Why Ban Books?
So I saw a meme on the book banning. The gist of the meme was why the Guns (who kill people) are not banned, but the books are. The meme was from the US profile.. and the notable author. I have read a book by that author, so I was frustrated by the novice outlook of the author.
My immediate reaction was that people must be joking if they don’t understand why books are more dangerous than guns.
Firs of all, I believe guns does not kill people, people do. It is the structure of the US society, the families, and the craziness of freedom that have reduced the morality to skin. And without morals and ethics to show the correct direction, the youth find themselves driven by short-term pleasure. They take extreme measures. Guns are just a reliable tool to perform the action.
Still, my point is Guns are not more dangerous than books.
Ideas vs Person
First thing is that Books come with Ideas. And information. The guns do not.
When you kill a person with a gun, you kill that person. The person’s ideas, teachings, and messages stay intact. It lives on through the students and disciples.
Marx, Hegel, Plato — all of these people’s ideas are still alive. They are dead for 100s of years.
Now, if you use the book to educate yourself, you can create the thinking capabilities to make arguments to invalidate the ideas. Or even further, you can influence their disciples to abandon their ideologies and pick a new one.
In Hunger Games, Capitol could have killed the Katniss anytime. But they did not. Because they knew killing the idea of freedom is more important than killing the person.
It is only one example. We see thousands of scenarios every day where punching a person seems much easier than arguing with him.
And that’s why killing a person is easier, but killing the ideas is not. But books help kill the ideas, making them deadlier than the guns.
An artist never tells the truth. Art tells what the artist has experienced. We are watching the tormented reality through the artist’s lens when we see the art.
The rule applies to books, too.
The books do not paint the real stories but an exaggerated or downplayed version of events. Even non-fiction books are prone to include and exclude the part that the writer wishes.
This personal censorship from the author pins a personal narrative on an objective topic. Which means the reader is now reading someone else’s point of view. It will affect the reader when he creates his own thoughts on a topic.
Having a first-hand experience and reading the other person’s experience are two different things. The difference occurs due to personal context, bias, and even lies.
The way I experience bullying is different from the way a girl does. Reading Girl’s POV gives me insight, but it also influences my thinking, which could be a poor situation if the writer modifies the situation to set up a fake narrative. Even if the writer is 100% correct, how much can we rely on one person’s truth? People make their own truths and believe them all the time. It is scientifically proven.
Just Like any Other Media
Every other day, we see people pushing social media companies to censor content. And in my experience, they are the same people who do not want to censor the books. Mostly liberals.
Liberals want anti-racist and homophobic content to be removed from the internet. But when it comes to books, it is somehow educational.
What is the difference?
Modern writers are the same people who put random crap on Twitter and Youtube. Many of them do not even have English majors or do writing courses. They all are about putting one word after another.
We should treat books as any other media and ban them if necessary like we do Youtubers and Twitters.
For the Kids
Another thing is who decides what the kids should read and what not.
Certainly not anyone’s specific group. It should be several groups. And certainly not the government. If we let the government know what the kids should read and what they should not, our next generation will grow up saying some animals are more equal than other animals.
But again, not only the parents. Because great rewards are promised if they make the kids read religious books.
And again, not the teachers. Because who are they but a couple of people like other people? They go to a bar, they drink, and they make mistakes. They are not an authority by any way.
That’s why there must be a group that includes parents and teachers.
That is what the US has. But the problem is US people think parents should not get involved and let the authorities do whatever with the kid, which is stupid.
Setting A Signal
Banning the book is also important because there will be a future generation that will ask the questions. They will ask why there were books filled with filth and such wrong ideas. Why there was no one to stop these types of books from reaching the hands of kids?
To set the signal.. that there was resistance against the rampant freedom of voice. That people were censoring the thing, taking care of the content that reach to the kids.
Unless there is no stop.
I mean just think about it:
You have a sister who is 10 years old. Would you like it if she is reading Fifty Shades of Grey? If yes, you are not a responsible person. And if not, then where would you draw the line, and who is allowed to draw that line?
For now, off the top of my head, these are a few reasons it is okay to ban books. And banning the book makes sense.
But this is a wild world out there where smart people are acting stupidly so they can look smart in front of stupid people. The so-called morals and ethics are important and tested throughout history.
Until then… that’s it.
If you have anything to add, please leave it in the comments.