It just puts things in perspective; I'm not saying it's not something to be worried about, but you can both worry about something while also keeping the historical perspective in mind.
There is also a lot of hysteria going on; that Maus "controversy" which your CVS article cites (among others) is a good example. The concerns were over some nudity and profanity. You may think that's prudish or a bit childish, but fine, it's not really something especially unusual to be concerned about, or a very new "taboo" to be concerned about. It certainly wasn't an attempt at removing any education about the Holocaust from the curriculum, yet that it often how it was framed. With the author of Maus going so far to openly question whether these people might have neo-Nazi sympathies in an interview.
That there are some instances of unfounded hysteria doesn't mean there are also things that are not; but again, it's good to keep some perspective.
The Maus case provides an interesting contrast: while I agree the reaction was somewhat disproportionate, a dissenting view was still permissible within the "social Overton window". You might get looked at askance for saying "I don't think Maus is appropriate for schools", but you'd be unlikely to be ostracized or fired. The same can't be said for some other expressions of heterodoxy/heresy, past or present.
> The concerns were over some nudity and profanity
No, they were not. The only nudity in it were mouses. It was not erotic. It did not included ressembleable human parts. This was not about prudity, it was about excuse. It was not childish, it was cynical.
> It certainly wasn't an attempt at removing any education about the Holocaust from the curriculum, yet that it often how it was framed.
The thing about Maus is that it makes you feel bad. It is made from point of view of victim. It is not even idealizing the victims, it does not require the victim to be that great perfect person so that you feel bad about him. Maus also does not end with happy end where they lived happily ever after. It shows long term damage.
> With the author of Maus going so far to openly question whether these people might have neo-Nazi sympathies in an interview.
Did you considered looking at who those people specifically are and what other things they said or done? Or did you just rejected what he said, because it would feel bad for you if he actually was right?
I just read the minutes of the meeting[1]; it didn't support what was often said about the decision at all. Your comment is a good example of that I talked about in [2] with your rather odd "it just makes you feel bad" accusation.
There is also a lot of hysteria going on; that Maus "controversy" which your CVS article cites (among others) is a good example. The concerns were over some nudity and profanity. You may think that's prudish or a bit childish, but fine, it's not really something especially unusual to be concerned about, or a very new "taboo" to be concerned about. It certainly wasn't an attempt at removing any education about the Holocaust from the curriculum, yet that it often how it was framed. With the author of Maus going so far to openly question whether these people might have neo-Nazi sympathies in an interview.
That there are some instances of unfounded hysteria doesn't mean there are also things that are not; but again, it's good to keep some perspective.