Hacker News Reader

Comment by woodruffw | Hacker News Reader

> A ban implies to me the book cannot be sold at all which is hardly splitting hairs.

Every American that I know (including myself) understands the phrase "book ban" to refer widely, if not exclusively, to school libraries in the context of American politics. It's been nearly 70 years since we've had otherwise politically notable book bans[1].

> And did you find it just as egregious when Huckleberry Finn was banned in new york and california schools and public libraries for using the "n" word?

Yes.

[1]: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/banned-books-wee...

View on HN

I have never met an American, or anyone of any nationality that understands "book bans" refer exclusively to school libraries.

You are the first.

Book bans are bans on books, at a national or state/local government level.

Bans on books within a school have been a thing for a relatively long time where I am. Usually managed by the local school council for various different reasons.

There are two operative phrases that you skipped over: "if not exclusively," and "in American politics."

I'm aware that there are ample other ways to (and entities that) ban books. Their severity is not meaningfully diminished by this conversation, and introducing them is a distraction.

> refer widely, if not exclusively,

usually means

1. is usually exclusive 2. if not exclusive, then is the case in the majority of cases

The proposed case that "Book Bans" refer almost exclusively to school libraries is obviously false if you just take a look at a dictionary. It is evidently not "widely known to mean X" if common definitions do not explicitly state that.

All definitions state that it is an act of banning a book. But do not explicitly state that it is exclusive to some arbitrary bureaucratic level.

Either way, it is strange to just decide that a "Book Ban" must refer almost exclusively to a school.

And yes, this is semantics.

You are the one who claimed every American to understand this to be a ban on books in schools. Which is complete nonsense as evidenced just by this thread.

I think there is a reason to point this out. Twisting language to drive, in this case a political point, is called propaganda. Calling it a ban implies something more severe than what is happening. Which is content regulation.

"Content regulation" is a pretty painful euphemism from "you, librarian, are forbidden from placing this book on your shelves."

At least the students or their parents can buy it if they so choose because it's not banned from being sold.

I’m British though quite an avid follower of US news. I have listened to podcasts discussing book bans (e.g. Jon Ronson) and much of the discussion was around removing books from school libraries.

Additionally, I searched “fox news book bans” and “nbc book bans” and these were the first links that came up.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/choice-lies-parent-texas-dad-supp...

> Maia Kobabe’s book "Gender Queer" became one of the most banned books in the country in 2022. The book has been at the center of the debate over what books should be banned in schools.

https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/map-book-bans-rise-rcn...

> School districts in 26 states have banned more than 1,000 books in the past nine months

Additionally, the Wikipedia article “ 2021–2022 book banning in the United States” discusses various cases of books being withdrawn from school libraries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932022_book_banning...

I would argue then that every American you know (including you) is a tiny bit wrong? I (and everyone I know) consider a book ban to be something like when 19th century Russia stated that no book could be written in Lithuanian. That’s a proper book ban. It was illegal to even own a book written in that language, and books that did exist were destroyed. Russia did book bans right! To say what’s going on now is a “book ban” that requires legislation is gas lighting at best and a false flag at worst.

I will be sure, going forwards, to ensure that my terms can simultaneously describe the struggles of 19th century Lithuanians.

Seriously: what's the point of this comment? There will always be a worse example; what matters is that there's a shared meaning in this context.

Right, there is not shared meaning, so maybe that’s the point of my post. To me 19th century Lithuanians had a real book ban, as I as an American, think about them.

If a school decided to ban Twinkies from their lunch menu I wouldn’t say we have a food ban crisis that the state of Illinois would need to legislate. A parent could still buy Twinkies at home and enjoy them as often as they wanted.

"when 19th century Russia stated that no book could be written in Lithuanian"

That's a lie. Or shall I say "gas lighting at best and a false flag at worst"?

"The Lithuanian press ban (Lithuanian: spaudos draudimas) was a ban on all Lithuanian language publications printed in the Latin alphabet in force from 1865 to 1904 within the Russian Empire, which controlled Lithuania proper at the time. Lithuanian-language publications that used Cyrillic were allowed and even encouraged." [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_press_ban

That's a surprising way to frame what the Wikipedia page says. The ban was part of a russification attempt. One of the stated goals, on the page you linked, is "Replace Lithuanian parish schools with Russian grammar schools". Up to that point, Lithuanian had not been written in the Cyrillic alphabet. Polish language was widely used, and its use of Latin alphabet had a huge inspiration on Lithuanian orthography.

To make my point stronger: I would call it a book ban, if English language books were illegal to write in the Latin alphabet, and only allowed in the Cyrillic alphabet. This would be consistent with the situation of Lithuanian language book ban (except it would not replace kindergarten and lower grades with Russian grammar schools).

Calling it a lie seems at the very least ignorant of the actual situation, or worse, willful twisting of history. If the former, I invite you to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_book_smugglers to find out on which day they are celebrated!

I don't think it's me who is twisting history here

Well, everyone can read the Wikipedia pages and their references, and make their own minds. Our views are so fundamentally different that I see no reason to continue discussion.

Ok, let me elaborate.

'Banning all books on Lithuanian language' and 'banning books in Lithuanian language written in Latin alphabet and encouraging transition to books in Lithuanian language written in Cyrillic alphabet' are different things.

Former would have had a goal of discontinuing written Lithuanian language and the latter had a goal of switching Lithuanian language from Latin to Cyrillic alphabet.

Misrepresenting the latter as the former is a lie.

The only thing important part is “these books are banned” and “these books are encouraged.” That you don’t care about the specifics says more about you than the ban.

It looks like I do care about specifics and you care only about 'important part'.

I.e they only care about their viewpoint and no one else's

That’s an interesting take... Like, you can write any book you want using the English language, as long as you use Kanji to write it down? You wouldn’t consider that a problem?

But regardless you are only reinforcing the point that it was a real ban. The fact that they were banned and the books they didn’t want banned were encouraged really only continues to make my case.

"Like, you can write any book you want using the English language, as long as you use Kanji to write it down? You wouldn’t consider that a problem?"

Right now Kazakhstan is transitioning from Cyrillic to Latin alphabet. This year children will be taught only Latin letters and they won't be able to read the texts in Kazakh language written in Cyrillic in the last 80 years.

Do you consider this a problem?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_alphabets#Latin_script

Reply on news.ycombinator.com