EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Rise Up or Die
- Rallying Cry: Citizens Worldwide to Unite in 'March Against Monsanto'
- A 'Nonviolent Army of Love' Rises in North Carolina to Face Down Rightwing's Assault on Progress
- The Latest Lie: IRS Targeted Conservatives
- Genetically Modified Democracy: Monsanto and Congress Move to Stomp on Your Rights
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Librarians Lead Fight Against Banned Books
NEW YORK - Penguins are indisputably cute. And a children's book about such inoffensive animals could hardly be expected to trigger a nationwide controversy. But then came "And Tango Makes Three" and a heated debate was fired up.
The book, based on a true New York Central Park Zoo story, by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, tells the tale of two male penguins bringing up an orphaned chick - and raises the thorny question of what constitutes a family.
"And Tango Makes Three" has consequently ranked among the top 10 of the United States' most challenged books since it was first published in 2005.
This month, "challenged" or "banned" books will be the focus of a week of activities. Banned Books Week is a nationwide initiative by librarians to highlight the efforts of some groups to bar books from library shelves. Now in its 29th year, Banned Books Week will be held from Sep. 25 to Oct. 2.
The challenging and banning of books is not new. In 1873, the Comstock Law was the first piece of national legislation prohibiting the distribution of "lewd, obscene, and/or lascivious" books.
In the early 1980s, there was a sudden surge in the number of book challenges in libraries, schools and bookstores, and librarians got alarmed. The American Library Association (ALA) started counting book challenges reported to them by citizens. They began issuing a list highlighting the most frequently challenged books every year.
"And Tango Makes Three" is on it along with current hits for young adults like the "Twilight" series. Classics such as Alice Walker's "The Color Purple," Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird" and J.D. Salinger's "Catcher in the Rye" are also listed.
"A lot of people take the freedom to read for granted," said Angela Maycock, assistant director of the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom, which seeks to provide free access to library material for everyone.
Last year, some 460 book challenges were reported to the ALA. But that is just the tip of the iceberg since most challenges go unnoticed. A lot of teachers self-censor - trying to avoid trouble by rejecting a controversial book from their classes. That is what Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), calls the "chilling effect".
A challenged publication is not necessarily removed from a library shelf. "In the majority of cases," Maycock says, "the books are not removed." There are no statistics on the number of works that end up in library back rooms.
Although a handful of organizations committed to family values or morality in the media raise objections to "bad books", most challenges begin when a person - quite often a parent - complains about a book that he or she doesn't like.
Books have been challenged for offensive or sexually explicit language, their religious views, their portrayal of homosexuality, nudity, sexism or simply because they are viewed as unsuited for a particular age group.
This month, Sherman Alexie's "The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian", written in 2007, was banned from the Stockton School District in Missouri. The award-winning novel about an Indian boy who decides to attend a school for white children was part of Stockton's High School curriculum.
But some local parents felt it violated the community's values because of its rough language and sexual depictions. Supporters on both sides were up in arms. Initially banned in April, banning was reconsidered but ultimately the book was removed from the district's library shelves just a few weeks ago.
Bertin, whose anti-censorship coalition defended the circulation of Alexie's book, calls such removals "basically unconstitutional". Several court decisions - including one by the Supreme Court in 1982 - ruled that books must not be removed over objections to their ideas. Maycock adds: "If there is one person in the community who could benefit from a book, it is a crime to remove it."
Larry Siems, director of the freedom to write program at the PEN American Center, is concerned that the banning of books violates the constitutional protection to freedom of speech.
During the upcoming Banned Books Week, events will be held throughout the country. The ALA website lists dozens of activities concerned citizens can organize at bookstores, libraries and in the press. Organizing a discussion forum or displaying a list of banned books are just two of them.
The 18 million community members of the virtual world "Second Life" can also participate in a series of events held on what is called the "ALA Island". During a "Jeopardy"-like game show, for example, contestants can demonstrate their banned book related knowledge. People were also able to submit short videos filmed in "Second Life" - inspired by the theme "Think for yourself and let others do the same."
Meanwhile, a public "Read Out" of challenged books in Chicago on Sept. 25 will be the kick off for this year's Banned Books Week. Tentatively scheduled to appear at the event - among other authors - are Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell. They will tell the audience how Silo and Roy raised their chick, Tango.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
23 Comments so far
Show AllI'm sure Preacher Terry Jones will jump right on this, and arrange an "And Tango Makes Three"-burning ceremony to coincide with the public "Read Out".
After all, the very TITLE is a blasphemous mockery and abomination of the divinely-inspired heterosexual double-entendre "It takes two to tango".
Quite a few years ago, Garth Williams made a charming children's book called "The Rabbit's Wedding" about some rabbits and their lives. Eventually, one rabbit falls in love with another one. As the book was for very young children, the author portrayed the two rabbits as a black one and a white one to provide a visual contrast.
The Southern PTA's and churches arose en masse to condemn the book. The reason, a white rabbit was going to marry a black rabbit! The book was yanked from libraries and school libraries. I think some churches or PTA's held book burnings.
When the smoke cleared and the legal challenges finally ran themselves out, the book was no longer banned. One librarian said, "Oh, yes, we have the book. It is in the reference section."
In an increasingly fascist nation like the United States, sound education and freedom of thought and opinion are under increasing attack. Our leaders now want obedient cannon fodder and unthinking laborers. Every aspect of the nation is dumbing down, and controversial books that might cause people to think are anathema to our corporate rulers. A thinking populace is likely to see through the propaganda.
Apparently, now that interracial marriages are not unusual, the same type of people that attacked "The Rabbit's Wedding." must find something to suggest a homosexual relationship in children's books, even in a true story from the Central Park Zoo.
I find it sad, tragic really, but not surprising.
(I wonder what they would say about the tigress who had lost her cubs and was pining. The zoo had a litter of orphaned piglets and put them in with the tigress, who adopted them, nursed them and cared for them as her own.)
I agree with much of your comment, minitrue, but something confuses me.
Indeed, Garth Williams disclaimed consciously and intentionally addressing the still-controversial topic of interracial marriage when illustrating "The Rabbit's Wedding".
But however bigoted, racist, and deplorable the denunciation of the book was, seeing the "interracial" issue isn't merely a matter of pathological, paranoid projection.
Put the other way round, I can imagine interracial couples at the time being absolutely charmed and thrilled by a book that in fact DOES depict a black and white couple without stigma or a negative twist, i.e. being shot by a hunter or eaten by a Big Bad Wolf at the end.
Likewise, various stories of same-sex-parented families may or may not be consciously written to send a message of affirmation and tolerance. But even if the author doesn't explicitly announce or implicitly telegraph its relevance to homosexuality, res ipsa loquitur.
I hope I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be dismissing the criticism on the grounds that the controversial work isn't even "really" a homosexual story at all, but a TRUE story. And, to use a favorite expression of my long-departed Sicilian grandmother, critics are just evil-minded persons "looking for cats to comb".
But can't a TRUE story ALSO speak to the reality that same-sex couples are as qualified to raise children lovingly as anyone else?
You seem to suggest that if the author is openly trying to send a message supporting tolerance and acceptance for interracial or gay relationships, that WOULD be legitimate grounds for offense and criticism.
I think the "Seinfeld"-honored cliché "Not that there's anything wrong with it!" applies regardless of whether the controversial aspect was intentional, or in the eye of the beholder.
I think you misunderstand me on this one. Basically, it seems that virtually anything presented to the public is searched for some reason for bigotry, whether it exists or not.
Same sex couples have raised children for many years with no ill effects. A loving parent is a loving parent. (A hating, cruel parent is a hating cruel parent, also, sadly enough)
I haven't read the story myself. I have no idea whether the two males were sexual partners at all. I've seen a fair amount of film to the effect that penguins are very nurturing of the young. Natural history is replete with stories of orphaned animals being taken in and raised. Sometimes by different species.
I guess my main gripe is, why should stories of interest be dissected by various groups to prove whatever point they are soap boxing about at the moment. Books and thoughts should not be banned. If you do not like the content of a book, close the cover and put it back on the shelf. If you don't like the content of a movie or radio show, change the channel or hit the "off" button. If someone else wants to read it and enjoys it, that is up to them, not to you and your militants. (I'm not pointing at you, Obedient Servant, that is a general statement.)
Thanks for clearing this up.
To repeat Grandma's colorful idiom, you're objecting to the attitude of persons or groups obsessively or compulsively "looking for cats to comb".
I couldn't agree more. Sadly, "live and let live" is a philosophy entirely at odds with our predatory 24/7 corporate media circus, intended to promote constant hysteria, so it's fallen out of favor.
This illustrates the victory of the effectiveness of the Religious mind-fuck: Control and Destroy.
‘Antinomianism’
I heard that Paolo Friere's book, Psychology of the Oppressed was banned in Texas. Wasn't surprised. After all, what more likely state would ban a book that begins with the proposition that our educational system teaches adaptation rather than education. Without the liberal arts to teach us to question, we are left with those educated to completely adapt to the existing system with no idea of what or how to question anything.
PS. Thank God for thoughtful and courageous librarians. Like the colony that memorized books in "Fahrenheit 451," they may save us all.
No body has the right to ban any book period. Like you said mini, if you don't like it, don't read it. Adults and parents can decide which books their children read to an extent, such as preventing pornography, but stories that are made for children, should be read by children. Reality is real, all these fanatics that want to pretend that certain things are bad, or don't even exist ,these people are "The Crazies" and have been trying to bring this country down since they burned witches ! Just think about people for a minute ...how could they burn people in the town square, or hang them, and bring children with fruit to throw at the people. What kind of creatures were we just a hundred years ago ? Our technology has taken off like a rocket, but how about our emotional, and humanitarian side ? We are cruel beings and now we say that we are Modern Man and we are civilized...but are we ? There is a struggle, a tug of war...those that want to use thinking, and science... against those that want to stick with the old ways...tradition. Personally I am a thinker and do not want to stick with many of the old ways ! I am glad we are more civilized. I can not imagine myself at a town witch burning, but who knows, I hope that there were people that didn't like the practice at all. I guess there was because eventually we stopped all that barbaric krapt ! Yet there seems to always be the one group, that is "twisted sister" and I don't mean the band ! Religion is almost always at the heart of these problems.
"Religion is almost always at the heart of these problems."
It's because religions are based on lies, so the Truth must be banned, lest the flock see the real light. To be afraid of information is a position of weakness. To call for a book to be banned is an admission of frailty. "It's to protect the children" just means "WE want to corrupt their little minds first."
Where and when did this corruption begin??
> Where and when did this corruption begin??<
> Adults and parents can decide which books their children read to an extent, such as preventing pornography,>
So-called adults, and parents by biology, are real problem in the world. Courrpting every generation of new adults. Everyone has their own ideas of whats Pornography, Mine is pictures of violence and murder. Others get tied up ove Sexual, or nude images. No one agrees, I'd see all religious books banned in public financed liberarys. The the religous can ban whatever in their places. Of course then their schools could never be accreditted because they did provide a rounded education.
I get a perverse joy over the idea of banned books. But am often dissapointed as to what content is banned. Knowledge is power, and anyone who denies themselves of knowledge, sets themselves up as a fool. To be taken advantage of.
Corruption starts at the first concepts of power and subservence. Information is nutral, by itself. Corruption comes form misuse of information, to gain power over others.
I've never worried about money or status, only that I won't have time or access to the knowledge I wish to posess.
>^^<
I never really liked the Disney Corporation all that much, until they got into porn in a big way.
Yea the new 3d Tinker Bell iz HOT!
>^^<
Ha. I'll look for it.
Disney is the prime supplier of the hotel 'on demand' porn videos, in case you folks don't know that.
Personally, I like 'Redclouds'. Ivor's site is inexpensive. Tons of old ladies are kept in cheek thereon (perhaps this is a poor choice of words).
"... a handful of organizations committed to family values or morality in the media..."
Although I found the article informative I disagree with describing such organizations using the same words they themselves use because their view of "family values" and "morality" is a very limited and repressive one. Better to simply describe them as "organizations committed to controlling what everyone else reads or believes is moral."
LOL good post: I agree they should leave it to god to tell us what is or is not right to read and belive..
I'm still waiting to hear,,,,,,,, god?
>^^<
>>>>> US Librarians Lead Fight Against Banned Books
Need a librarian to re-write this incredibly stupid title.
Family values??????
What the hell is that????
Oh ya, all the values you get from the bible.
Well, maybe we should ban the bible, there is a lot of killing by God, you know,when he gets angry.
The rath of God.
Not a good influence.
Jesus Mary and Joseph, this is America, books are freedom of speech, read what you like , but don't tell me I can't read what you don't like, I will tell you not to let the library door smack You on the ass on your way out.
Bornfreemen, I was about to make the same suggestion. I find all the slewing and begatting and hate speech in the Bible quite disturbing and I feel it should easily meet the criteria used on the banned list.
Give it the Fahrenheit 451 as that is fashionable of late.
I wonder how many of the people that want to ban books, have actually read the books?
I wonder too, do those people read at all? Oh, and shadowdancer, your book about cretins and the love of MONEY?
It will definitely be banned!
Ah ,the penguins, a true story perhaps makes it more scary to those fearful of words. Male penguns do take care of the eggs too. I suppose that those parents who object will be taking on Charlotte's Web next.
Poor spider lady is only doing what comes naturally, but I suppose she'll be accused of being a mouth piece for single motherhood.
Is Ferdinand the Bull, really about learning to love yourself just the way you are, OR, could it be a subliminal voice of the welfare state telling people to just chill out under the cork tree? Oh scary parents, scare yourselves some more!
Oh wait a minute, maybe they are on to something. isn't that Santa guy breaking and entering into peoples' homes? Then he leaves a bunch of Wal Mart crap....where are the elves? Their jobs have been outsourced and are off shore!!
Worry about THAT! Oh yeah, and the melting ice, where the hell is the North Pole going to be? Worry about that BIG TIME!
People can't think. Politicians used to purposely confuse, anger, and frighten their constituents knowing that strong emotions were incompatible with rational thought.
The creation of such emotions are no longer necessary when one in seven of us live in poverty. Now there is fear, anger, and confusion aplenty to go around just by waking up each morning.