Jump to content

Is it productive to ban literature?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

36 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

I'm still trying to figure out what leftists have to do with this?  I think everyone here is against banning of books. 

Agreed. Who wants to ban something depends on what it is about. The NAZI's weren't lefties even if Socialist was in the title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Well, I've posted seveal links regarding this, so which one are you talking about?

Several links? I see two, neither of which refutes the fact The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn book is still available in the library of the same school that you claim banned it.

So you figure the reason librarians tried to ban this back in 1885 is because they were a bunch of lefties too? I kind of suspect it was to prevent a disgraceful aspect of American society from being preserved for future generations to comment on. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

 

So you figure the reason librarians tried to ban this back in 1885 is because they were a bunch of lefties too?

I kind of suspect it was to prevent a disgraceful aspect of American society from being preserved for future generations to comment on. 

 

Yes.

So,  clearly you are for banning literature because of the use of a word.Harriet Beecher Stowe used it 108 times in her novel. Faulkner 146 times.Margaret Mitchell used it 100 times in her epic. 

Again, let's just ban all literature you find offensivev even though it's purpose is to highlight exactly what is offensive.

btw,  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/school-district-weighs-ban-of-to-kill-a-mockingbird-huck-finn-after-complaint/2016/12/03/92701c80-b8b0-11e6-a677-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html?utm_term=.817f3e9afe55

 

 

Edited by drummindiver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they could just change "To Kill a Mockingbird" so that the rape did happen, and the defendant's race isn't an issue. (He's still a man, after all)

Atticus could cure the rabid dog instead of killing it, in case any of the students are animal lovers, and instead of killing someone, Boo Radley could just campaign for ramps for disabled people, or something.

Harper Lee's dead. She won't mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, drummindiver said:

Yes.

Politically correct lefties from 1885?  They actually called them that back then?

Quote

So,  clearly you are for banning literature because of the use of a word.

No I'm simply for mocking your's and the bullshit you manage to read into other's.

Quote

Again, let's just ban all literature you find offensivev even though it's purpose is to highlight exactly what is offensive.

Except there'd be nothing to mock if you did that. What you could do on the other hand is censor yourself and you sources a little more. 

Quote

So your latest link has two conflicting statements right at the top of the story. The first says:

Quote

A small Virginia school district is weighing pulling “To Kill a Mockingbird” from its libraries and classrooms.

and immediately below that it says;

Quote

A Virginia school district has pulled copies of “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” from classrooms and libraries

So is it pulling or is it weighing and exactly what is the real story here? Well as it turns out this happens all the time in the US and in this case it turns out the books have been temporarily removed but note the story I linked to reported the books are still available in the library so...who really definitively knows what's going on here?

One thing I'm sure of is that you started this thread to cast lefties as the obvious book-burners and as usual all you've done is bite yourself in the ass. Note the interesting story nested within the one you've just cited that contains a list of the 10 most challenged books proposed for banning in 2015.

 

Quote

 

The top 10 most challenged books in 2015 were:

  1. Looking for Alaska,” by John Green
    Reasons: offensive language, sexually explicit and unsuited for age group
  2. Fifty Shades of Grey,” by E.L. James
    Reasons: sexually explicit, unsuited to age group and other (“poorly written,” “concerns that a group of teenagers will want to try it”)
  3. I Am Jazz,” by Jessica Herthel and Jazz Jennings
    Reasons: inaccurate, homosexuality, sex education, religious viewpoint and unsuited for age group
  4. Beyond Magenta: Transgender Teens Speak Out,” by Susan Kuklin
    Reasons: anti-family, offensive language, homosexuality, sex education, political viewpoint, religious viewpoint, unsuited for age group and other (“wants to remove from collection to ward off complaints”)
  5. The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time,” by Mark Haddon
    Reasons: offensive language, religious viewpoint, unsuited for age group and other (“profanity and atheism”)
  6. The Bible
    Reasons: religious viewpoint
  7. Fun Home,” by Alison Bechdel
    Reasons: violence and other (“graphic images”)
  8. Habibi,” by Craig Thompson
    Reasons: nudity, sexually explicit and unsuited for age group
  9. Nasreen’s Secret School: A True Story from Afghanistan,” by Jeanette Winter
    Reasons: religious viewpoint, unsuited to age group, and violence
  10. Two Boys Kissing,” by David Levithan
    Reasons: homosexuality and other (“condones public displays of affection”)
  1.  

Yup looks like nothing but lefty fingerprints all over this.  And of course who can forget the epic battles to have Harry Potter books banned?  More lefties you figure?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, eyeball said:
7 hours ago, eyeball said:

I guess in hindsight I'm glad that right-wingers constantly attempt to have book banned because of the comic relief it produces.

lol

Sorry, maybe I should have used a different link in the OP. The question was about banning books,  not banning books because you're a particular political bent. But now its just funny watching you go apoplitic because you are proven wrong....again.

 

Edited by drummindiver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

Politically correct lefties from 1885?  They actually called them that back then?

Allow me to educate you, oh mighty-brianed one:

"The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization,[6] while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

 

Edited by OftenWrong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, drummindiver said:

Sorry, maybe I should have used a different link in the OP. The question was about banning books,  not banning books because you're a particular political bent. But now its just funny watching you go apoplitic because you are proven wrong....again.

Did you even read the article you cited?

Quote

It’s now official: leftists are the actual book-burners.

 

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Allow me to educate you, oh mighty-brianed one:

"The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic and secularization,[6] while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

 

Yeah I post this link at least a couple of times a month around here, I can see you still don't have a clue why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, eyeball said:

No I'm afraid it's my intelligence that's cornering you. I'm pretty sure everyone on MLW can see thru your attempt to dodge being called on your fake news source.

Of course literature shouldn't be banned nobody here has said anything is being banned except for you and the fake news backing you up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/school-district-weighs-ban-of-to-kill-a-mockingbird-huck-finn-after-complaint/2016/12/03/92701c80-b8b0-11e6-a677-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html?utm_term=.741a986d6e96

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, eyeball said:
3 hours ago, eyeball said:
2 hours ago, eyeball said:

 

 

Quote

Are you actually saying that there are no copies of these books to be found in Virginia right now?

I never said there was, I never said there wasn't. I  said that books being banned, which is clearly the case. 

I also find it ironic you cite the same link I used after dismissing it's veracity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, drummindiver said:

I never said there was, I never said there wasn't. I  said that books being banned, which is clearly the case. 

Clearly. /sarcasm off

Quote

I also find it ironic you cite the same link I used after dismissing it's veracity.

/facepalm...

Irony is a nesting doll in this case because what it's actually dismissing is your veracity. That's the hilarious part of this whole thread you've been so unaware of what's happening to even know how unaware you are, every step of the way.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2016 at 3:10 PM, WestCoastRunner said:

I'm still trying to figure out what leftists have to do with this? 

Ask drummindiver, the 'news' story he posted states right at the beginning;

Quote

It’s now official: leftists are the actual book-burners.

 

Quote

I think everyone here is against banning of books.

It's pretty clear the usual suspects are quite certain I'm all for it. I doubt you'd pass muster too if you really think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, eyeball said:

Clearly. /sarcasm off

/facepalm...

Irony is a nesting doll in this case because what it's actually dismissing is your veracity. That's the hilarious part of this whole thread you've been so unaware of what's happening to even know how unaware you are, every step of the way.

The hilaious part of this thread is that for all your indignation  youve been proven wrong by me and several other people and now your feeling are hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

The entire premise of teaching racist books is ass backwards.

1. We don't teach mein kempf to teach about anti-semitism is wrong, why are we teaching American racist jim crow genocidal texts.

2.  These texts have negative effects on students of african descent which portray them as inferior and increases racial hostilities.

3. We ban lots of books, so it is probably widely presumed to be productive.  We don't let in al qaeda training manuals, we don't teach all kinds of racist and discriminatory texts.

4.  What exactly is the value of these racist works of literature as opposed to teaching racism is wrong.  The teachers frequently don't even teach that the racial slurs are wrong, they just give the students the book and expect them to "figure it out".  Further these works are not even ideal teaching tools because we have far better ways than fictional stories of teaching anti-racism. 

5. I find it highly suspect that they are teaching anti-racism using books coming from racist white people. There are plenty of works from modern white anti-racist authors like tim wise or Jane Elliot or african american authors that cause it to be extremely suspicious that they continue to choose to teach the work of known white racist.

 

I don't think the book should be banned per say, that would make its mere possession illegal, it just should not be available in any public facility like library or school where tax payer money goes to.  If a bookstore who doesn't take government money wants to sell it, that is a different matter though.  People can still buy mein kempf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Thursday, January 05, 2017 at 2:19 AM, hernanday said:

 

 

I don't think the book should be banned per say, that would make its mere possession illegal, it just should not be available in any public facility like library or school where tax payer money goes to.  If a bookstore who doesn't take government money wants to sell it, that is a different matter though.  People can still buy mein kempf.

I think you are lookin at this backwards. Do we teach about the Holocaust?  Why not censor associated literature and it's antisemitism?  Civil war?  WW I & II ? Take To Kill a Mockingbird. Black man erroneously accused of rape and the racism that engulfs the small town.  Harper Lee does an excellent job showing the moral pitfalls of racism. This book would be a huge loss to schools and libraries due to censoring a word which higblight the exact thing it is fighting against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-01-05 at 0:19 AM, hernanday said:

 

2.  These texts have negative effects on students of african descent which portray them as inferior and increases racial hostilities.

 

 

3 hours ago, drummindiver said:

I think you are lookin at this backwards. Do we teach about the Holocaust?  Why not censor associated literature and it's antisemitism?  Civil war?  WW I & II ? Take To Kill a Mockingbird. Black man erroneously accused of rape and the racism that engulfs the small town.  Harper Lee does an excellent job showing the moral pitfalls of racism. This book would be a huge loss to schools and libraries due to censoring a word which higblight the exact thing it is fighting against.

Right.  In a reading group of mixed race kids I can't imagine it being the black kids who come away from To Kill a Mockingbird feeling bad about themselves.  I remember it being one of the first exposures I ever had to the racial situation in the US. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, drummindiver said:

I think you are lookin at this backwards. Do we teach about the Holocaust?  Why not censor associated literature and it's antisemitism?  Civil war?  WW I & II ? Take To Kill a Mockingbird. Black man erroneously accused of rape and the racism that engulfs the small town.  Harper Lee does an excellent job showing the moral pitfalls of racism. This book would be a huge loss to schools and libraries due to censoring a word which higblight the exact thing it is fighting against.

No, I am looking at this properly. 

What do we teach about the Holocaust?

Do we teach from the perspective of German nazi racist or anne frank and the jews?

Do we teach texts from the victimizer class (German nazi) or the victims(jews)?

Do we teach texts full of racial slurs about jews to jewish students using words like kike, untermenschen, asian steppe animal, jew pig, jew shit, and jewed etc.

We all know the answer to this, we don't teach about racism by giving an fictional text from the oppressor group full of racial slurs.  It does nothing but cause animosity on both sides.

Well this depends on how you define censor, we certainly do not teach racism against any other group in the same manner so there would be the argument yes it is censored in all other cases,c especially world war two.  How many books did you read as a kid in school with kike, wop, dago, spick, cracker, kraut, mic, paddy, polock, slavic steppe animal, beastial hoard, limey, frog, wetback, chink, nip, gook and so on?

 

The book would not be a loss, it would be a huge opportunity to replace a text which is written by a racist old white woman and replaced with a text that is truly instructional on racism, rather than some fake story.  And removing a book from the curriculum is not censorship, otherwise you'd have to claim we are censoring millions of books that have been retired from the curriculum or never entered it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...