Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue_librarian
That's your right and prerogative.
If they tell you about it and you continue to so, probably (certainly to their face). That would be a conscious act, though, nothing accidental about it. "Offensive" is derived from lat. ob (against) + fendere (to strike); to me it's hard to see how you can strike somebody unless on purpose.
|
Thank you. I know what the word "offensive" means and where it is derived from.
We're debating the offensiveness of a racial slur. It's a racial slur and thus by its very nature offensive. A turd wrapped in shiny paper and ribbons is still a turd. Christie named the book "Ten Little Niggers" after a poem in which ten black people are killed off. When the book was published in the US – in 1940 - the title was considered so offensive that it was renamed "Ten Little Indians." If the title was considered so incendiary that it was renamed less than one year after the original publishing, how can you say it was not offensive now?
Can anyone think of any other racial slur that we can say is not offensive? I’m tired of
Quote:
Originally Posted by mldavis2
If schools and parents wish to eliminate a work of classic literature, that's a generic, public decision. If I still had adolescent children at home, the original, unbastardized version would be on my home summer reading list for them with a parental introduction as to it's origin, time frame and purpose. I am adamantly opposed to re-writing such works to be politically correct. Substitution of the word "slave" for "nigger" is not appropriate due to lack of inclusion. Not all black persons were slaves, nor were all slaves black. One refers to ethnicity, the other to property. The substitution is inappropriate in addition to the change in context.  |
