14 ms·
I don't know any culture that banned books independent of their content that people didn't regret in the future.
A few months ago I was reading about schools b
I don't know any culture that banned books independent of their content that people didn't regret in the future.
A few months ago I was reading about schools banning the book "To Kill a Mockingbird" because it contains basically the "n" word. I'm not american, and and havent read that book. I watched the movie, through, and it seemed to me to be a very anti racism message.
I think instead of banning, schools should work provide context to kids and teens that read this books, of how society was when they where written, so people don't forget the past, but are able to make better decisions to the future.
Hysterical articles tend to use the word 'ban' when they really mean something like 'choosing not to air' or 'removing from the curriculum'.
In the U.S. "Banned Books Week" has existed since 1982 to commemorate books that someone tried to prevent the public, or students, from accessing in a particular place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_Books_Week https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_Books_Week
This has almost always been metaphorical, because only a tiny minority of these cases involved someone trying to make a book illegal for everyone to possess or sell. You could accuse the ALA and the ABFFE of exaggeration, maybe rightly, in choosing the word "ban" (it seems like they early-on chose to clarify it as "banned and challenged"), but it has a fairly long history.
Edit: There's an interesting subtlety here where Banned Books Week has generally tended to assume that teachers and librarians, in particular, were well-equipped to make good judgments for their communities, while anyone who tried to pressure them to change their decisions (in the direction of less access) was engaged in something questionable. So if teachers chose not to teach a book, that wasn't usually called "banning", whereas if someone tried to get a school board or school principal to make teachers stop teaching a book, that was "banning". Likewise for librarians' decisions to make books available (or not). The most common formulation seemed to be that these professionals are entitled to a kind of academic freedom that gives them autonomy to make these decisions without second-guessing by others, and in particular that a teacher's or librarian's (or bookseller's) decision to make something available to an audience should be respected, while someone else's decision to prevent or discourage these professionals from doing so should be questioned or criticized.
Maybe because Banned Books Week and similar observances are mainly organized and promoted by associations of teachers, librarians, and booksellers, they seem to cast blame and scrutiny mainly outside of their own professions. :-)
In the 1980s and 1990s most of the challenges highlighted by these organizations came from the right, against books that featured sexual minorities, people questioning or mocking their religious upbringing, or children in intense or extreme situations. At the time, many booksellers, librarians, and teachers thought that these books were, at least sometimes, appropriate for children because it was a good thing for them to think about these topics, and not likely to harm them. I don't know what to anticipate from these professions now as they're confronted with a very different set of challenges to intellectual and cultural freedom.
I've read a few older books with my kids that contained mildly questionable things, like a boy saying that girls can't do certain things, but I much prefer having that awkward conversation about how things used to be, over tossing it all out and pretending things were never any different.
So true. I enjoy discussing parenting articles with our 8 year old.
Yesterday it was one about "yelling less and praising less" [0]. We had a great discussion about the concepts. Then some fun trying out faint praise and faint yelling.
I think discussing with kids how things used to be, and why we try and do things differently now, is super powerful - that notion of historical change helps kids think at a higher level. Yes, things were not always rosy, and they aren't even now.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/03/hunt-gather-parent-timeless-advice-for-modern-parents/618172 https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/03/hunt-gath...
The problem is not all parents have that discussion with their kids. But those explanations can also be added to a story so that kids can understand them. I don't think it would've destroyed Seuss' legacy to change a handful of illustrations in some of his books.
As someone once said about the controversy surrounding Mark Twain's books: "so there weren't any n** back then?"
Meaning that reprinting his books and replacing the n word with the more neutral "slave" risks whitewashing the terrible suffering that black slaves endured.
The word you are referring to is nigger. It’s a bad word that can be very offensive. It’s horrible to use it in a derogatory way, but I feel that it’s ridiculous in at least halfway intelligent conversation no one white even dare ever write it, let alone say it.
As if white people have enforced themselves to just pretend the word has magic powers and it is the one who shall not be named.
That’s giving an enormous amount of power over people who want to control language in a inherently racist way (your skin color determines your ability to say a word).
I refuse to accept that this amount of power extends to typing the word as a discussion of it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
> your skin color determines your ability to say a word
To illustrate your point: https://youtu.be/VsJIUJjQ4OA https://youtu.be/VsJIUJjQ4OA
Jackie Chan, in Rush Hour - an innocent tourist, trying to be friendly, and following the rules of „When in Rome...“
Want to bet that scene would be entirely different today with Chan taking a sensitivity class instead of smashing up a black business and beating the crap out of black people who attacked him for his innocent but now “problematic” cultural mistake?
“His cultural appropriation of “that“ word was an act of violence itself, in the movie they were initially defending themselves from Chan. This must be canceled and never aired again. This 24 year old movie is clearly reflective of Chan’s personal beliefs and he must apologize with a sizable donation to “the cause” which conveniently are all ActBlue affiliated charities”
IT also gives an enormous power to the word itself, and those who want to use it to hurt people.
>I don't know any culture that banned books independent of their content that people didn't regret in the future.
A lot of the most enthusiastic book burners get caught up in the intermediary events and don't make it to the regret phase.
There are also places in the US where schools require that book to be read.
Why ban it when you could just censor it like Agatha Christie's magnum opus
Censoring is not a solution, it's just hiding the problem.
It's important to know that saying someone is a nigger is bad but it's also important to remember that at some point it was perfectly normal.
Also, Agatha Christie's "Then Little Niggers" was at some point called "Ten Little Indians" depicting Native Americans instead as if that were any better.
It's now translated to And Then They were None nearly everywhere I thunk and the children's song speaks of 'Ten little Soldier Boys" which by today's standards feels pretty sexist.
Wouldn't an introduction presenting the context or footnotes be better than censoring something that, at the time, was normal but upon which we can now reflect ?
Germany here, we banned Mein Kampf from being sold (used copyright law to do that). I once stood in a book shop (teenager, time to look at books but not enough money to buy them) and some skindheads wanted to buy it, it wasn't available. They went away.
Providing context is good, but frankly also really difficult and why not just provide newer childrens books that are more inclusive.
I'm a Turkish immigrant in Germany. I've read that book in a country it wasn't banned and I didn't turn out to be a neonazi (Yeah, Turkish "neonazis" who don't like Kurds and Syrians is a thing, unfortunately). It actually helped me fortify my arguments against them. That's why I also used to read many extreme right-wing sites, before they were all erased from the surface of the internet (and I refuse to go "deep").
Also, do you think that skinhead became a better person by not being able to buy that book? I don't think so.
Something for the parent comment: I also don't like the downvote hype here when you say anything pro-censorship. We get it already, let people discuss without making them #eee.
I replied to a comment that said that all book-bans are would be evaluated to be harmful/negative in retrospect. I don't think that this general statement is true and brought up the ban of Mein Kampf as a counterexample.
Who knows how harmful Mein Kampf publishing in Germany could have been from 1950-2000, but surely, there was no harm in having it banned.
You must understand that in post-war Germany the threat of fascism still lingered, with successor-parties to Adolph Hitler's NSDAP even managing to get parliament seats in the first parliamentary elections, etc.
I mean, we still have it with AfD, no? I think it's a given that some portion of the population will support fascist parties. IMHO, how much total support they achieve has little to do with the books people can read, but much to do with socioeconomic balances (global and national).
100% this
> I watched the movie, through, and it seemed to me to be a very anti racism message.
The book is required reading for most American students for basically that reason.
Language is such a weird reach for a progressive critique of To Kill a Mockingbird. It's a book about a false rape allegation!
To get that far, you'd have to read the book. You can tell it contains the printed word "nigger" without going to so much effort.
The r-word is potentially triggering. Stop.
This comment is so weird. It seems we're starting to treat adults like children. Don't say the "n" word, don't say the "r" word.
I think I understand where it comes from, but to me this safe bubble that is trying to be created, generates more problems than solves.
EDIT: Like someone commented below, it just gives those words more power when used in derogatory way.
Mild point of clarification here. In most recent times, To Kill a Mockingbird wasnt “banned” so much as removed from classroom curricula. Many places that removed it didn’t pull it from the library. Likewise, many public schools have bibles and other non-required reading in the library.
There are levels here. you’re legally obliged to have schooling up to age 16, the state provides it to most. The removal is about the state “mandating” the reading of a book. That and the maturity of the audience. How many public schools require the reading of the Bible, Koran, Marx, hitler, or Nietzsche?
You’re right, context is everything. In the current us political climate, that might be very hard to achieve right now.
Also, theres a lot of presumption, thinking you can rewrite a classic author just to fit your modern sensibilities.
how's that different from any other insult targeted at e.g nation?
murican, nazi, polack, ching chong?
There are two things I can't quite comprehend as someone who's not from the US.
* Why exactly the n-word is exclusive to black people. In my mind, either no one uses the word if it's offensive, or everyone can use it in a neutral way. I don't know of any other single word which is gatekept.
I mean, I never want to use it, so it's not about that. I guess it has to do with pride and being able to use a word which was once used to insult you. Maybe it gives power, don't know. But it can't be that clear, seeing as how the whole world seems to be confused about the reasoning and usage of this word.
Essentially, I don't really mind that I can't say it, but I just don't understand it.
* Cultural appropriation - I see people get cancelled for wearing, eating or celebrating things which aren't "from their culture". This is so shocking to me and sounds like something fashists would say. "Keep to your cultures and races", wtf? It also seems to be very one-sided. I understand it if we talk about sacred things, native american headwear as an example. But things like food, hair styles and certain clothing? Just seems to divide people more.
Isn't it a better sign if I as a white dude like other cultures food, clothing etc.? That should signal to these cultures that I appreciate, accept and like them, right?
Again, I'm white and from europe and I know that these are very sensitive and hot topics.
> Cultural appropriation
This. I'm as left wing as they come, and agree wholeheartedly with 99% of the current far-left discourse. But some of this "cultural appropriation" stuff is just nuts.
As far as I can tell, the only case where "cultural appropriation" is legitimately bad, is when people turn another culture's symbols of accomplishment into a fashion accessory. This is the case with the Native American headdress, where every feather represents a milestone or accomplishment, and Maori life tattoos, where every tattoo represents an event out of that person's own life. Turning that into your own fashion statement without any respect for the cultural meaning, is like wearing a Purple Heart you didn't earn, except that that purple heart doesn't have the same spiritual/cultural meaning.
But stuff like yoga, jazz/hip-hop, or even food? There it turns into an argument for cultural segregation, where minority cultures are effectively not allowed to become mainstream.
Exactly, I just noticed that the line of what's right and what's wrong is pretty fluid on Twitter. See some people get called out even just for eating food which isn't from their culture. Or a girl wearing an oriental dress to prom while being white. Just all things which seem to be Pro-[Insert Culture].
I'd rather have people eat food, wear clothes and hairstyles from other cultures instead of saying "I hate X-Cultures-food and/or clothing."
As you said, there are of course things which should be considered bad. You mentioned native american headdresses, which I think is a good example. But dreadlocks, cornrows? Come on....
Dreadlocks are quite interesting in this regard. If you were to consider them as having specific religious/cultural value, then they'd be specific not so much to black people, but either to Rastafarians, or to any adherent of an Abrahamic religion who has taken the Nazarite Vow, which is associated with the biblical figure Samson, and means you don't cut your hair, and abstain from alcohol and contact with corpses, and possibly a few other things.
But knotting into dreadlocks is also something that hair just does naturally if you don't comb it.
Same boat as you. I would call myself a socialist, or at least on the very left spectrum. Put an LGBTQI+ flag on my balcony to show support, try to talk to people about BLM issues in my country etc.
But cultural appropriation is really something I don't understand/can't get behind...
> But cultural appropriation is really something I don't understand/can't get behind...
I think that the cultural appropriation is a legitimate concern, and certainly problematic. I was just agreeing with you, that this legitimate concern is sometimes used to criticize natural and harmless things, like braiding your hair or eating certain types of cuisine.
Some of the people who defend this are so over the top that they seem "double agents". Like those who harass others that wear dreadlocks while being of the wrong race. Seriously, what the fuck. What kind of reaction do they expect for their actions, other than a visceral rejection of the whole concept of cultural appropriation?
I think cultural appropriation contains two elements. One is the concern about Western colonailism, which I can't address because it gets into critical race theory and that's a huge subject I don't completely follow.
You can peel off a far simpler concern that culutural heritage can be lost or devolve. France, for instance, goes to some lengths to preserve the French language. I went to some Scottish heritage group, and we all dressed up in kilts and ate haggis and such.
And it's a tough problem. Getting people on board with preserving cultural heritage is hard, especially because young people are precisely the ones you need to attract, and they tend to want to do things that are new and exciting.
> Why exactly the n-word is exclusive to black people.
It's...not.
> Isn't it a better sign if I as a white dude like other cultures food, clothing etc.? That should signal to these cultures that I appreciate, accept and like them, right?
While I personally think some of the specific complaints of cultural appropriation that are made are...well, let's just say not things that I personally think are as problematic as the people raising the complaints seem to, still, no, decontextualized mimicry of isolated elements of culture, or similar consumption of products of the culture, while participating in structures of oppression of the people whose culture is being mined for your entertainment isn't seen by any audience, within or without the exploited culture, as a sign of appreciating, accepting, or liking either the culture (which is an abstract aggregate) or, more critically, the concrete people in the culture.
> It's...not.
You sure about that? Is that really something debatable?
Thanks for trying to explain cultural appropriation, I don't know if my english is not good enough or if your explanation is really difficult to understand, but I didn't really get it, sorry :)
I don’t need to go point by point, but just know that you get it exactly. It’s exactly here what it seems there. It only “makes sense” to a specific subgroup of people with a specific intention.
Upvoted you to counter the downvotes since this actually does add to the discussion.
It's important to remember that the power of Mein Kampf lies in its status as a symbol, not its actual contents. Nobody actually reads Mein Kampf, nor have they ever (just like nobody actually reads the Bible unless they're actual preachers). It was (and still is) about the personality cult of a strong man and his message of power via blaming and oppression of minority groups, not the actual words themselves. People remember only simple things, and like simple reasoning and solutions, which is what made him popular in the first place.
So the banning of this book was an attack on the symbol (and only incidentally on the literature), and the banning of the symbol is of questionable value since it basically causes a Streisand effect. Banning a symbol only adds to its power. It might have been better to just ignore it, and instead focus on prosecuting the actual hate crimes themselves.
Lots of non-preachers read the Bible. Less people read mein Kampf but I know of some (some friends at school, some teachers at uni, some people on YouTube). I think Dr. Seuss was a bit of a symbol before, but now is definitely a symbol. I don't think your distinction here is very clean and your comment is elitist.
I've read Mein Kampf. No, I didn't turn into Nazi. Very interesting insight into a mind of a very misguided person.
> Lots of non-preachers read the Bible.
I was engaging in hyperbole to illustrate a point, not making an absolute statement.
Why do you think my comment is elitist?
It's not helpful hyperbole.
There were different reactions to WWII. The most helpful one is "Never again." That, in turn, leads to understanding WWII. That, in turn, leads to reading books like Mein Kampf.
A lot of people read Mein Kampf, and I believe more than use it as symbol. Understanding how one man was able to do what he did is key to making sure you're not influenced the same way.
I'm firmly of the belief America is starting to head the same (very general) way; the polarization is extreme. I'm curious whether this is internal or external.
> There were different reactions to WWII. The most helpful one is "Never again."
Yeah, that’s had no effect. See Rwanda, Burma, Xinjiang, Libya. Humanitarian intervention is a cloak for power, not something that happens when Great Power interests are at stake.
I don't quite think that's the lesson intended here.
The lesson taught in a lot of cultures hit hardest by Germany is understanding:
* Personality cults
* Hate
* Polarization
... and the path by which Hitler came to power. Understanding what Hitler said and why it persuaded people is central to not being persuaded yourself.
If you're young, think of it as a 1945 version of social media misinformation literacy. Part of the way you learn to recognize misinformation is by looking and decomposing misinformation.
It's done pretty well for limiting the rise of charismatic hate-mongers for a pretty long while. We're now starting to see the rise again as the majority of voters are starting to view WWII as irrelevant history long gone, as opposed to something that happened to Mom and Dad.
When The Cat in the Hat visited the house, he made it an unsafe space. This is more or less what Hitler did in Germany, albeit on a larger scale.
How is Dr. Seuss a symbol comparable to this? The stories themselves aren't even offensive (apart from one line in "If I ran the Zoo"). Are the illustrations alone enough to be a symbol?
> nobody actually reads the Bible unless they're actual preachers
I'm an ardent atheist, but I do actually read the bible from time to time. I enjoy to read the three gospels, and spot the differences between them. I also enjoy some songs in the psalms. Most of the rest is quite annoying, but I enjoyed Crumb's illustration of the first book of Genesis.
Orwell read Mein Kampf, he took it to Spain too. I've met people who have read the Bible, because it is the book of their religion. And I've met people who read the Bible and concluded that Christianity is hogwash because they read it.
Why would you not read it?
As you dive deeper into Nazi era history a lot is based around the question who knew what, how plausible the denial of that person or this organisation was. Seeing the publicly distributed book that may or may not contain specific details regarding plans for war or "The Jewish Question" for yourself is an excellent starting point, no? I agree with other commenters here that the read was not particularly good, but definitely insightful.
I actually do not agree that banning symbols is bad: Especially the Nazis really had a hand for designing good looking stuff, and that will bleed into pop culture if you don't stop it, unconsciously associating the Nazis with "cool". Just look at the Hydra organisation in the Captain America Movies or Japanese Anime, where using Nazi design language was obviously not taboo. Of course, as you said, banning a symbol does not eradicate it, but it does not have to to have positive effect.
>(just like nobody actually reads the Bible unless they're actual preachers)
I did read a bit from the Koran for a while, just I was interested about what's in it (and why so many people die because of this book) even I don't believe in any god at all.
> just like nobody actually reads the Bible unless they're actual preachers
The Bible is the single most influential work of literature in the history of human civilization. Comparing it to a "personality cult of a strong man" and Mein Kampf is perhaps the most uninformed comment I have ever read on this website.
What makes it uninformed?
I find the comparison apt: Both are iconic texts, both have international historical and present influence, and both are rarely actually read, despite people feeling confident about their contents.
The entire history of Western literature and culture has been shaped by the Bible. Legal systems, literature, ethics, on and on. For nearly two thousand years. Plenty of people that aren't preachers read and study it intensely. It was the impetus for developing the printing press and for literacy in general. Most modern European languages are based on initial translations of the Bible. Its influence is so pervasive that it's virtually impossible to imagine the modern world without it.
Compare that to Mein Kampf, which is a rambling book by a dictator that was only "relevant" in the world for about 25 years. Even then, people didn't really read it. It certainly had zero influence on Nazi legal codes or culture. It was more like the political books that come out today: written mostly to make some money and get one's ideas into the public sphere. Not as a holy document.
As I said, your comment is just deeply, deeply uninformed.
> Nobody actually reads Mein Kampf ... It was (and still is) about the personality cult of a strong man and his message of power via blaming and oppression of minority groups, not the actual words themselves.
That's precisely why people should read it. That personality cult developed because Hitler's narrative of oppresion by Jews resonated so strongly.
> just like nobody actually reads the Bible unless they're actual preachers
Nonsense. Christians not only read it, but study it as a guide to life. There was an informal thing at my work where they'd read and discuss a passage every week or so.
you know, my great aunt found the book in her attic (it was a gift for her wedding at the time and then it got stowed away quickly when the allies took control).
It is an almost unreadable piece of shit. But, I have no doubt that some people will still read it. I doubt that it would turn 'normal people' into fascists, but 'normal people after falling into a youtube-video rabbit hole with right wing content', I guess suddenly it might be appealing.
Banning the symbols is effective in Germany, the same goes for the swastika. By banning this symbol, the society makes clear that the symbol and what it represents is not desired and not mainstream.
Germany here, we banned Mein Kampf from being sold
Not as such. Rather, the owner of the copyright - the state of Bavaria, where Hitler had his formal residence - decided not to allow reprints. The copyright expired in 2016, and a new, commented edition has been published which Germans can freely buy for 60€ in bookstores of their choice, including Amazon.
However, distribution for reasons other than educational purposes is potentially 'Volksverhetzung' and hence can be illegal depending on circumstances. But again, this is not a blanket ban on sale (except in case of minors as it's considered 'harmful to young persons'). This had already been tested in court in 1979, when the Bundesgerichtshof ruled you could legally own and sell historical copies of the book.
It was not on sale until 2016 because Bavaria refused to publish it. When the copyright expired, they published a commented version. And as far as I know, that version is in free circulation. Using it to preach would be a potential crime so.
I seem to have put up a honeypot for nitpicking with my reply (fun fact: I mention that copyright law was employed for that in my original reply)..
I thought your comment was elitist for a few reasons. The most important is the way you portray "people" (the common man or woman is my inference of what you are talking about). You say "People remember only simple things, and like simple reasoning and solutions, which is what made him popular in the first place." I also object to your comment because I don't think this is a valid way to use hyperbole, if that is what you want to call it, since you aren't so much exaggerating as just saying things without a basis in fact. The Bible is probably the most read book in the world, or at least close. In vast swathes of the US, a large percentage or even most people read it consistently and even structure their lives around discussing it. Worldwide, there are over 2 billion Christians (focusing on just one religion) and a lot of these people are reading the bible, not just using it as posturing, signaling or ornamentation as you seem to imply. Mein Kampf has been widely read, and was a bestseller as recently as 2017 (in Germany!). While some no doubt use this as a symbol or ornament, it would be striking to me if a lot of people weren't reading at least part of it in all parts of the world, including the US. Still, despite being completely confused by your first paragraph, I mostly agree with your conclusion that coming after this book will just have the opposite effect and that it would be better to focus on actual crimes/other problems. I would want the poster from Germany to know that millions of Americans read the Bible and probably Mein Kampf, that this mostly goes fine, and that while some Americans might like a more German approach, a very large number probably don't want hardly any books banned or even made difficult to get and that this concept of free speech is very deeply held. If you're American, I think free speech is especially important right now because we all need to be talking with each other. The first paragraph in your comment also gave me the impression you might be out of touch with a very large portion of Americans, but I may be overstepping there.
> This is why they sometimes advocate for preferential treatment for minorities: equal opportunity is no good if one group of people do not have equal access to those opportunities because they were born poor as a result of historical injustices.
I hadn't thought of equality of opportunity in this way before, but it does appear to be an innate problem of that approach.
As a counter-argument, I think the preferential treatment approach is upside down. Hiring less qualified people to redress historical inequalities is a top-down approach, authoritarian and minimally impactful. The individuals you hire help them, but not the disadvantaged community at large. We should be taking a bottom-up approach where the disadvantaged are afforded more community funding to bring up their access to opportunities. It is a slower approach because it takes a few generations to see the results, but it leads to long-term change, not band-aid fixes which I feel preferential treatment delivers.
As a counter-country-argument, why not take both approaches? There's something about trying to fix a wrong with more wrongs that I feel will damn the entire system.
Fortunately we agree almost completely :)
Preferential treatment can mean many things. For example, you can provide programs for ethnic minorities to retrain as developers. It could mean scholarships that are only available to black people, or immigrants, or deaf people. It could mean training recruiters and interviewers so that they are less biased in their evaluation of candidates - in ways that they might not even realise.
That said, aiming to hire more people from disadvantaged groups can have positive effects beyond just the people that you hire. It gives young people a wider variety of role models. It can increase your team's performance because you have a wider variety of viewpoints. It can lead to wider cultural change in the company as a whole, making qualified people from disadvantaged backgrounds feel more comfortable applying for senior roles.
And it doesn't have to mean hiring worse people. Perhaps it just means focusing more on problem solving and creativity and less on education and 'culture fit' in your interview process, or advertising your jobs in places where they will be seen by a more diverse group of people.