Huckleberry Finn is one of the best books that illustrates the slavery era in United States of America. Its writer, Mark Twain successfully describes and takes the reader back to the darkness of that specific moment in history. The story, is perfect for children to learn it and read it at school. They will not only be reading about the adventures of a white boy and his friend, a runaway slave, but they will also learn about language, history, culture and privilege. Schools should have this book, and should teach it to the students, because knowledge is the only tool that civilizations have to learn from their past mistakes.
The point made by parts that are against of having the book being taught as schools is that the harshness used by Twain to tell the story, may be to excessive for a children, and that in the end it may cause the adverse effect on young children. This statement is dangerous, because it is ripping from children their intelligence and capacity of analyzing diverse moments in the history of the world. By banning a book, you are not keeping the kids safe from the real world, you are just impeding them to learn and create an independent thought about the history of their own country.
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, should be taught in school, in its original version, so that the children, with the guidance of the teachers, can learn about the past, a past that if is not through books and history, they would not be able to recollect. The book is a helpful learning tool that can be used as an opening point for discussion and learning.
Answer:
Daniel Defoe, was an English writer, trader, journalist, spy, and pamphleteer ( pamphleteer is a historical term for someone who created or distributes pamphlets, unbound booklets for wide circulation) he was/ is most famous for him novel Robinson Crusoe, which is only second to the bible in its number of translations
It should be A, as statue is spelled wrong in the phrase
<em>Banksys' plan to sell anything as "art" is pure genius, as Banksy is a firm believer in not placing a price on art. Therefore his act was out of art, not vandalism because he was trying to get his point across the board. Although he didn't make his point clear due to the art selling for even more after self-destructing. Banksy makes street art and putting a price on his art to destroy it was the most modernly artistic thing an artist could do nowadays. Everyone is pricing their art for millions, while Banksy is making his free for the people to appreciate.</em>
