nazi book burning – Daily Director

120310censorship

Censorship is a sensitive issue.

In my previous post, I explained how a group of Surinamese individuals in Holland publicly burned Lawrence Hill’s novel, “The Book of Negroes.” This was an act of censorship as they were offended by the word “Negroes.” However, they failed to see the bigger picture.

Personally, I consider it foolish that these Surinamese Dutch covet censorship towards “The Book of Negroes.” To me, individuals who are offended by the word “Negro” in a title is identical to a Jewish person offended by the swastika on a book cover. In published literature, these words and symbols are not meant to irritate, it is meant to prevent the world from forgetting our horrible history. Even Lawrence Hill stated that, “… there is sometimes room to use painful language to reclaim our own history.” (Hill 29)

Is widespread censorship ever acceptable? Literature is generally banned due to sensitive themes. Yet, these sensitivities address the cause and effect of problems in society. My completely awesome (and charming) Grade 12 English teacher told us a few weeks ago that Richard Wagamese’s beautiful novel “Indian Horse” is banned all over the world. Why? It deals with rape. To be precise, the story deals with a priest who rapes an Aboriginal boy in a residential school.

The second I heard that people even considered censoring Indian Horse rather upset me. Clearly, they overlooked the purpose of the novel. Pedophilia within residential schools was an enormous problem that we can not forget or have repeat itself. As a matter of fact, this continues to be an issue in the Catholic church today.

Censorship disregards the message in novels. “Lord of the Flies” has been banned since it promotes putting yourself over the greater good. Yet, the novel shows how disastrous the result is.

“The Outsiders” has been banned since it encourages violence. The novel shows how their violent acts result in them becoming outsiders from society.

Censorship is rather useless as well in our developed world. “The Hunger Games” was censored over desensitization to murder and promoting violence as entertainment. However, graphic violence is already used in mainstream entertainment, such as in boxing, wrestling, video games, television shows, movies and many other pieces of literature.

Censorship is an indication and promotion of an autocratic society. There’s an interesting quote by English poet, John Milton, who claimed that, “he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself…”. All works of literature address pivotal ideas, messages, opinions and problems from the author. Silencing their works is silencing the author, which denies the human right of free thought and expression. Lawrence Hill demonstrates it perfectly: “I wouldn’t want any book banned, pulled, removed or burned. Period. We can hate them, dissect them, learn from them or praise them, but we need to leave books alone and let readers come to terms with them” (Hill 13).

dominic — This piece of artwork is titled, “Saint Dominic and the Albigenses,” and was painted in 1480. It depicts the Spanish Inquisition torching literature that questioned the existence of God.

Within the article, Hill brought up how Nazis and the Spanish Inquisition censored literature to protect their ideologies. Hill said, “The act seems to say: ‘You will not be tolerated. Your ideas will not be discussed. We must protect society from your toxic mind…” (Hill 7). Censorship is always an indication of an authoritarian system. It simply protects the ideals of a small group of people who are too stubborn to debate or respect the ideas of others. That is not the purpose of literature. That is not a free society.

During the Nazi book burning, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave a speech. He said, “Don’t join the book burners. Don’t think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed. Don’t be afraid to go to your library and read every book, as long as that document does not offend our own ideas of decency. That should be the only censorship.” Eisenhower states that society should self-censor. No one person or organization should be permitted to ban literature on behalf of everyone. Of course, if this were to occur, the public may be exposed to texts that directly promotes discrimination, enslavement, hatred or harm to an authentic group of people. If these novels were accessible, most people would self-censor and refuse to purchase it. Furthermore, most publishing companies would refrain from releasing these novels into the world due to the atrocious reputation they would receive.

Censorship truly is a sensitive issue, as the topic has been debated for decades. But I believe that we can never say “this is wrong” and then shut something down. Everyone has their opinion. Let’s express it. Let’s discuss it.

Let’s never burn it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berruguete, Pedro. “Saint Dominic and the Albigenses.” University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Golda Meir Library <http://uwm.edu/libraries/exhibits/burnedbooks/>.

“Book Burning, 213 BC-2011 AD.” University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Golda Meir Library. Web. 9 Oct. 2017. <http://uwm.edu/libraries/exhibits/burnedbooks/>.

Liem, Shnane. “Indian Horse.” Vancouver Weekly, Vancouver Weekly, 1 Mar. 2012.

<http://vancouverweekly.com/indian-horse-by-richard-wagamese/>.
Swinhoe, Dan. “Government Censorship. Protecting you from Reality.” IDG Connect,

IDG Connect Ltd, 25 Nov. 2016.

<http://www.idgconnect.com/blog-abstract/22897/news-roundup-fb-censorship-digital-divides-linglong-dingdong>.

Image of opened burning book against black background

Books have experienced widespread censorship across the globe. Critically-acclaimed novels such as The Hunger Games, To Kill a Mockingbird, Gone with the Wind and even Harry Potter have been banned in certain communities. When a book is banned, generally it is no longer available in classrooms and bookstores. It is rare when people loathe a novel to the extent that they publicly scorch it.

“The Book of Negroes” is a powerful novel that has received many awards such as the Commonwealth Writers’ Prize, and praise from prominent figures such as Oprah. However, a group of individuals in the Netherlands disagree with this storm of praise. As a matter of fact, the group torched it.

download (1) — Roy Groenberg is the Chairman of the Foundation to Honour and Restore Victims of Slavery in Suriname

Led by Roy Groenberg, the group organized a public burning of “The Book of Negroes” to encourage censorship. Their heritage dates back to black slaves who suffered in the Dutch colony of Suriname. Thus, they find enormous offense in the word “Negroes” within the title. The novel’s author, Lawrence Hill, did not intend to spark such antagonism. It is titled after a historic document, thus it is meant to commemorate, not offend.

Lawrence Hill wrote an article in response to this event. He understands and even respects the offensive stigmatization that plagues the word, “Negro.” However, Hill disagrees with Groenberg’s actions. His argument is that novels are expressions of ideas that the author believes the world should know and discuss. Individuals who burn novels destroy the purpose of literature and fail to see how it may be beneficial. Instead, they are silencing the writer in a threatening and futile manner.

images — Written by Irish author, James Joyce, Ulysses is widely considered one of history’s best works of literature

Within the article, Hill provides examples of previous incidents regarding the banning of literature. He describes an event in 1923, which involved the commissioner of the Department of Customs and Excise. Due to profane material, he demanded that the novel “Ulysses” be banned from entering Canada. The book remained in censorship until the deputy minister of the Department of Customs and Excise read the novel. The deputy minister realized that the banning of the book was not necessary, and permitted its access into Canada. Roy Groenberg admitted that he has not read “The Book of Negroes.” Of course, Hill is implying that if Groenberg read the novel, his opinion would have likely changed. The Surinamese Dutch are simply oblivious to the novel’s meaning.

Hill further justifies the cause and effect of previous book burning events. It is always initiated through hatred, and as a result, their act is distinguished as radicalization. Book burning is frequently perceived as a violent death threat towards the author and everyone else who shares the same opinion.

He describes a recent example of book burning. According to Hill, “a preacher from Gainesville, Florida publicly burned a copy of the Qu’ran, despite a direct plea from President Obama to refrain from such a hateful act of religious intolerance” (Hill 15). Scorching novels is never considered an act of heroism. Instead, it is considered hostile and ignorantly unreasonable. Even the President of the United States attempted to prevent this case of book burning.

Hill references infamous book burning incidents executed by the Nazi party and the Spanish Inquisition. He also mentions the Talmud being burned for blasphemy in 1141.

These are groups and incidents nobody wants to be associated with.

If you Google anything related to book burning, this image or others related to Nazi censorship appear primarily. Book burning as a whole appears sinister, especially since the Nazi party was largely associated with it. This shines a dark light on Groenberg’s group.

Focusing on the Nazi regime, Hill explains that, “tossed into the raging fires were […] works by Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Helen Keller, Ernest Hemingway, Thomas Mann and Albert Einstein” (Hill 7). The Nazis silenced some of history’s most credible figures in the battle for their ideals. These individuals contributed amazing discoveries for society, yet the Reich worked to silence them from the world. Hill writes that, “To those who would ban them and to those who would defend them, books remain symbols of ideas […] loved by some for the very same reasons that they are despised by others” (Hill 22). Groenberg’s group wishes to attack “The Book of Negroes.” Just like the Nazi party, they wish to destroy the author’s expression of his ideas, simply due to their disapproval of the title. These actions make them appear overly oppressive and radical to those that did not take offense to the book.

However, he also makes a comparison between the derogatory items accessible in literature and on the internet. He explains that, “you can find all manner of violence, hate, pornography and filth on the internet. We don’t seem to get too exorcised about that” (Hill 22). Hill argues that modern censorship of literature is useless, since everyone can easily discover filth in every corner of the internet or even the film industry.

81Saez2gO5L This argument is emphasized when Hill states that, “Between the Net and television and film, there is something […] to offend virtually every person on the planet. But heaven forbid that our children read a book about gay penguins in the Central Park Zoo” (Hill 14). Hill is referencing the book, “And Tango Makes Three,” which demonstrates a homosexual relationship between penguins. Of course, individuals were offended by this novel and coveted its censorship. Hill expresses “heaven forbid” as a sarcastic hyperbole to show the preposterous reasoning behind those individuals.

Another prominent aspect that Hill covers, is the fact that both he and Groenberg are enemies with identical beliefs. Hill makes use of a sentence fragment to bluntly state this. He writes, “Literature should get us talking – even when we disagree. […] It should inspire recognition of our mutual humanity. Together” (Hill 29). The “together” is a sentence fragment which suggests that Groenberg and Hill are on the same team. Instead of outright assaulting Hill’s work, they need to debate and criticize. Hill extends this point with an anaphora that allows us to clearly understand Groenberg. He writes, “A book burner is not itching for discussion. A book burner has a match to light, and now!” Clearly, Groenberg is stubborn and does not wish to make reason or understand the author’s message. Instead, all he sees is a title dripping with nefarious poison.