This was a comment on Vancouver librarians caught in the middle of the culture war by @zephyreks but I ended up writing so much I thought I’d make it a new post. Hope that is OK.
The term “culture war” is excessively very dismissive. The subjects that people take issue to here are matters of material well being.
People in the article and comments are using the word “ban” alot. I don’t think there is any request to “ban” anything. It is just the one library. When something is “banned” it is prohibited from all sources. After actually taking a look at the list of books I don’t think any of them should be removed from the collection on the basis of the complaints. I do think some of them could be re-shelved. But getting all worked up about a few random complaints that literally anyone can make because they are in a bad mood, and obliquely referring to nazis/holocaust is going way overboard.
I also don’t see that anyone is “caught in the middle” of anything. Some people made complaints. People are always complaining about any large organization. They dismissed the complaints and as far as I can tell, that was the end of it? I got very bored reading off topic commentary so maybe I missed something.
about the books
I was curious so I did some looking at the actual titles since the person who wrote this article didn’t have time I guess because they did so much interviewing ideologues instead. There are 3 themes in the target books.
theme 1: lgbt and sex positive books for young people
Looks like about 1/3 of the target works are pro-LGBT/sexpositive and seeking to explain this to some young audiences. I wasn’t familiar with Cory Silverberg so I looked up the amazon page for You Know, Sex:
In a bright graphic format featuring four dynamic middle schoolers, You Know, Sex grounds sex education in social justice, covering not only the big three of puberty—hormones, reproduction, and development—but also power, pleasure, and how to be a decent human being.
I added emphasis because… what a thing to complain about.
To me this book sounds perfectly nice. But whoever requests for it to be removed likely thinks it’ll cause kids to come to harm. Who knows what kinds of delusional thinking motivated the specific complaint. But it isn’t “culture war” because they are under the impression that this book will be dangerous physically and socially and spiritually.
theme 2: racist caricatures and other hate imagery in children’s books
Another 1/3 of the complaints are about children’s books depicting racist or hateful imagery. I think these complaints are legitimate. Books like this should be available for adults but not circulated to little kids! They are of historical interest, not entertainment.
I borrowed Asterix the Gladiator from the Internet Archive Library and flipped through it. Here is one of panels which is probably at issue. (I am not sure about the etiquette/politics of sharing this. I would consider feedback in the direction of not sharing racist material.) I have blurred out the actual caricature but described what is depicted in text. I put it in the spoiler. Summary: it’s exactly what you think it’ll be.
spoiler
This panel depicts a person with dark brown skin, a very small skull, eyes so close together that they touch and are crossed, a huge open mouth with giant red lips (larger than skull) and one tooth sticking out, wide nose, big ears, goofy body language.
I don’t care to actually read this so I don’t know what the plot is about. But I can say that flipping through it, the people with brown skin only come into view a few times in dozens of pages. They are not characters in the story, just devices the author occasionally employs. They are present 1-3 panels at a time.
They look to be in positions of servitude. They do not perform their jobs properly and are therefor deserving subjects of violence by the characters with pink skin. Many pages earlier, a masseurs with brown skin gives too deep a massage to a solider with pink skin. So the soldier beats him. The masseur’s boss complains: “You have no right to beat up my masseurs! They’re horribly expensive this season!” The most superficial joke being that the only reason not to beat the person with brown skin is the economic impact on some other person with pink skin. The person with brown skin has no lines and is depicted in a racist, caricatured way similar to the spoiler above. Except instead of being goofy he is big and strong. So strong he casually (and presumably accidentally) hurts the person with pink skin. Once he is punched so hard he flies across the room, he disappears from the story.
I remember when I was a kid, seeing this kind of thing. This series looks vaguely framiliar but there is a whole cannon of this shit. My parents did their best to raise me explicitly anti racist and I recognized the messaging as vile. I understood that it was communicating a generalized degradation and inhumanity related to perceived race. In both the presence (as objects) and their absence (as full characters). I remember being confused why people I thought of as “good” would have stuff like this lying around. But I am sure that it got into my head anyway. Sometimes really horrid stereotype illustrations I saw as a kid pop into my mind’s eye. I wish I didn’t have those in my brain because they are despicable. If an adult intentionally wishes to study hate lit it is different.
This is the kind of thing that teaches from a young age “black lives don’t matter”. Black people only involved as props, punchlines, animalistic, deserving subjects of violence etc.
There are a bazillion kids books that aren’t trash like this. I vote to move these to whatever the dewey decimal is for historical hate literature, in the adult section. Possibly in the Reference library to convey the seriousness. I didn’t investigate the other children’s books but it seems that they are all on a similar theme and not appropriate for kids.
theme 3: right wing nutjobs
The remaining 1/3 of the books are more recent publications which appear to be regressive shitty books full of lies. I know the Shrier book has been thoroughly widely debunked criticized rebuked. It is full of medical falsehoods and her own weird fantasies misrepresented as scientific. It primarily advocates for denial of health care to trans people. This is not “culture war”. She literally wants to seize control and manipulate the balance of chemicals in the bodies of other people. It is as material as you can get.
The other books by the likes of Beck, Ngo are certainly full of bullshit. Judging by the title and my understanding of the authors, they will probably be encouraging violence. I had never heard of Forbes before. The book is highly rated on amazon and the top rated review begins:
Fantastic book. As a supporter of those bands I found that the information in it is invaluable.
Emphasis added. Reviewer is a fan of white supremacist music and ideas. All the positive reviews are from people who are straight up white power jackasses.
I found this review on goodreads that I think is probably accurate:
This thing is f***ng nightmare. Read it for research on a project. It ended up being really valuable as a primary source, but if you’re not literally writing a book about white nationalist skinheads, I can’t imagine wanting to read the biased blathering of a bunch of racist boneheads reminiscing about their glory days.
This person also describes who there is value in the book even though the topic really sucks.
It seems like this book gives really shitty people good feelings about themselves. That sucks. When this kind of people feel good about themselves, they like to go around kicking the shit out of people who are just minding their own business. They form militias and murder. The reason someone was bothered by this book is likely because they know it can help stir the pot and encourage street violence. I know people who’ve been targeted by these douche bags. It’s serious.
This book costs about $200-300 to purchase. It should be in the reference library with all the other expensive books, not in circulation.
Hi thanks for reading some of my long post. Your response was sort of interesting but also tedious because it just made up a bunch of stuff I didn’t say. I’ll respond to some of it.
I went looking for the materials which inspired the report that was in the original article. Because I think many people would not take the time. No evidence that you did. The reporter who wrote the story certainly didn’t.
The complaint was about images so I am not “refusing to read”, I am simply looking for images. Did you forget what this was about.
Again, the complaint was not about that. This was not a comprehensive analysis of the work as a whole, it was providing information which was missing from the original article. You are deflecting, which I assume you are aware of. I point out only for onlookers.
And as a matter of fact, I did notice something about how the pink skinned people were portrayed which is there was a very strange
comic:
Reality:
Somehow there were sooo many red head and blonde people in this version of ancient rome. Weird. Almost as though it was an ahistorically racialised version of the past reinforcing contemporary relationships. hm.
Even more to the point than that,
good because that isn’t what the topic was.
who is that? all I am aware of is a single anonymous request. Do you have more info?
Who is the bad guys? I said I thought it should be removed from the children’s section but available to adults. So you think the “free speech” people are “the bad guys”?
I read all of it. I’m not going to criticize you for not reading before jumping to conclusions and then do the same.
Highest irony to accuse me of being tedious and making stuff up for going into detail addressing what your skimming missed, but I certainly hope you’re not going to lead with that particularly charged allegation and not follow it up.
What I was saying is that you didn’t take the time either. Just opening the comic book and looking at five panels, looking at the cover notes for a kids book, or dismissing liner notes and goodreads reviews of alt-right nonsense is not “taking the time” and it’s disingenuous to the point of open dishonesty to pretend that you did.
Wanting to backpedal from “taking the time” like you did real due diligence to “they only complained about images so I only skimmed the pictures” is absolutely farcical when you’re trying to come for me as if expecting you to do more than the absolute barest minimum while you’d also playact at doing the homework and checking the sources.
But if you’d confined your remarks to “yeah those images bad” I wouldn’t have bothered to say anything.
Instead you spent four paragraphs waxing poetic about things you misunderstood from your skimming and telling personal anecdotes about how you’ve always judged people who had nasty racist Asterix cartoons in their houses. The whiplash here between pretending to be some noble neutral facts-centric person who cares about checking the sources and reviewing the material and then also doing longjump to wild conclusions about racial overtones and narrative structure and even the people who owned that shit when you were a kid is ridiculous.
So to be clear, it’s not “deflecting” to criticize you for presenting comprehensive criticism of the work while not engaging with the material substantively enough to support that level of analysis and critique.
But it is “deflecting” to dodge the criticism made, as if it’s out of line to bring up at all, move into attacks on me, and then try to point our conversation at a pair of cherry-picked images with suggestive hinting leading to a conclusion.
It’s probably worth clarifying for you, though, that it’s only fairly recently that western society and especially continental romance societies have “come to terms” with the fact that most of the Roman empire was made up of people who are not “white” in modern contemporary understandings. That’s not some wild racist conspiracy you’re noticing - that’s the prevalent (mis)understanding of common Roman appearances from its era.
So you really did just see one news story, look up a comic book and skim like five frames, and then show up here with a book report on racism to pretend you did the work? Jesus fuck. Here is an article from two years ago covering the topic, here is an article from three years, mounting a bit of a weird-angle defense of them. Eleven years ago, there was this.
The debate around the Asterix stuff dating to the 70’s and 80’s has been going on for quite a while, possibly even predating Blyton’s Gollywogs - because it’s so clearly unacceptable to the modern eye.
Are you aware that the story you are criticizing, and yet did not read any of, has “good guys” and “bad guys” in it? The conflict between them is a fundamental part of the story.
What you did here is like you read Maus and decided it’s pro-fascist because it has Nazi mice in it who do Nazi things.
Also, you absolutely did lead with that charged allegation and then absolutely did not follow it up with anything of substance. It really does kind of come across like you didn’t read my remarks any more than you read the source texts, and instead did the same here as you did with the comic book - simply skimmed looking for snippets you felt safe arguing with or criticizing.