Libraries Release Most-Censored Books List 229
destinyland writes "The American Library Association released this year's list of the most-frequently censored books. (Included in the top 10 are two best-selling novels — Twilight and The Hunger Games — as well as Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.) The annual list celebrates 'the freedom to read and the importance of the First Amendment,' according to the library association, highlighting 'the benefits of free and open access to information while drawing attention to the harms of censorship.' Interestingly, seven of the ten most-censored books are now available on Amazon's Kindle — more than twice as many as last year."
Banned books week (Score:2, Informative)
This week is banned books week. Celebrate (?) by reading a banned book - say no to censorship :)
Re: (Score:2)
The lists are interesting in that this year's list includes an item of required reading for my English classes (Brave New World), and last years includes a book that I required for English, even though it wasn't formally required by the government (To Kill a Mockingbird). [I'm teaching in Germany, where there are centralized exams to graduate from High School, so that everybody has to read at least some of the same books.]
I suppose that it is censorship in a certain way, since the libraries typically receiv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd complain if I was subjected to twilight!
Re:Banned books week (Score:5, Interesting)
For twilight I think it is banned (partially) due to religious groups. But I think it is mostly from high school English teachers who do not want to read essay after essay about twilight from every girl. When they assign them a book report.
I remember a college class on creative writing the first day of class the professor stated she didn't want any stories about God or Jesus. Not because she had a problem with religion, but she previously taught in salt lake city Utah, and every story she read was about God, and was sick of hearing the same thing over and over again in a creative writting class.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's not be silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Just not Twilight.
Re: (Score:2)
"..seven of the ten most-censored books are now available on Amazon's Kindle — more than twice as many as last year."
I lol'ed
Not really censored (Score:5, Informative)
And frankly, if they're going to remove something from their library, Twilight is a great choice. Bravo, friends, bravo.
Re:Not really censored (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't even really mean that someone removed the book from their library. If you read carefully it says that these are the most challenged books, where a challenge is defined as a formal written complaint or request to remove the book from the library. None of these materials are actually censored.
But, the editors here clearly self-censored and chose not to read the article before posting it.
Captcha: "paranoia" (somewhat apt).
Re:Not really censored (Score:4, Informative)
Someone please mod AC up.
These books weren't censored, they were challenged by over-protective parents fearing that their children might ask them uncomfortable questions. The books themselves weren't removed (I'd assume successful challenges might not even make it to ALA).
"And Tango Makes Three" got the most challenges. Seriously America, you're worried about two male penguins hatching an egg?
That's not being protective, it's avoidance. (Score:4, Interesting)
I question the claim that these parents are being protective of their children. I think they are doing nothing more than being bad parents by avoiding difficult but important conversations with their children.
I am reminded of the fact that people who never learn to swim are much more likely to drown. You might think that they don't know how to swim, and so they will stay out of the water and be safer that way. The real world doesn't work that way.
Both over-protective and lazy (Score:2)
Note that I used 'over-protective'. It's probably just as well parents being lazy, but the end result is the same regardless.
Using your analogy: children won't learn to swim if their parents steer them away from water.
Those parents might do so because they think it is too risky. They might not want to put in the effort. They might not be able to swim themselves. Regardless of their reasons or how they explain their actions, they are indeed harming their children in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
When would be the appropriate age? Much older and your kid might not listen to you at all.
Age appropriateness in books has more to do with ability to comprehend content. If your kid is picking it up and reading it, that means it's age appropriate for them. It would be different if we we talking abbot movies, but you can't even understand a book unless you already know a lot about what you are reading.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why not. They're just books with words in them.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. All books are acceptable for all age groups. There are no books at all that I might want to prevent my kid from reading. It is their life, not mine. If my kid wants to read something, I would want him to read it with me, not in spite of me. I have read a lot of filth, but not by Irvine Welsh. And you are right, some of that filth is really not appropriate for 10 yr olds. But why should it not be accessible to them?
I hope you're not a parent yourself, some of us have had to deal with kids whose alleged carers didn't bother forcing them to do things like go to school or eat meals.
Re: (Score:2)
I question the claim that these parents are being protective of their children. I think they are doing nothing more than being bad parents by avoiding difficult but important conversations with their children.
I am reminded of the fact that people who never learn to swim are much more likely to drown. You might think that they don't know how to swim, and so they will stay out of the water and be safer that way. The real world doesn't work that way.
You should also be reminded of the fact that the kids educated about drugs by programs like D.A.R.E. are more likely to actually do drugs than those not educated on the subject (source http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,99564,00.html [time.com] ). My point there is your analogy is not correct in every situation, and I believe this is one of those. These people are being good parents, rather than negligently exposing their children to materials that their children may not be mentally developed enough to u
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between deciding that your child shouldn't read a certain book and challenging it, which is essentially asking that no child should be allowed to read it.
And that's putting aside the absurdity of equating an extremely popular picture book about penguins to penthouse...my first child will be born soon (yay!) and there's already a copy of Tango on the bookshelf.
Re: (Score:2)
well placed concern
Where? I don't think trying to stop children from reading certain books because you don't like their contents counts as "well placed concern."
Re: (Score:2)
DARE grossly misrepresents the truth about drugs. Kids aren't stupid, and they resent being lied to and condescended. It's not knowing about drugs that gets them into trouble, but knowing that they can't trust what they've been told.
I would say that not educating your children about drugs is a very bad idea. Do you really think it won't come up on it's own? Are you really sure that it wouldn't be better for them to hear about them from you? Because if that's the case, they'll learn about them from some drug
Re: (Score:2)
I think that trying to ban things for a certain group of people (or at least trying to make them less available in some ways) is quite different than actually making them do something.
Re: (Score:2)
You're the kind of person that teaches their kid to swim by throwing them in the deep end, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If enough parents get together, "challenged" turns into "censored" very quickly. It has happened many times in the past and would probably happen in the future.
There are many groups who do these things, includ
Transportation (Score:2)
it's worth mentioning that censorship here is not government censorship, it means someone decided to remove that book from their library. All these materials are easily available elsewhere.
Not unless the child in question has a ride to said "elsewhere".
Re: (Score:2)
In this age of hyperbole, where everything is worked up to be a huge scandal (Obama is the antichrist, Bush is Hitler, and social security is a Ponzi scheme), it's worth mentioning that censorship here is not government censorship, it means someone decided to remove that book from their library. All these materials are easily available elsewhere.
Not again...censorship does not require involvement by the government to be called censorship. If you mean it that way, you need to specifically qualify it and say, "government censorship."
Making it difficult for people to have access to information, any information, is a bad thing. It's not about whether you can get around it, and it's not about who is behind the censorship. It's about whether it's acceptable to take any steps at all to make it harder for you to get your hands on a book. It's not.
And frankly, if they're going to remove something from their library, Twilight is a great choice. Bravo, friends, bravo.
I kno
Re: (Score:2)
, but it's worth pointing out that it's always a great thing when others get denied access to things you disapprove of. It's only a problem when you get denied access to things others disapprove of.
Until you realize that no one is being denied access to anything, you are not worth talking to on this topic.
Re: (Score:3)
I like to compare Twilight to trashy romance novels.
I think trashy romance novels are better because you still get the sex.
Plus it's fun to recite them out loud in a dead pan voice.
Re: (Score:2)
Brave New World (Score:2)
At worst, I remember it being a bit preachy.
Re:Brave New World (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, I don't know -- maybe something to do with all of the young children engaging in "erotic play". That sort of thing tends to make people uncomfortable.
Re: (Score:3)
That plus the religious rituals to Ford that had an element of group sex.
Re: (Score:2)
Ask not what your orgie can do for you, but ask what you can do for your orgie!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Children being encouraged to experiment with sex, I'd bet.
If that was the case, you should start censoring MTV. Almost every female pop idol since Madonna has indulged in a bit of pelvic thrusting or whatever in the videos.
I remember working at a gig one saturday morning building the stage with all the roadies when suddenly they were all outside the security guards hut leering at a Christina Aguilera video being shown on children's TV. They were all enjoying it immensely until someone pointed out their daughters were probably at home watching it too.
Kids are encou
Re: (Score:2)
If that was the case, you should start censoring MTV. Almost every female pop idol since Madonna has indulged in a bit of pelvic thrusting or whatever in the videos.
I think you mean Elvis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's been a while since I read it - what is it exactly that people object to in Brave New World? At worst, I remember it being a bit preachy.
From the article (well, linked by it):
I suppose racism claims have been raised by some angry Delta (everyone knows Epsilons are not intelligent enough to fill a complaint). More seriously, perhaps the part about the reserve.
Anyway, I find the article very poor if it comes from an association of well-educated people as librarians. The "top 10" lists does not even show how many hits each of them got.
And,
Re: (Score:2)
Because it might wake people up to the fact the government wants a populace that is drugged and stupid? They are just using TV and NCLB rather than soma and stunted fetuses. And let's lot forget all that evil sex in the book.
Censored? (Score:3, Informative)
Challenged isn't censored (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
A challenge is defined as a formal, written complaint, filed with a library or school requesting that materials be removed because of content or appropriateness.
It doesn't say anything about how successful these challenges are.
Re: (Score:3)
To follow up on my own comment about the success of these challenges, I read the Wikipedia page on And Tango Makes Three [wikipedia.org], #1 on this year's list and also #1 for 5 of the last 6 years. It's based on a true story where two male penguins formed a couple and were given an egg to raise.
To summarize the list of challenges on the linked page, which is hopefully representative of the challenges that went particularly far, there were...
3 failed requests to restrict the book
2 failed removal requests
1 successful re
Re: (Score:2)
To follow up on my own comment about the success of these challenges, I read the Wikipedia page on And Tango Makes Three [wikipedia.org], #1 on this year's list and also #1 for 5 of the last 6 years. It's based on a true story where two male penguins formed a couple and were given an egg to raise.
To summarize the list of challenges on the linked page, which is hopefully representative of the challenges that went particularly far, there were... 3 failed requests to restrict the book 2 failed removal requests 1 successful request to move it to non-fiction 1 successful removal, oddly based on no requests; the removal was reviewed and at least temporarily reversed, though I didn't find the ultimate outcome
This is the mildest form of censorship I can think of.
Only because people are standing up against this kind of censorship, and giving schools, libraries and districts that indulge in it bad publicity. Without this kind of attention, the no risk option would be knee-jerk censoring of anything that a parent opposes...
Re: (Score:3)
So they are examples of attempted censorship, not necessarily successful. It's still troublesome.
Re: (Score:3)
So they are examples of attempted censorship, not necessarily successful. It's still troublesome.
There will always be people unhappy about something. It's their right to be. I don't think we have to be worried about people complaining about this until it's actually acted upon. It's not like we can prevent people from asking others to censor stuff. That would be censorship in itself.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that these challenges are often successful?
Re: (Score:2)
Incongruous (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But Nickel and Dimed?? Are the uber-capitalists now descending on libraries to challenge the sort of books that illustrate that the economic status-quo is not exactly peachy for everyone?
It appears so, yes. FTFA:
Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich
Reasons: drugs, inaccurate, offensive language, political viewpoint, and religious viewpoint
In other words, they're going after it because Ehrenreich is an atheist socialist who believes drug use is acceptable. And the right wing is right about describing her as a pro-drug socialist - she's one of the co-chairs of Democratic Socialists of America, and on the board of NORML.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming that if a book isn't put in the library in the first place it won't make it onto the challenged list. Otherwise I'd have to assume the library shelves are well-stocked with copies of Mein Kampf and The Turner Diaries, and that while many leftist books were banned no liberal parents had a problem with their children being exposed to Starship Troopers or the works of Ayn Rand.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I don't know about libraries near you, but in my area (which is politically quite liberal), in public and publicly accessible libraries, there were about 500 copies of The Turner Diaries, over 4000 copies of Mein Kampf, 1800 copies of Starship Troopers, and over 4000 copies of Atlas Shrugged. That suggests that those books are widely available. (This [worldcat.org] will help you find those books in a library near where you live.)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a completely accurate description of Ehrenreich, one that she'd be quite proud of.
You're right that she doesn't tend to write overtly socialist stuff in her books, she just writes about how demonstrably unfair the capitalist economic system is to working and middle-class people and lets you draw your own conclusions.
Amazon Kindle irony (Score:2, Informative)
It's ironic that these books targeted for censorship are available for the Kindle, given the fact that Amazon engages in censorship of the Kindle store. [businessinsider.com]
Do these people have a clue? (Score:2)
Here's a hint, the only kids interested in reading about "orgy porgy" are probably the only ones not actually recreating it
By the numbers (Score:2)
4,660: Registered challenges to books since the beginning of the century. .0000015%, of the population is responsible for
311,800,000: Approximate population of the United States in 2011.
So, 1.49454779e-5, or
the "Frequently challenged books of the 21st century" list.
It's mind boggling that so few could affect the lives, or get the attention
of, so many.
Welcome to the era of rule by the lunatic fringe.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's presuming that there are no repeats - I'd wager there are people who object to more than one book at a time...
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, no.
1.49454779e-5 is certainly correct.
Alas, 1.49-etc isn't actually 0.0000015%. It's not even 0.0000015. The number you were searching for was 0.0015%....
What my mother doesn't know (Score:2)
The most common reason for the basis of the challenges is the poem “Ice Capades” which describes how Sophie is fascinated by her breasts’ reaction to a cold window pane
Number of challenges specifics please. (Score:2)
It would be nice if they listed the challenges specific to each book.
huxley.net (Score:2)
Missing the point (Score:2)
Everybody complaining about the headline using the wrong word is absolutely right, but missing the point.
These aren't people who don't want their own kids reading something they don't like. A parent has full power to deal with that at home.
These are people complaining that other people's kids are reading things they personally don't want them to. Note that just about every "library" in the USA is run by some arm of the government. So if the librariies in question were to act on any of these complaints,
Nickel and Dimed (Score:2)
I read "Nickel and Dimed" in undergrad. I found it insightful. I had no idea it was so hated and/or feared by any establishment. I think I'll read it again since it's still on my book shelf.
I love librarians-- the rebellious rabble-rouses!
RTFA for more info... (Score:2)
The article notes that these are books challenged and requested removal in public or school libraries. So I think you're going to see a bias towards books for teenagers which adults feel are inappropriate for their dear children: more emphasis on requests for censorship because of rude words, sex scenes and unconventional ideas than because of religious thought.
I can see conservative parents getting upset about a whole range of exciting contemporary teenage literature while I would imagine only the most rad
Re: (Score:2)
It amazes me that books like these are censored while the Qur'an and Hadith, which tell Muslims to subdue or kill non-Muslims to enter paradise, is allowed.
It amazes me that books like these are censored while the Bible, which tell Christians to kill non-believers, is allowed.
There you go, I fixed that
for you.
The point still stands.
Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored (Score:5, Informative)
heya,
Err, which version of the Bible are you reading...?
I'm fairly sure the bible never commands anybody to kill non-believers. In fact, last time I checked, it stated quite unequivocally "Thou shalt not murder". (Exodus 20:13). Note that it says murder, not kill (http://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html).
The giving/taking of life is God's alone to command - and barring some explicit command from him (as happened in the OT), to take a life is considered by most Christians to be tantamount to blasphemy and trying to supplant God's role.
So sorry, but your post is really full of ignorance.
Cheers,
Victor
Re: (Score:2)
>I'm fairly sure the bible never commands anybody to kill non-believers
You immediately contradict yourself:
>and barring some explicit command from him (as happened in the OT),
Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored (Score:5, Informative)
I'm fairly sure the bible never commands anybody to kill non-believers.
Give Deu. 17:3-5 a quick read. You don't get much more explicit than that.
Honestly, I don't see how you could have missed it. Joshua slaughtered just about everyone in Canaan -- with more than a bit of divine assistance.
Re: (Score:3)
Ahh, but surely you're aware that Christians follow the New Testament, in which Jesus states that he who is without sin should cast the first stone.
The Old Testament is full of obscure rules that have no bearing on the Christian faith. The Catechism is very, very clear on the taking of a life: you can only do it to protect against an attacker, and even then you should not be trying to kill, only disable.
Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored (Score:5, Insightful)
not a iota or a dot will go away [from OT] before the world ends * Matthew 5:18-19
not a single letter of the OT can be invalid * Luke 16:17
all scripture counts * 2 Timothy 3:16
it is not up to personal interpretation * 2 Peter 20-21
Re: (Score:3)
Jesus worked on the Sabbath. He associated with sinners. He didn't fast at all the appointed times. The OT is still around, and important for historical reasons, but Jesus repeatedly made clear that the rules were changing.
Re: (Score:3)
Jesus fulfilled the law of the OT. Don't forget the Israelites were the intended audience of the OT. Christians don't believe the OT is null and void, but that Jesus fulfilled the old law through his teachings and authority as the Son of God. Observant Jews still follow the OT laws because they don't view Christ as do Christians. Jesus, a Jew himself, was clear on the point of fulfillment:
Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, but surely you're aware that Christians follow the New Testament, in which Jesus states that he who is without sin should cast the first stone.
Since the point was about censoring the book, it's not relevant which page it's on.
Re: (Score:2)
The original statement was that Christians are commanded to kill non-believers. This is false. It might command Jews to kill...
Re: (Score:2)
The original statement was that Christians are commanded to kill non-believers. This is false. It might command Jews to kill...
You can't just ignore all the bits in the Bbile (Old or New Testament) that get in the way of your argument. The only reason that Jesus is special is that he's (supposedly) the son of the God of the Old Testament.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, the Old Testament is still *in the bible* no? The contents of books is what is relevant to this discussion, not which parts of the bible Christians choose to selectively follow.
Re: (Score:2)
That is like saying slavery is legal because the original constitution allows it. Yeah if you ignore the 13th and 14th amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
As the parent references Exodus, it wouldn't appear that he feels the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's do a simple search for that, shall we?
Google 'killing bible' [google.com] and click a link. I'd say any link, but why not click the first?
Murder in the Bible [evilbible.com]
Read and weep...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Non-believers and animals are often not considered as supposed to belong to that non murder-able group.
Re: (Score:3)
I've read the Bible a couple times, it doesn't say that.
God does command the Israelites to kill certain people (for example the inhabitants of Jericho) based on their practices which it claims are an abomination to God. Whether or not they are believers doesn't enter into it.
Nevertheless, these verses are largely censored in churches. Not so much because preachers want to denigrate them, but because preachers are generally a bunch of spineless cowards who want to avoid difficult conversations that might hu
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a clip that I love to trot out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-2_LqOS3uo [youtube.com]
Exodus 21 talks extensively about the buying, selling, and owning of slaves. Deuteronomy is indeed the source of the 2 fabrics comment. The reason you wont see christians follow it? Same as every other backwards and self-contradictory passage, they pick and choose what bits to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a quote in the Qur'an that says "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them" which sound bad when taken out of context, but that is directed specifically against the Meccan Pagans of 1500 years ago (that were at war against Mohammad at the time of writing).
Likewise there are many questionable passages in the Bible. For example: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death"
These are still allowed because they are important historical documents that reflect the views of the time. Making similar statements today would be considered hate speech in most countries.
It actually says "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them" in several places, one of which the apologists always bring out because it is qualified by the context. In the other places it is a general command.
Re: (Score:2)
You heard that on Fox news, right?
No, I read the Qur'an. Something that a lot of people who say "it doesn't say that" haven't
Re: (Score:2)
Right. But you realize that when you make statements such as "the phrase X appears more than once in text Y" it takes less than 10 seconds for anyone with Internet access prove you wrong?
And about two minutes to direct you to 4.89 [theholybook.org] and 9.5 [mquran.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Right. But you realize that when you make statements such as "the phrase X appears more than once in text Y" it takes less than 10 seconds for anyone with Internet access prove you wrong?
And about two minutes to direct you to 4.89 [theholybook.org] and 9.5 [mquran.org].
Incidentally It always shows the true nature of Islam that apologists will come on and lie saying "it doesn't appear more than once" in the hope that people won't check themselves. This is why Muslims always say "read the Quran, its a book of peace", because they assume that most people won't. Do as I did - call their bluff and read it.
Re: (Score:2)
9.5 is the one I quoted.
4.89 does not call for slaying Pagans. It calls for killing Hypocrites. A different thing entirely. It also only calls for killing the Hypocrites when they side with the Pagans of Mecca. Certainly not a "general command".
Read the commentary:
However, since a verse being revealed with respect to a specific event does not mean that it is restricted to that event, the Qur'n is here presenting a typical hypocrisy.
This means anyone who presents their religion as Islam or in any way equivalent. It is used today to justify killing the Ahmadiyya [wikipedia.org] Muslims and people who claim that there is truth in all religions.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Show me the library that did this. (bet you can't)
fair cop - I just realised that these are only books that people companied about.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because liberals don't believe that censoring conservatives is justified and believe in respecting the views of others even if they disagree with them. Notably to respect their rights to air views even if you utterly despise those views.
The trouble with respecting the views of conservatives is that they'll never afford you the same courtesy.
Which, for at least Christian Conservatives go directly against their Jesus's direct order to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Re: (Score:3)
Which, for at least Christian Conservatives go directly against their Jesus's direct order to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Not in Conservative Christian Logic. "If I were a homosexual/atheist/non-Christian I'd want someone to pressure me and make things difficult so that I would have no choice but to accept Jesus and be saved from the fires of hell."
Re: (Score:2)
>Not in Conservative Christian Logic. "If I were a homosexual/atheist/non-Christian I'd want someone to pressure me and make things difficult so that I would have no choice but to accept Jesus and be saved from the fires of hell."
Which is pretty flawed logic. A much more valid version would be: "If I lived in a muslim/atheist/budhist nation, I would like them to allow me to practice my beliefs freely without persecution or pressure. Therefore in the nation my faith rules I should treat those with differe
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the bottom of your banknotes. Which "God" you think they are talking about ?
The faith may not be the official government but I'm not aware of a single person in that government who does not at least CLAIM to subscribe to this faith - nor do I think any person who doesn't would have the slightest chance at being elected there.
Face it, the Christian faith IS the de-facto rulers of America even if not the de-jure.
That said - I was merely talking about majority population - not political setup. Most "Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because liberals don't believe that censoring conservatives is justified and believe in respecting the views of others even if they disagree with them. Notably to respect their rights to air views even if you utterly despise those views.
Right, because political correctness is the result of right wingers. David Horowitz is a complete chode, but there is an inkling of truth in his rants concerning university thought police.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh right. Because suggesting that we protect vulnerable communities with sensitive speech is the same as demanding viewpoints you dislike be kept from others at gunpoint
Re: (Score:2)
Strange that there are no examples of right wing hate literature on the list. I mean with the country being overrun by freedom hating liberals and all, you would think the list would consist almost exclusivly of works by "conservative" authors.
Right, but you wouldn't expect the liberal media conspiracy [wikia.com] to report that, now, would you?
Re:Banned Classics...1984 eh? (Score:5, Funny)
Does anyone else find it a tad ironic that 1984 is among the books "censored"? Maybe they should remove Fahrenheit 451 as well. :)
I would go with enforcing conversion of the title to "Celsius 233". I am the SI unit Nazi
Re: (Score:2)
Some teachers have been using it as a way to attack capitalism and providing no counter views so when adults find out about it there have been a few objections.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even that, how do you expect children to grow without experiencing? That doesn't require personal experience, any more than learning about airplanes requires you to be a pilot. But if you don't read about the wars, you'll never understand what "torture" or "genocide" etc. actually *mean*.
If it's just a word on the page, it's much easier to *commit* that act than if you have it drummed into you exactly WHAT happened (that kind of teaching inevitably comes with a certain "so never do it" moniker, but th
Re: (Score:2)