3 ms·
"Books banned in the US" has two correct readings (regarding banned books by governments): 1) "Books that were banned, somewhere within the US" 2) "Books that
by doingmaths 3y ago
"Books banned in the US" has two correct readings (regarding banned books by governments):
1) "Books that were banned, somewhere within the US"
2) "Books that were banned, across the US"
In this case, at the behest of state and municipal governments, there are books that fit into reading one.
- xyzzyz 3y agoEvery single book is “banned” from “somewhere” in the US, so your 1) is true, but vacuously so.
- doingmaths 3y agoI don't think that's the case. Where is "Where the Sidewalk Ends" by Shel Silverstein banned in the US by a state, local, or federal government?
- xyzzyz 3y agoYou cannot bring it to a final calculus exam in many public universities, for example. If you want to complain that this is not what you meant by “banning” books, I fully agree with you, but that’s the whole issue here: activists decided to name some normal stuff like removing some books from some public libraries to be “banning”, despite the fact that this is not anywhere close to what normal people think of when they hear “book banning”.
- mcphage 3y ago> You cannot bring it to a final calculus exam in many public universities, for example. That is not what is happening here
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoThis is an impractical delineation. If any unit of government is treating any book as contraband, everyone be worried. The actual levels are books being: 1) removed from classroom curriculum; 2) removed from a school library; 3) confiscated from students at school; 4) removed from a public library; and 5) confiscated from adults anywhere. One seems unproblematic in general. Five is universally alarming. Two is largely what is being discussed, though it has a habit of sliding into Four. Three is a strange one; I haven't thought about it.
- happytoexplain 3y agoI have no comment on the specific topic of this thread, but: I'm confused by your characterization of #1 as "unproblematic in general". Removing books from curriculums for religious or political reasons is a pretty high-profile form of book banning, historically, isn't it?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Removing books from curriculums for religious or political reasons is a pretty high-profile form of book banning, historically, isn't it? The context is "books banned by governments." There are areligious, apolitical and even legitimate reasons for school boards to remove books from classroom curriculums. In general, the action is not problematic. That doesn't preclude problematic instances.
- doingmaths 3y agoYeah, I would argue #1 has been commonly involved in genocides in the past, where works of a particular culture are removed from curricula to prevent children from learning about their cultures.