bolanyo

(posted this a couple of times and it doesn't seem to be visible. Reposting without a piece that might be causing me to be censored, lol.)

Anne Frank's diary was published in 1947. It is a historical document very important to the history of the 20th century, critically important if we consider documents accessible to high-school students and widely taught to them. The original version, and all subsequent versions until 1995 (when a reasonably complete version was first made available) as well as the vast majority of current editions, omit certain material.

This includes Anne discussing [the part I removed so as not to hit HN's word filter!]. It also includes material removed by the original editor, Otto Frank (Anne's father) where Anne is critical of her father and discusses her parents' marriage.

In fact, the 1995 edition didn't include all the missing material (some pages removed by Otto were not available, even to scholars. Nor did the 2001 edition which added the pages Otto removed. There was still some censorship of material. Only in 2018 (deep into the "woke era"!) was the full text of Anne's diaries published after 70 years of the diaries being renowned, widely discussed and taught, and quasi-universally regarded as historically important.

I think you are splitting hairs. Control of certain forms of art or literature so that they can't be revealed to all is what we're talking about. The culture in question is very different from ours so we can't expect their taboos or censorship to have exactly the same forms that we might associate with censorship (mean-looking guy with eyeshade and red pencil, hooded monks chained to desks in candlelight, omnipresent super-computer says no, etc).

For example, some stories are not just 'the stories of particular groups' but are not allowed to be told by, or in some cases told to, other groups.

Besides this, how do you know that none of these works have been painted over or hidden?

One interesting example is Josephus. A Jewish-Roman historian, he provides almost the only roughly contemporary mention of Jesus outside of biblical ones (and biblical apocrypha). He simply describes the existence of a 'superstition' (non-officially accepted religion) around Jesus, that he was crucified, and that his followers still venerated him.

Sometime in the last 2000 years, probably the Early Middle Ages, Christian scholars doctored this passage to have Josephus suggest that Jesus was a god, or at least superhuman (even though Josephus was not a Christian believer).

Modern scholarship, including religious scholars, almost unanimously accept the passage as fake. But Christian proselytizers still use it very frequently as extra-biblical confirmation of the divinity of Christ.

I don't think it is true that this rock art is an example of significant culture that has never been censored or expurgated. The taboos and rules which apply to viewing this art and/or reproducing it or the linked stories are surely analogous to a form of censorship. The fact that people have broken those rules does not change this.

I don't think that is true. There is lots of rock art which either can't be shown to outsiders (or to members of certain genders or moieties), or can be shown, but the significance behind the art is not allowed to be explained to outsiders. Some rock art can be copied for wider consumption, but the copies have to leave out certain details.

I think that the links between these languages do make it easy for people from the Netherlands, Germany and Scandinavia to learn English. These countries, to give them credit, have also seen the importance of good language education, in particular English learning, for a long time.

There is also an effect which people from other countries have described which makes it harder for foreigners to learn the local language. If you approach almost anyone in the Netherlands and speak to them in semi-competent Dutch, they will often respond in fluent and nearly accentless English. This includes older people, people with only high-school education, people in official positions. So not only do you not need to learn, you are discouraged from practicing by the local population's competence and hospitality.

Please provide an example of an culturally important large-scale work of history or literature, at least 1,000 years old, which hasn't been abridged, extracted, expurgated, euphemized, hidden, bowdlerized, etc.

Police with guns are extremely rare everywhere in London, although yes, we do have some cosplayers in big stations and outside Parliament.

There has never been any language requirement for EU citizens to live in Germany or anywhere else, ever since freedom of movement was established.

> it is unreasonable to live permanently in a country without speaking the local language

But what if there are countries where the 'local language' eventually becomes like Irish in Ireland?

Everyone who goes to school in the Republic of Ireland will learn some Irish at school. Almost every Irish person will know some Irish expressions, Irish songs, and be aware of Irish-language culture and literature as well as English-language Irish culture. If two native Irish people were in a hostage situation, held by English speakers who didn't know any Irish, and had to communicate without being understood, most would probably manage to do so.

And yet, you could live anywhere in Ireland your whole life and never be in a situation where you needed anything other than English to make yourself understood. No official purpose, and no business interaction would ever require Irish, even in the most rural and remote areas.

If you cared deeply about the Irish language, wouldn't it make more sense to support and honor Irish poetry, song, literature and theatre, rather than trying to coerce or force immigrants into learning a (reputedly difficult) language with around 1 million speakers, and less than 100,000 daily active users?

Some (not historically Anglophone) countries are getting close to being like this, in particular the Netherlands and Sweden. The metropolitan areas of those countries are much further down that path. If local culture is still preserved, taught and celebrated, is a really a problem?

I'm not a strong advocate of this, or of jail time in general for non-violent offenders, but as a thought experiment, suppose that Acme Auto release updates to their car's software which make the UI more laggy and less intuitive to navigate. After they do, there are a cluster of similar accidents - distracted driver hits a pedestrian when they should have stopped. These can be shown statistically to affect Acme models with the software updates significantly more than any other make of car, and more than Acmes which don't have the update. A class action lawsuit is started against Acme by both crash victims and drivers. In discovery, correspondence between software engineers is found. Engineer A writes to Product Manager B and says that they don't think the new build is safe, because they were forced to compromise latency performance, and button placement is now more surprising, having changed again. QA Engineer C chimes in and says that since the changes apply to features critical to driving such as de-misting, they won't be prepared to sign off on the change. PM B says that they have to go with the new version in order to meet internal targets on engagement with entertainment apps. They overrule A and C, as company rules allow them to do.

Do you think B should face any personal consequences within a public justice system? Or Acme is just liable for a big payout and then upper management decide who takes the blame?

> They haven't edited other people's histories while continuing to label those histories as the work of the original authors.

You are extremely naive. This has happened lots and lots of times.

"if asked"