Book burning revisited

[The Alma Mater]

Book burners are enemies of humanity itself.

I honestly do not have much of a problem with someone burning Harlequin novel 6864, in which the girl decides that she does not really love the abusive sexy man she was planning to marry but instead her longterm friend; with a few naughty scenes on page 37.

[Kragholm Free States]

Libraries can't just keep an infinite stock of books, so books tend to be rotated out of stock if they are not 'circulated' within a reasonable period. Lots of areas, they will try to sell the books, but if no one buys them and they're not circulating, they are often destroyed. (Burned is common, so they don't end up illegally back in the market. Shredded is also a thing).

What's actually wrong with them ending up illegally back in the market though? Why is this something that must be prevented?

I honestly do not have much of a problem with someone burning Harlequin novel 6864, in which the girl decides that she does not really love the abusive sexy man she was planning to marry but instead her longterm friend; with a few naughty scenes on page 37.

smh you clearly don't appreciate true literary genius, you philistine

[Ifreann]

Libraries can't just keep an infinite stock of books, so books tend to be rotated out of stock if they are not 'circulated' within a reasonable period. Lots of areas, they will try to sell the books, but if no one buys them and they're not circulating, they are often destroyed. (Burned is common, so they don't end up illegally back in the market. Shredded is also a thing).

What's actually wrong with them ending up illegally back in the market though? Why is this something that must be prevented?

Because libraries that break the law are probably gonna be up shit creek when it comes time to beg for government funding.

[Dogmeat]

It's not that every work of literature is worth preserving in splendor for the ages. Some books are quite obviously trash.

It's that there's a tremendous history of abuse with people attempting to impose their values upon others by quite literally destroying anything that is written contrary to those values.

If that is what is happening, then it's somewhat despicable. If that is not what is happening, then it's just burning paper.

[Grave_n_idle]

What's actually wrong with them ending up illegally back in the market though? Why is this something that must be prevented?

Books can often be returned for a credit, or destroyed for a credit - depending on the relative value of the book, the publisher may not want you to return the book because the return costs would outweigh the value of the book.

But they also don't want that book that they're crediting you for to replace a 'legitimate' sale.

In those cases, the books are often destroyed, and the covers are stripped off so that they can be bundled and returned as proof of destruction.

That's why you'll occasionally see some of those books turn up and they'll have something like "stripped - not for resale" stamped on them. It's a crime to either buy or sell them, because they are technically stolen at that point.

[Antipatros]

Nazis assembled huge piles of "degenerate" books and burned them, partly for propaganda purposes and partly as a mode of censorship. Any time books are destroyed, this is the image that is conjured up in people's minds.

It's not as well known, but the Western Allies also destroyed books during their occupation of Germany, as part of the denazification process.

I think that people get a little bit touchy about the destruction of books in particular, in part because of some of the dramatic historical imagery that we associate with book burnings and so on. There is also an expectation that libraries should act as archives of knowledge.

People are seemingly more tolerant of censorship in other circumstances. There's something to think about, I guess.

[Grave_n_idle]

Nazis assembled huge piles of "degenerate" books and burned them, partly for propaganda purposes and partly as a mode of censorship. Any time books are destroyed, this is the image that is conjured up in people's minds.

It's not as well known, but the Western Allies also destroyed books during their occupation of Germany, as part of the denazification process.

I think that people get a little bit touchy about the destruction of books in particular, in part because of some of the dramatic historical imagery that we associate with book burnings and so on. There is also an expectation that libraries should act as archives of knowledge.

People are seemingly more tolerant of censorship in other circumstances. There's something to think about, I guess.

What you're talking about is what I was talking about - context matters.

That priest who was burning a Quran just to be a douchebag? That's the bad kind of book destruction.

Uncirculated books getting shredded so you can get new books for your library? The good kind.

A school destroying some old books in the wake of the discovery of hundreds of murdered indigenous children, and recycling the ashes into tree fertiliser? I honestly can't fault it.

[Czervenika]

I think I can properly contribute to this now. As mentioned in the first page I'm in the library field, or at least currently in school for it. With that in mind I generally don't like burning books. Information should be preserved, even if just to better understand our development as a species. Burning books because they contain outdated and racist stereotypes is simply just trying to erase the past. Instead of erasing the past we should be acknowledging it and making amends. Keeping the books intact can be a lesson on the prejudices of the past and how to avoid them going forward. I'm also okay with libraries choosing not to display such items, obviously. A safe compromise I've seen brought up is having the items in the library's collection, but just not directly listed. If anyone wants to access it then they would have to ask. Ideally this should occur within an academic library so the items can be accessed for research purposes. Personally, I don't think any kinds of information should truly be off-limits in an academic library. Some not so pleasant information may need to be seen for research purposes. In a library catering more directly to the general public, though, yea I see where some issues lie.

On a related note, I feel like Germany has a mostly healthy way of dealing with their not so great past. They do not try to brush it aside. They keep many of the monuments, and even the camps, alive. They want people to see them and know "Oh, this is what occurred here and we want you to know so it is not repeated ever again". I don't see why Canada or elsewhere should be any different. In fact, the Kamloops Residential School where the first mass grave was found is still fully intact. It no longer serves as a school, but the building itself is now a museum and monument for those who want to learn about the past or even just pay their respects to the victims. The past should never be buried, imo.

[Kerwa]

Don’t panic everybody. I am sure the kids can still get their casual tintin racism via the miracle of the internet.

[Ifreann]

I think I can properly contribute to this now. As mentioned in the first page I'm in the library field, or at least currently in school for it. With that in mind I generally don't like burning books. Information should be preserved, even if just to better understand our development as a species. Burning books because they contain outdated and racist stereotypes is simply just trying to erase the past.

No it isn't. Maybe you've noticed this while studying to be a librarian, but most books published today exist as more than one copy. Burning a book does not magically erase all other copies from existence.

Instead of erasing the past we should be acknowledging it and making amends. Keeping the books intact can be a lesson on the prejudices of the past and how to avoid them going forward. I'm also okay with libraries choosing not to display such items, obviously. A safe compromise I've seen brought up is having the items in the library's collection, but just not directly listed. If anyone wants to access it then they would have to ask. Ideally this should occur within an academic library so the items can be accessed for research purposes. Personally, I don't think any kinds of information should truly be off-limits in an academic library. Some not so pleasant information may need to be seen for research purposes. In a library catering more directly to the general public, though, yea I see where some issues lie.

These are primary and secondary schools, not academic libraries.

[Czervenika]

These are primary and secondary schools, not academic libraries.

Okay, I may have missed some context somewhere since I was in a hurry. That being said, perhaps just remove the books instead of burning them. Could potentially be useful in an academic library actually if someone wants to do research on racial perceptions of the past or something.

[Ifreann]

These are primary and secondary schools, not academic libraries.

Okay, I may have missed some context somewhere since I was in a hurry. That being said, perhaps just remove the books instead of burning them. Could potentially be useful in an academic library actually if someone wants to do research on racial perceptions of the past or something.

They're burning the books to symbolically reject the racist ideas they contain. If there's some need to preserve casually racist old books for research purposes then I can't imagine that it falls on school libraries to do it.

[Kerwa]

Okay, I may have missed some context somewhere since I was in a hurry. That being said, perhaps just remove the books instead of burning them. Could potentially be useful in an academic library actually if someone wants to do research on racial perceptions of the past or something.

I doubt there’s any risk of losing them to posterity. And you’d be surprised, old racist books are very collectible so they aren’t going to disappear.

[Czervenika]

Okay, I may have missed some context somewhere since I was in a hurry. That being said, perhaps just remove the books instead of burning them. Could potentially be useful in an academic library actually if someone wants to do research on racial perceptions of the past or something.

I doubt there’s any risk of losing them to posterity. And you’d be surprised, old racist books are very collectible so they aren’t going to disappear.

Depends on the book. Some older out of print books are hard to find. I'd imagine that's not the case here, though.

[Antipatros]

Nazis assembled huge piles of "degenerate" books and burned them, partly for propaganda purposes and partly as a mode of censorship. Any time books are destroyed, this is the image that is conjured up in people's minds.

It's not as well known, but the Western Allies also destroyed books during their occupation of Germany, as part of the denazification process.

I think that people get a little bit touchy about the destruction of books in particular, in part because of some of the dramatic historical imagery that we associate with book burnings and so on. There is also an expectation that libraries should act as archives of knowledge.

People are seemingly more tolerant of censorship in other circumstances. There's something to think about, I guess.

What you're talking about is what I was talking about - context matters.

That priest who was burning a Quran just to be a douchebag? That's the bad kind of book destruction.

Uncirculated books getting shredded so you can get new books for your library? The good kind.

A school destroying some old books in the wake of the discovery of hundreds of murdered indigenous children, and recycling the ashes into tree fertiliser? I honestly can't fault it.

Yes, context is important here.

I'm personally divided on it. I can't help but get uncomfortable when schools become battlegrounds for modern political debates (see the furor over "CRT" in the US).

What should the mission of public school libraries be?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." - Heinrich Heine

Would you claim TheAmazingAtheist has or hasn't burned human beings in his backyard?

Again, I think it all boils down to whether or not it's one's own personal copy of a book to burn.

Removing the books from library shelves seems reasonable, tbh.

I'm not sure how I feel about them being burnt, but they're not my books to burn (it's also not clear how many were burnt and how many were just recycled, with the limited information in the article, they could have burnt one or two books symbolically and recycled the rest). It's hard to donate library books as they're not usually in great condition so your options for retiring them are rather limited. I guess they could have used them for some arts and crafts projects instead?

They've already chosen tedious ink on paper over audiobooks that could be multitasked with other things. Why would they be picky over the "condition" said ink and paper is in?

I don't know if fictional characters in a fictional scenario in, as you say, a stupid movie, really count.

The movie is stupid, I was not misrepresenting it when I said they were running away from the cold, but it illustrates a possible scenario in which burning books might not be an unmitigated evil. An emergency situation in which people need to light a fire to survive. Would people in such a situation really be enemies of humanity if they burn books rather than die? Especially when those books are of no particular cultural import and are easily replaced? Probably not. So as I said, it depends what books one is burning and why.

Burning books to symbolically repudiate the racism within? If they're not the last surviving copies of the books in question or otherwise unique, it's a bit cringe, but hardly an attack on the human soul itself or anything like that.

And if they were the last surviving copies of the book, wouldn't it border on censorship if done by the state?

One of these situations is a priest deliberately burning a Quran on the anniversary of 9/11 as a deliberate and calculated insult to the entire religion of Islam, and the other is what... a school destroying and/or recycling old books with controversial subject matter.

I don't feel like you accidentally misrepresented this.

Of course not. I interpreted it correctly.

You conveniently ignored the part where I pointed out the "however split on Islam itself" qualifier; as in, even those who supposedly otherwise thought poorly of Islam objected to the burning of books itself, independently of their views on Islam. Popular opinion so looked down on Islam they voted for a guy who proposed a Muslim ban, and they still thought burning books was an especially distasteful way to express it, simply because they were books.

And why, if incineration of books is thought of as equivalent to "recycling" is there so much tree-hugger pressure in other contexts to recycle paper instead of incinerating it? (Not that I listen to them on that one, given the case against paper recycling, but still...)

[The Alma Mater]

And why, if incineration of books is thought of as equivalent to "recycling" is there so much tree-hugger pressure in other contexts to recycle paper instead of incinerating it? (Not that I listen to them on that one, given the case against paper recycling, but still...)

Why do you ask questions that were already answered in this topic ? It is not like you have to wade through 300 pages...

[Necroghastia]

I do so wish that when we teach about Nazi book burnings, we say specifically *what* they burned - books about socialism and sex and gender studies.

Like, I'm not a fan of destroying books, but I also don't think every bigoted Tom, Dick, and Harry has a claim to whine about "censorship" either.

[USS Monitor]

"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." - Heinrich Heine

I immediately thought of that quote too.

I understand Trudeau's response, but I don't agree with it.

No matter what race they are, human beings are fallible and sometimes they are unreasonable. When someone is wrong, we need to be able to challenge them no matter what race they are. I think a lot of white people need to do a better job of listening and making sure someone actually is wrong before shutting them down, and I think a lot of white people need to be less aggressive about saying "YOU'RE THE REAL RACISTS!!!" There are a lot of other ways to disagree like, "That doesn't make sense," "I disagree," or, "I don't think that's reasonable." In many cases those are more accurate than "YOU'RE THE REAL RACISTS!!!" But sometimes people are wrong, and you don't need to be indigenous to tell them they are wrong.

Burning Asterix books is not a reasonable step toward reconciliation. Book burning is not a healthy social phenomenon, and when it's combined with a fixation on racial identity, it does have a Nazi vibe. There are other historical precedents besides the Nazis, but book-burning is still strongly associated with political violence and totalitarian regimes. Rather than pretending that indigenous people are a bunch of ignorant children, let's treat them like responsible adults and assume they are smart enough to understand the meaning of their actions. Book burning is extremist bullshit. It's not cool.

Are they going to be opening a new Auschwitz tomorrow? No. We're not at that level of crisis right now. But book burning is still the complete opposite of reconciliation.

I do so wish that when we teach about Nazi book burnings, we say specifically *what* they burned - books about socialism and sex and gender studies.

Like, I'm not a fan of destroying books, but I also don't think every bigoted Tom, Dick, and Harry has a claim to whine about "censorship" either.

This is a fair point, but I think the number and variety of books here is problematic. It is not just a casual thing like one bored guy tossing a pamphlet from the local hate group in his firepit.

[Xmara]

"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." - Heinrich Heine

I immediately thought of that quote too.

I understand Trudeau's response, but I don't agree with it.

No matter what race they are, human beings are fallible and sometimes they are unreasonable. When someone is wrong, we need to be able to challenge them no matter what race they are. I think a lot of white people need to do a better job of listening and making sure someone actually is wrong before shutting them down, and I think a lot of white people need to be less aggressive about saying "YOU'RE THE REAL RACISTS!!!" There are a lot of other ways to disagree like, "That doesn't make sense," "I disagree," or, "I don't think that's reasonable." In many cases those are more accurate than "YOU'RE THE REAL RACISTS!!!" But sometimes people are wrong, and you don't need to be indigenous to tell them they are wrong.

Burning Asterix books is not a reasonable step toward reconciliation. Book burning is not a healthy social phenomenon, and when it's combined with a fixation on racial identity, it does have a Nazi vibe. There are other historical precedents besides the Nazis, but book-burning is still strongly associated with political violence and totalitarian regimes. Rather than pretending that indigenous people are a bunch of ignorant children, let's treat them like responsible adults and assume they are smart enough to understand the meaning of their actions. Book burning is extremist bullshit. It's not cool.

Are they going to be opening a new Auschwitz tomorrow? No. We're not at that level of crisis right now. But book burning is still the complete opposite of reconciliation.

I do so wish that when we teach about Nazi book burnings, we say specifically *what* they burned - books about socialism and sex and gender studies.

Like, I'm not a fan of destroying books, but I also don't think every bigoted Tom, Dick, and Harry has a claim to whine about "censorship" either.

This is a fair point, but I think the number and variety of books here is problematic. It is not just a casual thing like one bored guy tossing a pamphlet from the local hate group in his firepit.

This. To me, this does nothing to actually address the problem. And given the sketchy histories often associated with book burning, it might actually make things worse.

[Dakini]

Libraries can't just keep an infinite stock of books, so books tend to be rotated out of stock if they are not 'circulated' within a reasonable period. Lots of areas, they will try to sell the books, but if no one buys them and they're not circulating, they are often destroyed. (Burned is common, so they don't end up illegally back in the market. Shredded is also a thing).

What's actually wrong with them ending up illegally back in the market though? Why is this something that must be prevented?

Well, pulping books is really common in the publishing industry. If books don't sell well, the publishers buy them back from the stores, rip the covers off and recycle the pages. It's illegal to sell the books that have the covers ripped off for this reason because they're basically not paid for.

For libraries, the books usually aren't in great condition if they've been in circulation for a while so not many people are going to buy them and places usually won't accept books for donation if they're in really rough shape. Also, places that accept donations of books don't usually want that many books at once. They want like, a few books at a time.

So you're mostly left with reusing the books in some way (origami? paper mache?) or recycling them, which are both as destructive as burning them really.

[Fractalnavel]

Is it the specific act of burning a physical book that is at question here, or the destruction of information? At one time those were more or less equivalent, but not today. So book burning is dramatic. As opposed to book pulping. Or the deletion of e-text or audio.

As long as the information is preserved and accessible, burn away. Or whatever. That's when the "green protesting" concerns come up, I guess. Or library maintenance. All of which are secondary to the symbolic political / cultural acts.

Now if someone threatens the actual information - that would give a political act teeth, And be a much bigger issue.

As for this specific event - as a monument to the past, the books probably need to be preserved in situ. And copies may also be burned for attention. I don't know. I'll leave that to the activists, politicians, and archivists to work out.