My calendar tells me that it’s almost time for the American Library Association’s annual Banned Books Week, the time when we should all stop and consider the terrible cost of censorship. This year, that week is NEXT week, October 5 — 11. Here’s a copy of their poster for this year’s event:
I find this poster especially amusing/appropriate since 1984 has been widely banned in the US for being “pro-communist” and was banned in the USSR for being “anti-communist.” Exactly how that works is a bit beyond me, but I think it says something about the thinking(?) of those folks who are responsible for book banning and other forms of censorship.
In any event, this is something I feel quite strongly about. I have done other posts relating to this in the past, but I feel that it’s necessary to keep reminding anybody who will listen that censorship (in ANY of its many forms) is NOT a “good thing.” After all, if one is not even allowed access to “certain” ideas because some person, or group, says that those IDEAS are “bad for US,” one has to wonder if (how?) those PEOPLE can know what they are talking about. I mean, those PEOPLE say that those IDEAS are BAD, but, apparently, those IDEAS DID NOT hurt those PEOPLE(?), OR those PEOPLE haven’t actually studied those IDEAS enough to know what they are talking about! Or, perhaps, those PEOPLE just believe that they are entitled to control the rest of us?
While the ALA wants to focus particularly on suppression/censorship of BOOKS (which seems reasonable for a library association), as I watch the news I see evidence of other forms of censorship being advocated in our country, even by those who enjoy the privilege of leadership positions within our government. (Forgive me, but this is going to get more political than I try to be in these posts. On the other hand, I AM genuinely worried about what I see/hear being advocated by political “leaders” in the news media.)
For example, I understand that there are efforts being made to “rewrite” and/or replace the information presented to the public in our national museums, libraries, monuments, parks, etc., so that what will be encountered there conforms only to what some folks wish to call “accuracy.” Unfortunately, this “accuracy” seems to consist mostly of what those folks SAY will present a “fair and proper” picture of US history. This, apparently, consists of only those ideas which conform to the image of our history which THEY wish to project, WITHOUT worrying about whether that information is actually an honest and accurate representation when compared against verifiable historical fact.
A case in point. There are some folks who object to the fact that it has become popular for some to point out the ethical/moral failure of our forefathers on the question of slavery. I’m not an expert on 18th Century history, etc., but I’m reasonably certain that slavery was pretty widely accepted as perfectly okay by much of Western Civilization, at that time. After all, the common beliefs of the day didn’t really recognize Africans, various indigenous peoples, and several other groups, whom we allowed to be enslaved, as being real, actual, acceptable human beings. Since that ethical/moral position has now changed (at least a bit), SOME people now either seem to wish to ignore the fact that slavery was fairly common in the US in it’s earliest days or to take the position that it “wasn’t really so bad” since the enslaved were “taught valuable skills and were taken care of.”
This has led some, like Tim Campbell, to comment on this sort of position in political cartoons, like the one below:
In any event, this is something I feel quite strongly about. I have done other posts relating to this in the past, but I feel that it’s necessary to keep reminding anybody who will listen that censorship (in ANY of its many forms) is NOT a “good thing.” After all, if one is not even allowed access to “certain” ideas because some person, or group, says that those IDEAS are “bad for US,” one has to wonder if (how?) those PEOPLE can know what they are talking about. I mean, those PEOPLE say that those IDEAS are BAD, but, apparently, those IDEAS DID NOT hurt those PEOPLE(?), OR those PEOPLE haven’t actually studied those IDEAS enough to know what they are talking about! Or, perhaps, those PEOPLE just believe that they are entitled to control the rest of us?
While the ALA wants to focus particularly on suppression/censorship of BOOKS (which seems reasonable for a library association), as I watch the news I see evidence of other forms of censorship being advocated in our country, even by those who enjoy the privilege of leadership positions within our government. (Forgive me, but this is going to get more political than I try to be in these posts. On the other hand, I AM genuinely worried about what I see/hear being advocated by political “leaders” in the news media.)
For example, I understand that there are efforts being made to “rewrite” and/or replace the information presented to the public in our national museums, libraries, monuments, parks, etc., so that what will be encountered there conforms only to what some folks wish to call “accuracy.” Unfortunately, this “accuracy” seems to consist mostly of what those folks SAY will present a “fair and proper” picture of US history. This, apparently, consists of only those ideas which conform to the image of our history which THEY wish to project, WITHOUT worrying about whether that information is actually an honest and accurate representation when compared against verifiable historical fact.
A case in point. There are some folks who object to the fact that it has become popular for some to point out the ethical/moral failure of our forefathers on the question of slavery. I’m not an expert on 18th Century history, etc., but I’m reasonably certain that slavery was pretty widely accepted as perfectly okay by much of Western Civilization, at that time. After all, the common beliefs of the day didn’t really recognize Africans, various indigenous peoples, and several other groups, whom we allowed to be enslaved, as being real, actual, acceptable human beings. Since that ethical/moral position has now changed (at least a bit), SOME people now either seem to wish to ignore the fact that slavery was fairly common in the US in it’s earliest days or to take the position that it “wasn’t really so bad” since the enslaved were “taught valuable skills and were taken care of.”
This has led some, like Tim Campbell, to comment on this sort of position in political cartoons, like the one below:
There is also the fact that virtually any action which doesn’t favor the people in power has come to be referred to as a “witch-hunt.” As one who actually had ancestors accused, tried, convicted and executed (hanged) in the largest and most notorious ACTUAL witch-hunt in North America (the one in Salem in 1692), I resent the cheapening of this event by comparing it to somebody resenting having to defend him/herself against statements in the press, etc., which they feel are intended to damage them politically, but which do, in fact, at least appear to be supported by ACTUAL evidence, not just rumor, innuendo, and prejudice. This also, of course, sometimes includes these “leaders” simply insisting that they didn’t do, or say, things which have been widely reported in the press, viewed on TV, can be found on the internet, etc. Of course, they weren’t considered controversial when they occurred.
Personally, I would suggest that these forms of lying, as well as others, are a sign of considerable ethical/moral weakness, not to say dishonesty. Yes, neither our country, nor its leaders are (never have been) perfect. That would, of course, be a lot to ask of them. They ARE only human. Like all people, and nations, things have been done which are now regretted, or should be. However, if we REALLY wish to do so, we CAN acknowledge the truth of such events and try to do better in the future. However, this WILL NOT HAPPEN without our recognizing that we haven’t always lived up to the standards we may (today) wish that we had done and trying to do better in the future. Achieving THAT goal would seem to require an actual acceptance of the notion of FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
Now THAT idea is really a fraught one, you see, because it means that we should open the marketplace of ideas up even to those ideas which WE DON’T LIKE! Of course, that’s not really all that radical an idea. Thomas Jefferson has been quoted as saying:
Personally, I would suggest that these forms of lying, as well as others, are a sign of considerable ethical/moral weakness, not to say dishonesty. Yes, neither our country, nor its leaders are (never have been) perfect. That would, of course, be a lot to ask of them. They ARE only human. Like all people, and nations, things have been done which are now regretted, or should be. However, if we REALLY wish to do so, we CAN acknowledge the truth of such events and try to do better in the future. However, this WILL NOT HAPPEN without our recognizing that we haven’t always lived up to the standards we may (today) wish that we had done and trying to do better in the future. Achieving THAT goal would seem to require an actual acceptance of the notion of FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
Now THAT idea is really a fraught one, you see, because it means that we should open the marketplace of ideas up even to those ideas which WE DON’T LIKE! Of course, that’s not really all that radical an idea. Thomas Jefferson has been quoted as saying:
It seems to me that TJ didn’t like the idea of limiting acceptable ideas to just those which appealed to some sort of “leader.” And, he wasn’t alone, either. Read the First Amendment.
Other folks, like Noam Chomsky have expressed related ideas in more recent times.
Other folks, like Noam Chomsky have expressed related ideas in more recent times.
Still others have commented on this sort of thing in a variety of ways, as in this cartoon from Mary Engelbreit which I’d suggest clearly supports the idea that banning books doesn’t seem to be in what she considers to be in the country’s best interests, while having a bit of fun.
Even newspaper comic strips have gotten into the anti-censorship act. This example from Pearls Before Swine even offers some extremely practical and pertinent advice from those who object to certain ideas, or books. (Although I’m not sure the megaphone is needed!)
Still, I think my favorite quote related to this subject, especially when someone tries to tie censorship to patriotism (which argument was used by Hitler and many others) comes from a speech Aaron Sorkin wrote for the character, Andrew Shepherd, in his movie The American President. I’ve probably used this quote before, but I think it states a real truth quite clearly.
I believe that American patriotism is best represented by rational people accepting the idea that we will progress towards creating our “more perfect Union” faster by making sure that the marketplace of all sorts of ideas is kept open to all for discussion, debate, compromise and resolution, rather than by moving in the direction of allowing a small group (or, worse yet, a SINGLE person) to dictate what is an acceptable opinion. Please note that I am talking here about discussion and study, NOT violent action, which, I believe, ALWAYS violates acceptable norms.
On the other hand, actions can speak louder than words, so it’s important that we carefully observe what our “leaders” actually DO as, or even more closely than, what they “say.” Actions, even those based on ill-thought-out ideas after all, are PERMANENT and can do actual harm!
Ideas, on the other hand, really can’t hurt us. They MIGHT even lead us to reconsider a previously held position, but trying to limit the ideas available for consideration is an ACTION which seems quite UNLIKELY to lead to any real sort of progress. After all, if you can’t study something, you can’t understand it. Therefore, you can’t really love, nor hate, it. All a lack of knowledge can do is lead us to try to blame someone, or something, else for OUR lack of ability (or willingness) to THINK. “I read or saw it on the internet.” should NEVER be an acceptable excuse to, automatically, believe anything, let alone act on it.
As an example; I, in fact, watched the January 6, 2021, incidents in Washington, DC on my television in my home. Because I remember what I SAW and HEARD that day, (including the fear on the faces of the members of Congress, the violence perpetrated, and the gallows which “appeared as if by magic” in front of the building), I’m unwilling to accept the idea that those rioters were, in fact, actually just “tourists” who wanted to “visit” the Capital (which WAS officially closed to the public) that day. And, it’s going to take more than the people who benefited from the riotous behavior I observed saying that that they were just “peaceful” tourists,” to convince me of that idea! I WATCHED them attacking the Capital and its police, LIVE on TV, IN REAL TIME!
I confess that the late Charlie Kirk seemed to represent yet another sad example of the use of “argument by insistence,” which seems all too common these days. His position, as displayed on his tent, apparently was that people should believe what he said was true unless they could Prove Him Wrong! That is, of course, an irrational, illogical, and improper position. It’s the job of the person MAKING an assertion TO PROVE ITS CORRECTNESS! It’s NOT the obligation of the listener to “prove him wrong.” Any lawyer will tell you that our whole notion of juris prudence is based on that premise. The PROSECUTOR must PROVE the case for guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” All the defense must do is establish that “reasonable doubt” exists. I would suggest that, if you want to condemn somebody else’s religious, political, or ethical positions, you need to FIRST demonstrate that you have a reasonable understanding of what their position actually IS, AND THEN be able to establish why you disagree with it beyond “a reasonable doubt,” based on rational, logical arguments and factual evidence. That would seem to be the REAL American patriotic way to discuss things.
WE don’t have to all agree about everything, but if we want the right to disagree with others, we MUST give them the right to disagree with us. Think about that and take “peaceful” action, like supporting candidates with whom you agree and voting, to support your beliefs. THAT’S the American Way!
I plan to be back in a couple of weeks. We’ll see….
In the meantime, take my advice, read a book from the ALA’s Banned Book List. This can be easily found by entering “Banned Books” into any browser’s search window. You’ll almost certainly get more information than you wish, and I suspect you may be surprised by at least some of the titles you will find have been listed as desired to be banned. I will admit that there ARE books, and ideas, which I, personally, might find it hard to defend, but I have NO desire to tell you what you should not be allowed to consider. (See the quotes below, especially that from Stephen Hopkins.) I’d much rather discuss anything openly among people who can agree to disagree, if needed, than have some BUREAUCRAT dictate what is “acceptable” for anyone to read, consider, discuss, accept, or reject. I believe that we should all wish for a situation of democratic tolerance of disagreement, NOT an autocratic demand for “agreement.” THAT would seem to be the truly patriotic position, at least according to the First Amendment.
I’ll be looking for you at the library.
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
On the other hand, actions can speak louder than words, so it’s important that we carefully observe what our “leaders” actually DO as, or even more closely than, what they “say.” Actions, even those based on ill-thought-out ideas after all, are PERMANENT and can do actual harm!
Ideas, on the other hand, really can’t hurt us. They MIGHT even lead us to reconsider a previously held position, but trying to limit the ideas available for consideration is an ACTION which seems quite UNLIKELY to lead to any real sort of progress. After all, if you can’t study something, you can’t understand it. Therefore, you can’t really love, nor hate, it. All a lack of knowledge can do is lead us to try to blame someone, or something, else for OUR lack of ability (or willingness) to THINK. “I read or saw it on the internet.” should NEVER be an acceptable excuse to, automatically, believe anything, let alone act on it.
As an example; I, in fact, watched the January 6, 2021, incidents in Washington, DC on my television in my home. Because I remember what I SAW and HEARD that day, (including the fear on the faces of the members of Congress, the violence perpetrated, and the gallows which “appeared as if by magic” in front of the building), I’m unwilling to accept the idea that those rioters were, in fact, actually just “tourists” who wanted to “visit” the Capital (which WAS officially closed to the public) that day. And, it’s going to take more than the people who benefited from the riotous behavior I observed saying that that they were just “peaceful” tourists,” to convince me of that idea! I WATCHED them attacking the Capital and its police, LIVE on TV, IN REAL TIME!
I confess that the late Charlie Kirk seemed to represent yet another sad example of the use of “argument by insistence,” which seems all too common these days. His position, as displayed on his tent, apparently was that people should believe what he said was true unless they could Prove Him Wrong! That is, of course, an irrational, illogical, and improper position. It’s the job of the person MAKING an assertion TO PROVE ITS CORRECTNESS! It’s NOT the obligation of the listener to “prove him wrong.” Any lawyer will tell you that our whole notion of juris prudence is based on that premise. The PROSECUTOR must PROVE the case for guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” All the defense must do is establish that “reasonable doubt” exists. I would suggest that, if you want to condemn somebody else’s religious, political, or ethical positions, you need to FIRST demonstrate that you have a reasonable understanding of what their position actually IS, AND THEN be able to establish why you disagree with it beyond “a reasonable doubt,” based on rational, logical arguments and factual evidence. That would seem to be the REAL American patriotic way to discuss things.
WE don’t have to all agree about everything, but if we want the right to disagree with others, we MUST give them the right to disagree with us. Think about that and take “peaceful” action, like supporting candidates with whom you agree and voting, to support your beliefs. THAT’S the American Way!
I plan to be back in a couple of weeks. We’ll see….
In the meantime, take my advice, read a book from the ALA’s Banned Book List. This can be easily found by entering “Banned Books” into any browser’s search window. You’ll almost certainly get more information than you wish, and I suspect you may be surprised by at least some of the titles you will find have been listed as desired to be banned. I will admit that there ARE books, and ideas, which I, personally, might find it hard to defend, but I have NO desire to tell you what you should not be allowed to consider. (See the quotes below, especially that from Stephen Hopkins.) I’d much rather discuss anything openly among people who can agree to disagree, if needed, than have some BUREAUCRAT dictate what is “acceptable” for anyone to read, consider, discuss, accept, or reject. I believe that we should all wish for a situation of democratic tolerance of disagreement, NOT an autocratic demand for “agreement.” THAT would seem to be the truly patriotic position, at least according to the First Amendment.
I’ll be looking for you at the library.
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
RSS Feed