(Bodleian Library, Oxford, photo: Diliff)
Near me, the small minds of Elizabeth, CO are busy keeping “controversial” books out of the hands of kids. Many of these were assigned reading in more enlightened times. Also on the chopping block are classroom libraries… Apparently, teachers can’t be trusted to curate a few classroom books for their kids. You’ve got to be kidding me!!
I realize this is going on all over the country. That’s the point. When did parts of society lose faith in the education system and not trust established institutions to guide future generations? There has always been an option to school outside public institutions. I’m so sick of this!
Book burners/banners and those who restrict the freedoms of thought and communication will ALWAYS be on the wrong side of history.
ellisnelson 
I had to go to the link and then go to another link to find the banned books. An idea: pick one or more of those books and talk about them in relation to being banned, trying to empathize with the people wanting them banned but being very clear that banning is not good for anybody by showing that and not just saying it; why is it not good for us as a society? But show us too that we do have to have some quality control of books in our schools and what that would mean in terms of what’s the deciding factor, quality or content? And that phrase age appropriateness, what would that mean in truth and not something used to ban books. Obviously it’s not black and white.
There’s a broader topic here I don’t hear anybody talking about: the control parents have on their kids to make them to be like the parents and not be free to choose their own course in life, for example to follow the religion of their parents, the ideas and ideals of their parents, the profession of their parents, when a kid doesn’t want to but has their own idea of what life is for them.
LikeLike
Parents are always going to retain certain rights to raise and influence their kids. That power is vast. They should monitor books coming into their home should they choose. However, they should not have power over my kids. We have plenty of professional gatekeepers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You live in the US, but I’d argue that even there parental rights take precedence over the needs of the child in more instances than you would be comfortable knowing about, and not just concerning what books they read.
When a school district steps in and says a child cannot read a book by another religion because the parents object, or they cannot read about racism, drug use, or being queer, I think that’s where the parental rights overstep a child’s need to be open-minded and to learn empathy, so they can be good citizens in a pluralist world. Isn’t that the debate?
Of course parents can tell their kids not to read such books and not to bring them home, but here’s a case where society needs to insure that, at school at least, kids can learn about their pluralistic world.
In a fractured society such as America, conservative, primarily Christian parents are using this very touchy subject of parental rights to ensure their kid doesn’t get exposed to other ways of being American even at school.
In many countries, children are not allowed to choose their own religion or profession, or even their spouse, or if you’re a girl you cannot move freely about or even go to school in some extreme cases. All that is enforced by parents. I am speaking to you from a country where parental rights override even the welfare of the child, India.
The reach and extent of parental rights, I’m talking about a can of worms we need to open at some point if we want a world where we are really and truly combating ignorance, which is so often a cause of human evil. I’m not talking about eliminating the parent as the person primarily in charge of the child.
LikeLike
I’m not arguing against you. However, the level of stress in the US is at a breaking point. We may not have a democracy for much longer. We are at a very real point where a small minority is about to change the whole fabric and direction of the country. Holding on to core values and fighting for them here has to come first. Without it, we can’t possibly undertake the exploration of these topics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very well said. There’s a very basic conflict near the root of the current divide in America: the one between progress and the status quo. It’s progress that Blacks get the same opportunities as Whites, women get as much power as men, the former leading to a civil war in America, and still things have not been made right, the latter still not either. But there comes a point when progress challenges the very terms of man, or of being human, more directly, which means what defines a human being, how a human being is conditioned to be one, and what is considered proper human behavior.
That very vocal but small minority is resisting those changes especially, for example giving gays the right to marry and adopt children, giving anyone the right to declare themselves the opposite sex and be treated as such, and you just have to ask, especially with the latter, what exactly is progress on that point of gender identification, since it’s obvious to a progressive person the status quo doesn’t address people’s needs?
When you say core values, what exactly do you mean? How do you not get caught up in the big issues people are fighting over and get to the core-root we need to fight for? The danger is an American brand of an authoritative government and a fundamental change, like you say, of US society. The same thing is happening here in India, in many countries. But what are we fighting for exactly to prevent such takeovers?
LikeLike
Core values is a loose term. I’m referring to fundamental ideas of the separation of Church and State, the right to vote, the right of free speech, that no one is above the law, etc. Ideas that Americans once agreed on and are now explosively divisive. Progress forward toward the ideals of equality and freedom cannot be made if we can’t hold the ground of basic democratic principles. Outside the US, it may be hard to grasp how close we are to civil war here. Americans in numbers unheard of previously now feel that violence to achieve political objectives is allowable. This is on both sides…
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Ideas that Americans once agreed on and are now explosively divisive.” That is an excellent way to put it. You answered very well when put on the spot. You must have written a good book.
I’m an expat American exGreen Beret a spiritual aspirant in India 20 years. Close to civil war? I was on a tactical nuclear weapons team in ’83, parachuted into Germany with one of those, with my A team, not sure if we were going to start a war or not. I think the fear of civil war there that I’m looking at through media and dream is real, but we, and I will say we, are not near the point yet of an actual war, although many people are taking up arms and doing acts of violence. There is still hope, and I think we’re going to have a woman president this time, and I can understand if you don’t. It’s looks bad right now.
LikeLike
Hear, hear!
LikeLike
indeed, we’re facing the same insanity in the states.
LikeLike
Did you hear about the Alan Gratz article in the Washington Post back in June about his whimsical Book titled “Ban this Book”? The book was banned because it mentioned a book that had some reference to sexuality. Alan’s book is delightful and well written, as are all his books. The plot line of his book is that lots of people who want to ban books do so without really understanding the book they wished to ban.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, but it sounds really interesting. I think fear drives a lot of this banning behavior.
LikeLike