My grandma found a reference book from 1910 in her father’s vast collection, it contained a section on the different human races and described whites as “the most intelligent and peaceful race.” We had a good laugh over how ridiculous that sounds today.
And let’s not forget that Little Black Sambo has fallen into ill-repute because people think that it’s racist or that Bert and Ernie had to get seperate places to live because people thought that they were gay.
Bert and Ernie aren’t gay?
Dang…I always assumed…
Bert and Ernie don’t live together anymore?
While we’re burning books, can we add Ayn Rand to the pyre? Not because she’s dangerous, but because her writing sucks.
Write your own rebuttals, arguments, etc. in the margins, and then donate it to the “book thing” or wherever!
I say burn the book for the simple fact that fire is cool.
Well, if it makes you feel any better Ernest and Bertram are.
I burned a book last weekend. It was Sue Grafton’s M is for Malice. See, we had this fire… and we were burnin’ stuff… for fun… and I had this book I’d fished out of a dumpster… and we thought it was kind of stupid… and you probably get the picture at this point.
I just destroyed Qadgop’s rep as a good parent, didn’t I?
I’d find some good rebuttals to the sillier stuff from qualified authors and write those in the margins rebutting the errors, then give it to someone who needs to see it.
(Sort of what Thudlow said, but I’ve seen your argumentation and I think you want someone better prepared to perform that service.) 
I used to think like Anaamika and others do about the horror of burning books. Then I read 84 Charing Cross Road, where Helene Hanff writes, as an aside, that there’s nothing sacred about a bad book. As long as you’re only destroying your own personal copy of a book, do it any way that you feel is appropriate.
As for recycling, my understanding is that the heavily acid laced paper in most paperback books is almost impossible to recycle - so I’m not sure that’s an actual option. If any Dopers can correct that impression, I’d appreciate it.
When it came time to clear out items from my parents’ house after they had died, I was left trying to figure out to do with about 250 pounds of Readers Digest Condensed books dating back to the 1950’s. You remember condensed books? Cut out all the unnecessary stuff and reduce a 500 page book to a 90 page summary? Airport, War & Peace, Gone With the Wind, all in manageable bites.
Recyclers didn’t want them due to type of binding they had, libraries and nursing homes didn’t want them, and it appeared I would have to pay to dispose them or sneak them a volume or two at a time into the garbage for the next 20 years.
I chose to make a bonfire of them.
They didn’t burn well, either.
:smack:
Maybe they can be used constructively to make walls for do-it-yourself house additions? This sounds like a modern quest - finding something RD condensed books could be used for.
-
I adopt tomndebb’s commentary in its entirety.
-
If #1 does not move you… It’s your book. You own it. Burn it if it pleases you.
IMO, forcing others to burn books is oppression. Burning a book that is your personal property is merely criticism.
Similarly, I inherited a volume called The Circle of Knowledge that had belonged to my paternal grandparents. In the chapter titled “Races and Peoples”, the subheadings include THE CAUCASIAN THE REAL HISTORIC RACE and THE SUPREMACY OF THE ARYANS IN HISTORY. Passing for anthropological insights are such gems as “The negro is a tireless talker and story-teller” and “[The Japanese] are deficient in moral earnestness and courage, which leads to corruption in social life and institutions.”
The “Hebrews”, however, are given credit for “the highest capacity for poetry, letters, erudition of all kinds, philosophy, finance, music, and diplomacy.” As the Semitic (and Hamitic) peoples are Caucasian, they are members of “the only (race) whose history is important for us”, as it is the one “to which we ourselves belong”. Nevertheless, it is “the Aryan branch of the Caucasian family (that) presents us with the noblest pattern of that highest type.”
The chapter dealing with the geological history of Earth also illustrates how different the state of advanced learning was less than a century ago. Evolution is accepted, but the age of the planet is believed to be about 100,000,000 years, with the Mesozoic Era estimated to have lasted for 9,000,000. Also, “*t is believed that an island continent, Antarctica, surrounds the South Pole.” However, the world map depicts an “Antarctic Ocean” as occupying the entire surface from the Arctic Circle south.
As a textbook, this volume would obviously be of little use today. As a historical curiosity, however, it is well worth preserving as a snapshot of what an educated person of its day was expected to “know”.
Sternvogel: What an amazing book. I use the term ‘amazing’ because it has no moral weight, much like books themselves: it’s simply an expression of how unusual the book is and how amazed modern readers would be in discovering it and its ideas. ‘Fantastic’ used to mean roughly the same thing, before it got the connotation of ‘something really good.’
I think it’s important to preserve books like that so we can keep reminding ourselves of the transience of all fashions, especially moral fashions. Paul Graham has an insightful essay titled “What You Can’t Say” on precisely this subject. Even books that are full of wrongheaded, false, or otherwise potentially dangerous ideas can be enjoyed at that level.
(Insert ‘All is Vanity’, ‘This Too Shall Pass’, ‘The Paths of Glory Lead but to the Grave’, etc. verbiage here. I’ve never once kept a skull on my desk. ;))
Back on topic, it is (usually) no crime or faux pas to burn a book you own without any intent to intimidate someone. It can be a symbolic gesture of release, an act of hatred, or simply a utilitarian desire to get rid of a piece of trash. Observe the fire codes and do it in good health.
The exception is collectable or unique books, in which case it is legal but immoral to burn them. It can also be quite stupid, since there are plenty of bibliophiles ready to pay top dollar for rare works. This will probably never really apply to modern mass-market paperbacks or hardcovers, unless they have been signed by the author or someone famous. If the book is old, it might be worth your time to do some research.
Some have impugned your motives. I don’t think your motives have any relevance unless you intend to intimidate someone or otherwise impose your beliefs on someone else. Philosophically I’m a pragmatist, so I don’t put too much weight on motives either claimed or presumed.
As a (minor) bibliophile, or one who appreciates books as physical artifacts in addition to all of their other assets, I am generally opposed to book burning. But it is not always wrong, and sometimes it can be the best option.
Sternvogel, can I ask what year that book of your grandparents was printed?
Just a minor disagreement: some mass-market paperbacks can end up being pretty collectable. However they’re by far the exception. I know I made a handy profit on a first edition print of Larry Niven’s Ringworld. However, that was a matter of the first edition got released before someone noticed that the author, noted for relatively correct science in his SF, had the Earth rotating backwards. 2/3 of the modest print run were recalled and destroyed, and since then the book won major awards, and has been almost constantly in print.
But, that is, admittedly, the exception to your general rule.
The question then becomes what does one hold on to in hopes that it may become collectable. A few months ago there was a bit of a hoo-rah about one of the major computer component manufacturers offering approximately $10 K for a copy of an old and relatively obscure magazine where the company’s founder had written an article predicting the coming chip revolution.
My point is that almost anything can be collected, and can be worth a lot of money to the right audience. The difficulty is that often we’re talking a small market, and/or one that is difficult to connect with. And of course, predicting what will pick up as a mass collectable is even harder to predict.
“The sun rose red over the Pacific that day in L.A., and it was indeed a good time to take warning. Niven had taken up noir and now, nobody was safe.”
Intel looking for the article where Moore made his famous prediction/rule of thumb now known as “Moore’s Law”, if I recall correctly. Libraries were quite put out by the vultures picking over their back issues of that magazine.
And both of those are exceptions to my rule (The second one wasn’t mentioned by my rule, but it’s still an exception. ;)): The first is a rare case of foot-in-mouthism and the second is a publicity stunt that involved waving money at geeks willing to do all of the research required to claim it.
Very true. Whereas I’m very much against the act of book burning, there is one key difference in Mr. Plaids account: he read the book before deciding to burn it. It makes all the difference between mindless censorship and a considered opinion. Besides, even if he burns it, he can’t unread it. The book has accomplished it’s mission. Burning it is somewhat moot.
Anyone who’s ever read a Harlequin romance knows that they are not.
:smack: 
(These smilies added at the request of my 5-year-old and have nothing to do with the actual post).