Put Back That Book!

This is a topic of discussion that I have been meaning to write about for a while. As someone with an extensive background in English Literature and history, I always found that reading and learning from the past was something to benefit and learn from.

However, because of recent political and social views regarding what is appropriate to showcase to younger audiences or academia, they have become heavily volatile and even shun-worthy topics. For instance, when I was in middle school, we read To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee since we were studying racism in America from when slaves were shipped from Africa to more recent times. If one reads it from the perspective of the young female protagonist, it would be apparent to anyone that this is an anti-racism story and a slice of life from when racism was an acceptable practice in America. Yet, when I was in college, I heard that they were doing away with teaching this novel in classrooms because of the use of the N-word in the text.

There are other examples of texts that were seen as insightful pieces of literature that are now villainized or simplified as “books that need to be taken off the shelf.” Books like To Kill A Mockingbird should be kept “on the shelf” for younger generations because they show us a glimpse of how people or society used to be and how it is currently not acceptable today. No one believes that anyone should be treated differently based on the color of their skin as much as they did back in, say, the Jim Crow era or Segregation. We now believe everyone should have equal opportunities to do what they want.

I find it ignorant that people would simply not want to show a story just because it contains content that is on the more explicit side. Of course, there are times when texts need to be tailored to a specific audience, like differentiating what is supposed to be explicitly told to a 1st grader versus a 7th grader. I read To Kill A Mockingbird in 7th grade, which is an appropriate age range to show a child that kind of content versus a 1st grader. However, racism was still taught in my elementary school in a more simplified and implicit way.

If we think that certain content shouldn’t be shown while others are considered safe, it infringes on all Americans’ right to Freedom of Speech. Since our nation’s founding, Freedom of Speech has always been a hot topic of many debates and civil discourses since there may be times when freedom of speech is outweighed by the consequences of one’s individual speech. However, there are clear examples of when not to assume free speech, such as yelling “fire” in a crowded building to incite panic and harm. And then there are more gray areas, such as when, in middle school, we debated whether an Arizona newspaper should publicize a paper regarding information about an active bioweapons factory, making bioweapons near an Arizona suburban area.

On the one hand, we argued that not telling the public could put them at risk if this bioweapon factory were to have its bioweapon escaped the facility. Yet, if the townspeople were informed it could incite fear and harm to those in the suburban area. This was a real case from what I remember, and I believe that the outcome of the actual trial ruled in favor of free speech, where the newspaper was allowed to publish the article.

But let us move on to another example that talks about race and may or may not have an apparent anti-racism sentiment, The Heart of Darkness. This novel does have a lot of vocabulary and phrases that would not be allowed or used normally today since it was written at a time when racist ideas were prominent globally. One of my professors in college brought up this novel during class since it was regarding our constant topic of race. She explained that though at the time it was acceptable to say things like “baboon” or “negro” or other derogatory phrases and words in the past, the book itself should not be regarded as a book that needs to be studied or even involved with Academia. Yet, as a student who enjoys historical and fictional stories, Heart of Darkness intersects both.

Heart of Darkness is a story about British explorers going to Africa. It was published in 1899 and written by Joseph Conrad, which was many years before Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird. This means that even though during Harper Lee’s time, racism was bad, it was even worse during Conrad’s time. This difference in time and the historical significance of when Joseph Conrad lived gives readers insight into people's ideals and beliefs. So dismissing it as an irrelevant and unimportant text is not a compelling argument. It is up to the reader to investigate whether or not Conrad’s Heart of Darkness is meant to be a work celebrating racist ideas and sentiments or if maybe it is a critique or insight into how people viewed racism at that time. As I have yet to read it for myself, I can guess that maybe Conrad was not trying to “celebrate racism,” as one critic, Chinua Archebe, wrote in a 1975 essay, but it may be a subtle critique of racist ideology.

Overall, I think we have lost sight of what it means to think critically about literature or anything that is put in front of us, whether it is fact or entertainment, or both. Saying that we shouldn’t teach books like To Kill A Mockingbird or Heart of Darkness shouldn’t be encouraged. Though these are historical fiction stories, they still are historical in one way or another, and thus contain some significance. Academia is meant to be a place for learning and critical thought, not a place that dismisses other views or demands intellectual absolutes.

From my own experience in learning about America in AP United States History (or APUSH for short), America was not all good or all bad. History is not simple; thus, the literature that has survived today has survived for a reason. It is not because they supported a political or social view that is necessarily in today’s society (Though that is usually reserved for documents regarding government or civil rights). It is because they were saying something much deeper and insightful than what their time period was.

To Kill A Mockingbird was written in the 1960’s, during a time when African Americans were not seen as equals. Segregation was a belief almost widely supported by the community and even somewhat under government law. Schools were still separated between “whites” and “blacks,” and water fountains were only reserved for “whites” and “blacks.” Water fountains! Things that would not be at all acceptable in our modern times.

If we wish for history to remain history, however, we must learn from our ancestors, from others’ ancestors, and other civilizations that, though they may be disturbing and unsightly to our modern times, it is a must in education. We teach events like slavery, the holocaust, the Civil Rights Movement in America, and other such events to make sure the mistakes and misguided ideals of the past don’t make an appearance again in our future. Additionally, people can come to their own conclusions as to why and how these mistakes or misguided ideals came to be so well supported by the masses at that time.

So don’t take those books off the shelf that have historical significance or show how people used to think. Otherwise, we might as well unshelve books like The Communist Manifesto, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, or other “harmful” pieces of literature that have caused terrible events or ideas to exist in history.

And like with anything, just because you put a veil over your eyes and try to ignore the reality of what transpired in history does not erase that it did happen. Unless we want to be like the ancient Egyptians who tried to erase any traces of those they wished to remain nonexistent and mortal in the sands of history. But just as the ancient Egyptian archeologists uncovered most of these attempts at perverting and tampering with history, the truth eventually comes out, despite what the Egyptians wished to remain erased.