"The Adventures of Don Quixote de la Mancha - Cervantes
The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - A. Conan Doyle
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland - Lewis Carroll
An American Tragedy - Theodore Dreiser
Animal Farm - George Orwell
Anne Frank: Diary of a Young Girl - Anne Frank
As I Lay Dying - William Faulkner
The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin - Benjamin Franklin
The Awakening - Kate Chopin
The Bean Trees - Barbara Kingsolver
Black Boy - Richard Wright
Book of Common Prayer - Church of England
Camille - Alexandre Dumas
Candide - Voltaire
Canterbury Tales - Geoffrey Chaucer
Catch-22 - Joseph Heller
The Catcher in the Rye - J.D. Salinger
Cat’s Cradle - Kurt Vonnegut
Clan of the Cave Bear - Jean Auel
The Color Purple - Alice Walker
Deer Park - Norman Mailer
Deliverance - James Dickey
Doctor Zhivago - Boris Leonidovich Pasternak
Dracula - Bram Stoker
Droll Stories - Balzac
Dubliners - James Joyce
Elmer Gantry - Sinclair Lewis
The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Famous Moll Flanders - Daniel Defoe
Gone With the Wind - Margaret Mitchell
Go Tell It On the Mountain - James Baldwin
The Group - Mary McCarthy
Gulliver’s Travels - Jonathan Swift
Hamlet - Shakespeare
Howl, and Other Poems - Allen Ginsberg
Invisible Man - Ralph Ellison
Jude the Obscure - Thomas Hardy
The Jungle - Upton Sinclair
A Lesson Before Dying - Ernest Gaines
Leviathan - Thomas Hobbes
Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov
Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert
Les Miserables - Victor Hugo
My House - Nikki Giovanni
Naked Lunch - William S. Burroughs
Never Love a Stranger - Harolds Robbins
Nineteen eighty-four - George Orwell
Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck
Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest - Ken Kesey
Ordinary People - Judith Guest
The Ox-Bow Incident - Walter Van Tilburg Clark
The Prince - Machiavelli
Rabbit, Run - John Updike
The Red Pony - John Steinbeck
The Satanic Verses - Salman Rushdie
The Scarlet Letter - Nathaniel Hawthorne
A Separate Peace - John Knowles
Sister Carrie - Theodore Dreiser
Slaughterhouse-Five - Kurt Vonnegut
Soul on Ice - Eldridge Cleaver
Strange Fruit - Lillian Eugenia Smith
A Summary View of the Rights of British America - Thomas Jefferson
Tess of the D’Urbervilles - Thomas Hardy
A Thousand Acres - Jane Smiley
Tobacco Road - Erskine Caldwell
Voyages to the Moon and the Sun - Cyrano de Bergerac
Women in Love - D.H. Lawrence"
“Every one of the books in this long list has been censored, most of them repeatedly. Parents, teachers, librarians, school boards, and booksellers have found themselves and their sensibilities challenged by the words between these covers. Even in this lineup, Catcher in the Rye, J. D. Salinger’s epic coming-of-age story from the 1950s, stands out as one of the most censored books of all time. Condemned for qualities that “promote perversion,” this book has been proclaimed “immoral,” “anti-white,” “rebellious,” and “profane.” One parent counted 785 “dirty words” and proclaimed the book to be “Communist.” As you look at these familiar titles, consider whether you find them all to be suitable for yourself, your children, or your grandmother. In many challenges, those objecting to the material haven’t read more than a few passages. Can literature be fairly judged if it is not treated as a whole work? Or, are there some words and ideas that are simply too dangerous or offensive to be read?” (via myimaginarybrooklyn)
(Source: explore.lib.virginia.edu, via myimaginarybrooklyn)
"This is probably going to get quoted in every publication just because I said it. And I’m not even saying anything. I’m not talking about my films, I’m not talking about my life, and I’m not talking about the world. And yet, the media will print it simply because I said it. And at this moment in time, I bet there is an artist around the corner of this hotel, on the street, with a mind far beyond ours, but we will never listen to him simply because he has not appeared in a movie. And that is what is fucked up about our culture."
"Last year over 14,000 Americans were murdered on US soil. Zero by Islamic terrorists. I hope Rep Peter King and his type will start focusing more on who is truly killing our fellow Americans in an effort to save American lives and less on demonizing Muslims for political gain."
"The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. “Wouldn’t you say,” she asked, “that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?” No, I said, I wouldn’t say that. “But what about Basketball Diaries?” she asked. “Doesn’t that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?” The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it’s unlikely the Columbine killers saw it. The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. “Events like this,” I said, “if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn’t have messed with me. I’ll go out in a blaze of glory.”
In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of “explaining” them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy."
"Historian William Blum recently documented that, since 1945, the US has attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, has grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries and has dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 others."
"Today I forgive all those who have ever offended me. I give my love to all thirsty hearts, both to those who love me and those who do not love me."
"Nonviolence declares that the American Indians could have fought off Columbus, George Washington, and all the other genocidal butchers with sit-ins; that Crazy Horse, by using violent resistance, became part of the cycle of violence, and “as bad as” Custer. Nonviolence declares that Africans could have stopped the slave trade with hunger strikes and petitions, and that those who mutinied were as bad as their captors; that mutiny, a form of violence, led to more violence, and thus, resistance led to more enslavement. Nonviolence refuses to recognize that it can only work for privileged people, who have a status protected by violence, as the perpetrators and beneficiaries of a violent hierarchy."
—Peter Gelderloos, Why Nonviolence Protects the State- Nonviolence is Racist (via thefullmetalbitch)
I would like to have this on my blog again.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot. I’m always glad to see people being productively critical of non-violent discourse, but I think there’s a tricky line as well, where it’s turning into “If you choose non-violent resistance, you’re an apologist sell out”, where non-violent discourse is being painted as a purely neo-colonialist phenomenon. What about Native peoples who do believe in non-violent resistance, even now in hind sight, and it’s not apologist politics? I say this after extended conversations with a Mi’kmaq professor and her son, who made me embarrassed about the ways I talked about non-violence. What about Palestinians who think violent resistance is justified but no longer working to their advantage? Non-violent resistance can mean different things. What do we mean by violence and non-violence anyway? When I think of violence, I think of the imperialist/colonial state apparatus that is fueled by violence in both the visible/physical and invisible/systemic/psychological forms, with the latter being key. Which is to say, I actually don’t imagine resistant violence to actually be violence per se, which is why I ask: is there room to think and talk about a “non-violent resistance” that speaks outside of the above parameters, that is subversive and “violent” but not merely in the corporeal sense? Is there a way to engage in so-called “non violence” without being consumed by the foundational violence of the structures we are working within?
These are just impulsively written thoughts, don’t take them as fully formed or anything.
I used to be profoundly anti-violent resistance. And most of that was because I, coming from a position of ignorance and privilege, was taught that violent resistance was not resistance, but generally random explosive violence without cause or purpose. Thus, I should be afraid of it and if ever called upon to participate, instantly refuse. It was generally understood to be the hallmark of an inherent flaw in the marginalized population who had finally had enough—their anger, their irrationality, their inability to reason, etc. The stance on violent resistance ignored historical and social truth, racism and other -isms, to further demonize and dehumanize communities. It still does.
I do not personally believe that certain forms of non-violent resistance are an emblem of the selling out or weakening of a movement. I believe that the privileging of non-violence (instead of viewing it as one of any given number of tactics or strategies or the like) in common modern discourse is NOT an accident or anything other than a calculated move and it is that very same elevation of nonviolence as the ONLY ‘right’/’moral’ way to revolt that is so, so wrong.
I know it is no coincidence that schools in the US revere Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. for their ‘nonviolence’, but will never talk about the violence that was ever present in both their societies and the movements of resistance around them. Oftentimes, it is not the nonviolent act itself that is reactionary but the credence it is given at the expense of all other forms of resistance.
The other questions you raise are good ones as well and I’ll probably be thinking about them for quite some time to come.