Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries
*facepalm*
Wait. Oh, great. The Communist Manifesto is more dangerous than Mein Kampf? Whaaaa?
Other dangerous books that made the list include The Kinsey Report (because it gives “a scientific gloss to the normalization of promiscuity and deviancy”), John Dewey’s Democracy and Education and Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique. The Origin of the Species only got an honorable mention and wasn’t in the top 10, ditto The Second Sex. Frankly, I’m shocked.
Personally, I don’t believe in classifying books as dangerous. There are only dangerous people. Dangerously stupid people, that is.
p.s. It’s not necessarily the books on the list that piss me off, though that’s certainly part of it. I think the idea of dangerous book lists are pretty retarded in general. I’d think lists that tried to claim that works like, say, Atlas Shrugged, The Theory of Money and Credit and Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism as being dangerous would be equally ridiculous.
Ah, Candy, I’m a little troubled by the fact that you’re reading that publication…
Shit, YOU’RE troubled? I found it by some bizarre series of mouse-clicks. I can’t even remember the website which led me to it.
Is this sounding a bit too much like one of those defensive “I don’t KNOW how that bondage clown scat porn ended up on my hard drive, honey! It just did!” arguments?
I bet if you could ask the 165 million people that died as a direct result of communism and fascism in the twentieth century, they might have a less naive opinion.
If you want to read a book about dangerously murdererous thugs, I recommend the Black Book of Communism, whose author got most of his death statistics straight out of the Soviet KGB archives.
Eh, if you want to argue that The Communist Manifesto is a dangerous book because of the number of people who have been killed by so-called communists, I’d argue that the Bible and the Quran are even MORE dangerous. The totalitarian regimes installed by Stalin & Co., Mao & Co., etc., had little to no resemblance to the egalitarian systems Marx envisioned and expounded.
Also: did not see a single book about Fascism per se in the list. Feminism, sexuality, Communism, education philosophy and Nazism, yes. Not Fascism.
So what makes them dangerous…that people might read them and maybe, uh….THINK? Damn those publications to Hades.
Gee, were they all killed by the same copy of the Communist Manifesto, or was more than one copy involved? Is the Communist Manifesto big enough to commit a bludgeoning, or were the victims killed some other way? Choking perhaps…
Seriously, I doubt that all those people were killed by books. Don’t I remember something about wars, prison camps, executions, famines, etc?
Perhaps if they had just called the list ‘Books That Say Things We Disagree Withâ€
Not nearly as catchy, but a bit more honest.
WTF? Silent Spring….??
They think Silent Spring is dangerous? Maybe they own shares in Dow and are still resentful they lost $$$ when DDT was banned.
The really stupid thing about these type of lists is that they actually make people more interested in the books. So not only are they idiots for thinking books are dangerous, but they’re idiots because they have absolutely no understanding of human nature. Banned Books Week comes up every year, and those books check out like crazy at the library.
Frankly, I think more people should read The Communist Manifesto so that they know that what Marx envisioned and talked about was not even close to Maoism, Fascism or Stalinism. I am SO TIRED when people get into hysterics about Stalinism and Maoism and attempt to equate it to Marxism or mainstream Socialism.
I think people should try to read Mein Kampf too, just to look into the head of a madman (and because I think “know thine enemy” is a pretty sound piece of advice), but the problem is, Hitler couldn’t write worth a shit—that book was jaw-droppingly boring while being incredibly creepy at the same time. An odd combination.
In short: if you’re a sane, ethical person who’s capable of independent thought, I don’t see how reading a book (dangerous or not) can change your worldview all that much in and of itself. I didn’t read Mein Kampf and suddenly realize that yes, Jews were cockroaches that needed to be exterminated. I read it and thought “Holy shit, this guy was NUTS.” Somebody who previously didn’t hate Jews and decides to hate them solely based on reading Mein Kampf? Dude needs to up the dosage of his medication. A lot more than Mein Kampf led to what happened to Jews in WWII, and in all honesty I don’t think the book played that big a part; it was just part of the propaganda machine. Anti-semitic propaganda and sentiments had been common and pretty damn virulent even before Hitler decided to inflict his deathless prose on the world. God knows people didn’t have a problem conducting extensive pogroms in the 14th century without it.
re: Mein Kampf
(and because I think “know thine enemy†is a pretty sound piece of advice), but the problem is, Hitler couldn’t write worth a shit—
Hitler didn’t write the book. To start with, he was mostly illiterate [he had a very poor education, due to financial and social problems].
My brain is on the blink at the moment, but if I remember rightly, it was Rudolf Hess and … urr, I can’t remember the second author’s name – who wrote the book. Well, written and edited from Hitler’s long-winded dication sessions and original draft.
It’s believed that while Rudolf Hess [?] was the one who corrected basic errors found in factual and political philosophical theories. Although Hess basically had a hand in clarifying and editing Hitler’s political views, it was the second co-author – a known anti-Semite – who largely rewrote Hitler’s political and personal ramblings. I believe he mostly left Hitler’s autobiographical sections alone.
Addition: I just googled. It’s Father Bernhard Stempfle, a former priest and noted anti-Semite.
FWIW, for more information about how the book [or rather, two volumes] came together, try Joachim Fest’s biography HITLER.
that book was jaw-droppingly boring while being incredibly creepy at the same time. An odd combination.
Heh. It’s indeed a very boring read.
A lot more than Mein Kampf led to what happened to Jews in WWII, and in all honesty I don’t think the book played that big a part; it was just part of the propaganda machine. Anti-semitic propaganda and sentiments had been common and pretty damn virulent even before Hitler decided to inflict his deathless prose on the world.
Absolutely.
In short: if you’re a sane, ethical person who’s capable of independent thought, I don’t see how reading a book (dangerous or not) can change your worldview all that much in and of itself.
——————————-
I agree that sane people can read just about anything and not be swayed from their personal values and views of the world.
Sane people, when reading a book (Hitler’s for example), see the guy as a lunatic and thank God that he’s no longer in power, and wonder how anyone could have bought what he was selling.
On the other hand, insane people (and even some marginally nutty people) can be swayed pretty easily. As can weak minded or weak willed people (just look at Manson’s followers or others who readily follow extremist Muslims who would kill anyone who is American just because they are American or innocent Iraqis, just because they can, or any cult leader and do things the average person would think are horrible).
So, yes, a book CAN influence SOME people to the point of leading them to do really fucked up things the rest of us wouldn’t dream of doing – or a messed up person can interpret a book entirely wrong and follow their own misinterpretation (perhaps the Marxism book was misinterpreted by the USSR, and the result was a clearly horrible situation for the people – but in any case, Communism has NEVER actually worked to the benefit of all the people, and in all its “trials” has resulted in abuse and poverty for the masses, so regardless of Marx’s theory, it has yet to be proven to be as wonderful as he’d like the reader to believe).
Books dangerous? Not really for sane people.
Conservatives actually thinking books are dangerous and making that list to piss Liberals off or warn people away from the books?
The former, possibly. The latter, not a chance in hell:)
The website preaches primarily to the choir, just as this one preaches primarily to its choir.
Clearly “dangerous” is not in reference to the books themselves, but that a certain segment of society could be swayed by the book (Hitler’s as an example, as it’s still required reading for certain racist groups).
It’s nothing more than a list of books put together by individuals interested in the topic – sort of like the “Good Shit vs. Shit to Avoid” section of this site. Obviously, SBTB is not really saying that those books should be burned, nor do they care if everyone and their mother reads them – it’s simply readers’ opinions of what books are good shit and what books are bad shit, and their opinion of “why”.
And not every reader – even in this choir – would agree on what is “Good Shit vs. Shit to Avoid”.
I’d wager that you’d probably find that many Conservatives would recommend people read these books, if for no other reason than the lessons they believe can be learned from doing so.
“It’s nothing more than a list of books put together by individuals interested in the topic – sort of like the “Good Shit vs. Shit to Avoid†section of this site. Obviously, SBTB is not really saying that those books should be burned, nor do they care if everyone and their mother reads them – it’s simply readers’ opinions of what books are good shit and what books are bad shit, and their opinion of ‘why.’”
But don’t you think there is some real difference between revewing a book on its own terms—as one of the choir, as you put it—and slapping the same (although ironically incohrent, IMO) ideology onto every book and declaring all of them “harmful;” indeed, “the most harmful” books in two centuries?
Someone sent me this link several weeks ago, and beyond what I see to be blatant misrepresentations of many of the books, my primary objection to the idea of listing “harmful” books is the complete demolition of indepedent thought as a social value of democracy. On the one hand, these list makers (which include Phyllis Schlafly, which gives you an idea of the politcs here) are defending democracy, but IMO one of the core principles of a democratic society is encouraging freedom of thought and expression in its citizenry. And freedom of thought, IMO, requires, well, freedom.
Conservatives and liberals alike bemoan the lack of critical thinking in American school children, but in order to teach and learn these skills, one must be able to reason through controversial material. I think that in the same way we are sometimes misguided in sheltering our kids from sexual knowledge, we’re similarly misguided in trying to insulate them from complex political and social issues that might be important for them to sort through later on. How much political and social conflict is the result of ignorance and unreasoned thinking? With provocative ideas contained in works like Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto, and the strong reactions those works are likely to provoke, I want people to be able to grapple through a thoughtful analysis before forwarding their own strong ideas on these subjects. And IMO, you can’t do that without having these ideas in public view (because let’s face it, they are already being discussed behind closed doors, where we can’t even begin to address the hatred and fear they engender).
While this list, IMO, consciously toes the line between censure and censorship, even more problematic is the way it implicitly discourages authentic, reflective, rational debate and thoughtful analysis. The fact that Dewey made the list was nothing short of stupefying for me, until I thought about the fact that he links democratic renewal with the social good of public education, and that he believed in equal educational opportunity (which I guess rises to the level of Socialism??).
As for the insane, yes, there will always be people who are dangerously influenced by those things most of us find ordinary or at least outside ourselves. But for those who are not insane but simply easily swayed, my answer would be education, education, education—and not the recitations of ideologues (left or right), but a course of schooling aimed at developing independent and critical thinking. But then, perhaps the real danger for some is that people will think for themselves, which is a different issue altogether.
Sorry for the long post.
(…) in any case, Communism has NEVER actually worked to the benefit of all the people, and in all its “trials†has resulted in abuse and poverty for the masses, so regardless of Marx’s theory, it has yet to be proven to be as wonderful as he’d like the reader to believe.
Communism of the variety Marx preached has not ever been implemented, as far as I know, so whether or not it’s wonderful for the masses is a matter of pure speculation. Like I’ve said before, the so-called Communist regimes were totalitarian in nature, whereas Marx talked about collectivism. Two diametrically opposed ideas. I think the closest real-life examples would be certain democratic Scandinavian countries with strong Socialist streaks like the Netherlands—which has its problems, true, but also a fairly happy, prosperous, content population.
Conservatives actually thinking books are dangerous and making that list to piss Liberals off or warn people away from the books? The latter, not a chance in hell
Are you sure you can speak for all, or even most, conservatives? I know I sure as hell can’t speak for all liberals, or even some liberals. I only speak for myself.
Clearly “dangerous†is not in reference to the books themselves, but that a certain segment of society could be swayed by the book (Hitler’s as an example, as it’s still required reading for certain racist groups).
Here’s a question: Is it required reading for neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups to convert and recruit, or to reinforce and intensify already racist beliefs? My feeling is that it’s the latter at work. A person who’s been brought up to not be a racist and lives in a culture that teaches her racism is never acceptable probably will not be swayed by racist messages, especially that found in a single book.
It’s nothing more than a list of books put together by individuals interested in the topic – sort of like the “Good Shit vs. Shit to Avoid†section of this site.
I think there’s a substantial difference between one person who does not claim any expertise in a subject who tells people in an informal setting that a book is badly-written vs. (and I quote) “a panel of 15 conservative scholars and public policy leaders” that certain books are dangerous. Not to mention this site is much more of an open forum: we openly solicit other opinions and disagreement.
I’d wager that you’d probably find that many Conservatives would recommend people read these books, if for no other reason than the lessons they believe can be learned from doing so.
No doubt. There are also many liberals who fully believe in the idea of dangerous books. There’s bound to be considerable variation in every population. I don’t believe I ever mentioned conservatives in general in my entry, nor have we mentioned them in the comments—mostly we’ve been talking about people who believe in the concept of dangerous books. You’re the first to bring it up.
Hey, Maili—thanks for the fascinating background info on who wrote Mein Kampf.
I don’t believe I ever mentioned conservatives in general in my entry, nor have we mentioned them in the comments—mostly we’ve been talking about people who believe in the concept of dangerous books. You’re the first to bring it up.
————————
Only because Human Events is a Conservative publication:)
Looking back at the posts, I notice I missed something. Of course, the last few days (more than usual:)) have been hectic, and I don’t know whether I’m coming or going. My oldest, Jared (17), was sworn into the United States Marines, and will be entering the Intelligence field after his training (which all happens AFTER this next school year, when he’ll graduate high school). So my brain seems to always be thinking about this, even when it’s thinking about something else.
Anyway, something I seemed to have sort of missed earlier was that the books on this list are considered “harmful” – probably as in having content that has been accepted by some and as a result caused harm to others (as opposed to “dangerous”).
We could easily conclude that Hitler’s book is not necessarily dangerous to those who read it, but that it absolutely was a factor in the harm that came to some people (not necessarily those who read it).
I think the one important thing to consider about that article/list is this: There was absolutely NO suggestion, either directly or indirectly, that people shouldn’t read these books or that the books shouldn’t be available to people. The only statements made were that these books were considered the 10 most “harmful” by those polled, and a brief summary of why.
I think any reasonably intelligent person (in other words, with an IQ above that of a rock) would realize said list would generate interest in said books. And I would therefore conclude that those in charge of the article are spotlighting these books in the hopes that people WILL read them, so they can better understand the potential harm in certain ideas (like racism and ethnic cleansing, among others).
I just don’t buy into the impact of book lists, whether they are made by a reader for fun, a reviewer for profit, or a website or newspaper for content to draw in readers.
I’m probably the odd one out, but I’ve honestly never felt compelled to read a single book because it made any list, even the bestsellers lists. I can’t ever remember actually looking for book recommendations from a list. I read reviews only for entertainment. I choose books by the subject matter for non-fiction, and for fiction, by backcover blurbs (and when I can find it, an excerpt).
Even though book lists aren’t my thing, I would go so far as to say the lists, whether we agree with them or not, are no more dangerous than the books that might be on the lists, regardless of what the lists – or those making the lists – say about the books they are listing. Free expression of ideas, critical thinking, and, if nothing else something to blog about:)
Only because Human Events is a Conservative publication
And I believe that the publication in general, and the 15 conservative scholars and public public policy leaders who came with the list in particular, are pretty damn retarded. Can’t say for sure about other Conservatives. I’d have to listen to them talk first to determine ‘tard levels.
And I would therefore conclude that those in charge of the article are spotlighting these books in the hopes that people WILL read them, so they can better understand the potential harm in certain ideas (like racism and ethnic cleansing, among others).
The only book spotlighted that contained what I consider offensive ideology (i.e. racism) is Mein Kampf. The others covered topics such as sexuality, feminism, education philosophy, Socialism/Marxism (note: NOT Stalinism/Maoism/Fascism/totalianarism), Keynesian economic theory (the blurb on this this one was one of the funniest because they blamed the current monster deficit on the book and FDR), evolutionary theory, environmental ethics, etc. C’mon. Feminism is DANGEROUS? Dewey’s educational philosophy is dangerous? Being judicious about pesticide usage is dangerous? Shit. Their danger threshold is a hell of a lot lower than mine, then.
Even though book lists aren’t my thing, I would go so far as to say the lists, whether we agree with them or not, are no more dangerous than the books that might be on the lists, regardless of what the lists – or those making the lists – say about the books they are listing.
I didn’t say the list was dangerous—I believe the exact word I used was “retarded.” “Ridiculous” was another word I used.
I think most of these books ARE dangerous – in the good sense of “dangerous”. Like a good hero is dangerous to the heroine. These books were/are all dangerous to the status quo, a challenge to people to evaluate various different aspects of the human condition from new and different perspectives.
The list is titled “most harmful books” – which is asinine.
In a totally unrelated moment – congrats to the Smart Bitches for having this site named as one of the best in this month’s RT. Are you being shy or did I miss the grand announcement of your amazingness (is that a word?) over the last few days? And, really, aren’t you guys just the queens of cool.