Book bans?

Shannon Bohrer

(10/2022) I was surprised when hearing of proposed book bannings around the country. I grew up in a home that encouraged reading, so the idea of banning books is a foreign concept. The history of fascist and communists’ governments, always includes a list of books, authors, playwrights and even composers - that were banned.

The fact that Germany banned books during World War II should be sufficient evidence that banning books is frequently associated with fascism. However, the history of book banning tells a different story. Book banning has occurred in all forms of governments, including democracies, as we are currently experiencing. Of note, this is not our first experience with book banning. I am old enough to be cognizant and remember that during my youth there were attempts to ban books and some were successful, if only temporarily.

Any one of my age remembers the Tropic of Cancer, a book containing candid reference to sexuality, being banned. The book was published in 1934 in France and was banned in the U.S. In 1961 it was published in the U.S. and in 1964 the Supreme Court lifted the ban. I remember classmates being excited about obtaining a copy. However, once the ban was lifted, the attraction waned.

Another book that received a lot of notoriety was Lolita, a book that was supposed to be full of eroticism. The book was banned in France and England, but was never banned in the U.S. The character of the sexual desire was a 12-year-old girl, which added emphasis for the call to ban the work. Book reviews noted that the sexual references in the book are far and few, with a lack of eroticism. It was a book with more hype than content, similar to other banned books. Sometimes the idea of banning anything, creates an attraction that promotes the marketing and sales of the product.

We tend to think that books including sexual references and eroticism are the impetus to ban them. While often true, the history of book bannings includes written materials that contained political, ethnic, or other unexpected topics. Oliver Twist, a required reading in one of my classes, was banned in Nazi Germany. It was banned because it featured Jewish characters. All Quiet on the Western Front was also banned in Nazi Germany because of the realistic depiction of war and the demoralizing portrayal of the German government. The Grapes of Wrath, another required reading, was temporarily banned in California, because the depiction of residents was seen as unfavorable. Think about that.

When books reflect challenging times, the realities of war or ethnic biases, banning those works does not eliminate the issues presented. If written words accurately describe people places or events that are unbecoming, uncomplimentary or unfavorable, it will not go away because the work is banned. Conversely, it could be argued that exposing social, ethic or other problems can create a better understanding of the problems.

"Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced." James Baldwin

One of the most often illogical arguments for book banning, is the exposure of poor ethics and immoral behavior to minors. If one reads about the holocaust in World War II, you would think they would be horrified about the events. They were real, they occurred, and they reflect the worst of human behavior. If one reads about the horror of any event, it educates and gives purpose for good moral behavior.

While arguments are currently being made on both sides of the issue of book banning, we are simultaneously experiencing dis-information in volumes that defy any normal comprehension. The troubling concept is that many of the arguments made for book banning, are made by the same individuals and groups professing and advocating the dis-information.

Shortly after the 911 terrorist attack there were published reports on alternative media sites, including far right radio programs, that not only did the event never occur, but if it did occur, it was conducted by our own government. The idea was that our government wanted to start a war. Prior to 911, many of the same conspiracy theorist put forth the idea that in 1995 the government was responsible for the bombing of the Murrow Building in Oklahoma.

We have a history of individuals, groups, and alternate sources creating and pushing false information. The same segment often used social media sources to magnify the misinformation. When the Sandy Hook School shooting occurred and twenty children were killed, there were media outlets and individual personalities that believe this was a made-up story, it was a "false flag" operation by our government to regulate guns.

We also have "Q" who is supposed to be a secret person in our government. According to "Q" the democrats are child molesters, and they are killing children to harvest their blood. In a strange turn of events, an individual attacked the "Comet Pizza" restaurant in Washington to save the children. The attack was later referred to as "Pizza gate" contradicted this claim. I am sure that many of the "Q" followers still believe, well I am not sure what they believe?

According to Alex Jones, a propagator of "Q" and other disinformation, our government planned "to use chemicals to turn people gay." Jones said, "I have the government documents where they said they’re going to encourage homosexuality with chemicals so that people don’t have children." Alex Jones and many of his followers often push and repeat false information, especially around mass shootings. According to Jones, and others, the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman high school in 2018 in Florida, never occurred. It was staged by our government and the victims and witnesses you see on the news, were really actors.

Dis-information is not new. I remember hearing that the 1969 moon landing, was staged, and filmed in the desert. The specific area used to film the landing was reported to be area fifty-one where the alleged aliens landed in the early 1950’s.

If someone authors a book about "Q" and the work contains misinformation, similar to what is reported in this piece, would the same people want to ban that book? The two perspectives seem incompatible in that many of the books they are trying to ban are non-fiction and reflect science, truth, and facts. Even many of the fiction works, are novels that reflect real events, like Maus a book about the holocaust. How can many of the same book banners, adhere to the false and misleading information?

"Banning books gives us silence when we need speech.
It closes our ears when we need to listen.
It makes us blind when we need sight." — Stephen Chbosky