The Continued Censorship of Huckleberry Finn 1073
eldavojohn writes "Over a hundred years after the death of its author, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn will be released in a censored format, removing two derogatory racial slurs: 'injun' and 'nigger.' The latter appears some 219 times in the original novel but both will be replaced by the word 'slave.' An Alabama publisher named NewSouth Books will be editing and censoring the book so that schools and parents might provide their children the ability to study the classic without fear of properly addressing the torturous history of racism and slavery in The United States of America. The Forbes Blog speculates that e-readers could provide us this service automatically. Salon admirably provides point versus counterpoint while the internet at large is in an uproar over this seemingly large acceptance of censorship as necessary even on books a hundred years old. The legendary Samuel Langhorne Clemens himself once wrote, 'the difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter,' and now his own writing shall test the truth in that today."
Ministry of Truth? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing like ret-conning the evil out of our past. I mean, it's not like we should remember history so we don't repeat it, or anything. Protect the children at all costs, their innocent eyes shouldn't ever know the word "nigger."
There was some sarcasm in there, in case you didn't notice.
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not being a troll here, I'm asking a serious question. Wouldn't we be better off for it?
And also doomed to repeat it all?
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:2, Insightful)
"Laugh if you want, but wouldn't that make for a much better world?"
Yes, it only needs an old man in the sky to make the delusion perfect.
If you can't handle the n-word... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If you can't handle the n-word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Says the guy who can't write nigger.
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:5, Insightful)
It's this discomfort and pain that strips away all the bureaucratic bullshit, all the superficial nonsense, and forces people to be who they really are. Whether they sink or swim is entirely up to them, and I think it's necessary for everyone to experience, if only from a perspective of self-discovery (but also for everyone else's benefit). I realize this is all sort of hand-wavy philosophical, but I think it's born out in concrete fashion every day.
No better (Score:5, Insightful)
The NYTimes [nytimes.com] has, of course, a lot of coverage on the topic, but many, including the editorial board, make the very strong point - how is this any better? Yes, as countless first posters try to show everyday, nigger is offensive, but nothing is such a blight on American history as the institution of slavery. This censorship wrongly conflates the word to be the problem, when really the problem is the hundreds of years of oppression, hatred, and violence that has and is aimed at blacks that the word represents. Some choice editing won't change the realities of the South in the mid-1800s, to think this fools anyone is a presumption of ignorance amongst teachers, parents, and children.
Two Words (Score:2, Insightful)
Miss the point more? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:5, Insightful)
They start by telling themselves "I am a good person, I can do better" even if they know deep-down that they're lying to themselves. And, quite often, the lie actually BECOMES the reality. Convincing yourself that you're a better person can actually MAKE you better. Why not apply the same principle to society as a whole?
I'm not being a troll here, I'm asking a serious question. Wouldn't we be better off for it?
The problem is that there are also a lot of people who start by telling themselves "I am a good person. I am doing the best I can" - all the while slugging back some McD's and tossing that non-biodegradable cup out the window into a grassy field. Or "I am such a good person. I'm better than those filthy n*gger thieves". Not trolling - there are people who believe that stuff. Believing in self-delusion often leads to arrogance.
In order to be a better person you need to have some reference to be better of. Forgetting genocide, racism, sexism, rapings, killings, wars, etc - tossing all that aside just leaves it open to happen again. Without knowing it happened, and the consequences associated with it, there is no reason it won't just continue. This is like history 101, those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.
Honestly they need to put it back in there. Who is being offended by this word? African Americans? Let me put it this way: By leaving it in there you help propogate the story of how your people were treated during those times. How will our children know the N word offends you if we don't give the N word it's proper context?
Re:Ministry of Truth? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just going to play the Devil's advocate here, largely because the knee jerk reaction (and a reaction that I share) is that this is censorship and censorship should be prevented at all costs.
But, what if you look at it, not as censorship, but as translation. Language changes a lot in 100 years, and the meaning of the this particular word has changed even more than the average. I suspect that many of the instances of the word 'nigger' in the original text are not in line with the racist, hateful connotations that are associated with the word today. It is possible that changing the word to something less emotionally charged would more accurately reflect, from a purely narrative, non-historical point of view, the intentions of the author.
Of course, there are doubtless instances in the book where the use is meant to be racist and emotionally charged, I can't find any logical reason why those instances should be changed. And of course the targeting of this single word for changes without changing other words and phrasing in the story to make it more easily understood for the students is clearly censorship or at least pandering.
Re:Ministry of Truth? (Score:5, Insightful)
US history is particularly subject to ret-conning, at least in the US. That's because a lot of folks can't stomach the idea that their country was founded on the very intentional and institutionalized genocide of one group of people and the enslavement of another. Particularly those who's ancestors fought and in some cases died for those causes of genocide and slavery have a hard time dealing with it. And yet it happened, and not acknowledging it happens leads to all sorts of trouble today, over a century after the actual evil is over.
For instance, when the press interviewed attendees of the Secession Ball in South Carolina, not one of them acknowledged that the rights that South Carolina was fighting for was the right to own slaves.
Re:No better (Score:4, Insightful)
> This censorship wrongly conflates the word to be the problem
That's the best argument I've heard yet. These people are targeting a word. Not the institution of slavery, not racism.
Twain used the word on purpose to sharpen his anti-racist message. Removing the word serves only to dull his attack.
This censorship is completely counter-productive.
Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score:4, Insightful)
Poignant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:5, Insightful)
All right, here's a serious answer. No, we wouldn't be better off. Excising history would not excise social injustice from the present, it would only rob us of the perspective necessary to recognize and redress it.
Re:Indian, not slave, for "injun". (Score:4, Insightful)
Indian is racist! The correct word is "Native American". And "Nigger" should be replaced with "Person of African American decent".
Slave is bad too. The correct word is "Voluntary worker".
There, all safe for kiddies.
Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score:4, Insightful)
I think censoring is far more evil than running the risk of offending people.
That's an awfully slippery slope, and before long you're assassinating people who disagree with a law against blasphemy [cnn.com].
Yes, that's an intentionally over-the-top example, but changing reality to fit someone's beliefs/hopes/sensitivities is just plain bad for a free society.
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:2, Insightful)
Luv that last line. It takes a comment that is in fact at risk of being mismodded and sends the mods into a tailspin of doubt.
Let's call this the Utopia Problem. For study material, try Pleasantville the movie.
Taking you completely seriously, the problem lies in your ultra emphasis on *everything*. At level 1 you get problems at the formal logic level wrapped up in Gordian knots of whether the concepts & objects were previously known and then excised, so that the removal creates severe resentment. Or any psychological quirk makes *one* person unhappy, and then Set___OfPeople no longer gets along. Etc.
Level 2 is if you sorta hardwired people to just BeHappy, it leads to KleinBottle grade concept distortions to rational thought when one one answer of a binary choice is "allowed". It would be like trying to run a computer without Zeroes.
Rephrasing your comment, the best you could hope for would be "everything that causes non-accidental homicide would be banned including crimes of passion." We might all end up clones of Ben Stein's characters, but we wouldn't have any more murder.
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Read the outright racist newspaper accounts of WWII. What you're suggesting would require expunging the vast majority of human history.
We can start by removing "offensive" words, but where do we stop? "nigger" is offensive to some, "jap" to others, "squaw" to still others.
But it's not just words that are hurtful. We need to expunge all history of violence and pain. How about accounts of the thousands of dead bodies in Pearl Harbor, floating so thick the survivors could walk on them? How about Mogadishu? Hutu-Tutsi genocide?
The human race is the most successful predator to walk the face of the earth in 4 billion years. You can't expunge violence and pain; it is our nature. We need to deal with the fact that we are a vicious, violent species, and we need to evolve beyond that level to survive.
The fact that it makes some of us uncomfortable is proof that at least a few of us are rising above our violent nature, and that maybe there is hope for us yet.
We'll Have to Agree to Disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we would be a lot better off with "But we've never done this, we've always been better than that!" than with "We'll, here we go yet again."
I respectfully disagree.
If I may liken it to a more concrete example of the history of mathematics, I don't think we ever would have made it to integration without remembering mistakes or basic concepts like addition.
We have stood on the shoulders of the works of very brilliant philosophers and thinkers to get where we are today. Fascism has slowly been phased out in favor of more liberal and democratic governments. And we all know that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the ones we already tried (thank you, Churchill).
Our knowledge of our nasty history hasn't stopped us from repeating ourselves again and again
It's not a perfect process, no. But you don't see a Pol Pot rise to power so easily today and you don't see a new Stalin sending millions to the gulags. Because we remember those things and we remember how they were accepted at the time but are clearly wrong now. On top of that, we remember what Imperialism did to the poor nations and how it made some nations poor and more powerful nations richer. We're not going to get away with colonizing a weaker nation and taking all their resources anymore. Because we remember what that results in. Of all the bad things you listed in your post, I implore you to look back to the situations and causes that set up those problems -- like the redrawing of boundaries of countries following World War II. And remember that so we can catch it next time. The list of these things are endless but you can find example after example in any history book worth its salt (I was most impressed with Hobsbawm's "Age of ..." series).
When a child picks up the text of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and reads the word "nigger" I want them to take offense. Not to take offense at Mark Twain but more so to take offense to and own up to this great country's tortured past and to vow that this will never happen again. This use of a word as a marker of hate and denigration simply because of the color of a person's skin -- and the widespread cultural acceptance of it! If your child never learns the horrible results of that scenario than your child may one day find themselves as a part of that scenario.
Re:Ministry of Truth? (Score:5, Insightful)
But, what if you look at it, not as censorship, but as translation.
Obvious answer: if we're revamping Finn for "modern audiences", then why aren't we doing the same for Shakespeare (where kids are told that you have to study it in the original text or it loses meaning). You can't have it both ways.
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:3, Insightful)
Self improvement for me came when I accepted that I needed to improve. Before, I always thought that I was a good person and didn't need to try harder. Coincidentally my realisation of a need for self improvement also coincided with me losing my religion.
It is a shame that the religion that you lost wasn't Christianity, since one of the fundamental teachings of Christianity is that no one is a good person.
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not even the problem. Check the percentage of people that actually know anything of what we're supposed to learn about History in school. Go ask questions like how did the I and II World War started, who was Benjamin Franklin, Stalin, Cristopher Columbus...
It's not that "knowing" didn't help. Most people didn't even got that far.
Here's what comes out from erasing or modifying the "bad" part of History:
- Instead of just a small percentage of people knowing it (voluntarily or not), nobody would.
- Who decides what to erase? Hitler, Stalin or the Pope? Or everybody?
- How will we know how one thing led to another?
This kind of History elrous0 proposes sounds like a new kind of Bible to me.
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bet you're one of those people who would love to have a Thought Police, if or when the technology ever arrives that can read thoughts. Then all non-politically correct thoughts can be purged from everyone's minds!
And you are one of those people that hate having a conversation, right? Or are you one of those people who felt that if people should fly, they would all have wings and there was no point in discussing anything different.
elrous0 was starting a discussion and opened it playing the devils advocate (or he really feels this may possibly be a good idea.) It is useful and interesting to discuss and reason things out.
Re:Black people protest (Score:4, Insightful)
yeah, this reeks of white busy body trying to help those poor black people who can't face history.
This very act is far more insulting and racist then anything in huckleberry finn
gah.
Re:If you can't handle the n-word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Huck Finn is taught around 8th grade, not preschool. A thirteen or fourteen year old ought to be able to pretty well understand the topics of slavery, racism, and their history in America.
The Most Important Book in American Literature (Score:5, Insightful)
... by American's greatest writer ... and we can't let the kids read what he actually wrote.
If the can't handle "nigger" then they aren't ready to read the story.
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:5, Insightful)
Were the characters in the book slaves, or is that just the new politically correct term for African American and Native American?
It's also misplaced. Not all slaves were Negroes.
Will kids a generation from now believe that slave is a synonym of Negroid, or alternatively wonder whether Jim was an Irish slave?
Context (Score:5, Insightful)
(The following is a true anecdote that has happened to me when I was younger)
I was once asked in high school to write a short story about a man murdering an Arab in France in 1960 when there were strong racist sentiments against Arabs among the French population. The story had to be narrated from the perspective of an eye witness.
For the purpose of authenticity, I made the eye witness telling the story a French racist. I made the narrator use racist speech and express racist opinions such as referring to the Arab victim as "that dog" and expressing approval about the murder. I tried not to over-do it though, otherwise it would not have sounded natural.
The teacher asked us all to read to the entire class what we had written. When my turn came and after I was done reading I realized my classmates were just staring at me as if I had just punched someone in the face in the middle of the classroom. I expected most of them would not understand the point of the racism in my story, but I did not think they would be so stunned. I think some of them must even have thought I was actually racist.
Anyway, they were shocked... and the teacher gave me the maximum mark.
When I tell this anecdote to people, many don't understand why the narrator had to be racist. People usually tell me I had no need to make a racist narrator and what I did was wrong. I try to explain that racism was not only important in 1960 France but also a central element to the story and the murder. If I had not placed racism in my story, I would have missed an important part of the setting. But no matter how I explain it, a lot of people just don't get it. My teacher did, obviously (as the mark suggests).
Context is everything. You can't write a story set in a period of strong racism and pretend racism doesn't exist. I you want to be authentic, you need to face the facts. And if you're not authentic, your work is bad. Art in particular needs full immunity against political correctness.
But ignoring racism when authenticity requires it is one thing. It only makes your art bad.
It's a whole other thing to retroactively censor literature, particularly if it's so old it's not just considered popular culture but also historical. Now THAT is offensive.
Because when you're ashamed of your past... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because when you're ashamed of your past, it's probably best to just change it. Why bother with educating people who read about your past (telling them about ways you and your people have changed) when you can just deceive them from the start?
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet they do exist. And came into existence years ago, and came about without little prompting of history. As long as there are schoolyard bullies, people shouting at each other in traffic over a dozen feet of road, and domestic violence, there will be war. Even without the tanks, planes, artillery, and machine guns. As long as Thag can convince a group that Og sucks and needs the tar beat out of him with stickas and/or stones; there will be war.
Ignorance does not eliminate problems, it exacerbates them. Understanding the problem and having the fortitude to fix it, is the only way to truly solve a problem.
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, too many things have *aspects* which are appealing at first but which history has shown to tend towards situations which we don't really want.
Eugenics can start with the simple and reasonable goal of not wanting children to suffer horribly painful genetic diseases but history in the form of the nazi party showed that if you go too far down that road then being a member of an unpopular ethnic group is eventually cause enough for sterilisation or extermination so better to steer well clear entirely, it isn't worth it.
Hell the nazi party provides no shortage of warnings it's good to remember like
"never believe any government which is herding some segment of the population into cattle cars and tells everyone that they're really just going to live somewhere nice"
And perhaps most relevent lesson from history to elrous0:
"Das war ein Vorspiel nur, dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen."
Star Trek V (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bet you're wondering what the heck one of the worst Star Trek movies ever has to do with the censoring of Huck Finn.
Well, I'll tell you.
In Star Trek V, there's a guy wandering about trying to remove everyone's "pain", and in doing so, he converts them to his particular cult because they feel so "healed" by the removal of the pain. But it's a sham.
Kirk correctly points out that "I need my pain. It makes me who I am."
And here we are as a society trying to do the same thing: remove something we consider painful. In the hope that we'll somehow be "healed". But it's a sham. We need our pain, it's what makes us what we are. It's what keeps our society in check. And as usual, the big-brother committee, in true "Brazil" fashion, has targeted a word, and not the real problem. Changing a word doesn't change race relations in the USA, nor does it excise xenophobia.
If anything it points out the ridiculousness of nanny-state-ism, just as much as Frank Gorshin's portrayal of a man who is black on the right side, who despises a man who is black on the left side. It's too bad our society learned nothing from Star Trek. Poor Gene. He tried so hard to explain. But nobody listened.
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it only needs an old man in the sky to make the delusion perfect.
It saddens me to see that you were modded Insightful. The GP's question is very far off and would never work for a wide variety of reasons. However, your flamebait response against religion shows your lack of knowledge of what religions embrace. The fact of the matter is, any major religion, and anybody practicing such religion, realizes that humans, as a whole, are a pretty messed up bunch. Nobody is immune from the tragedy that is human nature, and I have seen this acknowledged by many people who practice their faith. More often than not, it is those who don't understand the concepts of a sinful or selfish nature that think an idea expressed in the GP's post will work.
And, as an aside, removing religion would not end the wars, genocides, judgement, etc that pervades our cultures. Religion provides a focal point more often than not because of the topics it attempts to address. However, if you removed religion from this world, I can guarantee you that something else would quickly take its place. The problem isn't religion...it's people.
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:5, Insightful)
Knowledge of nasty history can be very valuable. Take the controversy over vaccines, for example. Some of the folks who lobby against vaccine use try claiming that the diseases they prevent aren't really that bad. If you have a sanitized version of history, you wouldn't know that people died, were permanently disfigured or were permanently disabled by diseases such as measles, mumps, whooping cough, polio, etc. Modern parents (including myself) don't have first-hand knowledge of these horrors so they might look at Sanitized History and wonder why they should use vaccines if things weren't ever so bad. Then, when vaccination rates drop and the diseases make a comeback (which is happening in some areas), children will get sick and die.
I'll admit that no historical account is ever 100% objective, but I'd rather have an honest-as-possible recording of history than a Scrubbed-Clean-With-Bad-Stuff-Replaced-By-Rainbows-And-Unicorns version.
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:5, Insightful)
"Check the percentage of people that actually know anything of what we're supposed to learn about History in school. Go ask questions like how did the I and II World War started, who was Benjamin Franklin, Stalin, Cristopher Columbus..."
DO the same with members of Congress and the news!
Cripes I heard crap out of the mouths of Some senators and Fox news pundits during the past 3 weeks about the congress working during Christmas that Claim they are christian say things about Christ that are blatantly wrong.
And these are from people who CLAIM they worship and follow the teachings of Christ. I guarantee they know even less about American History.
The overall education of Americans, from inner city kids to rich, well to do college educated leaders is atrocious. We're a nation of morons.
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:3, Insightful)
First it's because US history in high-school is not history but a fairytale. They don't teach how we did horrible evil things to steal land from the Indians. How we did worse things to the indian population than Hitler did and in fact he learned them from us.
Or the nasty crap we did to the poor, how the slave trade is what built this country. etc...... Or any truths about the founding fathers.
College level US history and real research digs up all kinds of things that make you literally shit yourself as to how violent the United states has been. And it explains the preconception that other countries have of us. Some of the crap we have pulled with other countries is insane. There is a reason the Canadians came down and burned the whitehouse to the ground.
Re:This should be done to all clbuttic literature (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a rather medireview implementation.
Re:Ministry of Truth? (Score:5, Insightful)
Going a bit OT here but I like your premise. So, What Would the Romans Have Done in Afghanistan?
Going by the historical record, I believe they would have built roads and bridges throughout the valleys in that godforsaken country, massacred one tenth of the population in "war", enslaved another tenth and demoralized the rest through torture, public mass executions and destruction of the local religious and/or political elite, followed by replacement with a friendly local satrapy that would take its orders from a Roman (pro-)consul. Then they would have split the country roughly in half, with them holding tight the reins of only the resource-rich bits and everything else left to rot in carefully nurtured anarchy, economic despondency and in-fighting. Then, the life of the new colony would begin in earnest, with rich Roman patricians in control of colonist-run resource operations such as export of valuable minerals and agricultural products.
Oh, wait...
Re:Ministry of Truth? (Score:1, Insightful)
I wholeheartedly agree with the first part of your response. I think, however, you'd be more accurate in saying that "South Carolina was fighting for the RIGHT TO CHOOSE whether owning slaves in South Carolina was OK and not being told by the federal government."
Re:We'll Have to Agree to Disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
I completely disagree. All art has context, but great art transcends context. Art which we come to appreciate despite offensive content in its intent or context is still art we appreciate.
Do I love John Coltrane's "Alabama" because of the story behind it? No, I loved it before I understood that, because the pain it depicts transcends the senseless murder of children it was actually about. I enjoy it differently now that I know.
With Huckleberry Finn, the context is offensive, but that's what I'm bringing to the art, and understanding that things change is something I get to appreciate on a deeper level because not only do I get the benefit of seeing Huck's attitude change, but also the historical social changes between the setting and my lifetime which Twain couldn't have provided.
Art is appreciated in an interaction between the art and the beholder. If you can demonstrate art that has value without ever being observed, maybe there's something to what you say, but I don't think that's possible.
Re:We'll Have to Agree to Disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
The word should stay there to show how language was used at the time.
The word is so offensive today that it detracts from the story the book was intended to tell.
It frightens me when I think about how many people are afraid of mere words. Every word has a use and a meaning and is merely a string of letters.
But meanings change
So we should go back and rewrite/censor every book that contains words that we no longer accept?
I see nothing wrong with removing it, and no I don't see that as censorship.
You don't see it as censorship when people want to remove the word simply because some people find it offensive?
Re:No better (Score:3, Insightful)
Some choice editing won't change the realities of the South in the mid-1800s, to think this fools anyone is a presumption of ignorance amongst teachers, parents, and children.
Playing devil's advocate here...
Maybe they aren't actually trying to hide the realities of the South in the mid-1800s. Maybe they aren't trying to fool anyone.
Maybe switching out nigger for slave actually restores the reality of the South in the mid-1800s. I mean, in the mid-1800s "nigger" didn't have the shock value it does today. It was a pretty unremarkable word, really, at the time.
If 100 years from now, "thee, thy, thine" are the most shocking slanderous word one can utter, then perhaps shakespeare SHOULD be performed with "you/your/yours" substituted in its place to preserve the spirit of the play. Shakespeare didn't intend to completely shock the audience when he wrote "thy". Just as Twain wanted to show that "nigger Jim" was of no consequence and "beneath contempt", but there was no "shock value" in calling him "nigger Jim" at the time.
Pulling the word 'nigger' out, and switching in slave, allows you to spend time on the actual story, without the distraction of the -word- 'nigger'. They aren't trying to exorcise the rascism and slavery. The word itself really is the problem.
Personally, I object to censorship... but I really do see their point. When Mark Twain wrote it 'nigger' was not 'the most vile word all of the english language', and I do find it distracting which in context, it shouldn't be. And it gets in the way when discussing the book later... should a 9 year old use the word when writing a book review, or doing some chapter questions?
The word itself is a constant distraction.
Re:We'll Have to Agree to Disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
You think that removing something you feel is offensive is not censorship. If not, then what is?
The point is, instead of flat, dry history classes, books like these teach people. You learn the thoughts, words, and customs of the day. You can't wipe that out without consequences.
Re:Is it THAT offensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I have to ask...do that many people out there find the word nigger to be so horribly offensive?
I mean, I know a great number of black people find the word offensive (although strangely enough usually only if a non-black person uses it, they often call themselves niggers in everyday conversation), but do people of other colors find the term to be THAT offensive?
Granted, I'm a bit older, and the word was not as bad a four letter words to use. Sure, you didn't shout the word nigger when in company of black people, but in every day conversation, the word was used as a general term for black people...not as a term for putting them down, but that was just the word you used. Growing up, I pretty much thought it was just the usual regional difference in terminology. You hear negro up north, and nigger or nigra as my grandmother used to say it in the south.
I live in the south, and in general, when not in a the presence of black people, the term is still used freely as a synonym for a black person. And no...this is not a bunch of mouth breathing, uneducated rednecks. On the contrary, they are from all walks of life, and most that I am speaking off first knowledge of, are wealthy, well educated and often in places of power (yes, even governmental).
Maybe I'm answering my own question...maybe the degree of "offense" is regional too.
For the record...I'm just not offended by much of ANY language. It is, after all, just a bunch of words.
I don't feel any more offense from words like: idiot, cunt, skin flute, fuckwad, wankel rotary engine, trapazoid, mongolian cluster fuck any more than I do the word nigger.
Words are words.
Revising history, however...is a bad concept.
Re:Ministry of Truth? (Score:4, Insightful)
And all of those are fine in my mind - because none of them are trying to pass themselves off as "the original". And when you sit down in English to study Shakespeare, you don't get to watch West Side Story and call that your paper on Romeo & Juliet.
If they want to make a "Huck Finn" where Sarah Palin and her friend Tea Party encounter treacherous Democrats along the campaign trail, have at it. I only expect them to have enough integrity to name it something different.
Re:We'll Have to Agree to Disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
"But meanings change and *in this case* there is no valid reason to have that word a part of the story."
Except the "little fact" that that was the way Mark Twain wrote it down.
Remember that a book, or any work of art for that matter is much more than what was conceived by its author and its enrichened by those that get to access it. Maybe Mark Twain didn't mean "nigger" as an offensive word, maybe it could be the case that if Mark Twain wrote it today he would avoid it even, but the fact that now the book can be seen with new eyes and that new lessons can be extracted from its read does nothing but increment its value.
USA is a country that a day not so long ago treated some of its fellow countrymen like beasts and fortunately does it no more. This book gives the chance to learn it and learn out of it: don't disallow your new generations of this treasure.
Re:We'll Have to Agree to Disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
But meanings change and *in this case* there is no valid reason to have that word a part of the story. It adds nothing and only detracts from the real message. I see nothing wrong with removing it, and no I don't see that as censorship.
Okay - If it was used to properly reflect the language of the times, then removing it from the story will inaccurately depict history, thereby skewing our view of it.
Either way you look at it, removing the word, for any reason, isn't justified. If the real message is to tell the story, let the word help tell the story. If the real message is to offend people, let it offend people.
Re:We'll Have to Agree to Disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
If the intent of the word was to offend, or it was an integral part of the story and the meaning of that word was also integral, then I would defend having it stay.
You're wrong, so much so that it betrays an incapability on your part to perform an effective literary analysis. I don't think the intent of the word was to offend, but it most certainly was central to the story. While calling Nigger Jim exactly that was not a plot device in and of itself, it was an ironic device used to develop the characters, something very central to the story. At the time, African-Americans were considered to be primitive, brutish, lower class members of society in the South. Throughout their travels, Huck Finn and Nigger Jim stumble across all manner of illicit, terrible people that are dressed up to be high class citizens. They run across other characters, white characters, that are supposed to be more civilized, but display anything but moral accountability. Thus, naming one of the primary characters Nigger Jim, helped to underscore the irony of the story, showing that an African-American, when called by a very degrading name at the time, could still be more friendly, loving, and civilized than most of the white folk in the story.
Furthermore, by continually painting Jim's character as part of the social underclass, and showing how easy it is for Huck to befriend him, Mark Twain is championing the cause of the less wealthy, simpler lifestyles of some white people at the time. This is another common theme in his writing, that simple hicks, as we might call them today, can be more civilized and, for that matter, better people, than the high-to-do aristocrats and southern dandies.
By continually portraying Jim's character to be part of an underclass, by instantly and continually labeling him with a title that is not respectable, Twain explicitly carries these themes every time the character is mentioned. So it is very central to the story. The fact that label is even more offensive today, if anything, rams that theme home even further by showing that character is part of a culture that has had to carry and make peace with it's social stigma. Thus, that character, still displaying virtue in his actions, stands now as a symbol that, even if you are an African-American that has to deal with racism on a daily basis (by having it embedded in your very identity), you can still be a good person, and you can still stand prouder and taller than those who would seek to put you down with that slur.
Taking away that label for that character completely dumbs down and deemphasizes these themes, and it is a fucking literary tragedy.
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:4, Insightful)
"How we did worse things to the indian population than Hitler did."
Citation sorely needed for the "worse" part. Looks like ordinary conquest and the methods used were the only effective way to win by conquest. None of that was "wrong" at the time, and it bears reminding that conquest was normal and acceptable worldwide.
Re:We'll Have to Agree to Disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
The word is so offensive today
It's just a word.
People find the word 'cunt' offensive too, but I've heard it used intentionally on the BBC. (I've heard it used accidentally too).
Just because people find a word offensive shouldn't stop it being used. Particularly when it's not being used to offend against them.
If I want to use the word 'nigger' in a historical context, why is that a bad thing? I hear plenty of 'nigga' in music, why is that acceptable but its use in what was contemporary literature not acceptable?
The demonisation of certain words merely constricts language and places barriers in the way of education and open discussion. Stop it.
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're being a little unfair. The human brain only has so much space. Sure, one could understand every detail of our history, but that person probably won't also know every detail of mathematics or physics. Folks complain about people not understanding science all the time. No human being is going to be good at everything. Particularly in political leaders, far more important than knowledge is awareness of one's own limitations. It's not important what you know. What's important is knowing that you don't know and knowing how to research it to find out.
The problem is that most folks in Congress don't know and don't want to know. Instead of bringing in experts to explain complex subjects, they let lobbyists tell them what to do because it is easier. The crap they spew sounds ignorant not because they don't understand things, but because they willfully delegate understanding to other people. In short, they're mostly irresponsible across both sides of the aisle, and it is only getting worse.
The right thing to do would be to have Congress consist of proportional representation not just geographically but also in terms of their backgrounds (contrasted with our current Congress, almost half of whom are lawyers). The people in there should be smart enough to know when to defer to the opinions of other Congresspeople who have a better understanding of a specific issue. Unfortunately, instead of such reasonable people, we tend to get people who stubbornly refuse to cooperate, refuse to work with the other political party, and generally drag the country down with them.
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:5, Insightful)
Cripes I heard crap out of the mouths of Some senators and Fox news pundits during the past 3 weeks about the congress working during Christmas that Claim they are christian say things about Christ that are blatantly wrong.
Well, the problem there is that Fox and the "conservatives" they promote have an agenda and beliefs that are diametrically opposed to Christ's teachings. They may claim to be Christians, but they really worship money. But there are so many true Christians out there that if Fox and the politicians they promote let it be known that they think Christ was fiction, or his teachings were bunk, etc., they would lose votes and eyeballs.
The same holds true for half the congregation in any church; they're only there to be seen.
The necktie is a symbol of wealth and power. Never trust a man who wears one, and never take a man with a tie at his word when he claims to be Christian.
Pat Robertson has converted more Christians to athiesm than all the athiests at slashdot combined could ever hope to.
Re:American Culture (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, I agree with your conclusion, but I think you display symptoms of the exact problem you're decrying. Here, let me help you....
Our country was the first to try the grand social experiment of a democratic republic, based loosely on ideals from the ancient city-state architecture of Greece.
That would actually be the Romans. You know, the place where the word "Senate" comes from.
Our people developed an entire branch of music known as Jazz.
Only if you define "our people" as also consisting of the black people in the 1920s and 1930s - which no one in polite society would admit to at that time. Not to mention that Jazz music was pretty much frowned upon in the US when it got started.
Our people blended with, reproduced with, lived with, and learned from the Native American population that we found here.
The primary interaction that Americans had with the locals was killing them. The blending, reproducing and learning from was a small subset thereof.
From them, we learned to place a vast amount of importance on the individual and independence.
Nice story, but individualism, self-reliance and independence is already found in the religion of the original settlers: hard-core protestants who believed that success in life was a sign of closeness to god, and hard work a god-approved way of getting there.
We learned an appreciation for nature, and the resources it provides (who, before us, had a national forest preservation system?)
That would be the Germans in the 19th century. You can go back even earlier if you look into more exotic places.
Our culture includes the blending of numerous ethnic communities into a veritable melting pot of ideas and values.
It's understood that a better analogy is that of a salad bowl. Blending of ethnic communities is rare, and takes a very long time. Just look at the various "-towns" in major cities.
We have had dark times in our short history, and we will continue to have dark times as time marches on. We had eras dominated by racism. We had eras dominated by sexism. Currently we are trying to end an era dominated by sexual preference intolerance. We have had wars. We have had depressions. We have had Civil Wars where brothers killed brothers and fathers fought their sons. Yeah, we've had some dark times. We ran the Native American population into the ground. But you know what? We learned from those times.
You sure about that? Because all I see is that we're just making the same stupid mistakes again. Racial profiling a la Japanese Internment act is one large scale gun assault away from happening. A lot of people are clamoring to redo the same mistakes that lead to the Great Depression. I could go on for a while.
I'd argue that the Golden Ages where never really that golden - maybe gilded for some, but it's been a pretty brutal slog for a lot of people. Again, I agree with your conclusion. I just think you might want to update your data points a bit.
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but say what you like about the treatment of the Native Americans, but what happened to them is not worse than what Hitler did to the Jews or the other groups that they committed systematic genocide on in the twelve years of National Socialist control of Germany and most of Europe. Just because there were massacres and because reservations were sort of like concentration camps (but not really), does not mean that Indians were herded on cattle cars, stripped of their possessions, and then either shot into prepared mass graves or marched into gas chambers.
There was no component of warfare against the Jews. The Jews were long time, and prosperous citizens of Germany and the other conquered countries who had even fought for Germany in some cases in WWI. They were all executed in less than twelve years. Six million Jews, and millions of other groups in about a decade. Less than a generation.
Native tribes, although eventually outmatched by the technological strength of the US, prosecuted successful military action on the frontiers, many times trading massacre for massacre and in no few instances, winning battles against US forces. They fought over hundreds of years and at no time was it the policy of the United States to exterminate Indian tribes, even if the government participated or looked the other way while the Indians were cheated and starved.
More to the point, the Holocaust was effected in the "modern" world. A world of (at the time) unprecedented scientific achievement, Reason and interaction between cultures. The plight of the Native Americans was different, cruel and sad by many measures, but Hitler did not learn how to kill humans with industrial efficiency from America.
When I went to school, while there was not a full exploration of the atrocities against Indians in detail, they were certainly covered. The Trail of Tears, the land grabs, the reservations, the blankets with smallpox, the sham treaties, that was all there in high school, and even to a degree in middle school. I don't know where people get the idea that this is missing in US education, at least since the 1970s. Its there. In fact, I think sometimes it ignores certain details to ensure the slant remains firmly on the side of depicting the Native Americans as powerless victims, which they proved time and time again that they were not.
Let's be clear, as someone who trained with an eye towards getting a Ph.D. in History and teaching, I can tell you that almost *any* college level course on just about any culture will bring out details that will cause you to shit yourself, as you put it. And there was definitely a period where the US thought pretty highly of itself and ignored, forgot or otherwise glossed over the downright evil actions that were sometimes committed in the name of progress and Manifest Destiny.
The term that is descriptive of what people mean when they think of ignorant, history-blind Americans is American Exceptionalism, and it is certainly a real phenomenon, but there are limits to the level of ignorance that it actually engenders. The fact that there are rustics out in the countryside who are ignorant of the greater world or rabid nationalists is pretty much a fact of life in any country.
Finally, the Canadians did not burn down the White House, the British did. In fact, it was a British brigade that had fought against Napoleon in Europe under the Duke of Wellington and was then dropped off by the Royal Navy via the Chesapeake. The American attempts to attack Canada never really got anywhere, but they did not go so badly that the Canadians could march through 500 miles of the interior of the US to get to Washington to burn it.
Re:I'll make you a deal (Score:2, Insightful)
And that's why Warner Brothers is far more courageous than Disney. When Disney excises the black centaur from Fantasia, removes cigarettes from Goofy's mouth, and hopes that we'll all forget about The Song of the South as long as they don't release it on a modern format.... I think I know where I'd rather spend my money.
Re:Ministry of Truth? (Score:5, Insightful)
But, what if you look at it, not as censorship, but as translation.
Because, Samuel Clemmons was a unapologetic satirist. The only people using the derogatory words were the idiots of the book, the so-called "fine and upstanding citizens of society" were fools, criminals and murderers. The fact that the words are more hideous now makes the fools of the book look even more foolish.
Mark Twain is turning in his grave...with laughter...and the fools still don't get the joke.
Re:Is it THAT offensive? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't take offense to words used to describe me either. Say the word cracker, honkey, idiot...neanderthal around me or to me.
Doesn't get a rise out of me. I tend to thing everyone is getting WAY too PC, and wears their feelings on their sleeves. Geez, get over it, when did life become about preserving someone else's self esteem? Toughen up a little. People that call you things, aren't your friends. I don't have time for people like that. I've too busy trying to make lots of money, party with friends and get laid.
I don't have time to bother with what other people think or say if they are not my friends.
And yes...they are JUST words.
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:0, Insightful)
Actually, many history teachers these days are quite liberal and have no problem discussing the horrors committed by the United States. In fact, many seem to enjoy it. When it comes to horrors committed in history, it should be kept in mind that the United States is far from unique. An astute student of world history will realize that people in power in all times have tended to abuse the less powerful around them. While the United States has a history of committing atrocities, it has a history of exposing them and trying to learn and improve from them. Compare that to the Soviet Union, or ask a modern Japanese student about what happened in Korea during World War 2.
Re:I have a much more ambitious vision (Score:2, Insightful)
You make some good points, but I disagree at least in part with your assertion that the Native American genocide and the Jewish Holocaust are not comparable.
Well into the '50s the Indians were depicted as the "primitive savages", or as racially inferior to the whites by even the mainstream media - similar to the caricaturization of the Jews by the Nazi regime. I would argue the reason why there was no centralized campaign to eradicate the Native Americans as a racial group was that they were not concentrated well enough, and did not stand in the way of, American industrial progress. But when they did, measures to eliminate them were taken swiftly - Andrew Jackson in Florida will provide illustrative examples.
That Native Americans were able to prosecute military action against the United States is largely a factor of their geographic distribution and the fact that they were trained to fight as a part of their way of life - unlike the Jewish citizens of Germany. This ability does not alter the attitude of the United States toward them.
It is, I freely admit, something of a stretch to suggest that the U.S. and Nazi Germany are identical in their treatment of their respective "racial questions". Nevertheless, a genocide was committed in both instances. This fact certainly permits the appropriate parallels to be drawn - I feel it is disingenuous to suggest that the two events are "entirely" unlike each other. Finally, the Native American wars were still taking place even into the late 1800s - certainly an industrial-enough era, and the final American-Indian wars are regarded as ending in 1918. Is that really that far from 1933?