The case for the Defense of to Kill a Mockingbird

To kill a mockingbird is about racial injustice and deaths that occurred to innocent people during the great depression. Learning about racial injustice and people’s lives being taken away, is not something that you can just learn about in school and have the same effect as a book would give to the audience. To kill a Mockingbird should not be banned for three reasons: 1. it informs and expands the reader’s knowledge of real life events that occurred between the blacks and whites 2. You’re able to learn about parts of what was reality in the south and lastly, 3. Learn more and emphasize about how racial injustice and the killing of innocence which was expressed greatly in the book.
The reader is enlightened on the issue such as social class that occurred in To Kill a Mockingbird. The blacks were the lowest class in the south and the whites, whether rich or poor they were always superior to the blacks who were treated inhuman. While reading the book, the reader can experience the kind of treatment blacks had. Also, because of the issue of class, the reader learns how that really had a huge impact on why blacks were treated the way they were.
Reality was, that innocent blacks were killed daily because whites accused them for things they did not do. If people were not allowed to read books such as To Kill a Mockingbird to help get the truth across who would have known innocent people were dying, and why they were dying? Being able to understand the truth makes a big difference in the sense that you’re not guessing and making your own assumptions on what occurred during the great depression.
Lastly, reading the book gives great details that a teacher could not have expressed about racial injustice and destruction of the innocent. Being able to go into great details really helps the reader understand better about things that occurred and the reader is able to accentuate certain events that happened during the great depression.
To Kill a Mockingbird should not be banned because the truth should be heard/ read. It is good to know about events that happened between blacks and whites that were hardly expressed. The reader is able to development growth of the human races. Banning the book is not really protecting the reader from anything in scene in the book or the languages that are expressed because somehow the reader can come across and experience racism and vague language.

Relationship between Don Quixote and Sancho Panza

First of all, the relationship between Don Quixote and Sancho Panza is that they are neighbors. Don Quixote is the knight and Sancho Panza is Don Quixote’s squire. Sancho Panza is poor and Quixote is slightly wealthier. Don Quixote is more of an illusionist and Panza is more of a realist. Both believing in two different things actually complement each other. They complement each other in the sense that one another need each other to make this an adventure. For example, Don Quixote’s illusions can bring the excitement in the adventure, such as thinking there are ‘giants’ right in front of you when they are actually ‘windmills’ can bring adventure and bring about a great imagination span. But then there is reality where there is actually something enormous that makes the adventure even better. Once you think about it, Sancho Panza is also an illusionist. He is an illusionist too because he also thinks in these adventures and actually thinks he is going to get an island and be the governor of it. But the one who is most delusional is Don Quixote because he actually thinks that an inn is a castle and windmills are giants and that he is a knight. I guess it is true when they say opposites attract in this case that is. Usually it would drive a realist crazy if one person was always an illusionist and never came in to reality not even once. I mean once you release something was not always how they seemed like in your imagination, than what? How do you continue from there if you are so used to illusions all the time?