Rewriting books is doubleplusungood

[WT Sharpe]

Although I feel Huckleberry Finn can have a place in education, I do feel that some common sense should be applied. It would be unwise to present it to people who are too young to grasp the irony and satire, and it would be unwise in certain circumstances where the book's intended message would be misinterpreted or create a disruption.

For what it's worth, Stephen Colbert has tweeted his 2¢ worth:

It's great that they took the N-word out of "Huckleberry Finn." Now get to work on "Moby D-Word."

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Although I feel Huckleberry Finn can have a place in education, I do feel that some common sense should be applied. It would be unwise to present it to people who are too young to grasp the irony and satire, and it would be unwise in certain circumstances where the book's intended message would be misinterpreted or create a disruption.

For what it's worth, Stephen Colbert has tweeted his 2¢ worth:

*Groan* That one has personal significance for me. I was a member of this gaming forum ages ago that had a ridiculously strict profanity filter. I tried to use the quote "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" by Philip Dick in my signature and the freaking filter changed that to "Philip D$%k".

Considering that words scare people more than anything else, I wish I could buy a word-gun. No one would ever mess with me. Ooooh, he said the F-word while murdering that roomful of people. Obviously, we must censor the freaking word .

Has anyone tried to watch The Matrix on an airplane personal video thingie? Among other hilarities, they actually substituted "jeepers creepers" for Neo saying "Jesus Christ" . The whole movie felt like a parody . Gotta admit though, funny as hell. Oops, I mean heck.

[WT Sharpe]

"Philip D$%k"

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's certainly the way it was used in Britain, at least up to the 1960s. I hope that nobody believes that Agatha Christie was being deliberately racist, for example, in titling a book "Ten Little Niggers" in 1939.

There was a particular shade of brown that was always known as "nigger brown" in my childhood (in the late 1960s) and there was absolutely no derogatory meaning associated with the name.

Harry, white folks may not have found the term offensive. Did you know any people of African descent at that time who had no problem with the term? From what I've read about Agatha Christie, I don't think she thought highly of non-Europeans (or lower class Europeans, for that matter). She may not have named her book with the intent of causing offense, but she probably didn't take the feelings of black people into consideration, either. I doubt she even considered them to be part of her audience.

[luqmaninbmore]

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.

I think the fact that the Asian character, while exoticized, is still clearly human and that the Africans are clearly depicted as being sub-human says a lot about the racial hierarchy that still afflicts western culture. Although it's definitely not just a western trait; my God, look at Mr. Popo from Dragon Ball Z!

[AlbertaCowboy]

Originally Posted by Joe Minton

Remember the movie "Sounder." The movie had the father going to jail for a year because he stole a ham and some sausages to feed his family. The reality in much of the South was that black men were arrested on trumped charges so they could be put to work as virtual slaves. I won't go into details of this practice but the book version of Sounder implied it: the father spent three years as a slave until he was injured such that he was of no further economic use to his captors.
Joe Minton

I remember Dad reading "Sounder" to me at a very early age. (THANK YOU Joe, for reminding me of the name; I have been searching for years for the title!) The story haunted me for a long time. Almost thirty years later I can remember vividly some of the passages, particularly the dialog of the arresting cops. When I asked my father why the boy's father was taken away to jail just for stealing a ham, I remember the sadness in Dad's face as he stopped reading and explained racism to me. That was a very powerful lesson to learn at a very tender age. I'm glad that Dad didn't "sanitize" that story.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Harry, white folks may not have found the term offensive.

Well, that's really what matters, isn't it, A.C. being white. Offensiveness is not in the eye of the beholder, it's a conscious choice on part of the offender. You can be accidentally rude, insensible, in fact a lot of things, but not offensive. A slur isn't a slur unless you mean it to be one. A.C. wrote for a largely white audience to whom "Ten Little Niggers" was nothing but a reference to the old children's rhyme.

I'm not a huge fan of her work. I think she was a rather mediocre writer, mass-producing mediocre crime novels all according to the book. She was clearly in it for the money (although there's nothing wrong with that as such). What she almost certainly was not, however, was racist.

She may not have named her book with the intent of causing offense ...

My point exactly.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

... What she almost certainly was not, however, was racist ...

Is racial and ethnic stereotyping a form racism? Certainly, Agatha Christie presented different nationalities and races in a stereotypical manner. Hardly surprising, as it was common at the time, and apparently wasn't done in a malevolant way. It would be surprising if she wasn't at least mildly racist, given that racism wasn't exactly uncommon in British society, during the decline of the British Empire, though attitudes began to change when Jewish refugees arrived during WWII, immigrants from the ex-Colonies arrived after WWII, plus migrants from elsewhere since then, transforming the UK into its present multicultural society.

What I find remarkable about Mark Twain is that he was an adamant supporter of abolition and emancipation, plus an anti-imperialist, and used his skills as a writer to tackle so sensitive an issue as racism, in such a sophisticated manner. This very interesting thread has really inspired me to re-read Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, plus read A Tramp Abroad for the first time.

[mldavis2]

I had forgotten, after many years, the author's preface to both "Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer." That says it all, and apparently few, even myself, remembered that Twain explained his carefully chosen verbage. The book was written for kids. Leave it alone and in context. Thanks @gastan for the reminder!

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Well, that's really what matters, isn't it, A.C. being white. Offensiveness is not in the eye of the beholder, it's a conscious choice on part of the offender. You can be accidentally rude, insensible, in fact a lot of things, but not offensive. A slur isn't a slur unless you mean it to be one. A.C. wrote for a largely white audience to whom "Ten Little Niggers" was nothing but a reference to the old children's rhyme.

I am going to disagree with this. If you call someone something and they don't want to be called that - you are offending. I was in a store one day and called the shopkeeper "dude." I wasn't trying to be offensive, but he was very offended. Who am I to tell him that he has no right to be offended?

And to further that point, "nigger" was not a term until American slavery. I'm sure no Jewish person would agree any anti-Semite term is ok if the person using it wasn't intentionally being offensive. Micheal Jackson found that out.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by mldavis2

I had forgotten, after many years, the author's preface to both "Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer." That says it all, and apparently few, even myself, remembered that Twain explained his carefully chosen verbage. The book was written for kids.

Who will never read it. Is that okay with you?

Leave it alone and in context. Thanks @gastan for the reminder!

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Who will never read it. Is that okay with you?

If it is read out of context? Yes. Words are nothing without meaning.

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I am going to disagree with this. If you call someone something and they don't want to be called that - you are offending. I was in a store one day and called the shopkeeper "dude." I wasn't trying to be offensive, but he was very offended. Who am I to tell him that he has no right to be offended?

Who are you to tell him that? - You are a normal human being who said something that wouldn't be considered offensive by anyone who wasn't stark raving cuckoo . Of course, I wouldn't suggest that you tell him he has no right to be offended - that sort of language (omg, you said "right" - that's sooo offensive) might just start an infinite regression of offense. Reminds me of the woman in "Dead like me" who got offended by the word "moist" .

Don't you find that just a little bit absurd? If a guy gets offended by "dude", he needs to be kept in a padded cell (for his own protection) to avoid any accidental contact with humanity that may damage his oh-so-fragile feelings. I mean, seriously - "dude"? That's offensive now? Or rather, we're expected to humor such insane levels of delicacy now? Gimme a break .

I can go along with the idea that people have the right to feel offended by anything they want. But in a society with more than one person, they have no bloody right to demand or enforce a ban on whatever it is that offends them, unless the offense makes sense (as decided by a reasonably large fraction of that society - the details I leave as an exercise for the reader ).

If I were you, I would greet that guy with a very pointed "Hey, ummmm <long pause> ... you" henceforth. Can't find offense with that eh?

[jamthecat]

It's appalling, but apparently Americans are incapable of reading the word in the context of the story -- meaning it's shown to be absurd and ridiculous and leads to Huck deciding he'd rather go to hell than let Jim be put back to that status -- so their "betters" are deciding how to help them get through life without thought. Pathetic.

[jamthecat]

OMFG -- "Philip D$%k"!?!?!?!?!?! That is so f%*&ing ludicrous!