I suppose my point is that no one - not even you - has a monopoly on language and the way in which “banned” is used in relation to literary censorship.
Your definition of banned is much more stringent than the one employed by the American Library Association, which states that a Banned Book - insofar as Banned Book Week is concerned, at any rate - is one that has been Challenged, and not even successfully challenged.
Usually the answer to that question would be something along the lines of, “I wouldn’t read THAT FILTH!” You know, because then they’d have to work the ole brain muscle, and that can be so tiring.
“I’m going to speak from the heart: Please do the courageous thing and remove this book from the curriculum,” said Sharon Blair, who lodged a complaint against the title on behalf of her grandson, a Rocky Mountain High School sophomore.
“I do not want our children exposed to explicit filthy, racist things,” she told the board of trustees during the hearing."
Why, what’s this about filthy racist things? What’s in this book anyway?
Semi-autobiographical in nature, it tells the story of Junior, a Native American boy, who attends a mostly white school where he is confronted by racism and bullying, on top of typical teenage challenges like depression and awakening sexuality.
Ah, the old “talking about racism is racist [against white people]” shibboleth.
Or someone took some of the racist things said in the book, presented them without the context which is clearly condemning racism, and raised a big fuss about it. Same thing as has happened many times with Huck Finn.
