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

Conservative Paranoia

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591
from JoeUser Forums
So, what are the most "harmful" books according to the ultra-conservative panel?

01. The Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels
02. Mein Kampf - Adolf Hitler
03. Quotations from Chairman Mao (aka The Little Red Book) - Mao Zedong
04. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (aka The Kinsey Report) - Alfred Kinsey
05. Democracy and Education - John Dewey
06. Das Kapital - Karl Marx
07. The Feminine Mystique - Betty Friedan
08. The Course of Positive Philosophy - Auguste Comte
09. Beyond Good and Evil - Freidrich Nietzsche
10. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money - John Maynard Keynes

Politics, sexuality, feminism, and economics are the topics that are most harmful from the conservative viewpoint? Perhaps that should be to the conservative viewpoint. It's interesting to note that Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species" and "Descent of Man" only got honourable (or I guess dishonourable in this case) mentions but couldn't crack the top 10. I also find it funny that a top ten list contains thirty titles in all (a right wing conspiracy?).

A meaningless post for a meaningless list.
10,415 views 30 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks for bringing this list to general notice. I generally think only the ignorant have anything to fear from any book. That's not to say books are above reproach but difficult, shocking, brilliant, and uncommon ideas are always condemned, and usually shouldn't be.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I generally think only the ignorant have anything to fear from any book. That's not to say books are above reproach but difficult, shocking, brilliant, and uncommon ideas are always condemned, and usually shouldn't be.



Thank you for so eloquently stating what I couldn't find words to say.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am not attempting to check to see if you have read any of these books, only to let you know that as some who has a PHD in History I have read the following: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9. As to why the ultra conservative would think these are bad books is realily simple; they discuss the use of ideals not normally found in a world designed around the ideals of the ultra right. They talk about ideals that are designed to bring down the governments of nations that tend to lean to the opposite direction that they prefer leaning toward (the left). There are several other good authors that could or should appear on this list, Henry Thoreau (Walden, or sometimes called Walden's Pond). The writings of John Paul Satre (may have misspelled his last name). Even Plateo would burn some convervative ears.

Now that You have come up with some of the Ultra-Conservative harmful books; why not come up with some that the ultra-liberals would consider harmful. Let be fair, and balanced.

Pam
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm all for fair and balanced. The problem is that liberals, in the proper sense of the word, are, by definition against the very idea of an 'index librorum prohibitorum. "I disagree with everything you say, but defend to the death your right to say it" [Voltaire]

Kind of reminds me of the gun control argument: do books cause harm, or is it the people who read/write them?
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Kind of reminds me of the gun control argument: do books cause harm, or is it the people who read/write them?


Touche!
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ahhh is it only me or are you missing the entire point of the article? Its not the subjects that the people making the list have a problem with, its how that subject material was presnted and the points made on that subject. There is nothing wrong with the subjects only the way the list writers felt the material was presented, there is a huge difference. If you want to bash the right then you need to look at the material objectivly and find a real reason to post it.

You see you suffer from a bias yourself that you claim the list makers are doing the same. Its not the subject of the book, its how the subject was twisted or presented that offended those that made the list. Oh and are they not allowed to have thier own opinions? I haven't seen these books being burned or taken out of library, just a list saying this group didn't like them or the effect they had.

Sorry your post is as meaningless as the list you wrote about. Both of which are bias pieces written by those with agendas.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ahhh is it only me or are you missing the entire point of the article? Its not the subjects that the people making the list have a problem with, its how that subject material was presnted and the points made on that subject. There is nothing wrong with the subjects only the way the list writers felt the material was presented, there is a huge difference. If you want to bash the right then you need to look at the material objectivly and find a real reason to post it.

You see you suffer from a bias yourself that you claim the list makers are doing the same. Its not the subject of the book, its how the subject was twisted or presented that offended those that made the list. Oh and are they not allowed to have thier own opinions? I haven't seen these books being burned or taken out of library, just a list saying this group didn't like them or the effect they had.

Sorry your post is as meaningless as the list you wrote about. Both of which are bias pieces written by those with agendas.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is nothing wrong with the subjects only the way the list writers felt the material was presented, there is a huge difference. If you want to bash the right then you need to look at the material objectivly and find a real reason to post it.


A simple question here, but how do you think the Communist Manifesto could have been presented any more clearly or differently without changing its material? I thought it was remarkably clear for a 19th century political book.

I figured the list must have been based on the damage to the conservative ideal that these books have caused or explained - communism is a result of the manifesto (although socialism developed more or less around it), sexual exploration was really the pervasive theme of the mid-20th century and Betty's book really kicked off the feminist movement (and eventually led to the death of permanent marriage as women decided to abandon abusive relationships - one positive of feminism).

I would have categorised those books as simply the products of major social upheavals rather than deliberately controversial. They changed the dominant culture; they weren't poorly written or expressed.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

I am not attempting to check to see if you have read any of these books, only to let you know that as some who has a PHD in History I have read the following: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9.

I have read about half of them as well, and was surprised by some of the titles on the list.  But that is not what I want to ask you.

As a Doctor of History, would you agree with the premise of the list (harmful books) and if so, what would be on your list?

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Kind of reminds me of the gun control argument: do books cause harm, or is it the people who read/write them?

Guess you have never had a stack fall on you.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Guess you have never had a stack fall on you.


That's exactly what happened to an eccentric, but brilliant nineteenth century French composer called Alkan. He was a life long student of the Talmud. It was the death of him. Literally!

#42 From "So Weird It Must Be True"
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dr. Guy

No to your question.

Even the "Communist Manifesto" in my humble opinion is not a harmful book. Infact it left out a great deal of who would be doing what, and are the people really incharge. It was just a pipe dream of two men. Thomas More was probably chooser to establishing an utopian world than did Marx and Engels in this satire "Utopia". Some would say that Engels based his book on More's "Utopia".

Pam
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
just my humble opinion, but there is NO such thing as a harmfull book, there are just harmfull people.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

That's exactly what happened to an eccentric, but brilliant nineteenth century French composer called Alkan. He was a life long student of the Talmud. It was the death of him. Literally!

#42 From "So Weird It Must Be True"

See?  Books can be deadly!

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Dr. Guy

No to your question.

Even the "Communist Manifesto" in my humble opinion is not a harmful book. Infact it left out a great deal of who would be doing what, and are the people really incharge. It was just a pipe dream of two men. Thomas More was probably chooser to establishing an utopian world than did Marx and Engels in this satire "Utopia". Some would say that Engels based his book on More's "Utopia".

Pam

Thanks for the response.  I had a feeling that would be your position (as a Student of History), as it is mine as well.  I dont like a lot of books, but then I also know I am free to either not read them or to disagree with what is written.  I dont know who this group is, but their ignorance is apparent by the simple creation of the list.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
In fairness, aren't there books out there that liberals want banned also? I remember when Rush Limbaugh's books were released. There were all sorts of calls to ban those. Copies on bookstore shelves were stolen or vandalized. Liberal parents called schools to protest the books in libraries... etc

Huckleberry Finn, Tom Sawyer, Uncle Tom's Cabin, LIttle Black Sambo, Uncle Remus Stories and even the movie Song of the South have all been banned at one time or another (some still are). Were they banned because they offended the sensibilities of Conservatives? No. They were banned because Liberals found them "harmful".

There have been calls to ban the books of Ayn Rand. Isn't it ironic that Liberals would defend "Heather Has Two Mommies" for its homosexual context, but want The Fountainhead banned for its homosexual context.

"Mein Kampf" seems to be an equal opportunity offender. There have been calls to ban that one from both the Liberal and Conservative camps.

The call to repress thought comes from both sides of the spectrum. Apparently one man's "paranoia" is another man's "freedom of speech".
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species" was even considered? That is freaking pathetic. Next thing you know they (neocon right) will want to ban books on calculus.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Henry Thoreau (Walden, or sometimes called Walden's Pond).


I have lived among conservatives, and know of VERY few that consider Walden to be harmful. "On Civil Disobedience" is FAR more likely to make their "bad book" list.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
ParaTed2k,

Some very excellent points; specically on Mein "Kampf." Hitler didn't care who he offended. And, as you indicated there are books out there that will offend just about anyone regardless of their political ideals.

Gideon,

I used to use "Walden" as a mild point of view toward the liberal or moderate side of the political sprectum back in my teaching days. It was a book that really setup my view on life along with a look into my political ideals. I myself tend to lean toward the liberal side of life, but have been known to take a stand on conservative issues. Because of this some say I am more of a moderate then a liberal.

Pam
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species" was even considered? That is freaking pathetic. Next thing you know they (neocon right) will want to ban books on calculus.

Please show us in the post, list or site where NeoCon right was stated or alluded to.  Or are you just a troll that cant discuss a topic without name calling?

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
In defense of the compilers of the list, they were REQUESTED to compile this list. It wasn't compiled as a list of books they intended to ban, it was just a subjective list of books they consider "harmful".

Personally, I agree that the thoughts presented in some of those books seriously undermined standards of morality. In that sense they might be deemed "harmful". And very few would argue that "Mein Kampf", which expresses the ideologies of Hitler, is "harmful" in that sense. For that matter, Mao's little red book fits the bill.

As for "Communist Manifesto", I find that most who consider the book to be harmful have never READ the book. Karl Marx makes some VERY astute observations within its pages, and much of his predictions about the future of the working class have proven to be prophetic. Its misuse by modern "socialists" shouldn't reflect back on the book itself (I would make the same statements about anything written by Darwin; apologists for Darwinism have tainted his theories so badly that objective analysis is all but impossible).

My nomination for "Most Harmful" book? "Confessions of an Heiress" by Paris Hilton. Do we REALLY want our kids using HER as a role model?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
My nomination for "Most Harmful" book? "Confessions of an Heiress" by Paris Hilton. Do we REALLY want our kids using HER as a role model?


She wrote a book? Wow, she must be more intelligent than I thought.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
just because her name is on it doesn't me she wrote it if you catch my drift.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
history,

Let her live with the illusion. Remember, her only claim to celebrity is being born to the right set of parents. That's gotta be rough!
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am surprised they didn't pick "The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century" by Houston Stewart Chamberlain which was very influential on Hitler.

I am more surprised by #5 and #8 though I think.