Slashdot Mirror
Top Banned Books of 2003
michaelzhao writes "The ALA (American Library Association) recently published the new 100 most frequently banned books list of 2003.
Of the banned books, Harry Potter was in the number 7th place in the most frequently banned. Also included were 'Where's Waldo' and 'The Giver' along with 'Goosebumps' and 'How to Eat Fried Worms.' These books were banned from various public institutions. This means that they were banned from various public libraries and public schools around the nation. (private schools, libraries, and institutions of higher learning don't count) The ALA encourages the people of the United States to fight against the book bans and read a banned book today!"
The title actual is "The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-20001".
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
Nudity.
Well..this wasn't banned really... They just couldn't find it.
Harry Potter - encourages children to take drugs, mainly pot
Wheres Waldo - Encourages Stalking
and as for "how to eat fried worms" this obviously encourages animal cruelty
No question after seeing the list and finding these.
5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
56. James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
88. Where's Waldo? by Martin Hanford
96. How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
That list is disturbing. The ones I highlited here are some of what I read that really shouldn't be banned in my own opinion. Though I think no book should be banned, it's up to people to shepard their children and decide for themselves.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
See, I think that a more important list of which books were banned would be a list of which public institutions did the banning. If there are provincial, backwards-minded, insular communities out there banning books, I'm more interested in knowing where they are than what they're banning.
There are much more serious and interesting instences of banning, like the actual 1995 book burnings of Germar Rudolph's published findings (a German chemist who found evidence showing no signs of Zyklon-B use in Auschwitz other than in delousing chambers). Extreme or not, his publications were literally burned...
And another similar instance wherein publication was halted and pages were ordered torn out of a medical study which showed people of Jewish ancestry to be significantly genetically linked to the Arab and Palestinian population.
A Wrinkle in Time is apparently banned because it contains magic and "new age" nonsense. (http://solonor.com/bannedbooks/archives/001742.ht ml). Oddly enough, Madeline L'Engle was openly Christian, known to run with other prominant Christian authors like C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. It boggles the mind.
And many of them SHOULD be banned. I'd be pretty ticked if my kid brought home some of the books from that list from school.
And while I respect your right to decide what your child reads, you do NOT have the right to decide what MY child reads or what OTHER PEOPLE's children read. Just because you find Bridge to Terabithia to be crap doesn't mean all kids do, and I want my child to be able to check it out of a school library.
Keep in mind that this list does not just reflect school libraries, and that this is a list of challenges to books, not necessarily that all these books have been successfully removed from libraries.
I'd also disagree that Heather Has Two Mommies is inappropriate for elementary school kids. We have books picturing heterosexual couples, why not homosexual ones? It's not like the book advocates for only homosexual couples, or has sexual tones. Shockingly enough, there are also picture books about death out there. These kinds of books have a purpose. If your child brings it home, sit down and talk about it. If you don't want them reading it, tell them that. My parents vetted my reading.
If we're going to censor everything anyone finds offensive or inappropriate for their children, we're not going to have any materials in libraries.
And would you like to give a reference to your factesque "is a proponent of Wicca"?
Or was it something you heard....
Maybe like http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.htm
That sort of stuff eh?
The simple fact that the Potter books are *counter* to some pretty fundamental Wicca principles is the other give away.
Still... what about them Swift Boat Vets eh? And are you interested in this bridge I have for sale?
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
Daddy's Roommate / Heather Has Two Mommies
I'm not so sure how I feel about this one. Something like "The New Joy of Gay Sex" I could understand. But I like the idea of people seeing a homosexual couple as normal. (Conservatives will totally flip out over that?)
Go back 150 years, and imagine it was "Heather Has a Black Mommy." I'm not trying to defend gay marriage here or anything, but I think it's the same thing -- I strongly doubt the objection to this book was because of the homosexuality, as opposed to the homosexuality.
A homosexual couple has nothing to do with sex until, well, they have sex. It'd be like banning a book with a mother and father because they have a heterosexual relationship. The mere act of having a child proves they had sex!
I haven't read the book, but if it doesn't cover their bedroom activities, I don't see the problem. But maybe that's why I'm a liberal democrat.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
This causes a problem with some Christian organizations, as it's clearly against their teaching.
And the opinion of "some Christian organizations" is impacting what's in a public school? (Maybe it's nothing new, but it still shouldn't be happening.)
How about the Qur'an? Do stories about an Islamic child get banned? It's clearly against their teachings, whether it's witchcraft, Buddhism, or Judaism.
Not that I'm a fan of Harry Potter (I saw that movie with family, and got up several times to just pace through the hallways, as it was more interesting). Not that I'm against Christianity (I'm a practicing Catholic). I just don't think the Christian church has any right to control what's in a public school.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
My parents vetted my reading
,-)
So did mine. And that was a sure fire way of getting me to obtain and read those books
Your point is valid, tho. I get to decide what my child reads or not but I have no business doing to same with your kid. The problem is, how do I know if my kid gets a book I don't approve of at the school library? Maybe he reads it there and doesn't bring it home so I'll never find out.
A desicion has to be made by the school custodian (or PTA or whatever) as to what books to have available at the library. It is unrealistic to think that the librarian will have a list of allowed books per student.
If I'm interested in making sure my opinion counts in deciding what books will or will not be available to my kids at school, I'll make sure my voice is heard at the committee that does the deciding.
That said, I believe children should be able to read what they please and form their own oppinions instead of being "censored" into thinking like we do. If my kid wants to read "Mein Kampf", I won't forbid it to him. I will, however, make sure he has access to counterpoint arguments and will sit down to discuss it with him.
No sig
I read a Wrinkle In Time by Madeleine L'Engle a million years ago and I forget the details. I've read all of the Harry Potter stuff, J.D. Salinger's Catcher In The Rye, Flowers For Algernon, S.E. Hinton's The Outsiders, the
... I never viewed her as a particularly controversial writer.
Lord Of The Flies, Slaughterhouse Five, A Brave New World, A Light In The Attic, both Mark Twain books, all three Stephen King books, and this is a bit embarrasing and out of character for me, but I *own* a copy of Howard Stern's Private Parts.
The last time I busted my roomie watching Howard Stern they were interviewing a female dwarf porn star and I must say this is the most
redeeming episode I've seen, but his book examines corporate ownership of radio stations and is a fine read in a Hunter S Thompsonesque sort of way.
I see a smattering of gay parents are OK books and various juvenile magic manuals - no surprise on these getting the evil eye, but what is Judy Blume's stuff doing in there? She has five of the hot 100 and I just don't
understand
Can anyone shed some light on Judy Blume's presence on this list?
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Not that I agree with banning it, but I can appreciate some academics having trouble with the material (Atticus Finch is seen as a "nigger lover" - a quote straight from the book, btw).
Academics should be broadening the minds of tomorrow's leaders. Racism still is an issue in our country, although not as bad as it used to be. "To Kill a Mockingbird" does explore racism a little bit, and that is a good thing. Banning it for quotes such as what you mentioned is a very bad thing. That is like living in denial -- if I pretend that word does not exist, it will not (at least not in my head). Ludicrous.
When my son is old enough to go to school I will be very proactive and make sure he learns about these issues. I will encourage him to read banned books if his school acts stupid. Government censorship is evil. There are two people allowed to censor what my son sees, and the other one is my wife.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Heh. People didn't see interracial couples as "normal". There were laws against it for many years, they didn't get repealed until the 60s.
A lot of things considered "normal" today - women voting, blacks not being slaves, minorities having equal rights - were not in previous years. What makes you think that our idea of "normal" today is any better than it was a hundred years ago?
The reason why we need "feverish activist campaigns" is because there are bigots like you - the same kind of people who were against civil rights 40 years ago - trying to repress a segment of society. And that's what they're fighting.
The Nazis came to power because the Germans were forced into blind obedience by the own fear and insecurity. Many people like to think that it was some violent coup d'etat or something that made Hitler chancellor then fuhrer. No, Hitler was democratically elected by good decent Germans (I say that with no intended irony) because they just didn't care what he was doing because at the time they thought they had bigger problems. They let themselves be bullied by the browncoats in the street, they let themselves be frightened by the Communists. They had the power to stop Hitler's tyranny but they didn't stand up for their rights because they were obedient.
Look, I am not usually a fan of disregarding Goodwin's law, at least so early in a discussion but this is an important thing to consider in this topic. Fascism is the product of total obedience as concretely as anarchy is the product of total disobedience. Do what you are told when it is wrong and you are no better than the guards at Auschwitz operating the death chamber. Sure, what an average person is asked to do in a compromising situation is not nearly as heinous as genocide, but I am sure the average SS officer didn't go straight to genocide from helping old ladies across the road either.
It is ignorance of an unforgivable magnitude to compare 1944 Germany to your own country and then immediately assume that your country is immune to fascism simply because there are no deathcamps around. Nazism started as a simple mix of national pride and workers rights, both intrinsically good things, but pretty much the complete basis of the worst tyranny in recorded history. Nazism was truely a good thing for Germany for a while and the Germans loved it, just as we love benign things in our own societies today. The Germans could not see what Nazism really was, because by the time it unveiled itself it was too late and Germany was already dependant on it. Can you confidently say that there is nothing evil like that lurking in our society with any more cirtainty than the Germans had? But we are far more fortunate than the Germans of the nineteen thirties because we now KNOW what can happen and we CAN do something about it. However Nazism happened to good, well meaning people before and it can happen to us too, you just have to let it. Will you?
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
I agree with Hogwash McFly in finding a relation between facing problems with information and good-sense, rather than attempting to supress them. :) Do you recall seeing how the Administration recommends abstinence as means of stopping AIDS in African countries? Well, it's not just about that being hypocrite, that's a fine example of puritanism at the higher levels. Don't you find it at least a bit odd?! I mean... c'mon, abstinence? They don't have TVs or computers to spend their times in... ;) And the worst part is that I can imagine many people in most states in the US, in their homes watching TV and nodding in consent at those declarations of abstinence. Then they'll quietly change channel to the pr0n cable network.
:)
Maybe it's just that puritanism doesn't work.
Topless sunbathing is allowed in every beach in Portugal. Yet, it's a very conservative country, and quite religious (at least middle-age up). The thing is, it's a matter of personal choice and context. Respect for the other people and facing issues with information rather than attempting to hide'em, that plays a large role in the lack of sex-related crimes and a population with a healthier mind. Drinking is allowed to people above 16 that don't show signs of mental disorder, and although we have our share of people who exceed their account, most people are raised in the notion that there is a limit. It's a matter of teaching good-sense instead of forcing people to obey rules.
Another fine example - I've been to Marrocos, and that's a country where the majority follows the islamic religion. I felt ashamed at how easily they meet foreigners and accept the difference in cultures. They'll make jokes about Allah showing us the way while we're there and will usually meet you with curiosity as opposed to the arrogance you'd find for being a foreigner in a more developed country. In comparison, in the US and in other more developed places, pre-conceptions and the belief that "we know best"... well... you know where this is going, and I don't want to be moderated as a troll.
Cheers.
"I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand!" E8