Here's one for you guys to debate

http://www.fultonsun.com/news/2011/jan/10/twain-tweeking-receives-mixed-reaction-callaway/

Basically, "Huckleberry Finn" is being revamped to remove all racial language so that it isn't offensive to anyone.

Personally, I think this move is akin to denying that there was ever a mindset out there that believed that language and behavior of this sort was appropriate. Classic literature gives us a shot at understanding the people that came before us- and to remove pieces of it that don't jive with you doesn't do it, or your own ancestors justice.




Edited by Reb Cpl - 10 January 2011 at 12:21pm

Wake up, people!

brihard wrote: I hate political correctness in general- this is pure bull.

I think that the large issue is political correctness being a mis-used application.

to me 'politically correct' shouldn't mean anything more than a public official shying away from language that's offensive or controversial, since they're supposed to represent their (hopefully) diverse constituents.

But making a move to mainstream PC is where you run into trouble, because to not offend someone, you're inevitably doing exactly that to someone else.
 

To remove the language is to remove the connotations and context of the time in which the story is set, let alone when it was written. Huck Finn without the ever present and outright show of racism and bigotry by many of the characters takes what is, in its own right, an outstanding piece of abolitionist literature and turns it into something resembling a Hardy Boys' adventure.

I guess I'm most confused by the decision because of the fact that the book didn't make racism, nor slavery, look good. The "N-word" was used to show the callousness and hate that came along with slavery and judgment of people based on skin color.

The only reason I can sort of see this being acceptable is if it was a version of the book intended for reading by a very young audience, and even then it's questionable at best as to why that age group should be reading it to start with.

I think we read HF in middle school if I remember correctly, but honestly don't remember the N word being used in it . While I am in general against censoring art, I can sort of see where they are coming from. If I was a minority, would I want to be forced to read, as part of my curriculum a book where people of my race are referred to in derogatory manner? Probably not. Hoever, it must be equally as odd to read a book where people of my race are still portrayed as slaves. What's worse, editing the book or banning it from public schools due to it's racist overtones?

I don't know why the debate even exists, Family Guy showed how silly this argument is several years ago:

I've got mixed feelings about this. My senior English teacher back in high school also taught a couple freshman English classes. In one of those classes they were reading To Kill a Mockingbird aloud. He called on a random person to read a few pages at a time. Apparently a white student was reading to the class and, as instructed, he read the text verbatim. After he read a line that included the n-word a black student jumped up and beat the crap out of him. It was rather shocking that afternoon when I strolled in for class and saw the end of the chalk board had been cleaned thoroughly directly above blood-stained carpet.

I understand what they're trying to accomplish here by editing the text. I don't feel this is the correct way to solve a broader problem, over-sensitive people.

Reb wrote: Personally, I think this move is akin to denying that there was ever a mindset out there that believed that language and behavior of this sort was appropriate. Classic literature gives us a shot at understanding the people that came before us- and to remove pieces of it that don't jive with you doesn't do it, or your own ancestors justice.

I agree, but it isn't like Huck Finn is the only example of that time in history. My US History classes certainly didn't cite Huck Finn.

Best scenario IMO would be to make both versions available and let the students decide which they're comfortable reading. Surely most would choose the unedited text anyway.

So being a black student and not wanting to read a book where black people are referred to as "N's" is over-sensitive?

I do wonder though how pervasive was the term in the day. Will sometime in the future any book referring to African Americans as "black" be edited out?

Edited by oldpbnoob - 11 January 2011 at 7:52am

Reb Cpl wrote: oldpbnoob wrote: So being a black student and not wanting to read a book where black people are referred to as "N's" is over-sensitive? I do wonder though how pervasive was the term in the day. Will sometime in the future any book referring to African Americans as "black" be edited out? Undereducation on matters can lead to oversensitivity. Without the proper context being presented, I can completely understand someone taking offense. In retrospect however, its the sanitizing of texts and history which is leading to the oversensitivity in the first place, since 'they' can't get it all.

I guess since neither of us is African American and can't really state from experience as to whether this would be offensive to even a highly educated person of color, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Of course I am like 1/12th Native American and I really don't find the term "injun" all that offensive, so maybe you're right.