Banning the Future

I was looking at the list of banned books, which disturbed me greatly, but what really grabbed my attention was the list of reasons for why the books were banned. There were several mentions of a book that “conflicted with the values of the community”, claims that a book has a “focus on gangs and gang violence”, books with a “racial bias”, and books that offer “an inflammatory challenge to authoritarian roles.” All of these are ridiculous claims, not because the books don’t have these themes in them, rest assured that they do, but the claim that these books should be stricken from the curriculum because they have these themes is an idea that is not only wrong, but is also ignorant. How can I make such an outlandish claim? Simple. Let’s examine some of these concerns that were raised by different communities.
The idea that a book should be banned because its content “conflicted with the values of the community” strikes the vast majority of literature from most schools’ curriculum. For example, Beowulf is an epic poem that survives from Old English. There are very few values from that time that still exist. The theme of “might makes right” that is so clear in this poem would be frowned upon by today’s standards, at least in most American communities. Texas might see things differently. We believe in a more democratic system, one that encourages intelligence and learning. Perhaps this would allow a work from a different culture. Homer’s epic poem The Odyssey showcases a protagonist that uses his wits to survive multiple encounters with dangerous creatures. He is not able to rely on his brawn, as Beowulf is, but must instead create creative solutions to his problems. This seems more in line with current American thinking. Of course, the fact that he paused on his journey home to his wife and son to screw goddesses and witches of ten years (off and on in all fairness), may conflict with some of the family values that many communities say are so important to them. So maybe we’ll have to scratch that one off the list. I would have to say this might scratch off most books that come from other countries, since most cultures have values that vary from one to the other. So once we eliminate everything, I’m not entirely sure what English teachers are left with.
Some have claimed that a variety of these books focus on gangs and the violence that they bring. A fair claim, I suppose, especially in this day and age when more and more teens are being indoctrinated in these bloody roving bands of ruffians. And of course, this is one of the top demographics that publishers look at when they are attempting to sell a new novel, especially to young adults. We definitely would not want to start a new trend of glorifying gangs and other groups of teenagers that band together to create strife and chaos. Of course, then I am reminded that Shakespeare discusses different gangs in his little known play Romeo and Juliet. The Montagues and the Capulets were competing gangs that engaged in violence on the streets of Verona, but this is luckily one of the plays that students are not exposed to on a regular basis. That is, as long as you dismiss their freshman year, which of course a lot of people seem to do. We can also see gangs used in Lord of the Flies and West Side Story. Of course, this does not include the legendary tales of large groups of men coming together to rape and pillage and make war as in the aforementioned Beowulf and The Odyssey or in the all-together new to this conversation The Iliad. While gang warfare seems to be a little easier to avoid in the classroom, it certainly does wipe out some of the ninth grade staples.
Racial bias. This is an interesting argument. Let’s face it, there are some out there that would prefer to avoid racial bias, and all racial discussions, in the classroom, primarily through the elimination of all other races. And while I will admit that this would be effective, I also tend to think it is a little racist, but that may just be my bias showing. Racism, as with the other topics previously mentioned, is hardly a new theme. I am assuming those that put forth this argument would also be against the teaching of Uncle Tom’s Cabin or The Narrative of Frederick Douglass, delightful tales about the joys of slavery. I am sure these can be wiped from every teacher’s classroom, as well as any conversation about the Civil War, the civil rights movement, Jim Crowe laws, segregation, the idea of all men (bias there?) being created equally, or liberty and justice for all. Once those are taken off the board, do we have to take away Shakespeare as well? Let’s face it, this guy was just a rabble-rouser. Othello clearly shows its bias through its main character and the racial undertones put forth by his antagonist Iago. Should we also strike the Arabian Knights (those genies really aren’t the same as us) or Tolkien (you have to watch out for little people with hairy feet) or any story that discusses the differences between people and the way we treat people that are different from us, or better yet, those stories that point out that the differences we create are just manufactured by ignorant pricks that want to establish or maintain some sort of imagined power structure? Once again, we are left with very little that we can teach our children. Then again, maybe that is the intention…
Now we come to my favorite topic. Books that show “an inflammatory challenge to authoritarian roles.” Obviously, there are some out there that have never understood the meaning of art. Still, the reasons behind this argument can be understood. We would hate for anyone to take a closer look at the power structures and authoritarian roles in America and criticize them. All of these rebellious works should be thrown out of the classroom before students start thinking for themselves. That, after all, is not the point of the school. So, what should we take away? Well, I seem to have mentioned a few that fell under some of the other concerns. The Iliad (Achilles refuses to fight, rebelling against his king), The Narrative of Frederick Douglass (a slave that fights against an established and well respected institution? Gone!), Lord of the Flies (a group of young boys could never govern themselves! And look at how they threw out the old rules!), and Romeo and Juliet (can you believe it shows teenagers that ignore their parents and hook up anyway?! I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!!). These have already been brought up, so what about other classical pieces of literature? The Canterbury Tales satirized many of the institutions that were in power at the time, and even included a man pulling down his pants and farting in another man’s face. Gulliver’s Travels also poked fun at the government, using such classic scenes and calling the upper class horse’s asses and having the star of the novel peeing on the royal palace (but only to put out a fire, I assure you). 1984 warns of a government that is out of control and rules and watches every aspect of its citizens’ lives. Macbeth stars a power hungry protagonist that uses witchcraft and betrayal to murder the king and take his place. The Arthurian legends feature a character that recreates the entire concept of government (a round table so that no one is at the head? Preposterous!) and unites a kingdom, all with a magic sword and a creepy old man. The Crucible was written in response to the communist witch hunts of the fifties. Thoreau wrote about the time he was thrown in jail for not paying taxes and the virtues of people governing themselves. The Scarlet Letter’s protagonist went against society proudly in the name of love. Maybe all of our students can just read The Cat in the Hat during high school. Then again, the Cat did seem to be anti-authoritarian himself, didn’t he? Maybe that should be added to the list of banned books as well.
Once you go down the road of banning books, there is no end to the journey, regardless of how well intentioned the argument. Instead of fighting against books, and teachers that are trying to pass on ideas and knowledge, perhaps we should instead discuss what is being read and taught. If parents took as much interest in discussing the ideas in books as they did trying to prove how ignorant they were, wouldn’t this be a much better world? If some people would put as much energy into reading with their kids and kicking around concepts as they did being offended, maybe this country could come up with better solutions and wouldn’t be falling behind in education. Books are just ideas on paper, and it is a sad state of affairs when we decide that we would rather ban ideas that we disagree with than debate them or learn from them. When ideas can be pushed aside because people do not want to hear them, all that we have fought for will be lost and all that we have believed in will be shattered.