Brooklyn Library restricts access to Tin Tin book

[Slite]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

Oh, OK, so now we're going to start reviewing author's opinions before we allow their books in libraries, independent of what they write in their books?

You see, the problem with censorship is, you can start with the best of intentions, but where does it stop?

I am in no way in favour of censorship. I was agreeing with Harry. You can't assume an author is predjudiced just because he/she uses a fictional character that is.

There are many examples of authors that is using characters with a politicaly incorrect stance. For instance, if you take Stieg Larssons first book in the Millenium trilogy, several of the characters are outspoken nazi sympathisers and even members of the naziparty during WW II, and still hold the same sympathies.

And the same time before becoming a novelist, Stieg Larsson was actively involved in the Expo Foundation, which is the Swedish equivalent of the Searchlight foundation.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by Ham88

we can't remove things from our past no matter how distasteful because if we do we are doomed to repeat it.

Very true. And in the end isn't this what a lot of all that Political Correctness thing is about? Let's just forget about things that are not nice in our world, if we stop talking about them maybe they'll just go away. Right?

[Riocaz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But this is, of course, Agatha Christie deliberately portraying a character who has anti-Semitic attitudes. Is it "wrong" for an author to have characters in her books who have prejudices?

True true.

It depends on the character as well for that matter. The principal or hero displaying such an attitude, (particularly if it's unmodified by the end of the book) and the villian of the piece.

[Riocaz]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

Political Correctness

There is one thing about political correctness...

The raving zealots are usually white middle managers. Often so obsessed to be seen to do the right thing that they can't see that they offend the very people they are trying to protect

There was a wonderful example in the UK a few years back when it was reported that a council had banned christmas lights for fear of "offending those of other faiths".

A national tabloid ran a 2 page story speaking with the local leaders of those "other faiths" all of which were surprised and upset that such an action was taken in their name without any form of consultation. And all expressed their confusion at how the displays would have offended them in the first place.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by Slite

I was agreeing with Harry. You can't assume an author is predjudiced just because he/she uses a fictional character that is.

But what I am saying is that you are making a very dangerous shift here in assuming works may be censored because of what the author thinks, instead of what is in the book. You may think it's just a play on words but it's very important.

I am against censorship as a matter of principle, but I am also a realist and I don't believe it will ever disappear entirely. There are always some things, words, images or ideas a society is not prepared to allow, at least in front of a broad public.

My point is, I am prepared to admit some amount of censorship against works. But censorship against people is just unacceptable. You can't get into people's heads and tell them what to think. You can dislike someone for being a racist, you can't restrict their rights because of it. This is much, much more dangerous than just fact-based censorship.

Okay, I realize this is probably not at all what you meant, and you may think I'm just crazy (which is your right by the way and I totally respect that - to be honest I also have doubts myself some times). But I still think this is important to mention.

[Riocaz]

<removed as it was off topic>

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by Riocaz

There was a wonderful example in the UK a few years back when it was reported that a council had banned christmas lights for fear of "offending those of other faiths".

A national tabloid ran a 2 page story speaking with the local leaders of those "other faiths" all of which were surprised and upset that such an action was taken in their name without any form of consultation. And all expressed their confusion at how the displays would have offended them in the first place.

Well, one think you can say FOR PC-ness: you can often get a good laugh out of it

[Chuckwade87]

Conan the barbarian books portrayed the bad guys as black, lovecraft portrayed hillbilles and blacks as barely a step above cavemen.

Perhaps we should remove these books as well.
if we keep doing things like this there won't be any books left in our libraries.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But this is, of course, Agatha Christie deliberately portraying a character who has anti-Semitic attitudes. Is it "wrong" for an author to have characters in her books who have prejudices?

Certainly not. We can't censor characters. It's absurd.

Originally Posted by Riocaz

...

There was a wonderful example in the UK a few years back when it was reported that a council had banned christmas lights for fear of "offending those of other faiths".

A national tabloid ran a 2 page story speaking with the local leaders of those "other faiths" all of which were surprised and upset that such an action was taken in their name without any form of consultation. And all expressed their confusion at how the displays would have offended them in the first place.

I remember a few stories like this from Britain, where authorities of some kind would bend over far too backwards over something like this. Politeness and making room for others is fine, but this is ridiculous.

[khalleron]

The first year I lived in Eugene, Oregon, the city manager banned Christmas trees on city property. City employees couldn't even have trees (or tree jewelry) in their workspaces.

The firefighters got all up in arms, because they live at the firehouses for extended periods, and they wanted trees.

Several people noted that Eugene has lots of totem poles in the parks, and those are religious symbols, too.

That city manager didn't last long, although that year was treeless. The ban was lifted the next year.

I'm all for treating people with respect, but being stupid is something else.

[Elfwreck]

Amazing. A thread about a library restricting access to some books, has become an anti-censorship fest where people pat themselves on the back for agreeing that it's less important to avoid offensiveness and promote harmful stereotypes than to avoid censorship at all costs.

Of course, all libraries are required to keep all content they've ever carried, and make it widely available to everyone.

And let's sneer at the idea of mitigating prejudice and hatespeech by calling it "politically correct" and claiming that since we can't eliminate all offensive speech & actions, we shouldn't bother with any of it. We certainly shouldn't be exercising any judgment about balancing what's needful for education about history against what's just leftover bigotry from former times.
</sarcasm>

I'm a strong free speech, individual rights advocate. Anti-school uniforms. FIJA.org promoter. Occasional ACT-UP activist. Pro-choice, on every level I can come up with. Your mind, your relationships, your body--your actions, your responsibility for the consequences of those actions.

And I'm appalled at the number of people (not just here) who think that the right to insult and degrade their fellow human beings is so important they must proudly announce their opposition to any attempt to limit access to hateful and thoughtlessly vile materials.

It *is* important to maintain that right. The right to insult is the same, regardless of whether the insultee is stupid, malicious, or just a member of a different cultural group. We need to support that right.

But we don't need to crow about how we're applying it. We could show some humility, some awareness, that the right to shout down oppressors comes with the right to allow oppressors to shout down their targets.

We all have the right to call each other n***rs if we want. But nothing obligates us to exercise that right, nor to smile at others for doing so.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Amazing. A thread about a library restricting access to some books, has become an anti-censorship fest where people pat themselves on the back for agreeing that it's less important to avoid offensiveness and promote harmful stereotypes than to avoid censorship at all costs.

<snipped for brevity>.

Yees.... I'm trying to follow this, but I wondered if you had examples? Either from the thread, or perhaps examples of what ot could be like, turned on its head - a different context tends to show weaknesses in ideas. I am not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, but I don't quite see it. Parhaps I have a blind spot....?

[Daithi]

D.W. Griffith is often referred to as the "Father of Film" because he was the director that popularized many of the editing techniques used in producing films (e.g. fades, dissolves, cross-cuts, close-ups, etc.) He is unquestionably Hollywood's first great director.

The Directors Guild of America's most prestigious award is the D.W. Griffith award, but in 1999 they removed his name from the award because it is believed that Griffith was a racist.

The reason for this is because Griffith had made a film called The Birth of a Nation (1915) that depicted the Civil War from the Southern Point of view. In particular, it showed the Klu Klux Klan protecting southerners from opportunisitic Northeners (i.e. carpetbaggers) and their southern supporters (i.e. scalawags).

The thought that anyone could defend the clan or racism was enough to have Griffith's name stripped from the award that had been created in his honor.

The fact that Griffith also produced Intollerance (1916), another of the silent era's greatest films that condemned all forms of intollerance no matter skin color was immaterial. So was the fact that he also produced Broken Blossoms (1919) that was probably the first film to ever to depict an inter-racial romance (especially from a sympathetic point of view). This film told the story of a Chinese man that falls in love with a white girl, and when he told this story in 1919 much of America found the thought of a "yellow-man" with a white girl to be completely unacceptable. Griffith's first sound film also happened to be "Abraham Lincoln" and it focused on Lincoln's unwavering determination to preserve the Union.

In 2002 the DGA put Griffith's name back on the award.

[khalleron]

Hm, Elfwreck, you've lost me.

Yes, I am anti-censorship. Completely, no exceptions. Yes, I do believe libraries should keep everything available, even if it is offensive by standard mores.

Here's why.

I'm currently writing a novel which takes place in the 1880s, with flashbacks to the 1850s. The main character is a former slave, so I've been doing a lot of research about slavery and contemporary attitudes toward same, including several arguing for the morality of keeping slaves.

Some of these books are downright vile. One argued that since all Africans are cannibals (this is a given according to the author), slavery contained their natural urges and exposed them to civilization. The author argues that freeing the slaves will result in widespread barbarism and cannibalism (the fact that there were several thousand freed blacks living in the US without resorting to cannibalism at the time seems to have escaped him).

And yet, I would not want this book to be banned or censored, because I think it's really important to know that at one time, there were actually people who thought like this, and who could get such a book published.

History is important. Knowing what the past was really like helps us to avoid repeating it.

[Riocaz]

Yes exactly the point is context not just content.

Anyone who reads has to take what they read with the context of the time it was written. So yes someone who would not have believed themselves a racist may have written a work which unintentionally seems racist to a modern reader.

The modern reader (or parent of reader) needs to take that into account.