What are the most dangerous books of the last two centuries? Here's one answer as compiled by conservatives, hence the lack of a single title by Ann Coulter. A disclaimer: I do not think the folks who compiled this list represent all or even most conservatives.
On to the list, and my commentary:
1. Communist Manifesto. Okay, fair enough. Debate over the ideals and logic behind it aside, attempts to implement this little gem led to the deaths of tens of millions of people worldwide. Communism remains a nice ideal (to some) but a demonstrably horrible form of government.
2. Mein Kampf. This one's a little murkier. Yes, Adolf was a pretty bad guy, and as such perhaps his book deserves the same treatment as the Communist Manifesto, and for the same reason. Except that his book played almost no role in his rise to power. It didn't start selling until he actually took power and it became mandatory reading. Hitler bad? No question. But this ranking seems to give his rambling and incoherent book way too much credit.
3. Quotations from Chairman Mao. Another entry chosen for the same reasons as the first two. While a reasonable choice in itself, it again points up the misplaced credit given to Mein Kampf. Because this book, like the Communist Manifesto, again led directly to myriad deaths and persecutions thanks to its influence during the Cultural Revolution.
4. The Kinsey Report. And now we start to stray into really bizarro conservative territory. After three ideologies that killed hundreds of millions, the next most harmful book is .... a study of American sexual practices. The stated reason? "The reports were designed to give a scientific gloss to the normalization of promiscuity and deviancy." Yes, I can see where that's nearly as harmful as killing or exiling millions of people... Was Kinsey guilty of ethical and scientific lapses? Yes. Fourth most harmful book in modern history? C'mon.
5. Democracy and Education. An influential book that advocated schools spend less time teaching "character development" and memorizing facts, and more time teaching kids to think. While waves of educational fads have indeed weakened education, this was not such a fad. It makes the argument that a healthy democracy requires an educated and thinking populace more than a pliant population capable of regurgitating facts but less able to think for themselves. This is hardly radical; one commonly cited advantage of American students is their ability to think creatively, unlike their counterparts in Japan and India, for example, where students outscore us on standardized tests but often find themselves ill-prepared for more than technical jobs because while they have all the tools, they never really learned how to apply them in new ways. This may be why the most devastating thing the listmakers can think of to say about it is that it "helped nurture the Clinton generation."
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - J.J. Hunsecker
very good piece.
2 - Phillip Winn
I would have a radically different list, to be sure, and I really don't feel like thinking about "dangerous" books in general, because I tend to think describing a book (or an idea) as "dangerous" simply means that people failed to answer it adequately.
But in reading the original article, it seems that they may see that, too, as their descriptions attached to the books tend to be about the dangerousness of the *ideas* within the books, not the books themselves. And ideas *can* be dangerous, if not properly answered.
For example, they list Mein Kampf because "Here Hitler explained his racist, anti-Semitic vision for Germany, laying out a Nazi program pointing directly to World War II and the Holocaust." They mentioned that the book was originally ignored, but there is no question that the *ideas* within the book did turn out to be quite dangerous when they prompted actions!
3 - Victor Plenty
Clearly the Bible is the most dangerous book, being more frequently available in a very large volume suitable for smashing someone on the head.
I mean, really, have you ever seen anyone try to brain an opponent with Mao's Little Red Book? Of course not. It would be useless.
I picture Crocodile Dundee in a dark alley, smirking at a thug's little red pamphlet and drawling "That's not a book. Now THIS is a BOOK." even as he reveals the huge Bible he had hidden behind his back.
Of course, nowadays they don't make Bibles like they used to. Now more often than not, it's a little pocket edition being distributed door to door by missionaries in clean white shirts and dark ties, not the massive tome designed to make sure the pastor's lectern doesn't blow away in a tornado.
So maybe today's most dangerous book is the dictionary. The Oxford one, not the sad shadow of its former self poor old Webster's has become.
Uh, what was I talking about again?
4 - Michael J. West
Honestly, I can understand why A full 6 of the 10 are on here. Even #10, which I don't agree with but at least is an intellectually honest choice.
But some of the judges...well. I like the academics, think they're probably best qualified to judge these things. Ditto for policy think-tanks like Competitive Enterprise Institute.
We're on shaky ground, though, with Regnery Publishing. This is a company whose mission is to publish conservative-leaning books as a counter to liberal ones. Their participation has "marketing opportunity" written all over it. And the American Conservative Union is a lobbying firm: paid shills.
I like how Douglas Minson's title is abridged to associate rector of "The Witherspoon Fellowships." The Witherspoon Fellowships of the Family Research Council, that is, and the FRC of course is James Dobson's policy wonk-group. They were smart to avoid mentioning his name, as there's little on a par with the Dobson branding to undermine something's credibility.
But Phyllis Schlafly?
Phyllis Fucking Schlafly?
5 - Sean Aqui
Michael: Yeah, I laughed out loud at that one. You can see how Betty Friedan got on the list....
It doesn't say much for Reason magazine that these are the folks they chose -- unless they were doing it simply to throw gas on the fire and enjoy watching it burn.
6 - Sean Aqui
Er, I meant Human Events, not Reason....
7 - Sister Ray
Ayn Rand is rolling in her grave that that damned irrationalist Nietzsche made the list instead of her.
8 - Dan
"I think it would be difficult to argue that either Carlson or Freud did more harm than good."
Many people do make the argument that Carlson's book caused a lot of harm. And still does.
The argument goes that Rachel played fast and loose with cancer data, and assumed a lot of correlations that are now thought to be discredited. The thinning of birds' eggshells is believed to be valid, but is thought to be mostly due to over-use.
The harm came about by the media fear frenzy that led to the banning of the substance. It turns out that a very small amount of the substance is a wonderful malaria fighter. The US, through governmental agencies like USAID, used to supply impoverished African countries with DDT, and malaria was nearly eliminated. After the ban, malaria had over a 1000% resurgence. Something like 3 million annualy since the ban have succumbed to the disease.
Less impoverished African countries like South Africa, have re-implemented the use of DDT, despite pressure from environmental groups, and USAID is currently re-thinking their stance.
I'm certainly no expert on this, but that's the argument. If true, it would seem to amount to enviromental genocide, and might be considered "dangerous".
In Ann Coulter's meticuously documented book, "Godless", she details how J. Gordon Edwards, a professor of biology at San Jose State U., would ingest spoonfuls of DDT at lectures to prove its safety to humans. He's since died at the age of 84 while hiking.
Freuds work seems less dangerous. If anything, his theories seem to expose the underlying un-scientific mysticism of psychoanalysis.
9 - Sister Ray
By the way, Beyond Good and Evil "informed" Mein Kampf about the same way the Beatles' White Album informed Charlie Manson.
10 - Michael J. West
I have to agree with Victor Plenty, actually. I won't go so far as to say that the Bible is THE most harmful book ever published in the history of the world....but it's in the Top Five.
11 - Sean Aqui
Dan: I agree on DDT. Applied properly, it appears to pose no health risks and can save millions of lives.
But Carson was about more than DDT, and IMO correct to question whether we should be blithely spraying it willy-nilly around the landscape. And we probably have her to thank for the general environmental awareness we have today, which overall I count as a good thing.
12 - Leslie Bohn
No "The Lorax" or "The Butter Battle Book"?
No "The Giving Tree"? No Judy Blume?
I would think these classics of liberal indoctrination would actually be much more "dangerous" in the sense that I believe is meant. But what would I know? I am not a conservative. I do wonder if any kids' books were considered?
13 - Mark Schannon
We liberals (whatever that is) should compile a list of the ten most dangerous books...but I do agree with Phillip that books, in themselves, are only dangerous if not responded to appropriately.
So, let's see. Most dangerous books.
1) I hated T.S. Eliots, "The Waste Land." Couldn't understand a fucking word of it. I'd call that dangerous 'cause I be one mean son-a-bitch when I feel stupid.
2) Same goes for "Ulysses" by that Irish guy. I mean, what the hell's going on, dislexics taking over the world.
3) "Lady Chatterly's Lover:" Shit. All hype and a couple of sex scenes so boring I passed right by them.
4) "Conscience of a Conservative," by the great, late fascist Barry Goldwater. Problem is he makes a lot of sense--dangerous territory for a liberal.
5) Anything written by Richard Nixon or Henry Kissinger.
And that's the truth.
In Jameson Veritas
14 - moonraven
First, it's Rachel Carson--not Carlson.
The thing all these books have in common is that they promote a different way of looking at the way we live than conservatives are comfortable with.
With the possible exception of William F. Buckley (is he still alive?), conservatives would prefer to limit their reading to TV Guide and Reader's Digest.
15 - Clavos
Why would I read Reader's digest? It doesn't carry the TV schedules.
And the satellite provides the TV schedule, so why pay TV Guide?
Plus, I'd have to learn how to read...
No effing way.
16 - Lee Richards
Let's see: the Church used to ban books and the Nazis burned them; somehow I don't see Barry Goldwater or William F. Buckley(conservatives with a capital C)in favor of either. Now, Rove, Cheney, Delay, Coulter et al--that's easy to imagine.
17 - moonraven
What's that kid's book that Bush was pretending to read while Cheney was pulling off 9/11?
Ah, yes: MY PET GOAT.
Definitely dangerous.
The Catholic Church is too busy trying to cover up for all the pederasts and pedophiles to ban books. But they do periodically ban priests--the ones who say women should be priests and that the church should help the poor instead of living of them like a parasite.
18 - Mr. Nice Guy
#4? Are you counting AIDS?
19 - Mohjho
Most dangerous book: Anarchist cookbook
Most harmful book: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
20 - moonraven
Here's a really dangerous one: Radical Forgiveness. The author even has a project to heal countries--including the US (talk about starting with the toughest nut to crack) and create a critical mass of higher consciousness by 2012.
21 - Mohjho
Hey moon, that sounds like the transcendental meditation/Blavatsky school of nuttery.
22 - moonraven
You just proved my point about how dangerous it is.
If I were not in my RF mode I would just call you an asshole and let it go.
23 - rich
Do we have to believe Coulter's claim somebody swallowed "spoonfuls" of DDT in order to say it is safe? Does anybody really believe this? Here's Dan:
"In Ann Coulter's meticuously documented book, "Godless", she details how J. Gordon Edwards, a professor of biology at San Jose State U., would ingest spoonfuls of DDT at lectures to prove its safety to humans. He's since died at the age of 84 while hiking."
Really. Meticulously documented. Is that what we call plagiarism and failure to cite sources these days?
The "guy who swallows (x)" is an old dodge. I remember when I was a kid there was a guy widely publicized for swallowing uranium. There he was, on tv or in the paper with a handful of light colored dirt, greedily lapping it from his open palm for the cameras. Does anybody believe he was allowed to walk around with uranium in his pocket?
Since DDT builds up in the fat, the Lyndon LaRouche supporter would bump up on the LD50 of 30 grams per 100 kilos after about a half dozen of these demonstrations. Aside from carcinogenic effects. And he would have been doing this the same time as the uranium guy.
It's just crap. Dan not only buys it, he considers Coulter's book "meticulously researched". Spare us these Dans!