Legitimately Barring Books

World’s Emily Belz points to a protest over a high school library which would not take certain donated books. “Librarians had banned [so to speak – phil] their collection of books against homosexuality. While the teens argued this was intolerance of their views of homosexuality, the librarians said the books did not meet their standards for donated books which require recommendations from two positive reviews from professional journals.” I don’t know if these books are worth fighting for. The protesters were apparently informed only by Focus on the Family info sheets, not by scanning the books themselves. But a commenter, Michelle, gave good insight on reviewing books for schools. She said:

This is what drives me crazy about those who listen to Focus on the Family but don’t do their own research. There may be legitimate reasons to add books, or even to ban some books, but when you show up waving papers and talking about resources you’ve never examined, you look silly and you do damage. Continue reading Legitimately Barring Books

Tell Me Why We Need a Bailout Again

“The legislation is like this: some boats are sinking, so rather than bailing those boats out, you blow up the dam and drain the whole lake,” says economist John Cochrane in this article on the fact economists don’t quite buy the idea of a coming financial armageddon.

Mice Led the Vikings to New Worlds

Scientists are conducting genetic studies again. They are examining patterns in mice genes. “What this suggests to us is that the Norwegian Vikings were taking these mice around and they were taking a particular genetic type,” leading to an understanding of how men migrated in the early world. Real men, you know–viking men.

Frederick Douglass: Reading Fosters Freedom

This seems appropriate for this week. It’s an excerpt from Frederick Douglass’ My Bondage and My Freedom.

The frequent hearing of my mistress reading the Bible — for she often read aloud when her husband was absent — soon awakened my curiosity in respect to this mystery of reading, and roused in me the desire to learn. Having no fear of my kind mistress before my eyes, (she had then given me no reason to fear,) I frankly asked her to teach me to read; and, without hesitation, the dear woman began the task, and very soon, by her assistance, I was master of the alphabet, and could spell words of three or four letters.

My mistress seemed almost as proud of my progress, as if I had been her own child; and, supposing that her husband would be as well pleased, she made no secret of what she was doing for me. Indeed, she exultingly told him of the aptness of her pupil, of her intention to persevere in teaching me, and of the duty which she felt it to teach me, at least to read the Bible.

Here arose the first cloud over my Baltimore prospects, the precursor of drenching rains and chilling blasts. Master Hugh was amazed at the simplicity of his spouse, and, probably for the first time, he unfolded to her the true philosophy of slavery, and the peculiar rules necessary to be observed by masters and mistresses, in the management of their human chattels. Mr. Auld promptly forbade the continuance of her instruction; telling her, in the first place, that the thing itself was unlawful; that it was also unsafe, and could only lead to mischief.

To use his own words, further, he said, “if you give a nigger an inch, he will take an ell;” “he should know nothing but the will of his master, and learn to obey it.” “Learning would spoil the best nigger in the world;” “if you teach that nigger — speaking of myself — how to read the bible, there will be no keeping him;” “it would forever unfit him for the duties of a slave;” and “as to himself, learning would do him no good, but probably, a great deal of harm — making him disconsolate and unhappy.” “If you learn him how to read, he’ll want to know how to write; and, this accomplished, he’ll be running away with himself.” Such was the tenor of Master Hugh’s oracular exposition of the true philosophy of training a human chattel ; and it must be confessed that he very clearly comprehended the nature and the requirements of the relation of master and slave. His discourse was the first decidedly anti-slavery lecture to which it had been my lot to listen.

Mrs. Auld evidently felt the force of his remarks; and, like an obedient wife, began to shape her course in the direction indicated by her husband. The effect of his words, on me, was neither slight nor transitory. His iron sentences — cold and harsh — sunk deep into my heart, and stirred up not only my feelings into a sort of rebellion, but awakened within me a slumbering train of vital thought. It was a new and special revelation, dispelling a painful mystery, against which my youthful understanding had struggled, and struggled in vain, to wit : the white man’s power to perpetuate the enslavement of the black man. “Very well,” thought I ; “knowledge unfits a child to be a slave.” I instinctively assented to the proposition . . .

Seized with a determination to learn to read, at any cost, I hit upon many expedients to accomplish the desired end. The plea which I mainly adopted, and the one by which I was most successful, was that of using my young white playmates, with whom I met in the street, as teachers. I used to carry, almost constantly, a copy of Webster’s spelling book in my pocket; and, when sent of errands, or when play time was allowed me, I would step, with my young friends, aside, and take a lesson in spelling. I generally paid my tuition fee to the boys, with bread, which I also carried in my pocket. For a single biscuit, any of my hungry little comrades would give me a lesson more valuable to me than bread. Not every one, however, demanded this consideration, for there were those who took pleasure in teaching me, whenever I had a chance to be taught by them. I am strongly tempted to give the names of two or three of those little boys, as a slight testimonial of the gratitude and affection I bear them, but prudence forbids ; not that it would injure me, but it might, possibly, embarrass them ; for it is almost an unpardonable offense to do any thing, directly or indirectly, to promote a slave’s freedom, in a slave state.

Of course–not to restate the obvious–reading the Bible is particularly beneficial to fostering freedom.

The Real Question

“No; we have been as usual asking the wrong question. It does not matter a hoot what the mockingbird on the chimney is singing…. The real and proper question is: Why is it beautiful?” – Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

Library Hogwash

Thanks for Dan Kleinman for pointing out Thomas Sowell’s criticism of Banned Books Week. Sowell is quoted saying:

If the criterion of censorship is that the objection comes from the general public, rather than from people who run schools and libraries, then that is saying the parents and taxpayers have no right to a say about what is done with their own children or their own money. . . . No one calls it censorship if the collected works of Rush Limbaugh are not put into libraries and schools in every town, hamlet and middlesex village. It is only when the books approved by the elite intelligentsia are objected to by others that is it called censorship. Apparently we are not to talk back to our betters.

The NY Sun Ceases Publication

Today, readers will see the last edition of The New York Sun. “Under the leadership of the hawkish Lipsky and managing editor Ira Stoll, the Sun forcefully defended Israel, repeatedly sounded the alarm about Iran and backed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. The paper also took political and socio-economic stances that were unpopular in a city teeming with Democrats. . . . Many readers also found its arts section sophisticated and accessible.” (via ArtsJournal)

The Writing Life or Lack Thereof

Mr. Ravenhill suggests artists are essentially setup by the time they are thirty; afterwards they refine their vision or prove their inability. “Great artists such as Bacon and Beckett distil; lesser artists become self-referential and self-conscious as their work goes on. A personally defined landscape can easily become an enclosed and introverted prison, referring only to itself.” When he picks up a novel that begins with a writer struggling over his novel, he pitches it. (via ArtsJournal)

A Thorny Issue

David Ulin says Banned Books Week is a little difficult for him because it focuses attention on a good topic and trivializes it at the same time.

It’s foolish, self-defeating even, to pretend that books are innocuous, that we don’t need to concern ourselves with what they say. If that’s the case, then it doesn’t really matter if we ban them, because we have already stripped them of their power.

Books do change things: Just think of “Common Sense,” which lighted the fuse of the American Revolution, or “Mein Kampf,” which laid out the blueprint for Hitler’s Germany.

This reminds me of an essay I saw in a homeschooling magazine/catalog. It referred to parents who feared the Harry Potter books were dangerous and thus should not be read. He said they were dangerous, and that’s why they could be read along with many others. He urged parents to understand that reading only a few books was far worse than reading many of them, because with more reading comes more experience with ideas, words, and images.

Ideas are especially dangerous when taken in small amounts, but when you see or think about many ideas, you have more opportunity to spot the ridiculous ones at first blush and test the good ones against popular bad ones. (link via Books, Inq.)

Book Reviews, Creative Culture