Politically correct liberals & born-again's in Alaska join forces to ban books

PC liberals & born-again Christian conservatives in Alaska join forces to ban books. Over and over again, PC liberals have joined with born-again Christian conservatives to ban books, proving that both PC liberalism & born-again Christian conservativism are a threat to free expression. Writers, painters, musicians, comedians, and sculptors should unite in fighting both PC liberalism and born-again Christian conservativism. PC liberalism and born-again Christian conservativism are big threats to the literary world.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/b...ard-books.html

I was pleasently surprised to discover Wolf that this was not one of your free wheeling takes on; testicles, rogering, masturbation and other unmentionables that cause palputations to those like myself of a delicate literary disposition.

Once one had got past your initial sentences which straggled on, and ended with a pile of pendent genitives and accusatives, we got into the meat and two veg as encompassed in the attached article link.

Horror upon horror that they wanted to ban “Catch 22”. This was perhaps the most funny book I had ever read; a one off work of genius by Heller.

It then begged the question as to where will these arbiters of the Alaskian wastes stop next?

“Lady Chatterly’s Lover” was an inspiration in my 20s, and only now as an amateur writer can I appreciate how difficult it is to express sex in words; for the line is so fine and delicately balanced between alternate descriptions of “rutting” and “****ing.” Even sexual stimulation. “Playboy” centrefold was part of growing up, but “Hustler” and others of their ilk were like being mugged by a dead, depraved, metrosexual sheep.

To seriously answer your question regards censorship though.

I’m afraid I must face reality. There exists an extreme in writing or other artistic endeavours, so extreme as to promote: serious crimes, violence, and hatred. The question is can it be handled in a fictional way to illustrate scenarios, wherby individuals can be persuaded to attain behaviour not injurious to society as a whole.
Not easy these days. So much false news and lies spread by; lobby groups, politicians of all persuasions and detached, blinkered, keyboard warrior fanatics, appealing to the lowest common denominators in mans prejudices.

If you get a chance, read up about the Ancient Greek City State.

It was, by todays standards, a basically patrician state run in the interests of all; by leaders that genuinely had the interests of all the inhabitants and welcomed effective interaction. Long since gone and leaving us withering scenarios of either; socialists that have long lost the understanding of socialism; populists that are suitable cases for treatment; and religious groups convinced that they solely have the right set of spiritual values. All of them have so far strayed away from the simplicity of the core concepts that they are supposed to represent. Read my thread on the growth of spiritual thought in the Christian world if you are in anyway interested.

In conclusion; no I do not believe in censorship, in an uneducated manner. For some obscure example I’m thinking of the additional covering of male genitals on Italian sculptures that was carried out by conservative interests in the 19th century, and I then compare that with the statute of The Boy David in Florence.

I often can't say what I want to say around here, I get warned, something I say is distorted, points are taken away, etc. I will respond the best that I can, although it sort of feels like my hands have already been tied behind my back.

Increasingly, on the question of censorship, there seems to be less and less difference between politically correct liberals and born-again Christian conservatives. Both tendencies are very hostile to literature, and both politically correct liberalism and born-again Christian conservativism can trace their way of thinking back to the Puritans of the Mayflower. I wish that the Mayflower had sprung a leak.

Basically, politically correct liberals and born-again Christian conservatives want to tell writers, comedians, painters, and sculptors what they can and cannot do in their art. I find this completely unacceptable.

Like the born-again Christian allies, the politically correct liberals seem to be more offended by "obscenity"than anything else. I've observed here in "Segregation City" Chicago (which is very liberal and progressive and all of that) that politically correct liberals seem to be more upset by "obscenity" in comedy, then they are by racism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of bigotry. Like the born-again Christian conservatives, many politically correct liberals are just a bunch of prudes who stifle creativity.

Today, the politically correct liberals and the born-again Christian conservatives are trying to make literature, comedy, theater, music, painting, film, and sculpture into a boring and politically correct stale environment. No wonder the English kicked these Puritans out of England.

Haha. No. We are not taking the Puritans back.

Great Britain first!!!!

We have here what is termed "fringe comedy," based very much on the early modus operandi of Lenny Bruce. It shocks, (as you do), but in a very subtle, clever way. But then, you must plough your own furrow.

The NYT article is not about censorship. It is about who should determine school curricula: the teachers and principals (i.e. the professionals), or the School Board (who are elected officials). Nobody banned any books. Instead, the school board outlawed certain books from being taught in English literature class.

I don't know how schools work in the U.K., but here in the U.S. there is a great deal of local control. Each small town has a school system, and generally an elected school board which helps to fund and run the schools, and exercises varying levels of control over what is taught. As we all know, elected officials (in both the U.S. and the U,K) are sometimes whackos, often cater to bizarre prejudices in their communities, and cannot be relied on to know how to arrange school curricula (or Covid19 prevention campaigns). School Board is often an unpaid position; members meet once a month and try to decide policy. These aren't professionals objecting to "Catch 22" -- they're retired folks and homemakers (the employed don't have time) with an interest in education.

So it's not surprising that some Alaskan school district (out of the tens of thousands of school districts in the nation) exercised bizarre control of the literature programs in their schools.

Obviously, schools must exercise some choices about which books to read in English 201. I'd suggest that the teachers are best able to judge their own interests (surely the class will be more exciting if the teacher loves the novel she's teaching), and those of their students (my sister was once required to teach Shakespeare to classes filled mostly with Native Spanish speakers who could barely read modern English).

I support free speech: in fact, I'd suggest that limitations on free speech like copyrights and patents and libel should be liberalized. But let's not cry "censorship" unless it is censorship. Liberals may go overboard supporting politically correct speech, but that doesn't mean they support censorship. Students might protest when their Universities hire some politically incorrect speaker to propagandize the campus. That's not "censorship". We're allowed to object to speech that is insulting, or offensive, or dangerous without looking to "censor" it. School boards are allowed to concern themselves with school curricula without being labelled "censors".

School boards across the Puritanical States of America have been banning books since forever.

The only distinction between the politically correct liberals and the born-again Christian conservatives, is that while both factions seek to censor obscenity, both factions merely come up with different reasons to censor obscenity. The politically correct liberal ideology seeks to censor human sexuality just like born-again Christian conservatives, the politically correct liberals merely come up with "progressive" sounding arguments. But the end result is the same: the censorship of human sexuality. Politically correct liberals are just as uncomfortable with human sexuality as born-again Christian conservatives. It is part of the puritanical heritage of the USA.

However, sometimes politically correct liberals actually direct their rage at targets that deserve it. That is, sometimes politically correct liberals protest against right-wing demagogues and other scumbags. This can be a good thing. But more often than not, politically correct liberals join up with born-again Christian conservatives to censor obscenity and human sexuality. And this is why we see this phenomenon of politically correct liberals and born-again Christians conservatives uniting together to ban books.

Banning books in high school and junior high school settings is reactionary. The argument of politically correct liberals and born-again Christian conservatives that adolescents are "innocent children" is complete nonsense. Innocence dies with puberty. Teenagers are not children. Politically correct liberals and born-again Christian conservatives should stop treating teenagers like children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

School boards across the Puritanical States of America have been banning books since forever.

The only distinction between the politically correct liberals and the born-again Christian conservatives, is that while both factions seek to censor obscenity, both factions merely come up with different reasons to censor obscenity. The politically correct liberal ideology seeks to censor human sexuality just like born-again Christian conservatives, the politically correct liberals merely come up with "progressive" sounding arguments. But the end result is the same: the censorship of human sexuality. Politically correct liberals are just as uncomfortable with human sexuality as born-again Christian conservatives. It is part of the puritanical heritage of the USA.

---

Societies from time immemorial have tried (unsuccessfully) to "censor human sexuality". Perhaps we can all agree that some forms of human sexuality should be outlawed (censored is the wrong word). Liberals and conservatives might well agree that rape should be outlawed, as well as sex with children.

As far as what books high school literature classes should require students to read: perhaps we can agree that they should be books with literary merit (like "The Great Gatsby" or "The Invisible Man"). This would eliminate from consideration most (although not all) pornography. If school districts decide teachers should not require their students to read "Letter from Penthouse" (that's the only porn I can think of right now, which shows my advancing age), does this constitute "banning" or "censorship"?

Of course it doesn't. The only reason the NYT wrote about the Alaskan school board's decision was that they decided to ban novels that are accepted as having literary merit. Even so, this doesn't constitute "banning". After all, any school that decides to require one book instead of another could (acc. this reasoning) be accused of "censorship". That would be ridiculous.

Choosing to require students to read one novel instead of another is not the same as requiring biology teachers to teach Creationism instead of Evolution. Reading skills can result from reading one great novel as well as another. Requiring teachers to ignore the mainstream of scientific knowledge is a different thing altogether.

Finally, the notion that "censor(ing) human sexuality" is a horrid, Puritanical form of repression is dubious. Human sexuality has always been regulated by cultural rules, in every society with which we are familiar. It's likely that we all agree that rape, incest, and sex with children are properly outlawed. There may be disagreement about bestiality or adultery. Fornication (these days) is not generally frowned upon. It may be reasonable to suggest that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to each other -- but (in the case of adultery, for example) haven't they sinned against their spouses and all of the members (literal and figurative) of "God and this company" to whom they promised fidelity? Mightn't there be unintended consequences to the elimination of mores surrounding sexual behavior? Is demystifying sex necessarily an unmitigated good? Isn't mystery an essential part of romance?

I'd suggest that regulations and mores regarding sex are part of a cultural complex that includes romantic love, marriage, child-rearing, etc. When we tweak those regulations, there may be consequences to the rest of the complex (which might be a good thing, but might also be a bad one).

The arguments of the above poster is what? That unless books are banned there will be incest and rape on a mass scale?

This is absurd! What a bunch of hysteria!

And the other argument appears to be that banning books is not censorship. Yes it is! Banning books is definitely censorship!

And the argument that censorship or banning books is okay as long as it only affects teenagers is just plain wrong. Teenagers should have the right to read whatever they want! Teenagers are not children!

No books were banned -- they were just excluded from a school's curriculum (this may constitute "censorship", but not "banning".)

When you objected to "the censorship of human sexuality" it was unclear what you were referring to. If you were merely referring to censorship of sexually explicit writing, you could have said so. In addition, the history of censorship and book banning is not generally one of Puritanical objections to sexually explicit writing. Is it likely that the Alaskan school board rejected "The Great Gatsby" or "The Invisible Man" because they were too titillating? I don't remember much sexually explicit material in either one. The Catholic Church and the Communist Party (noted book burners, both) banned books that questioned the authority of the authorities, not those that were sexually explicit.

Excluding the books - banning the books - what's the difference?

Next thing you know the new politically correct term for book burning will be "community bonfire night".

It will be a community of politically correct liberals and born-again Christian conservatives burning books together.

Then the above poster refers to the "Communist" party. I assume he's talking about Stalin, because Lenin let authors & painters do whatever they wanted, and before he died Lenin denounced Stalin. And Leon Trotsky made common cause with writers and painters, like the manifesto he wrote with the surrealist Andre Breton. Trotsky strongly defended the freedom of expression of artists and writers against censorship.
https://generation-online.org/c/fcsurrealism1.htm

I don't want to get in a purely political discussion, I only want to discuss literary and artistic freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

Excluding the books - banning the books - what's the difference?

---

The difference is that by making ANY choice for required reading you are "excluding" all other books from being required. As I said in my first post, the strange thing about the Alaska case is that the elected school board participated in the exclusion, rather than the teachers and principals. Suppose a principal said, "Junior year American English literature curricula will include the novels "Huckleberry Finn" and "Moby Dick". This is mandatory in our school system." The result (in terms of excluding "Invisible Man" and "Great Gatsby") would be exactly the same as it is now (assuming only two novels will be required). .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Finally, the notion that "censor(ing) human sexuality" is a horrid, Puritanical form of repression is dubious. Human sexuality has always been regulated by cultural rules, in every society with which we are familiar. It's likely that we all agree that rape, incest, and sex with children are properly outlawed. There may be disagreement about bestiality or adultery. Fornication (these days) is not generally frowned upon. It may be reasonable to suggest that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to each other -- but (in the case of adultery, for example) haven't they sinned against their spouses and all of the members (literal and figurative) of "God and this company" to whom they promised fidelity? Mightn't there be unintended consequences to the elimination of mores surrounding sexual behavior? Is demystifying sex necessarily an unmitigated good? Isn't mystery an essential part of romance?

I'd suggest that regulations and mores regarding sex are part of a cultural complex that includes romantic love, marriage, child-rearing, etc. When we tweak those regulations, there may be consequences to the rest of the complex (which might be a good thing, but might also be a bad one).

---

This is a perplexity inducing avowal to take literature, or any artistic manifestation for that matter, for what it is not.

Are artists predisposed, by their craft, to conform to the ethical auspices predominant in a certain social context?

Only if we assert that art is but an extension of the diurnal essence with which people, in their primarily non-artistic activities, interfere.

But how could one be so obtuse and parochial? So as to imagine that the mission of the artist (if he has one at all) is to make the pneuma of his work, and that of the absolute, intransitive, consigned by ipseity, irreducible juxtaposition of one's visions, abandoned for not being able to improve it anymore, the artsy reproduction of a social status-quo?

To what authority is the autonomous artist subordinate when he is making his language, by torments and decantation, speak in a way proper to that which chimes with his senses alone?

It may be conceived that in this particular artist's case, within his work, a simulacrum of that thing which is to come, akin to that livre à venir, and never of those things that have already come, to be seen by society, and are already a mass grave, a simulacrum, then, that comprises an artificial language which is not referential, which serves no utilitarian purpose, fleshed out with the sole idea of astonishing its very own creator, sexual intercourse with children is the norm. And also the norm there is to kill them afterwards, and feed them to the guests that populate the binge thrown in the honor of infantile perversity. Who are we to say it's not right, when it's the artist that has created this world, isolated from ours, and not ourselves, who are arrogant enough, with nothing special to recommend us to such supercilious elevated airs, to condemn him and his trade for not subscribing to the social norms, for which he cared nothing in his labor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmptySeraph

Who are we to say it's not right, when it's the artist that has created this world, isolated from ours, and not ourselves, who are arrogant enough, with nothing special to recommend us to such supercilious elevated airs, to condemn him and his trade for not subscribing to the social norms, for which he cared nothing in his labor?

---

I would never deny the artist the right to create whatever worlds (metaphorically) he wants to create, and write about them however he wants to write about them. I could equally ask, who am I to REQUIRE someone to read books that are offensive to him? If the artist is free to write what he wants to write, the reader should be free to read what he wants to read.

That is not the case for books that are required reading in public schools. Students are required by law to attend school, and required by self-interest to pass their courses so they can graduate. I never advocated censoring; I merely noted that choosing which texts schools should require students to read does not constitute censoring.

Censorship by progressives has been a growing problem in recent years. It's gotten very bad on social media like youtube, facebook, and twitter especially.

We are heading to Orwell's dystopian world.
Useful idiots are the worst kind of ignorance that there is, because of their arrogance they think that they are smarter than anyone else.

Banning books in Alaska? How would that be done?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonywalt

Banning books in Alaska? How would that be done?

---

I spent a lot of time in Alaska. In Alaska, there is the right combination of born-again Christians & politically correct liberals to basically ban anything obscene. These born-again Christian conservatives & politically correct liberals praise "freedom of speech", but they are hypocrites.

But the same thing is happening pretty much in the rest of the USA now. The worlds of comedy, literature, painting, etc. are all being heavily censored by some kind of coalition of born-again Christians & politically correct liberals.

This kind of phenomenon can be found in places like liberal Democrat-voting "Segregation City" Chicago, where racism & other forms of bigotry are considered acceptable in certain comedy venues. However, obscenity is not permitted. It depends on the comedy venue.

And because of bans on obscenity, many Poets don't even bother going to certain poetry open mics.

It's happening here in the UK as well. A University recently cut Chaucer from their reading list. Apparently, they are 'de-colonising' their curriculum (a sinister policy like that could have been invented by Stalin or Mao). So we now have the insane situation where Chaucer, the father of English literature, is no longer taught IN ENGLAND because..., well, because he's a dead white man. God knows what they'll be teaching instead. Kanye West lyrics probably. I honestly don't know where this will end. Nothing would surprise me anymore. It wouldn't surprise me if one day Rembrandt's portraits are burned because they only show white faces. To make it even more insane, I have an British-Indian friend here in the UK who loves Chaucer and is planning to do a PhD on him!!

I do not support the idea of banning books or mediums of any form. But again freedom of expression is a double-edged sword with its own social repercussions and issues. Choosing a sect of "woke" to judge the good and bad are equally dangerous.

When I see stuff about banning books, I think of the quote attributed to German essayist & poet Heinrich Heine; to wit: Where people are burning books, they will burn men next; or words to that effect.

But concerning "PC liberalism" & "Christian conservatism," I view both as oxymorons. "Politically correct" has come to mean "censorship"; which sounds reactionary to me. To be a "born-again Christian conservative" means to spread the word of Christ to all; a very liberal undertaking, especially here in the US of A where you take full advantage of that very liberal First Amendment.

"Conservative" & "liberal" have never meant anything here stateside; at least not in the sense of meaning in Great Britain & continental Europe. Late political scientist John P. Roche (b. 1923; d. 1994) wrote that those words simply have not survived transition to the States; so we're left w/ "liberal-conservative" & "moderate progressive," which serve basically to take up space in editorials & permit busybodies to establish their niche in the public discourse.

Your are correct, tho: Artists of any ilk should be partaking in that public discourse--which, sadly, is restricted (read: censored) by major media outlets--to condemn book banning or censorship of all kinds. I still recall being so puzzled after I read "The Catcher in the Rye" in h.s., started trolling in libraries for "criticism," & read how often that book was banned; along w/ writers as diverse as Theodore Dreiser & Margaret Mitchell! Definitely a hallmark of Mencken's "booboisie!"

Delighted to see how much antagonism towards wokeness there is here. Rare to find that in literary circles.

Glad to see Wolf still wearing his thermal shirt. What he should do is memorise a "banned" book and /or carve it on Mount Rushmore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

Glad to see Wolf still wearing his thermal shirt. What he should do is memorise a "banned" book and /or carve it on Mount Rushmore.

---

Beautiful! LOve it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WICKES

It's happening here in the UK as well. A University recently cut Chaucer from their reading list. Apparently, they are 'de-colonising' their curriculum (a sinister policy like that could have been invented by Stalin or Mao). So we now have the insane situation where Chaucer, the father of English literature, is no longer taught IN ENGLAND because..., well, because he's a dead white man. God knows what they'll be teaching instead. Kanye West lyrics probably. I honestly don't know where this will end. Nothing would surprise me anymore. It wouldn't surprise me if one day Rembrandt's portraits are burned because they only show white faces. To make it even more insane, I have an British-Indian friend here in the UK who loves Chaucer and is planning to do a PhD on him!!

---

I'd encourage you to actually learn what decolonizing a curriculum actually entails, it is not banning Chaucer. Further research showed the decision to remove Medieval literature was driven primarily by a lack of student interest, this was expressed alongside an interest to revitalize interest by producing a de-colonized curriculum. Decolonizing the curriculum was not why Medieval lit was removed from the University of Leicestershire's curriculum. The fact of the matter is English departments in most universities are facing rapid drops in enrollment over the past 10 years in particular. My own university has difficulty filling 2nd and 3rd year courses. Period specialists are not being replaced during hires because departments see no demand from students. I'm teaching my department's Shakespeare class this Fall despite not being a theatre specialist or an Early Modernist, I was just the next best option as a Restoration specialist. Decolonization efforts are not a serious attempt at reworking curriculums due to a PC plot, but rather are mostly a reaction to the fact that more than half of our students these days are POC and feel no connection or interest in English literature when it presents itself as an institution of white elitism.

Hi, Orphan,

Wouldn´t that be an opportunity to rework the curriculum? Students everywhere are losing the interest in Literature. One can´t remove Ancient and Medieval Literature altogether if one wants to maintain a historical perspective. But maybe highlight Colonial and Postcolonial Literature and Diversity?

I think the availability of faculty and enrollment numbers are more likely to influence what courses are offered than any ideological desire to expunge Medieval literature. Large universities with established departments might be able to dictate the curriculum to their students, but the competition for students in smaller universities simply means offering Medieval literature classes will just waste resources. There's pressure to teach courses on television and popular fiction because those courses are popular with students. I'm not sure what the solution to saving English departments is, but at their current rate I think many universities might be absorbing English faculty into service positions teaching writing courses and a few electives. It doesn't help that in Canada the university funding system is highly reliant on foreign students, who pay non-subsidized tuition rates and bring in big money for the school. The international students are generally more interested in studying STEM fields than the humanities, apart from some American students from border states. I am teaching as a sessional so my future in academia is highly uncertain.

As far as I'm concerned when I'm designing my Shakespeare course the idea of decolonialism comes in with a focus on the continuity of interpretation, particularly in forms of theatrical adaptation that challenge the cultural values that are embedded in the text. I try to make sure the reactions and interpretations of people of colour are part of the narrative. Foregrounding the work of scholars of colour also helps to communicate to the students that Shakespeare belongs culturally to all of them and not simply to white people. There's a scholarly initiative in the US and Canada called RaceB4Race that is dedicated to coming up with solutions to teaching Medieval and Renaissance literature in ways that are cognizant of the experiences of non-white students and scholars.

"As far as I'm concerned when I'm designing my Shakespeare course the idea of decolonialism comes in with a focus on the continuity of interpretation, particularly in forms of theatrical adaptation that challenge the cultural values that are embedded in the text. I try to make sure the reactions and interpretations of people of colour are part of the narrative. Foregrounding the work of scholars of colour also helps to communicate to the students that Shakespeare belongs culturally to all of them and not simply to white people. There's a scholarly initiative in the US and Canada called RaceB4Race that is dedicated to coming up with solutions to teaching Medieval and Renaissance literature in ways that are cognizant of the experiences of non-white students and scholars. "

That seems to be an interesting approach, Orphan. I think the historical approach is also helpful, because it shows what Literature and readers own to their context. For example your comment set me thinking about the race issues in Elizabethan England. At least two of the plays are the proof to my mind, that there were some: Othelo and The Merchant of Venice. And maybe it is not for nothing that both plays are set far outside England.

People have been trying to make their own opinions the only official ideas for as long as we have recored, and the effort probably started long before. I think this is another reason why I should be made Emperor. Then I will ban that kind of thinking, and everyone will have to become open-minded and allow all sorts of ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

People have been trying to make their own opinions the only official ideas for as long as we have recored, and the effort probably started long before. I think this is aanother reason why I should be made Emperor. I will ban that kind of thinking, and everyone will have to become open-minded and allow all sorts of ideas.

---

Beautiful!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

I don't want to get in a purely political discussion, I only want to discuss literary and artistic freedom.

---

In Florida the McCarthyite Republican governor not only removes books from libraries, he censors progressive college administrators and replaces them with political appointees. This way he can use his puppet strings to restrict their academic freedom and to restrict freedom of thought. Of course, the worse form of censorship is gerrymandering which, more often than not, is done by the politically incorrect right wing. But that's for another thread, I suppose.

"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

--Ronald Reagen--

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."

~ John Stuart Mill ~

the irony of your quote, apart from that it pretty much avails nothing, is that mill was a regular church going proponent of classical liberalism, which is effectively today's conservative.

Ronnie Reagan was a member of the World Federalist League