Fear.
That’s all it takes.
Ripping knowledge out of a child’s hands has always been an avid idea for those consumed with fear of knowledge. In the past, book burning served that purpose, but is unfortunately frowned upon. Now, as a more “civil” alternative, book banning has taken it’s place. It does the exact same thing, just without all the messy clean up after words.
Parents who wish for books to be banned have targeted everything from TTYL to The Great Gatsby, and all ban requests have one thing in common: immoral ideas. Because a child will never grow up, will never learn, will never have to use the knowledge of the real world to function properly. Book challengers would MUCH prefer children to grow up never knowing that there is more to life than what parents tell them. With risque books comes new ideas and themes, and we all know what that can lead to: curiosity. With curiosity comes questions, and with questions comes a larger horizon of knowledge, something that some parents fear. Advancement from generation to generation is not put into account when banning books, because if a child grows to be smarter than a parent, then how can the parent gain legitimacy to rule other than love, affection, support, and acceptance? There is none!
Sexuality? No!
Curse words? How dare they even think that!
People differing from society? What is this ‘different’ you write of?
It is understandable how the basic idea of burning books could survive to modern day banning, since some people may not be ready quite yet for some ideas presented in literature. But must a whole community be deprived of knowledge because a few people can’t handle a book? If one cannot cope with an idea in a presented book, that individual doesn’t have to read said book!
Literature and it’s power to open minds is no new news, and even religious leaders allowed books to be preserved. Before and during the time of the Holy Roman Empire, monasteries preserved ancient Greek and Roman works, although they are written by Godless people without the faintest idea of Christianity, a popular religion often used as an excuse to ban books in modern day society. During the beginnings of western civilization as we know it, books with conflicting ideas weren’t burned, but read and learned from so scholars would understand both sides of an idea and know how to appreciate their standing even more. Has literature in it’s basics somehow changed? Is the idea of questioning human existence not present in every book or work? In Green Eggs and Ham, Sam is trying to convince his acquaintance to try something new and not to judge a book by its cover. Sound familiar?
Nobody in the modern day and age is forcing any individual to read any particular book that is undesirable to him or her; it up to the individual if they wish to read or not, and the latter is a shame. If a book is banned, that means the entire community surrounding any resource to that book is deprived of its contents, restricting individuality. Did Socrates and Aristotle not philosophise that humans can figure reality out just because we are humans, and we think? This idea is Humanism, and it explores the individual as being capable of anything it puts its mind to. Literally. There will always be one person, one human being, who doesn’t fit into the exact ideals his or her community sets up, but that individual will never be able to learn and grow with the world because they won’t know about it. Nobody can be expected to learn about the world if the contents of it are banned. That’s like asking a choir to sing a song for the Pope when they were never taught the gospel.
Why does it matter?
Who says?
Does anyone care?
Without books and literature, who knows!
At GHS, this is no issue; in fact, the majority of students read the top challenged books (Catcher in the Rye, Raisin in the Sun, Lord of the Flies, ect.). This is a huge chunk of the GHS student’s career, and forces students to think higher and form steadfast values. I have no concern for the brilliant students at GHS; but I wonder, will my peers change the world when they grow up, or hinder it by banning knowledge they had the privilege of?
Book banning hampers everyone, old and young. The only way these banners have judged these books is because they’ve read them and don’t find them suitable, yet they don’t wish for anyone else to read books and make their own judgement.....a bit conceited, wouldn’t you think?
