In the flurry of financial chaos and preparations for the train wreck that is to be the Vice Presidential debate tonight (I'm almost giddy when I think about how inevitably uncomfortable it's going to be), a fairly important item almost slipped by without mention. September 27 - October 4 is this years Banned Books Week. This is something worth noting, people.
Celebrated each year by the American Library Association, Banned Books Week gives us a chance to reflect on our remaining freedoms, one of which is the right to read pretty much any damned thing we want to. For a lot of us, we don't worry much about it, but we should. There are always people who want to protect everyone from themselves, who refuse to believe that people can withstand information and still remain themselves. I'm sure, for some, that is correct. For most, however, this is ridiculous.
A quick look at the most challenged books of 2007-2008 (PDF) shows some of the items that are always requested for banning, along with the reasons for the request. It's funny to me that the same things come up each year. It's not funny to me that sometimes they are actually removed from libraries, albeit school libraries.
Take, for example, the Harry Potter books. Once again we find the Harry Potter books being requested for removal on the basis that they promote witchcraft. Okay, setting aside for the moment that the books are clearly labeled fiction, let us approach the greater point that there's no such &$%#ing thing as witchcraft. You might as well protest the Smurfs because they encourage people to be blue and go around topless. An even greater point for me, however, is that the closest thing you can get to witchcraft in the real world is Wiccans, which is treated by those who believe in such things as religion. So, ban Harry Potter, you need to consider banning any texts that promote any religion at all, a slippery slope to be sure.
Even more important from my point of view is Mark Twain. See, Mark Twain's stories take place during a dark time in our country. As a result, people tend to use racial epithets rather casually, because that's how people were back then. As I understand it, they are frequently put up for banning for this reason, and this reason alone.
Now, I'm a white guy. I can't honestly say that there is any word in the English language that someone could throw at me that would truly upset me. Having said that, I attempt to sympathize with those for whom this is not true. Nonetheless, I cannot support removing the texts from libraries. It's our history. Pretending that it didn't happen removes any lessons that we can learn going forward, and no matter how far we would like to pretend we've come as a country, deep down, most of us know we're not where we need to be yet.
So yeah, don't try to ban books because they talk about drugs or sex, or the people you're trying to protect will have to rely on their idiot friends or the internet for this information. Don't try to ban books because they point out mistakes of our past, or we'll do that *$&% again and be all surprised when someone points out how wrong we were the first time. Don't try to ban books because they don't jive with your religion because someone else believes in something that your religion doesn't jive with. Is that clear? If you're concerned about someone you care about reading something that will have an effect on them, discuss it with them, but don't kid yourselves - you can't stop information.
This message has been brought to you by the Drug-fueled Wiccans Supporting Easier Access to Free Erotica Association of America.
1 comment:
"You might as well protest the Smurfs because they encourage people to be blue and go around topless."
Not to mention one female presumably servicing 100 males, an old wizard, and a cat.
Why is that always my first thought when someone mentions Smurfs?
Don;t get me started on how sick and twisted the Snorks could have been.
Post a Comment