Banned Books

[GordMay]

10 Books They Don't Want You to Read

In 2004, libraries and schools received 547 written "challenges" to books stocked on their shelves, a stunning 20 percent increase from a year earlier. While the books haven't been banned outright, there are individuals and groups who don't want you to read them. This week, the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom is calling attention to these books and why some people want them removed from the shelves.

Three of the 10 most challenged books were cited for homosexual themes, which is the highest number in a decade. Sexual content and offensive language remain the most frequent reasons for seeking removal of books from schools and public libraries.

The books, in order of most frequently challenged, are:
1. "The Chocolate War" by Robert Cormier for sexual content, offensive language, religious viewpoint, being unsuited to age group and violence.
2. "Fallen Angels" by Walter Dean Myers, for racism, offensive language and violence.
3. "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" by Michael A. Bellesiles, for inaccuracy and political viewpoint.
4. "Captain Underpants" series by Dav Pilkey, for offensive language and modeling bad behavior.
5. "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" by Stephen Chbosky, for homosexuality, sexual content and offensive language.
6. "What My Mother Doesn't Know" by Sonya Sones, for sexual content and offensive language.
7. "In the Night Kitchen" by Maurice Sendak, for nudity and offensive language.
8. "King & King" by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland, for homosexuality.
9. "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" by Maya Angelou, for racism, homosexuality, sexual content, offensive language and unsuited to age group.
10. "Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck, for racism, offensive language and violence.

Visit the American Library Association’s < http://www.ala.org/ > “Banned Books” page:
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...dbooksweek.htm

[Talbot]

yet another example of the spread of Political Correctness.

I am grown up, I see no reason why another grown up should be allowed to dictate my activities unless such activities impact on others in a way that the majority of people find unacceptable.

[BC Mike]

Cracks me up.
Most of it is not unlike the general chit chat on a sail boat. Who decides what is accurate and what is not? ( the gun book ) Hate literature is banned in Canada as I am sure you are aware.
Same gender marraige is now legal in Canada for those that did not know.

Michael

[GordMay]

Talbot:
Book banning is not ‘political correctness’ - it’s tyrannical ignorance!
Wiser people censor themselves - not others.

"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings."
(As inscribed, in German, on memorial at Dachau concentration/death camp : "Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen.")
~ Heinrich HEINE

"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them."
~ Joseph Alexandrovitch BRODSKY

Who Challenges Books?

Throughout history, more and different kinds of people and groups of all persuasions than you might first suppose, who, for all sorts of reasons, have attempted—and continue to attempt—to suppress anything that conflicts with or anyone who disagrees with their own beliefs.

In his book Free Speech for Me—But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other, Nat Hentoff writes that “the lust to suppress can come from any direction.” He quotes Phil Kerby, a former editor of the Los Angeles Times, as saying, “Censorship is the strongest drive in human nature; sex is a weak second.”

According to the The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books, Challenges by Initiator, Institution, Type, and Year, parents challenge materials more often than any other group.

Between 1990 and 2000, of the 6,364 challenges reported to or recorded by the Office for Intellectual Freedom:

* 1,607 were challenges to “sexually explicit” material (up 161 since 1999);
* 1,427 to material considered to use “offensive language”; (up 165 since 1999)
* 1,256 to material considered “unsuited to age group”; (up 89 since 1999)
* 842 to material with an “occult theme or promoting the occult or Satanism,”; (up 69 since 1999)
* 737 to material considered to be “violent”; (up 107 since 1999)
* 515 to material with a homosexual theme or “promoting homosexuality,” (up 18 since 1999)
* 419 to material “promoting a religious viewpoint.” (up 22 since 1999)

Other reasons for challenges included “nudity” (317 challenges, up 20 since 1999), “racism” (267 challenges, up 22 since 1999), “sex education” (224 challenges, up 7 since 1999), and “anti-family” (202 challenges, up 9 since 1999).

Please note that the number of challenges and the number of reasons for those challenges do not match, because works are often challenged on more than one ground.

Seventy-one percent of the challenges were to material in schools or school libraries. Another twenty-four percent were to material in public libraries (down two percent since 1999). Sixty percent of the challenges were brought by parents, fifteen percent by patrons, and nine percent by administrators, both down one percent since 1999).

[exposure]

4. "Captain Underpants" series by Dav Pilkey, for offensive language and modeling bad behavior.

Oops! My 9 year old boy loves reading those books. He is smart enough to know it is humor and recognize where it is and isn't appropriate. (well... most of the time)

Boy, talk about an open door to a political rant. GRRRRRRR!!!!!!
Just have to remind myself I would be preaching to the choir.
Every time I hear stuff like this, my leave date gets moved up.

Thanks for putting it out there GORD.

[delmarrey]

And the bible was banned from schools~~~~~><)))*>

And now they're tring to ban Christmas stories.

[sneuman]

Gordmay,

Your post reminds me of something Kurt Vonnegut said at a book lecture I attended many years ago (yes, unlike the Internet hoax "wear sunscreen" he actually DID say this).

The lecture, in Fort Wayne, Indiana: When an audience member asked him what he thought of small towns in Indiana burning his books, he said, "Well, until fairly recently many of those same towns were burning people. So, I guess I'd call it progress."

[sneuman]

delmarey: when i was a kid in indiana, the school always let the little jewish girl do her hanakah thing (the "jewish christmas" our teacher would say informatively). that seemed to cover the public school morally, if not legally, for then promoting christmas.

we also had this cool "religious education" class that was conducted in a trailer ever so slightly off school grounds. of course, attendance was optional, the other option being the kid could spend the hour sitting in the principal's office.

One of the interesting titles that often used to show up on these lists of banned books was Ray Bradbury's "Farenheit 451" Somebody must have eventually read that book and discerned the irony of banning it.

[GordMay]

sneuman reminds me of something Sigmund Freud said ~ something to the effect that,” in times gone by, they’d be burning me - now they’re satisfied with burning my books” “.

As a journalist, have you any personal experience with censorship?

[GordMay]

Handbook for Bloggers and Cyber-Dissidents
How to blog anonymously & Technical ways to get around censorship & more ...
http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/Bloggers_Handbook2.pdf

Bloggers are often the only real journalists in countries where the mainstream media is censored or under pressure. Only they provide independent news, at the risk of displeasing the government and sometimes courting arrest. The media watchdog, Reporters Without Borders, has released a free guide with tips for bloggers and dissidents to sneak past Internet censors in countries from China to Iran, complete
with handy tips and technical advice on how to remain anonymous and to get round censorship, by choosing the most suitable method for each situation. It also explains how to set up and make the most of a blog, to publicise it (getting it picked up efficiently by search-engines) and to establish its credibility through observing basic ethical and journalistic principles.

Reporters Without Borders ~ a news website devoted to press freedom: www.rsf.org

I think the real problem is perception. The written word gives things a certain permanance, and a credence not withstanding in the spoken word. When a point of view is put in writing, those that disagree with it become fearful that it will gain support. Ignorance and fear. The food that feeds the power mongers.
The difference between banning the bible in public schools and banning "Captain Underpants" is a book like Captain Undepants speaks from a particular perspective that some may find disagreeable, where the Bible speaks as "God's law". One exemplifies a certain behavior, the other tells one how to behave. I have no problem with a person having "Christian values", but I do have a problem with being told that my value are wrong because they differ from "Cristian values". I wonder how much protest would have been out there if, instead of the Bible, the book in question was the Book of Morman? And for that matter, how many Christians would have been up in arms if the Old testament was allowed, but not the King James bible.

[Talbot]

Book banning is not ‘political correctness’ - it’s tyrannical ignorance

Gord, is there really a difference between these terms?

[delmarrey]

Actually the Bible speaks of "Gods grace" not law. The "law" was the Old Testament and is superseded by the New Testament. It suggests (exemplifies) how one should behave, and the results will be in the end (for believers).

The Bible tells us not to take action against the sinners but do point out the sin for the authorities (police, judges) to take the action. (Today’s problems- lack of action, now their population is growing)

BTW The Old Testament is part of the King James Bible.

It's no different then self-help (or demonic) books that can be found everywhere (perception).

So, if one is against banning books, why should the Bible be exempt from the rule?



Quote: "When a point of view is put in writing, those that disagree with it become fearful that it will gain support. Ignorance and fear. The food that feeds the power mongers."

MY SENTIMENTS EXACTALLY
Why not let people choose for themselves! And if Rome falls, it falls. History just keeps repeating itself. And people just keep dieing all for their SELFISH AMBISIONS rather then a common belief of what is healthy for the human race............................._/)

Thanks Delmarrey, I was fishing
I do not disagree with you. As for the Old testament remark, and the "gods law" remark, courtesy of the local Evangelist.
What our kids should be subjected to should be decided by responsible parents, not schools, but our reasoning should not be based on personal closemindedness. Unfortunately, not everyone is a responsible parent, and many feel their personal views should be imposed on others to the degree that many will never be exposed to things that they will have to deal with in adult life.
An example, a few months back, a group of students at a local high school started a protest group. The school was teaching tolerance. Because tolerance was to include that towards those of a different sexual preference, the students, and their parents wanted such a program banned from the school. Regardless of what you believe, teaching tolerance is a positive thing, and can not be exclusive. How can you teach a person to be tolerant of people of other religions, or other races, but tell them not to be tolerant of different sexual preferences? Selective tolerance? How about tolerance of those only within your financial class?
Rant Rant Rant!!!
Anyway, book burning is just plain a bad idea.