[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 323 KB, 1236x2045, fahrenheit-451[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4410965 No.4410965[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Parents are always trying get books banned from school libraries and school curriculum.

Can someone explain to me what kind of fucking savage dark age these people live in that they would seriously still advocate the banning of knowledge they disagree with in the 21st century? What gets into the kind of people that would do this?

I would have liked to think the civilized world has grown past this Medieval mindset that you, "GOTTA BURN BOOKS THAT DON'T HONOR THE GOOD LORD!" It's horrifying to me that so many people still think this way.

>> No.4410984

>>I would have liked to think the civilized world has grown past this Medieval mindset that you, "GOTTA BURN BOOKS THAT DON'T HONOR THE GOOD LORD!" It's horrifying to me that so many people still think this way.

Well, the real threat is "GOTTA BURN THOSE BOOKS THAT DON'T REINFORCE MUH NOTIONS OF POLITCAL CORRECTNESS," which you might have figured out if you'd either read the book in your pic or paid attention to cultural politics over the past fifty years

>> No.4411042

>>4410984
I was drawing the parallel between that mindset they had in the Dark Ages and what is being done now, not saying they are one-to-one the same, you big fucking turd. I disagree with the suppression of any knowledge no matter what it is, although the advocating of book banning seems to happen more often in smaller, dominantly Christian communities, at least in America.

>> No.4411067

>>4411042
If you use an example, and then say "people still think this way", why the fuck would the reader assume anything else than you believe that is going on now? I have to agree with the anon above you, you fucked up.

>> No.4411077

>>4410965
As far as I've heard nobody is trying to burn books, they just don't want impressionable kids to be exposed to certain themes. I'm not saying I agree, I'm just pointing out that when you exaggerate it only makes you come off as ignorant and actually hurts your argument.

>> No.4411083

>>4411067
Alright, then I fucked up. But now we understand what I intended to express, though, right?

>> No.4411084

>>4411067
nah you're just retarded. I understood op's intentions

>> No.4411097

What kind of books are being banned or removed from curricula? I'm curious.

captcha: perticlers

>> No.4411100

>>4411097
http://www.ala.org/bbooks/top-100-bannedchallenged-books-2000-2009

>> No.4411102

>>4410965
It's the insecurity of the virtue of our values that makes us do this. To be overly confident crusader of your values is a manifestation of this insecurity.
A truly free society would be a society of gentle souls who trust in and live in accordance with their own values and feel no need to dominate others where it's not an absolute necessity, a society of nietzchean superhumans.

>> No.4411111
File: 18 KB, 366x380, 1334112084926.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4411111

>>4411100
>69. Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury

>> No.4411120

>>4411100

>Of Mice and Men
>Catcher in the Rye
>To Kill a Mockingbird

Haha, who the fuck is trying to ban these? Still?

>> No.4411136

>>4411100
>Bridge To Terabithia, by Katherine Paterson
>A Day No Pigs Would Die, by Robert Newton Peck
>Goosebumps (series), by R.L. Stine
Why, even?

>> No.4411143

>>4411100
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdsF39ePLU4

>> No.4411172

>>4411143
My grandmother burned copies of Harry Potter in her fireplace. She was the nicest woman you'd ever meet, but she sure was fucking crazy.

>> No.4411255

>>4410965
>Implying the kids would even read it anyway.

>> No.4411262

>>4411111
Sorry but
>Dem Quints

>> No.4411938

>>4411100
>Captain Underpants (series), by Dav Pilkey

f-f-fart jokes? u-underwear jokes? won't someone please think of the poor corrupted children!

>> No.4412125

>>4411067
I understood OP, you and the second poster are retards.
Though I'd also like to point out that there are quite a few christians who still advocate banning books for religious values, if you look up a list of banned books with reasons why you'll probably find them.

>> No.4413626

>>4411042
Can I have your name, and social security number.

Also anything relevant for withdrawing money in your name.Don't suppress knowledge.

>> No.4413662

OP most people are under the impression that media influences behaviors; they believe this because they don't consume a lot of media and any that they do play toward their bubbled worldviews.

Look at all the parents that seriously believe violent video games incite children to commit violent acts.

>> No.4413664

They really aren't approaching it from a WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW point of view.

It is just adults from different ideologies and fields of thought trying to shield their kids from compulsory reading and the interjection of ideas.

As an educator this is understandable. Even as a teenager, I read fight club and I thought I was some bad ass and tried to be Tyler Durden. It makes sense to some extent. I think that the idea of banning them is silly, but certainly prohibiting children from reading certain books at different ages is normal. Would you hand an 10 year old Mein Kamp?

In this context don't you think it is a little crazy that Muslims are not allowed to have the Koran in other languages? It all has to do with tradition and there is nothing wrong with tradition.

What is wrong is when the government wants to ban certain books from libraries, sales, etc.

>> No.4413668

OP is trailer trash living in the American South.

Nowhere else is book banning for religious reasons relevant.

Most of the other raging atheists I've seen also fall into that demographic. People like "the Amazing Atheist" are the most low brow hicks imaginable.

The problem with atheists is not their beliefs, it is their class backgrounds. They are uppity white trash polluting the world with their petty local concerns.

>> No.4413689
File: 483 KB, 245x215, 1388252658106.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4413689

>>4413668
I concur.
>tfw all the stupid hipsters in NY in your area are God hating atheists from the mid west how are blinded by their family hatred.

>tfw I met a nice Christian girl who isn't very dogmatic etc.
>tfw im going to marry her some day

>> No.4413724

>>4413668
That's fucking retarded. You just described 1 category of athiest, the type that would pull retarded faggotry regardless of their actual beliefs. (First and third wave feminism)

Athiests form a large part of the population, they're just silent most of the time. And most of the time they fall under the category of Christian for purposes of census taking etc etc - they just fill out their religion as they fill out their race and nationality, they don't view it as a choice but rather an aspect of their background.

Pompous upper middle class kids; those people are fucking awful. Not smart enough to be rich but still possessing the inconsiderateness of the rich. 0 pragmatism.

>> No.4413745

>>4411120
>Catcher in the Rye

I do not see why you would have to ban such an awful book anyway.

>> No.4413787
File: 2.82 MB, 320x418, whoselineouttahere.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4413787

>>4411100
>13. Captain Underpants

>> No.4413801

>>4413724
>Athiests

Why is this misspelling so obnoxiously common?

>> No.4413853

>>4413745
Maximum pleb

>>4413787
Captain Underpants was the number 1 most challenged/banned book of 2012(/13?)

>> No.4413874

>>4413801
Because nobody cares enough to sleep it correctly

>> No.4413896

>>4411100
That's actually a great to-read list!

>> No.4413899

>>4413664
>Would you hand an 10 year old Mein Kamp?

Nah I could just have him watch Bobby Fischer

>> No.4413910

>>4413664
Handing out selective knowledge is manipulating.

If my 10 years old son asked me to get him Mein Kamp, I would ask him why, ensure that he knows what's what, and give him the goddam book.

>> No.4414039

>>4413910
Well not every parent is you. In schools many children hardly see their parents. In urban areas children go to daycare and after school. Even have shitty babysitters. The problem is that most parents don't teach their kids in big cities. Both parents work, kids are tought mostly by school, etc. The cost of living has degraded. Modern Ghettos are warning shots of the future for all if things are not fixed. Ghettos do not shrink, they grow.

>> No.4414084

>>4414039
The majority of book bannings/challenges aren't done in urban areas though, they're done mostly by conservative groups that don't want kids to know that sex, violence, and racism real-world things. I really doubt any kids, let alone urban city kids, are in danger because they want to read a book like Mein Kampf.

>> No.4414104

>>4414084
>I really doubt any kids, let alone urban city kids, are in danger because they want to read a book like Mein Kampf.

Does that not ring the same gang and competitive necessity that fuels urban and suburban gangs. Do you want to enable them?

>> No.4414115

>>4414104
The things that could possibly fuel gangs are infinitely regressive. Yes there's a 1% chance that someone might take a book completely the wrong way, but that doesn't mean that it is okay to censor it from those that would actually find value in it.

>> No.4414132

>>4414115
From young children, still. Not generally.

>> No.4414147

>>4410965
Wow, way to strawman OP. You're really showing how open minded you are by unilaterally condemning a group of people without making a modest effort to understand them.

There are a lot of good reasons for censorship. Does the press have the right to broadcast the details of a politician's sex scandal all over the news? Or name the victims of indecent assault? Etc..

In regards to school libraries, I can understand why some parents might not want their kids reading certain things. Would you be okay if someone showed your twelve year old daughter Salo or Sotos? Why or why not?

While Salo is an extreme example, it is comparable to other works. To a lot of parents, some books are just too violent, graphic or disturbing for children. It's not about banning the books entirely as stopping them from being made easily available at their schools.

>> No.4414171

>>4414147
“The materials in question are not pornography. They include award-winning novels and acclaimed works of nonfiction. To advocate for the removal or restriction of these materials on the basis of partisan or doctrinal disapproval is censorship, pure and simple. Parents who believe a book is not appropriate for their own children are free to make that decision—for their children; they do not have the right nor the authority to make it for anyone else’s children." From the ALA

If you want to indoctrinate your child and censor what he or she reads go ahead, but you can't assert wide sweeping claims that no child should ever be shown a book. There's a pretty clear line between erotica and a novel.

>> No.4414173

>>4414147
Thank god someone else here is reasonable. Banning books is not that bad. It also reflected highly held values in the past. Regardless it does not mean the act itself is bad. Books are no longer ban for the same purpose.

>> No.4414172

>>4414147
To further clarify:

I know a lot of people are going to say,"look at the books being banned, those aren't graphic at all". I understand that.

The point I'm trying to make is that censorship, especially around children, isn't always wrong (or 'medieval'). The solution to this problem is to ask parents why they think these books are so bad and start a dialogue.

I also think that OP is tilting at windmills. While there are people that want to ban books, for the most part, no body cares. Catcher in the Rye, Bridge to Terabithia, Captain Underpants, Goosebumps, Farenheit 451, Of Mice and Men, To Kill a Mockingbird, etc. were all part of my sons' curriculum and school library.

>> No.4414195

>>4414173
Thanks~!

Censorship has always been a difficult issue for me. On one hand, I've always felt that certain materials are obscene, but I know that censorship is a dangerous path to go down.

I have teenaged sons, so I'm pretty use to attitudes like OP. It's funny to see the cute confused looks on their faces when you ask them a good question mid-rant. <3

>> No.4414240

>>4414147
>>4414172
>>4414195
The values one parent may place upon their child are not the same as what another parent may place upon their own. It's your own right to restrict your own child from reading certain material, but to have it banned from curricula and school libraries so its availability is reduced for everyone is to push your own beliefs on what is and isn't wholesome for a child's consumption on everyone else, including people that will likely disagree with you, and this is unjust, sweeping censorship.

If you don't want your child reading a certain book, then don't let them have the book. You have no right to take this book away from everyone. You are not the parent of every child, only your own. Leave it at that.

>> No.4414278

>>4414240
>Most people in the local area don't want it so what happens when it is not allowed to be made ban? It is a local problem that cannot be solved with sweeping regulation.

>> No.4414288

>>4414195
Exactly! The mid question literally shatters people. They can't answer many a question about what they so strongly advocate. This is a really common way of thinking

>> No.4414291

>>4414240
I agree that parents vary on what is and is not appropriate, but there are some materials that parents would (almost always) universally condemn, Is censorship suddenly okay if everyone is in on it?

> your own right to restrict your own child from reading certain material, but to have it banned from curricula and school libraries so its availability is reduced

And what's stopping your child from reading the book alone in the school library? That doesn't solve the problem of children reading things their parents don't approve of.

> is to push your own beliefs on what is and isn't wholesome

And isn't the school doing that by providing the book to my child? I never wanted my child to read a particular book, but now the school is making it readily available? Aren't they forcing themselves on me by hindering my ability to modify my child's education?

> You have no right to take this book away from everyone

If a child really wants to read a particular book, and their parents approve, it is not difficult for the parent to get it at a local library. It's not sweeping censorship if the book is available in other places, at the parent's discretion.

</devils advocate>

Some children can handle 'scary' material better than others. Some children can have nightmares for weeks if they see a picture of a dead person or animal, or read descriptions of violence. Why does the sensitive child have to be exposed to unfair levels of stress (in a place that's supposed to be a safe space for learning) just because one child is adamant about getting a specific book at the school library instead of the local one?

The only other solution would be having the school employees specifically prohibit a child from specific books. Of course, this might be difficult to implement, since it would require the parents knowing about which books to mention, and then the resources of the school staff.

Then of course there's the whole sticky issue about the level of authority parents should have over children, the school acting in loco parentis and blah blah blah.

The issue is a little more complex than 'censorship bad'.

>> No.4414292

>>4411042
>dominantly Christian communities,
You're wrong there. It seems things get banned far more often by soccermoms in general trying to protect muh kids.
They dont have to be christian and a lot of the times they ban things for random reasons (Little red riding hood because of alcohol, The adventure of Tom Sawyer because of the n word and swearing..etc).
Its just overprotective parents.

>> No.4414307

>>4414288
Well, I don't think it's a bad thing. I think it's good that kids get excited about challenging authority and social mores. It's just that sometimes in their rebellious zeal they forget that social norms exist because (sometimes) they work.

>>4414292
This.

(although what's with everyone being down on soccermoms???)

>> No.4414363

>>4414307
>(although what's with everyone being down on soccermoms???)
Because they're almost always fucking annoying, sanctimonious pieces of shit.

>> No.4414380

>>4414363
Maybe it's just demographics, but I never felt that way. Has anyone here actually met a 'soccermom' or are you guys getting mad at strawmen?

>> No.4414393

>>4414380
As a a educator for elementary students, absolutely. Helicopter moms are not exclusive to suburbs. This is urban,

There are 3 types of parents

>helicopter
>concerned
>absent

>> No.4414412

>>4411042
As a person with a history degree. I am telling you to refrain from using the term "The Dark Ages" you make yourself look like an idiot.

>> No.4414418

>>4414393
If you're really an educator (because who lies on the internet?), then I totally trust your judgement. It must be pretty overbearing, especially if helicopter parents continually undermine your decisions.

>>4414412
Yeah, that rubbed me weird too. It's like when people talk about the Church being this big nasty anti-intellectual Gestapo back in the medieval era.

>> No.4414420

>>4411042
>that mindset they had in the Dark Ages

Book burning wasn't a thing in the Dark Ages. Literacy was barely a thing in the Dark Ages, you tard. Christians (Catholics, should be the targets of this since Protestants, aside from fringe groups, haven't been historically guilty of this) get tarred and feathered for the Catholic Church burning heretical works (like the burning of Arian gospels and Gnostic gospels). But if you want to look on the worst examples of destruction of knowledge, then look no further than the burning of the library of Baghdad by the Mongols and the burning of works, the Nazi book burnings, the burning of the Great Library by Julius Caesar, and killing of scholars under the Qin Dynasty.

>> No.4414428

>>4414420
I don't know if they ever actually specifically burned books but the Protestants were hardly committed to a spirit of intellectual tolerance and understanding. They were pretty much just as intolerant as the Catholics ever were.

>> No.4414430

>>4414418
They do all the time. They are unwilling to listen to my professional advice all the time. Even regular people cannot get through to then. Helicoper parents are usually convinced that their kids are smart and they trained them well that it is me who is wrong.

Their delving in small amounts of media that talk about sciences and child development make them hubris .

>> No.4414446

I was forced to read about 8 of those banned books and while I don't think they should be "banned" some of them should not be part of the schools lesson plans.

The works of Maya Angeliuo and other PC authoritative egalitarian works pretty much turned me and a large group of my friends into white nationalists. It's a thing I've grown out of since the 9th grade but teaching kids they're everything that's wrong with the world purely because they're white can have a pretty odd effect on kids.

This has a lot to do with how the material is taught to.

>> No.4414453

religious people are particularly susceptible to that sort of bullshit, but you have to remember, there are ignorant people everywhere. i'm religious myself but would never dream of endorsing anything like that.

>>4414420

i'm not looking at history books here or anything, but i'm pretty sure the catholic church destroyed a fuckton of heretical bibles back then. the reasoning was sound though, in my opinion. almost everyone was incapable of reading properly, and if they did manage to stumble through one of the heretical translations, the wild interprettaions that would result could have easily started civil wars, mass violence. that's why the catholic church made it a heresy to own a bible back then. if you wanted to hear the good word you would go to church, although, it was all read in latin then so that wasn't much good to the laypeople anyway. but again, if they did hear, they would be susceptible to mis-interpretation etc etc that's why the church has clear cut rules for people to follow. if you leave shit to people to interpret you're gonna go up against some crazy shit.

that said, in this day and age, i don't think it is nexessary (although some news stories do make me wonder sometimes).

>> No.4414457

>>4414428
Depends on the denomination (some are liberal in their views, and others hardline conservative). How about you take the time to learn about them before you condemn an entire group, eh?

>> No.4414462

>>4414457
???

I'm talking mostly in a historic sense about Reformation-era Protestantism, not about modern Protestantism. And I think in that context it's a pretty fair generalization. I thought that was clear from the context of the post I was responding to and the use of past tense. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

>> No.4414472

>>4414453
You're correct about your assumptions. The Church was a something that kept all the kingdoms, empires, and petty kingdoms from murdering each other (and not just over theological differences, you needed a "just cause" to go to war). People think that the Church burned math and science books, but in reality they only burned theological heresies. The Church was the center of learning and science during the Middle Ages. I know I probably sound hyper-critical of the Catholic Church in my other post, and I am. I am a Christian, and probably more critical of the Church than most atheists. I am just as quick to point out flaws as I am to defend it from false accusations.

>> No.4414476

>>4414462
Fair enough. Yeah, the Puritans weren't exactly the most open of people.

>> No.4414485

>>4414430
Well, as a parent who is convinced that her sons are both geniuses, I understand their biases. You want to trust your kids and take their side, although it's not always the most moral thing to do. It's easier to think that the teacher is conspiring against your kid than accept that your kid was being a jerk.

Probably the most horrifying example I ever saw was where a bunch of kids got a bus driver *fired* because she objected to them smoking cigarettes and bullying other children. The driver pulled the bus over at the school and got the principal to call their parents. When I showed up, there was a mom and dad *screaming at the bus driver* for making their children late to a hockey game. The woman lost her job because a bunch of creeps couldn't handle their children. My son cried. Thankfully, teachers have better job security.

>>4414446
While I get what you're saying, I don't think that a work should be censored because of how people react to it. I also am worried that censoring authors that, as you say, "teach kids they're everything wrong in the world because they're white" would lead to a complete absence of POC and female writers.

>>4414453
How could they destroy a fuckton of heretical Bibles when there weren't that many Bibles before the printing press to begin with? I could be wrong, but that seems like a waste of what was the a very labour intensive product. I thought that most heretical gospels (Thomas, etc.) were decided by the Church early on not to be included and then faded into obscurity. No need to burn something that no one is reading.

> the wild interprettaions that would result could have easily started civil wars, mass violence. that's why the catholic church made it a heresy to own a bible back then.

What? I think I'll need a source on that one. Bibles were tremendously expensive because it took a long time to write them out.

Churches weren't these 1984-styled dictatorships. While the Church did a lot of questionable things, it was a shining light in Medieval Europe.

>>4414457
This. Christians get straw manned a lot.

>>4414476
Depends on what you mean by 'open'. They didn't tolerate religious dissenters but they were cool with booze.

>> No.4414498

>>4414485

>How could they destroy a fuckton of heretical Bibles when there weren't that many Bibles

the cathars come to mind, first and foremost. i would assume there would be others, although that is an assumption of mine at the moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

as for owning a bible being a heresy, i think you could clear that up for me or you with a quick google search

>> No.4414502

>>4414498

not sure if it says anything about the influx of catharistic bibles in that wiki...you might need something more substantial than wiki for that. if i can remember where i read it i'll post it.

>> No.4414503

>>4411120

Catcher in the Rye has a prostitute in it, To Kill a Mockingbird is about a rape trial. Of Mice and Men has the whole retard grabbing dress and girl thinking he is trying to rape her thing.

Some parents feel that children need to be protected from these things (though the Bible is certainly worse)

>> No.4414517

>>4414498
>quick google search

>The Church did condemn certain vernacular translations because of what it felt were bad translations and anti-Catholic notes (vernacular means native to a region or country).
>The Latin Vulgate was always available to anyone who wanted to read it without restriction.

I think that's pretty different from "the Church banned Bible ownership".

>that wiki article

I looked for mention of burning Bibles or religious texts specifically and couldn't find anything. Razing a city is different than specifically targeting books.

>>4414503
This. And doesn't Catcher have a part where Holden becomes paranoid about his teacher molesting him? And suicide? And references to Holden's roommate pressuring (read, raping) young girls into sex? And a dead kid? All those other books have equally disturbing material.

>> No.4414519

>>4414502

it mentions the destruction of cathar bibles in the fourth paragraph, briefly. this isn't where i read it originally, and you can call the source into question if you like, but i see no reason to.

https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/study/module/cathars/

>> No.4414523

>>4414519
Oh great! Thank you!

>> No.4414534

>>4414517
>The Latin Vulgate was always available to anyone who wanted to read it without restriction.

you're right, that is different.

>I looked for mention of burning Bibles or religious texts specifically and couldn't find anything.

>>4414519 third paragraph mentions it briefly.

>> No.4414617

>>4414485
I'm not saying get rid of books written by people of color or even books that address racism because it certainly does exist. What I am saying is we dont soley focus on works that just deal with those things.

For example we had to read a book "when the emperor was divine" by a female Japanese artist that was amazing. Along with classics like Frankenstein

>> No.4414646

>>4414617
What I really hate about "ethnic" writers is that you only ever read the ones who write like "ethnics" are 'supposed' to write. It always boils down to minorities and women whining about how oppressed they are by America/Europe/Canada/Australia/New Zealand.

Why not read something by Yukio Mishima or another Japanese rightist type? Why not read something by a Russian monarchist? Why not read something by an Eastern European Nazi collaborator?

It's only "white" (whatever "white" is supposed to be, as if Germans and French and English can just be lumped together as "white") people who are allowed to be human beings, and everyone else is only allowed to express themselves insofar as they make themselves avatars of political correctness.

>> No.4414663

>>4414646
> It always boils down to minorities and women whining about how oppressed they are by America/Europe/Canada/Australia/New Zealand.

Yes, because those aren't topics that children in high school couldn't relate to. It's not like girls between the ages of 15-25 are the most high risk demographic for abuse or anything, it's not like young black males are profiled, etc.

Those topics are written about by those writers because they are relevant. They are issues that students should be introduced to because they either affect them or their classmates. Focusing on these topics isn't stopping them from being human - emphasizing their experiences reinforces their humanity.

There isn't diversity for the sake of diversity, there's diversity because the books in the curriculum should accurately reflect the demographics of the class.

Although, yes, I'd love to see more writing in the curriculum by POC about a variety of topics

>>4414617
I know you're not saying that, but that's what could happen.