Interesting points made

[Jon]

I'm wondering if Maudie was a closet atheist/agnostic/freethinker. In sort of a guarded way she seemed to express displeasure with the "foot-washing Baptists" and perhaps religion in general.

[Will]

I never thought of that, Jon. You have me curious and I might have to re-read this.

[[deleted user]]

Jon wrote: "I'm wondering if Maudie was a closet atheist/agnostic/freethinker. In sort of a guarded way she seemed to express displeasure with the "foot-washing Baptists" and perhaps religion in general."

Yeah .... I don't know if that's a sign that she was an atheist. People, especially back then, looked at other people negatively, more often than not. My great-grandmother hated Catholics, yet she was a Christian, for example. I believe there was a saying "back in the day" that Methodists were Baptists who could read. Lots of very religious folk said pretty nasty things about other religious folk. I'd need more than the "foot-washing" line to think Harper Lee was making a statement about atheism.

[[deleted user]]

Nina wrote: "There are so many thought-provoking points brought up in this book, and I'm curious to see whether there were some I missed... Any thoughts?"

Nina .... What were some of the points that you keyed in on?

[[deleted user]]

I lent my copy to someone, so I can't come up with the exact quote ... and don't always trust Google for these things. But ....

I'm thinking of the quote after Atticus lost the case and Jem just learned that life isn't fair and sometimes good doesn't overcome all else. Miss Maudie says something like ... some people are born to do the dirty jobs the rest of us won't do ... your father is one of them. Again, those aren't the exact words, but that's the idea.

I sometimes wonder ....

Yes, it's very important to take a stand and fight for what's right. I've done it before. I'm sure all of us have at one point or another. And, of course, this is why so many of us are taken with Atticus. However, I wonder if there's a fine line between standing for what's right and, to a certain extent, enabling others not to take a stand on their own.

I've seen this play out in real life on several occasions. For example, when something horrid was happening at my place of work many years ago, I was very vocal about it. I took a stand ... over and over. I tried to change it. Everyone else remained silent. And, for the most part, nothing happened to rectify the situation. Then, one day when I was complaining about the situation, my mother said, "I wonder what would happen if, the next time, you remain silent." Well, I fought her on that. How could I remain silent?! I continued to take a stand. I couldn't and wouldn't say nothing in the face of this. I continued to react in the same way and got the same result. Everyone else stayed silent and nothing really and truly happened, in my eyes, to help the situation. After a time, this thing happened again and ... I stayed silent. Something interesting happened. Someone else spoke up and took a stand. What?! It happened again. Again, I stayed silent. That person spoke up and another joined her. This went on for a bit. Then ... things started to change. (Of course, one might wonder if they'd have taken a stand in the end if I hadn't in the beginning.... Therefore, it's hard to argue staying silent as a general rule.)

I'm not advocating that we stay silent in the face of things like racism and people being falsely accused of crimes, etc.... That's NOT in my nature. However, it is something to think about, in my opinion. What is that line? Can always being the one to fight the "good fight" allow others to hide and, basically, not show their courage and encourage more change, in the end?

[Will]

Most people need someone to rally behind, a leader. I think if you have a personality and the passion to lead, then that's the right thing to do. The silent tactic I don't think would work for social issues on a mass scale.

If I could ask, what exactly was this issue that you and your coworkers fought against?

[[deleted user]]

Will wrote: "Most people need someone to rally behind, a leader. I think if you have a personality and the passion to lead, then that's the right thing to do. The silent tactic I don't think would work for soci..."

Issues around harassment ... laws not being followed, write-ups being thrown away, investigations not being conducted, nothing being done, children not feeling valued or safe.

[Will]

How about job security? Perhaps your coworkers thought if they spoke up they might be risking their jobs?

I really don't know, but I do know changes happen slowly, so maybe you keeping silent didn't play as much of a role as simply time for others to catch on and their conscience to start telling them what the right thing to do was. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that if you hadn't spoken out in the first place, it would have taken even longer for that second person to stand up and speak out as well.

[Shelley]

Shannon, that's an interesting experience. I actually use Mockingbird to discuss with my college students the idea that evil is powerful, and when it rears its head, most people are either silent, or they wait for a "point person" to speak up.

Shelley
Rain, A Dust Bowl Story
http://dustbowlpoetry.wordpress.com

[[deleted user]]

Will wrote: "How about job security? Perhaps your coworkers thought if they spoke up they might be risking their jobs?

I really don't know, but I do know changes happen slowly, so maybe you keeping silent didn..."

We were all in the same boat regarding job security....

I do definitely think it would have taken even longer for people to start speaking up if I hadn't to begin with and hadn't for so strongly. Perhaps my staying silent when I did and their speaking up was coincidence. I don't know. It's just something to ponder ... I think.

Regarding the harassment itself, I didn't stay silent. I continued to see it, write it up, etc.... But, when the lack of administrator response become endemic, we started addressing it at that level, in meetings, etc.... I sometimes wonder if it was easy to tune me out. I was one person. "It's just Shannon saying we're in violation of the law again." Wah, wah, wah .... When I continued to address it, over and over, perhaps the others thought they didn't need to. I had it covered. When I took a breath and paused, staying silent and waiting to see what happened, someone else took up the call. If you see what I'm saying ....

Again, I'm definitely not advocating for silence in the presence of horrible things. That's definitely not my personality or what's on my heart. Yet, at the same time, I just wonder sometimes, and that quote makes me wonder, about where the line might be. Yes, definitely, we need leaders to take the lead. However, I wonder if those people need to be very wise and realize there might come a time when they should take a breath and pause and wait for others to stand on their own ... instead of always standing for them. Where is that line?

[Will]

It's an interesting thought and I think you might be onto to something, I'm just wondering how one could go about finding this out, or if it will forever be an unanswerable question and remain merely something to keep in mind.

[[deleted user]]

Will wrote: "I'm just wondering how one could go about finding this out, or if it will forever be an unanswerable question and remain merely something to keep in mind. "

I've no idea! ;) I totally agree.

[Alsjem]

...I've seen this play out in real life on several occasions. For example, when something horrid was happening at my place of work many years ago, I was very vocal about it. I took a stand ... over and over. I tried to change it. Everyone else remained silent. And, for the most part, nothing happened to rectify the situation. Then, one day when I was complaining about the situation, my mother said, "I wonder what would happen if, the next time, you remain silent.

I have been in this same situation and agree it is a fine line to lead and give others the chance to step up.

In to Kill a Mocking Bird however I think Atticus really was doing what nobody else would.

[Jon]

Shannon, Will, a pleasure to read your discourse!

You've made a fine subtle point, Will: it often takes time for one's position on an issue to develop. The first step, often, is consciousness-raising -- and it appears that you, Shannon, raised the consciousness of others in your workplace.

We are social creatures. When a person respected for their integrity, such as Atticus Finch, takes a stand, it can't help but influence others, though their response to the influence may not be as immediate and strong as we might like it to be (I've had to learn this).

I'll bet we can all think of instances where we started to evolve in our thinking on an issue because an admired leader raised our awareness of the issue.

[Jon]

Shannon wrote: "Jon wrote: "I'm wondering if Maudie was a closet atheist/agnostic/freethinker. In sort of a guarded way she seemed to express displeasure with the "foot-washing Baptists" and perhaps religion in ge..."

Sure, there's no doubt there was a lot of sectarian strife then and there. I'd have to get back into the text to see where Maudine was coming from—I thought I remembered her being chided fairly harshly by Baptists, but I'm not sure why ... I'm on a thin plank, to be sure, and I was just thinking maybe someone has already thought about this ...

[[deleted user]]

Jon wrote: "I thought I remembered her being chided fairly harshly by Baptists, but I'm not sure why ... I'm on a thin plank, to be sure, and I was just thinking maybe someone has already thought about this ... "

Yeah .... I lent my copy to someone so I can't look. For some reason, I think you're keying in on something said the day of the trial ... when people are coming to town and there's a description of the people going down the street. However, I might be very off. Wish I had my copy.

[Jon]

Okay, I've done my homework now (funny, I never wanted to do my homework when I HAD to do my homework).

Maudie was a Baptist. I missed that reference. So when she excoriated the "foot-washing Baptists" for believing "anything that's pleasure is a sin" and telling her that she and her beloved flowers were going to hell, I thought maybe she was a nonbeliever. I see now, as you suggested, that she was a believer complaining about a more puritanical brand of religionist.

So that's it.

Damned flowers.

[Jon]

Btw, do you all know that Dill was Truman Capote? Yep, Harper Lee was childhood friends with the little misfit boy Truman Capote, and that's Dill.

I love facts like that!

[[deleted user]]

Jon wrote: "Damned flowers."

Oh, man...! You're right. The flowers! You're absolutely right. Ahaha! Darned flowers!

[Vanessa]

This is my favorite book of all time. I once had a dog named Scout and I have a son whose middle name is Atticus. I have read this book a dozen times and always find something wonderful and important in each reading.
If you aren't aware of the nuances of the south and the bible belt and the various brands of religions, you may miss some of the more subtle points. For example, it was very common to be passed around among relatives when the parents flaked out and went north for work. (Truman Capote (Dell) actually wrote a beautiful short story about Christmas as a boy with his distant relatives.) Of course, Boo Radley and Scout, Jem, and Dell's fascination and prejudices with him are a microcosm of a man on trial for his life. Looking at something harsh terrible and cruel through the eyes of children is brilliant. Atticus shooting the rabid dog, revealing that he more than meets the eye is so telling about how great of a figure Atticus is. Not just how children view their parents through very specific eyes, but also the restraint that Atticus shows in life. Of course, there is so much more... Atticus' brilliance during the trial, but I won't go on. I recommend reading and rereading again and again.