“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
― George Orwell, 1984

I was assigned Animal Farm in eighth grade and 1984 in high school.  Both should be required.

Sounds like you matriculated in a more enlightened school district than I did. They were both banned.

Had to find Orwell, Heinlein, Asimov, Herbert, Hubbard, Verne and Clarke on my own.

(with a little help from my friends)

Looking back, it was a pretty diverse list of book we were assigned.  Besides Orwell, we also were assigned Huck Finn and Black Boy, whose language probably keeps them from being assigned much today. The authors you mention, except Hubbard who I don't recall seeing, were available in the school library.

Hubbard was actually a very readable author up until the insanity of Dianetics and Scientology.

Sounds like you matriculated in a more enlightened school district than I did. They were both banned.

I'm curious. If you don't mind answering, when did you go to high school?

I read all of these by the time I got to 10th grade. I agree that they should be mandatory reading.

You managed to do it despite the anal retentive and educationally diminished environment you were in.  Kudos and total respect.

I read those books on my own. My father got me to read Animal Farm and then I read 1984, just because Orwell fascinated me.

We really didn't have assigned reading in school. But I spent a lot of time in the library

Never had any trouble finding reading material and back in that time we had the Legion of Decency ( more for films and yes it really was called that) to contend with.

I was fortunate, my parents allowed me to read anything I could get my mitts on.

Same for me. We also read Lord of the Flies, Twain's Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer (original texts, not the whitewashed texts used today), To Kill a Mockingbird, and many other classics that are considered "controversial" today. 

My girls read these books and my nephew is graduating this year from high school and he read them, so I am not sure that these books are considered controversial universally. 

I never said that the books were considered universally controversial; I put the word controversial in quotes for a reason.

Sorry. I took the quotes to mean "supposedly" or "hypothetically".

Me too.  

Two of my favorites.

Animal Farm my Freshman year in HS, I have yet to read 1984 but I would love to

Did you like Animal Farm? If so, you'll like 1984

It took me awhile to get into it and to "get it" LOL. I have several books downloaded on my kindle from HS that I'm rereading so I can enjoy them ☺

Some books are more equal than others. And who knows who Mellors was?

For very obvious reasons the advent of Trumpism spurred renewed interest in Orwell.

There's always been an interest in 1984, but it escalated during Obama's presidency. "Fundamentally transforming the USA" should ring a bell.

Trump had nothing to do with it.

I will take any thing Obama did over what Trump is doing any day.

"Fundamentally transforming the USA" should ring a bell.

Yes and we should ring that bell in context: 

Obama’s in October 2008, Columbia, Mo:

"Now, Mizzou, I just have two words for you tonight: five days. Five days. After decades of broken politics in Washington, and eight years of failed policies from George W. Bush, and 21 months of a campaign that's taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

"In five days, you can turn the page on policies that put greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street. In five days, you can choose policies that invest in our middle class, and create new jobs, and grow this economy, so that everyone has a chance to succeed, not just the CEO, but the secretary and janitor, not just the factory owner, but the men and women on the factory floor."

"I will take any thing Obama did over what Trump is doing any day."

Like stabbing Israel in the back at the UN when he didn't need Jewish votes and campaign money any more?

I’ll take the opposite position on that.  

Like stabbing Israel in the back at the UN when he didn't need Jewish votes and campaign money any more?

Pres Obama made it clear that he was not a fan of Netanyahu and his parties polices for dealing with the Palestinian's but Pres. Obama had a good, strong record of support for the State of Israel and her people while he was in office.

Obama has a stronger record on Israel than you might have been led to think

By Greg Rosenbaum, Chair of the NJDC Board of Directors

The following originally appeared in Haaretz .

The past week has seen  the latest episode  in an unrelenting campaign to delegitimize President Barack Obama’s strong commitment to Israel. It’s time to set the record straight on a president who has stood with Israel in times of crisis and has strengthened the Jewish state’s security in concrete ways, ensuring it maintains a qualitative military edge.

From his campaign for office to  his recent talk at Adas Israel , a synagogue in Washington, D.C., Obama has made it clear that his commitment to Israel is and always will be unshakeable. “It would be a moral failing on my part if we did not stand up firmly, steadfastly not just on behalf of Israel’s right to exist, but its right to thrive and prosper, ”  he has said .

Obama’s actions prove his commitment.

Israel continues to be the top recipient of U.S. foreign military financing, and for fiscal year 2016, the administration requested  $3.1 billion  in funding. The two nations also have begun preliminary talks on a long-term package that would provide up to $45 billion in security assistance grant aid through 2028. Early this year, Israel signed a contract with the United States for the purchase of 14 F-35 fighter jets, amounting to $3 billion.

Since Obama entered office, Israel has received more than $20.5 billion in foreign military financing. Unlike President George W. Bush, who rejected Israel’s request for  bunker-buster bombs , Obama became the first president to approve the sale of these advanced weapons, and in the fall of 2012, the U.S. and Israel participated in Austere Challenge 12, the largest joint military exercise ever to be held between the two countries.

Under Obama, the U.S. and Israel have continued Juniper Cobra, a joint exercise that has been held every two years since 2001 to test our joint ability to respond to missile attacks and improve preparedness, as well as coordination between our armed forces.

Unlike Bush, who gave Israel’s Iron Dome system a frosty response, Obama has led the way in funding and supporting the research, development and production of the  Iron Dome  — which has been crucial in helping Israel defend itself against terrorist rocket attacks — as well as the joint U.S.-Israel missile defense systems David’s Sling, the Arrow II and Arrow III. Since 2011, the United States has provided Israel with more than $1.3 billion for the Iron Dome system alone.

The military cooperation has been so strong that in a 2012 speech to the Israel National Defense College, then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, “The security ties between us and the current administration are at the highest level they have ever been.”

In the international arena, under Obama’s leadership, the U.S. has fought for Israel’s full participation in the United Nations, has voted against resolutions in the General Assembly condemning Israel, cast the only “no” votes on five anti-Israel measures last year in the Human Rights Council, and worked to ensure that the General Assembly hold its first-ever session on anti-Semitism. Obama also prevented the Palestinians from unilaterally declaring an independent state.

Under Obama, the United States continues to support the Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation, or BIRD, which facilitates U.S.-Israel cooperation in such areas as agriculture, health care and homeland security. Supporting collaboration between the U.S. Department of Energy and Israel’s National Infrastructure, Energy and Water Ministry, BIRD-Energy has facilitated nearly $50 million in U.S.-Israel cooperation.

Obama has been unfailing in supporting Israel’s right to exist and defend itself against its enemies, and has been a phone call away when Israel needed assistance in times of crisis, taking personal steps to help avoid catastrophe when a mob attacked Israel’s embassy in Cairo and providing unprecedented support in fighting Israel’s major forest fire on Mount Carmel in 2010.

Regardless of political attacks against Obama's pro-Israel record, let’s not forget the mixed record of Republican presidents when it comes to standing with Israel. Let’s briefly give some historical context to the relationship between the two countries under Obama.

Not only did George W. Bush refuse to stand with Israel on promoting Iron Dome and selling bunker-buster bombs, but in 2005 he also froze nearly all U.S.-Israeli joint defense projects. And, just before Bush left office, the U.S. abstained rather than veto a one-sided UN Security Council resolution calling for a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip. Under Ronald Reagan, the U.S. joined a Security Council resolution condemning Israel for its destruction of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility and, despite Israel’s strong objections, undermined the Jewish state's qualitative military edge by selling AWACS surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia. Dwight Eisenhower threated to isolate Israel during the Suez war; and George H.W. Bush opposed loan guarantees to Israel.

There is no question that Obama is committed, both in word and deed, to the safety and security of Israel — and in many ways is more committed than his Republican predecessors.

It's unfortunate, isn't it, that SO MUCH needs to be said in his defence.  Had he not abstained, but voted against the UN resolution damning Israel, when he was at the end of his tenure and no longer needed Jewish votes and campaign funds, I might not have taken so seriously his written words that in the event of a conflict, he stood with the Muslims.

It doesn't matter how many comments and articles you produce about how supportive Obama has been, when he no longer needed the money or the votes, he stabbed Israel in the back.  It wasn't Bibi he stabbed, it was Israel.  He didn't have to do it, but HE DID!!!

It would only take a glance at "1984" for students to recognize all the similarities between Oceania and modern America. That's the reason it's not required reading! As I have said before the most influential book of out times is actually a textbook called "A Peoples History of the United States."

Vic,

I think they are both important for different reasons. One gives you a foundation of our country so we can understand where we have come from, and the others are cautionary tales of where we can go.

You don't even have to look at 1984. We have been warned about AI in cautionary tales over and over and look, we now invite it into our homes. 

The problem with human nature is we can see it coming and at the exact same time put on blinders and pretend that it isn't. The proof is pre Nazi Germany. 

We have been warned about AI in cautionary tales over and over and look, we now invite it into our homes. 

You think I'm talking about AI?

The proof is pre Nazi Germany. 

The proof is post WWII Europe and the American university.

You think I'm talking about AI?

No. I was giving another example of how people just don't get the message.

The proof is post WWII Europe and the American university.

I would only agree with that to a point. Post WWII Europe happened for economic reasons and the American Universities are not as bad as commonly painted. I know a lot of post college kids and none of them are radicals and all of them are working.

I know a lot of post college kids and none of them are radicals and all of them are working

This is one of the truths that many religious conservatives don't want told. They want to keep their kids in the dark as to much of the secular education they can receive at a University. They want to vilify higher education because they see it as a threat to their religiously focused lifestyle, where their faith is more important than truth, or rather they believe strongly enough that their faith is true even without evidence and imagine that some day their faith will be proved correct and human wisdom proved wrong. The problem of course is that there's no empirical consensus on which faith, out of the thousands that exist, is the right one. They all express beliefs with no empirical evidence to back them up, just invisible, non-quantifiable 'faith' that each successive generation is supposed to adopt and accept without evidence. And if you ask for evidence you're scorned as if not believing in things without evidence is a bad trait for humans and strong faith in things unproven as a good or healthy trait.

As for 1984, the book was banned in Russia and in briefly in Florida. Other conservative bastions like Idaho and Texas considered banning the book, and in Idaho teachers were telling students it had been banned even when it wasn't. And the reason for the attempted recent bans weren't so much about the social commentary, but claims the book contained sexual violence with passages such as “He would flog her to death with a rubber truncheon. He would tie her naked to a stake and shoot her full of arrows like Saint Sebastian. He would ravish her and cut her throat at the moment of climax.”

It seems clear to me that the dystopian society described in '1984' most closely mirrors the rise of fascist white nationalist ideology in America which is most often found among those who embraced Russia's meddling in our elections and which led to the rise of a populist fascist dictator not much different than Mussolini.

From my perspective, I see Fox News as the new "Ministry of Truth" trying to rewrite history, demonizing liberals and progressives who reject their religious conservative version of reality aided by entities like "Liberty University" that exists solely to reinforce religious conservative ideology in the face of contrary facts and truth. Religious conservatives claim there is one "right" way to live and if allowed they would quickly create the 'Ministry of Love' where they would oversee the torture and brainwashing of humanity in attempt to force them to comply with their conservative lifestyle. Liberals and progressives don't try to force you to be like them, they don't care if you want to live a saintly life of celibacy, they just refuse to allow conservative to dictate who they can and can't love and want to keep any government out of their bedrooms. Religious conservatives, on the other hand, have been pushing moral laws, criminalizing homosexuality, adultery and sodomy, even interracial marriage was banned by religious conservatives for decades. And when progressives fought for their freedom and fought for the right to love who you wanted, the religious conservatives scream that by not letting them ban such things we're moving towards a true "Orwellian" State, the exact opposite of what is actually occurring.

A people’s history of the United States is pure far left socialist propaganda.  

It's well written and very compelling. It has been taught as the standard version of US history to our children for a long time now.

it's too bad that more adults don't read it. I found a library copy @ the Goodwill about 30 years ago. It's on my reference wall. 

That's a much better history than the right wing conservative history full of lies, racism and hate

Let's pretend that you read it. 

What did it get wrong Xx? Please be specific. 

It would only take a glance at "1984" for students to recognize all the similarities between Oceania and modern America.

True. Orwell was a leftist and self-described democratic socialist who couldn't stand nationalism or nefarious, wanna-be dictators.

"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears" -- 1984

“Just remember, what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening” -- Donald Trump

"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears" -- 1984 “Just remember, what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening” -- Donald Trump

Exactly.

Orwell was a leftist and self-described democratic socialist who couldn't stand nationalism or nefarious, wanna-be dictators.

If he were alive today to see how the left has brought "1984" to life, I'm sure he'd quickly change his affiliations!

YOU SHOWED HIM!!!

It appears that many Rump supporters live in Bizarro World.  

If he were alive today to see how the left has brought "1984" to life, I'm sure he'd quickly change his affiliations!

That's insane. He'd be having a FIELD DAY with the demagoguery and pathological lying of the nefarious and self-described nationalist Donald Trump, and the disgusting, dangerous, and utterly contemptible politics of white nativist populism that his entire foray into politics was built upon.

George Orwell's 1984 is a work of science fiction.  Just because a particular work of fiction (particularly of a dystopian future) is personally appealing doesn't mean that fiction describes reality.  Why shouldn't other works of fiction be required reading?

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

Metropolis by Thea Von Harbou

The Shape Of Things To Come by H. G. Wells

The World Set Free by H. G. Wells

If anyone is interested in a reality based education on the subject of propaganda, I suggest they begin with reading the works written by Edward Louis Bernays and do a little research about the Committee on Public Information .  I suggest that Bernay's book Propaganda might be worth a look.

The Food of the Gods H.G. Wells

1984 gained a lot of new readers in the run-up to the year 1984 partially because the book was so relevant to the Reagan Era. Considering the rise of Orwellian Trumpism today perhaps the Orwell family might authorize an adapted special edition to again warn us of all the awful consequences to our freedoms posed by the advent of a totalitarian fascist dictatorship in America and name it 2024...