Can we agree that only NAZIs ban books?

[selmaborntidefan]

The problem I have with the current right-wing agenda is the über-emphasis on American Exceptionalism. To the extent that they want to white-wash where the US was not so great not so good, white-wash events in the past that continue to resonate today. (Civil Rights struggle, US interventions in Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, especially So. America with Operation Condor, the Civil War, etc).

I'm fine with everything you say here.

My issue comes when the very same people who say that history is designed to offend you don't want to hear about things that put THEIR OWN brethren in a lesser light. When I lived in New England, sure enough, something about the damn Civil War was going to come up every week. In THEIR version of this tale, the freedom-loving north frees the slaves from the bondage in the South (but they always leave out the part about "we don't want those blacks up here, so let's give them 40 acres and a mule in South Carolina!"). They don't want to talk about their own slaves (aka child labor) well into the 1930s (and "it's everywhere" is no excuse if they're the ones wearing white hats). They don't want to talk about the fact Boston was having a busing crisis in 1975 long after most of the rest of the South had moved on. I pointed out that long after the Civil War the north had slave labor it just wasn't blacks and wanna know the response? "yeah, but they didn't go to war for it!" (IOW - intentionally missed the hypocrisy).

And the.....people.....on my Facebook who want to boast they celebrate Indigenous People's Day every second Monday in October NEVER want to talk about the fact those supposed indigenous people were killing each other long before Columbus never even set foot in the USA. Seriously - if two tribes are at war, WHICH ONE IS THE GOOD ONE I SHOULD CELEBRATE???

THAT'S the problem I have with it.

I'm fine with history offends - but you just try to point out MLK was a plagiarist, a serial adulterer, and oh yeah, maybe his holiday should be revoked because of some anti-LGBTQ bigotry, and the very same people who tell me history is designed to offend want to give excuses for him. And for the record, I oppose the concept of PRESENTISM, where we read our experience back into history - but rest assured if someone can do it for the 1860s, I can most certainly do it for the 1960s. Or you get some sort of "but that doesn't change anything he accomplished!"

True....same thing with George Washington, who is supposed to be removed because he was a slaveowner.

We live in a great country, but it has not always done good/great things. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

Agree with all of this.

And history hits everyone hard if it's true.

Nobody is completely an angel.
Nobody is completely a devil, either.

 

[alabama mike1]

To answer the question, no, I do think we should ban books. I do believe as a former educator that parents should have the right to say whether or not their child, not someone’s else’s can or cannot read a book. Teachers, should use some common sense and make reading a book age appropriate.

 

[JDCrimson]

I can probably count up the times I visited a library over the course of my elementary through advanced education on both hands. It was probably more than that but after elementary school I can't remember very many trips to the library.

I don't want to diminish it's importance to the idea of free speech but it is the horse and hitching post in the era of cars now.

Whether it's banning books, gender bathrooms, cross gender sports, etc. Its just trying square dance on the head of pin, imo. We have crippled the social dialogue and fabric of our government over some very micro issues.

Rather than give these micro-select groups of people the resources they need to quietly live their lives we are choosing to torment them publicly to fight for the mass of voters who are generally very empathetic and destroy their vein of empathy for anyone or anything such that the humanity of our nation for each other is destroyed.

And you know what, having spent some time in Russia a long time ago, this is precisely how Russians feel about each other and their country. They live with a drudgery that we cannot yet comprehend but we are on a path to finding out. And they want to spew this toxicity across the globe. And the Republicans signed up for it to get their money. Because they could not continue to win elections without either of these ingredients.

 

[Its On A Slab]

Nobody is completely an angel.
Nobody is completely a devil, either.

Well, as my Dad(WW2 vet) used to say, "You know, at least Hitler and Mussolin made the trains run on time."

But I get your drift.

 

[Padreruf]

"Last Temptation of Christ"?????

(Amusingly enough, I took Psychology the spring after that movie came out, and we discussed that very phenomenon).

No, it was what would be now "R" at best...cannot remember the exact title...it was in 1969!

 

[Its On A Slab]

I agree, but there is an age-appropriate point for the introduction of aspects of the story.
For first graders, it is probably okay to introduce the Pilgrims and Thanksgiving in its sanitized form, as examples of peaceful coexistence and cooperation.
I would not teach first graders this about the Mohegan allies of the English in King Phillip's War:

Mohegans captured a Narragansett enemy.


William Hubbard A Narrative of the Indian Wars in New England from the First Planting Thereof in the Year 1607 to the Year 1677 (Norwich: John Trumbull, 1802), 172-3.

That aspect can probably wait until high school.

Yeah, I doubt elementary school kids would cater to Comanche raids during Thanksgiving. I've done a little reading on the Comanches. It is posited that the main reason the Spanish halted their conquest was that the Comanches kicked their behinds. They were ruthless and formidable.

 

[Its On A Slab]

Also, as an answer to the thread title, no. Communists ban books, too.

People that lean toward authority over freedom and liberty. Various levels of authoritarians: Nazis, neo-Nazis, European dictators of the Orban/Putin ilk, Islamic fundamentaiists, right-wing US fundamentalists, social conservatives, (I don't mean to lump them all together, but then again, they do wish to prevent different ideas from being spread).

 

[Jon]

Yeah, I doubt elementary school kids would cater to Comanche raids during Thanksgiving. I've done a little reading on the Comanches. It is posited that the main reason the Spanish halted their conquest was that the Comanches kicked their behinds. They were ruthless and formidable.

I don't know about that

 

[4Q Basket Case]

To answer the opening question: No, it's not just Nazis that ban books. As an earlier poster phrased it, authoritarians do, and that encompasses a lot way beyond Nazis.

Also, we have to define "banned" books. Age restrictions for minors are entirely appropriate. I wouldn't want my 12-year-old reading Lady Chatterly's Lover. 16? Maybe. 18? Fine. My 10 year old reading Catcher in the Rye? No. My 14 year old? Sure.

Does "banned" mean prohibited from the public library, even for adults? Within a very broad range, I'm against that. While I don't want porn or animal snuff videos in the public library, even for adults, you have to go pretty far beyond the pale for me to advocate something not being in the public library at all.

Even in the case of porn or animal snuff videos, it's not the content itself so much as it is the public support of it. I just don't think taxpayers' money should be used to pay for that stuff.

Does "banned" mean not legally available for consumption or publication at all, under any circumstances, for any audience, where the individuals in the audience must voluntarily choose to spend their own money on it? I can think of only one thing for which I would support an outright ban -- filming an illegal act in which a human being is intentionally physically harmed.

One last thing: The constant comparison to Nazis is getting tiresome. Occasionally, it's warranted. Like the college groups advocating killing of Jews -- which the Nazis also unquestionably did and on which they unquestionably followed through. But far too often, it's used in an attempt to squelch the other side of an argument over much less weighty topics.

For example, the Nazis did burn books and ban the possession of material they didn't agree with -- under pain of imprisonment or worse. I don't know of any credible person anywhere in the US who is advocating that. Does that make people wanting to keep certain books out of elementary school libraries Nazis? Obviously not.

Related, playing the Hitler card is getting about as tiresome as playing the race card. An argument isn't going your way? Play either of those in an attempt to shut down the other side and walk away with your own superiority having been proclaimed and a self-congratulatory spring in your step. IOW, abandon facts and logic, and go for the ultimate personal insult.

As is in a well-respected poster's signature line -- We may not agree, but I'm pretty sure you're not Adolf Hitler.

 

[Bodhisattva]

...

One last thing: The constant comparison to Nazis is getting tiresome. Occasionally, it's warranted (like the college groups advocating killing of Jews -- which the Nazis also unquestionably did). But far too often, it's used in an attempt to squelch the other side of an argument over much less weighty topics.

For example, the Nazis did burn books and ban the possessions of material they didn't agree with -- under pain of imprisonment or worse. I don't know of any credible person anywhere who is advocating that.

Related, playing the Hitler card is getting about as tiresome as playing the race card. An argument isn't going your way? Play either of those in an attempt to shut down the other side and walk away with a self-congratulatory spring in your step. IOW, abandon facts and logic, and go for the ultimate personal insult.

As is in a well-respected poster's signature line -- We may not agree, but I'm pretty sure you're not Adolf Hitler.

Request for clarification. Can I pass on being a Nazi but still be aloof? 'Cause if so, that's where I'd like to be.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Request for clarification. Can I pass on being a Nazi but still be aloof? 'Cause if so, that's where I'd like to be.

The British have a reputation for being aloof. But only a very small minority of Brits are Nazis, and even they largely keep their politics underground.

So sure.

 

[crimsonaudio]

People that lean toward authority over freedom and liberty. Various levels of authoritarians: Nazis, neo-Nazis, European dictators of the Orban/Putin ilk, Islamic fundamentaiists, right-wing US fundamentalists, social conservatives, (I don't mean to lump them all together, but then again, they do wish to prevent different ideas from being spread).

Agreed, but there are book-banning authoritarians across the political spectrum:

'To Kill a Mockingbird,' Other Books Banned in Schools Over Racism Concerns

Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" and Mildred D. Taylor's 'Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry" among other books banned.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Its On A Slab]

Agreed, but there are book-banning authoritarians across the political spectrum:

'To Kill a Mockingbird,' Other Books Banned in Schools Over Racism Concerns

Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" and Mildred D. Taylor's 'Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry" among other books banned.

www.newsweek.com

Yep. And Mark Twain's inclusion of the "N"-word in Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn. That word was part of the acceptable lexicon back then.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Agreed, but there are book-banning authoritarians across the political spectrum:

'To Kill a Mockingbird,' Other Books Banned in Schools Over Racism Concerns

Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" and Mildred D. Taylor's 'Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry" among other books banned.

www.newsweek.com

Huckelberry Finn and Tom Sawyer are among the books whose presence in libraries is most often challanged. Usually, the libraries in question are in public schools, but sometimes in general-circulation public libraries.

While I disagree with the removal, think the advocates are misguided, and think they're acting in an authoritarian manner, I don't think they're Nazis.

(It's On A Slab beat me to it.)

 

[Its On A Slab]

Regarding the Hitler thing:

Godwin's Law never stipulated that you couldn't label someone or something as Nazi if it is self-evident.

If it looks like a Nazi, walks like a Nazi and talks like a Nazi, then it just may be a Nazi.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Agreed, but there are book-banning authoritarians across the political spectrum:

'To Kill a Mockingbird,' Other Books Banned in Schools Over Racism Concerns

Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" and Mildred D. Taylor's 'Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry" among other books banned.

www.newsweek.com

If anyone thinks To Kill A Mockingbird is racist never read it and if they did they certainly didn't understand it.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Regarding the Hitler thing:

Godwin's Law never stipulated that you couldn't label someone or something as Nazi if it is self-evident.

If it looks like a Nazi, walks like a Nazi and talks like a Nazi, then it just may be a Nazi.

Does that include the neo-nazis in the Azov Battalion? A lot of people go blind and deaf when this admittedly sensitive topic comes up.

 

[Its On A Slab]

Does that include the neo-nazis in the Azov Battalion? A lot of people go blind and deaf when this admittedly sensitive topic comes up.

Probably so. I would posit that the old adage applies: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". At this point, Ukraine's existence is at risk, and they probably need all the help they can get. But Putin's reasons for invading(to fight Nazis) is laughable.

There are far-right folks in OUR military.

 

[cbi1972]

Also, we have to define "banned" books. Age restrictions for minors are entirely appropriate. I wouldn't want my 12-year-old reading Lady Chatterly's Lover. 16? Maybe. 18? Fine. My 10 year old reading Catcher in the Rye? No. My 14 year old? Sure.

For the most part, age-appropriate reading solves itself through the child's natural interest. A 12 year old picking up Lady Chatterley's Lover is going to be bored silly. If they read a book rather than watch it on TV, that is 100% a win.

 

[Jon]

For the most part, age-appropriate reading solves itself through the child's natural interest. A 12 year old picking up Lady Chatterley's Lover is going to be bored silly. If they read a book rather than watch it on TV, that is 100% a win.

They also won't even notice so much. I started reading Steven King books when I was 12 or 13. I recall begging my Mom to let me take Cujo out at the library. She being the amazing smart lady she is let me, said "it's not a good one and you won't like it but go ahead". So much in there I didn't understand or even notice until I did a re-read in college and asked her, why did you let me read this? From her perspective all reading is good if a 12 year old wants to read a novel they should. I agree and have done the same for my kids who've turned into very smart very well read adults. We've never policed what they read or watch and never had any internet filters for them. What we have is fully open dialog and discussions.