Banning books is a really bad idea

There are two separate issues here:

(1) What should we actively teach to young children, expose them to, and how? vs what we teach to older children -- say, 16-year-olds.
(2) What books should be in school (or other) libraries.

We should not teach children that there are witches, or that one race, or tribe, or nation, is inherently, biologically, inferior or superior to another. (In the US, I doubt this happens anywhere, anyway.)

On the other hand, there are classic children's books which treat witches as real, or which have expressions which imply the existence of superior/inferior races/tribes/nations. I believe that when children are old enough to read these books, it's perfectly fine to have them in school libraries, if they have other merits. By then, children are old enough to realizet that times have changed, and that what an author wrote a hundred years ago, they might not write today.

The reality is, the human species can be, and frequently is, very nasty to each other. Although we should teach the reality of human horribie-ness, we should wait until children are older before doing.

Example: the mass murders and rapes at My Lai, carried out by American troops, is a part of American history. Every American should know about them. But ... I wouldn't want to describe, in detail, what happened to a six year old.

And ... when describing it in detail to a 16 year old, I would want to put it in context. In particular, the fact the United States has these shameful episodes in its history, doesn't negate the fact that it has been the fortress of liberal democracy in the world, and has been improving. I would want that 16 year old to become an American patriot, but one who has no illusions about his country.
 
fortress implies resistance to assault . Who has been attacking Democracy and stuff for US to merit the title ? And like Vietnam is passe ...
 
There are two separate issues here:

(1) What should we actively teach to young children, expose them to, and how? vs what we teach to older children -- say, 16-year-olds.
(2) What books should be in school (or other) libraries.

We should not teach children that there are witches, or that one race, or tribe, or nation, is inherently, biologically, inferior or superior to another. (In the US, I doubt this happens anywhere, anyway.)

On the other hand, there are classic children's books which treat witches as real, or which have expressions which imply the existence of superior/inferior races/tribes/nations. I believe that when children are old enough to read these books, it's perfectly fine to have them in school libraries, if they have other merits. By then, children are old enough to realizet that times have changed, and that what an author wrote a hundred years ago, they might not write today.

The reality is, the human species can be, and frequently is, very nasty to each other. Although we should teach the reality of human horribie-ness, we should wait until children are older before doing.

Example: the mass murders and rapes at My Lai, carried out by American troops, is a part of American history. Every American should know about them. But ... I wouldn't want to describe, in detail, what happened to a six year old.

And ... when describing it in detail to a 16 year old, I would want to put it in context. In particular, the fact the United States has these shameful episodes in its history, doesn't negate the fact that it has been the fortress of liberal democracy in the world, and has been improving. I would want that 16 year old to become an American patriot, but one who has no illusions about his country.
Well, this thread takes me down memory lane.

There's a woman in Medicine Hat in my province who insists that:

A. I'm a witch (me, not her; she's apparently the most perfect human to ever exist). She insists that witches are real.

B. The Salem witch trials ended in 1963 (she says that's not a typo and told me to 'educate myself' about it).

C. The world is only 2000 years old. I told her even the Young Earth Creationists (YECs) claim it's 6000 years old, including a previous MLA for my riding who was also a pastor.

This woman was born and raised in Vermont. I don't know what the education system is like there, but something went terribly wrong.
 
I get a kick out of the current trend to ban "woke" books and focus on the classics. Do these people even know the cross-dressing, war dodging back stories of some of these characters?
 
I get a kick out of the current trend to ban "woke" books and focus on the classics. Do these people even know the cross-dressing, war dodging back stories of some of these characters?

Some people own books just to display them, to give visitors an impression that they've read the "classics." Some interior designers actually suggest this, and that their clients purchase a set with a "nice" cover. Or get some books with covers in a particular color to enhance the color palette of the room. They never suggest displaying books that people - most people, at least - would actually read.

:huh:

That said, I've had my own copies of Shakespeare and various Roman and Greek histories on the bookshelf that's the first one people see when entering the apartment. But they're not display copies, and not in pristine condition. That's just the shelf where they fit (some Penguin editions are an odd height that won't fit in some other bookshelves).

I won't claim to have read all of them, but I have read some of them. I've read Tacitus and Suetonius more than once, and well before I took classical history in college. One of my reading "to do" list items is to finish reading them.

In the place where I live now, that space is taken up with DVD shelves, which is how I ended up explaining to the pizza guy that Queen Elizabeth I was not Queen Elizabeth II's mother (I have a lot of Tudor-themed movies and TV shows in my collection and he commented on them).

Others... yeah, Dickens. There's some stuff in Oliver Twist that didn't make it into the musical. I have no idea why Gulliver's Travels is considered a children's story. It isn't.

I've read Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn (our Grade 5-6 class put on a production of Tom Sawyer and I wanted to read the story the play was based on).

Some time ago I went through the kids' books in my collection to see which ones I didn't want anymore and could try to sell at the used bookstore.

I sold my Hardy Boys books. I threw my Bobbsey Twins books in the garbage. There's actually a lot of racist elements in those - particularly in earlier editions - that I never picked up on as a kid, and nobody in my family noticed either (my grandfather was apt to read anything, so it's not impossible that he might have read a couple at one point; he regularly raided my bookshelves for reading material). Ditto Donna Parker. Granted, some storylines in that series were interesting. But there were others that made me wonder wtf I was thinking when reading those books. I wasn't going to pass those along to any other impressionable kid or give a parent the idea that they were good children's literature.
 
And ... when describing it in detail to a 16 year old, I would want to put it in context. In particular, the fact the United States has these shameful episodes in its history, doesn't negate the fact that it has been the fortress of liberal democracy in the world, and has been improving. I would want that 16 year old to become an American patriot, but one who has no illusions about his country.

Someone who held no illusions about this country would be actively working towards its complete dissolution.
 
Schools saying "we will no longer spend tax dollars on providing this material to kids" is NOT a ban. You can still legally buy and own these books in every square millimeter of the United States. No book has ever been banned in the United States... but many are being discontinued (Dr. Seuss) or rewritten to conform to modern left-wing identity-politics nonsense (Roald Dahl).
 
Top Bottom