You have no doubt heard about Republican candidate for governor of Virginia Glenn Youngkin supporting banning teaching Toni Morrison's Pulitzer prize-winning novel Beloved to high school seniors. For those who don't know, the novel tells the story of a family of formerly enslaved people shortly after the Civil War. It is a painful story because the characters have been psychically scarred by their former enslavement. Youngkin has joined a growing movement of Republican politicians who are demanding that students not be exposed to the truth about the nation's past.
Now a Texas state representative has drawn up a list of 850 books "that could “make students feel discomfort,” and is demanding that school districts across the state report whether any are in their classrooms or libraries." He also demanded that districts identify “any other books” that could cause students “guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress because of their race or sex or convey that a student, by virtue of their race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.”
Among the books he apparently wants to consider banning are William Styron's The Confessions of Nat Turner, John Irving's Ciderhouse Rules, and The Handmaid's Tale. (BTW, as a literate citizen, I have read all of those books.)
You know who else banned books? Hitler, Stalin and Mao. To be sure, Republicans aren't calling for banning these books outright, but they are calling for banning them as assigned reading in schools. These are among the landmarks of modern English literature, some of the most important works of fiction of the 20th Century. And they confront the reality of slavery, racism, misogyny, and they have sex in them. Which is something that people do.
The hypocrisy and stupidity of these people is beyond the power of words.
5 comments:
That’s precisely why these misfits want to ban books: they don’t have the power of words. And they don’t have the power of words because they don’t possess the power of rational thought. They are willing to believe any stupidity that people place into their heads, like the completely erroneous assumption that banning abortion is somehow good for women. These people are worse than a waste of protoplasm; how ironic that people who call themselves “pro-life” are actually wasting their lives. And causing others pain in the process. They have no idea why they’re doing what they’re doing, and so they can be manipulated by people who lust after power. Had they any real idea of what motivates them, they would find out what it is: fear.
Sorry, Don, you've got it backwards. The right has adopted and weaponized the language of theraputic culture and, as with everything else, they will do it better than the left ever could. Morrison's novel may be moving but the right's language of "traumatizing children" moves bodies to action. They can do this because, unlike the left, they entertain zero self-doubt about their causes and can thus be ruthlessly mendacious in their methods.
Actually, Mo, I think we’ve both got it right. Yes, they weaponize language. And no, they don’t think rationally. If they did, they wouldn’t do any of the shit they’re doing — because their policies would destroy everyone, including themselves.
I think, Don, that you give too much credit to this "rationality" thing. Reason is not a tool for establishing goals - that is pre-concious - but for determining methods. The great lie of technocracy rests on its belief in detached, rational policy making when everything truly grows from basic beliefs.
I hear you, Mo. I think I’m using the adjective “rational” to have connotations of mental health and physical well-being. Perhaps I need to choose another word; it could be as simple as “non-suicidal” or “non-destructive.” I find the words and actions of modern-day Republicans and conservatives to be completely destructive. I have been using the word “rational” to mean the opposite of that, but clearly, it doesn’t. Perhaps I could just use the word “healthful,” as in the health of the planet and species.
Post a Comment