Index Librorum Prohibitorum: Wingnut edition


I sometimes wonder what right-wing extremists do for fun when they're not suppressing gay rights, opposing the teaching of evolution, eroding the separation of church and state, or lying to the public about the justification for expensive wars.

Turns out, they come up with lists of books to ban — just for fun! Check it out:

Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries

Sure, they don't say to burn or ban these books, just that they're "harmful," according to such scholarly sources as Phylis Schlafly. After all, the list is just for fun. They leave the decision about what to do about them up to the librarians and teachers and Patriot Pastors, but I don't think we have to let the temperature get all the way up to 451° in order to know which way this sort of sentiment leads.

I just sat down to write a snarky posting about this — I've been badly scooped by a bevy of other blogs (including but not limited to feministe and Just Wired) but I wanted to add some value to the list by including links to Barnes & Noble, where you might purchase these books yourself before they're removed from the electronic shelves altogether.

But then I ran across "#2. Mein Kampf". And that gave me pause. I thought: How can I, in good conscience, link to Mein Kampf?How can I put the word "harmful" in quotes when such a book appears on this list. Is this text not objectively harmful, penned by a man who, in a century of cheap and plentiful evil, stands head and shoulders above all but a few others?

And then I thought: Even a broken clock is right twice a day. On a list of ten books, the wingnuts chose one that I'd consider close enough to "harmful" that I have trouble taking issue with that appellation. Big deal. The difference between them and us is that we don't spend our time making lists of harmful books.

And then I thought: As monstrous as Hitler was, can we really say it was the book itself that is harmful? Do screeds do harm, or is it the willing muscle of a nation set against its weak and helpless that is harmful? What does defining a book as harmful really accomplish, other than to suppress the curiosity of those who might inspect it for lessons about the mistakes of the past?

And then I thought: The very fact that a panel of conservatives equates Alfred Kinsey (#4, right behind Mao!) with Adolf Hitler proves the ridiculousness of their case. The inclusion of John Dewey (#5) and Betty Friedan (#7) proves their meanness of spirit.

Without further ado, then, here's the intact list. With links, if you care to pick up a copy for yourself or a friend.

If you dare to follow the link to the original article, be sure to check out the "honorable mentions" at the bottom of the page, where Charles Darwin gets his.

Posted: Thu - June 2, 2005 at 11:24 AM   | Category:     |   |   | |


©
eXTReMe Tracker