Animalia, Swastikas and The Power of Symbols

Not familiar with the pages under discussion? Go Here. 

18 Jan 1999
Yvonne M Hanley 

A parent challenged a book recently. When I went to look for reviews, I was surprised to find that there had not been many in the time that it was published-1986. The book is Graham Base's 'Animalia". The pages in question are the N and the S pages. Has anyone else run into this problem and/or does anyone have any insights. If you look closely on the N page, you will find a swastika in the water and it appears again on the shield on the S page. There are a couple of other complaints but that symbol is the main one. Thanks for your insights. 

Yvonne - I don't know if this will help, but I recall reading that the symbol is an ancient one that preceded it's use by the Nazis. I just looked it up in my Webster's and it says the word swastika is from Sanskrit [well -being, benediction]. The first definition is "a design or ornament of ancient origin in the form of a cross with four equal arms, each bent in a right angle extension; a mystic symbol found in both the Old World and the New World. The second definition says that this design, with the arms bent back clockwise, was used in Nazi ermany and by other fascists as a party emblem and symbol of anti-Semitism. It might help to see which direction the arms are bent - let's hope that it is the more ancient symbol of well-being that is depicted. 

Yvonne - I just reread your post, and the fact that the symbol is on the N and S pages makes it clear that Base was referring to "Nazi" and "swastika". I don't know anything about Base, but now I'm motivated to do a search about him; anyway, any author or illustrator does not have to be endorsing what he or she depicts or describes; it's just that, a presentation of a historical event or symbol. A novel writer can present the event in a context which reveals a feeling about the event in the thoughts and words of its characters; the writer of a Social Studies textbook is limited to a certain degree by just recounting events, dates, statistics; the reader is left to his or her own interpretation. An illustrator is the most restricted - he or she can only draw a symbol - in the case of Animalia there is no context - the swastika is not on the badge of someone with "hate" depicted in his facial expression or gestures. Aninalia is almost a dictionary of designs with no context and should be judged as such. Does the fact that a symbol represents evil to many of us mean the illustrator should make it vanish? Or is it an opportunity to discuss with children the meaning and representation of a design they may have seen spray painted somewhere without understanding what it represents? 

Pat asks interesting questions. But I think the main one to be asked is why did Base choose to include a symbol that would so obviously outrage and hurt so many? No matter how you slice it, once the discovery of the symbol was made, many would be deeply offended. Forget about context and intent and opportunities for discussion--outrage is the natural reaction many would have, and Base must have known that. So why did he provoke it? 

I agree with Pat's and June's comments. Animalia also includes depictions of satan, a guillotine, a noose, a skull, and other negative images, but it's arguable that none (except maybe satan?) are as strong and hurtful as a swastika. Perhaps it's best to give this book to children who have emotional capability and the maturity level to understand these symbols. Of course, the adult(s) should also be objective and explain the symbols, and realize that because kids learn about something with negative connotations it doesn't mean they'll slip over to the dark side. I bought this book for myself and I have no children...and I don't necessarily consider Animalia to be a children's book. Just my opinion. My sister read it in her fifth grade class; I'll ask her if any of this came up while they looked through it. 

I agree with Pat's post that representing a symbol is not the same as endorsing it. The pictures in Animalia are full of objects that we wouldn't want kids to "play" with--both swords and swastikas. The book attempts, in part, to represent the fullness or the world. It doesn't attempt to distinguish between morally good and morally bad parts of the world. If possible, I would ask the parent who was challenging the book how he or she would like to see the swastika presented. Many of the objects in the book aren't easily identifiable to children (see the Sword of Damocles on the D page as an example of a fairly erudite allusion!). Any teacher using this book will need to explain lots of drawings to the students--what sort of explanation would the parent like to see given to the swastikas? I use this book every term in my college level children's literature course and students are always asking me what things are (and I can't always answer--Base's illustrations sometimes elude me!), but I do know even with adults, I have plenty of space to provide a moral or social framework for the images in this text if I so desire, surely the same would be true in an elementary classroom as well. I have no idea what Base's politics are, but I think we should note that a Star of David appears on the S page along with the swastika. The book seems to expansive to me to be easily labeled anti-semitic. 

I would like to add another note: the swatiska is a very old symbol, far older than its use by the Nazis. There is so much in the Animalia books to look at: while no one in our day and age can escape the connection of swatiska with the Nazis, it is possible the artist was using it as an ancient element of pattern and design. GraceAnne (sig file way below) 

Sorry, folks. This argument doesn't hold up, from my perspective. In this day and age, representing a swastika is almost the same thing as endorsing it. The swastika symbol qua symbol has a very clear and determined place in our culture. It exists as a sign of Nazism and fascism. There's no way to view it without first being aware of this context. Sure, it came from ancient symbolism, but that ancient meaning is lost now, completely subsumed under the current meaning. It is not worth including the symbol in a book in order to honor the ancient artistic value. The negative effect it will have on some readers is always going to be primary. 

This is not the same thing as including a sword or gun. As symbolic objects, neither of these things is associated with a particular group or historical moment. They are objects of killing, but they are not symbolically connected with the complete obliteration of a specific group of people. 

I don't understand Megan's question concerning how this parent would like to see the swastika represented. Obviously, the parent does not want to see the swastika at all. 

I would not ask for this book to be banned. But now that I know that Base has willfully included swastikas in his art I will no longer purchase his books for my children or anyone else. I certainly will never include it my courses. I fully believe that Base knew what he was doing when he included this symbol. I'm not going to be a party to its further dissemination. 

I agree completely with both of June's eloquent posts. My opinion of Base has completely reversed. It was unnecessary to include a swastika in his book. Especially twice. 

Perhaps because it is a symbol that will only provoke outrage if it is recognized. Yes, those of us who have been taught the significance of the symbol recognize it as the German swastika, but if the symbol is censored from books & other sources that younger people might have access to then in a few years, no one will recognize it, and it will loose its ability to provoke. After all, young people don't learn about these things through osmosis. 

Well...after all the talk, I had to go to my own copy of the book...and finding the symbols wasn't easy... but yes, there they are. Must admit I was surprised. Wondered if anyone has written to the illustrator to find out his reasoning and his views on the concerns of the readers....... Certainly would like to know his feelings... 

After reading poetry for a major program here for MLK Day and hearing Jane Elliott (Brown Eyes/Blue Eyes) speak, my thoughts and concerns with issues of prejudice and racism are certainly peaked again. 

June, 

In fact, the swastika has NOT lost its meaning in other cultures - it is simply a matter of us with our European heritage having a very definite association with the symbol (and for good reason). I'd be hesitant to read too much into Base's use of the symbol in his book without knowing what he was getting at. I certainly wouldn't stop acquiring his books without knowing more. At the same time, I'd look twice at books which represented guns etc., being very careful not to misrepresent them as romantic or advisable - perhaps this is a cultural bias on my part. 

Just a factual note on the other history of the symbol - see definition 2: 

swastika (swòs´tî-ke) noun 1.The emblem of Nazi Germany, officially adopted in 1935. 

2.An ancient cosmic or religious symbol formed by a Greek cross with the ends of the arms bent at right angles in either a clockwise or a counterclockwise direction. 

[Sanskrit svastikah, sign of good luck, swastika, from svasti, well-being.] 

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved. 

Sorry, Frances. I don't buy your argument. You obviously have no idea what this symbol represents to millions of Jews (although minus six million of us) who live in OUR current culture. Yours and mine. Base certainly has some idea. 

If I sound outraged, it's because I am. I am alarmed at the attempts at apologism and the ignorance I see being expressed here. 

No one will recognize it? Lose its ability to provoke? Therefore it should be in children's books? Hello? Don't you see what you are implying? 

I will teach my children to recognize this symbol for as long as I live. I hope you will do the same. 

June Cummins said: 

"Sorry, folks. This argument doesn't hold up, from my perspective. In this day and age, representing a swastika is almost the same thing as endorsing it. The swastika symbol qua symbol has a very clear and determined place in our culture. It exists as a sign of Nazism and fascism. There's no way to view it without first being aware of this context. Sure, it came from ancient symbolism, but that ancient meaning is lost now, completely subsumed under the current meaning. It is not worth including the symbol in a book in order to honor the ancient artistic value. The negative effect it will have on some readers is always going to be primary." 

I would like to challenge this last statement. I live in Fiji where half the population is of East Indian origin, the majority of which are Hindus. The swastika symbol is common here as a symbol of peace, especially at Diwali time and I am sure this would be the same for any countries with large East Indian populations. 

I need to look at Animalia again before I make further comments.I personally would hesitate to prevent my children from looking at a book on the basis that it contains symbols and images that are hurtful to some. I would have to look at the context within the story. 

Does anyone know Graeme Base to ask him whathe intended? 

The 1992 edition of "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" defines swastika as 1) "The emblem of Nazi Germany, officially adopted in 1935" and 2) "An ancient cosmic or religious symbol formed by a Greek cross with the ends of the arms bent at right angles in either a clockwise or a counterclockwise direction. (Sanskrit swastikah, sign of good luck...from swasti: wellbeing)." (Sometimes the ironies of history and language almost surpass belief.) ("Webster's Third New International Dictionary"--1966--provides the second definition above only.) 

The cross, which had been a symbol of criminality, execution and cruelty, became a sign of hope and life eternal after the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus. Doubtless to the victims of the Inquisition, it retained or regained it former associations of death and cruelty. 

As both a student of ancient cultures and a Jew who lost uncountable family members in the Holocaust (and have friends who are Survivors), I have always known about the double meaning of the swastika. At a personal, emotional level, unless I am involved in reading about antiquity, seeing a swastika (indeed, just hearing about one--say on the outside of a synagogue) makes my blood run cold. White hoods and a burning cross provoke much the same reaction. These symbols are frightening, even terrifying. They are meant by many to be just that. Clearly, there are many other symbols in the world that inspire their own terror (or rage perhaps) of which I am unaware. 

Whether the swastika was meant by Grahame Base to be intimidating and terrifying, I don't know (nor do I know if the other symbols of Satan, etc. were meant to be). If we can find out what he (or his publisher) were thinking, that would be illuminating. Though perhaps not determinative. 

In the meantime, I am left with the same questions we discussed concerning "Sarah Noble." What do I tell customers or clients? Do I avoid these books in favor of others that address similar territory without offending me? I answer these questions for myself each time they arise. I have certainly gotten to know customers and clients more intimately for discussing these matters with them. They just want to know if "this book is good for a 9-year-old," and they get a much more complex response. Again and again on child_lit (and in many other venues) we confront these questions of how to resolve our responses with our responsibilities if and where they diverge. 

No answers; merely observations. 

Paula Jones wrote: 

"I live in Fiji where half the population is of East Indian origin, the majority of which are Hindus. The swastika symbol is common here as a symbol of peace, especially at Diwali time and I am sure this would be the same for any countries with large East Indian populations." 

This is what I like so much about Child_lit. While we in the US tend to dominate, we gain broader perspectives when far flung correspondents like Paula join in. I am the daughter of German Jews with relatives and friends in Germany and am always very cautious about generalizations about the Holocaust. I've always known the swastika as a symbol of the Nazis and appreciated learning from Paula that that it has a completely different meaning in another part of the world today. 

I was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Freetown, Sierra Leone and recently have been in touch with many who have connections there. One former volunteer bitterly told me of being at a meeting here in New York where someone left early remarking that he was going on business to West Africa. Someone else joked, "Just so long as it isn't Sierra Leone." As my friend noted Sierra Leone has gone from being a place people vaguely thought of as being in South America to the latest symbol of African hell. 

I am always grateful to learn more about the world. 

Thanks, Paula. 

Since I started this discussion, I wanted to thank you all for the insights that I have gotten from what everyone has had to say. Something that my friend and I noticed was that on the S page. The swastika is on a shield with the American flag(stars and stripes)and the sickle-all symbols of three of the major powers in WW II. I think (without the book here) that the fourth symbol is a sun and we couldn't figure that one out , if there is any meaning to the grouping. Still, I wonder if this controversy has ocurred anywhere before. Thanks again for the thoughts 

Excusse me, I am at school now and the fourth symbol is a cross. Yvonne 

Not to mention millions of other people such as political dissidents, gays and lesbians, "uppity" women, etc. 

I think it is important for those who do not know _Animalia_ to realize that the book is essentially an alphabet book with many many hidden images on each page beginning with the initial letter feature on that page. It is an over-the-top kind of book with all kinds of images, nice and naughty, hidden in its pages. Some of the words are uniquely Australian, unless the book has been revised for publication abroad. I was sure there was a dunny on the D page, but can't find it now. 

On the S page, "Six slithering snakes sliding silently southward," the word obviously wanted is swastika which is placed, furthermore, on a shield with the "Stars and Stripes" the communist sickle, and a Swiss cross (red cross--is there another name for this?). Thus, we have 4 symbols or signs on a shield and each one begins with s. As Yvonne points out these are flags of major participants in World War II (although the Swiss cross doesn't really fit). Nevertheless all three are symbols that have also had political significance. The swastika is indeed, as many others have pointed out, an ancient symbol. It is found on Native American rock art throughout the southwest. There was an enormous controversy in New Mexico several years ago because the yearbook of I believe it was New Mexico State University was called "The Swastika," in reference to the ancient Native American symbol, which obviously has been supplanted by associations with the Nazis. In any case, I have trouble seeing why the depiction of a Nazi flag, because that is obviously what it is meant to be in this instance, and not a Native American or other symbol, in conjunction with other flags should be objected to in this kind of a book. 

On the N page, I'm afraid I have to admit that I looked for a long time for the swastika in the swirling waves of the water. Again, here obviously this is intended to elicit the word "Nazi." I have trouble seeing what is so horrible about this -- is this a "dirty" four-letter word that is not to be uttered in polite company. Does printing a symbol mean endorsing what it stands for? In this case, I think not. We are looking at a puzzle -- how many objects can be found in each picture beginning with a certain letter. Can anyone tell me the word for what I would call a pliers -- ah could it be nippers? -- that floats in the water along with Noah, a nun, a newspaper, a note, and hmm--what kind of duck is that that begins with n? 

No one has objected to the Nazi flags in Innocenti's _Rose Blanche_, where of course they are an integral part of the story. I can see that in another context -- symbols hidden as part of a story and placed on buildings or clothing, for example -- that they might possibly be construed as promoting a message and could be a cause for concern. But, as far as I can tell from my perusal of _Animalia_ there is no underlying or hidden agenda, not even any theme or story. It is a puzzle book pure and simple. Would we object to the words "nazi" (should this be capitalized?) and "swastika" in a crossword puzzle? 

Finally, I want to add that the swastika pattern is an endlessly fascinating one from a graphic and visual point of view. Like the yin-yang sign, or the Greek key design, it is fascinating to draw and to contemplate. Unfortunately is is tainted by inescapably negative associations for those of us in the twentieth century. 

Paula's and Linnea's observations about the swastika symbol in Hindu (East Indian) and some Native American peoples provides me with the opportunity to see that, in this regard, child_lit is not so very different from a classroom of children from diverse backgrounds. I imagine a Hindu and a Jewish child sitting together during the winter religious celebrations, sharing their symbols. The Jewish child takes the swastika home and BLAM. 

If one of the teachers on this list is interested, this discussion could make a very interesting contribution to "Teaching Tolerance," a publication from the Southern Poverty Law Center. 

"I have trouble seeing what is so horrible about this -- is this a "dirty" four-letter word that is not to be uttered in polite company." 

This is a murky but interesting issue. It makes me think of "Seinfeld" and the "Soup Nazi," and how "Nazi" is becoming a synonym for someone who exerts extreme control over something that doesn't warrant that much control. (Someone who hoards all the paper and pens at work and only gives them out when forced to would be a "Supply Nazi.") 

As a white, recovering Catholic, I can't completely relate to this issue like those of you who are Jewish and have relatives that were survivors. I do know that it evokes a strong negative reaction in the coworkers I showed the pages to, mostly because this is considered a children's book (which makes me think this is an older child's book, esp with all the obscure references). I also wonder if another word was represented in Animalia, such as "n----r," that would evoke the same kind of strong reaction in me and others. (OK, it's not a symbol, but it's a very controversial and hurtful word, and its meaning, like "Nazi" or what most know the swastika to symbolize, cannot be denied as negative.) I can't remember if this list had the discussion about the world "n----r" in the dictionary, but it makes me think about this issue and how some will always be hurt, some will be educated when they actually learn something about the word and its history, and some will never pick up the book again. 

Of course, I have no clear answers on this subject, but I'm trying to see it from others' eyes. 

And I'm surprised to see people's strong reaction toward the inclusion of the Swastika in the book. 

Why is it wrong to include it? Like someone said earlier in this thread, inclusion does not equal endorsement. I believe if a child looking at the book can figure out what it represents (figuring out Nazis from this symbol will require some logical ability to associate symbol to meaning, and also the knowledge of what the symbol represents) that child is already exposed to such symbol at other places -- other books, TV shows, Movies, etc. Are we to wipe out all OTHERS so that this child might never encounters the symbol? I'm just very puzzled by some of June's reasoning. 

I found one web page that quite elegantly summarizes a lot of meanings of the ancient symbol. Wouldn't it be wonderful that if we (most educators) have learned something here and then educate our youngsters and their parents the many rich meanings of this symbol, rahter than just THROW OUT the book because of it? 

http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1997/swastika.html 

I missed the beginning of this conversation too. Today I was in a bookstore (it shall be nameless--it's two blocks from where I work, so give me a break) so I took a look at the book Animalia. I'm not sure if it was mentioned but there are *two* swastikas. One under the letter S (which seems more military than religeous due to the things around it) and one under the letter N (perhaps for Nazi). It's under the net in the water off the right side of the boat. 

Sorry if this has been mentioned before. 

June, I am torn between agreeing with your refusal to allow the swastica to be depicted anywhere, and agreeing with others who point out that the sign as such is not neccessarily an evil Nazi symbol. 

I agree with you in the sense that I feel extreme, no: ultra extreme, anger each time I see a group of those disgusting, stubble-haired Neo-nazi idiots brandishing a swastica flag (i.e. black symbol on white background surrounded by red). 

My gorge does not rise to quite the same extent when some leather-clad biker has a few black lines of home-made swastica tattoos on his knuckle, because I expect the biker probably does not subscribe to any of the Nazi ideas about races, but I still resent the fact that he wanted to use the sign to provoke. 

In fact, I used to get much more angry when old-style South African Boer racists waved their flag with a three-branched symbol they pretended was derived from the ancient triscelion symbol. Yeah, right, of course we all believed that when they used the same colour scheme as the Nazis did with their swasticas. Hrmph. 

In short, my fists tend to clench and I feel close to abandoning my dislike of the death penalty, when I see a swastica that is clearly meant to signal racist intent - even when the symbol is not exactly shaped like the classical swastica. 

*** 

On the other hand I drive past a Danish church with a swastica frieze every day on my way to and from work - and if anybody changes that church, the whole Danish population will come down on that person like several tons of bricks. We have just spent millions on restauration and repairs, and the church is built right next to the castle that houses our parliament. It is among the most important churches in the entire country, and we are talking national treasure here. 

There are numerous other places all over the kingdom where you suddenly realize you are looking at a swastica, but unless they appear on the flag of a Neo-nazi, they have usually been made by people who died years or ages before Hitler ever heard of swasticas. These old swasticas are never coloured the same way as the Nazi symbol, e.g. the church frieze which is grey and furthermore disguised by lines that make it look like a meander fringe. 

The non-Nazi Danish swasticas can be divided into 3 groups: 

1) ancient religious signs, often several thousand years old 2) old decorative elements from the Christian Era (since the 10th century) 3) National-Romantic symbols from the previous century 

No 1 are the local versions of the ancient symbol from India mentioned by Ina. As far as we know, the ancient Scandinavians used the symbol as a sign for the sun. Sun worship seems to have been very important in the Bronze Age, and you find a variety of Bronze Age sun symbols carved into rock walls and large stones all over Scandinavia, going from primitive holes smaller than your palm over more elaborate circles and swasticas to circles with crosses in them, i.e. wheels. 

These latter are thought by many to be the origin of the swasticas. They reflect the shape of the wheels on the first horse vehicles used in Europe, and the swastica seems to be a sloppy version of these wheel symbols (many old swasticas have a circular appearance, the outer lines are not straight like in the squarish Hitler-swastica. The square version is much easier to carve in wood or stone and may have been invented for that reason). 

If you want to know what I mean when I describe the wheel shape, try looking at old Egyptian pictures of a pharaoh doing battle from his chariot: a slim rim with four slender spokes. We Europeans got the chariot from the same people that taught the Egyptians, and if you are curious to see a Danish example, look for a picture of our most famous instance: the Bronze Age treasure called the Sun Chariot. If the church mentioned above is A national treasure, the Sun Chariot is THE supreme national treasure. 

Here is the address for a reasonably good photograph of it:
http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec11/fig11i.htm 

Swasticas that belong to group 2 are the remote descendants of group 1. Our Viking ancestors were still fairly fond of the sign as a sun symbol, and when they became Christians, they had to give up real sun worship, but their descendants kept using the sign here and there as an old sign with magical powers - or as a traditional sign that was easy to make and looked decorative. 

Group 3 swasticas do have something to do with Hitler - he stole the idea from the people who made this group of swasticas. The Napoleonic wars at the beginning of the 19th century led to the invention of nationalism as we know it today: you live in a country with more or less fixed borders, and you share language and history with your fellow countrymen. 

An important part of this new nationalism of the 19th century was the search for the nation's archeological roots. While those lucky Italians could kick out the foreign archaeologists and worship interesting Roman remains, we Danes mostly had to make do with earth piles and ceramic shards. That never stopped us from reading the medieval sources to Danish history and extrapolating very detailed fantasy stories of what all DANES were like in the centuries and millenia before written history. 

But there were also serious archaeologists. Our first director of the newly-built National Museum, a Mr. Thomsen, was the man who invented the terms Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age and taught it to the rest of you people, because the layers of successive tool types had been carefully studied by Danes who were aching to get their hands on marble statues but were stuck with prosaic mud piles. We had to look carefully and notice the changes in tool materials, there was not much else to see ! 

Sorry for the archaeological digression, the point is that we spent most of the 19th century making ourselves proud of whatever national heritage we could find or invent. One of the things that caught our imagination was the way our linguists and the linguists of other European nations gradually found evidence for common roots behind most of the European languages. We were extremely excited by theories that described how our ancestors lived somewhere near India and how some of these old Indo-Europeans went northwest to Scandinavia, while others went to places like Greece and Italy. If we had not made a lot of marble statues, it was still nice to know we could take some of the credit for the marbles by way of our ancestors. 

The swastica was one of the pegs we hung our romantic dreams on. It is still common in India as Paula pointed out, and we found it all over Scandinavia. Wow, proof of Indo-European roots ! Some scientists picked on another Indian word, Aryan, and tried to prove how people with Indo-European languages must also have common racial roots. They invented fabulous tales of how the round-skulled primitive races of Europe were attacked by long-skulled Indo-European invaders, and they decided all these putative, racially pure Indo-Europeans were blond and blue-eyed. 

Before you all decide to despise the whole Danish people, please let me hurry to defend our nation by telling that there were of course many decent scientists who never bought the racist claptrap, and the rest of the scientists (the embarrassing ones) did not want to exterminate any other races. There were some of them who had unsavoury ideas about eugenics, about how we ought to prevent blond, blue-eyed Danes with low intelligence or criminal habits from breeding more "defective" Danes, but so did a lot of American scientists and others elsewhere. 

Modern Danish scientists agree that there is no way you can link the VERY ambiguous archeaological evidence with the obvious similaries in the languages called "Indo-European", and most of them could not care less. We are proud of all the people who ever lived on our flat little islands of chalk and mud. The racist theory would preclude us from admiring all the stone circles and barrow graves from those older parts of the Stone Age where not even the most fanciful 19th-century mad scientist could place his "Aryans". 

Sorry if it feels as if I have digressed horribly again, but what I wanted was to describe how the swastica has a very long history that is totally free of any anti-Jewish tones. Hitler was one of the most awful results of the 19th century discussions of nationalism, history, language and race that took place in all countries with a European culture, including the US, but he could just as easily have picked the sun wheel or any number of other ancient symbols found all over Northern Europe. Thorr's hammer looks pretty neat, for instance. 

Had Hitler chosen the sun wheel, then June and many others would have felt uncomfortable watching ancient Egyptian pictures of chariots. The swastica as such is not an evil symbol, it is merely an ancient sign with a long and complex history that has been hijacket by the worst gang of criminals who ever lived. 

In Denmark - and in Germany too - we do not usually speak of swasticas, we call that sign a "hooked cross", and until sometime after World War I we all felt it was a noble and ancient symbol that we would not mind to see on a church built in the 19th century. 

Today Hitler has monopolised the symbol and made it hard to use at all. After thinking carefully, I have come to the conclusion that in my personal opinion the swastica should not be kept out of books for children just because Hitler misused it. If the colour sceme is the Nazi black-white-red, it is bound to offend the eye of many decent beholders, but what if the intent behind such use is not racist ? 

Why should we assume that everybody who depicts the swastica means to say "I am a Nazi and I want to kill all the (insert whatever ethnic group is hated in your country, here it is Turks or Pakistani)" ? 

I have not seen the book under discussion, but if the page also contains the American flag, a cross and the Communist hammer-and-sicle displayed in the same format, then clearly the aim of the book is not to propagate Nazism, merely to show some symbols for value systems that are more or less violently opposed to each other. The Soviet Communists hated the Nazis so badly we can hardly grasp it - and they had good reason with some 20 million slaughtered contrymen. 

Incidentally, had we had this discussion of symbols in the late 1950s, we would all have been pretty unimpressed by the swastica, we would have been busy discussing why that evil illustrator had depicted the utterly vile hammer and sicle. 

Nobody feels threatened by Communists anymore, so the hammer and sicle have lost any power to offend, but because we are now experiencing growing racism in our populations, we should strike out at any symbolic usage that is racist, no matter what shape the sign has, and no matter what colours it is painted in. 

While the memory of Hitler's indescribably horrible crimes will always prevent decent people from using the black-white-red swastica as a sign of anything good, I believe we should not think of the hooked cross shape as intrinsically evil. It is what we choose to make of it. 

What we must rid our cultures of is racism, not symbols that happen to be hijacked by racists. If we had no problems with racism today, we could look at pictures of Hitler's black-white-red flag with much calmer eyes, even if we have Jewish ancestors - of which I happen to have one, if anybody wants to call ME an insensitive racist. 

My grandmother several times removed was Jewish. She had some bad experiences with the Germans during a previous occupation of Danish territory in 1864 (they stole all her plough horses in spite of her tears), but her descendants, my father's family, were more lucky: they had so many other blond ancestors that the Germans never bothered them in 1940-1945. The Nazis did not stay long enough to have time to read the old church registers, so they never sent my blue-eyed family south in a cattle waggon. 

In spite of a matrilinear blood line back to a Jewish lady, the family did not feel Jewish in 1940-1945, but the only surviving family member who was an adult back then, my aunt Karen, is still extremely proud of our Jewish ancestress, and she treasures the photographs of the ancestress' dark-haired children that are still in her part of the family. 

Gina asked if the word n----- would provoke reaction similar to the words and symbols "swastika" and "Nazi." I would argue that that the "n" word is substantively different. I can't really imagine wanting children to use the "n" word even in academic discussions of American history. But I am perfectly comfortable saying and using in the classroom the words "Nazi" and "swastika." They are terms chosen by a group of people to name and represent themselves. Should I have reason to talk about the historical development, ideological principles, and horrific consequences of the 1930s and 40s in Western Europe, I'd want to call theses thinks by their right names. And I'd want the kids in the classroom to use the appropriate terms too--I don't see how this is in any way disrespectful of Jewish people, either survivors or the Holocaust victims. I believe teaching about these tragedies is a way of honoring the victims. 

On the other hand,the "n" word is a derogative term applied to a group of people without their consent by another group. If I use it, I am indulging in slurs, rather than calling anything by its right name. 

All these terms raise hackles and problems in the classroom where we dance delicately between our desires for happy, optimistic childhoods and the ugly realities of the human race. But, at least for me, these three terms raise different problems and shouldn't be seen as parallels. 

Janet wrote: 

" I imagine a Hindu and a Jewish child sitting together during the winter religious celebrations, sharing their symbols. The Jewish child takes the swastika home and BLAM." 

Ha ha, what an efficient picture to illustrate why it is so important that we concentrate on promoting tolerance instead of concentrating on stomping out all that we think inappropriate. 

As I was reading this response to this thread, I had a thought- How is this different than displaying the Swastika on the front of book that is about the Holocaust? Would you not purchase the book since it displays the symbol even though it would teach children and adults about one of the most horrific events in the history of the world? What happened to the Jews during WWII should be taught and discussed with today's children. By teaching and explaining to today's children about what the Jews endured they can learn and perhaps even try to imagine what life was like for Jewish children being taken to the camps. Nothing can take away the pain but I doubt the ones in pain would want the event to be forgotten or worse, dismissed. 

I am going to apologize ahead of time if I have offended anyone. That was not my intent. 

I can't help but wonder: if it were a less beautiful book, would people be so tolerant? For example, if this swastika appeared on something that obviously wasn't good literature (a swastika in a Babysitter's Club book, perhaps?) would people be as likely to defend its right to be there? 

On the other hand, where does our concern about/antipathy toward censorship come in? 

Just some questions to mull over... 

I am clearly very upset by the shape this discussion has taken. I am going to sit back and read what you are all writing before I go on the defensive again. But there are two points I would like to make to clarify my position. 

1) To me and to many Jews, not to mention others who are members of groups persecuted by Nazis, the swastika is an obscene image. It is clear to me now that the vast majority do not have any concept of what the image represents to us. That's not anyone's fault in particular. But you need to know how it makes many of us feel. To us, it would be the same thing as Base choosing to include a scene of KKK members lynching a black man on his "K" page. Or of an adult raping a child on his "R" page. You cannot say to me that these images are not equivalents to what the swastika represents. If you have any inkling of what the Nazis did, you know that these horrendous activities are of the same ilk. I'm not asking you to make the same associations. I'm asking you to realize that for many of us these associations exist, and for good reason. I repeat: A swastika is an obscene image to millions of people. 

2. I have not suggested in any way, shape or form that no one should read Base's book or that swastikas should not be represented at all in children's literature. I said that *I* would no longer buy his books. More importantly, I have not yet clarified my stance on context and education. Children's literature does and must deal with Nazism, racism, skinheads, etc. It's all a matter of how these ideas are presented and contextualized. I do not believe Base is appropriately contextualing his use of the symbol. 

I will hold off on expressing anything else at this point but the following: I am enraged and horrified by the sentiments I see being expressed here. The only consolation is that so many of you are expressing them, I can release my feelings of anger at individuals. Instead, I am realizing that cultural relativism has brought us to the point that many of you are willing to deny the very real, valid, and visceral reactions Jews might have against the representation of a swastika. Be careful of what you may be denying. 

Dear Janet 

I'm a little bemused at the animalia discussion. i doubt whether g base seriously thort about the symbolism. i wd guess that he went thru the dictionary collecting all the 's' words regardless of connotation. from the little i know of him he's definitely not anti-semitic. i dont think he thort deeply about the content of animalia apart from its being a visual dictionary. I think too that here in australia we dont have as strong reactions towards these symbols as you do in the states. i've never heard of anyone here reacting to his books in that way. 

June wrote: "Be careful of what you may be denying." 

I, and probably others, have not chimed in on this one yet exactly because I am trying to be careful. You've expressed yourself very clearly June, and I'm trying to take my time --as you are-- digesting responses. I can be sympathetic, but not empathic, by virtue of not being Jewish, so I won't ever be able to experience what you're feeling. I do have very strong feelings about books, and I'm trying to be careful here as well of what I may be denying. I have on the one hand my gut-feeling, and on the other what you've told me of your gut-feeling. Of course my own feelings have more sway. I'm standing with arms outstretched, trying to make these balance --and guessing that there are many of us "upset" by this discussion..... 

I have to chime in on this discussion -- first of all I did understand where people were coming from when they made suggestions about swastika images being ancient and having varying meanings, but in the book in question the symbol is most definately the nazi swastika. Someone purchased this book for my preschool class, and I can remember thinking how very strange it was. When an image like this or a burning cross or what have you is used in a book where it serves some purpose in the narrative that is one thing, but what we have here is images pulled together based simply on the fact that they start with a certain letter (unless there is some underlying narrative that was beyond me). In an artistic collage for older children I might be able to think of some reason for an artist to include images which would provoke dialogue (like the dialogue we are having now), but I can't see any reason for a swastika to be included in an alphabet book!! Base's book is beautiful and some children spend hours identifying the images and sometimes copying them. So what do you say to a 5 year-old who is drawing a swastika. I am not at all in favor of censuring but I would have trouble using this book. 

Sadly, I think it's you who is wrong June. The Nazis were wonderful at censorship and now you seem to be following their example. 

Yes, the swastika has meaning - but that meaning should be explained to children, not hidden from them. 

I have explained to Phil off-list that I have not been advocating censorship, as I made very clear in my last public post. Let me again clarify this for those who don't understand. My decision not to read Bases's books is not censorship. My telling the rest of the world that they shouldn't read his books would be. But I have not done that. 

I'll thank you, Phil, not to compare me to the Nazis. 

I hope this doesn't upset anyone still more, but some of the distrubed feelings voiced on the swastika thread made me recall my own a long time ago when I started one on Michael Dorris. It was right after he killed himself and there had been some articles just before and after about his problems within his family - notably accusations of child abuse. I had just read Guests to my class and all of this upset me quite a lot because there was so much about child abuse in that book and others of Dorris. I began by asking for help in being able to read the book again saying I didn't think I could after hearing these accusations. The thread became very emotional as participants went from saying his books should be banned because he was an accused child abuser to others who accused me of censorship. At points I was very upset at the suggestion that I was a censor, at others I was glad to learn more. I've reread the thread several times and it still is a very emotional one. 

My point is that our current discussion on swastikas seems to be raising equally deep emotions. For some on the list this is purely intellectual while for others it is very emotional. I found the Dorris thread quite upsetting at times even though I have had no direct experience with child abuse. On the other hand the way people have described Baese's use of the swastika doesn't bother me so far (I recall the book, but haven't seen it recently and need to, I know) and I AM the daughter of Holocaust survivors. I think it is because I know a huge range of stories and information about things that happened to my family and others in Germany firsthand. My father whose father was deported and killed is a specialist in German politics and I lived on and off in Germany as a child. I go back all the time. We moved so much that Germany feels as close to a homeland to me as any place in America. I grew up in a home that was full of German life, food, clothing, etc. My family is very German, that was the tragedy of the German Jews- many like my grandfather considered themselves German first. In Germany there are so many people near and dear to me: people there who knew my parents all their lives, children of teachers who protected my parents when they were persecuted, relatives who were in camps and returned to Germany their home still. Of late I've been doing some writing about primary sources in teaching and began with the image of my father's Nazi passport - about the juxtiposition in this document of my father's childish photo, the large red J and swastikas. All of this together has a lot of resonance to me. One of things I was writing about was how much more powerful primary sources are compared to fictionalized accounts. Anyway,I'm running on here and am not quite sure how to close other than to reiterate that the swastika alone doesn't disturb me. Of course, seeing one will always make me jump. If I saw the Danish church Bodil describes my heart would jump, but once I understood it wasn't Nazi, I'd relax. It is seeing the symbol in a Nazi context that would upset me and I don't yet know if that is what Baese intended. 

So, please, to those getting very upset here. Please try to stick with it upsetting as it is. We all learn here from each other. 

Phil wrote: 

" Sadly, I think it's you who is wrong June. The Nazis were wonderful at censorship and now you seem to be following their example.
Yes, the swastika has meaning - but that meaning should be explained to children, not hidden from them." 

Whoa! Haven't we had the discussion about the difference between censorship and selection before? Yes, kids should learn what the swastika stands for in modern times, but there's a time and a place for learning these things, and among the pages of an alphabet book may not be one of them. It is certainly true that the swastika once had other meanings, but we can't ignore the fact that ever since the Nazis appropriated this, all other meanings have withered away and fallen off. We can't know why Base chose to use this symbol unless we ask him, but it certainly shows a lapse of judgment on his part and his editor's. It doesn't surprise me at all that some people, Jews and Gentiles alike, would balk at the picture. 

Jennifer, you struck an important note here. What about editor responsibility? Apparently this symbol didn't disturb the editor or the art director. What about the marketing department? Did one of those "committees" examine the book and art and declare "safe"? There are many images and symbols that still are distasteful to African Americans in children's books but they still are being published. 

I am nervous to even enter into this discussion, but I do think that the issue of context is very important here. The bottom line is, the appearance of a swastika in a children's book is far more disturbing than it normally is (and I DO think it is, indeed, very disturbing--always) when it is "hidden" in another picture, as that creates a feeling of an intended subliminal message. If I HAD to justify it's appearance in the book, I MIGHT be able to do so on the "S" page, as it is linked to other images relevant to war (particularly the second World War) and could lead to an educational discussion with the child/children with whom I am sharing the book. However, to have a symbol hidden in the swirls of the water, it turns into more of a game, which, in my opinion, is an inappropriate association for the swastika. It's okay for less potent symbols, like say, a stop sign. It's one thing to link a symbol to a discussion of various people and their beliefs (right or wrong). After all, "Nazi" does start with an "N," and it IS an important part of the way we lived (and died) in World War II. It's another thing entirely to play "find the swastika" with a child who is just starting to master the alphabet. 

I have no issue, personally, with putting thought-provoking images in a book for children, as long as it is done with respect to the weight of the symbol. Whether or not it was an ancient symbol for peace is irrelevant. The image of the cross probably used to evoke the same feelings as an image of the gallows. But now, millions of people, even people who are not of Christian faith, associate it with religion. The meanings of symbols change, and like it or not, even those thousands or millions of people who know the swastika as a symbol of peace, also know it for it's association with the horrible events of the holocaust. There are millions of others who ONLY know it for it's association with the holocaust. 

So... the bottom line is, it IS in fact an image that not only offends, but seriously injures the hearts and souls of millions of people. As human beings, I believe people can and should respect that. The symbol isn't off limits for children's literature, but it's meaning should be carefully weighed and it's image used with respect to those feelings. No one seems to know Baese's own political feelings, but I thinik it totally reasonable for someone to choose to not read anymore work by the author based on his or her feelings about this book. I read Return of the Native and Tess of the d'Urbervilles, and -- God as my witness, I shall never read another Thomas Hardy novel again. I don't like them, and I see no need to choke another one down. But I will never tell someone else not to read them. I think that the people saying they won't read anymore Baese are completely within their right, and they are in no way dictating to me what is right and wrong for me to read. Whether it is because the writing is unbearable to them, or the pictures offend them, that's the magical part of reading. Every reader has his book and every book it's reader. 

Whew! 

As I carefully read all of this thread, I remember a powerful film by Alain Resnais "Nuit et Brouillard" [Night and Fog] and can never forget the text by Jean Cayrol "I am not responsible" repeated over and over and over by those brought to trial after the war and the final lines "And then, who is responsible?" 

As we examine what Base has done in his book we may accept authorial and illustrator right to create the work but, at the same time, we may reject what the author/illustrator has created. In this instance there is a connection on responsibility. Certainly all of us are aware of how violent a history humanity shares and how very often silence and acceptance easily become tacit approval. June has spoken clearly, she has taken responsibility and positioned herself. Others have agreed with her in varying measure. Still others are torn or at best, puzzled, by this discussion. 

When I write of responsibility in this context, I believe that Base is irresponsible. In Germany, you may recall in the early 30s, many books available to children contained hateful slurs and derogative stories about Jews. I can not believe that any artist places anything in an illustration that is without purpose or intent. One might assume several intentions in the Base work: to provoke, to inspire discussion, to remind, to be clever, etc., but, combined with the context of this book, an alphabet search for children, I am at a loss. 

Yes, one could seize the "teaching moment" and use these illustrations to explore the changed meanings, but we also forget that many children may read this work without an adult intermediary. 

Perhaps it is time for some of us to begin a scholarly examination of some of the books that evoke such concern. Let me make clear, I am not suggesting an end product be censorship here, but rather, a careful study and dissemination on a work or works that disturb so many of us. 

Elizabeth said: 

"It's another thing entirely to play "find the swastika" with a child who is just starting to master the alphabet." 

I just want to point out that Animalia is really not a book for children who are "just starting to master the alphabet." It is not a concept book -- it is a work of very interesting art and a lot of very challenging visual riddles. I, for one, cannot "master" a large portion of the content of the book :) 

My own family history of Nazi occupation includes cousins who were not Jewish, in fact were Catholic but put into forced labor camps because they were teachers and occupying forces brought their own to teach in the schools. The agenda of teaching the German language and using children to inform on family members and neighbors was wide spread in occupied Europe. However, these same cousins whom I met first in the 1950's after the war and with whom my family here in the United States exchange visits still tell stories of the camps. One cousin died there, another survived. I was about 10 years old when I first heard their stories. And they believe that their stories should be told and that the war and the Nazi should be remembered and talked about. They believe that only when people know what can and did happen will they work to prevent a recurrence. 

Yes. The fact that it's in a sheild with an American flag, a Russian sickle, and a red cross makes it clear that this is not an ancient symbol being portrayed. 

June, 

I have read some of this discussion and chose in particular to read your latest posting because I so often appreciate what you have to say. I especially admired your clarification and expression of concern (I'll understate, here). 

My "concern": people are being tortured and murdered every day in the name of profits for corporations (corporations are, of course, people, not inanimate entities), and the countries (again, people) those corporations own and dictate. 

Whose hands are clean here? Where are the educators in this country (e.g. Child_Lit contributors) when the question of corporate interests in the schools arises? Focussing attention on anti-semitism? On horrors long ago? Busy deflecting attention from our own complicity? 

What are we doing to educate the naive, ignorant, and blindered about murder and abuse for money and power? 

We grieve for those who went before; we can only act for those remaining. Doesn't doing the right thing in the here and now require that we apply all we know about history and the present to making things right for the living and the yet-to-be-born? 

(I have just reread the above and realize that many would argue that we *can* communicate with the dead; indeed, that our salvation requires that we address the deceased. I do not mean to argue this theological point.) 

I appreciate the discussion of the nature and intended audience, etc. of Animalia, as well as of the reactions its images provoke, whether intentionally/consciously or not. I respect the conviction of those calling our attention to the significance of what is in print. I would like to see equal energy and honesty toward the victims of today's aggressions and atrocities. 

21 Jan 1999
Chris Saad 

Whoops! Please excuse spelling mistakes in my previous post! 

Another question for me is what do I do with Animalia in my store now that I know about the swastikas? As it is oversized, I had it on top of a ledge by the register - a pretty prominent place. 

I don't want it above the cash register anymore, because my feelings about it have changed and it's no longer the kind of book I want to actively promote. But I also don't want to completely remove it from the store, because it's the kind of book that customers come in and ask for by name. So do I put it in the back alcove with the leftover Nutcrackers, or what? 

And when customers come in and do ask for it, do I warn them about the swastikas? (I did that last night, and the customer decided not to buy the book.) I am not Jewish, but most of my customers are. 

More questions for me to ponder... 

Kay, you've expressed very clearly what I'm feeling (and others?) caught in the middle here. Even taking that Base's book is for *older* children, he must have known that this image would be provocative -- and is it provocative in the right way considering how this book will be used? I think no. It catches readers off guard. However: does this mean I won't continue to use the book? Also no. I will be more careful in how I use it. 

21 Jan 1999
Kay E. Vandergrift 

Chris: 

You see, you took a stance last night. You lost a sale, but you shared concern/information with a potential customer. I believe that you also began the very real, often difficult, process of establishing trust between you and the book buyer. That is a very valuable thing too. 

Bodil, 

Thank you very much for the extraordinary tour of the historical uses of the swastika and its special meanings to the people of Denmark, which was, in a sense, like a tour around a wierd and provocative specimen of architecture. In this specimen, however, there is a very peculiar bulge. Like you, I also feel a deep and thorough and probably corrosive hatred of the swastika as an incarnation of evil, and I am also torn; not so much by the need to preserve respect for the diverse other uses of the symbol--which seems to me a red herring in this diversion--but because, obviously, as some people have suggested already, the swastika as a nazi insignia serves multiple good ethical and historical purposes: It evokes for us the horror of Kristalnacht and the camps, the big lie, and so forth, and it reminds us to behave ethically and compassionately--that we are capable of slipping into nightmarish brutality if we do not. Well and good. For me, and for those who hold this very reasonable position. 

Yet, there seems to be something complacent about the attitude of some people (not on this list, and certainly not you, Bodil), who can see nothing amiss with the depiction of the nazi swastika in this harmless context, and who argue that Base's motives are probably above the gross vulgarity with which he is being accused. (Although Kay's charge of insensitivity against Base may apply, Base's motives are in some sense irrelevant.) 

I think the point should be made (again) that some people do see the nazi insignia, presented in a neutral context as it may be, to be a highly charged and repellent image of aggression, a symbol of ultimate repression, no, not a symbol--the thing itself (June posits some hateful imagery, but you can think of your own horrible images as well, the picture you hate). That everyone does not perceive this thing the same way surely does not lessen the validity that it can be perceived this way, or undermine the integrity, reasonableness and intelligence of people who have this perception. Nor should anyone feel threatened that such a passionate response is possible, though it is different from theirs. 

It only establishes once again that their are different ways of reacting and being human. When my daughter, Hannah and I walk along, the people we pass generally do not stop and tell her how beautiful she is or how graceful her gait, how pleasurable it is to behold her smiling or laughing, how singular and precious the moment. Yet, this certainly does not lessen the fact that she IS beautiful and delightful to behold. Is their blaise indifference more real than a father's love? Should we teach ourselves to be more rational? 

Yesterday a reference librarian I work with was looking at "Animalia" and said, "Boy, this guy is really into WWII, isn't he?" She pointed out that there are , among others, a bomb on the B page, a picture of somebody who might be Stalin on the K page (but why? and why is the poster in English? Is it the Kaiser?), a destroyer on the D page. So perhaps there is a theme, but.... (stay with me--I get back to this!) 

This book gives me the creeps, bluntly put. A month ago I brought it home and casually gave it to my children, 5 and 8, and said, "Here, take a look at this and see which of these you can figure out!" on the off-chance they would sit quietly together and bond. I had not looked closely at every little bit in the pictures, nor did I sit with them and discuss it. As a matter of fact, I often give my children books and let them enjoy them without my being there, intervening and explaining. I did not know there was a swastika there--twice. I feel awful about that. 

So last night I asked the 8 year old if she knew what WWII was. No. Did she know what a Nazi was? No. So she probably wouldn't know what a swastika was? She wasn't sure. She asked me to draw one and I found myself totally unable to bring myself to do so. I described it to her and she said yes, maybe she'd seen it on TV, in a movie perhaps. (Of course, it was in the book that -I-, her mother, had given her!) 

So what age group are we saying is the audience here? I don't know. But what I do know is I feel somewhat, um, betrayed is the best word. Base selected that symbol and added it. It was a conscious choice. The editor said okay. 

Back to my first paragraph. There is, I'm thinking, a possible numbing to horror. For example, my parents lived through WWII, and I heard about it. For me, it's real, but WWI is almost as misty as the Civil War because I didn't hear first-hand stories from people I love. I imagine to my children WWII will be ancient history because the ones who knew it are gone. I see this in people--a romanticization (?) of war, of what FUN WWII must have been, or VietNam, or (especially now) the Civil War. It makes me shudder. 

I don't like "Animalia." I especially don't like the K page. But this issue is also about removal of a book. I would never buy this book because of the images. BUT... removal? That becomes a bigger issue. And I suspect that in many libraries, when the book is torn, or the binding becomes tattered, it will not be replaced. 

Chris, as a parent I would have wanted to know. I feel terrible about giving this book to my children and letting them see those images. Of course, I'm not nuts about the kangaroos with tommy guns or the gallows in the garage, either.... 

I don't think the meaning of this symbol has changed for the Hindus who were mentioned in earlier posts and for the Danish people at the church. it is only for Europeans and Americans and Jews that this symbol has such an odious meaning. Things change all the time. This symbol was not the problem, the people who adopted the symbol were the problem. This symbol could be adopted by another group and turned back into something positive within a couple of generations. 

Just my two cents worth 

Hello, 

I just got back on to this listserv. I have been reading everything on the swastika. What exactly is that? Is it a book or something else? Thanks. stephanie 

I'm starting to feel like Milan Kundera here; yesterday I was after the laughter, and today I'm afraid I'm going to make the case for forgetting. 

My daughter was 4 or 5 when we first talked about the Holocaust. I do not remember why the subject came up, but I do remember regularly entertaining the fear back then that - because of exposure to television shows and movies full of violence - she might grow up to view the torture of human beings with something less than the horror I felt when I first read Uris' _Exodus_ and Hersey's _The Wall_ at age 12 or 13. We didn't go into graphic details during our discussion, but I didn't consider it to be too young an age at which to have her make note of the evil that was Hitler. Some of her current fellow 2nd graders depicted a detail from Martin Luther King's life last week (they weren't asked to draw him lying on the ground in a pool of blood; their assignment was to draw a picture of him) in a way that makes me wonder if they, in fact, aren't a bit more blase about cold-blooded murder than I can be comfortable with, but of that I have no proof. All of which is by way of saying that having a child find out about what a swastika represents at a certain age depends on the individual child and for what purpose and in what way the information is conveyed. 

Which is where the forgetting comes in. 

The Protestants and the Catholics in Ireland have never forgotten, for how many hundreds of years, just who did what to whom and when, and the retaliation and counter-retaliation seem as if they will never end. Same goes for the Bosnians and the Serbs, the Palestinians and the Israelis, and the insert name of your favorite insurrectionist and counter-insurrectionist here. So, saying that the only way we can prevent a recurrence of the unspeakable is by never allowing anyone to forget is true only up to a point. Inciting a child, or even fellow adults, to the point where they think that shooting someone in the head thru a kitchen window is an appropriate response, is nothing short of insanity. 

Which is why I would ask you, June, to reconsider, not yr decision about how to personally handle Base's work, but where yr thoughts and heart are leading you as far as cultural relativism is concerned. It is not a heinous principle, but can be put to evil use, as can any religion or belief, if taken to an emotional extreme. 

And no, logic and a rational approach to issues are not always all that they're cracked up to be, but I'd rather have an argument with someone whose underlying premise is that we'll keep the emotions under wraps as much as is humanly possible, and that we agree not to resort to the use of firearms or machetes as we sort out our differences. 

Which brings up the issue of degrees. My post yesterday was intended to convey an idea to which I still subscribe, and that is that as humans we are capable of ascribing all sorts of meanings to all sorts of symbols, and the fact that one of us can point to 6 million dead relatives while another has only a single rape and beating to fall back on cannot be plugged into an equation at the end of which we will be able to rank the amount of suffering, pain and anguish the respective symbols evoke. 

Along a similar line, as humans we are capable of thoughtlessness, carelessness, stupidity and good intentions which crack like paving stones after a cycle of freeze and thaw. My take on how to tell children to think about the motives of others is this: Assume first that their intentions are good but misguided; as evidence accumulates, we can start to go with the assumption of stupidity; and only as a last resort do we call someone evil. This, of course, assumes that the perpetrator in question is unarmed and less than obviously dangerous. 

Which leaves me feeling that our reaction to Base's work should be tempered by the recognition that he is not Hitler, and that asking children to react to his decision to include the symbols he did in his book in the same way we would expect them to react to someone on their doorstep offering them money to shoot their mom, does not further the cause of milking the cow for human kindness in any way, shape or form. I guess I worry too that as humans with a limited capacity for outrage, if we expend it all on a book, or on some idiot who uses the word nazi in the same sentence as the word soup, we won't have the wits or the strength left to pass the real test of our courage and principles, if and when it does put in an appearance. And please, don't even start thinking dominoes here. Between most thoughtlessness and evil there lies an uncrossable abyss and allowing ourselves or our children to believe otherwise is where we start by not speaking to each other and end with weapons drawn. 

21 Jan 1999
Janet Zarem 

Chris' question (below) is just the one that I am wrestling with. Kay and the other post-er (forgive me for forgetting your name) who wrote in to say that Chris had kept faith with her patrons by telling them about the swastika make an excellent point. Though I work in a bookstore infrequently these days, I am in continual communication with local booksellers, so my opportunity to further air this matter extends in several directions (and so does everyone's on this list). 

I must also make a comment here about the idea that teaching about something somehow prevents it's happening again. It is clear that as a group the Jews got the message of the Holocaust (though, as has been observed here, they were hardly the only group the Nazis were trying to eradicate. They also went after Catholics, the disabled, Roma, and homosexuals.) So it is unlikely that this will happen again to the Jewish people. However, the number of genocides (or intended genocides) following World War II increases in number with each decade. I am certainly not saying we shouldn't teach about the Holocaust (and I know there are programs that use it as a paradigm). But this matter is not quite as straightforward as it seems. Either Santayana didn't quite get it right (Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it--pardon if this isn't the exact wording), or it's harder to learn from history than we thought, or it's harder to teach history than we thought, or something that hasn't occurred to me. These matters are far from settled. Historians, scholars, theologians and others do not agree on why the Holocaust "happened." I am, obviously, 100% in favor of teaching and learning more effectively. But it is clear to me that identifying symbols, though essential, is the briefest beginning. To even start to address these issues and events (to say nothing of trying to prevent them), it seems that individuals, groups and governments must engage in the kind of deep inquiry regarding their beliefs and political-economic-social-religious structures which most of us (and which most of our govenments, surely) are not likely to do in the profound manner which may be required (assuming this can even be accomplished at all). Let me reiterate, this does not mean to me that we should become resigned in the face of such a task, or believe that our efforts (profound or not) do not bear fruit. I mentionned before the journal "Teaching Tolerance." It is definitely affecting young lives. I do mean, though, to point to the complexities involved. 

21 Jan 1999
Bodil Gram 

Carol wrote: 

"I don't think the meaning of this symbol has changed for the Hindus who were mentioned in earlier posts and for the Danish people at the church. it is only for Europeans and Americans and Jews that this symbol has such an odious meaning." 

Ha ha, Denmark is most certainly a part of Europe too, and we Danes had more than enough of the utterly vile Nazis during WW II. My mother had wrecking nightmares of bomb shelters long time after she became an adult, and my father still talks of the Germans as "lortetyskere", i.e. shit Germans. 

"Things change all the time. This symbol was not the problem, the people who adopted the symbol were the problem. This symbol could be adopted by another group and turned back into something positive within a couple of generations." 

Yes, I agree completely. Symbols are man-made things, they are not evil as such. People, however, can be unbelievably evil, and I am personally very worried about the growing racism and intolerance all over the world. 

Hmmm, correct that to EXTREMELY worried! 

*** 

Janet Spaeth has just explained very convincingly why she dislikes Animalia. I have not seen it myself, but I am beginning to suspect I might dislike it too on closer study, however beautiful and funny it may be. 

I once experienced a feeling similar to the one described by Chris Saad with another alphabet book made by Mike Wilks: The Ultimate Alphabet. I had previously admired his other book, The Weather Works, and enjoyed spotting his self-portraits together with very young relatives, but when I used the alphabet book in a class of 17-18 year-olds learning English, they quickly decided that the beautiful pages contained lots of details which they felt were related to bondage and other sexual practices. I had previously felt the book was not entirely suitable for young children learning to read, but now I have lost my initial liking for a very detailed and elegant book, and it is hidden away in a cupboard. Others are welcome to like The Ultimate Alphabet, but to me the taste has gone off, the magic is spoiled. (I still like The Weather Works, though.) 

And thank you, Michael, for your kind words and for your understanding. I must admit that I personally feel many discussions of evil tend to focus on the wrong issues. Nappy hair and swastikas definitely cause too much pain in people who have suffered persecution, but on the other hand it seems more important to stop genuine racists than to swat each and every author who uses such controversial terms or symbols in relative (he of she thinks) innocence and without any obvious racist intention. There are enough genuine racists for us all to bash, unfortunately, and we are not furthering the cause of tolerance by being intolerant of flaws in non-racists, which I take this Mr. Base to be(????). 

"I just want to point out that Animalia is really not a book for children who are "just starting to master the alphabet." It is not a concept book -- it is a work of very interesting art and a lot of very challenging visual riddles. I, for one, cannot "master" a large portion of the content of the book :)" 

I would go further than this and question whether this should be seen as a childrens book at all. I know a number of adults that have this book, but that do not have children or an interest in childrens books generally, so it does seem to have an adult appeal. I wonder whether the reaction to the negative images in the book (and there are a fair number of them) would be the same if it had been marketed more as an 'visual dictionary of our culture' for adults rather than an alphabet book which we automatically associate with young children. In that context, an honest depiction of our culture might be expected to involve quite a few images of this type that are not appropriate in a picture book aimed at children. 

A very good point Sue. 

Well, in response to the suggestion that "Animalia" is NOT for little children--ahem. I quote from the inside flap of the dust jacket: 

"Here's an incredible imaginary world that will intrigue youngsters of all ages, whether or not they know their ABCs." 

Perhaps my children knew their ABCs well before other children, but I don't think so (clever and smart though they may be)--by the time they started kindergarten they had the alphabet pretty well under control, except maybe for that letter called "ellemmennopee." So--I'd say the publisher would like preschoolers in on this, too. (Adults are, I'm sure, also welcome!) 

Reviews on the back cover include several references to children as the readers of the book. 

I think there is a war subtheme--there is a hand grenade on the H page. And (this is digressing, but ick!) a quail is being sucked into the quicksand on the Q page. 

(By the way, the guy on the poster on the K page is Gen. Kitchener--thanks, Paula Jones, for telling me!) 

I don't think the power of the swastika as a symbol will loose it's strength, or acquire a different meaning, in a few generations. 

"And when customers come in and do ask for it, do I warn them about the swastikas? (I did that last night, and the customer decided not to buy the book.) I am not Jewish, but most of my customers are." 

Do you warn them of other possibly offensive things such as curse words or acts of violence in books? 

"I have explained to Phil off-list that I have not been advocating censorship, as I made very clear in my last public post. Let me again clarify this for those who don't understand. My decision not to read Bases's books is not censorship. My telling the rest of the world that they shouldn't read his books would be. But I have not done that." 

Sadly your last public post crossed mine and therefore what I wrote was before that. However, if I might quote from one of June's previous posts: 

"No one will recognize it? Lose its ability to provoke? Therefore it should be in children's books? Hello? Don't you see what you are implying?" 

This passage doesn't apple to Base - it applies to the inclusion of swastikas in children's books. My reading is that June thinks they shouldn't be in children's books. This IS censorship (or, rather, the potential for censorship). 

I don't want to hash old arguments about censorship here again and I have to make quite clear that I'm not advocating any kind of pro-Nazi literature. And, I believe that books like Rose Blanche (which includes swastikas) have a far greater impact in supporting June's stance ["I will teach my children to recognize this symbol for as long as I live. I hope you will do the same"] than their suppression. 

On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, liTtLe RicE wrote: 

" Umm.. aren't there other subthemes, too? If we'd like to find them -- Now I really have to go and secretly BUY a copy and do a "subtheme" study of the book. If there is a war theme, then, maybe we can all explain the book better and feel better about it? I don't know. Maybe there IS a WWII theme -- then, it will be HARD and wrong to NOT include references to Nazis and swastika, right?" 

Maybe, and that is what makes me, well, not feel -better- about the book, but perhaps understand it. (I still don't like it.) Yes, there may indeed be other subthemes and I'd like to know about them, too. 

"I think the part about the "degree" is the key here. If we can't distinguish the degree of emotional reactions between those toward a real Neo-Nazi who gathered a bunch of teenagers and incited them to go out and lynch people, and those toward an author/illustrator, who tends to include a LOT of various images, including things benign and "menacing" -- then how can we teach true and rational sensibility to our next generation." 

I hate to be blunt, but I resent your implication here. My initial reaction to the swastika issue and to Base was tempered and calm. It was in response to things people said on this list that I became more and more angry. I believe my response to things people like you have said has been utterly rational. 

"I have not "implication" other than what's said in my post -- I thought I was being fairly "blunt" myself. It's not your posts that are not rational -- sorry if you read into it that way. (It really is not what I" 

This is what you said: 

" think the part about the "degree" is the key here.... (snipped, fcl.)" 

What I thought you were saying was this: some of us are not distinguishing between actual lynching Neo-Nazis and illustrations in a book. If we can't make that distinction, we are not "true," "rational," or "sensible." I see you separated the illustration from the illustrator here. Although I said I thought Base knew what he was doing (and I agree with Michael here, that this issue of intentionality is ultimately irrelevant), I never called him a Nazi or even anti-Semitic. I did not express an emotional reaction about him at all and haven't heard anyone else do that either. The parallel being drawn is that the sight of a swastika, whether shaved on a skinhead's head or plopped in a children's book with no explanatory context, provokes the same visceral reaction for some of us. 

"meant.) And, who are "people like me"? (Am I allowed then to be angry at whatever you're implying??)" 

"People like you" was not a well chosen group of words. I apologize for that. What I meant was people on the list who seem unable to understand that the reaction I am having is not merely "emotional," but one evoked by a set of historic events that has the power to make me forever despise the symbol of those events and its perpetrators. And I believe that hatred should forever be linked to that symbol. 

"And, June, as far as I can tell, most people on this list are more on your side and supporting your view, right?" 

That's not the impression I have. 

"Why are you angry? Because we do not share the same emotional reaction?" 

I am angry because what I keep hearing on the list are attempts to "explain" what a swastika is and to attempt me to see that its meaning is relative and therefore its non-contextualized presence in Base's book is something I should just "get over" and accept. 

I also see an incredible lack of understanding of what persecuted people (of many groups and of differing genocidal events) experience. Those of you who are arguing that we could "restore" the symbol's original meanings and that we should work to evacuate the symbol of its current significance seem the most lacking in awareness. I am sorry that Hitler stripped the swastika of the peaceful associations it once had, and I don't deny that in some cultures that meaning still exists. But none of that negates for me the current meaning it has for millions, nor should it. 

Many have suggested that my response is emotional and have implied, therefore, that it is somehow less valid. I'm not saying you're doing that, Fairrosa, but others have. Some have asked me to talk about and look for "facts." This to me is very interesting in light of the revisionist history certain pundits and writers have been propagating about the "fact"--or not--of the Holocaust. 

I never thought I'd be saying this, but for the first time I realize that some of you just don't get it. I can argue with you until I'm blue in the face and state and restate my position 100s times, but you are not going to see what I am saying. This is a conundrum for me. But one thing I am not confused about is my own reaction and its validity. 

I have made an error and need to correct it. I misunderstood Rose Reith's post and responded it under the influence of that misunderstanding. I thought she was saying that if we don't use this symbol any longer, it will lose its power to provoke. I got off on the wrong foot after reading the first sentence as meaning that a symbol is powerful only if it is recognized. From there I mistakenly thought she was advocating not recognizing it in order to defuse it. 

I apologize to Rose. 

 Bodil Gram 

June, 

I am so sorry the whole discussion has caused you such distress. 

When you have calmed a bit down I hope you get the opportunity to see that fairrosa was not as far from the truth as you feel right now, when she wrote: 

"And, June, as far as I can tell, most people on this list are more on your side and supporting your view, right?" 

It is natural if at this point you feel we don't get it, but if memory serves me right (and I admit it can be flaky), nobody suggested that your response was invalid or in any other way wrong: I for one tried carefully to point out that I can get feelings that are at least as strong when I see certain kinds of swastikas in certain contexts. I get so angry that I hardly know what to do with my own rage, and I frequently have to supress wild urges to yell rude words at Neo-Nazis or assault them bodily. (I am ashamed to admit it right now when I am calm, but it really is so.) If you can get outraged at some swastikas, believe me, so can I, and I will not deny you are right, if you should accuse me of being irrational and over the top in my deep revulsion and hatred against modern racists. 

What set off the lavine of e-mail (and what may have caused some of us to overstate our opinions to a degree which may have made us seem worse to you than we meant to be) was, as far as I can understand from the other letters, the fact that you did not have the same development in outrage that many of us would have experinced: a moment of incredulous shock and anger, followed by some thoughts on the motives of the author, followed by a grumpy decision that it was frivolous and idiotic - but probably not meant to inspire outrage or to incite to racism. Then it would be time to move on and try to ignore the author's faux pas, but we would probably respect him somewhat less in the future. 

Do you think you would have felt something similar, given a day or two more to think about it before discussing it with this list ? I know it must be hard to guess at that now, after a lot of letters, after letters you may have felt were meant to hurt and denigrate your position. 

I realize I should not assume I know too much about the others, but let me speak for myself then: What made my fingers tap on the keyboard was in no way the wish to hurt your feelings, or to suggest the Nazis were somehow "harmless". I admit to having been sucked into the pre-Nazi discussion of the sign, and I am not going to deny I believe it was an accident of history that we do not associate the Nazis with some other symbol which they could have hijacked instead. Symbols are what we humans make of them, and the Nazis were a very, very evil group of humans, much hated even by many of their own contemporary German countrymen. 

I expect many participants in this discussion feel as hurt as I do, if you believe we are insensitive, or think we wanted to hurt your feelings. Unless I am being very naive, what we have really been arguing about are nuances in a general world picture that has very much in common in the broader perspective. If the two of us look past hurt feelings, do you think we agree on this: 

1) Mr. Base's use of swastikas (and war symbols and satanic symbols) seems frivolous and gratuitous. (I have still not seem the book) 

2) What happened to many different ethnic groups, religious groups and social groups under the Nazis is so evil and unacceptable that the mind boggles and it becomes hard to believe they were even members of the human species. Words can not describe how abominable it was. 

3) It is worrying to see how racism grows, how all kinds of groups develop irrational hatreds against other groups based on ethnic, social or other excuses. And it happens among "nice" people too, not just among social outcasts like skinheads or among far-away ethnic groups like the citizens of Rwanda or Bosnia. 

These are the bare bones of the whole matter, and whatever your angry heart may tell you right now, I am confident our views on these three points overlap to a very large extent. What separates us are nuances. You may still feel more strongly about point 1, we probably feel the exact same degree of utter horror at point 2, and I think I may be more obsessed with point 3. 

If I look deep inside, I can see that the intensity of my fear and revulsion against modern racists is in a way the flip side of the same evil coin that the racists use: they hate people based on race (or here in Denmark more often based on culture), while I hate the racists based on my view of how decent human beings should behave towards one another. 

I have consistently tried to argue for a position where people like me must try to control their anger at small transgressions against human decency in order to present a viable, anti-racist alternative to racism. Our societies need an anti-racist position that is not as virulent and hate-filled as racism itself. For pete's sake, June, we are the good guys, and I only wanted us good guys to help each other to become more tolerant people than those (censured slurrs) modern racists ! Any unkind criticism aimed at your nuances of outrage would fall right back on my own nuances of outrage which I struggle with every day. I did not mean to criticize ! 

I am, as Stevie Wonder sang, "amazed but not surprised" by the shape this discussion has taken. 

Yes, the swastika had its origins in Hindu, Navajo, and probably a lot of other people's cosmologies. But the one we all know, because it has been "burned" into our collective consciousness, is the one associated with Hitler and currently used by neo-Nazis worldwide. 

Yes, it is very important for children to learn about the many facets of racism so that they can prevent history from repeating itself. But this is not the same as having a swastika on a page absent of any context. I don't think a children's book is any place for a decontextualized symbol of genocide. 

As far as the author's intention, we do not know what he intended, and I personally do not care. You all know what they say about "good intentions." 

And calling up the buzzword "censorship" is one way of not having to take responsibility for anything, not having to say "this is wrong and should not be." As someone who lost much of her family in the European Holocaust, I know full well the consequences of ignorance, apologism, inaction, moral laziness, and complicity. 

I do not like the magazine "Teaching Tolerance." I do not like the word "tolerance" even more than I do not like the word "multiculturalism" or "diversity." 

This discussion has been just^×Too. Many. Words. Except for those of you who have lent good words and good thoughts, the rest of you guys^×half-hearted apologies to June notwithstanding^×are walking around with paper bags over your heads and enjoying the view. Denial is a dangerous thing. 

In the years I've been a part of Child_Lit, I can't recall a discussion that has generated as much emotion as the current one on the swastika in ANIMALIA. I am not familiar with the book, so my comments are obviously not about it but what I see as the subtext of the discussion, namely, whether we should require literature to be moral. I recognize that the very word probably raises hackles given the extent to it has been politicized in our time and used to justify attitudes and actions some of us consider immoral. Nonetheless, I am not willing to abandon the word because it has been hijacked by those who use it for their own exaltation. 

I had never thought about whether I, as a writer, had a moral responsibility until I read the late John Gardner's book, ON MORAL FICTION, when it came out in 1981 or so. It made me think about the potential impact of my words on the reader where most of my energy had been focused on what I perceived my task as a writer to be, namely, to get the words right. 

My dear friend, the writer Shulamith Oppenheim, told me once of a remark she heard Albert Einstein make: "Writing is a social act." The romantic view is of the solitary writer in his or her garrett, despairing as he/she struggles to put a vision into words. (This is certainly a self-serving image, if nothing else.) But, Einstein's words made me realize that even though I work in solitude, writing is an act of relationship. The fact that I will never meet most of my readers is irrelevant. Writing is an act of relationship. Thus, I have a responsibility in that relationship not only to myself as an artist, as craftsman, but I also have a responsibility to the reader because the act of writing is completed by the act of reading. My words acquire life and meaning beyond my existence only when they are read. (How often have I struggled with a student whose words do not make a connection to me, the reader. One of the most difficult things in writing, and in teaching writing, is learning to know when what is in my head is also on the page. All too often students cannot see the enormous gulf between what they see in their minds and what they have written. Until the words on the page join the loneliness of the writer and the loneliness of the reader and thus banish loneliness, the words on the page are therapy.) 

As a writer my moral responsibility is not only to write as well as I can but also to write in such a way that I care about the potential impact of my words on readers. Do I truncate my vision because I am afraid someone will be offended? Obviously not. But neither do I present my vision without trying to find a way to express it without needlessly or gratuitously being hurtful. And even when I deliberately write something in a way that I know will offend, that I hope will offend some, the way in which I write strives to make it clear that I wrote with a spirit of caring about the one I knew I was going to offend. Here are a few quotes from John Gardner's ON MORAL FICTION, a book that informed my remarks above, a book that helped me shape my philosophy as a writer. 

"Art rediscovers, generation by generation, what is necessary to humanness." 

"For the most part our artists do not struggle -- as artists have traditionally struggled -- toward a vision of how things ought to be or what has gone wrong; they do not provide us with the flicker of lightning that shows us where we are....the good of humanity is left in the hands of politicians." 

"...morality means nothing more than doing what is unselfish, helpful, kind, and noble-hearted, and doing it with at least a reasonable expectation that in the long run as well as the short we won't be sorry for what we've done, whether or not it was against some petty human law. Moral action is action which affirms life." 

As I said, I am not familiar with ANIMALIA and therefore am not expressing an opinion about its use of swastikas. I also recognize that the above quotes can probably be used by those who support and oppose the book's use of swastikas. 

However, I wonder if one reason this discussion has generated such strong emotions is because our senses of what is morally appropriate have been offended, whether the context of that moral sensibility is one's sense of being Jewish, which I am, or one's sense that art needs to be free of moral judgements. 

Once again, pardon me if this has been mentioned before: 

Another alphabet book, and just as popular in some circles, which includes things to find that begin with each letter is Mike Wilks' The Ultimate Alphabet. He too uses the swastika on the S page. The presentation is quite different though. It is on an old-fashioned stove or furnace with what appears to be more eastern looking symbols. Interestingly, the author, who depicts himself in each picture, wears a skull-cap (S). 

Comparing and contrasting the two presentations would make for a good discussion. Is one appropriate and the other not? 

Mr. Wilks' book uses full frontal nudity (famous statues and paintings) of both sexes. 

Hi 

This is an attempt to add another perspective to the debate and it really takes the form of questions for those of you who have the text. The "blurb" suggests younger readers and it has been pointed out already that this is a selling technique and not to be taken at face value. 

Consequently, close attention to the implied reader and their "horizons of expectations" (Jauss) might reveal more of the author's intentions. For example it sounds to me that it is assumed the reader is expected to bring sophisticated historical/political knowledge to the text. Are there any other indications of a political perspective apart from the offending symbol? Is it likely that such a potent symbol would be used without some intention? A crucial question is how the reader is being constructed by reading the text. 

I wonder if these questions will help move the debate on? 

Thank you, Bodil, for so clearly and eloquently outlining the issues. 

Bodil writes:
"1) Mr. Base's use of swastikas (and war symbols and satanic symbols) seems frivolous and gratuitous. (I have still not seem the book)" 

Everything in the book is gratuitous! 

That's the whole idea. Some pages have themes and concepts but the swatstika appears in the border along with hundreds of other objects simply because they begin with S. The proximity to other objects clearly suggests Nazis without a doubt and that is certainly a problem. (That is why comparing this book to Mike Wilks' book would be for a good conversation. But please, I cannot stress the importance to see both works first.) 

I do not wish to defend the authors or attack them. 

I very much appreciate the comments from Julius Lester on the morality of writing. I am not a writer, myself, but as a reader and a watcher of visual media, I have often wondered about this issue. If the wirter is only writing for self, than having it published or produced is not important in the big scheme. Anyway, that is an aside to my wanting to thank all of you for the thought and emotion provoking interchange that has ocurred since my, what I thought was a simple question, about Animalia. I thought you might like to know that a meeting was held about the book and at this point the librarian involved is suggesting that the book be put in teacher reserve where it would only be checked out by teachers interested in using the book. the final decision has not been made. It has interested me how so few of us who have used this book in various ways, had not noticed these illustrations or had not thought about them very critically. Again thanks. 

About the remark that "groups develop irrational hatreds against other groups" (see below): while these hatreds may not be fully conscious or understood by those holding them, they are likely not irrational at all in their origin. 

As Bodil wrote, ("...groups UNDER [caps mine] the Nazis..."), and as Rogers and Hammerstein wrote ("You've GOT to be taught..."), and as many historians and political analysts have explained, people don't come by these hatreds willy-nilly. They are pitted against eachother by people who stand to gain by this division. For example, do White people really hate Black people? No way!! If Whites act hateful it is inevitably because they feel their interests are threatened. Someone else holds power over both groups. 

To not see this is to perpetuate the ruling class proscription that those without power and money are people are hateful and irrational. 

As Resa put it, (I paraphrase) we are willing to take on those tyrants who are not presently armed. Surely we have more conviction, however. 

You know, I have few problems with how various people have reacted to this book. I do think that many of the responses to it have been extreme, and I don't personally agree that Base is somehow less of an illustrator today than he was yesterday, or that this in any way inhibits my enjoyment of this particular book. But hey, everyone is entitled to an opinion. We look at the world from various perspectives and realities. 

I was afraid, however, that this was where we were heading. This is outright censorship, no more, no less. Julius Lester's thought provoking post notwithstanding, this is censorship based on moral objection, and all such censorship is the same. It is no different from banning a book for bad words, or sex scenes, or gay relationships. It is something that I have argued against many times here. Folks here abhor censorship when it is practiced by the right, but embrace it when it is practiced by the left. We find justifications by trying to paint it as something other than it is, with lofty ideals about high morality versus low, self-serving morality. Well, it's all the same, based on the same premise, the same justifications, and comes to the same results. 

We could discuss the difference between a writer deciding his own morality, and others deciding it for him. I don't mind the former, although I do think there is such a thing as a moral artist creating moral art from his gut and heart as opposed to adhering to a consciously superficial form of pedantic morality. But I object to people trying to insert their sense of morality into a work of art created by someone else, and deciding for others what is or is not morally fit for their consumption, no matter how lofty or well intended their goal. 

I'm going to try to clarify my position, and hopefully spread more light than heat on this emotionally charged issue. I have been thinking about the issue of the use of the Nazi flag and the swastika in Animalia almost constantly since the question came up. 

First of all, I would like to say to June and all others who are outraged, hurt, or assaulted by the sight of the symbol or the Nazi flag, that I also understand and feel the horror of that symbol, and like others I shudder and sometimes even feel positively ill when I see it in certain contexts -- on someone's clothing, as a graffiti anywhere, as a tattoo, and in Rose Blanche where it is an integral part of the story and meant to inspire our horror. My husband tells me Nazi flags are selling for huge sums on E-Bay. This, too, fills me with horror, and I cannot imagine wanting anything featuring a Nazi flag on display in my house. 

I have framed prints of quite a few illustrations from children's books on my walls, but there is no way I could bear having one of the pictures from Rose Blanche, especially not the ones with the Nazi symbol in it. I am looking at that book now, and realize that the Nazi flag is actually rather sparely used in this book, but where it appears, in the first illustration in particular where there are many flags, and further on where it appears on the armband of the fat mayor, it is chillingly and appropriately used for maximum impact. It is bright red, in startling contrast to the browns of the rest of the picture, and hits the reader in the eye with a sickening impact, intensified by the fact that the only other spot of color in the book is Rose's bright red hair ribbon and red dress -- I wonder if Spielberg was influenced by this use of color in the scene where the little girl appears in red in the black and white film? 

If my interpretation here is offensive to anyone, I would like to have it challenged. I suspect this book is offensive to some people and that it raises questions, as does Animalia, about the age group for which it is appropriate. The issue of whether children should be exposed to or protected from the evils of the world, and to what degree, is I think, a separate but related issue from the rightness of the appearance of a Nazi flag or swastika in a particular context. 

I see Base's use of the Nazi flag and the swastika symbol in an entirely different context from Innocenti's. The reason I am upset by June's and other people's response is that, rightly or wrongly, I interpret theirs as a position that says hurtful images should not be depicted in books, a view which followed to its logical conclusion results in an extremely limited role for literature and what is allowed to be depicted in it. 

The image of the Nazi flag in Rose Blanche is intended to be shocking and hurtful, and I think, rightly so. If the use of the flag and swastika in Animalia were purely gratuitous, or if I thought their use signified some particular intent on the part of the artist, I would question that use, too. The book is a book one whose sole purpose, as far as I have been able to determine, is to elicit the names of hidden objects, and to find as many items on each page beginning with a particular letter. 

I was stunned that anyone, especially June whose judgement and insights I value on so many things, would reject not only Animalia, but all of Base's work on the basis of the appearance of those Nazi images, apparently without consideration of their context. The question I had and still have is related to the one Rose Reith raised early on: is this symbol never to be seen anywhere, and if not, how is anyone ever going to recognize it and all the horror that adheres to it? If the use of this symbol as Base used it is inappropriate, then what use of it is appropriate? If none, then no one is going to know what it is -- as someone, I believe, has already written here, "What is swastika, anyway, is it a book?" 

As I said in my first post, I see Animalia as a puzzle book that plays with language and naming. As Fairrosa says, many of the images are extremely sophisticated, and I certainly haven't figured them all out -- nor have I considered it worth my time to try. The book is beautiful, yes, but as Janet Spaeth says, much of it is also full of gross and disgusting images -- guns, bombs, and creatures dying or in dire straits. On the D page an arm emerges from the water -- "drowning," obviously. Much of this _is_ tasteless. 

No moral judgements are passed in this book. I suspect that if Roald Dahl or Shel Silverstein were graphic artists, this might be the kind of book they would create, full of rather naughty and subversive images. This book probably delights the readers of MAD magazine. It delighted my son (a Mad devotee who also read and collected everything he could find relating to World War II) and his friends in Australia at age nine, who pored over the images, giggling and feeling pleased with themselves when they identified the less acceptable images, especially. If we don't want our children to be exposed to these kinds of things, fine. I, personally know that children, especially boys (and probably many adults), love gross, horrible, and violent things, especially if they can ferret them out of hidden places. 

M for murder, K for Ku Klux Klan (neither of which I have found in this book), would seem to me to be suitable, as would a Nazi flag on a shield with other flags all of whose names start with S on the S page. The use here does not seem to me to be different than the appearance of the Nazi flag in a book or encyclopedia page depicting flags of the world, historical and contemporary, or its appearance in a book as one example of a sign or symbol (and the way that multiple meanings often accrue to these, making them so potent). This is why the outrage over the presence of this flag is so troubling to me. Would those who feel it does not belong here, also say it should be deleted from reference books, dictionaries, and encyclopedias because it is a horrible and upsetting symbol? What is the difference in those uses, and its use in Animalia? 

Would those of you who object to Animalia object to an entry in a crossword puzzle reading (4 letters), "Hitler's party," or (8 letters) "Nazi symbol?" 

The swastika in the water on the N page seems less justifiable (or successful as a puzzle) in terms of context, but I haven't studied the page thoroughly enough to see whether I'm missing something. The word wanted here is definitely "Nazi." 

There are lots of ugly and hurtful images that we and our children encounter on a regular basis. I wonder if there is an American child under the age of 10 who hasn't encountered used syringes and condoms somewhere, or swastika graffiti, or been called hurtful names or threatened? Sometimes, just being able to name something is the first step in learning to deal with it, and Base's book does provide the opportunity to name many things, and the opportunity for adults to discuss with their children, a wide range of names and what they mean. 

Having said this, my copy of Animalia has sat unlooked at on the bottom shelf where the "too big" books fit for the past ten years. A note on the book from the Oxford Companion to Australian Children's Literature reads: _Animalia_ (1986) by Graeme Base was an Honour Book in the 1987 Picture Book of the Year Awards [Australian equivalent to the U.S. Caldecott or British Greenaway], winner of the YABBA Picture Book in 1987 and Secondary Winner of the KOALA in 1988. From armadillos to zebras, characters, animals, plants and ojbects beginning with the appropriate letter appear on each ornate page. There is as multitude of images of real and mythical animals, accompanied by an alliterative text. _Animalia_ has been very popular, both in Australia and internationally. 

Finally, if I have unintentionally offended anyone, I apologize. I do not intend to minimize the hurt that anyone feels about this book or the outrage represented by the Nazi symbol, but I have attempted to explain why I do _not_ feel outraged by this book and why I am upset to be called a cultural and moral relativist because I am not outraged. I am outraged by everything Nazism stands for, but I am not outraged by a book that simply requires us to name it and identify its symbol. 

I would beg to argue this as a censorship issue. Our discussion has been a series of personal opinions ranging from "the book is an atrocity" (paraphrased) to "there is absolutely nothing wrong with this book" (again, paraphrased). I think the point here is that NO ONE has said, "Remove it from the shelves, burn it, strip it of its awards" or anything of the sort. Rather, we have debated the following: 

1. Personal opinion of the author's choice to include the swastika 

2. Does the swastika somehow detract from the overall quality of the book? 

3. Is this an appropriate way for children to be introduced to the swastika? 

In the end, however, no one has said, "I believe this book should be removed from the shelves, the library, the bookstores, and/or the earth," with the exception, perhaps, of the parent whose challenge led the original poster to ask us what we think. I cringe whenever expressing an opinion is perceived as censorship. Censorship does not happen when one expresses an opinion, but rather it occurs when one tells OTHERS what their opinion should be. People have the right to not read the book, and people have the right to tell me that they will never look at the book again. They cannot tell me that _I_ may never look at the book again. THAT is censorship. 

"From what I can see, this is actually the oppoosite of censorship. We are encouraging each other to look at the book and offer an opinion. I honestly believe that no one who has spoken up so far is even remotely interested in banning this book." 

sigh... please don't hurt me. I've learned so much from this discussion.... 

Has anyone read this?
It was on the author pages of Kay E.Vandergrift's site. 

http://www.penguinputnam.com/catalog/
yreader/authors/2921_biography.html 

I am only trying to add more information. Generally I would to sit back and listen in on this topic. I don't trust myself to say something ridiculous or stupid. 

Base states that he does not create his works primarily for children but realizes that they are marketed to that group. It seemed however that he had a hand in deciding that it would be marketed to children. Who gets to make those sorts of decisions in the publishing business? 

I went to go have a look at the book the other night at my local Books-a-Million. It was located in the Middle Readers section. Does anyone know if it is located in the same section at other stores? It is an "alphabet book" but for what age group? 

I do not look at the *inclusion* of the swastika in Base's book as a moral one. When he wrote the book in 1984-6 (published in '86) authors were just beginning to understand Political Correctness and Insensitivity such as this one. They were not trained in such things. That readers could be offended only by its presence (and no endorsement) was not so obvious back then as it is now. 

Perhaps Base, like other Australians in 1986, was "a man of his time." You never know; he could agree that the symbol should now be removed. 

But *today* it is a moral issue for the author and the publisher. 

By the way, if anyone has any doubts, the swastika, albeit only in black outline and not solid black, is in a white circle on red ground; clearly a Nazi flag. In comparison Wilks' book The Ultimate Alphabet represents it with an embossed look much like how I have seen it in movies with Asian architecture. 

 Kay E. Vandergrift 

Nicely said Elizabeth! 

I'm going to try an make a casual (ha!) remark on the nature of this discussion. Many of the responses to the initial postings have been responses from people who have not seen the book under discussion, and are trying to respond to the general ideas expressed. These responses are not less valid or important (indeed, I think it helps those who *have* seen the book to ground their thoughts in a larger context), but they are necessarily innocent of the impact of seeing the illustrations in question, and therefore may *sound* cold and distanced. It might be easier to interpret each other's messages (in any discussion) if we try to indicate up front whether or not we've seen/read the book under discussion. 

Thank you Nina, for make the point of identifying whether we have seen the book or not when entering into this discussion. I think this is very important. 

I intend to say nothing more on this for awhile (having probably said more than my share already). This discussion has been especially emotional and difficult for June and me because of our friendship. As I have written to her, I think the only hope for some kind of resolution on this question, and we may have to end by agreeing to disagree, is if we can come to some kind of understanding on where each of us draws the line as to what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, which I don't think we've yet done. 

Now I'm wondering if I should be offended because there's a nun in the waves with the Nazi symbol, and with what my daughter tells me is not a pliers but a Nutcracker (of course!), and furthermore that that "duck" is a man in "a colonial-looking hat" --voila! Napoleon, of course! Perhaps this is a metaphor for the differences in the way each of us sees the book and the issues it provokes. 

"I would beg to argue this as a censorship issue." 

Oh? Please read the following exerpt from the post to which I was responding. 

" I thought you might like to know that a meeting was held about the book and at this point the librarian involved is suggesting that the book be put in teacher reserve where it would only be checked out by teachers interested in using the book." 

If that ain't censorship, I don't know what is. 

In a message dated 99-01-22 10:47:50 EST, Sandra wrote: 

" Consequently, close attention to the implied reader and their "horizons of expectations" (Jauss) might reveal more of the author's intentions. For example it sounds to me that it is assumed the reader is expected to bring sophisticated historical/political knowledge to the text." 

I have the book in front of me (curiously, or perhaps not, when I went looking for it I found it on the bookcase in my 16 year-old's room. . .) 

It is *very* sophisticated and many of the symbols are quite obscure. What are the symbols on the blue ribbon on the "x" page? I have no idea. (Some of them are clearly "x" in various fonts, but one looks like a telephone pole and two look like fish.) 

There is a voodoo doll with pins in it on the "v" page, along with a jar of vegemite (which means nothing in most of the US) and a couple of wine bottles for which I can't come up with a "v," though if I were French this would work. On the "w" page the warrior wasps are carrying shields, one of which is clearly a web but one of which bears a fierce animal I don't recognize. Wolverine, maybe? One of the wasps has a weevil in its thorax -- would a child recognize this? A woman is hanging washing -- but of course in the States we call it laundry. 

On the "s" page there is a Star of David framing a songbird (I can't recognize the breed) as well as the shield which bears the sickle, swastika and Swiss Cross along with the Stars and Stripes (US flag). Is the stick-figure walking away from the hangman's noose with a halo and a hotdog a saint? And if so, why is it carrying a hotdog? And is the singing antlered animal supposed to be something that begins with "s"? It looks like a caribou to me. 

The football on the "s" page is only an "s" word in the States (soccer) and the squirrel at the top is an American squirrel, not a Brit one (I don't know what they look like in Australia, or even if they have them). 

Mr. Toad rides a tricycle through a train station, and there is a symbol on the train I don't recognize. It could be political, or it could be an actual train company. There are Native American tent-homes in the "t" page, for tipi, one supposes, but the same structures appear on the "w" page where I imagine we are to call them wigwams, though that is, I believe, inaccurate. 

Is there a word beginning with "r" that means slipper? What is that on the "r" page, in front of the rat and behind what I guess is supposed to be a razor? The Rocket in the window has USSR on it. Is that political? 

The Pope and a pirate are carrying a peace sign, which was at one time controversial in the US but isn't really anymore. I don't know what the symbols on the plaque at the bottom of the pine tree are, does anyone else? There are a nun and a nurse in the same swirling water as the swastika which is presumably supposed to mean Nazi--but what is that swordfish doing there? Is there an n-word for that? And is the boy with the outstretched arms behind the ostrich doing the semaphore for "o"? It's my best guess, but I have no clue. 

How many people recognize that the "86" on the license plate of the kidnapping kangaroos' getaway car means "kill"? I know it only from working in American restaurants (as in "86 the soup, that's the last bowl") -- is it a universal? I don't know what kind of car it is -- might it, too, begin with "k"? 

What is the fish skeleton doing on the "h" page? I can't guess. Is there a "y" word for Beefeater, or Swiss Guard, or who is that dude on the Yak's sail? And while you're on the "y" page, is there a "y" word associated with the sequence of cards under the yoke? 

The flat fish generally associated with Christianity is on the "f" page, and the Ten Commandments are posted in the dragons' desert shop (Decalogue--get it?) Does this suggest Base is pushing a Christian or Judeo-Christian agenda? The "d" page also has a divided rectangle with the word "shoa" on it and a date underneath: 6th June 1944 -- there's the WWII theme again, but "shoa" doesn't seem to me to be a term a closet Nazi would use (and I don't know a "d" connection for it, but I don't speak Hebrew, either. . .) There's a delta on a jar in this picture--not a symbol my kids would get, even my older ones (and the jar is probably something that begins with "d" that I don't recognize. . .) 

The calendar on the "c" page is for April, and the numbers "6" and "9" are circled -- is this a hidden sexual subtext? Is Base teasing us? Who is the child behind the tree on the "a" page, and why is he there? Is that the self- portrait which seems to be suggested in the poem on the title page? 

This, believe it or not, is a quick perusal. I'm not going to inflict the whole book on you all -- or my confusion over the whole concept of the implied reader. Here's a quick response to Sandra's question: Is this a sophisticated book well beyond the average alphabet-learning child? You bet. Is there a political subtext? I guess I still don't know. Pressed to make a decision, I'd say Base's use of the swastika may have been poor judgment, but equally may have been intended as a reminder in the context of "we must never forget." 

And I do wish someone knew how to get in touch with him! 

Having checked my handy New York Public Library Desk Reference, I can report that this is not semaphore for "o" (but there is a semaphore "x"). 

Daughter #1 who's been studying the book intently for an hour reports that the child on the "o" page is actually on every page, rather like _Where's Waldo?_ and presumably represents the artist himself. 

Anybody got an opinion on "shoa"? 

List readers and writers, Home for the weekend last evening from a joyous out-of-state consult, I have been edified by the wide range of opinions shared online. Thanks to you, my understanding of the feelings of others in relation to books has been enriched from the posts of this week. To add my individual experience, I would like to share some factual incidents which changed my limited American scope. While teaching graduate English courses in Young Adult Literature at the VU in Amsterdam, I seized the opportunity to lead a session featuring picture books for secondary school students. The 25 adult students who registered for my course were all Dutch in nationality, all teaching English in high schools in the Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Utrecht area. The third book I chose to read aloud that evening was Rose Blance, in a manner that assured each person a view of every illustration--imperative to the story. 

At the conclusion, I gently closed the book, and asked one question: "Would you use this book with your classes?" Hesitant at first, a few Nederlanders elaborated on why they would choose to implement this book in their teaching, in what setting, or together with what YA text. In time, all volunteered a contribution except Fritz whose head was bowed. 

The usually vocal and very inciteful Dutchman said nothing. "Fritz, would you use this book?" I softly queried. And a broken voice responded, "Yes--Certainly, though because of the family members I lost, I believe it would best be presented by a colleague. My reaction would be too intense, even if I did nothing but what you did in simply reading aloud the book to the class." 

At the break, Fritz thanked me for sharing the book and for eliciting a response from him. "I need to begin to talk about my feelings, and this book is a wonderful, yet simple, vehicle for that beginning." Anna, Fritz' colleague, borrowed the book a few weeks later, and the two wrote up their experience with Rose Blanche as well as other picture books. 

Fritz shared a cultural insight with me toward the end of the semester. After the war in Nederland, with the devestation and the necessity to re-build, a strong accent lay on being able to do a "man's" or a "woman's" work...being a grown-up and putting in an adult's strong workday. "Kinderactig" was a word I heard often in my 12-year stay in the Netherlands, meaning "acting like a child." It is one of the most embarrassing verbal "put-downs" one can receive in that land. So, too, Fritz assured me, were things relegated to childhood--including children's literature. 

Wonderful groups of Dutch writers and illustrators spoke often of their shame, due to so little attention and monetary outlay directed towards children's literature, which, for them is their chosen profession and life's work. Typical of the adult world response to even YA (jeugdboeken) writers is the familiar chastisement: when are you going to get good enough to write books for adults? I told my students that children's literature in the USA was growing in importance, but that we had also experienced non-supportive times in our history. We're not yet satisfied with the field--but we work to better all aspects. Fritz remarked that it would be quite a feat for him as a teacher of university-bound students to begin overcoming their almost-certain reluctance to enjoy what appeared to be a child's book..."kinderboeken.". Many years of tradition are difficult to overcome. 

I was rewarded to see Fritz and his colleague's willingness to try something different.. 

* 

I used Rose Blanche a few months later while giving graduate classes for Boston University at a beautiful international school in Vienna, Austria. 

Inspired by the British pathfinder, Elaine Moss, I continue to stress adolescent engagement with picture books, carefuly chosen for this audience. 

Following on the heels of the Amsterdam experience, and realizing that these practicing teachers were living in the country of Adolf Hitler's birth, I expected the same response. Was I ever surprised when part-way through my reading aloud the story, a couple of teachers left the room in some distress. They returned after the story ended. "Would you use it with your classes?" NO! No! Never! That book would never be written by an Austrian author. 

I would not allow it in our school library. Stunned, I wanted reasons behind their united refusal and found out a couple of days into the course that Austrians (those I taught, and those of their acquaintance) do not speak about the Holocaust. Three teachers in that school were American women who had lived several years in Vienna, two of them marrying Austrian men. It was an "unwritten rule" in their homes that the taboo subject would remain taboo. Cultural mores. 

* 

While living in Munich and conducting research at the International Youth Library, Dr. Andreas Bode asked me to give a workshop for all lektoren--librarians from various world countries. As Dr. Bode had spent his childhood in East Germany, he shared the fact that the first time he saw a library in the West with apparently no censorship-- "ALL THOSE VOLUMES"--he was incredibly overjoyed, overcome with a desire to READ what had been forbidden to him. 

An African-American librarian in No. Carolina shared with me the same explosion of emotion on the first day when public libraries became accessible to ALL patrons--"ALL THOSE BOOKS I COULD NOW READ--on that day, I decided to become a librarian!" And she did. 

* 

Now, my last story.

 A 20ish German couple affiliated with the Munich library shared a hurtful incident one evening after inviting me to a wonderful dinner in their home. Avid skiiers both, they had joined friends to spend a winter holiday in Switzerland during the previous winter. During the wee hours at the ski resort's bar, one man had detected their being German and viciously attacked them for being Hitlers--yelling "all Germans are swine" etc. etc. Obviously intoxicated, he exploded with sentence after sentence, damning them as Hitler conspirators. "What did you do?" 

"We felt awful, couldn't apologize, went to our room, won't ever return to that resort. 

It is not easy being German when some in the world thinks of us all as murderers." 

What could I do as an American but listen, shake my head in sorrow, and empathize. 

*Dutch teachers in Amsterdam.

 *Teachers in an International School in Vienna, Austria.

 *An East German Academic Enjoying Rich Western Library Access.

 *An African-American Child Choosing Librarianship Because of Freedom to Read.

 *Modern-day German Citizens Bearing up Bravely Under Attack for Being German.

 My life is made richer with international and national experience. I firmly defend a person's right to read and try to embody the American Library Association's non-censorship stance, while trying my best to foster interaction with the best in literature to edify and enrich all our lives. The longer you study, so my Jewish friends tell me, the more status you accrue.

 A lawyer is less impressive than a lahmdan (scholar). In the fervently Orthodox and Hasidic communities, it is not a doctor who inspires admiration, but a "dayan" (rabbinic court judge). Read widely.

 Study.

 Ask provacative questions.

 Listen.

 Protect access to all literature.

 Trust.

 Thank you for reading what I take pleasure in writing. 

I am by no means justifying the inclusion of the swastika, but could the context of the swastika (appearing with a sickle and the US flag) indicate not support for Nazi ideology, but rather serve as a representation of the political ideologies which have had a dominant role in twentieth century world affairs. Think about it: the geopolitical world forces of this century which have shaped our history have been Communism, Capitalism, and Nazism. Considered in that framework, it would be an attempt to look at the larger structure of things and not tacit support of anti-Semitism. Forces are pitted against each other...the structural battle of good vs. evil rages on in many forms... 

Jim wrote: 

" Oh? Please read the following exerpt from the post to which I was responding." 

(Quote snipped, fcl.) 

"Hmmm... sorry if the rest of my post didn't explain my opening sentence completely. Please read further down in my post (underneath the numbered items)... 

In the end, however, no one has said, "I believe this book should be removed from the shelves, the library, the bookstores, and/or the earth," with the exception, perhaps, of the parent whose challenge led the original poster to ask us what we think." 

When I said "no one," I should have been more specific... "No one on this list, participating in this discussion." I apologize. 

Maggie Bollar writes: " . . .but could the context of the swastika (appearing with a sickle and the US flag) indicate not support for Nazi ideology, but rather serve as a representation of the political ideologies which have had a dominant role in twentieth century world affairs." 

Why does it have to be either? 

It does not have to represent support or any aspect of the Nazis. It is what it is-a representation of the Nazis. Period. Even with this simple concept, one can still successfully argue that it should be removed. 

The problem I am having with this discussion is the intentional misreading of the author's work to strengthen an argument. Does anyone really believe that Base is an anti-Semite or a communist (the sickle)? Or even a supporter of wiping out the Native Americans or slavery (the US Stripes)? If he were an anti-Semite, would he really be stupid enough to include a swastika in a work that you are suppose to search for things? If it were found in a non-search book of his, then you would have a case. 

Even though I see this book as encyclopedic, the argument for the removal of the swastika should be based on *emotion*. Period. Nothing else but the emotion such a symbol can have on so many of its intended readers. It should be brought to the author's attention that Jewish and many non-Jewish people simply do not want the symbol in such a book of diversion. Reason? Emotion. 

In conclusion, I believe in its removal (with kind letters written to the author and publisher) but disagree with the arguments put forth here in the recent weeks. 

23 Jan 1999
Perry Nodelman 

Sally wrote: "There is a voodoo doll with pins in it on the "v" page, along with a jar of vegemite (which means nothing in most of the US) and a couple of wine bottles for which I can't come up with a "v," though if I were French this would work." 

Vintage? 

" Is the stick-figure walking away from the hangman's noose with a halo and a hotdog a saint?" 

Could it be THE Saint? The dashing solver of crimes, etc.? The stick figure with the halo always appeared on the book jacket, pre Roger Moore on TV. And aren't hot dogs sometimes called steamers (when they are in fact, boiled or steamed)? 

" And is the singing antlered animal supposed to be something that begins with "s"? It looks like a caribou to me." 

A stag, perhaps. 

" Is there a "y" word for Beefeater, or Swiss Guard?" 

Yeoman, as in the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta? 

"The "d" page also has a divided rectangle with the word "shoa" on it and a date underneath: 6th June 1944 -- there's the WWII theme again, but "shoa" doesn't seem to me to be a term a closet Nazi would use (and I don't know a "d" connection for it, but I don't speak Hebrew, either. . .)" 

The D here must be for D-Day (June 6, 44)? 

The point is this: I couldn't resist the challenge. I had to try to figure these puzzles out, and I felt damn good about having some possible solutions. As Sally's interesting speculations reveal, Base's book does what all alphabet books do, albeit in a decidedly intense way. It acts, exactly, as a particular sort of puzzle. The implied reader is someone who knows the rules of the game: the objects depicted visually have names that begin with with the appropriate letter and, once you know the letter, you can try to figure out which of a number of possibly appropriate names for the depicted object might be the one that fits. Thus, on the T page, Terrier might be the right answer, whereas the same object on the D page might well correctly elicit "dog." 

This process has always interested me because it is so clearly incapable of performing the task conventionally assigned to it, learning the alphabet: you can only guess the correct answer if you already know the name of the letter the page relates to. Alphabet books are often fun, then, but they assume their implied readers already have the knowledge they are supposed to teach. 

But in the light of this discussion of Base's swastikas, I am beginning to see something else going on in alphabet books. It is simply that the context of alphabet book and the game that context implies have the effect of seeming to empty out or at least hide from view any of the usual meanings or associated emotions of the objects depicted. In the context of an alphabet book, a dog is being shown to us mainly because its name happens to begin with D, not because of what it is or how we might feel about it. And similarly, therefore, the swastika is there because its name begins with S, not, theoretically, because of what it means or how we do or should feel about it. In the context of an alphabet book, all objects become equal, meaningful only in terms of the first initial of the names by which they are called. Nothing else about them matters. 

And there, of course, is the problem. The process of ignoring the meanings and connotations of visual objects seems quite harmless when the objects are dogs or apples or toothbrushes. It seems a lot less harmless when it's swastikas. I suspect some of the deep emotion being expressed in this discussion results from a resistance to the idea that a swastika might be viewed so dispassionately, as the object of an inquiry as to what letter its name might begin with, and with no consideration or consciousness of any of its usual meanings or implications. Once we've understood it in this way, we might well reach the not-so-paranoid conclusion that Base has deliberately chosen emotion-charged objects like swastikas exactly in order to defuse them of their usual meanings and the usual emotions they arouse -- that consciously or not, and for whatever dark reason of his own, he is embarked on a process of getting people to stop worrying about the implications of swastikas (and voodoo dolls, etc., etc.). (Successfully, too, apparently, since so many people report knowing this book and not even noticing the swastikas until now, more than a decade after the book's publication: alphabet books so focus our attention as puzzle-solvers that they tend to defuse emotional and other meaningful responses?) 

What really intrigues me is that, if that's true for swastikas, then its equally true for dogs and apples and toothbrushes. Indeed, in the mind-frame of alphabet-book reading, dogs and apples and swastikas are exactly equal, significantly different from each other only by virtue of the letters their names begin with. The puzzle process that alphabet books invite their readers to engage in encourages a view of the world as a collection of objects to be named and mastered, objects that can be mastered so easily exactly because they have been evacuated of their meanings and histories and emotional connotations and connections to oneself and one's values. One gets power over these objects exactly by not worrying about what they mean or how one feels about them -- "Hey, it's a swastika, right? Got it! Damn, I'm good. And what's that thing that looks like a hot dog? Must be a steamer! And a six and a nine on the C page? Well, it sure ain't fellatio, so ...). 

So here I am, happily and mindlessly thinking about Nazis and cunnilingus without any consideration at all of their implications in the world and for myself and in the minds of children who might also play this game. Animalia invite me to do that --it's what its implied reader is supposed to do. The implied readers of many other, if not almost all, alphabet books similarly invite their readers to mindlessly enjoy a similar sort of disengaged thinking and a similar sort of mastery over the objects depicted. 

Enjoying that sort of distance from real implications and real emotions is not a bad thing --it's what most games and puzzles invite us to do, by and large. But adopting it as one's habitual stance toward the world and the things and people within it would be very bad indeed. 

So I guess the question I'm left with is this: does the attitude that Animalia and other alphabet books invite and encourage spill out past the book and into a reader's dealings with real objects and people in the real world? Does the puzzle mentality become a habitual way of understanding other people and objects (and Nazi symbols)? This way of dealing with objects encourages distance and detachment, and allows mastery and self-satisfaction, attitudes of potential great value in a consumer culture and commonly encouraged in a range of mass-marketed books, TV shows, and video games intended for children. Perhaps the alphabet-book view of the world is a first step in the process of turning children into good citizens of a corporate culture, viewers of people and objects primarily as a potential source of pleasure and mastery for oneself, and with any of their other meanings and values to be simply disregarded as not significant? 

Re-reading my post on swastikas, I realized there was something else I'd neglected to say. It's that, in order for the alphabet-book game to work, the reader needs to be familiar with the objects depicted. So clearly, a problem with Base's swastika is the assumption that the implied reader will or should have it in his or her repertoire. Indeed, a number of people involved in this discussion have insisted that the book implies a range of experience not to be found in young children. I doubt that's all that true, or at least not all that true of many North American children nowadays. But it is certainly true that the aspects of the book we identify as sophisticated or beyond children's experience do not often appear in children's books, which regularly offer a much more sanitized view of childhood than ether TV or video games or the world of the playground. A child not familiar with swastikas could not possibly learn what one was from this book -- at least not without the help and guidance of other readers, or through the use of his or her own decidedly excellent research skills. So I suspect the real problem is not what the image might teach children, but the fact of acknowledging or assuming they know it already, and placing it in a context that renders the possession of the knowledge not only harmless but unmarked by emotional or moral content, merely another one of them many possible things one knows whose name begins with an S. 

Perry writes: 
"So I suspect the real problem is not what the image might teach children, but the fact of acknowledging or assuming they know it already, and placing it in a context that renders the possession the knowledge not only harmless but unmarked by emotional or moral content, merely another one of them many possible things one knows whose name begins with an S." 

I'm assuming you mean Satan? I have noticed that there are many books, alphabet books as well, that incorporate the image of Satan (and other symbols that might be considered inappropriate to some people) in their illustrations. For example, for the letter D in Anno's Alphabet the symbols are a devil in a die, on the G page a Gun (though a pop gun, I don't know if some would think it makes any difference). In The Alphabet From Z to A (With Much Confusion on the Way) by Judith Viorst there is a Vampire on the V page, a Witch on the W page, a Gargoyle (or Grotesque) on the G page. Many have already mentioned other symbols in Base's book. And these are just the Alphabet Books. 

I wondered, particularly, what people's reactions to the devil/Satan would be. And I do wonder about possession of knowledge rendering something emotionally and morally harmless. Is this always good? Or have I misunderstood the post? According to Jeffrey Russell, it is by doing just this that we have rendered the idea of the devil/evil (actually evil based on his definition) inconsequential or non-existent. I admit to surprise at seeing them in Alphabet Books (and I take responsibility for not having really paid any attention to Alphabet Books prior to my interest in depictions of the devil in children's picture books); however, I do realize, as do others, that picture books aren't just for children. 

Praising Perry's Perceptive Provocative Post (Have I been spending senseless seconds scouring Animalia?), I was reminded of criticisms of Chris Van Allsburg's alphabet book, "The Z Was Zapped," which was attacked for its violence. 

I'm struggling with what the power of naming means. It could be, as Perry says, that it is all part of raising children to be good (unthinking, acquisitive?) consumers in our capitalist society, but there's also a power in knowing what things are called. Of course there's probably even more power in knowing something about what the names mean. But, Animalia is a competitve game that is easy to get sucked into. 

In fact, last night I printed Sally's post and sat down with the book to see if _I_ could answer any of the "unsolved mysteries." When I'd exhausted my store of knowledge I gave the book to my daughter and her boyfriend, who, sure enough, came up with a few more answers. 

Symbols on the X page on the blue ribbon -- ixious? I'm not sure if it is spelled that way -- this is coming out of the most remote recesses of my brain wherein are stored the lessons from my high school Calvinist Sunday School. X is the Greek for chi -- some Greek scholar please correct me if I've got this hopelessly wrong -- and thus X was the symbol for Christ and the word for fish was ixious from which word ichthys -- icthyology -- study of fish comes. So that is why the fish, because of the X became a symbol for Christ -- it was a code sign because the early Christians were persecuted and in hiding -- so that ribbon does present various historical forms of the letter X, I think. In fact you still see the fish on people's cars (when it is not the one with legs that says Darwin) and come to think of it the letters ixious (someone please straighten this out for me because it is probably inaccurate--none of this seems to be in my Webster's Collegiate) stand for Jesus Christ Lord and Savior, and those letters spell "fish" in Greek. (I just looked in the OED, too, and in Jung's Man and His Symbols -- no luck.) 

Now that I've written that lengthy essay, I see that it contradicts Perry's theory about naming without associations, and in fact, in my discussion of this book with my children, it seems that in fact, naming the things depicted often does lead to discussions of what they mean and their origin. 

To continue: the wine bottles on the v page -- one is labelled "vermouth." 

Fierce animal on shield on W page -- a wolf? 

The songbird with the Star of David on the S page, is a sparrow on a stick 

The stick-figure with the halo has me stumped, and I don't know the books or the Saint to which Perry refers, but I did come up with "saint saved from swinging with a sausage on a stick" and if that could somehow relate to Perry's _the_ Saint (!), it might be more satisfying. 

Singing antlered animal -- must be a stag as Perry says, but what is that gear thing?-- sprockets? Why is the stag singing with sprockets? 

I think the symbol on the T page train is a group of T's for the Trans Tanzania Train to Timbuktoo or some variant. 

My kids tell me that on the C page, if you write 69 sideways it is the symbol for Cancer, the crab. 

And on the "R" page that shoe in front of the rat is a roller skate. 

I love that helicopter on the herald's horn's banner (and the hieroglyphics on the banner above) on the H page, but is that really a herald with a crown on his head??? And what is that little striped thing he's holding in his hand? 

Surely someone has published lists of all the names they've found in this book? But then, that would spoil the fun. 

In a message dated 99-01-23 22:12:18 EST, Linnea asked for clairifcation about the "fish" symbol: 

" Jesus Christ Lord and Savior, and those letters spell "fish" in Greek. (I just looked in the OED, too, and in Jung's Man and His Symbols -- no luck.)" 

This one I can do. 

I-X-Th-I-U-S : Greek word for fish, also acronym: 

I (J) Jesus X (Ch) Christ (which is "Anointed" or "Messiah" in Greek) Th (Th) God's I (I) Son S (s) Savior 

I'm not sure if there is a word associated with the "u" -- if so, I've never heard it. 

There were a number of neat associations that fit with this: most of the apostles were fishermen, the miracles of the loaves and fishes and the miraculous catch of fish, etc. The "flat fish" was a useful code during the days of the persecutions. If you met a stranger on the street you could casually scratch one curved line in the dust with your toe or staff. If the other person was a Christian, he/she could complete the fish, and you'd know that you'd met a fellow-believer. If the stranger didn't respond, you could just as casually scratch over the line without drawing any notice at all. And of course the fish were scratched into the sides of the catacombs to mark Christian tombs and in other places to denote safe houses, etc. 

I wonder if similar secret symbols (argh--we've all gone alliterative!) have roots in other persecutions? 

In responding to Perry's posts: 

I think you're absolutely right about Base's intentions. Which, as has been remarked, are "at some point irrelevant." 

And there is the real problem. Because objects can never be completely "evacuated of their meaning and histories and emotional connotations and connections to oneself and one's values." The only reason we can recognize a symbol ("name" it, and so play Base's game) is that it *does* have a connection to ourself --a history and meaning. A symbol is always charged. Dogs and toothbrushes are generally more harmless; swastikas, generally, are not. Actually --I take that back (I had erased it, but replaced it to illustrate that:) Symbols, of course, can't be harmful or harmless. Their "charge," which is different for each human, and molded by generations of humans, can, however, hurt. We have to take responsibility for the impact that symbols carry --thus, I think, Kay's remark of Base's "irresponsibility." 

So, Base once more aside --because the book is out there-- we have each, I think, been trying to figure out how to take reponsibility for this book as it occurs in each of our lives. This doesn't mean we have to choose one tactic (Yes, Beverly, I'm being wishy-washy), because if I can 'deal' with the book, there are other adults/people out there who can, and for whom it might do some good (In the ways Perry demonstrated). But I also have a responsibility to June and to others who have taken the effort to educate us of their feelings. And aren't there other 'puzzle'/alphabet books about that can avoid this issue? Because we can tackle the issue of the swastika with kids head on and much more successfully and respectfully in other arenas. Allowing "Animalia" in our lives but choosing --instance by instance-- whether or not to use it: isn't this what we mean by "selection" rather than "censorship"? 

25 Jan 1999
Michael Joseph 

Nina, if you are referring to my comment, you must recall MY intentions. I was attempting to clarify what in June's position struck me as undetermined by considerations of authorial intent or motive. I did not want to sabotage a discussion of Base's intentions, toward which I am pleased to see Perry Nodelman has made a typically provocative contribution. 

25 Jan 1999
Nina Lindsay 

Sorry Michael--in all my discussion of responsibility, it was irresponsible of me to use an unattributed comment out of context. And, rereading my own post, I admit I sounded flip. 

Without meaning, myself, to sabotage the discussion of intentions, I did want to make the argument that for educators/librarians/booksellers who need to come away from this discussion with an understanding on how to use this book, Base's intentions have little revelance becuaseathey have little to do with readers' reactions; and so they become --in this kind of evaluation-- less important. They remain, as Perry has illuminated, intriguing.... 

Apologies, 

25 Jan 1999
Phil Kellingley 

Beverly wrote: 

"Yes, the swastika had its origins in Hindu, Navajo, and probably a lot of other people's cosmologies. But the one we all know, because it has been "burned" into our collective consciousness, is the one associated with Hitler and currently used by neo-Nazis worldwide." 

You are making an unjustified assumption here. In the context of Western European and American culture you are no doubt correct. But there are still places where the swastika have the connotations you ascribe to it. 

"Yes, it is very important for children to learn about the many facets of racism so that they can prevent history from repeating itself. But this is not the same as having a swastika on a page absent of any context. I don't think a children's book is any place for a decontextualized symbol of genocide." 

Well, let's remove the American flag from books that might upset people whose families were killed by Americans in Vietnam, or the Christian cross or any other symbol of any kind of entity that has, at some point, been responsible for large numbers of deaths. The fact that the swastika IS absent of any context makes any rationale for removing it somewhat pointless. 

"As far as the author's intention, we do not know what he intended, and I personally do not care. You all know what they say about "good intentions." 

And calling up the buzzword "censorship" is one way of not having to take responsibility for anything, not having to say "this is wrong and should not be." As someone who lost much of her family in the European Holocaust, I know full well the consequences of ignorance, apologism, inaction, moral laziness, and complicity." 

Pointing out "censorship" takes up exactly the cudgels you are promulgating - i.e. not letting others tell you what do. If we all roll over and agree with you are we not guilty of complicity? 

"This discussion has been justToo. Many. Words. Except for those of you who have lent good words and good thoughts, the rest of you guyshalf-hearted apologies to June notwithstandingare walking around with paper bags over your heads and enjoying the view. Denial is a dangerous thing." 

Ah, those good words and thoughts would be the ones that agree with you, I suppose? 

I'm afraid that I'm more scared of the idea that some kind of "moral majority" will get books banned that they find offensive than that those books appear and upset them. Usually the "moral majority" turns out to be a minority. 

It seems to me that the steam has run out of this discussion and that an awful lot of repetition is now the order of the day. 

I don't think the issues will go away - but I do think that it is unlikely that any further exchanges here will alter any individual's reactions or opinions. 

I think June was brave (albeit unintentionally to start with) to raise the issue. I regret the fact that she was affronted or hurt by the writings of many of the contributors. In my experience on this list I don't think anyone here deliberately wounds anyone else. However, I believe that the very divergence of opinions within the debate indicates that the issue isn't cut and dried. 

Bottom line - I guess each of us has to examine the book and decide for ourselves what position we adopt. 

I know Phil is ready to end this discussion, but I need to put my two cents in. I have read all the postings regarding the swastika and related issues. I don't know why G. Base included what he did, and I know that symbol is powerful and stirs up emotio ns. There are many symbols that have the same effect, different ones for different people. If nothing else, maybe we are being challenged to never to forget or risk having history repeat itself. If our emotions get stired and we are propelled forth to make the world a better place, than thank you Mr. Base for angering us. 

I am the person who initially responded to the childrens' librarian query on Graeme Base. My questioning whether or not a symbol which appears in an alphabet picture book, devoid of context, should be excluded, was upsetting to a well respected member of the group and this prolonged discussion began. It has truly been a "baptism by fire". My background is as a middle school reading teacher who discovered this group after taking Michael Joseph's course in the YA Lit. certificate program at Rutgers; ( I am just beginning Kay's course in "Gender and Culture in Young Adult Lit."; I think I have my paper topic picked out!) All my in-service and professional courses on reading comprehension in recent years have emphasized how meaning is derived from text by the reader - how background knowledge and/or experiences color an individual's understanding of text. In puzzling out the current debate, I have to relate it to words and reading - my background. The words "Nazi" and "swastika" appear in my dictionary; if these words can appear in print with definitions of their origin and meaning, can't pictures and symbols be catalogued the same way? That is the question I've been asking myself. I have to believe that open discussion and information sharing will help those of us who struggle with these and similar issues, even if we run the risk of being misunderstood. Sharing my feelings and observations with my family turned this from being a hurtful experience into a learning one. My husband and I have two teenagers - we did not have the book and no one was familiar with it (I agree this is crucial to any further discussion). When I said "swastika" my son, age 14, said "I don't know what that word means". When I said the Nazi symbol, he understood immediately and was very upset it appeared in a children's book; the discussion continues in our house. I feel he has absorbed the moral values I hold (although I already know that from the way he conducts his life) as well as the correct name of the symbol; far from forbidding these kinds of conversations and books in our home, I think we need more. I plan to write to June too - I think we have the same goal, just differ about how to achieve it; I also need a respite from the topic, so will just "lurk" for a while. 

Graeme Base's own description of Animalia (on the website furnished by another listserv member) says he wanted to illustrate "everything." The "shield" on the S page seems to depict not only the differing idealogies symbolized by the American flag, hammer and sickle, and swastika, but the red cross seems to me to be "neutrality" (i.e., the Swiss) and those who do not make a moral choice. I may be on the wrong track, but that's what came to my mind. If one were to interpret it that way, it puts (at least for me) an entirely different meaning to that shield than what some of those posting here have assumed. And those symbols are, for better or worse, major ones in recent history. I think if Base had in mind to present the swastika as something other than an idealogical symbol in juxtaposition to the others of it's time, he would not have set it in that shield. Knowing what a swastika is, is not the same as being a Nazi sympathizer. If one sets out to illustrate "everything," one has not stated barriers (though there are things that don't appear in this book -- it obviously doesn't truly illustrate "everything"). 

There are many sophisticated images in this book, and some of the most telling are well hidden or very small. This book has many levels and a person brings his or her own history and knowledge to it. A child will "read" it differently than an adult, and I would guess Base intended that. Some many-layered picture books are praised for that depth. Others are criticized for trying to do too much. 

I don't think there is any way that we will be able to resolve the deeply divided feelings about the inclusion of this symbol in Base's book. I found Dr. Gwendolyn Davis' post about using Rose Blanche with European students most interesting. And also interesting, that no reactions to the swastika expressed here are from those who might have had to live with it, or the heritage of it, who were German and not Jewish. How does (or should) one wipe out the photos of uncles, father, and grandparents in German army (yes, Nazi, at that time) uniforms? Does it make a difference if they were drafted? Does it make a difference if they didn't subscribe to Hitler's idealogy? Does it make a difference if they fought on the infamous Russian front and died for the same madman in a different way? What does one do with the "mother's medal" received for having children for the fatherland (received but not solicited)? How does one tell one's children and grandchildren about those photos and those people, realistically, and realize that they were human, and that not all of them were monsters, despite wearing a uniform? 

I was in Germany when the Holocaust miniseries was shown. It was a painful, wrenching experience (as it should have been!) for millions of Germans. It was shown over 4 nights. Following each segment, historians, psychologists and psychiatrists held a panel discussion of it, on television, and people could call in both during the program and afterward. During the first night, the calls were overwhelmingly negative . . . "why are they dragging this out again?" sorts of opinions. By the second night, people were calling in sobbing, confessing. By the third night, people were turning in relatives as war criminals and families were coming unglued and divorces were filed. A television series had forced them to confront the horror, and their own historians confirmed the truth of it. 

Germany has tried to wipe out the public symbols to prevent their veneration. I don't know what they teach in school now, but in the 1950s, children were not taught about the Nazis. As I understood it, the idea was to prevent continued interest in the Nazi party, to kill it by pretending it didn't exist. It didn't work. 

There are certainly many other books in our children's library that depict swastikas. Some are nonfiction books (including one about the Hitler Youth, and a series on the Holocaust). There are at least 3 picture books, perhaps more, that also deal with this and depict swastikas. Perhaps those are more acceptable due to context. Maybe I see a context in Base's book that others done see. 

I'm still on hiatus here, but so many people have pointed me out by name in their posts and still don't seem to "hear" what I am saying that I feel I need to reiterate a certain point. 

I never said that swastikas should be banished from children's literature, from reference books, or from culture in general. In fact, I quite explicitly said the opposite. So many of you seem to have missed the post (or perhaps posts) where I made this point that I am forced to wonder if you are selectively filtering what I am writing and "hearing" only that which satisfies your image of me as someone you completely disagree with. I've seen this mistaken perception expressed to me privately and on the list several times. So, I'll say it here: I believe children should be taught what the swastika has meant in western culture since Hitler, and this meaning must never be erased or forgotten, whether or not other cultures see the symbol the same way. I have no objection to teaching children the background of the symbol, educating them to its history, but this should be done in the context of "look what happened when Hitler took over the sign." 

I objected to Base's use of the swastika, claiming that in his book the symbol was "decontextualized." Since I made this argument, Perry Nodelman posted his very perceptive thoughts on the subject. In response to his posts, I now wish to amend my description of "decontextualized" to something more specific. Perry describes a certain kind of context, one we can summarize as the context of "disassociation." I agree wholeheartedly with him that this is what Base has done--he has inserted the swastika in a context of disassociation, and this placement, from my perspective, is dangerous, and I'd go as far as to say, immoral, at least from the perspective of morality Julius Lester described. 

I don't think the red cross on the shield is supposed to represent Switzerland and thus neutrality. That would be a white flag on a red ground. The only flag I know of with a red cross on a white ground is the flag for the International Red Cross society. I don't know what Base intends to suggest by placing these four symbols in juxtaposition, other than perhaps that they are all equivalent or that they are all meaningless. Both of these suggestions worry me greatly. 

To compare the Nazi symbol with the American flag (which may or may not be what Base is doing but is certainly what one member of this mailing list has done), suggesting that they are equivalent symbols of genocide and evil conveys, to me, a profound misunderstanding of Nazism. I do not argue that the U.S. is not responsible for the murder of many. But there is a huge difference between the ideology behind the American flag and that behind the flag of the Third Reich. To compare "Americans" with "Nazis," drawing a parallel between these two groups, should bother many of us. 

Finally, to those of you who don't like to be told what to do and who are most concerned with erasing any distinction between selection and censorship, I do not ask you to agree with me. I only ask that you stop trying to show me how I am wrong. If I found your arguments persuasive, I would have come around by now. Instead, I feel more and more convinced of my original stance.