Skip to main content

Musing on the News - Book Bans

 

              Time published an article on 4/20 titled “New Report Finds That Book Bans Have Reached Their Highest Levels Yet.” As an avid reader I am immediately bothered by this, but I think it is worth explaining why.

              First, over half the country is functionally illiterate, and even more don’t like to read, so who are we banning books for, anyway? It’s not like online ads that subliminally change your thinking. If you want to read a book, you have to physically get it, let someone else know what you’re reading (checking it out of a library or buying it in a store), and spend hours reading the material, depending on how fast you read. Reading is also self-selecting, as you can figure out by the book cover and back if you want to spend the time to decipher its contents. Reading social media and news is anonymous (except for the data points being collected on your online behavior), short, and based on what will keep you online, not what will enrich your life. Oh yeah, and it’s not vetted by anybody.

              One reason I know this idea of banning books is bad is historical. No movement that restricted access to books ever signaled anything positive. Another reason I know it is bad is because it doesn’t impact most people, so any good they are intending to do is lost on most Americans. I know this because I have worked for several schools in the Bay Area, including those that can be considered “elite,” and do you know what I learned? Most high school students don’t read the books, and this has been true for over a decade. So who are we protecting? The books are too advanced for young kids, and the older ones don’t read anyway. If they did, their targeted ads will give them something they will want to read. Oh wait, the targeted ads don’t advertise books; they advertise games, make-up, vaping, and clothing. So why are we banning books?

              Have any of these people even read any of these books, or are they just afraid of the content? We fear what we don’t understand, so it may be worth reading those book after all.

I am sure that anyone who is advocating banning books has not read Fahrenheit 451. If they did, they completely missed the point. The only thing Bradbury got wrong was the nuclear end: it’s psychological manipulation on our digital platforms that will be our demise. To read a book is to commit to learning what someone else has taken hours, months, and sometimes years to present to the public. They have been read, edited, and vetted by other people. The ads and social media posts that people choose to look at have not been. This is more chaotic, less regulated, and more dangerous than a book could ever be. So I ask again: why are we banning books?

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What If We Addressed Problems Holistically

What If… We treated problems holistically instead of individually?               One of the things I realized early on in my adult education was the relationship between seemingly disparate ideas. My bachelor’s degree focused on the relationship between biological equilibrium, environmental factors, and the mental reaction of individuals. From the beginning, I knew that it was folly to think that any of these categories could be studied in a vacuum. It did not take long for me to realize that it was not only in my own specialty that this was true, but in many other aspects of life. Yet, the compartmentalized view of the world is how the general populace perceives its environment, and social problems in particular.               As an educator, I found myself unable to teach only the subject with which I was tasked. I found the need for students t...
Post a Comment
Read more

On Hold

  The Viral Candidate – On Hold               I really don’t want to run for office. I’m an idea person, not an implementation person. I have a lot of ideas that I think would do a lot of good. I realized that all the political candidates have done something “noteworthy” in politics or life before trying to run the country. This feels elitist, but also ensures intelligent, capable people are the ones running. Or maybe those are the people who refuse to run because our political landscape has gotten so toxic. With that thought, I want to finish some of my ideas and do something larger than being a high school teacher before I try to imagine a national political campaign. Therefore, I am putting the Viral Candidate project on hold for a year.               I have been trying to find a way to build a platform and have done so with little guidance so far...
Post a Comment
Read more

The DIY Rape Kit

This is one of my ideas that will have to be implemented in The Study in order for some of the programs to work.               Melania Trump had a point when she said that women need hard evidence before they accuse a man of sexual assault. Women are not believed as victims, and he said-she said is very hard to prove. We also live in a culture where the woman is often blamed for the incident, including by herself. We live in a culture where “boys will be boys” and we train women on how to avoid an all-too-common scenario, as if they have the power to prevent the situation from occurring. All this means that if women need hard evidence to see their accusers brought to justice, they need a way to gather evidence in a way that is less traumatic for the survivors, so that more will be empowered to come forward.               Talk to someone who was strong ...
Post a Comment
Read more