Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Saturday October 26, @05:04PM   Printer-friendly
from the here-there-be-idiots dept.

This isn't really tech-centric but, sadly, it reflects on the times. A Texas board has declared a non-fiction book as fiction so it can be banned.

[...] this new twist belongs to one county in Texas, which has given certain people the power to unilaterally decide what is or isn't factual.

  • [A] decision made this month in a county near Houston left us stunned. The Montgomery County Commissioners Court ordered librarians there to reclassify the nonfiction children's book "Colonization and the Wampanoag Story" as fiction.

  • This reclassification decision is a consequence of a contentious policy change in March. Right-wing activists pressured the Montgomery County Commissioners Court to remove librarians from the review process for challenged children's, young adult and parenting books.

  • [...] Shortly thereafter, the newly formed Montgomery County "Citizens Review Committee" reclassified "Colonization and the Wampanoag Story" as fiction. The committee reviewed the book in a closed meeting — all its meetings are closed to the public — and it offered no explanation for its decision. The new policy does not allow decisions made by the Citizens Review Committee to be appealed.

That's how you start erasing your own history. You take the librarians out of the equation. Next, you remove the public from the conversation by making these discussions private. Then you give only the citizens you want to hear from — including any non-residents who want to challenge content they don't like — the only invitation to the discussion: the blanket permission to challenge books and/or their classifications. Then you seal it with a court order and pretend this is just citizens protecting each other, rather than the government engaging in censorship on behalf of people who love censorship as long as it only silences the people they don't like.


Original Submission

This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only. Log in and try again!
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Frosty Piss on Saturday October 26, @05:35PM

    by Frosty Piss (4971) on Saturday October 26, @05:35PM (#1378804)

    Folks, it's Texas.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by looorg on Saturday October 26, @06:08PM (13 children)

    by looorg (578) on Saturday October 26, @06:08PM (#1378806)

    It's a bit hard to say. I never even heard of the book, much less read it. I'm not exactly in the demographic. There is an excerpt of the book on the url below. But from what I can gather it's the Colonization of north America by Europeans from the native American perspective as told by some native American girl. As noted I have not read it so it's guesswork on my part based on the cover and the little text there is.

    Is it the word "Truth" that is problematic? It's clearly a work of fiction. But it's that blend of truth and fiction into a story. Or so I gather. After all they have not found anyone alive to interview, there is poor documentation around etc. So it's a bit bold to claim it's the truth. In the same way wouldn't then Columbus, the Pilgrim and the Colonist also tell their truth, or version of the truth? It seems like Children's nonfiction, Fiction and reality is intersecting someplace but it's part of each of them.

    There would seem like there would be a bit of a difference in the story. After all Columbus isn't exactly in the same as the Pilgrims; 1492 vs 1620. Did Columbus even make it as far north as New England? Not to my recollection. But then we don't really get told about the journeys of Columbus in school considering he isn't very important to us and he didn't even know where he was going or ended up (not the same place).

    Is there even a claim that they arrived to a vast and empty land? If anything I think we know that as a fact now that the place was not empty. It might have been largely empty by comparison considering it really is multiple continents he "discovered" (north, central, south, caribbean ...). At least the Vikings told about the place already having people living there, strange tiny people.

    It appears to be part of a book series called "Race to the Truth". Telling thing from the perspective of non-white people; there is a story about a Mexican girl (borderlands and the mexican american story), A Chinese man (exclusion and the chinese american story), The Native american girl (colonization and the wampanoag story) and one from the perspective of a young female african american (Slavery and the african american story).

    I guess it's the combination of words and concepts such as Truth and Race, that they also seem to want to use the double meaning of that word, that isn't going down great with the people in charge. But I guess we can always go with the Adam Savage explanation -- I reject your reality and substitute my own.

    Until now, you’ve only heard one side of the story: the “discovery” of America told by Christopher Columbus, the Pilgrims, and the Colonists. Here’s the true story of America from the Indigenous perspective.

    When you think about the beginning of the American story, what comes to mind? Three ships in 1492, or perhaps buckled hats and shoes stepping off of the Mayflower, ready to start a new country. But the truth is, Christopher Columbus, the Pilgrims, and the Colonists didn’t arrive to a vast, empty land ready to be developed. They arrived to find people and communities living in harmony with the land they had inhabited for thousands of years, and they quickly disrupted everything they saw.

    From its “discovery” by Europeans to the first Thanksgiving, the story of America’s earliest days has been carefully misrepresented. Told from the perspective of the New England Indigenous Nations that these outsiders found when they arrived, this is the true story of how America as we know it today began.

    Why are they using "discovery" in quotes? Did Europeans not discover that there was a land mass there? Not that it was empty. But it was still a discovery to them. It seems that the authors of the series 'Race to the Truth' is wanting to create conflict about things that are not really a conflict. We know it was shit and brutal. But to claim it's a lie and all non-white perspectives are somehow the truth? That seems like they are stretching things and wanting to create conflict.

    https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/692454/colonization-and-the-wampanoag-story-by-linda-coombs/ [penguinrandomhouse.com]
    https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/series/RT4/race-to-the-truth/ [penguinrandomhouse.com]

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by hopdevil on Saturday October 26, @06:20PM

      by hopdevil (3356) on Saturday October 26, @06:20PM (#1378811) Journal

      At least as you are describing it, the genre would be historical fiction?

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Saturday October 26, @06:34PM

      by VLM (445) on Saturday October 26, @06:34PM (#1378813)

      But it's that blend of truth and fiction into a story. Or so I gather.

      I've read the start of it, your assessment is more or less accurate.

      My complaint with is, nobody claims "Blood Meridian" by McCarthy is a non-fictional book. There are no glaring or at least no trivial factual errors about life in the west circa 1849 therefore imagine trying to push Blood Meridian onto kids reading lists using the justification that it's nonfiction.

      Note that I had to read "Killer Angels" at uni as part of a civil war history class and it was heavily disclaimered as merely being realistic historical fiction with many disclaimers about the story. That doesn't make "Historical Fiction" entirely useless because it does teach the reader a heck of a lot about the Battle of Gettysburg. Just don't file it in the non-fiction section at the library.

      Hilariously I found my old copy of "Killer Angels" and my Cliffs Notes for it and there's a line in there and I quote: "The Killer Angels is a great work of historical fiction, but fiction is not and never will be history itself." And that is now an opinion that is hilariously non-Kosher in 2024 and only book burning nazis would agree with it according to the usual suspects, etc. Lets watch 1984 unfold in real time, sort of stuff.

      Note that if "Colonization and the Wampanoag Story" is used to redefine the meaning of nonfiction, then the bible would also qualify as nonfiction and should be assigned reading and taught to students in public schools... Certainly its more important to civilization and history and has more archeological historical backing than the kids book in the story. Everyone involved is on a crazy chess set looking a zillion steps ahead so keep in mind an injunction or new law redefining the definition of non-fiction could lead directly to the kids in class being assigned "The Gospel of John" from the Bible.

      The tragedy of it, is the book might even be a halfway good kids book; hard for me to say, although its obviously political propaganda and biased its still worth reading just like Mein Kampf or The Diary of Anne Frank. But by both sides trying to weaponize it, the kids won't get to read it and even if they are forced to read propaganda it'll forever taint the book and whatever good they could have gotten from it. My point being that by analogy a book like "Killer Angels" is obviously fictional but is also a heck of a good way to learn about the Battle of Gettysburg in general and the net effect of trying to weaponize "The Pilgrims" or whatever is kids are going to learn less about it as a net result. Maybe that was the long term goal all along, who knows with "those people" and their endless pushiness.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Saturday October 26, @07:10PM (9 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday October 26, @07:10PM (#1378819)

      >After all they have not found anyone alive to interview, there is poor documentation around etc.

      You just described every historical text about every era before about 1840 written more than 100 years after the subject passed. By this logic, history departments of the universities of the world might as well re-label themselves creative writing departments labelling all their work as fiction. Similarly archeology, paleontology, any ology of the past, and much of astronomy, because they all are weaving hypotheses between little snippets of tenuous evidence into stories that engage their audiences.

      In this case, the brown girl who grew up in a brown family is probably the best source in existence to tell that particular story from the brown point of view. If the brown point of view is now considered fiction, I submit that all the white historians output should be similarly scrutinized and labeled for what is outright fiction, and the quality of the evidence they are using as their factual basis: is it hear-say from descendants? Did the actual participants in the events write something down (from their perspective) at the time of the event, or perhaps weeks or maybe decades later? Does physical evidence exist that corroborates their stories? What is the provenance of the physical evidence, was it discovered by a farmer in his field years before being turned over for forensic study?

      I'm all for truth in labeling, transparency. Binary labels like fiction vs non fiction are 100% inaccurate, even the most fantastical fiction has basis in real historical events, if it didn't it wouldn't be relatable for the audiences. Selective censorship based on the authors' cultural background is absolutely antithetical to the principals of U.S. governance that I was taught in various schools from 1972 until 1984.

      In the timeline where these people get what they are driving toward, I hope they enjoy the new proletariat health plan: vodka rationing coupons to reduce the negative consequences of excessive alcohol consumption on the workers.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by looorg on Saturday October 26, @07:53PM (3 children)

        by looorg (578) on Saturday October 26, @07:53PM (#1378828)

        You just described every historical text about every era before about 1840 written more than 100 years after the subject passed. By this logic, history departments of the universities of the world might as well re-label themselves creative writing departments labelling all their work as fiction. Similarly archeology, paleontology, any ology of the past, and much of astronomy, because they all are weaving hypotheses between little snippets of tenuous evidence into stories that engage their audiences.

        In some regard Yes. But in others a large portion of those books are based on observations and best guesses of our understanding at this point in time. They don't claim that this is the definitive truth. After all the are rows upon rows of books that was once upon a time thought to be the truth, and then we learned more or better and they then became relegated to the bookshelf of history.

        These books in the 'Race to the Truth' series might be well researched book on the historical facts as we know them today. Then they weaved that into a children's book story. So it's now a blend. It could be popular science, popular fiction or historical fiction. But it's now a blend. Which parts are true? Which are fiction? Which are there to make it into a good story? To spice things up a bit. Which part of the truth got glossed over and so on. America was after all not some kind of lost paradise world before the Europeans arrived.

        It could still be a good and well researched story. I just don't know if a historical factual story about war, colonization and slavery in all the gruesome details is a good children's story. I assume a lot of them have been glossed over here since after all the target demographic for these books are children at about age 10-12. So I guess they'll gloss over some aspects of history in that regard.

        But there seems to be more issues then one here. Which perspective is the truth? Theirs? Columbus? Historically winners write the truth. These people where not the winners. One could think, or suspect that, they might have an axe to grind in that regard. That is what I would find to be problematic here, the claim that this is the truth -- and that in some regard then that the other story is a lie. They seem to heavily want to lean into conflicts. Conflicts perhaps not best explained in a children's story. But I could be wrong.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday October 26, @08:38PM (1 child)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday October 26, @08:38PM (#1378836)

          >I just don't know if a historical factual story about war, colonization and slavery in all the gruesome details is a good children's story

          The Grimm brothers had a certain way with such things...

          Also: Ring around the Rosie pocket full of posies ashes ashes we all fall down isn't just fun to sing, it's educational about a rather gruesome topic relevant to children the day.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday October 26, @08:49PM

            by looorg (578) on Saturday October 26, @08:49PM (#1378840)

            >I just don't know if a historical factual story about war, colonization and slavery in all the gruesome details is a good children's story

            The Grimm brothers had a certain way with such things...

            They sure did. But those were different times. Pre-Disney times.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday October 26, @08:49PM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday October 26, @08:49PM (#1378841)

          >now a blend. Which parts are true? Which are fiction? Which are there to make it into a good story? To spice things up a bit. Which part of the truth got glossed over and so on.

          This is universally true of historical writing.

          Lately I'm writing a narrative and I find myself addicted to footnotes with extra exposition that gives background to the main flow of the text. With today's technology, the "reader facing" story could easily be hyperlink referenced to all kinds of information about the text. The text itself could toggle between black and white for story enjoyment, and various color keys for the categories you mention: hard fact, fiction for the storyline, contemporary interest / relatability spice, and hot links to relevant facts (as best we know them at the time of writing) that were neglected for the storyline. Controversial stories could have easily switched color keys from different analysis perspectives.

          Transparency is always the (best) answer. It's extra work, but if a story is worth this much controversy, then a point -counterpoint commentary from the various sides would seem to be far preferable to censorship and closed door power plays.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Saturday October 26, @08:17PM (2 children)

        by VLM (445) on Saturday October 26, @08:17PM (#1378831)

        Possibly I might shine some light on the situation by considering hard vs soft science fiction vs nonfictional popular science books.

        1) Asimov (the sci fi author) wrote a pretty good non-fictional book titled "The Human Body" in the early 60s. Its a bit out of date and "falsifiable" now, but would not be a bad textbook for high school kids in the 60s, maybe up to today if you're not overly concerned about details that mostly don't really matter much in day to day life. Its not a narrative and plus or minus typos I don't immediately recall any factual errors as of the early 60s. Its young enough to have a sensible treatment of the Krebs cycle but too old (I think?) to have any rational discussion of the Glyoxylate cycle from the 60s/70s (crude paraphrasing, Krebs is for life that breathes and explains how to burn nutrition macros for energy, Glyoxylate is the same thing but for anerobic bacteria and fungi and hand wavy "non-breathing lifeforms")

        2) "The Martian" sci fi is at least factually semi plausible (although it totally Fs up the aerodynamics and the entire plot of the book is wildly inaccurate, "Fast winds" that are a near vacuum don't have enough force to tip anything over) and that facts of the story are falsifiable (see previous criticism) but its TOTALLY fictional in the sense that people only spoke those lines from the movie script in the context of the movie script, unless you think space aliens have helped up make a secret mars base etc. Anyone whom insists on putting "The Martian" in a 600.something series Dewey Decimal stack instead of in the fiction section of the library is crazy. Same situation exactly with the propaganda story in the article. Hard sci fi is falsifiable and mostly as non-false as the author could get it, but is still completely fictional.

        3) "Return of the Jedi" sci fi is purely fictional entertainment. I hope I don't have to explain that one.

        So the scam being discussed is to write a book in class #2 above and sell it as class #1 above and divert any criticism of the propaganda elements as being a critique of the entire scientific method, or claim anyone who doesn't think it belongs in class 2 falsely thinks it belongs in class 3 and therefore anything they say is wrong, etc, just the usual sophistry from group of people who only use sophistry for everything.

        archeology ... weaving hypotheses between little snippets of tenuous evidence into stories that engage their audiences.

        Well actually no that's not how it works, consider the difference between academic factual research about Julius Caesar vs the script of the play "Julius Caesar" by Shakespeare. Academic research is likely true and ideally follows the scientific method, etc. Take for example research about the physical characteristics and inscriptions on the monument "The Deeds of the Divine Augustus" which is a building with a bunch of writing about Augustus more or less tangentially mentioning his predecessor JC a few times IIRC. However one thing we can be certain of about the play is none of the characters IRL ever spoke 1600s English as written in the fictional script. "Based mostly on a mostly true story" sure, but the script is entirely fictional and entirely fabricated for entertainment purposes. The book in the article is the latter, not the former.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday October 26, @08:53PM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday October 26, @08:53PM (#1378844)

          You have to dig deeper for Lucas's bases in reality for Jedi (Imperial-Nazis isn't too hard), but finding Vietnam commentary in Cameron's Avatar is trivial.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday October 27, @02:50AM

          by Reziac (2489) on Sunday October 27, @02:50AM (#1378898) Homepage

          That was kinda my thought (your two Caesars). There are plenty of journals from the era, including IIRC from a few natives who became literate; those are much closer to factual (if each biased by the author's perceptions) as at least they came from on the spot and at the time. Fictionalized history is not the same, even if it's mostly accurate.

          --
          And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27, @12:13AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27, @12:13AM (#1378879)

        An Excerpt from Colonization and the Wampanoag Story. Colonization and the Wampanoag Story. Chapter 1. When Life Was Our Own: Spring and the Time of the New Year. Greeting the Day. Little Bird felt a slight breeze on her face and the sudden warmth of the morning sun, bidding her to open her eyes to a new day. Her body resisted rousing from the...

        That is fiction. It may be a realistic portrayal of the life of a little girl at the time, but it is still fiction.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday October 27, @01:22AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 27, @01:22AM (#1378885) Journal

        In this case, the brown girl who grew up in a brown family is probably the best source in existence to tell that particular story from the brown point of view. If the brown point of view is now considered fiction, I submit that all the white historians output should be similarly scrutinized and labeled for what is outright fiction, and the quality of the evidence they are using as their factual basis: is it hear-say from descendants? Did the actual participants in the events write something down (from their perspective) at the time of the event, or perhaps weeks or maybe decades later? Does physical evidence exist that corroborates their stories? What is the provenance of the physical evidence, was it discovered by a farmer in his field years before being turned over for forensic study?

        It's a fictional brown girl and the point of view is the author of the story. There are ways this could be made a genuine nonfiction book, but I don't see signs of those. For example, Flatland or stories about the twin paradox where one travels at relativistic speeds and the other does not. That is, the story is secondary to the knowledge being imparted.

        Having said that, there's no justifiable grounds for banning that book even if it is transparent propaganda as claimed.

    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by ChrisMaple on Monday October 28, @03:31AM

      by ChrisMaple (6964) on Monday October 28, @03:31AM (#1379036)

      They arrived to find people and communities living in harmony with the land they had inhabited for thousands of years, and they quickly disrupted everything they saw.

      Indian tribes varied a great deal. Some were agricultural and/or hunter-gatherers. Some were nomadic. Some were mostly peaceful, a few aggressively violent. "Living in harmony with the land" is a joke. There was little that could be called civilization; life was uncomfortable and short. Those in eastern North America who saw the advantages of European knowledge and integrated into English culture had a good chance to thrive, and I suspect the same was true in French areas. Naturally, those who integrated were lost into the broad sweep of history. Tribes and individuals who chose to remain separate often had a hard time of it and attracted unscrupulous villains.

      There's fault to be found on both sides, but only the French-English side lead to advanced civilization.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Saturday October 26, @06:10PM (5 children)

    by VLM (445) on Saturday October 26, @06:10PM (#1378807)

    Its the usual big lie, make a loud noise and hope nobody notices the truth and throw around a bunch of pre-emptive slurs and rants about related topics. Its a fiction story and the "new" way to push propaganda is to write a fictional story and sell it as non-fiction. Kind of like the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

    The book seems to be in the tradition of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" or "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" or "The Diary of Anne Frank". As propaganda for kids, its not overly detailed or complicated, so its not up to the level of a fictionalized realistic treatment like "The Killer Angels" or some of Hunter S Thompson's books. A pretty good analogy to the book would be Hemmingway's "Old Man and the Sea" or maybe "Call of the Wild". It seems to be a good deal less factual than something autobiographical like "Little House on the Prairie".

    You can read the first few pages online for free. Possibly the middle or end of the book are entirely different; donno. Unlike most of the people on both sides giving the knee-jerk reaction from their divide and conqueror assignments, I actually read the first little bit of the book. Its a narrative fictional story of a native tween named "Little Bird" aged 12, and it seems to be exactly the kind of political propaganda you'd expect based on the news media treatment.

    Leftism can't survive without propaganda and censorship, so expect tons of both in regards to this overall story in the legacy media. I can't imagine why trust in the legacy media is lower every year, can't possibly be related to stuff like this, LOL (that was sarcasm).

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Sunday October 27, @02:14AM (1 child)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 27, @02:14AM (#1378892) Journal

      "The Diary of Anne Frank"

      One is not like the others. Anne Frank actually wrote the diary. The diary is abridged (as I recall by her father), but not in a way that would make it fiction like the other two.

      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 28, @01:03PM

        by VLM (445) on Monday October 28, @01:03PM (#1379070)

        The diary is abridged

        Perhaps extensively edited, but yeah on further research it seems you are correct in this situation.

        I was under the impression it was like "Killer Angels" realistic historical fiction that included occasional primary source quotes, but apparently, it's a highly edited primary source by itself.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by helel on Sunday October 27, @02:39PM (2 children)

      by helel (2949) on Sunday October 27, @02:39PM (#1378954)

      The Big Lie in this case is that the reich wing cares around freedom of speech or the truth. Conservative activists seek to ban an avalanche of books ranging from cute stories about penguins [pbs.org] to scientific information about seahorses [huffpost.com].

      That said, there's certainly room to debate whether these kinds of "history for children" books should be considered fiction or non-fiction. If this Texas board reclassified the huge swath of such books as fiction it would simply indicate they take one view on that question. They didn't. They reclassified one book about Native American history as fiction without touching on the many many similar books about European or white American history. That's sending a message. One people's history is "fiction," another people's history is not.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27, @04:44PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27, @04:44PM (#1378973)

        I think you'll find Clarence Thomas has a nice simple view on the matter. CASE CLOSED!

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 27, @10:04PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 27, @10:04PM (#1379014) Journal

        If this Texas board reclassified the huge swath of such books as fiction it would simply indicate they take one view on that question. They didn't. They reclassified one book about Native American history as fiction without touching on the many many similar books about European or white American history. That's sending a message. One people's history is "fiction," another people's history is not.

        Plus the procedure was done merely as a prelude to banning the book, not any genuine concern about being shelved in the wrong place.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Whoever on Saturday October 26, @06:56PM (15 children)

    by Whoever (4524) on Saturday October 26, @06:56PM (#1378815) Journal

    4 days ago, it was re-classified as non-fiction.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/10/22/texas-indigenous-history-book-fiction/ [washingtonpost.com]

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday October 26, @07:01PM (14 children)

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 26, @07:01PM (#1378817) Journal

      Unfortunately (?) WaPo isn't viewable here unless I pay money or give them my first born as a sacrifice. We rely on community input. Thank you, you have just provided that.

      However, it shows what some people are prepared to do to get things their own way. That in itself is worth a good discussion.

      --
      I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
      • (Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Saturday October 26, @07:18PM (6 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday October 26, @07:18PM (#1378820)

        Ding WaPo all you want for their paywall.

        I feel obligated to hat tip them for this recent move:

        https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4954012-bezos-washington-post-endorsement/ [thehill.com]

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by aafcac on Saturday October 26, @08:49PM (5 children)

          by aafcac (17646) on Saturday October 26, @08:49PM (#1378842)

          That's an argument against reading them. The owner should not have that level of control over the editorial content of a news paper. Especially when he has that much say in general. Papers normally have an editorial board that makes those decisions and for a paper like that to just not endorse anybody because the owner doesn't like it, it absolutely damning. It means that you can't trust any of the coverage of Amazon, it's competitors or any of the subjects in which Bezos has any sort of interest, because they might be holding back on things that are not popular to him, even if they are objectively correct, or more defensible than his views.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday October 26, @09:01PM (4 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday October 26, @09:01PM (#1378845)

            Yes, absolutely. The fact that the editorial board broke this story themselves, in the WaPo, is what deserves the hat tip.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 2) by aafcac on Saturday October 26, @09:08PM (3 children)

              by aafcac (17646) on Saturday October 26, @09:08PM (#1378848)

              Ah, I missed that, still it's pretty damning that anybody is allowed to own a paper on their own. At least when it's a group of owners there's some guard rails in terms of things like this. I don't personally care who they endorse, but any paper should be either coming out with an endorsement or specify why they aren't.

              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday October 26, @09:51PM (1 child)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday October 26, @09:51PM (#1378852)

                Well, they did tell us why...

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 2) by aafcac on Saturday October 26, @10:04PM

                  by aafcac (17646) on Saturday October 26, @10:04PM (#1378853)

                  They did, eventually, my point was that in general any paper, magazine or the like that typically makes endorsements should really indicate a lack of any endorsement when it breaks their regular practice. It's one thing for journals that don't normally make endorsements to not make an endorsement and not mention it, but for ones that do, a non-endosrement of anybody can be pretty damning.

              • (Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Monday October 28, @03:59AM

                by ChrisMaple (6964) on Monday October 28, @03:59AM (#1379038)

                it's pretty damning that anybody is allowed to own a paper on their own.

                That's straightforward opposition to free speech. The next step is totalitarianism.

      • (Score: 1) by day of the dalek on Saturday October 26, @08:26PM

        by day of the dalek (45994) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 26, @08:26PM (#1378833) Journal

        The fact that this happened at all is worthy of discussion, even if the decision was reversed and the book is again classified as nonfiction. For example, several months ago, Escambia County in Florida pulled encyclopedias and dictionaries from school library bookshelves [usatoday.com] to review if they run afoul of the state's ban on sexual content in school libraries. I assume common sense prevailed, and that the encyclopedias and dictionaries are once again on the shelves of school libraries. Still, it's worthy of discussion that there was even a question about whether encyclopedias and dictionaries were subject to the ban. I agree that this topic is worth discussing even if the original decision has been reversed.

        Here is a source that I believe is not paywalled: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/10/26/colonization-and-the-wampanoag-story-texas-book/75811638007/ [usatoday.com].

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26, @08:37PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26, @08:37PM (#1378835)

        Unfortunately (?) WaPo isn't viewable here unless I pay money or give them my first born as a sacrifice.

        cf. Archive.ph

        Like so:
        https://archive.ph/LMnPZ [archive.ph]

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday October 26, @08:45PM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 26, @08:45PM (#1378839) Journal

          LOL - I think that in part you are missing the point. YOU provide the content - the editors prepare it for publication. The initial story was supplied, but nobody considered updating it with a second submission.

          I didn't know that it had been reversed because I do not usually access the WaPo. I am not going searching elsewhere for updates if I don't already know they exist.

          Thanks for the suggestion though, I will include it in future when I think WaPo might have something useful.

          --
          I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
      • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday October 27, @02:52AM (2 children)

        by Reziac (2489) on Sunday October 27, @02:52AM (#1378899) Homepage

        Disable javascript, and you can read WaPo, if you care to. And a good many other paywalled sites.

        --
        And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27, @04:47PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27, @04:47PM (#1378974)

          Firefox has disabled the ability to disable Javascript. Yay? Protecting the children?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30, @05:20PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30, @05:20PM (#1379454)

            Firefox has disabled the ability to disable Javascript. Yay? Protecting the children?

            Yeah...No. Who told you that lie? there are a bunch of addons which allow you to do so.

            The one linked below provides a toggle button next to the URL bar. Although you can do so from about:config as well -- but why bother when you can just click a button to turn javascript off, then click it again to turn it back on?>

            Oh, and you're welcome.

            https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/quick-js-switcher [mozilla.org]

      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday October 30, @05:15PM

        Unfortunately (?) WaPo isn't viewable here unless I pay money or give them my first born as a sacrifice

        How about archive.today?:
        https://archive.ph/LMnPZ [archive.ph]

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Ken_g6 on Saturday October 26, @06:58PM (3 children)

    by Ken_g6 (3706) on Saturday October 26, @06:58PM (#1378816)

    The book's been un-re-classified and un-banned.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/23/texas-indigenous-book-montgomery-libraries [theguardian.com]

    Also, "Citizen review committee will be created after decision ‘outraged’ advocates and community near Houston"

    Of course, that doesn't mean it couldn't happen again elsewhere.

    • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Sunday October 27, @01:46AM (2 children)

      by Mykl (1112) on Sunday October 27, @01:46AM (#1378889)

      Disclaimer: I haven't read any of the book - just going on the comments of those above who have.

      Interesting that they would put it back into the non-fiction category given it certainly sounds like it's fiction. I wonder what political pressure was brought to bear here to do so?

      It also raises a wider question - who gets to decide if a book is fiction or non-fiction? At this point it seems to be entirely up to the author to make that determination!

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by helel on Sunday October 27, @02:53PM

        by helel (2949) on Sunday October 27, @02:53PM (#1378960)

        There's a large number of these "history books for children" these days that have similar formatting and presentation. There's definitely a cultural question as to whether or not they, as a group, should be considered fiction or non-fiction. Their goal is to teach children about real history which would suggest non-fiction but they do it thru narrative framing devices that are fictional.

        If this Texan censorship board reclassified the whole lot of such books as fiction, including the large number about European or white American history, their action would make sense as a position on whether or not these kinds of books are fiction. Seeing as they chose one specific book to reclassify... That sends a different message.

        For what it's worth my local library organizes picture books by subject rather than fiction/non-fiction and it's really a more sensible method, given the nature of these books.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27, @04:50PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27, @04:50PM (#1378976)

        It also raises a wider question - who gets to decide if a book is fiction or non-fiction? At this point it seems to be entirely up to the author to make that determination!

        It also raises the question why people are trying to push the boundaries. If you are writing a book intended to be misunderstood as non-fiction when it isn't, I think it's fair to say you're up to no good. And we need to bear in mind there is a vast, biased, profit-motived, wealthy segment of society constantly doing this.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday October 26, @07:34PM (7 children)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Saturday October 26, @07:34PM (#1378823)

    So... Bible next?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26, @08:43PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26, @08:43PM (#1378838)
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by RamiK on Saturday October 26, @10:21PM (4 children)

      by RamiK (1813) on Saturday October 26, @10:21PM (#1378856)

      I shouldn't be saying this as an atheist but the bible is so self-contradictory, scientifically refutable and open to interpretation on every issue that it easily counts as less kiddie-propaganda than the work in question.

      Like, as a practical matter, I think it's best kids learn the bible (old and new) thoroughly enough to know just how stupid it is (or, alternatively, settle on it being allegoric) than be exposed to consistent and well-constructed non-authentic narratives that take uni-grade comparative literature and history classes to see through their convoluted lies.

      --
      compiling...
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Gaaark on Saturday October 26, @11:15PM (3 children)

        by Gaaark (41) on Saturday October 26, @11:15PM (#1378867) Journal

        Problem is, they aren't given the bible and told to read it and... meh...whatever.

        They are told to read it and take it as the Exact teachings of their God and go to Sunday school and hear the propaganda and the teachings of the 'leader' and brain-wash of the 'church' (and stay quiet if the 'leader' molests you, 'cos who are they gonna believe; some kid or the 'leader').

        People going to church are propagandised from birth and taught not to question the bible or the teachings of the Lord or the 'leader'. They are Cult-ified.

        They don't stand a chance.

        --
        --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
        • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday October 27, @11:23AM (2 children)

          by RamiK (1813) on Sunday October 27, @11:23AM (#1378929)

          Well, it depends? I mean, even without reading scriptures directly, books like The Bible and Its Influence [wikipedia.org] certainly seem to be genuine attempts at teaching about the bible in a academic, secular approach to kids in US public schools at least going by their list of contributors and reviewers: https://archive.org/details/bibleitsinfluenc0000cull/page/n5/mode/2up?view=theater [archive.org]

          Point is, when you teach about the bible, you're teaching how to differentiate critical controversies over interpretations from the typical bible thumping. However, when you teach subject matters like (anti-)colonialism using narratives (and a fictitious one at that...), you're not going to present opposite views in a critical way meaning the kids will be left unable to reconcile between how the US is both colonial (the natives Americans) and anti-colonial (the British). Which brings us to the two self-righteous extremes on the left and right...

          --
          compiling...
          • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday October 27, @05:46PM (1 child)

            by Gaaark (41) on Sunday October 27, @05:46PM (#1378986) Journal

            Well, there's always warts:

            Co-author Chuck P. Stetson, Jr. [Wikidata] is a Christian Evangelical educational political activist. Stetson serves as chairman of the "Bible Literacy Project", an organization which strives to introduce Christian beliefs into the American public school system. Stetson was also one of the founding members of the National Organization for Marriage, a group dedicated to blocking the legalization of same-sex marriage in the US. Stetson was also long affiliated with Charles Colson.[6]

            But these children learning from this textbook; they are then going to Church and learning their Church and leaders interpretation of the Bible itself, which always taints learning, and usually this is from birth.

            Kids can learn from a textbook that the Earth is REALLY old, but if their Church and leaders interpretation of the Bible is that it is only 6000 years old and the kid is fed this from birth, what chance does the kid have?

            --
            --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
            • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday October 27, @09:54PM

              by RamiK (1813) on Sunday October 27, @09:54PM (#1379012)

              The bible IS indisputably homophobic and on the extreme end at that. You can reason it as due to it misunderstanding of how human reproduction works (which is consistent with other things the bible says) and perhaps argue there's some "love thy neighbor" type workarounds to allow some Christians to tolerate homosexuality in most contexts and so on... But, that's a religious debate the state should simply not take part in. Instead, the proper fix is to simply replace all mentions of "marriage" in the law with "civil union" and let anyone who wants to register such a union do so.

              Regardless, on the topic of a book and program aiming to teach kids the issue, it's necessary to present the various points above along with the different views (Catholic, Evangelical, Secular...) instead of censoring one particular viewpoint or the next. If what they learn at Church overlaps or contradicts what this book says, it's all the better since they get to see there's even MORE viewpoints beyond the book' summary. The point isn't to convince them of your viewpoint but alert them that there's multiple viewpoints beyond what their Church teaches and leave it up to them to choose what they want to believe. With enough exposure to various topics and interpretation, most people will find themselves disagreeing with their religious leaders on one topic or the next. And once that's happens, you get them being critical about everything. Which, is precisely what both real Christians as well as agnostics and atheists want you to do when reading scripture.

              --
              compiling...
    • (Score: 2) by anotherblackhat on Saturday October 26, @10:28PM

      by anotherblackhat (4722) on Saturday October 26, @10:28PM (#1378857)

      I think the law itself should be next — the politicians are clearly writing about a fantasy land.

      The evil part isn't the book being fiction or non-fiction, but that the censorship board is claiming that they are the authority on what is or is not fiction.
      If a judgement call is required, then have a judge make it.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26, @08:24PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26, @08:24PM (#1378832)

    What would Runaway do?

    As a side note, is dramatization different from fictionalization? And aren't some classroom history books just a giant game of "Chinese whispers"? Like the bible (yes, it is a "history" book of sorts)?

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Saturday October 26, @09:02PM (1 child)

      by VLM (445) on Saturday October 26, @09:02PM (#1378846)

      Probably just trolling but there's a super interesting Wikipedia article on that topic that's extremely long:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible [wikipedia.org]

      Note that academic, literature style history is a pretty new invention. Compared to Herodotus's "Histories" the bible is probably more accurate in general.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histories_(Herodotus)#Reliability [wikipedia.org]

      for example:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold-digging_ant [wikipedia.org]

      Generally books work best at meeting their purpose rather than some other random purpose someone selected for fun later on. So if you want to learn the civilization defining characteristics of the Bible and its effects on various world events then the bible is pretty handy as a primary source. If you want to learn the mathematical value of Pi, then famously, it only provides it to one sig fig with a value of "3". I would not recommend the bible as a way to learn about the history of Australia or Korea, for example, and it has very little to say about dinosaurs or calculus. Although its a pretty good primary source to learn the history and philosophy of the western world in a VERY broad general sense or learn about the early history of Christianity.

      Trying to learn the history of mathematics, or tiresomely academic style history in general, from the bible would be like trying to learn the philosophical underpinnings of organic chemistry from reading the philosophical writings of Nietzsche. It's not going to work very well, will not be entirely ineffective, but that doesn't mean the book is abstractly "wrong" or "inaccurate" whatever that means, its just means trying to cram a square peg in a round hole won't work without a really big hammer or very broad acceptance of what is meant by "fits in the hole".

      Overall it seems accurate enough to meet its purpose. Or its lack of modern academic historicalisms and lack of whatever else it's missing hasn't stopped it from being very influential.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Reziac on Sunday October 27, @02:59AM

        by Reziac (2489) on Sunday October 27, @02:59AM (#1378900) Homepage

        I was wandering through the Old Testament one day, to no particular purpose (I'm not a believer, but parts are interesting) and landed on some story about local people's doings... which was interrupted by what was clearly a tax receipt (so-and-so owned so many goats, so many sheep, and paid X-much tax in his home city, and so on). It was about a handwritten page worth, then the previous narrative resumed. I assume some early scribe put the wrong papyrus in the wrong stack, and it just got copied along with everything else.

        Either that, or the Divine Will is "Pay your taxes."

        --
        And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
  • (Score: 4, Touché) by Username on Sunday October 27, @12:52AM

    by Username (4557) on Sunday October 27, @12:52AM (#1378883)

    The Disney film should be in nonfiction as well. How dare they undermine real history like that. It's settled science.

  • (Score: 2) by owl on Sunday October 27, @03:32PM (1 child)

    by owl (15206) on Sunday October 27, @03:32PM (#1378963)

    people who love censorship as long as it only silences the people they don't like.

    Of course. Those who love censorship always embrace it so long as it is silencing people they don't like. The censors only begin to understand the reasoning for a right to "free speech" when their favorite tool comes for them. And when it does, those who were once censor embracers discover why the right to "free speech" is more important than the understood when they were on the wrong side if that right.

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27, @04:55PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27, @04:55PM (#1378979)

      "Those who love censorship" are usually the same group as those spewing the most lies. Can't have that expensive propaganda wasted debunked with a few cheap facts.

  • (Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Sunday October 27, @07:11PM

    by DadaDoofy (23827) on Sunday October 27, @07:11PM (#1378994)

    It is fiction. The explanation for the committee's decision is obvious. At best, it can described as a fictional account of real events. The notion that it's non-fiction because it references historical events is like trying to argue Gone with the Wind is non-fiction because it references the Civil War and Reconstruction. The people making this claim should know better.

    If a conservative community appoints a Citizen's Review Committee to determine such things, why is it an issue if they uphold the standards of that community? If a liberal community appoints its very own Citizen's Review Committee that determines the Bible to be fiction, would that be an issue? I'm thinking not, but then why the double standard?

(1)