Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - January 29, 2025, Winnipeg, Manitoba THINK TANK COMMENT EDITOR: RUSSELL WANGERSKY 204-697-7269 ● RUSSELL.WANGERSKY@WINNIPEGFREEPRESS.COM A7 WEDNESDAY JANUARY 29, 2025 Ideas, Issues, Insights Losing books means also losing history W HEN life gets too stressful and I just need a break, I retreat into a book. Books have always been my safe space. I have read more books than I can count, and the good ones more than once. These days however, to be accurate, I should say I “read” a lot of books. Those inverted com- mas sadly mark a move away from relaxation to utility. In other words, I find myself reading the beginning and the end, and only surfing the rest, focusing on chapters related to something I need to know. Andrew Pettegree’s The Book at War: How Reading Shaped Conflict and Conflict Shaped Reading (2023) is an exception. I have read it all, because it offers a different lens through which to look at some contemporary problems. Pettegree reminds us that books should not be easily dismissed. The ideas they contain can liter- ally shape the world, either when they were first published, or later on. Most strikingly, he associates books (and read- ing) with war, observing that the fiercest wars in history have been between the most literate societies. Books focus and communicate ideas to large numbers of people, across distances and generations, which makes them dangerous. He points out how libraries (and the books they contain) were military targets in ancient times. Nor was this merely a symbolic action. In a man- uscript world, sacking or burning their libraries struck right at the core of a culture’s identity by taking away what they knew. Libraries are repositories of accumulated knowledge and wisdom. More than simply spots to park information, they are (more importantly) places where we learn what it means. The Renaissance grew out of libraries, as scholars found and translated copies of classic lit- erature, sometimes finding only one manuscript, and then multiplied that knowledge and wisdom through printing. But while the book industry is booming today, as electronic tools lower barriers to publication, libraries of physical books are an endangered species. To be clear, by “library” I don’t mean that pile of beach books, culled from garage or rummage sales, read and tossed back — a kind of intellectu- al catch and release. I mean that shelf of treasured books, perhaps passed down through generations, but kept be- cause at some time they mattered. Bookshelves used tell us a lot about the owners; I always scanned what my professors collected the mo- ment I stepped into their offices. Yet, as anyone who has helped elders move out of their homes into a smaller space will under- stand, that interest in books and libraries is wan- ing. Worse, what should be valued among those old collections is not. The Winnipeg Public Library upfront declines any offers for its public holdings; both the Univer- sity of Winnipeg and the University of Manitoba in theory would consider donations, but (on enqui- ry) they are equally uninterested. Libraries everywhere are culling their shelves, disposing of volumes (outdated or not used lately), mostly to landfills. We soon will be left with workstations and spacious rooms, not shelves on which repose the knowledge of past generations. For my own research, I buy a lot of books — and have to fend off suggestions to use the library instead by observing libraries buy very few books these days. E-journals don’t have to be shelved, and don’t get chewed by rodents or soaked by a leaky window. But in the past I have done much of that research by randomly reading through library shelves, constantly frustrated by cataloguing systems that always hid the things most wanted. Instead of finding the expected, I discovered things I didn’t know were there, and so thrived. I have pulled down volumes that had not been taken out since the card was glued in the back in the 1930s, and found gems. You could easily argue that public libraries were the foundation of modern industrial society. They were important because of the universal access that was allowed to people who wanted to learn, to find things out, but who did not have the means to pay for it or to otherwise gain access. The Wright brothers knew nothing about the young science of aeronautics, so they took books out of the Smithsonian. Thomas Edison and his crew of researchers constantly looked through libraries, and compiled their own at Menlo Park. The key military and political figures of the last 200 years had large numbers of books in their personal libraries. Any society that wanted to compete needed that knowledge available to the general public, not just in the hands of an elite. So, there were Mechanics Institutes in the U.K., where the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge made sure there were books and libraries available to everyone, especially the workers. I have always been fascinated by the story of Andrew Carnegie, whose fortunes were founded upon the free access to books and libraries given to him by wealthy patrons. So, when he made his billions, one of his key philanthropic decisions was to give funds for public libraries. Matched by a land grant and agreement by local authorities to support ongoing operations, more than 2,500 Carnegie libraries were built between 1883 and 1929. (There were 125 in Canada alone, three in Winnipeg, for example, and one in Selkirk.) Libraries, however, are not neutral spaces. There are wars about ideas today, and libraries (and the books they contain) are ammunition. I could write my own book about the latest salvos fired in the rewriting of history. But every con - flict has to contend with what has already been written down as “facts” — there is a core of ideas, accounts and other historical documents that forms the bedrock of any dispute. That is, at least until those “facts” are dumped, shredded or otherwise disposed of, as unneces- sary, outdated or inconvenient. As our librar- ies turn into electronic access points, we risk “defactualizing” not only our own history, but gutting the ideas, knowledge and wisdom of past generations to suit whatever some e-mogul of the moment wants us to believe. If the core of past cultures was to be found in their libraries, then what of ours? What if an electromagnetic pulse attack (one of the earliest salvos in any serious 21st century war) or some cyberattack on our systems can erase them all in an instant? What would we do if all that knowl- edge was simply gone? For example, while clearing out of my base- ment, I came across old paper maps, and even some “TripTiks” (remember those?) of road trips we took years ago. My first impulse was disposal, because I can always look these things up electronically, but my second impulse was to keep them. Pettegree tells stories of how the Americans were hamstrung during the Second World War by a lack of knowledge of the Pacific, needing maps and information, and how the British military was forced to plan attacks on Norway based on an old Baedeker tour guide because they had no other information at hand. Once the physical evidence is gone, how will we even know when the story has been changed, as well as its interpretation? While I grant that old- (er) age becomes a challenge in terms of memory, I am often troubled by something I find online not squaring with my recollection from some earlier time. Without the books to double-check, how will I know whether (for example) Jan. 6 was really just a party that got out of hand, if that’s what the internet tells me? February is “I Love to Read” month. Buy a book, even if the library can’t. Peter Denton writes, often surrounded by books, from his home in rural Manitoba. Honest debate in an era of misinformation “WHEN the facts change, I change my mind. What did you do?” — Economist and philosopher John Maynard Keynes Discussing current affairs with friends and ac- quaintances has become a desultory experience. Many of my associates seem deeply knowledge- able and spout facts with great certainty. However, I often sense that I am engaging with CBC, CNN, NPR, the New York Times and the Globe and Mail, reflecting the left-centre aca- demic tranche of society imposed by my academ- ic employment. Another group I encounter is those who ingest a steady diet of Fox News, Tucker Carlson and TikTok. They, too, have the conviction of true be- lievers and will breathlessly cite calumnies of the left, adding that “Donald Trump/Pierre Poilievre will fix that, too.” Both sides bemoan that no one fact-checks and misinformation has infected everyone except themselves. Many news sources claim they offer independent and objective information. After the first Trump presidency, COVID-19 actions and reactions, Tucker Carlson’s manure-gun fabri- cations and the Democrats’ spectacular deceit in obscuring Joe Biden’s decline, then parachuting a poor facsimile of a competent candidate in the form of Kamala Harris, many do not know what to believe. Similarly, Trump and his MAGA acolytes pep- per the atmosphere with a barrage of fantastical fabrications and nonsense. However, all these opinions have some truths that withstand scrutiny. The volume of facts, opinions and innuendo overwhelms us. The chal- lenge is to separate fact from fiction. The problem has increased because post-mod- ernists maintain that no objective truth exists. Reality is a social construction reflecting identi- ties. We use our race, sex and ethnic backgrounds as fulcrums of power. Cognitive dissonance is the mental and emo- tional discomfort that occurs when we cannot reconcile contradictory beliefs, or our behaviour is at odds with our values. As Keynes suggests in the aforementioned quote, we should change our beliefs and behaviour when confronted by evidence, but that is quite hard, especially when we have proclaimed our allegiances. Denying the existence of objective reality only compounds the problem. Also, we instinctively distrust those who change their minds and value consistency in ourselves and others. The age of TikTok and YouTube, with their algorithmic tuning of information to our inter- ests, drives us ever deeper into silos. Our worlds tighten around us, and when we discuss politics, the conversations become a series of competing “gotchas” as each “side” pulls facts out of the air to “prove” its case and often with triumph, like showing a winning hand in poker. Rooting out misinformation requires time. Few want to sift through an ocean of contradictory opinions and competing facts. So, the most com- mon strategy for managing cognitive dissonance is to rely on a few “credible” sources. Many of us park the TV or radio on the channel that feeds our prejudices — CNN, Fox, CBC or BBC — and let the 24-7 drip feed of “facts” reinforce our prejudices. If we add a newspaper such as the New York Times or Globe and Mail, we assume we have the full spectrum of facts and opinions to form a balanced perspective. This is all we can manage in our busy lives, and we dig in. I also fall prey to this. The Los Angeles fire is a case in point. This is the largest and costliest fire in U.S. history. President Donald Trump was quick to blame environmental policies. He opined that California’s environmental policies priori- tized the preservation of the smelt (a near-extinct fish) rather than forest management. Others have blasted the emphasis on diversity, equity and inclusion policies instead of merit in public services. Others point to “progressive” pol- icies, such as removing budgets from firefighting while expanding health care for undocumented residents. Underinvestment in water storage was the contributory issue. My libertarian buttons were pushed, giving me a dopamine hit of confirmation. Then, a corrective emerged that claimed the Los Angeles fire was inevitable. The hubris of constructing a large city in a location prone to large-scale fires is the “real” reason for the devastation. Now, we have a ping-pong of explanations and counter-explanations. Which is correct? It is too soon to say, and no doubt, over the follow- ing weeks, we will see a tsunami of conflicting opinions. Here are some maxims that might help one maintain sanity: ● Your first reaction is undoubtedly wrong. It is a smelt. Many see the initial reaction as the most genuine, but this is usually far from the truth. ● Put yourself in danger. If your habit is CNN, watch Fox even though your teeth hurt, and vice versa. ● Do not be afraid to change your mind public- ly, providing evidence for why you have revised your thought. ● Rather than a gotcha confrontation, ask your “adversary” for the evidence supporting their position. Picking apart evidence is much more effective than a counter-assertion. When you hear mumbled generalities, the weakness of their position reveals itself. This is the jiu-jitsu of debate. ● Ask your protagonist, “What evidence would change your mind about X?” If they state with self-assurance that nothing would change their mind, they reveal resistance to added information and a closed mind; little point exists in continuing the discussion. ● Finally, it is “OK” to hold two opinions. As F. Scott Fitzgerald said, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” The goal of debate in this age of polarities should be mutual discovery. This can only occur among those who are open to evidence, dare to be wrong and change their minds when confronted with evidence. Gregory Mason is an associate professor of economics at the Univer- sity of Manitoba. GREGORY MASON CHRIS YOUNG / THE CANADIAN PRESS FILES February is ‘I Love to Read’ month. Libraries are repositories of accumulated knowledge and wisdom. More than simply spots to park information, they are (more importantly) places where we learn what it means. PETER DENTON ;