Book banning is hardly new in the American classroom

I was always allowed to read and watch whatever I wanted. My parents never tried to shelter me from the real world.

Man, did we read anything except depressing literature in high school? "Death of a Salesman", "Night flight", "Grapes of Wrath", etc, etc.

An occasional uplifting book would have made for a nice change of pace, but the depressing stuff is important. A lot of real life issues are depressing. So is a lot of history.

Poor little snowflakes.

I guess only the Disneyfied versions of fairy tales are allowed now. I read the real versions as a child, my father poetry to like 'The Wreck of Hesperus', and certainly I loved my bedtime stories which did not include the survival of all characters. Sure, I cried sometimes but my parents weren't trying to shield me from life.

I wish I had had better books in high school. We got to read some of the classics, but more were SJW type books that were on my teacher's professors' reading lists. Like "The Bean Tree", as one example. Shakespeare was the only reason I could stand English as a subject. Frankly, if we had read more of the classics (and not just freaking Jane Austen, my brother had that in the Accelerated classes), I probably wouldn't despise most English teachers, and would consider literature a worthwhile subject. I've always read for fun, and making me read boring things that didn't really challenge any of my ideals in any manner was beyond pointless.

I'm surprised they didn't go after Edgar Allan Poe. The Tell Tale Heart still gives me the willies.

I was a ridiculously good reader in grade school. I recall one school year were I had already read all of the assigned readings in the book, so I read all unassigned ones. And then for fun, I read Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

If you want a thumbnail sketch of the worst of the human race, that would be a good candidate...

Yeah, we got through Of Mice and Men and The Heart is a Lonely Hunter one year when I was in high school. Talk about depressing -- I imagine the kids would be issued Prozac if they had to read those books now.

Gee. Why don't they ban the Bible™?

It's chock full of depressing stories, and lies, to boot...

Of course, that's only when its fans claim it is "literal".

"Gee. Why don't they ban the Bible™?"

I don't know if the Coeur d’Alene public schools spend much time reading the Bible anyway. While I might be wrong, I don't think too many public school districts include it in their curricula.

I heard once that Russians (not sure just how long ago this was) were shown the movie "The Grapes of Wrath" to show them how bad things were for Americans. BUT...the Americans had CARS! So the whole plan backfired.

You'll notice the books that "trigger" sensitive types are the ones written by dead white men.

It's not about triggers and sensitivity. It's about destroying the canon of Western literature and replacing it with something of which the SJWs approve.

The SJWs have finally found a way to ban books without actually banning books. And the Coeur d'Alene school board is an unwitting accomplice is this effort.

To Conan:

Maybe, but likely it won't be long before the fundies adopt the same terms if they think it will help THEIR censorship missions. Then things will get pretty confusing.

See here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/%22forgotten$20door%22$20tennessee/rec.arts.books.childrens/1FcBZf8Kp-I/kJeUyGvQMPkJ

It's about the infamous 1986 Mozert vs. Hawkins Board of Education case, from Hawkins Country, Tennessee.

(From Wikipedia: "The court ruled in the defendant's favor in part, overturning the decision and stating that the School Board was not in violation for requiring the reading to children; it was up to them and their parents to interpret the book for themselves. However, the School Board was in violation of the first amendment when it had informed the students that there is not one particular way to worship and that they could find any way to express they desired. The School Board was required immediately to cease this action.")

One main plaintiff was Vicki Frost.

Some of the controversial books: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, The Diary of Anne Frank, and The Forgotten Door (by Alexander Key - there are fascinating details, at the link, about the protesters' reaction to that book!).

Lawyer for the school: "Your Honor, there is no way this woman could attend public school and not be offended."

Oh, and just this morning, I got a call - before 9, I think, which is not very polite for a stranger - from an alleged non-robot asking about whether I thought parents should have the right to keep nasty movies and games away from kids.

I said: "I think kids should read more."

Since I admitted I don't have small kids or grandkids, the call was terminated.

It came from Life Giving Moments. At the site, under "Why," it says:

"To block and monitor media by focusing on age appropriate media, blocking predators and violent media and creating involved families so that media use does not translate into anti-social behavior or cyber-bullying."

The "caller" was Amanda.

However, here's some interesting stuff on the org:

http://museumfatigue.org/2014/01/14/amanda-computerized-telemarketer/

I have to admit, if she really was a computer, I might never have guessed. But again, the call was short.

The whole thing reminds me of a similar org called D.O.V.E., who also called me years ago, maybe in 2005.

More on D.O.V.E.:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.support.childfree/IwrH-WFLffE/PpL5Ch7Gde0J

Excerpt:

Bob: "I got the same call. I told him I wanted more gay and lesbian programing. He promptly hung up on me."

"John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" is under fire from a Coeur d'Alene committee which says the book is too dark and depressing for teens to read."

But The Diary of Anne Frank isn't?

Thank God they don't dare go near that one.

Weird this is happening in Idaho.

My son read Of Mice and Men in middle school and again as a freshman here in blue state San Francisco.

But The Diary of Anne Frank isn't?

Thank God they don't dare go near that one.

~ Posted by: Jim at May 8, 2015 10:19 AM

Ann Frank is not a dead white male. Therefore she's acceptable to be included in the new canon.

Maybe, but likely it won't be long before the fundies adopt the same terms if they think it will help THEIR censorship missions. Then things will get pretty confusing. ~ Posted by: lenona at May 8, 2015 8:29 AM

When one side succeeds, the other studies its tactics and adopts them.

The left is no longer pursuing the unsuccessful diversity strategy in its efforts to bring down the canon. Borrowing the tactic of being offended by the written word from the social-conservative right, it's now using triggers and the author's alleged insensitivity as its weapons.

The social-conservative right, outmaneuvered now, will respond in kind.

I'm all for controlling what a child reads, as long as the parents do it and no one else.

"Borrowing the tactic of being offended by the written word from the social-conservative right, it's now using triggers and the author's alleged insensitivity as its weapons."

Yep. They've added a new twist, though. The soc-cons always insisted on book banning because of the supposed moral harm that it would do to others: "We must ban this book because it will harm you!" The SJW's turned that around: "We must ban this book because it will harm *me*!" I'm not sure which is worse.

"We must ban this book because it will harm *me*!" I'm not sure which is worse. ~ Posted by: Cousin Dave at May 8, 2015 12:30 PM

Both are bad - because both represent tyrannies imposed for the good of its victims.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals." ~ Clive Staples Lewis

What is this "SJW" reference I keep seeing in the comments? (obviously I am not a social media user or I suppose I would already know)

SJW = Social Justice Warrior

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=social+justice+warrior

Thanks for the update Conan. "Social Justice Warrior." It sounds like the name of an action figure that an eight year old wants for his birthday.

The social-conservative right, outmaneuvered now, will respond in kind.

One of the differences, at least it seems to me, is that while the vocal social-conservatives (who didn't really have very large numbers) were, rightly, mocked by most people, and the media at large. The SJWs these days, though, seem to have a lot of support in the mainstream media, academia, and by a far more vocal group of people. That they're good at using the internet and social media doesn't help either.

Just look at some of the stuff like Racists getting fired.

Children are fragile, like glass, or porcelain, and are not to be exposed to anything challenging until they graduate college.

After that they are slammed face-first into reality.

Should work out fine.