While folks are up in arms at the thought of a gay character in the background of a children's book, they are often blind to bad history they embrace as gospel truth. It's a bit early for school to start, but homeschoolers are already starting to ramp up book borrowing anyway. This biography of Christopher Columbus crossed my desk, and reminded me how bad most elementary-grade history can be. Kids need heroes, but it does them a disservice to give them propaganda, and this may be what is triggering such a backlash from those who have learned the unsavory reality swept under the rug by most writers.
Ingri and Edgar Parin d'Aulaire's biographical picture books epitomize this kind of hagiographic propaganda masquerading as history, but most textbooks indulge in this lazy style to an extent, too. Is it any surprise people want to destroy statues and rename holidays when they learn the truth behind this perfectly normal flawed, selfish man corrupted by power? The Our Fake History podcast has a three part series which explores the more unsavory aspects of Columbus and his voyages without going overboard on condemnation.
In short, he was wrong about the size of the world, abused the natives he met in the Caribbean, violated his explicit orders to not take slaves, imposed draconian taxes and punishments in his pursuit of gold, and was generally an exemplar of why power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That doesn't make a good story for the kids though, does it? And we need to focus on instilling name recognition, not troubling them with the dark nuances of humanity's inhumanity to man. The civil religion must venerate its saints and vilify its villains one way or another!
What has been your experience learning more about real history as you grew beyond those cursory overviews from primary school? Have you felt like lashing out against symbols of virtue who you discovered had failed? Did you feel let down by the lack of greatness in great men? Did the nuance lead to a deeper understanding of how the world really works, and help you grow instead? What would you have done differently if you could guide the education of others today without the standards and mandates of government regulation and expectation we have around the world now? If you are homeschooling, what are you doing to help build a better foundation for the next generation?
what a great topic! how mane examples we face in we look at well-known and famous people from history or even from modern celebrity life.
We see only bright and light sides of famous people, but all the truth is hidden from our eyes.
How many talanted actors have appeared to be sexual abusers. Hoe many famous musicians or writers were cruel with their kids and wives, and actually had not 1 wife but many families with dozens of kids, and they wrote books about love and honesty...
we have a nice picture of the world, but it's so far from the truth...
official history is one more example of great fake...
Gay people have always been here and are not going away. It is something kids need to know. If they are going to be gay, hiding a book from them is not going to make them straight.
I say leave the truth in books, don't sugarcoat things because someone might be offended. Our past is to be learned from not swept under a rug.
People have been asking this same question for well over a century. Perhaps you've heard "if you don't read the New York Times, you're uninformed, and if you do, you're misinformed." I don't know who originally said that, but it's usually attributed to Mark Twain. Personally, I think it's better to be uninformed than misinformed, and I'm not alone in that belief.
Beware of false knowledge, it is far more dangerous than ignorance. - George Bernard Shaw
There's also this meme, courtesy of @lucylin:
On the flip side, there's the absolute shit-take that History is un-American, which the Varyag tore apart.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and it's perfectly fair to ask for a source when people make a claim you haven't heard, but yeah, there is a subset of the population that almost fetishizes footnotes.
"Citation needed" is a good thing, but "muh Reliable Source(TM)" is not, it's a variation of cherry-picking. Once a person has made up their mind, only information that feeds confirmation bias is "Reliable(TM)", whereas anything else is "biased and unreliable." Those are the people who fetishise footnotes. They are not worth arguing with unless you are prepared to chase a Gish-gallop, then go woozle hunting, and then have your interlocutor project their deliberate time-wasting onto you. Greg Laxative is a good example of that behaviour.
The subject of vetting sources is WAAAAY too complicated to summarise in a comment, but I'll definitely write about in the future.
Folks who will respond to a clearly articulated argument using fundamental reasoning from an agreed premise and insist on confirmation from an authority instead of using their own brains and readily-verifiable info or common knowledge.
Erm... could you finish that thought? I think you're missing a word or two.
Was describing the worst of people I have encountered who fetishize footnotes and references as a substitute for thinking.
Oh. Makes sense now.
me too! better to be Uninformed..
Wao. I can agree with your characterization of fake history regarding Cristobal Colon's 'discovery' of the Americas. However, you begin your post with the identical tactic regarding grooming and promotion of degeneracy of children.
Many children's books today feature illustrations, detailed descriptions, and strongly promote, perverse sexual intercourse with each other and adults. Also, it is a well understood principle of subconscious imprinting to incorporate cultural practices as background. If a child raised in a bubble is read stories that are identical to those read to other children, except that all the trees have purple leaves, the child will be stunned and perplexed upon exiting the bubble and finding only a few trees have purple leaves.
Children exposed to such background degeneracy in books will expect it IRL, just as children exposed to fake history in books will disbelieve contrary narratives regarding the peopling of the Americas.
I'm not exactly sure of your purpose in employing such tactics, and am curious about it.
Thanks!
I am a librarian. The vast majority of books people list as "obscene" fit my description, not yours. And most are not children's books, but rather Young Adult. And of those depicting nudity, etc. the vast majority are mischaracterised as porn or smut when they are sex ed books which parents have on occasion requested for their kids to discuss together, depictions of foreign cultures, or board books for toddlers showing nursing to someone who is probably still actually nursing.
If you believe the book ban crowd without verifying the books yourself, you are as bad as the bad history crowd I condemn.
And versa vice, my friend. We all have prejudices after all, and it is useful to us to note our own (and, yes, I'm aware I have reversed vice versa. It's a joke my father made, and I would lighten the tone of our discussion if I can), as being aware of biases can enable us to reason despite our preferences. I am all for parents themselves teaching their children, but I do not have any reason to believe that abandoning the mores and traditions that successful civilizations have maintained for millennia is preferable, or even tolerable.
If you advocate parents teaching kindergarten children how to have anal sex, or to view non-reproductive sexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual monogamy, or deny that inserting homosexual propaganda into 'the background' is consequential, we are going to disagree, and if you start flinging ad hominems at me for asking about your views, it is you that is disagreeable.
I do not follow you because you are incapable of reason nor overcoming bias, but the opposite, and we do not have to agree to be reasonable. If you cannot be civil nor reasonable when disagreeing that is a you problem, and suggests cognitive dissonance you are not only unable to overcome, but to even acknowledge.
Hold up. Hold right up.
Where did that come from? What does that have to do with anything I wrote? Why are you moving the goalpost instead of addressing the issue at hand? I have addressed this before. Maybe you should follow me, because you obviously have no idea what I am actually trying to articulate here, or the context and nuance you could glean from reading my posts.
See also:
The Reference Librarian is Confused
Why Is It A Thing, Though?
Banned Books and the Streisand Effect
If you enter a library looking for excuses to get upset, you will succeed. However, if you let go of the sensationalism people are pushing to justify their agendas for censorship, you will find the facts do not match your apparent assumptions. When someone tells you a book should be banned, you should read it for yourself before accepting their claims about it, verify where it is shelved, and inquire whether anyone else might have a different perspective. What you should not do is assume one who dissents from your view wants kindergartners to be taught about anal sex.
I have been following you for years. Your outraged rant in response to my question led me to specify things I think are terrible influences on children, so you would understand the things I object to, and quit falsely implying I objected to breast feeding instructions for young mothers and erroneously condemning me with 'you are as bad as the bad history crowd I condemn.'
I set the goalposts firmly where I will defend them. This lets you know your unfounded accusations are baseless, and your outrage at people disinformed about history by their government indoctrinations is improperly directed at me. I think my comparison of the historically misinformed with the groomed children was apt, since we both lament the disinformation the victims suffer, giving us ground for agreement on our unhappiness about people being psychologically manipulated.
I asked about your passive aggressive condemnation of people objecting to subconsciously grooming children into homosexual behaviours. I didn't ask that looking for an excuse, but an explanation.
"However, if you let go of the sensationalism people are pushing to justify their agendas for censorship, you will find the facts do not match your apparent assumptions."
Your statement I inquired about is clearly passive aggressive condemnation. I pointed out the 'gay person in the background' isn't the extent of the grooming pushed on children, and that the different materials have a common purpose, with some being subtle, and some blatant. When you defend one it isn't unreasonable to assume you defend it all, but I didn't want to assume anything, so directly inquired. I clarified the issue so you would not misunderstand what it was, or what I was asking about. I added that context because there is sensational harm done children by such material. A year or so ago in Canada, the Federal Administrator of Curricula for Canadian Elementary Schools (whatever his title actually was), who had been pushing exactly the most harmful such material on Canadian children, was convicted of attempting to rape children. The harms aren't sensationalism. They're truly sensational because of their horrific nature. I wasn't inquiring about anything anyone else said or implied about you, but about your statement you made.
"When someone tells you a book should be banned, you should read it for yourself before accepting their claims about it, verify where it is shelved, and inquire whether anyone else might have a different perspective. What you should not do is assume one who dissents from your view wants kindergartners to be taught about anal sex."
I never advocated banning anything, however implied in my disagreement that children should not be exposed to the things I named. I didn't mention a majority of literature, but too many that have terrible sociopolitical impacts, and worse personal consequences for children. I didn't assume anything, which is why I asked.
I pointed out there is plenty of room for us to disagree without becoming uncivil or dismissive, but to instead discuss matters rationally. You began the OP with a passive aggressive condemnation of people that do not want innocent children psychologically manipulated and groomed by pedophiles into homosexual abuse, and I inquired why you did, because it isn't your usual content.
I think I've thoroughly explained why I said what I said, and return to my original question, which you have managed to avoid with pearl clutching, false implications, and silly ad hominems.
But I am not doing that. You are reading into my post something which is not there, consciously or subconsciously. I admit I missed a line following your "I do not follow you" comment due to midnight blog reading, but you have no excuse here. I have been dealing with these empty accusations for a long time online and off, and I am tired of it. You assert there is nasty content in our libraries. You assert people are grooming kids. You assert the library is full of smut intended to groom kids. You draw on unrelated news to bolster these empty assertions. You seem to be relying on the yellow journalism that pervades this topic. And yes, I am on edge because the last several months have made my job hell and frayed my nerves.
First, [citation needed], and second, is this really an accurate description of most books people are complaining about? I'm sure there are some books out there fitting this description, but are they actually in your local library, and are they actually being promoted to children?
Do you think library books are the way people learn about gay marriage these days? Are libraries really spearheading a movement to gay up the kids? No. The background is already there. We're in a fallen world. And the hand-wringing of concerned parents isn't addressing any root problems and often results in mindless attacks on books based on nothing but paranoid rumors. Even if there is an explicitly gay character, it's usually a passing mention, not a core subject. And as for the teen books, no one would be paying attention without these constant complaints, and they would fade away on their own.
Consider this: no one has borrowed our copy of 50 Shades of Grey in months. I'm sure the district will keep a copy or two around, but not every library will need it eating up scarce shelf space. Same for fad teen lit if folks would just let the hype die down on its own.
You assert there is grooming. That is absolutely a loaded accusation. You want to talk about passive-aggressive? Labeling something with a loaded term is disgusting manipulation.
Now I'm going to try to get some sleep before once again setting out into the hellscape of working for a community suddenly convinced I'm a secret predator because of online bullshit.
Perhaps you should consider that the accusations aren't empty, that your own words are what lies behind the identical responses from otherwise unrelated people, responding, as am I, to what you have said. Wherever you go, there you are. If you continually face the same opposition, you continually inspire it.
Your denial that your statement is what it is is exemplary of the above. I doubt any of your 'accusers' did other than note your words. Denying you meant what you said is indicative of lack of courage to state things outright, knowing your intention was not good or beneficial and explaining your passive aggressiveness.
Quote me. You're fabricating red herrings, straw men to do battle with that have nothing whatsoever to do with me or anything I've said. Above all, you simply deny you said what you said, and by this means simply refuse to answer for the sly insinuation and passive aggressive condemnation of people that care about the good character and success in life of their children.
There being no other potential benefit to be gained from continuing this conversation, since you simply cravenly deny your actual statements, craft whatever words you want to put in my mouth, and veer off into tangents comprised wholly of your own fantastic hallucinations, I am done here, and with you.
Hmmmmmmmmyup.
A LOT of that going on around in the world at the moment. Whomever has the upperhand not only chooses what to record in history, but what to EDIT in History!