Book banners aren't going away. Realizing that, and not getting distracted by their unserious complaints and arguments, is key to addressing the serious educational challenges we face.
Well the cause it is noble and the cause it is just...."
Ride Across the River, Dire Straits.
Ah, yes. THEY are bad. WE are good.
"If God before us, who can be against us?"
If only it were true.
For someone who demands conversation as the only solution, the writer sure does denigrate those who disagree with him. They are unserious? Therefore not worthy of consideration from good folk?
Hear me out.
1st, although, in general, I am against book banning, I can see value in not giving sexually explicit or gratuitously violent material to primary school children. And I also respect other people's religion enough to consider it their right to raise their children as they see fit. To an extent.
Determining that extent, and how we go about that, are both worthy of serious debate. Automatically dismissing those with whom we may disagree as "unserious" hardly seems a foundation for healthy debate or developing consensus.
And just for the sake of argument, what about those times when we are the censors?
Does that ever happen? Or are we "the chosen", who are always right?
Now please understand, that though I would love to have seen Tenochtitlan preserved in all of its glory, that does not mean that I support human sacrifice. But I rue the loss of the Aztec capital, as well as the gold idols of the Mayas. Destroyed in the name of the righteous. (And also for mind boggling profit, but I'm sure that was just a fortuitous coincidence, right?)
And as someone with a socialist bent, I certainly am not a fan of the slave labor used to build the pyramids (or Washington DC, Richmond, or Fredericksburg for that matter).
But that does not mean I am happy that the Library in Alexandria in Egypt was destroyed. You can value and appreciate art without agreeing with the culture of the artist. I know I try to.
A bad idea should be argued and discredited, but not suppressed. That's not freedom of thought, merely replacing one boss for another.
And yet, a few years ago, many around here cheered when a governor, originally from New York, woke up one morning and arbitrarily decided that the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a legal and lawful organization, could no longer have their chosen emblem on their license plate.
How is that different? What gave him the right?
These same folks totally understood when a Mayor in Richmond ordered a statue not only removed from honor, which he could do. But also they understood when he decided to have it destroyed, though others offered to give it a home. Or when a Charlottesville City Council ordered another one melted rather than saved.
Censorship is serious in a truly free society. In all it's forms. Not just the ones that suit us personally. If we don't defend rights for everyone, then we defend them for no one.
At least with the "book bans" it's not like a determined child cannot do as Stephen King suggested and immediately go to the public library and get the same book. Whereas, once art is destroyed, it's gone forever.
So maybe before we get all high and mighty about how those on the right use such tactics, we might want to look at the actions of those on the left. And take these actions seriously, regardless of who comes up with them.
I wonder if the following words might be applied to those who destroyed those things?
If we substituted the word "censorship" for the specific type of censorship mentioned. Would the writer feel the same way?
I don't know. Food for thought.
Censorship is, in a word, “unserious.” And those who support it are unserious, too. They exist not to solve problems, but to force narrow, poorly-thought-out agendas.
The only thing that will quell censors is the total subjugation of public life to the narrow, fear-filled world from which they spring.
"I'm a soldier of freedom in the army of the man
Ah we are the chosen, we're the partisan alright
Well the cause it is noble and the cause it is just...."
Ride Across the River, Dire Straits.
Ah, yes. THEY are bad. WE are good.
"If God before us, who can be against us?"
If only it were true.
For someone who demands conversation as the only solution, the writer sure does denigrate those who disagree with him. They are unserious? Therefore not worthy of consideration from good folk?
Hear me out.
1st, although, in general, I am against book banning, I can see value in not giving sexually explicit or gratuitously violent material to primary school children. And I also respect other people's religion enough to consider it their right to raise their children as they see fit. To an extent.
Determining that extent, and how we go about that, are both worthy of serious debate. Automatically dismissing those with whom we may disagree as "unserious" hardly seems a foundation for healthy debate or developing consensus.
And just for the sake of argument, what about those times when we are the censors?
Does that ever happen? Or are we "the chosen", who are always right?
Now please understand, that though I would love to have seen Tenochtitlan preserved in all of its glory, that does not mean that I support human sacrifice. But I rue the loss of the Aztec capital, as well as the gold idols of the Mayas. Destroyed in the name of the righteous. (And also for mind boggling profit, but I'm sure that was just a fortuitous coincidence, right?)
And as someone with a socialist bent, I certainly am not a fan of the slave labor used to build the pyramids (or Washington DC, Richmond, or Fredericksburg for that matter).
But that does not mean I am happy that the Library in Alexandria in Egypt was destroyed. You can value and appreciate art without agreeing with the culture of the artist. I know I try to.
A bad idea should be argued and discredited, but not suppressed. That's not freedom of thought, merely replacing one boss for another.
And yet, a few years ago, many around here cheered when a governor, originally from New York, woke up one morning and arbitrarily decided that the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a legal and lawful organization, could no longer have their chosen emblem on their license plate.
How is that different? What gave him the right?
These same folks totally understood when a Mayor in Richmond ordered a statue not only removed from honor, which he could do. But also they understood when he decided to have it destroyed, though others offered to give it a home. Or when a Charlottesville City Council ordered another one melted rather than saved.
Censorship is serious in a truly free society. In all it's forms. Not just the ones that suit us personally. If we don't defend rights for everyone, then we defend them for no one.
At least with the "book bans" it's not like a determined child cannot do as Stephen King suggested and immediately go to the public library and get the same book. Whereas, once art is destroyed, it's gone forever.
So maybe before we get all high and mighty about how those on the right use such tactics, we might want to look at the actions of those on the left. And take these actions seriously, regardless of who comes up with them.
I wonder if the following words might be applied to those who destroyed those things?
If we substituted the word "censorship" for the specific type of censorship mentioned. Would the writer feel the same way?
I don't know. Food for thought.
Censorship is, in a word, “unserious.” And those who support it are unserious, too. They exist not to solve problems, but to force narrow, poorly-thought-out agendas.
The only thing that will quell censors is the total subjugation of public life to the narrow, fear-filled world from which they spring.
Is it different, if WE do it?
Hmmm.....