Book-burning: fanning the flames of hatred
Jane
the Opernplatz – now the Bebelplatz – in the Mitte district of Berlin.
Amid much joyous singing, band-playing and chanting of oaths and
incantations, they watched soldiers and police from the SS,
brownshirted members of the paramilitary SA, and impassioned youths
from the German Student Association and Hitler Youth Movement burn, at
the behest of propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, upwards of 25,000
books decreed to be "un-German".
The climax of a month-long nationwide campaign, this best-known of
literary bonfires was intended as both a purge and a purification of
the true German spirit, supposedly weakened and corrupted by un-German
ideas and intellectualism. "The future German man," the Reichsminister
declared in a speech, "will not just be a man of books, but a man of
character. You do well, in this midnight hour, to commit to the flames
the evil spirit of the past. From this wreckage the phoenix of a new
spirit will triumphantly rise."
The volumes consigned to the flames in Berlin, and more than 30 other
university towns around the country on that and following nights,
included works by more than 75 German and foreign authors, among them
(to cite but a few) Walter Benjamin, Bertolt Brecht, Albert Einstein,
Friedrich Engels, Sigmund Freud, André Gide, Ernest Hemingway, Franz
Kafka, Lenin, Jack London, Heinrich, Klaus and Thomas Mann, Ludwig
Marcuse, Karl Marx, John Dos Passos, Arthur Schnitzler, Leon Trotsky,
HG Wells, Émile Zola and Stefan Zweig. Also among the authors whose
books were burned that night was the great 19th-century German poet
Heinrich Heine, who barely a century earlier, in 1821, had written in
his play Almansor the words: "Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt
man am Ende auch Menschen" – "Where they burn books, they will, in the
end, also burn people."
There's something uniquely symbolic about the burning of books. It
goes beyond the censoring of beliefs and ideas. A book, plainly, is
something more than ink and paper, and burning one (or many) means
something more than destroying it by any other means. Goebbels, of
course, was by no means the first to recognise the symbolism:
authorities around the world, both secular and religious, have known
since the Chinese Qin dynasty in 200BC that book-burning is an act of
peculiar potency. If Pastor Terry Jones, leader of the small but now
extremely well-known Dove World Outreach Centre in Gainesville,
Florida, who planned to burn 200 copies of the Qur'an despite near-
universal condemnation, didn't know it before, he certainly does now.
(Jones, who has received death threats, may have taken to carrying a
gun, but no less a figure than Barack Obama warned yesterday of the
consequences the pastor's act may have had for US servicemen in Iraq
and Afghanistan.)
The poet, philosopher and political theorist John Milton, whose books
were publicly burned in England and France, gives perhaps the best
explanation of why authorities down the centuries have seen danger in
certain books. "Books are not absolutely dead things," he wrote in his
celebrated attack on censorship, Areopagitica, in 1644, "but do
contain a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul was
whose progeny they are." Anyone who kills a man, Milton said, kills "a
reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book
kills reason itself".
Throughout history, says Matt Fishburn, author of Burning Books, a
chronicle of the phenomenon through the ages, most official book-
burnings have been about "control", to announce "what a regime stands
for". Like previous such ceremonies, the Nazi burnings (which Fishburn
said, on their 75th anniversary in 2008, have since become "a cultural
benchmark, a popular analogy and a common insult – to burn a book
today is to be a 'fascist'") were, essentially, about "announcing what
would be acceptable in future; shaping the new public sphere. The
burnings were the symbol; the repressive legislation that came in
their wake was what really enforced it."
More innocently, people have long lit celebratory bonfires to mark the
end of one phase in their lives and the start of another: graduating
students may burn unpopular textbooks at the end of a course; refugees
celebrate naturalisation by burning their old papers. But it is as an
official means of suppressing dissenting or heretical views that book-
burning has acquired its infamy.
The practice features prominently in two of the 20th century's more
alarming novels about authoritarian future societies: Ray Bradbury's
Fahrenheit 451, in which book-burning has become institutionalised in
a wholly hedonistic, anti-intellectual US, and George Orwell's
Nineteen Eighty-Four, where unapproved books and tracts are consumed
by flames in a "memory hole". It also crops up in the Bible. A passage
in the New Testament Book of Acts (Acts 19: 19-20) suggests Christian
converts in Ephesus burned books of "curious arts", generally taken to
mean traditional magic: "Many of them also which used curious arts
brought their books together and burned them before all men."
The earliest recorded incident of book-burning in history appears,
however, to be Emperor Qin Shi Huang's order in 213 BC that all books
of philosophy and history from anywhere other than Qin province in
China be burned (and a large number of uncooperative intellectuals
buried alive). Since then, the Ancient Greeks and Romans have burned
Jewish and Christian scriptures, and any number of popes from the 13th
to the 17th centuries ordered the burning of the Talmud, a fate that
befell John Wycliffe's works in the 15th century and William Tyndale's
English translation of the New Testament in the 16th.
The Spanish Inquisition burned 5,000 Arabic manuscripts in Granada in
1499, and Spanish conquistadors burned all the sacred texts of the
Maya in 1562. Luther's translation of the Bible went up in flames in
Catholic parts of Germany in the 1640s, and in the 1730s the
Archbishop of Salzburg oversaw the burning of every Protestant book
and Bible that could be got hold of. The communists burned untold
numbers of decadent western books and writings in the Soviet Union
from the 1920s on, and several American libraries burned the works of
supposedly pro-Communist authors during the McCarthy era.
More recently, Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem burned copies of the New
Testament in 1984; Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses was
ceremonially burned in Bolton and Bradford in 1988; Harry Potter books
have been burned in the US on various occasions since their first
publication; and in Rome they burned The Da Vinci Code. Besides
individual titles, whole libraries have been razed to the ground, some
more than once: Alexandria in Egypt (by lots of people); Washington
(by the British); Louvain (by the Germans); Sarajevo and, most
recently, Baghdad.
Why burning, though, rather than some other kind of destruction? The
symbolism of flames is plain. For Andrew Motion, former poet laureate
and chair of this year's Man Booker prize, "books are little
encapsulations of human effort and wisdom and, I suppose, of our sense
of history. So to burn one of any kind, and certainly one that is a
representation of a culture and set of beliefs, is to appear to
consign it to the flames of eternal damnation." Book-burning, he says,
is first and foremost a monumental "manifestation of intolerance. It's
the conflation of what ought to be nuanced views into one, hate-filled
act."
Does Pastor Jones fit this picture? There's an important difference
between his plans and officially sanctioned book-burning campaigns
such as those of the Nazis, says Richard Evans, regius professor of
history at Cambridge and a specialist in German social and cultural
history. While the book-burnings of 1933 were largely independently
led by fascist students, presaging the "mass violence, real and
symbolic" that was then starting to take over Germany, they were
actively encouraged by the Nazi leadership in a bid to "purge the un-
German spirit". Jones's International Burn-a-Koran Day is, on the
other hand, an act of defiance and, in choosing to burn just one book
many times over, "quite clearly a symbolic attack on Islam as a
whole".
Anyone who had tried to burn Mein Kampf in 1933, Evans says, "would
have been arrested and shot".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/sep/10/book-burning-quran-history-nazis?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
Mike
news:0ac3b930-89f2-479b...@s9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
That's terrible. When I read stuff like that, all I can think of is Steven
and the dangers those types of perplex are to a peaceful world.
Jane
There is little I hate more than book burning, Mike. Murder and mayhem
(so there, Steven) are about it.
Censorship in all its forms is vile.
Mike
"Jane" wrote in message
news:c562e51d-dc31-495d...@k30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
If we could censor Steven out....., that would be the one case where I would
condone it!
Woodswun
I have never seen Steven condone something like that. Burning books,
like flags or anything else, however, is protected expression,
regardless of how much you may disagree with the expression.
Woods
Steven Douglas
>
> I have never seen Steven condone something like that.
Thank you, Woods. Of course you're right, and I want to reiterate (for
those who don't understand -- or refuse to understand) that I don't
condone what the preacher did, and I would not do what he did.
Nevertheless, I blame the murdering thugs in Afghanistan for their own
actions, and will not give them a pass because they were looking for a
handy excuse to commit those murders -- and they have some very
gullible people on their side, who blame that preacher for the actions
of murdering thugs.
>
> Burning books,
> like flags or anything else, however, is protected expression,
> regardless of how much you may disagree with the expression.
As you know, some APN posters live in countries where freedom of
expression is more limited than it is here. So they blame a man in
Florida for murders that are happening in Afghanistan. What reasonable
person would blame someone on the other side of an ocean for the
actions of murdering thugs?
Jane
> On Apr 3, 3:27 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have never seen Steven condone something like that.
>
> Thank you, Woods. Of course you're right, and I want to reiterate (for
> those who don't understand -- or refuse to understand) that I don't
> condone what the preacher did, and I would not do what he did.
> Nevertheless, I blame the murdering thugs in Afghanistan for their own
> actions, and will not give them a pass because they were looking for a
> handy excuse to commit those murders -- and they have some very
> gullible people on their side, who blame that preacher for the actions
> of murdering thugs.
I have already said that I don't blame him for their actions, anymore
than I blame the cartoon of Mohammed for the actions of some Muslims
when it was published. However, I do think this preacher has an agenda
and that he knew the consequences of his actions. Therefore, he
deserves condemnation.
>
>
>
> > Burning books,
> > like flags or anything else, however, is protected expression,
> > regardless of how much you may disagree with the expression.
>
> As you know, some APN posters live in countries where freedom of
> expression is more limited than it is here. So they blame a man in
> Florida for murders that are happening in Afghanistan. What reasonable
> person would blame someone on the other side of an ocean for the
> actions of murdering thugs?
Here is what Woods said in another thread: "As usual, Mike, you have
gotten to the heart of it. It is not his actions but his (fairly
obvious) intent to foment unrest and
violence."
And he plans to continue to foment unrest.
Steven Douglas
> On Apr 3, 9:26 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 3, 3:27 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have never seen Steven condone something like that.
>
> > Thank you, Woods. Of course you're right, and I want to reiterate (for
> > those who don't understand -- or refuse to understand) that I don't
> > condone what the preacher did, and I would not do what he did.
> > Nevertheless, I blame the murdering thugs in Afghanistan for their own
> > actions, and will not give them a pass because they were looking for a
> > handy excuse to commit those murders -- and they have some very
> > gullible people on their side, who blame that preacher for the actions
> > of murdering thugs.
>
> I have already said that I don't blame him for their actions, anymore
> than I blame the cartoon of Mohammed for the actions of some Muslims
> when it was published. However, I do think this preacher has an agenda
> and that he knew the consequences of his actions. Therefore, he
> deserves condemnation.
He's receiving it, isn't he?
>
> > > Burning books,
> > > like flags or anything else, however, is protected expression,
> > > regardless of how much you may disagree with the expression.
>
> > As you know, some APN posters live in countries where freedom of
> > expression is more limited than it is here. So they blame a man in
> > Florida for murders that are happening in Afghanistan. What reasonable
> > person would blame someone on the other side of an ocean for the
> > actions of murdering thugs?
>
> Here is what Woods said in another thread: "As usual, Mike, you have
> gotten to the heart of it. It is not his actions but his (fairly
> obvious) intent to foment unrest and
> violence."
>
> And he plans to continue to foment unrest.
Please explain how he has such power over those people, and why you're
so willing to give those murderers an excuse for their murderous
behavior?
Jane
> On Apr 3, 6:38 pm, Jane <j.donnell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 9:26 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 3, 3:27 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I have never seen Steven condone something like that.
>
> > > Thank you, Woods. Of course you're right, and I want to reiterate (for
> > > those who don't understand -- or refuse to understand) that I don't
> > > condone what the preacher did, and I would not do what he did.
> > > Nevertheless, I blame the murdering thugs in Afghanistan for their own
> > > actions, and will not give them a pass because they were looking for a
> > > handy excuse to commit those murders -- and they have some very
> > > gullible people on their side, who blame that preacher for the actions
> > > of murdering thugs.
>
> > I have already said that I don't blame him for their actions, anymore
> > than I blame the cartoon of Mohammed for the actions of some Muslims
> > when it was published. However, I do think this preacher has an agenda
> > and that he knew the consequences of his actions. Therefore, he
> > deserves condemnation.
>
> He's receiving it, isn't he?
>
>
>
>
> > > > Burning books,
> > > > like flags or anything else, however, is protected expression,
> > > > regardless of how much you may disagree with the expression.
>
> > > As you know, some APN posters live in countries where freedom of
> > > expression is more limited than it is here. So they blame a man in
> > > Florida for murders that are happening in Afghanistan. What reasonable
> > > person would blame someone on the other side of an ocean for the
> > > actions of murdering thugs?
>
> > Here is what Woods said in another thread: "As usual, Mike, you have
> > gotten to the heart of it. It is not his actions but his (fairly
> > obvious) intent to foment unrest and
> > violence."
>
> > And he plans to continue to foment unrest.
>
> Please explain how he has such power over those people, and why you're
> so willing to give those murderers an excuse for their murderous
> behavior?
I have never excused anyone. You just can't comprehend what you read.
Steven Douglas
> On Apr 3, 9:46 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 3, 6:38 pm, Jane <j.donnell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 3, 9:26 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 3, 3:27 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I have never seen Steven condone something like that.
>
> > > > Thank you, Woods. Of course you're right, and I want to reiterate (for
> > > > those who don't understand -- or refuse to understand) that I don't
> > > > condone what the preacher did, and I would not do what he did.
> > > > Nevertheless, I blame the murdering thugs in Afghanistan for their own
> > > > actions, and will not give them a pass because they were looking for a
> > > > handy excuse to commit those murders -- and they have some very
> > > > gullible people on their side, who blame that preacher for the actions
> > > > of murdering thugs.
>
> > > I have already said that I don't blame him for their actions, anymore
> > > than I blame the cartoon of Mohammed for the actions of some Muslims
> > > when it was published. However, I do think this preacher has an agenda
> > > and that he knew the consequences of his actions. Therefore, he
> > > deserves condemnation.
>
> > He's receiving it, isn't he?
>
> From you, reluctantly.
No, I never condoned what he did, and I would never do what he did.
>
> > > > > Burning books,
> > > > > like flags or anything else, however, is protected expression,
> > > > > regardless of how much you may disagree with the expression.
>
> > > > As you know, some APN posters live in countries where freedom of
> > > > expression is more limited than it is here. So they blame a man in
> > > > Florida for murders that are happening in Afghanistan. What reasonable
> > > > person would blame someone on the other side of an ocean for the
> > > > actions of murdering thugs?
>
> > > Here is what Woods said in another thread: "As usual, Mike, you have
> > > gotten to the heart of it. It is not his actions but his (fairly
> > > obvious) intent to foment unrest and
> > > violence."
>
> > > And he plans to continue to foment unrest.
>
> > Please explain how he has such power over those people, and why you're
> > so willing to give those murderers an excuse for their murderous
> > behavior?
>
> I have never excused anyone. You just can't comprehend what you read.
It's very clear that the preponderance of your anger is with the
preacher, not with the actual murdering thugs. How else should I read
that?
Jane
> On Apr 3, 7:06 pm, Jane <j.donnell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 9:46 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 3, 6:38 pm, Jane <j.donnell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 3, 9:26 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 3, 3:27 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I have never seen Steven condone something like that.
>
> > > > > Thank you, Woods. Of course you're right, and I want to reiterate (for
> > > > > those who don't understand -- or refuse to understand) that I don't
> > > > > condone what the preacher did, and I would not do what he did.
> > > > > Nevertheless, I blame the murdering thugs in Afghanistan for their own
> > > > > actions, and will not give them a pass because they were looking for a
> > > > > handy excuse to commit those murders -- and they have some very
> > > > > gullible people on their side, who blame that preacher for the actions
> > > > > of murdering thugs.
>
> > > > I have already said that I don't blame him for their actions, anymore
> > > > than I blame the cartoon of Mohammed for the actions of some Muslims
> > > > when it was published. However, I do think this preacher has an agenda
> > > > and that he knew the consequences of his actions. Therefore, he
> > > > deserves condemnation.
>
> > > He's receiving it, isn't he?
>
> > From you, reluctantly.
>
> No, I never condoned what he did, and I would never do what he did.
>
There's a difference.
>
>
>
> > > > > > Burning books,
> > > > > > like flags or anything else, however, is protected expression,
> > > > > > regardless of how much you may disagree with the expression.
>
> > > > > As you know, some APN posters live in countries where freedom of
> > > > > expression is more limited than it is here. So they blame a man in
> > > > > Florida for murders that are happening in Afghanistan. What reasonable
> > > > > person would blame someone on the other side of an ocean for the
> > > > > actions of murdering thugs?
>
> > > > Here is what Woods said in another thread: "As usual, Mike, you have
> > > > gotten to the heart of it. It is not his actions but his (fairly
> > > > obvious) intent to foment unrest and
> > > > violence."
>
> > > > And he plans to continue to foment unrest.
>
> > > Please explain how he has such power over those people, and why you're
> > > so willing to give those murderers an excuse for their murderous
> > > behavior?
>
> > I have never excused anyone. You just can't comprehend what you read.
>
> It's very clear that the preponderance of your anger is with the
> preacher, not with the actual murdering thugs.
Wrong.
How else should I read
> that?
You'll read it incorrectly, the way you always do. Nothing new there.
Woodswun
True, but it was irresponsible of him, nonetheless. Keep in mind that
the message between the lines is that there are no expectations of
civilized behavior from illiterate, ignorant people who are led by
lunatics.
Woods
Woodswun
Yes, he does.
Woods
Steven Douglas
In a situation such as this, I think it's far more important to
condemn murderous thugs than an intolerant bigot.
>
> not that you condoned it.
> There's a difference.
>
> > > > > > > Burning books,
> > > > > > > like flags or anything else, however, is protected expression,
> > > > > > > regardless of how much you may disagree with the expression.
>
> > > > > > As you know, some APN posters live in countries where freedom of
> > > > > > expression is more limited than it is here. So they blame a man in
> > > > > > Florida for murders that are happening in Afghanistan. What reasonable
> > > > > > person would blame someone on the other side of an ocean for the
> > > > > > actions of murdering thugs?
>
> > > > > Here is what Woods said in another thread: "As usual, Mike, you have
> > > > > gotten to the heart of it. It is not his actions but his (fairly
> > > > > obvious) intent to foment unrest and
> > > > > violence."
>
> > > > > And he plans to continue to foment unrest.
>
> > > > Please explain how he has such power over those people, and why you're
> > > > so willing to give those murderers an excuse for their murderous
> > > > behavior?
>
> > > I have never excused anyone. You just can't comprehend what you read.
>
> > It's very clear that the preponderance of your anger is with the
> > preacher, not with the actual murdering thugs.
>
> Wrong.
Not wrong, since every thread you've started on this topic is focused
on the act of book-burning, while you've given far less condemnation
to the actual murderous thugs.
>
> > How else should I read that?
>
> You'll read it incorrectly, the way you always do. Nothing new there.
Were you this upset with the people who published the cartoons that
set off riots all over the Islamic world? If not, why not?
Steven Douglas
> On Apr 3, 9:26 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 3:27 pm, Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have never seen Steven condone something like that.
>
> > Thank you, Woods. Of course you're right, and I want to reiterate (for
> > those who don't understand -- or refuse to understand) that I don't
> > condone what the preacher did, and I would not do what he did.
> > Nevertheless, I blame the murdering thugs in Afghanistan for their own
> > actions, and will not give them a pass because they were looking for a
> > handy excuse to commit those murders -- and they have some very
> > gullible people on their side, who blame that preacher for the actions
> > of murdering thugs.
>
> > > Burning books,
> > > like flags or anything else, however, is protected expression,
> > > regardless of how much you may disagree with the expression.
>
> > As you know, some APN posters live in countries where freedom of
> > expression is more limited than it is here. So they blame a man in
> > Florida for murders that are happening in Afghanistan. What reasonable
> > person would blame someone on the other side of an ocean for the
> > actions of murdering thugs?
>
> True, but it was irresponsible of him, nonetheless.
I understand that. I don't like that he did it, and I would never do
what he did.
>
> Keep in mind that
> the message between the lines is that there are no expectations of
> civilized behavior from illiterate, ignorant people who are led by
> lunatics.
That's really what it's all about. The people who are the most upset
with the preacher for practicing his right to freedom of expression
are people who have no expectations of civilized behavior by Muslims.
You see, I *do* expect civilized behavior of Muslims, and when they
fail to behave in a civilized manner, I will place the blame with
them, and not with some idiot across the ocean from them.
Mike
news:a4546382-9844-4c10...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>I understand that. I don't like that he did it, and I would never do
>what he did.
Nonsense!! You do similar to us here everyday.
Woodswun
Well, you apparently have unrealistic expectations.
Woods