Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

53% More Book Banning Incidents In US Schools This Year

Soulskill posted about 10 months ago | from the who-bans-the-banners dept.

Books 360

vikingpower writes "Isabel Allende's The House of The Spirits. Sherman Alexie's The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian. Alice Walker's The Color Purple. Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye. Ralph Ellison's The Invisible Man. What do these titles have in common? They are banned at a school in the U.S. Yes, in 2013. A project named The Kids' Right to Read Project (by the National Coalition Against Censorship ) investigated three times the average number of incidents, adding to an overall rise in cases for the entire year, according to KRRP coordinator Acacia O'Connor. To date, KRRP has confronted 49 incidents in 29 states this year, a 53% increase in activity from 2012. During the second half of 2013, the project battled 31 new incidents, compared to only 14 in the same period last year. 'It has been a sprint since the beginning of the school year,' O'Connor said. 'We would settle one issue and wake up the next morning to find out another book was on the chopping block. The NCAC also offers a Book Censorship Toolkit on its website."

cancel ×

360 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The 21st Century is (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832439)

the new 15th Century.

Re:The 21st Century is (4, Interesting)

lgw (121541) | about 10 months ago | (#45832681)

Ellison's Invisible Man is banned? Dammit, I was forced to read that (very slow-paced book about racism) in high school. Hours of my life I'll never get back! Why couldn't you have banned it earlier? Whyyyy?

Actually, that one baffles me: unlike, say, Huck Finn, Invisible Man is primarily about racism: of course it depicts racism and racial stereotypes; illustrating just how messed up we were was the point of the story (the man was "invisible" in the sense that no one ever noticed he was a person, deserving basic consideration).

Re:The 21st Century is (1)

Rick Zeman (15628) | about 10 months ago | (#45832709)

Ellison's Invisible Man is banned? Dammit, I was forced to read that (very slow-paced book about racism) in high school. Hours of my life I'll never get back! Why couldn't you have banned it earlier? Whyyyy?

LMAO. I thought the same thing when reading the summary and was going to post exactly that. (I think my torture was freshman college.)

Re:The 21st Century is (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#45832785)

Politics, probably. There's a lot of backlash against political correctness - some people would see reading such a book in schools as 'liberal indoctrination' intended to make white people feel guilty about being white.

Re:The 21st Century is (4, Interesting)

lgw (121541) | about 10 months ago | (#45832949)

I'd give you odds it's the reverse - that someone searched through an eBook library and banned every one with racial epithets regardless of context.

Myth of PC (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45833117)

"Political Correctness" has become a banner (no pun intended) cry within the so-called conservative sector of those who march to the drums of Rupert Murdoch and take their cues from Fox News Corp. I've listened to my 80 yr-old father harp-on for years about the PC movement and how it obfuscates political discussion. Now its the the anti-PC movement thats actually accomplishing the mission.

Book banning is nothing more than political denial on the part of people who would rather require ignorance than suffer opposition to their sacred cattle and dogmatic sense of authority. It's a no win situation when you can't discuss things openly, without distraction from those who can't debate because they can't identify the underlying issues.

Re:Myth of PC (0)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 10 months ago | (#45833209)

Sorry to spoil your crazy rant but actually these books are banned not because they are too PC (can you even imagine that ever happening? really?) but because they contain depictions of racism, sex, violence etc. It actually is the case of PC going too far yet again.

Re:The 21st Century is (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 10 months ago | (#45833179)

Gotta agree with sibling... most school districts are far more enamored with stomping out all hallmarks of what most of us refer to as the real world.

Can't have harsh terminology, can't have depicted violence... hell, they can't even stand to have some wayward little boy kissing a girl, or pointing a finger at a classmate while saying "bang".

With all the zero tolerance BS going around? I can almost assure you that the censorship isn't coming from some drooling caricature of the "Right Wing" (cue ominous music), but more a result of overly-anxious officials scouring the libraries to expunge anything that could remotely intrude on what they assert is the "best" way to teach a child.

Re:The 21st Century is (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 10 months ago | (#45833185)

So let me get this straight. The way to deal with political correctness is more political correctness?

That's what always amazed me about the Huckleberry Finn bans. You had everyone from the KKK to Civil Rights types demanding its removal from school libraries. About the only thing you could say was that the White Supremacists got the point.

Re:The 21st Century is (2, Informative)

jythie (914043) | about 10 months ago | (#45832895)

It is hard to say, but keep in mind a lot of regions are going through a 'poor abused white man, any mention or discussion of racism is just libs trying to take down white people!'. There were several attempts to get teachers fired this year because they made 'white male students' uncomfortable.

Re:The 21st Century is (4, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | about 10 months ago | (#45833201)

Why wouldn't it make us uncomfortable?

That teacher made no effort to make the distinction between the actions of people in the past, and the young white men in the room. That's a huge effin problem. Let's discuss racism, and stereotypes, and prejudice, but do it in a way that is not racist in of itself.

Do you think it was only white men that had slaves and were racist? Puhleeeze.

Black people can be the most racist people on the planet now. Look at genocide happening in Africa. Christians and Muslims in Syria. Racism, slavery, and those associated evils are not the exclusive domain of white men. Black people sold each other into slavery in Africa. People tend to forget that. Slaves were picked up at the coast, but it was not white men hunting them to bring them to port.

That's what is so damn offensive about those "libs", "teachers", whatever dealing with children. I just call them arrogant racist assholes.

I was passionate about history, but I would have been deeply hurt and offended if there was too much emphasis on white men being the problem, and not enough attention paid towards creating a distinction that the young white men in the room are not inherently evil.

It's fucking hurtful. It creates a divide. It perpetuates the problem.

I totally understand the thinking behind the book ban. The "white man" is unfairly demonized well after we are supposed to getting rid of this shit. Does anyone think it's a really good idea to create judgement and negative emotions in a young person solely based on the color of their skin?

Children should not suffer the sins of the parents. I am not my parents.

Re:The 21st Century is (2)

mhajicek (1582795) | about 10 months ago | (#45833249)

Banned in a school \= banned in the US.

Buy a Kindle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832447)

They won't know what you're reading.

Re:Buy a Kindle (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | about 10 months ago | (#45832463)

Depends on which "they" you mean. You could certainly argue that Kindle books are tracked by many more people, and likely by more nefarious ones.

Re:Buy a Kindle (1)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 10 months ago | (#45832487)

It's obvious from the context that "they" are censorious local school boards. Good for you for throwing an evil corporation/NSA spying comment into an unrelated topic.

Re:Buy a Kindle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832879)

It's obvious from the context that "they" are censorious local school boards. Good for you for throwing an evil corporation/NSA spying comment into an unrelated topic.

Of course it's related. "They" would like to prevent "wrong thinking", that is the whole point of censorship at the school level. If someone knows what your electronic reading choices are, "they" can consider those choices if you trip any other flags for "wrongness", and then take the appropriate action. Soon the only freedom you will have will be between your ears, and "they" are working on that, under the guise of medical research and mentally controlled computers.

Re:Buy a Kindle (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about 10 months ago | (#45833247)

Unrelated my big fat white heinie.

Censorship is all about knowing what information people are consuming, and then to stop it. A local school board is a much much smaller threat than government surveillance and censorship.

Right now it's the school board, but the child can go to the library and get the book. It's physical. Kind of difficult to censor that. You would need book burnings.

It's not paranoia either. The FBI persecuted people based on their beliefs, the IRS has been used to quell political dissent, and knowing what people read is the first step towards putting them in the "undesirable" category. This isn't exactly something I need to prove with citations either. Read a damn history book.

It's absolutely related, and indeed, far far far far far far far far far far far FAR more nefarious with its potential impact.

You're argument that it's unrelated is purely about the source and scope of control, and you're dead wrong on this one.

School officials will likely confiscate it (1)

tepples (727027) | about 10 months ago | (#45832759)

K-12 school officials routinely confiscate electronic devices not issued by the school as "disruptive".

Re:School officials will likely confiscate it (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 10 months ago | (#45832813)

That's because they are. Try keeping a class focused on their lesson when half of them have a phone hidden under the desk to check their facebook page.

Re:School officials will likely confiscate it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832975)

That's because they are. Try keeping a class focused on their lesson when half of them have a phone hidden under the desk to check their facebook page.

The school system can either fight this, and continue to piss off students and parents when they take their OMG-what-if-I-have-to-dial-911 emergency candy crush device away, or they can give in and bring the electronics to the TOP of the desk and welcome tech by issuing or allowing iPads and other devices in the classroom for learning.

If the student wants to continue to fuck off and play around, then the failure will eventually catch up to them. We MUST bring back individual responsibility. I grow tired of the fucking pandering and tiptoeing around the risk of offending someone when we tell them to stop being a fucktard, regardless of age.

Before the bell (1)

tepples (727027) | about 10 months ago | (#45833095)

What else are students supposed to do between completing the assignment and the bell, especially in a "flipped" class where lectures are delivered through Internet video on demand?

Reverse psychology? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832471)

Best way to make people want something is to ban it.

Re:Reverse psychology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832583)

Hope so. They actually have kids that want to read books and they're taking them away from them...

Ban or Censor? (2, Insightful)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 10 months ago | (#45832489)

There is a difference. Its a shame the words are interchanged just to outrage the reader.

Lots of books should be censored from our public schools for a variety of inappropriate content. More books are being published every year, so that list should grow. Kids can get any of those books via their parents if they want. As for the particular books on the list, well, each case must be discussed separately.

Re:Ban or Censor? (4, Insightful)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | about 10 months ago | (#45832549)

The difference is whether or not you agree with the people doing the banning.

Re:Ban or Censor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832667)

Let's call a spade a spade. Only the Christians support this. Even they'd admit. Hell, they're proud of it.

Re:Ban or Censor? (2)

liquid_schwartz (530085) | about 10 months ago | (#45832891)

GLAAD loves banning / censoring speech. Hardly a Christan organization though.

Re:Ban or Censor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832939)

Let's call a spade a spade. Only the Christians support this. Even they'd admit. Hell, they're proud of it.

LOL.

What color is the sky on your planet?

Re:Ban or Censor? (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 10 months ago | (#45833159)

Troll! In History it's people in power under tyrannical rule that burn books and ban education. More recently in the US it's been special interests, mostly claiming to be working for equality. Special interest groups on both sides have tried to ban Tolkien's works because, you know, it's anti-Christian enough for those Christian's to ban yet Christian enough for special interests to ban because it's too similar to Christianity. Citation [world.edu] because Google can be difficult for trolls.

Re:Ban or Censor? (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 10 months ago | (#45833217)

Let's call a spade a spade. Only the Christians support this. Even they'd admit. Hell, they're proud of it.

...really? I was reading a large number of books as a kid in Catholic School that would qualify as censorship material today.

(...as a near-universal example, start with The Bible - specifically, Song of Solomon. [wikipedia.org] )

Re:Ban or Censor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832581)

Banned from schools. Your opinion seems to think that carte blanche refusal to allow books into schools is somehow appropriate. The schools should in no way stop teachers from teaching. Some subjects may be offensive, some may even be hurtful. Kids need to learn to deal with difficult and sometimes horrible/inapropriate subjects.

Re:Ban or Censor? (1)

gewalker (57809) | about 10 months ago | (#45832995)

So, you have no problem with teaching showing snuff films, and child pornography to 2nd graders. I think that using discretion in books and other media used in schools is a far lesser problem than failing to do so. Censorship requires authoritative (governments, Catholic church and many others can be cited) agencies banishing or restricting objectionable content -- with associated civil or criminal penalties (official or not) associated with violations -- without penalties, there is no real restriction. Lessor restrictions are really not censorship, that though may well be undesirable or even odious and evil.

Say I personally kill you for reading the Bible because I think it is evil -- this is not censorship.
Say Muslims are known to kill people for reading the Bible because I think it is evil -- this is not necessarily censorship, depends on whether said Muslims are extremist that are officially or unofficial sanctioned or tolerated, if so -- yeah its censorship, otherwise it is same same as me doing it.

Being a member of the school book and saying a teacher crossed the line by showing Debbie Does Dallas to 2nd graders crossed the line and make sure she gets fired is not censorship, it is reasonable because community standards dictate that such would be totally inappropriate content. Showing Debbie Does Dallas to seniors is almost certainly the same answer -- it is not the in the purview of the school exercising its in loco parentis rights and responsibility to educate students in such a manner. Minors do not have the same legal rights as adults. See Contributing to the delinquency of a minor if you still doubt the responsibility to exercise judgment.

Re:Ban or Censor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832617)

Lots of books should be censored from our public schools for a variety of inappropriate content.

"Should" and "inappropriate" are subjective. I see no reason to let oversensitive fools ban or censor books.

Neither one (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832649)

Whenever one of these "banned books" stories comes out, if you click through and RTFA (I know) you'll find out it's a list of "challenged" books. Meaning that someone, somewhere, complained. It almost never means that a teacher, librarian, or administrator actually removed or prohibited the book.

Re:Ban or Censor? (3, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 10 months ago | (#45832705)

Kids can get any of those books via their parents if they want.

Yeah, that's privilege speaking.

The people who most rely on public institutions are the ones who are least able to replace them with their own money. Average middle-class kid and just get his mom to order the book on amazon. Average lower-class kid's mom is working 60 hours a week just to pay the rent and keep food on the table. She doesn't even have a computer to order from amazon and couldn't afford to if she did.

Re:Ban or Censor? (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 10 months ago | (#45832771)

If you think I grew up in "privilege" then you could not be more wrong. Your assumption tells me more about you than any point you tried to make. Maybe there are some cases where a kid can't get the books he or she desires, but that does not impact the argument made.

Re:Ban or Censor? (1)

jythie (914043) | about 10 months ago | (#45832917)

Privilege is a complex and scaled topic. In this context, yes, if you are asserting that kids can just go to their parents and get the books then that is a privileged assumption since that is not a viable option to large percentage of the of the population. And this is an important part of the argument since the point is that many children really do rely on public institutions for obtaining such works, and thus removing them from public access puts up a significant barrier that children of more middle class parents do not experience.

Re:Ban or Censor? (1)

lgw (121541) | about 10 months ago | (#45833015)

"Privilege" is a hammer to beat down arguments without having to actually have an argument. It's the new "that's racist".

Used books stores are still around. Books passed hand-to-hand (a tradition for banned books) are still around. Poor as I was growing up, I could scrape together bus fare and a couple bucks for books every couple of weeks, which goes petty far in the deeply discounted section of half-price books. I also took the bus to the library regularly, but there was better stuff in the used book stores. The school library was largely irrelevant.

Re:Ban or Censor? (2, Interesting)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 10 months ago | (#45833029)

Since none of these books is banned from the public library, I'd say its a bit of a needless side-track to the discussion. Kids that are brought up in challenged environments have a wide number of factors that will limit their ability to succeed in life. Ready access to a few particular books in the school library is very low on the list of things to worry about for those kids.

Re:Ban or Censor? (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about 10 months ago | (#45832971)

Libraries still exist. I used to make a twenty-minute bike ride to go to one, several times a week, before I got my driver's license (which was 1990). It didn't hurt that there was a sketchy neighborhood near it that would sell me Penthouse and Playboy when I was fourteen.

Re:Ban or Censor? (3, Informative)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 10 months ago | (#45832989)

If it was a money problem, public libraries would offer a convinient solution.

The true luxury that "privileged" kids have are parents who manage to get them intrested in reading.

Re:Ban or Censor? (2)

nurb432 (527695) | about 10 months ago | (#45832803)

I happen to agree, and as long as its still available to parents and older children i'm not so sure either term applies.

Re:Ban or Censor? (2)

DarkOx (621550) | about 10 months ago | (#45832853)

I don't know if by censor you mean make some redacted version of the work available or make the entire work unavailable.

If its the latter I am not sure I agree with you but many will. On the whole there is not bright line for what is vulgar, what is culture, and what is appropriate for a given age reader but people have been searching for one almost as long as people have been writing books and its a moving target. I would argue that parents, relatives, and nannies need to spend enough time with their children to know what they are reading and put in the correct context for them. If its not possible for some caring responsible to be in a position to do that than we need to be rethinking other aspects of our society before we worry about who is reading what books.

If its the former than I shutter to think what will happen to you when you take the black market to the Bible, Qu'arn, Upanishads, and just about every other holy book. My guess is angry mobs will descend upon you. If you are going to censor content though you pretty much will have to maul those works because they contain examples of just about everything anyone anywhere has thought might be inappropriate to write about.

No I don't think we need to go out of our way to stock school libraries with whatever it is people find 'edgy' this decade but I also don't think we ought to worry much about it either. Why? Because: We ought to consider that there is no safer way than a book where a young person can get exposure to some of these edgy and more radical ideas, let alone feelings and thoughts around 'adult' activities.

They are going to hear about or see this stuff happening somewhere sometime whatever it is, drugs, sex, explosives, other religions, and they will be curious. Much of that curiosity might very well be satisfied by just reading about it and at least there the worst that can happen to your delicate little snowflake is probably a paper cut.

More people have died (5, Informative)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about 10 months ago | (#45832505)

More people have been persecuted, hounded, ruined, tortured, burned, murdered, and just exterminated en-masse because of a book called the Bible than any other document in human history including Mein Kampf and Das Capital put together.

Just sayin' .

Re:More people have died (-1, Troll)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 10 months ago | (#45832545)

And more good, kind deeds have been spurred by this book than any other document in human history.

(Just helping to present the full picture.)

Re:More people have died (2)

YumoolaJohn (3478173) | about 10 months ago | (#45832641)

I'm not sure either of those things is true. People would have done 'kind'/'evil' things regardless of whether these fairy tail books were around or not, in all likelihood.

Re:More people have died (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 10 months ago | (#45832735)

I generally agree, just providing balance.

Re:More people have died (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832831)

I would agree that religion has allowed for some decisions (both good and bad) that wouldn't have happened otherwise, because of faith. I will stand by the opinion, as it can't be really proven, that overall, the civilization that we would have had, would be where we are currently. I think it would have all evened out in the end. It could have been even better if religious beliefs weren't taken so strictly or pervertedly. At the very least, life would not be worse than we currently have.

All the wars about religion, past and present, would not have happened, just leaving the economic / political wars which aren't nearly as bad as those don't have to end with the destruction of the people, just their things.

Re:More people have died (2, Informative)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about 10 months ago | (#45832863)

I don't buy it. People will do for each other out of a natural inborn sense of decency. No religious exhortations needed. Christians didn't invent civilization, civil law, democracy , representative government, the concept of Rights or the concept of a shared, general welfare. These are the things that keep us from sliding back down in barbarism.

OTOH as is widely evident, nations founded on religious "values" are only too happy to slide back into barbarism. There is a direct, inverse relationship between how religious a nation is and how equitable and egalitarian it is. That's not for nothing. The more religious the state, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia , Yemen Pakistan India the worse off religious minorities and women in those nations have it- they're just much less equitable to their populations.

Even amongst developed countries this relationship holds. Canada is more equitable than the US and Denmark and the Netherlands are even more equitable than Canada. Religion is the go-to reason why some people should be privileged over others, why some people should be displaced, disenfranchised even killed. It's just a historical fact.

If you want to tell me that ystic Sufis, Sikhs and Zen Buddhists are peaceble grass munching bunny-people then I'm not interested in arguing about THAT kind of religious endeavor which may even have something positive to contribute to society. But evangelical Christians for instance, believe that it ultimately doesn't matter what you DO in this life, good or bad, because either your name was written in the Book of Life at the start of all time or it wasn't and if it was, you're going to heaven and if not, fuck you, you're going to hell and that's all there is to morality. They don't say this explicitly but it's a basic tenant of their sick fundamentalism. I am sure in other religions there are correspondingly demented core beliefs. See www.religionofpeace.com for details .

This may be new to some readers. Book:

God is not Great- Chris Hitchens

Point is, the people doing this banning are fundamentalist or evangelical Christians whose own book has caused untold real world suffering, unlike , say Tropic of Cancer or House of Spirits, for instance.

See the point?

Re:More people have died (4, Insightful)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 10 months ago | (#45833001)

So, in your opinion, everything bad a person does is based on religion, and everything good is human nature? I think there is plenty of "evil" in human nature as well as "good". I am athiest, so I could care less if we are talking Christians or Buddhists, or assigning blame to one religion or another, but to choose to only assign the negative to religious influence seems to be more a matter of convenience to your own arguments.

Religions have cropped up in almost all societies. There is a reason for that, and its not "evil". It is because there was a need. Its an interesting exercise to think about that societal need. Much more interesting than just blindly casting fault on religions for many of our problems.

Re:More people have died (2)

lgw (121541) | about 10 months ago | (#45833061)

nations founded on religious "values" are only too happy to slide back into barbarism. There is a direct, inverse relationship between how religious a nation is and how equitable and egalitarian it is.

Your knowledge of history is sadly lacking. The truth in Western culture is that for about 1000 years, the Church and the State balanced on another well. There were vile, hateful people in both, but each acted as a check on the worst excesses of the other. The dual power structure really helped protect the common man (OTOH, he did pay taxes to both, and each family owed a son to each).

But evangelical Christians for instance, believe that it ultimately doesn't matter what you DO in this life, good or bad, because either your name was written in the Book of Life at the start of all time or it wasn't and if it was

You're knowledge of Christian sects is worse. "Evangelicals" are mostly about religion-as-popular-entertainment. You don't get 10000+ member mage-churches by spending time on Calvin and Luther and sin, but by putting on elaborate and entertaining stage productions each week, carefuly tuned to make people feel better for having attended, not making anyone feel bad or guilty. You may be thinking of "fundamentalists", may of whom believe just what your wrote - they're at the opposite end of the spectrum of modern Christian sects from the evangelicals.

Re:More people have died (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832591)

Uh, no. There is a difference between hyperbole and ignorant lying. I'm no YWHW fanboy, but don't say stupid things that are blatantly untrue.

Re:More people have died (1)

neminem (561346) | about 10 months ago | (#45832647)

Actually, it is probably literally true: all the tens of millions of people killed by Hitler and Stalin weren't killed by the books written by those dictators, they were killed by the dictators directly, or by their policies. If you only include deaths due to people directly influenced by those two books, but not deaths directly or indirectly *ordered* by those dictators, you have a much smaller number. Whereas if you go by the literal bible, the number of deaths Yahweh Himself directly ordered to occur, is not zero, but it's not that big, either.

Re:More people have died (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832799)

The only problem with that is that God does not exist. Any deaths carried out in his name were the acts of humans, ordered by humans, and under their policies. If we get to blame the Bible for what people did to enforce their interpretation of it, then for a fair comparison then we have to include the murders committed under Stalin in his defense of his interpretation of Marx's works.

Re:More people have died (1)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about 10 months ago | (#45832893)

It's true. We do have to count those. See my adjustment.

Re:More people have died (2)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about 10 months ago | (#45832689)

Actually I'm going to have to throw the Koran in there to really seal it up, owing to the efficiency of 20th century killing machines. BUT even at that, it's merely because the American Indians and Mexican Aztecs who died from infectious diseases aren't normally counted as having been "killed" by Cortez and the Manifest Destiny Christians .

But this is wrong. Anne Frank died of typhus, not in the gas chambers but she is rightly counted as having been killed by Nazis anyway.

Face it - religious wars and the books that inspire those wars have killed more people than other book or ideology.

Re:More people have died (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 10 months ago | (#45832869)

Or were the books just the excuse?

Re: More people have died (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832941)

Or were the books just the excuse?

The books were their justification. There is no excuse for what they did.

Re:More people have died (4, Informative)

sconeu (64226) | about 10 months ago | (#45832671)

This "Bible" book condones a hell of a lot of stuff:

  • Incest (Lot & his daughters)
  • Terrorism (see the 10 plagues)
  • Biological warfare (again, see the 10 plagues)
  • Genocide
  • Rape

It clearly should be banned.

Re:More people have died (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45833157)

LOL. Have you ever even read the Bible? The Bible doesn't "condone" the incest between Lot and his daughters. It's merely an incident that ~occurs~ in the Bible, and t's used for the same purpose as the transgressions of Ham against Noah after the Deluge.

Lot, Noah, and their families were saved for being "good". Immediately after being saved, these sins occurred. The stories are meant as allegories to show the sinful nature of man. They aren't condoning the sin.

I'm not a Christian, but at least I understand the Bible. You might want to try actually reading it some time as opposed to just looking up a list of bad shit in the Bible and quoting it as if you know what you're talking about.

Re:More people have died (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45833173)

Too bad it doesn't mention putting faggots to death like the Koran does. How did you miss that little gem? Oh, that's right, it's because you're a flaming leftist who bashes Christianity while Islamic nations are actively murdering gays by state law.
 
Thanks for playing but you've proven how much of a fucktard bigot you really are.

Re:More people have died (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832701)

I've never understood the problem people have with Mein Kampf. It's a stunningly dull, dreary, rambling book which makes taking over the world with a fascist regime look decidedly tedious and pointless. We stocked it in a bookshop as it was on multiple reading lists - then the university Jewish Society demanded we ban it. We offered to hold a public book burning in their name and heard nothing more on the matter.

Re:More people have died (2)

gewalker (57809) | about 10 months ago | (#45832729)

Highest estimate I was able to find at all related to the Bible related deaths was 17 million in a quick search.

How about Das Capital and everything related to it? 100 million give or take.

The 100 million deaths related to Communism being attributed to Das Kapital is certainly at least as valid as counting the Crusades and the Inquisition as being a result of the Bible -- Nothing in the Bible can accurately be attributed as a direct cause of these 2 events. Just as in the case of Das Kapital was not the direct cause of the many atrocities of communism.

The Bible is at best 2nd place is the history of killing people because of a book.

It may be in third place if you count Mein Kampf related deaths at about 15 million (6 million Jews + 9 million war deaths), as the 17 million for the Bible may be a bit high on the as accurate numbers for Bible related deaths are hard not available.

Re:More people have died (2)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about 10 months ago | (#45832907)

100 million American Indians dead between Cortez and the American Indian genocide. Plus, lower population then, so greater relative percentage. If you go by percentage of population, it's a total wipe out in favor of religion. .

Re:More people have died (1, Flamebait)

lgw (121541) | about 10 months ago | (#45833107)

That's a terrible comparison. Most of the deaths (as many as 90% of the population in Central America and 95% in North America - staggering numbers) were inevitable as soon as anyone, for any reason crossed the ocean.

Your hated for religion seems an irrational compulsion - have you talked to anyone about it?

Re:More people have died (2)

operagost (62405) | about 10 months ago | (#45833113)

The Bible doesn't say anything about wiping out Native Americans.

Re:More people have died (1)

russotto (537200) | about 10 months ago | (#45833045)

The Bible doesn't cause all that stuff (though it depicts); it's just the fan clubs that are a problem. No Bible, and they'd rally around something else; _Dianetics_, maybe.

Re:More people have died (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 10 months ago | (#45833047)

More people have been persecuted, hounded, ruined, tortured, burned, murdered, and just exterminated en-masse because of a book called the Bible than any other document in human history including Mein Kampf and Das Capital put together.

Just sayin' .

As long as your meaning is, "They were persecuted for believing in Judaism or Christianity," or for owning a Torah or Bible, very possibly.

Beginnings of Christian Martyrdom [eyewitnesstohistory.com]

In their very deaths they were made the subjects of sport: for they were covered with the hides of wild beasts, and worried to death by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set fire to, and when the day waned, burned to serve for the evening lights. Nero offered his own garden players for the spectacle, and exhibited a Circensian game, indiscriminately mingling with the common people in the dress of a charioteer, or else standing in his chariot. For this cause a feeling of compassion arose towards the sufferers, though guilty and deserving of exemplary capital punishment, because they seemed not to be cut off for the public good, but were victims of the ferocity of one man."

WHEN EUROPEANS WERE SLAVES [osu.edu]

A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 – a far greater number than had ever been estimated before.

League of Militant Atheists [wikipedia.org]
North Korea Ranked No. 1 for Christian Persecution [cbn.com]
Persecuted and forgotten: Egypt's Christians [www.dw.de]
A Global Slaughter of Christians, but America’s Churches Stay Silent [thedailybeast.com]
Christian Persecution in China Despite Supposed Religious 'Freedom' [breitbart.com]
The Case Against the Nazis; How Hitler's Forces Planned To Destroy German Christianity [nytimes.com]

UNDERSTANDING ANTI-SEMITISM AND ITS HISTORY [discoverthenetworks.org]

The list is obviously much longer.

Since someone is practically certain to object along two lines, lets dispose of them now.

Yes, the Spanish Inquisition was terrible, it was also limited in scope.
The Crusades were a long delayed response to Muslim invasion of the Holy Land.

Re:More people have died (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 10 months ago | (#45833233)

Reliable citations, please.

Also, one can do anything he wants "in the name of" some document or philosophy, regardless of whether or not it's actually consistent with it. For example, if I hear that you're not a fan of dogs, and so I kick a puppy in your name, does that suddenly make you a monster?

Information is dangerous (2)

Maquis196 (535256) | about 10 months ago | (#45832519)

Words can hurt you, won't someone please think of the children!

Re:Information is dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832675)

Yup, we need them to stop thinking for themselves, that's proven to be dangerous, it leads to things like science, engineering and literature.

Re:Information is dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832695)

Well I have to say that during/after puberty there were a number of books that turned me on to some things... so to speak.

Plus, you know, the Internet.

What is the fucking point of banning books in the Internet age? It makes no sense. Everything is available.

These people would all go into a snit if they knew (1)

kilodelta (843627) | about 10 months ago | (#45832555)

That my freshman reading list for high school included books such as:

Brave New World, Black Like Me, A Kiss Before Dying, 1984, Animal Farm, etc. Yes, a fairly subversive Catholic high school. Then of course during my years there we read the Greek Tragedies, one that stands out is Lysistrata, then of course The Hobbit, The Canterbury Tales, and Beowulf. Yes, read them.

Evolution disbelievers + book banning correlation? (1)

dysmal (3361085) | about 10 months ago | (#45832563)

First there's a posting about 1/3 of Americans not believing in Evolution (http://politics.slashdot.org/story/13/12/30/2326229/new-study-shows-one-third-of-americans-dont-believe-in-evolution). Now according to this there's books being banned still. Coincidence?

Re:Evolution disbelievers + book banning correlati (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 10 months ago | (#45832687)

Coincidence? Not if you factor in progressive political correctness.

title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832577)

Ellison's book is "Invisible Man."

Not all that bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832585)

It would be a different story (pun intended) if they banned good books.

Re:Not all that bad (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 10 months ago | (#45832713)

It would be a different story if they banned gun books.

Re:Not all that bad (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 10 months ago | (#45833153)

Gun books don't kill people, people books kill people!

Censorship is the ally of ignorance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832597)

These kids need all the books they can get!

Less than 50 incidents for the whole country? (3)

jandrese (485) | about 10 months ago | (#45832603)

This headline seems rather sensational since the numbers are so small. The US has roughly 100,000 public schools. The fact that only 49 of them (well, probably some of these are full districts, so the number of schools will be greater) are banning books should be celebrated. This is people fighting the good fight against highly local ignoramuses, not some big national problem. I'm glad they're doing what they're doing, but I'm more glad that it's almost unnecessary.

Re:Less than 50 incidents for the whole country? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832805)

The problem is that they're succeeding in removing books from schools where we learn our values and to think for ourselves as we grow up. These books are being banned forever at those schools, and it's happening in almost 60% of the states in the USA. That these attacks are increasing year by year, a 53% increase in one year is pretty serious. Banning books shouldn't even be on the table in even one state. It didn't used to be like this, when I was a kid I would have been stunned to hear this was happening. It does not fit with our society, with its focus on freedom of speech and personal liberty. We are handing over a hell of a lot of rights. I find it ironic that the religious right are behind a lot of the book burning at home while they preach delivering "freedom" onto our enemies. I don't think they even know what the term means anymore.

Re:Less than 50 incidents for the whole country? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832911)

I find it ironic that the religious right are behind a lot of the book burning at home while they preach delivering "freedom" onto our enemies.
 
No one is burning any books. And the left is just as guilty.
 
But let's talk irony... How about the liberal left [nydailynews.com] being racist and protecting their own? I thought only the right did that? Oh, that's right. When the right has anything even close to this people are fired without question. Amazing! Fucking leftist liars always play the victim. That shit's done. I don't accept their fucking lies anymore.

Re:Less than 50 incidents for the whole country? (1)

turning in circles (2882659) | about 10 months ago | (#45832835)

OK but there are ten times as many reported challenges (where someone, usually a parent, seeks to get a book banned from a school or library), and maybe four or five times as many total challenges. Actual book banning only succeeded 49 times, but that doesn't mean many many more people tried to ban books. ALA website discussion here [ala.org]

Re:Less than 50 incidents for the whole country? (4, Insightful)

Idarubicin (579475) | about 10 months ago | (#45832933)

The fact that only 49 of them (well, probably some of these are full districts, so the number of schools will be greater) are banning books should be celebrated.

The concern I would have here is that we have no way of knowing what fraction of all book bannings come to the attention of NCAC. Particularly if a ban is implemented by a single school, banning a book from the curriculum may only directly affect one or two classrooms' worth of children. Not all of those students (or even their parents) may necessarily be aware that a ban has been applied. In subsequent years, no one may have any inkling that the ban exists; the book will have silently disappeared from the curriculum. The syllabus doesn't usually include a list of the books that aren't being taught. So for those reasons, I suspect that the number given - 49 instances - represents a very significant under-reporting.

On the other hand, that same under-reporting gives me a (small) measure of comfort with respect to the other number in the summary: the purported 53% year-over-year increase in bannings. Without ready access to more data, it's entirely possible that the increase in cases is not due to an increase in bannings (undoubtedly a bad thing) but due to an increase in awareness regarding the NCAC and their Kids' Right to Read Project which would make these incidents more likely to be reported and challenged when they do occur (which would be a good thing).

Obligatory (1)

iriecolorado (2734457) | about 10 months ago | (#45832619)

"It tells me that goosestepping morons like yourself should try reading books instead of burning them!"

Obligatory joke (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 10 months ago | (#45832697)

People with loose morals often read books that have been banned. People with strict morals, by contrast, form censorship committees and study those books in a group setting.

Banning for everyone vs by age (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832715)

They lump a school decides that a book with graphic language and violence is inappropriate for 3rd graders into the same category as a district that bans "Catcher in the Rye" from the high school library.

Only a moron would think that they're the same thing.

Only in schools (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 10 months ago | (#45832783)

If that continues to hold the course, then its not a huge deal. As long as parents who disagree with the content can still buy the books and let their children read them. 90% of the books in primary schools don't need to be there anyway, as they are 'fluff' and not directly related to the curriculum.

Public libraries should retain the titles however.

OTT headline? (4, Informative)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 10 months ago | (#45832809)

"53% More Banning Incidents"

No, they're investigated 53% more requests. The linked article says nothing about how many were actually banned.
And the majority of requests were from parents or library patrons, not school districts or state/local govts.

49 cases. Is that idiocy? Are these idiots? Sure. But good grief....49 cases out of how many million kids and parents?

Alternate non-OTT headline - "0.002% of parents in the US have requested a book be banned in their local school library."
You could find a greater percentage of people complaining about just about anything.

Re:OTT headline? (3, Interesting)

Gh0st_Preacher (801406) | about 10 months ago | (#45833011)

Actually decided to brave the comments section to post just this - the headline is wrong. This system (at least where I live in Northern California) works something like this: 1. Parent finds "objectionable material" in a book their child was assigned. 2. Parent ignores the packet they got before the school year started that tells them the reading list and letting them know that if they don't approve of any book/material for their child, they can work with the teacher for an alternative. 3. Parent goes to local school district and files an official complaint. 4. After processing said complaint, the district must pull all copies of said book while it is under "review". 5. Parent feels morally justified. 6. Book returns to shelves for the whole cycle to restart. That's probably the kind of "incident" the article was originally referencing.

What about "The Turner Diaries"? (1)

hessian (467078) | about 10 months ago | (#45832873)

I hear that never even made it into the libraries in the first place.

That's a better form of censorship than letting it in, and then trying to ban it.

bad reportage/bad stats/just plain bad (3, Insightful)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 10 months ago | (#45832875)

and we take their word for it.

Saudi Arabia and other area coutries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45832883)

This makes headlines but how many books, including the Bible, are banned in Saudi Arabia and or other nearby countries? Some perspective would be nice. Not saying that a VERY FEW number of schools banning books is ok but the fact that this is not a national issue while ignoring what other countries do........... I guess it is always fun to pick on the US and ignore the misdeeds of other nations.

Re:Saudi Arabia and other area coutries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45833175)

I find it extremely annoying when the eurotrash\Canadians with inferiority complexes shows up with comments like "How dare the US criticize North Korea for threatening to nuke the US, Japan, and South Korea when they are still slaughtering millions of innocent Muslims every day in Iraq!", but that's not even close to the case here. The US is supposed to be a free country, with freedom of the press. It's irrelevant what Saudi Arabia does because Saudi Arabia knows that it's a repressive country and likes it. We like to hold ourselves to higher standards.

And anyway, this is a domestic group doing this research and no comparison was made, so shut up.

And Saudi Arabia is by no means "nearby". It's on the other side of the fucking globe. You're doing your country a disservice by looking this stupid. Please stop.

Yawn (3, Interesting)

sideslash (1865434) | about 10 months ago | (#45832921)

Schools in general act "in loco parentis", and decide what material young people should be exposed to in order to have a good education. Schools may make good or bad choices, but they do make choices. I am not surprised that a book is banned at a school library. It is no more or less appropriate than a ban on taking kids to a field trip to a strip club. I as a parent would happily ban my children from attendance at a strip club, and a school (acting, again, in loco parentis) may do the same if it decides it's best.

Don't like that? Then homeschool your kids and be responsible for their welfare yourself.

For what it's worth, I homeschool my own kids. I won't show slasher movies to a 3 year old. I expect an 18 year old to be prepared to be an adult. At some point in there a transformation has taken place; every child is different, but parents can and do mess it up by exposing their kids to junk when they're not ready for it. Such junk could be bad friends (learning to be racists/dishonest/etc.) or (yes, Slashdot) bad media for their age and emotional maturity.

What about seditious literature? (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 10 months ago | (#45832935)

The government should quietly work to have 1984 banned from schools. It will make the rest of the transition all the more less resistive.

What about 'heemasex'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45833005)

They've also BANNED any psychology books from before the 1970s too...
You know, the ones in which they state that homosexuality is a mental illness (which it is). Obviously the homosexual Jew paedophiles (you know, the ones who like torturing their own baby boys by cutting off their foreskins without anaesthetic, and then SUCKING THE WOUND with their own mouths - THOSE homosexual paedophiles) want to make sure that they can brainwash some more 'goyim' into believing that being 'gay' is completely normal.... It's not as if it's taken them fifty years of non-stop propaganda and threats to get to this point, is it - our parents and grandparents were obviously 'full of hate' for thinking that homosexuals were sick perverts... After all, the JEW says so, so it must be true...

1984 is now confusing... (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about 10 months ago | (#45833027)

...libraries no longer know where to file it. After all, anyone reading it these days would assume it's a work of non-fiction.

The government assumed it was an official training manual...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?