusing about the whole discussion in the meeting minutes was that it didn't focus on the content of the book that may disturb children, but rather on the occasional use of crude language and sexual discussions. One of the board members goes on a bizarre tangent about a poem which includes the line "The heavenly blisses of his kisses, fill me with ecstasy," and how one of the discussion questions for that poem is for children to define the word "ecstasy." He goes on to say:
> So, my problem is, it looks like the entire curriculum is developed to normalize sexuality, normalize nudity and normalize vulgar language. If I was trying to indoctrinate somebody’s kids, this is how I would do it. You put this stuff just enough on the edges, so the parents don’t catch it but the kids, they soak it in. I think we need to relook at the entire curriculum.
Which is such a weird thing to say in a discussion over whether a particular text is appropriate for a module on the Holocaust.
Pointing out that the author drew comics for Playboy is also a really weird thing to say when the nudity being discussed is an image of the author's dead mother.
One of the board members goes on a bizarre tangent about a poem which includes the line "The heavenly blisses of his kisses, fill me with ecstasy,"
The "poem" is actually the lyric to the 1921 song, "I'm Just Wild About Harry", for a Broadway musical, "Shuffle Along"; it was the most popular song in the show. It was later sung in a movie by Judy Garland and and was covered by other artists such as Peggy Lee. It was also used as a campaign song by Harry S. Truman in his run for president.
The song has a Wikipedia page [0] as does the show "Shuffle Along" from which it came [1], which was the first Black Broadway musical and which launched the careers of notables such as Josephine Baker and Paul Robeson and which was "credited with inspiring the Harlem Renaissance" [1].
P.S. The original (it's a comic duet in the show) [2]
Judy Garland's version [3]
A new rendition was used in 2020 as the theme for a TV rom-com [4]
Pointing out that the author drew comics for Playboy is also a really weird thing to say
Seemed like an ad hominem attack to me -- here's the passage from the article:
Allman went on to say that Spiegelman had once done artwork for Playboy: “You can look at his history, and we’re letting him do graphics in books for students in elementary school.”
> it didn't focus on the content of the book that may disturb children, but rather on the occasional use of crude language and sexual discussions.
Yeah, it seems to miss the point.
You can ask whether a topic like this is appropriate for children of a certain age. For eighth graders, I think it is. But for younger children, maybe not.
There is also a question of whether exposure to this sort of thing -- this true destruction of innocence -- achieves what it sets out to. I have seen historical sites like these that have made a serious impression on me -- and I'm not sure a good one. Combined with the forms of argument, the dehumanization, the dishonesty, that I see routinely on the Internet, I end up profoundly distrustful of people, especially people in groups. And then I think -- is that a good thing? For it to be brought to everyone's attention that genocide is an option and a possibility? One that, perhaps, they need to prepare for? One that, perhaps, their enemies are plotting? "God, well if that's what's going on, maybe we need to get them first!" I don't know. I'm not really making this argument. When push comes to shove I think it's part of a complete education. But seeing some of these things has actually fucked with me a little.
My rule of thumb here is "go to the primary sources".