Books banned from schools

[Armistead]

For most of us older folks, Mark Twain's books were on the reading list. Last few years many schools have removed his books. My son's school still has it, but it's a new addition changing the "N" word.

Should we rewrite history to be politically correct. The danger I see here is our kids will lose an understanding of the time and culture of when these books were written. What if we remove all racist tones from all required reading, could it actully backfire and future generations not have a true understanding of the culture that created racism.

The other issue is obvious that we have a culture where the "N" word is the word of choice by many blacks. Is the goal to ban the old word and replace it with a new word, somehow making it a positive word. I understand blacks say it's OK for them and not whites, but the fact is they drive so much of the music industry and one only watch white kids in a mall calling their friends "my n,,,".


One can just look at books banned from schools and it blows my mind.

[Buddahaid]

For most of us older folks, Mark Twain's books were on the reading list. Last few years many schools have removed his books. My son's school still has it, but it's a new addition changing the "N" word.

Should we rewrite history to be politically correct. The danger I see here is our kids will lose an understanding of the time and culture of when these books were written. What if we remove all racist tones from all required reading, could it actully backfire and future generations not have a true understanding of the culture that created racism.

The other issue is obvious that we have a culture where the "N" word is the word of choice by many blacks. Is the goal to ban the old word and replace it with a new word, somehow making it a positive word. I understand blacks say it's OK for them and not whites, but the fact is they drive so much of the music industry and one only watch white kids in a mall calling their friends "my n,,,".


One can just look at books banned from schools and it blows my mind.

Welcome to namby-pamby-land where everyone is a victim and so fragile they must never see anything sad or they will be ruined for life. Except for violence and female sexual organs of course.

[STEED]

Not long before the Fireman has a new role...

http://www.heymiller.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/fahrenheit451-3.jpg

http://home.wlv.ac.uk/~in5379/covers/fullsize/451.jpg

[Skybird]

I read it some days ago, and couldn'T believe it (or could I...). This is forging of arts. What next? Covering pictures of arts and marmore status showing nudity? In Germany, there is a pedagogic movement that weants to ban the tales of the Brothers Grimm for it'S cruelty that is unappropriate for children. And sweriously, in several countries in Europe there are attempts to get Asterix banned, too, for it'S explicit brutality hindering kids and teens to develope adequate cognitive conflict solution behavior. Some years ago we had news that some British schools had banned sports like Basketball or Football, because they are "too competitive".

I love the idea of what Europe could be by its diverse and rich and precious cultural and value-related heritage. I despise and hate what instead it is degenerating to in reality. In principle, the same conflict I have with the US, which also is admirable for what it was meant to be, but showing an unbridgable gap between the historic idea, and the reality it had turned out into.

Maybe it is something like a law of faste - that the idea and the imagination always beats the realisation, and is much better than reality ever will (and could?) be.

Good book, not so good movie (Farenheit 451), btw. But Truffaut never was my taste anyway.

[The Third Man]

'Banned' isn't the correct word really. More like censored.

In the name of political correctness the point of using the words, by Clemens to show the injustice, is lost on the reader and the possibility of repeated racism rears its ugliness.

"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"

[kranz]

I'm just wondering...Are you sure it's only about the "N" word? Coz sth like two years ago we were discussing this novel and the teacher told us that in the USA the book is being banned in some schools bcoz of the n word but also bcoz of sth that we gonna learn after discussing the whole novel. So we did all the stuff and among it we discussed the stages on which Huck perceives the world, the blacks (lol-this word is banned as well, right?) and slavery. So after all Huck says that "Jim is ok coz he's black on the outiside but has a white soul". Dunno- but for us it meant that he simply learned nothing. And this was the another reason for banning the book. Of course I'm not trying to say that banning this book can be justified by anything but this is a much more valid argument than the "N word" one. (from my non-US perspective)

[The Third Man]

I'm just wondering...Are you sure it's only about the "N" word? Coz sth like two years ago we were discussing this novel and the teacher told us that in the USA the book is being banned in some schools bcoz of the n word but also bcoz of sth that we gonna learn after discussing the whole novel. So we did all the stuff and among it we discussed the stages on which Huck perceives the world, the blacks (lol-this word is banned as well, right?) and slavery. So after all Huck says that "Jim is ok coz he's black on the outiside but has a white soul". Dunno- but for us it meant that he simply learned nothing. And this was the another reason for banning the book. Of course I'm not trying to say that banning this book can be justified by anything but this is a much more valid argument than the "N word" one. (from my non-US perspective)

"Injun" is also being changed.

[Takeda Shingen]

The strength of the language used by Clemens is so that is emphasizes the dehuminization of these figures, who the author places in a distinctly human light. This was an unthinkable honor to bestow upon an African American in the America of the day. It is the same as Stephen Foster's Nelly was a Lady. The term lady would not be used to describe one of African descent. Just as Foster's use of lady elevates the title figure, Clemens' dichotomy elevates the characters in his novel. Eliminating the language removes that primary artistic pillar, and the afforementioned elevated stature.

[The Third Man]

The strength of the language used by Clemens is so that is emphasizes the dehuminization of these figures, who the author places in a distinctly human light. This was an unthinkable honor to bestow upon an African American in the America of the day. It is the same as Stephen Foster's Nelly was a Lady. The term lady would not be used to describe one of African descent. Just as Foster's use of lady elevates the title figure, Clemens' dichotomy elevates the characters in his novel. Eliminating the language removes that primary artistic pillar.

So we agree, this is an irreverant act by a few to mitigate their own discomfort.

[Takeda Shingen]

So we agree, this is an irreverant act by a few to mitigate their own discomfort.

You must learn to read what people write. I said that removing the terms eliminate some of the author's artistic intent; nothing more.

[XabbaRus]

Geez

When I lived in Houston we had to read it in school and we had a black kid there. The teacher made us all take turns reading the dialogue and there was never one complaint.

[The Third Man]

You must learn to read what people write. I said that removing the terms eliminate some of the author's artistic intent; nothing more.

Now we get down to what you really meant. How is it that it takes my aggrement with your position, however variant you see it, for you to state your real position? Or is it that you just don't want to agree with me, and be seen as a reasonable person visa vi my opinion?

[Armistead]

I'm just wondering...Are you sure it's only about the "N" word? Coz sth like two years ago we were discussing this novel and the teacher told us that in the USA the book is being banned in some schools bcoz of the n word but also bcoz of sth that we gonna learn after discussing the whole novel. So we did all the stuff and among it we discussed the stages on which Huck perceives the world, the blacks (lol-this word is banned as well, right?) and slavery. So after all Huck says that "Jim is ok coz he's black on the outiside but has a white soul". Dunno- but for us it meant that he simply learned nothing. And this was the another reason for banning the book. Of course I'm not trying to say that banning this book can be justified by anything but this is a much more valid argument than the "N word" one. (from my non-US perspective)

The problem I have is kids will lose the lack of understanding of the culture then. Do we start applying our current culture and rewrite context of past culture. Part of that culture was slavery and racism and to remove that element does an injustice to history.

What's next...rewrite the history books to be politically correct? Actually, Huck Finn taught properly really shows the current view then. Before you know it Hitler will be seen in a different light.

[krashkart]

I guess it's one way of dealing with our species' checkered past: just sweep all the ugliness under the rug and replace it with something more "antiseptic".

Why face the truth about our species when it's so much easier to act like nothing bad has ever happened? We can lobotomize the future (one piece of history at a time). :-?

[Takeda Shingen]

Now we get down to what you really meant. How is it that it takes my aggrement with your position, however variant you see it, for you to state your real position? Or is it that you just don't want to agree with me, and be seen as a reasonable person visa vi my opinion?

How is is that you cannot allow my statement to be without telling me what you think I really meant? I made no sweeping societal observation. I spoke of the work of Samuel Clemens. It was you that saw what you wanted to see. Regarding your opinion and reason, it is subjective, with a capital S.

[gimpy117]

see. I think it's sad. its our history....

I'm sorry slavery persisted in this nation as long as it did...im sorry there was racism...but we can be so bent over backwards by it that we try to pretend it didn't happen like this.

[Growler]

We are protecting our kids to death.

[The Third Man]

see. I think it's sad. its our history....

I'm sorry slavery persisted in this nation as long as it did...im sorry there was racism...but we can be so bent over backwards by it that we try to pretend it didn't happen like this.

Happens in Germany every day....by law. No Swastikas. And they call themselves in favor of free speech . I laugh at them and consider Germany a lessor country.

[Oberon]

I laugh at them and consider Germany a lessor country.

Do you consider any country other than America to be anything other than a lessor country? :hmmm:

[gimpy117]

Happens in Germany every day....by law. No Swastikas. And they call themselves in favor of free speech . I laugh at them and consider Germany a lessor country.

it is an interesting idea...but i think the general consensus in germany is that nazism is not really free speech, but hate speech, which is not considered free speech and protected.

[Onkel Neal]

Happens in Germany every day....by law. No Swastikas. And they call themselves in favor of free speech . I laugh at them and consider Germany a lessor country.


I don't understand why you have to be insulting to people, in such a clumsy fashion, to make a point about censorship. :nope: Please use a little more tact.

[tater]

Freedom of speech is binary, you have it, or you don't. If a party or symbol is banned you are not free.

That said, most of what people call "banning" of books os not banning at all. Banning requires that the government forbid a book. That means you cannot buy it, or own it.

No books are banned in the US. None.

A library not buying a book is not a "ban" a school not buying or teaching a book is not a "ban."

This is about censorship. I think a school buying a censored book shows them for what they are, a lessor school system. Just means my kids will have less competition to be the ruling class.

[Kongo Otto]

Happens in Germany every day....by law. No Swastikas. And they call themselves in favor of free speech . I laugh at them and consider Germany a lessor country.



In Germany we say: Wenn man keine Ahnung hat einfach mal die Fresse halten!

Translation: If you dont have a clue, simply stfu!

[Skybird]

Freedom of speech is binary, you have it, or you don't. If a party or symbol is banned you are not free.

Ah, my favourite hobby again - unlimited freedom, although everyone of us already necessarily finds a limit to his freedom where he meets somebody else, so that you have two spheres of freedom rubbing against each other.

To you the same question I asked before in other debates: when one side uses freedom to sow and grow ideas and a thinking that aims at overcoming freedom - is it then also a lack of freedom when you defend against this destruction of freedom by limiting the freedom to work for the destruction of freedom? Or means freedom to you to ban any defence of freedom, for a freedom being defended is no freedom anymore? Or in other words - is there any obligation in freedom to allow others destroying it, becasue by defending freedom you already would destroy it yourself?

Or couldn't it be that a society must find a sensitive balance between allowing freedom to the other, but hindering him to abuse freedom for derstroying freedom?

Must a state allow freedom to those wanting to destroy it'S constitutional basis?

The German constitution (form ed under heavy influence by the American occupoators after WWII ) says No, and defines a clear criterion: where somebody abuses freedom to propagate the destruction of the constitutional order, not only his freedoms and rights can be limited, but German even are given the constitutiponal right to resist to him by the means necessary to stop him.

Nazism does not want dmeocracy, but wants it'S destruction to rfeplace it with itself. It also villates several key parts of the constituti, namely the very first article of the Basic Law that says that the dignity of man is untouchable. But propagating racism, antisemitism, and own racial superiority, Nazism hardly can be seen as respecting the dignity of man. Not to mention that German Nazis put the national borders of European states at the end of WWII - namely that of Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic - into question.

Are we really unfree when we forbid Nazism actively trying to trealsiue these ideas?

Have 60 million dead and the horror of the concentration camps not been big enough a lesson for you to learn...?

It is a paradox, but there is no such thing like unlimited freedom. There cannot be something like that, and there nowhere is. The right of the other to be free and to exist ends at the latest where he claims his freedom at the cost of yours and claims his existence to be valuable enough to deny yours at equal terms to his.

See the endless debate I haid with Steve about this 3 months ago or so.

I'm a bit tired of seeing peopole idnciating that Germany is a censoring, unfree regime becasue we do not show swastikas. Like in all Western nations, including the US, there are political ambitions of the elites to limit free speech of medias, most prominently Italy and the latest media censorshiup law in hunagry, but also certainb security acts in US legislation since 9/11 aiming at reducing the freredom of the media to do research or to report unauthorized information. We have such attenmpts to intimdiate the media occaisonally too in Germany. But the anti. Nazi laws are not part of that. Prohibiting Nazism is for very good and reasonable and sensible reasons.

One could as well argue that there is no freedom if people are not free to commit murder without getting punished.

[Skybird]

I don't understand why you have to be insulting to people, in such a clumsy fashion, to make a point about censorship. :nope: Please use a little more tact.
What's there to understand...? A frog is squawking because it is a frog, a fish swims becasue it is a fish, and a scorpion stings because it is a scorpion.

[Kongo Otto]

What's there to understand...? A frog is squawking because it is a frog, a fish swims becasue it is a fish, and a scorpion stings because it is a scorpion.

Yup and the Troll trolls because its a troll!!

[tater]

If someone being allowed to draw a symbol is an existential problem for a society, freedom of speech is the least of their problems.

[Kongo Otto]

If someone being allowed to draw a symbol is an existential problem for a society, freedom of speech is the least of their problems.

Hmm ok and who said that the whole swastikas thing is a existential problem for the german society?
I and most of the Germans dont have a problem with it, so wheres the Problem?
You dont like it like we handle the things? Thats ok but also not my Problem.
We have more important problems, like our social security system, which with all of its problem ist still one of the best worldwide.
But it has to be reworked, no doubt about it, same goes for the school system over here.
If some americans are meaning we are a bad society because we dont allow swastikas, we can have live with that.

Despite all of the Problems we have Germany is a pretty good place to live.
Believe it or not.

[Sailor Steve]

Do you consider any country other than America to be anything other than a lessor country? :hmmm:
It depends on who is leasing what to whom. :sunny:

[tater]

I don't think that drawing swastikas IS a real problem in Germany, that's my point. I think that such free expression would receive the marginalized treatment it would deserve. Immediately post-war, when virtually every adult member of society (barring those who actively fought against it) was in fact at least passively complicit, it made sense. For the modern generations of Germans, there is nothing to see, move along.

So to be clear, I think that germany has gone well beyond the stage where such limitations do anything useful. You're better than that.

So that's the point. Banning expression is pretty much never the right solution.

[Kongo Otto]

I don't think that drawing swastikas IS a real problem in Germany, that's my point. I think that such free expression would receive the marginalized treatment it would deserve. Immediately post-war, when virtually every adult member of society (barring those who actively fought against it) was in fact at least passively complicit, it made sense. For the modern generations of Germans, there is nothing to see, move along.

So to be clear, I think that germany has gone well beyond the stage where such limitations do anything useful. You're better than that.

So that's the point. Banning expression is pretty much never the right solution.

Well the swastikas have been banned some 30 or 35 years ago, i cant even remember.
You know we dont need legalization of swastikas, because the history is all around us.
I live in Augsburg not 300 Meters away from the Citizens Registrations Office, as i moved to Augsburg, i went there to get my registration and there was a memorial Plate at the building. At the Place was the local Gestapo Jail until it was destroyed by allied bombs in 1944.
You know alone in Augsburg are at least 20 Places with such kind of a history. I could make a tour with you in the Munich Augsburg Landsberg/Lech Triangle and we would need at least one week to see all the Place with a Nazi History.
Its easy for you guys over there in the USA to say, you are not free because you ban symbols or the original Nazi Party, yeah all those nice looking Parades with all the Flags at History Channel, but behind these flags and this party there was the terror and the massmurder.
We dont need swastikas beeing legal, we see swastikas with our mental eyes every day, where ever we go our History follows us permanently.

And should anybody ever dare to show a swastika in a place where iam around, i take his flag and shove it up his a@@.

[DarkFish]

Well the swastikas have been banned some 30 or 35 years ago, i cant even remember.
You know we dont need legalization of swastikas, because the history is all around us.
I live in Augsburg not 300 Meters away from the Citizens Registrations Office, as i moved to Augsburg, i went there to get my registration and there was a memorial Plate at the building. At the Place was the local Gestapo Jail until it was destroyed by allied bombs in 1944.
You know alone in Augsburg are at least 20 Places with such kind of a history. I could make a tour with you in the Munich Augsburg Landsberg/Lech Triangle and we would need at least one week to see all the Place with a Nazi History.
Its easy for you guys over there in the USA to say, you are not free because you ban symbols or the original Nazi Party, yeah all those nice looking Parades with all the Flags at History Channel, but behind these flags and this party there was the terror and the massmurder.
We dont need swastikas beeing legal, we see swastikas with our mental eyes every day, where ever we go our History follows us permanently.

And should anybody ever dare to show a swastika in a place where iam around, i take his flag and shove it up his a@@.But the swastika is just a freaking symbol! We could ban the hammer and sickle as well because the soviets used it.

And even more, should we ban nazi's? How despicable their ideology may be, we have to give them a voice. We have to combat them by reason and argument. If we prosecute people for simply being a nazi, we're not much better than the nazis themselves who prosecuted their political enemies as well, simply for being political enemies.

Same goes for symbols. If we ban the swastika we lower ourselves to the level of the nazis. They banned a whole font because they deemed it "Judenlettern". The current Germans ban a certain type of cross because they deem it a Nazi symbol. See the parallelism?


EDIT: that said, TTM simply went way too far with his comment. If not being allowed to draw a swastika is his idea of a "lessor [sic] country" with limited freedom, I'd like to have a talk with him about how things in the US are (Assange anyone?). But then again, according to his own statements that would make the US a "lessor country" so there's probably not much to talk about:roll:

[Kongo Otto]

DarkFish is it ok when i am answering your post tomorow, i am to tired right now and cant find some sleep.

[Rilder]

The Swastika isn't even a Nazi Symbol, I believe, yeah the Nazis made it their own but it has nothing to do with the Nazis.

Doesn't the Finnish Airforce use a Swastika? Does that make the Finnish Airforce a Nazi Airforce?

[Hottentot]

Doesn't the Finnish Airforce use a Swastika? Does that make the Finnish Airforce a Nazi Airforce?

Not anymore, but we used to.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Air_Force) in its infinite wisdom tells us:

Von Rosen had painted his personal good luck charm on the Thulin Typ D aircraft. This charm – a blue swastika, the ancient symbol of good luck – was adopted as the insignia of the Finnish Air Force. The white circular background was created when the Finns tried to paint over the advertisement from the Thulin air academy.[5] The swastika was officially taken into use after an order by Mannerheim on 18 March 1918. The FAF had to change the insignia after 1945, due to an Allied Control Commission decree, where the swastika had to be abandoned due to its association with Nazism.


Edited to add: though as a matter of fact, that article has an interesting picture of the FAF's flag in it. I don't know if they use that anymore, but I'm sure someone else does.

[kranz]

The Swastika isn't even a Nazi Symbol,

Rudyard Kipling illustrated his books with the swastika symbol- the "nazi one" and the opposite. I mean those books concerning India ofc.

[Armistead]

I don't think that drawing swastikas IS a real problem in Germany, that's my point. I think that such free expression would receive the marginalized treatment it would deserve. Immediately post-war, when virtually every adult member of society (barring those who actively fought against it) was in fact at least passively complicit, it made sense. For the modern generations of Germans, there is nothing to see, move along.

So to be clear, I think that germany has gone well beyond the stage where such limitations do anything useful. You're better than that.

So that's the point. Banning expression is pretty much never the right solution.

Banning expression, I guess the debate is public or private expression. I don't think under any circumstance books should be banned, but I can understand what is acceptable required reading. Maybe the bigger problem is the teaching, teaching and learning from that historic time. I'm not black, so I'm not sure how I would feel about required reading that dealt with past racism on novel level using the N word.

The same with the Confederate flag being flown over state capitals. I love southern history and own a few old battleflags myself, but agree the flag has no place on a current public building....books, not so sure.

[Kongo Otto]

The Swastika isn't even a Nazi Symbol, I believe, yeah the Nazis made it their own but it has nothing to do with the Nazis.

Doesn't the Finnish Airforce use a Swastika? Does that make the Finnish Airforce a Nazi Airforce?

I Think we should bring a little clearance into the discussion.
Firts of all swastikas are not illegal per se in Germany, illegal are the sign and the Flags from the NSDAP and its Underorganisations and the swastikas used in them.
If the Finnish Air Force would still use a blue swastika it would be legal in Germany because its not a sign of forementioned Organisations.

For more informations read this article (its in english language):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a

[DarkFish]

I Think we should bring a little clearance into the discussion.
Firts of all swastikas are not illegal per se in Germany, illegal are the sign and the Flags from the NSDAP and its Underorganisations and the swastikas used in them.
If the Finnish Air Force would still use a blue swastika it would be legal in Germany because its not a sign of forementioned Organisations.

For more informations read this article (its in english language):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86aThat pretty much addresses my post as well. I was mistaken in my belief that the swastika is illegal altogether.

That still leaves the question if we should prohibit nazi organisations.

[Kongo Otto]

That still leaves the question if we should prohibit nazi organisations.

Well i think this is a theoretical question. Even if the sign from the NSDAP and its Organisation would be allowed, todays Neo Nazis would not use them. This sign are so hated they would cause severe damage to their political issues. We have Neo Nazi Parties here in germany like the NPD and the DVU and some others. They wouldnt call themselves NSDAP again, these guys want to make the public believe they have changed, so the use of old signs and Names would make them even much more unbelievable as they are right now.

And of course you are right when yo say: "We have to combat them by reason and argument."
This happens here in Germany, very often and not just by the Young People also the older ones.
You said "We have to give them a voice"
They have their voice, just almost nobody is listen. ;)

[Tessa]

The Swastika isn't even a Nazi Symbol, I believe, yeah the Nazis made it their own but it has nothing to do with the Nazis.

Doesn't the Finnish Airforce use a Swastika? Does that make the Finnish Airforce a Nazi Airforce?

The swastika is a very ancient symbol that was generally used to represent power (in one form or another). It was heavily used throughout Asia, in India/China/Japan as being incorporated into their statues, patterns or accessories.

What is a real shame is that Hitler chose such an ancient and well established symbol to be their idol. Even if you just pick up a couple of old kung-fu (period style) movies you're gonna see that symbol all over the place, which in context was several thousand years before Hitler was even born!

When it comes to this particular symbol one is always treatind on thin ice; it really shouldn't have to be so draconian. It is the context in which it is used (or more appropriately abused) that it gets corrupted. There is a line that needs to be defined between abuse and history. To ignore our history and shove it under the mat we are failing to learn the messages taught. In their native form, I see absolutely no reason why (now) offensive language/images should be censored, to deny it is to deny our history and who we are. I'm 1/4 Apache myself and never felt insulted or defiled when reading about people referring to my people as "Injuns", that was the dialect of the day and censoring it isn't going to change anything.

In cases where the material was meant to be inflamatory or raise hatred that deserves scrutiny, when it was done historically at a time when such items were the accepcted norm it is part of us whether we like it not. We shouldn't encourage kids to use some of these terms/symbols but they should know that they weren't alway meant as derrogatory are hateful in manner.

[Skybird]

The Nazis did a lot of damage to German - and other - culture. They also hijacked the symbols of Nordic runes, namely the swastika and the SS-runes. But you canot deny the histiorical fqact that now these symbols are associated with the Nazi context, and that probably this context now dominates the ancient roots of the symbols being abused. More horror than good things have been done under these symbols, and the Nazis stand for one of the greatest crimes and catastrophes in the history of mankind.

[Biggles]

I'm sure you folks has already seen this one but...
http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/d1d0b64c-5dab-4d39-9510-7d4ddab8a026.jpg
heheheh...:O: