Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centur

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Buff+Jun 8 2005, 09:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Jun 8 2005, 09:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cheese@Jun 8 2005, 01:05 PM
Forgot one....

The Bible

I don't think it is harmfull at all. [/b][/quote]
Well as far as I know a large number of atrocities in the history of the world have been committed in it's name (or God's name). I'm sure some history buffs could give us countless examples.

But personally I don't believe books can be evil so I'd say it's the so called Christians who were acting with evil intentions.

We will fight the heathens! Convert by force if necessary! Heh

But the logic that one might use to say the Bible is evil is the same that these Conservatives are using to say that Marx's works for example are evil as far as I can tell.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@Jun 8 2005, 03:47 PM
But the logic that one might use to say the Bible is evil is the same that these Conservatives are using to say that Marx's works for example are evil as far as I can tell.

Exactly.

They followed the words -- at least their interpretation of them, and did bad things.

The whole premise of this little list seems to be "if these books hadn't been written, this stuff wouldn't have happened". It's a pretty effing stupid approach, there is no doubt about that. Like, would we all believe the earth was 6000 years old if the Beagle had sunk in the harbor, taking Darwin down with it?

Another thing they failed to take into account -- the guys following the first book had a big role in defeating the guy who wrote the second book. My heavens, think of the consequences!

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz+Jun 8 2005, 07:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bring_Back_Shantz @ Jun 8 2005, 07:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Haha! I wanted to do the same, but refrained....

Yeah, I really should have held my tongue. I mean, it's not as though Mein Kampf directly contributed to an incredibly large portion of the German population participating in or at the very least ignoring the murder of 6 million innocent people, simply because they were Jewish......wait......[/b][/quote]
If your implication here is that 'if Mein Kampf hadn't been written, the holocaust wouldn't have happened', you're way off. Read a history book.

If the list was 'Top Ten Evil People of the 20th Century', Hitler would definitely make the list. His book sucked, wasn't popular, and wasn't what propelled him to power. It wasn't influential enough to belong on this list.

edit: looks like you repudiate your position later in the thread. Sounds good.

[MarchHare]

But any critical thinker should evaluate ideas presented to him/her and choose to accept or reject them on their merit.

Except conservatives (or at least the ones who wrote this list) shun critical thinking skills. Take a look at #5 on their list, Democracy and Education. Their rationale for labelling it dangerous?

John Dewey, who lived from 1859 until 1952, was a “progressive” philosopher and leading advocate for secular humanism in American life, who taught at the University of Chicago and at Columbia. He signed the Humanist Manifesto and rejected traditional religion and moral absolutes. In Democracy and Education, in pompous and opaque prose, he disparaged schooling that focused on traditional character development and endowing children with hard knowledge, and encouraged the teaching of thinking “skills” instead.

Emphasis mine.

Anyway, the list is absolutely ridiculous. Take a look at the scoring. The Communist Manifesto was judged to be nearly twice as dangerous as Mein Kamph, which itself was only a mere four points ahead of The Kinsey Report. So in the minds of these conservatives, advocating the genocide of Europe's Jewish population was only just slightly more dangerous than reporting (not making suggestions or conclusions, mind you, just strict recording of the research results) on the sexual behaviour of Americans.

Also, I find it funny that they blame Keynes and FDR for the massive debt the US government has accumulated. The lion's share of the debt was accrued during the Republican administrations of "Saint" Reagan and Bush the elder. Bush Jr. certainly isn't lagging far behind in that endeavour either.

[FlamesAddiction]

I can see most of those books on there I guess.

I personally don't believe that Marx and Engel were dangerous, but people did take their ideas and use them improperly. Stalin and Mao severely bas**rdized Marx and unfortunately, Marx's image took a hit for that.

I'm surpised that Dianetics isn't on that list. That book helped get a lot of those freaky 20th century cults attention.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Jun 8 2005, 07:20 PM

Why was Mein Kampf one of the most harmful books of the 20th century?

The Communist Manifesto 'deforms' people? Books can do that? What is the right 'form'... yours? I suppose all copies should be burned...?

Very, very large books....when dropped on one's head from a considerable height are often deforming. :P

[Incinerator]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Jun 8 2005, 10:59 PM
I can see most of those books on there I guess.

I personally don't believe that Marx and Engel were dangerous, but people did take their ideas and use them improperly. Stalin and Mao severely bas**rdized Marx and unfortunately, Marx's image took a hit for that.

I'm surpised that Dianetics isn't on that list. That book helped get a lot of those freaky 20th century cults attention.

No, Marx and Engels were not dangerous, they were just naive and hypocritical, the Manifesto is practically begging for exploitations and bas**rdizations by truly evil souls like Stalin, Mao and Castro.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Jun 8 2005, 08:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Jun 8 2005, 08:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame Of Liberty@Jun 8 2005, 07:12 PM
Wow? The list is pretty bang on. If I omit gender/feminist issues (obviously conservatives really love this stuff), then

10. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
by John Maynard Keynes

6. Das Kapital
by Karl Marx

3. Quotations from Chairman Mao
by Mao Zedong

2. Mein Kampf
by Adolf Hitler

1. The Communist Manifesto
by Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels

are books that severely deform people and their opinions to these days.

Why was Mein Kampf one of the most harmful books of the 20th century?

The Communist Manifesto 'deforms' people? Books can do that? What is the right 'form'... yours? I suppose all copies should be burned...? [/b][/quote]
Not surprisingly, your post is again full of demagoguery. You know very well that I am against bans on such potentially harmful things as drugs and guns. Yet it does not stop you from suggesting that I am in favor of banning books, thus making me look like inquisitor. I challenge you to find my post where I wanted something to be banned.

As for your "point." If you weren’t such a nitpicker you would realize no one is suggesting that books themselves do the harm. But let me explain it to you – it is the views and ideas in those books. Do you dispute that those books and their respective authors have great influence over lots and lots of people? It is this influence that is harmful, along with consequences of actions caused by such influential views

Communist, fascist and nazi ideas have destruction, tyranny, murder and oppression at their core. One cannot say that Marx was "kind of right" and when the Soviets put his ideas into practice "it just didn’t work out." Exactly this kind of thinking shows that to this day it is not properly understood what is Marxism all about. Many people still believe that evil capitalists exploit laborers or that big profits are made at the expense of the poor. Of course, they behave accordingly (during the elections, for example), they demand socialization of the economy and whole society, because they believe socialism is at least partially right and we have to be "balanced". The result? Poverty, parasitisation and lack of freedom all over the world. Do I think that is harmful? You bet I do.

I hope you excuse me when I say that murderous ideas are harmful. I hope you excuse me when I say that tyranny is not a right `form` of social interaction. However, I am afraid that your relativistic mind will not understand it.

PS Nice jab DFF. Cheap, but nice.

[Displaced Flames fan]

FOL....wasn't really jabbing, honestly! Just playing on words and answering the question Ag put forth and trying to be a comedian.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+Jun 8 2005, 02:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ Jun 8 2005, 02:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bring_Back_Shantz@Jun 8 2005, 07:53 PM
Alright, fine, the book itself isn't evil, but the ideas it contained were dangerous and ultimately very harmful, and that makes the book dangerous.

But I suppose I could argue that a book on it's own is harmful or dangerous. No one is going to argue that a gun when used for it's intended purpose is dangerous and will cause harm. Mein Kampf was written with one purpose in mind. To disseminate ideals of hatred. So I suppose when you take into account the intent of the book then yes you could say it is evil or dangerous.

There are a lot of books about racism, but for the most part the ones I'd consider to be not evil or dangerous are written ABOUT racism, as a means to analyze or document it. Mein Kampf was written to perpetuate and validate it, something that I'm sure a lot of people would agree is evil.

But the book doesn't mysteriously "perpetuate" ideas all by itself. It only perpetuates these ideas if people agree with them. Reading a book that promotes racism does not suddenly make me a racist unless I choose to believe those ideas. Books can't change your ideas, ideals and philosophies unless you decide you believe what the author is saying.

So I guess this issue can be applied to other areas of life and it's a contentious one amongst "conformists" vs "free thinkers" as I've decided to term them. There's a group of people that wants to control everything you read or hear so that you aren't exposed to "dangerous" or "evil" ideas. Another group of people would say, let everyone read what they want and they'll decide for themselves what ideas, ideals and philosophies they believe in. Only when those ideas are put into action is when those people should be judged.

What's interesting is that the idea of "free speech" would tend to indicate allowing anything but we do seem to make some exceptions. [/b][/quote]
Okay, how would you feel about this book being required reading in schools today?
You give something like this to children (as was the case) and it becomes dangerous because they are the ones that are suceptible to this kind of stuff.

Fine, I'll conceede that books themselves aren't evil, but as far as books of the 20th century that became the most influential for an evil, or harmful purpose, I think you'd all agree that this is one of them.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Jun 8 2005, 04:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Jun 8 2005, 04:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Yeah, I really should have held my tongue. I mean, it's not as though Mein Kampf directly contributed to an incredibly large portion of the German population participating in or at the very least ignoring the murder of 6 million innocent people, simply because they were Jewish......wait......

If your implication here is that 'if Mein Kampf hadn't been written, the holocaust wouldn't have happened', you're way off. Read a history book.

If the list was 'Top Ten Evil People of the 20th Century', Hitler would definitely make the list. His book sucked, wasn't popular, and wasn't what propelled him to power. It wasn't influential enough to belong on this list.

edit: looks like you repudiate your position later in the thread. Sounds good. [/b][/quote]
Where did I say that it was the cause of the halocaust. Nowhere. I said it contributed, there is a big difference. And the freakin book was mandatory reading for the Hitler Youth, and by the end, membership in the Hitler Youth was madatory (hell, even the pope had to join up). You have that many people reading it and being preached to that it is the gospel truth, and it's gonna have some influence.

[Frank the Tank]

I'd have to add Watership Down to that list. I mean, come on! Talking animals!!!! Bunch of Pagan Devil-worshipers!

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Jun 9 2005, 02:33 PM
Okay, how would you feel about this book being required reading in schools today?
You give something like this to children (as was the case) and it becomes dangerous because they are the ones that are suceptible to this kind of stuff.

I already addressed that earlier in this thread.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jun 9 2005, 11:07 AM
Communist, fascist and nazi ideas have destruction, tyranny, murder and oppression at their core. One cannot say that Marx was "kind of right" and when the Soviets put his ideas into practice "it just didn’t work out." Exactly this kind of thinking shows that to this day it is not properly understood what is Marxism all about. Many people still believe that evil capitalists exploit laborers or that big profits are made at the expense of the poor. Of course, they behave accordingly (during the elections, for example), they demand socialization of the economy and whole society, because they believe socialism is at least partially right and we have to be "balanced". The result? Poverty, parasitisation and lack of freedom all over the world. Do I think that is harmful? You bet I do.

PS Nice jab DFF. Cheap, but nice.

Capitalsim has selfishness as a core ideal. Is that evil? Capitalism often ends up as a cloaked tyranny of the rich, is that good? Big profits are made at the expense of the lower eschelon working class, do you deny that? It's pretty obvious it's the case. Capitalism has promoted sweatshops by it's very nature. With profit as the only ruling value, exploitation of workers and the environment is a natural conclusion. Government who's goal is to look after the good of the people has become corrupted by corporate self-interest.

Earth to FOL, there's problems with every system. Capitalism is not the perfect ideal that you are attempting to make it out as.

As for DFF's "jab", it would appear you've misread his intent as per his post. Not sure how you got "jab" out of that, it was clearly a joke and a funny one IMO.

You seem to be the poster most consistently out of touch with reality on this board. Congratulations, that's a fine accomplishment.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Jun 9 2005, 02:36 PM
Where did I say that it was the cause of the halocaust. Nowhere. I said it contributed, there is a big difference. And the freakin book was mandatory reading for the Hitler Youth, and by the end, membership in the Hitler Youth was madatory (hell, even the pope had to join up). You have that many people reading it and being preached to that it is the gospel truth, and it's gonna have some influence.

Again I have to ask, is it the book that is the problem or is it that an authority figure is promoting it?

Having the book out there does not propogate racism. Having people in positions of authority recommending it and enforcing reading it does. But then, do they have to have a book to do that? Could it be a powerpoint presentation? Could it be a speech? So what does it all boil down to in the end? It's about people in leadership and what values they promote. Not the book itself. At least that's how I see it.

Why would someone choose to read a racist doctrine unless recommending to by someone else? Out of all the books out there what would possess someone to read something promoting hate and racism? Somebody who already believes in those things might read it, someone researching such a thing might read it. Either way it's not out there converting people to or propagating racism by itself. It only gains power if you give it power in your own life or somebody in a position of authority or leadership who also believes those values recommends it.

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Jun 9 2005, 04:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Jun 9 2005, 04:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Communist, <snip> ideas have destruction, tyranny, murder and oppression at their core. One cannot say that Marx was "kind of right" and when the Soviets put his ideas into practice "it just didn’t work out." Exactly this kind of thinking shows that to this day it is not properly understood what is Marxism all about. [/b]

I'm sorry, but you're way out to lunch on this one. Have you READ the Communist Manifesto? It's pretty short, I think you could probably find the time in between your libertarian rants to give it another perusal. I'd like you to show me where, exactly, the oppression comes in. We ARE talking about the book here, you know, not Soviet Russia and its perversion of Marx's writings.

Furthermore I'd be surprised if communism at all spread even if the Manifesto was required reading in school. It's met with a certain degree of, I don't know, skepticism, when read these days.

<!--QuoteBegin-"Flame of Liberty"
Many people still believe that evil capitalists exploit laborers or that big profits are made at the expense of the poor. Of course, they behave accordingly (during the elections, for example), they demand socialization of the economy and whole society, because they believe socialism is at least partially right and we have to be "balanced". The result? Poverty, parasitisation and lack of freedom all over the world. Do I think that is harmful? You bet I do.[/quote]

Yeah, many people do believe that. You know why? Because it's, you know, true. It happens. Read about the export processing zones in South East Asia and tell me how that is not exploitation of the poor by the rich. I'm really eager to see you jump through the hoops to try and justify that one.

I am a socialist, to a greater or lesser extent, and I wouldn't really consider that it leads to "poverty, parasitisation (I don't even know what that is), and lack of freedom" all over the world. In fact, I think socialism has the answers to a lot of capitalisms problems (though I admit it has many problems of its own). If capitalism is so freakin wonderful, as you seem to think, why is the world such a shinguard place? You'd think it'd be a bastion of affluence, freedom, and happiness, yet....it's not.

Care to explain?

[CaptainCrunch]

A few things that I'd like to bring up.

I think that we should actually promote the reading of Mein Kampf and the communist manefesto and other things in the right environment in schools. Sometimes we're so hell bent on protecting people from books and ideas in books that we're going to forget the lessons of the past.

Why Mein Kampf you might ask me, isn't that a book that promotes dangerous and evil ideas? And you'd be right, however the only way to prevent a hitler from rising in your mists is to understand his motivation, and there's no better place to find that then a book written by the man.

The communist manefesto, no problem, because the communism that he was talking about is a far different thing from "War" Communism as created by Lenin and then further warped by Stalin. The oppression and evil came not from the economic system, but from the implementation by hardened nasty 19th and early 20th century by victims of a Tsarist regime who couldn't let go of thier hate of the old ways, and thier mistrust of thier own citizens.

Quotations from Mao, again a mass murderer and fierce communist, but what better way to create discussion and analyse the man then reading that book.

Books like this are only dangerous if people read them and accept them without argument or discussion, kinda like using the T.V. as a baby sitter can be dangerous or mind warping without the discussion and supervision by parents.

Just my 2 cents

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Good points Cap'n

[Incinerator]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@Jun 9 2005, 04:15 PM
Good points Cap'n

Agreed, I have read all 3 of them, the Mao in its original, and these works only serves to further educate me on the evils in this world.

[octothorp]

My own two cents is that the only time a book is inherently harmful is when it's written as a tool of mass propaganda rather than as an exchange of ideas and discourse, and when questioning of the book is discouraged or punished. Of the above books, only the first three might be taken as a form of propaganda, and only Mao's was used on a mass scale for those purposes. I'd also list the Book of Mormon as another harmful book written in the last two centuries, given that it was intended as a propaganda tool and was used effectively to that end. This isn't getting into the validity of ideas in the book or the motives of its authors, which would spark a huge debate in itself--just the idea of book as mass propaganda.

Of course any book--even those that have been used as propaganda--can be reclaimed and used wisely by critical readers. In today's culture, books are almost synonymous with critical reading: there are very few environments (some church environments, but not all) where books are not read with a critical mind. It's hard for us to imagine an environment where books were sometimes read and absorbed as mindlessly as people now watch TV.