When the American people mobilize for war, the library time and time again has mobilized on the home front. In Chicago, war maps were put up in the library, which helped citizens on the home front to feel involved in the war. Reading materials in Madison changed to reflect the violent, unpredictable times. "Film forums" helped keep Americans updated on happenings over in Europe and the Pacific.
During World War II, the ALA worked in tandem with the United States Information Service. This service was all to happy to have small libraries all over the country at its disposal, and the ALA was pleased at a chance to help its country. The USIS also helped to get smaller, rural libraries more attention from the ALA.
The Office of Civilian Defense declared "'America's libraries are to become arsenals of defense information'" (Becker, 88). The ALA was more than willing to fulfill this position.
My question pertains as to whether or not the ALA ever openly refuses to support a war. If the library's resonsibility is to its patrons, then must the library cater to their needs without question? Perhaps this is a case where the masses do not know well-enough for themselves, and must depend on the library to teach them the truth about an unjust, wasteful war. In patriotic America, what kind of reaction could such librarians expect from such open hostility to war?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment