Rewriting books is doubleplusungood

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There was indeed - Robinson's jam. People used to collect them. Little porcelain figures, playing various musical instruments. I had some myself at one time.

And there were some enamel badges, too, that people used to collect - perhaps still do.

Perhaps next we'll see expurgated versions of Rupert Bear, that don't contain racial stereotypes.

[HarryT]

Golliwogs were clearly based on "black-faced minstrels", which were a popular form of entertainment in Britain going back at least as far as the mid 19th century. When I was a teenager, one of the most popular forms of entertainment of Saturday night TV was a programme called "The Black and White Minstrel Show". Today it would be considered monstrously racist, but Britain wasn't a multi-cultural society back then as it is today, and attitudes towards such things were completely different.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Golliwogs were clearly based on "black-faced minstrels", which were a popular form of entertainment in Britain going back at least as far as the mid 19th century. When I was a teenager, one of the most popular forms of entertainment of Saturday night TV was a programme called "The Black and White Minstrel Show". Today it would be considered monstrously racist, but Britain wasn't a multi-cultural society back then as it is today, and attitudes towards such things were completely different.

Indeed, I remember my grandmother used to love watching the The Black and White Minstrel Show (on Black & White TV, in Britain), which included whites who were blacked-up, behaving in a stereotypical manner.

The minstrel show "... was an American entertainment consisting of comic skits, variety acts, dancing, and music, performed by white people in blackface or, especially after the Civil War, black people in blackface."

Fortunately, some of us now live in a somewhat more enlightened age - I hesitantly venture to suggest.

I wonder how many people here have ever watched Planet of the Apes (1968 film), in which apes were the dominant species and humans were subjected to slavery.

[mldavis2]

l think this thread has lost it's focus. The real question is: What would Twain want us to do with it? I suspect he'd like everyone to leave his words as he wrote them. Obviously there are many interpretations being given here, and many of them contain personal historical baggage or bias. Perhaps censure is the correct approach in schools. IMHO, censure is not the correct approach for discriminating adults who can put words into chronological context. Those on the forum who are non-blacks will never fully appreciate their understanding of the word -- perhaps Twain, as a white writer, did not, either? But that's how it is written and I doubt he'd want to see it changed. Peace!

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by mldavis2

... The real question is: What would Twain want us to do with it? ...

I imagine, leave it exactly as he wrote it, as a reminder of the past, not turn it into a story that is politically correct for the present, as "... Mark Twain did not take kindly to editing".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

I imagine, leave it exactly as he wrote it, as a reminder of the past, not turn it into a story that is politically correct for the present, as "... Mark Twain did not take kindly to editing".

If it was an adult novel, I'd agree with you, but it isn't - it's primarily a children's book, and the simple fact is that it's not a book that's suitable for today's children to read. So that leaves you with the question as to whether it's better to make minor changes to it so that it becomes OK for children again (and make it clear that it is an edited version, obviously), or deprive children of a jolly good book altogether. I have no problem with such edits - it's a common practice with children's books. Times and cultural attitudes do change, and the books we give children to read have to adjust accordingly.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Whenever someone says "I don't mean any disrespect..." someone is about to be disrespected.

Look, if you want to assume that I mean the exact opposite of what I say in order to pick a fight, there's nothing I can do about that. But sometimes people are going to disagree with what you say. There's nothing personal about that, and I meant what I said.

It is obvious that all you did is go google "nigger" - you have NOT done your research. Just because you found it online does not make it true. You are reading the words only of the seller of men, not the men being sold. You obviously have never read the words of the people who were being called “nigger.”

I don’t have time to pull out too many texts, but I’ll give you some homework. All the emphasis to follow is mine. Let’s start easy:

Frederick Douglass’ Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave.
“It was a common saying, even among little white boys, that is was worth a half-cent to kill a ‘nigger,’ and a half-cent to bury one.”
Frederick Douglass, 1818-1895

David Walker’s Appeal:
“Compare the above, with the American institutions. Do they not institute laws to prohibit us from marrying among the whites? I would wish, candidly, however, before the Lord, to be understood, that I would not give a pinch of snuff to be married to any white person I ever saw in all the days of my life. And I do say it, that the black man, or man of colour, who will leave his own colour and marry a white woman, to be a double slave to her, just because she is white, ought to be treated by her as he surely will be, viz: as a NIGGER!!!! It is not, indeed, what I care about inter-marriages with the whites, which induced me to pass this subject in review; for the Lord knows, that there is a day coming when they will be glad enough to get into the company of the blacks, notwithstanding, we are, in this generation, leveled by them, almost on a level with the brute creation: and some of us they treat even worse than they do the brutes that perish. I only made this extract to show how much lower we are held, and how much more cruel we are treated by the Americans, than were the children of Jacob, by the Egyptians.”
David Walker, 1785-1830

But I’m sure I’m

You will believe whatever you want.

[silasgreenback]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

And there were some enamel badges, too, that people used to collect - perhaps still do.

Perhaps next we'll see expurgated versions of Rupert Bear, that don't contain racial stereotypes.

In the U.S., kid lit author Richard Scarry's books have been heavily edited. The ones I had are quite a bit different than today's.

http://boingboing.net/2007/10/01/dif...s-between.html

Originally Posted by HarryT

Golliwogs were clearly based on "black-faced minstrels", which were a popular form of entertainment in Britain going back at least as far as the mid 19th century. When I was a teenager, one of the most popular forms of entertainment of Saturday night TV was a programme called "The Black and White Minstrel Show". Today it would be considered monstrously racist, but Britain wasn't a multi-cultural society back then as it is today, and attitudes towards such things were completely different.

In "The Mikado", in the song "As Someday it May Happen" the term "banjo serenader" replaced the more offensive term that was used for minstrels. What's surprising is that the switch happened in the 1940s.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mi..._it_may_happen

I don't recall where I read it, but there are several more interesting things about that song. For instance, the "lady from the provinces who dresses like a guy" isn't quite what it sounds like.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by silasgreenback

In "The Mikado", in the song "As Someday it May Happen" the term "banjo serenader" replaced the more offensive term that was used for minstrels. What's surprising is that the switch happened in the 1940s.

In case it's not clear, "blackface minstrels" were white performers who put blacking on their faces and performed their interpretation of "negro music". Eg, this is a picture of a performer from the "Black and White Minstrel Show":

[silasgreenback]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In case it's not clear, "blackface minstrels" were white performers who put blacking on their faces and performed their interpretation of "negro music". Eg, this is a picture of a performer from the "Black and White Minstrel Show":

Where I had mentioned above that there was more to the song, I recall it being said that the serenaders of time were white buskers who'd often use burnt cork for the blackface. The change in lyrics was duly for lessening offense and for clarity.

[WT Sharpe]

Mark Twain was not a racist; certainly not considering the day and age in which he lived. His world was one where those with black skin were considered less than human, and in that world he chose to write a story that might do a bit to change those attitudes. In so doing, he sought to engage his target audience with a story that would teach but not preach, and so he invented as his hero a young boy so thoroughly grounded in prejudice that it even came as a surprise to him to learn that blacks had families for which they could actually care. Remove Huckelberry's racial epithets and you run the risk of missing the remarkable transition in Huckelberry's thinking of Jim from simply being "Miss Watson's big nigger" to "My friend, Jim," which is pretty much the whole point of the book.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Mark Twain was not a racist; certainly not considering the day and age in which he lived. His world was one where those with black skin were considered less than human, and in that world he chose to write a story that might do a bit to change those attitudes. In so doing, he sought to engage his target audience with a story that would teach but not preach, and so he invented as his hero a young boy so thoroughly grounded in prejudice that it even came as a surprise to him to learn that blacks had families for which they could actually care. Remove Huckelberry's racial epithets and you run the risk of missing the remarkable transition in Huckelberry's thinking of Jim from simply being "Miss Watson's big nigger" to "My friend, Jim," which is pretty much the whole point of the book.

[gastan]

From my edition's of Twain (Dorset Press, published 1988)(all emphases are mine):

Preface to The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
"Although my book is intended mainly for the entertainment of boys and girls, I hope it will
not be shunned by men and women on that account, for part of my plan has been to try to pleasantly remind adults of what they once were themselves, and of how they felt and thought and talked, and what queer enterprises they sometimes engaged in.
The Author
Hartford, 1876

Explanatory note at the beginning of The Adventures of Hucleberry Finn
"In this book a number of dialects are used, to wit: the Missouri Negro dialect; the extremest form of the backwoods Southwestern dialect; the ordinary "Pike County" dialect; the four modified varieties of this last. The shadings have not been done in a haphazard fashion, or by guesswork; but painstakingly, and with the trustworthy guidance and support of personal familiarity with these several forms of speech.
I make this explanation for the reason that without it many readers would suppose that all these characters were trying to talk alike and not succeeding.
The Author

Twain obviously took great care choosing the words he used and he used these words for a clear purpose. In his own words he is telling us that he was capturing a period in history; a slice of American life as it was; a reminder to ourselves of what we had been and how we had acted and how we talked. Don't like the picture? Tough, most of us don't. I don't think Twain himself cared for some of it. But that won't change it and neither will altering the recorded history of it. Altering our history will only ensure that we don't understand who we are, where we came from, or how we got here.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

What do you think the 19th century reason would be for using the word "injun" in print, instead of "Indian?" What would the author be conveying about the character, other than either lack of formal language skills or some level of bigotry?

I presume that he was presenting as accurate an account as he could of the people, times, and language in the book he was populating. But then I don't usually try to second guess an author's motives or actively look for insults around every corner.

Originally Posted by HarryT

If it was an adult novel, I'd agree with you, but it isn't - it's primarily a children's book, and the simple fact is that it's not a book that's suitable for today's children to read. So that leaves you with the question as to whether it's better to make minor changes to it so that it becomes OK for children again (and make it clear that it is an edited version, obviously), or deprive children of a jolly good book altogether. I have no problem with such edits - it's a common practice with children's books. Times and cultural attitudes do change, and the books we give children to read have to adjust accordingly.

Hogwash. Sanitizing history only ensures that it has an increased potential of being repeated. You believe that the book is a "jolly good book altogether" but is objectionable because of one word? Believe me, your little darling won't become a raging racist by reading this book or being exposed to the word "nigger". That's like saying a one or two hour conversation with a lesbian will turn your little debutante into one. What reading the original words may do is help your little tyke internalize, on a visceral, gut level, why the word is so offensive. It may help them understand their culture and society better.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by gastan

Believe me, your little darling won't become a raging racist by reading this book or being exposed to the word "nigger". That's like saying a one or two hour conversation with a lesbian will turn your little debutante into one. What reading the original words may do is help your little tyke internalize, on a visceral, gut level, why the word is so offensive. It may help them understand their culture and society better.

1. Harry's not American.

2. It won't help anyone understand their culture and society better if they are never exposed to the book because it isn't taught.

I agree with a lot of your points above, but the reality is that the book is not being taught in schools because of the one word. Would you rather the book not be taught at all, or taught with "slave" instead of "n*****?" Either are valid choices, but you must understand that *those* are the two choices. There is no option for "teaching the unedited version" - that is not happening.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

2. It won't help anyone understand their culture and society better if they are never exposed to the book because it isn't taught.

I agree with a lot of your points above, but the reality is that the book is not being taught in schools because of the one word. Would you rather the book not be taught at all, or taught with "slave" instead of "n*****?" Either are valid choices, but you must understand that *those* are the two choices. There is no option for "teaching the unedited version" - that is not happening.

3) School Administrators stop caving to a loud, but minuscule, minority of parents.

4) Other parents stop being weak-willed wusses (did I get that right?) and start demanding an adequate education for their children; not some watered-down version of the war with Eurasia.