Anarchist's Cookbook
September 25th 2006 06:17
For those of you who don't know, firstly, stop living under a rock, and secondly, it's essentially a manual describing how to create improvised bombs and the like, and also criticism of the Vietnam War. It has been banned in many countries, but one must ask, is it right to do that?
The criticisms leveled at the book are as follows.
it is violent
There are only a few non-violent books printed each year. This year there was 'Spot goes to the beach' and 'Thomas the Tank Engine drives along the track'
It is "outdated, misinformed or, in some cases, outright wrong."
Half the books I study for English are outdated, misinformed and outright wrong, what're you going to do, ban Shakespeare and Wordsworth??
The author himself, years later stated that "The central idea to the book was that violence is an acceptable means to bring about political change. I no longer agree with this."
That's a fair enough comment, but does that necassarily mean we should ban the book?
Anotehr criticism is that "Most anarchists condemn the Anarchist Cookbook as having nothing to do with the philosophy of anarchism and for giving anarchists a bad name."
Yes, they no doubt have a point. You can be violent without being an anarchist, and you can be an anarchist without being violent.
Regardless of the fact that it is a terrible book, banning it just proves the book is right in one sense. Some form of action must be taken against the country.
The criticisms leveled at the book are as follows.
it is violent
There are only a few non-violent books printed each year. This year there was 'Spot goes to the beach' and 'Thomas the Tank Engine drives along the track'
It is "outdated, misinformed or, in some cases, outright wrong."
Half the books I study for English are outdated, misinformed and outright wrong, what're you going to do, ban Shakespeare and Wordsworth??
The author himself, years later stated that "The central idea to the book was that violence is an acceptable means to bring about political change. I no longer agree with this."
That's a fair enough comment, but does that necassarily mean we should ban the book?
Anotehr criticism is that "Most anarchists condemn the Anarchist Cookbook as having nothing to do with the philosophy of anarchism and for giving anarchists a bad name."
Yes, they no doubt have a point. You can be violent without being an anarchist, and you can be an anarchist without being violent.
Regardless of the fact that it is a terrible book, banning it just proves the book is right in one sense. Some form of action must be taken against the country.
| 75 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
