Censoring Huck Finn - Have you seen this???

[jenL]

I just came across this article which is just a blurb from the Yahoo! News site, but it struck me, and I'd love to hear the Hive's thoughts.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_newsroom/20110104/en_yblog_newsroom/huck-finn-gets-some-changes

[mcconnellboys]

Wow, if this book is being changed then will all great literature that isn't politically correct for today be changed?

[justamouse]

what stupidity

[mommaduck]

Change it and it loses it's satirical point (in this case that those that use such language are generally ignorant). This is where it censoring does the opposite of it's intent.

[pqr]

Alas this is fairly common practice endorsed by the "I know better than you" crowd. Idiocy writ large.

[Ibbygirl]

I agree this is totally stupid, but apparently it's only going to affect one version. New South Book's new release.

[mommaduck]

I agree this is totally stupid, but apparently it's only going to affect one version. New South Book's new release.

And hopefully it won't sell.

[Ibbygirl]

And hopefully it won't sell.

 

It probably won't. Who wants a censored version of Huck Finn? I hope it backfires on them and they don't get the idea to mess with any other classics. :tongue_smilie:

[Farrar]

It's the idea that it's "for schools" or "for kids" that makes it particularly horrible to me. I mean, come on, schools, do you job and teach context.

[KnitWit]

I really hate for other people to think for me.

[pqr]

. I mean, come on, schools, do you job and teach context.

 

 

I suspect that you ask too much, we should be glad that they are actually "reading" a classic.

 

Do not get me wrong, I think it is outrageous and idiotic to censor the book, but I am actually pleasantly surprised that they still read Twain.

 

Schools have been cutting many of the greats so I had expected that Twain would have been one of those cut.

 

Reason 5678 that we homeschool.

[Nicole M]

This article explains the reasoning a little better than the Yahoo article:

 

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/45645-upcoming-newsouth-huck-finn-eliminates-the-n-word.html

 

I'm so torn! On the one hand, I think it's a tragic commentary on race relations in this country. On the other, I do want that book to be taught and read. If changing those hateful words brings Twain into the classroom, then good. But still. I don't like it.

[Corraleno]

Apparently the only changes are replacing the "n word" with "slave" and replacing "injun" with another word (the article didn't specify). The editor (who is a Twain scholar, BTW, not some political bureaucrat) said he got the idea because so many teachers in the South said they didn't feel they could teach the book because of the incessant use of the n word (219 times). So it appears the main market for this book is schools where Huck Finn would otherwise not be taught at all.

 

Parents here skip over objectionable sections in read-alouds, or substitute words on the fly, or whatever, all the time. I've even read of people here using black sharpies to black out parts of nudes in art books. So why is it "idiotic" and "stupid" for one publisher to provide one edition of Huck Finn that replaces one particularly hurtful and offensive word with a different word? Teachers can certainly explain to the kids that the word was substituted, and why, and why people used it back then, without subjecting African-American children in the class to hearing the n word 219 times.

 

Jackie

[Nicole M]

Apparently the only changes are replacing the "n word" with "slave" and replacing "injun" with another word (the article didn't specify). The editor (who is a Twain scholar, BTW, not some political bureaucrat) said he got the idea because so many teachers in the South said they didn't feel they could teach the book because of the incessant use of the n word (219 times). So it appears the main market for this book is schools where Huck Finn would otherwise not be taught at all.

 

Parents here skip over objectionable sections in read-alouds, or substitute words on the fly, or whatever, all the time. I've even read of people here using black sharpies to black out parts of nudes in art books. So why is it "idiotic" and "stupid" for one publisher to provide one edition of Huck Finn that replaces one particularly hurtful and offensive word with a different word? Teachers can certainly explain to the kids that the word was substituted, and why, and why people used it back then, without subjecting African-American children in the class to hearing the n word 219 times.

 

Jackie

 

Thank you. Yes.

[6packofun]

My first impulse was to be outraged, but your explanation is well-reasoned and I think I agree if those are the only changes.

[LibraryLover]

Exactly. I don't think I've ever had to edit what I read to my kids, but many people here do. I can see how a beaten down public school teacher would choose to skip HF rather than say the n word over and over and over and over again.

 

Apparently the only changes are replacing the "n word" with "slave" and replacing "injun" with another word (the article didn't specify). The editor (who is a Twain scholar, BTW, not some political bureaucrat) said he got the idea because so many teachers in the South said they didn't feel they could teach the book because of the incessant use of the n word (219 times). So it appears the main market for this book is schools where Huck Finn would otherwise not be taught at all.

 

Parents here skip over objectionable sections in read-alouds, or substitute words on the fly, or whatever, all the time. I've even read of people here using black sharpies to black out parts of nudes in art books. So why is it "idiotic" and "stupid" for one publisher to provide one edition of Huck Finn that replaces one particularly hurtful and offensive word with a different word? Teachers can certainly explain to the kids that the word was substituted, and why, and why people used it back then, without subjecting African-American children in the class to hearing the n word 219 times.

 

Jackie

Edited January 5, 2011 by LibraryLover

[Ibbygirl]

Apparently the only changes are replacing the "n word" with "slave" and replacing "injun" with another word (the article didn't specify). The editor (who is a Twain scholar, BTW, not some political bureaucrat) said he got the idea because so many teachers in the South said they didn't feel they could teach the book because of the incessant use of the n word (219 times). So it appears the main market for this book is schools where Huck Finn would otherwise not be taught at all.

 

Parents here skip over objectionable sections in read-alouds, or substitute words on the fly, or whatever, all the time. I've even read of people here using black sharpies to black out parts of nudes in art books. So why is it "idiotic" and "stupid" for one publisher to provide one edition of Huck Finn that replaces one particularly hurtful and offensive word with a different word? Teachers can certainly explain to the kids that the word was substituted, and why, and why people used it back then, without subjecting African-American children in the class to hearing the n word 219 times.

 

Jackie

 

You make a very good point.

[NanceXToo]

Apparently the only changes are replacing the "n word" with "slave" and replacing "injun" with another word (the article didn't specify). The editor (who is a Twain scholar, BTW, not some political bureaucrat) said he got the idea because so many teachers in the South said they didn't feel they could teach the book because of the incessant use of the n word (219 times). So it appears the main market for this book is schools where Huck Finn would otherwise not be taught at all.

 

Parents here skip over objectionable sections in read-alouds, or substitute words on the fly, or whatever, all the time. I've even read of people here using black sharpies to black out parts of nudes in art books. So why is it "idiotic" and "stupid" for one publisher to provide one edition of Huck Finn that replaces one particularly hurtful and offensive word with a different word? Teachers can certainly explain to the kids that the word was substituted, and why, and why people used it back then, without subjecting African-American children in the class to hearing the n word 219 times.

 

Jackie

 

:iagree:

 

This particular censorship doesn't bother me at ALL.

[stripe]

I am actually pleasantly surprised that they still read Twain.

Or any book in its entirety, instead of some 3 paragraph long excerpt.

[Catherine]

Thanks so much for clarifying.

[FaithManor]

I think that for the public school it does make sense. It will allow them to use the book for literary discussion, HOPEFULLY, without being so racially charged that the teachers feel they can't use the material. But, I would hate for this to become a major trend. In most cases, making classical lit politically correct, will sanitize it of it's intended purpose at the time of its writing and make it useless for understanding the culture in which it was written. I can see it being a necessary evil in this particular case...I just worry about setting precedents.

 

As for our family, if I edited everything that was obscene, profane, objectionable, etc. my children wouldn't be reading the Bible. So, instead of editing content, we choose to introduce particular works and Bible themes/stories when the child is mature enough to handle the material. We are inclined to wait a little longer than most with Huck Finn and then let them read it as is. But, I concede that we don't have a family or political history such that this book would be emotionally charged.

 

Wasn't "Huck Finn" on the banned book list for a lot of school libraries for a rather expansive period of time? I can't remember for sure.

 

Faith

[pqr]

Apparently the only changes are replacing the "n word" with "slave" and replacing "injun" with another word (the article didn't specify). The editor (who is a Twain scholar, BTW, not some political bureaucrat) said he got the idea because so many teachers in the South said they didn't feel they could teach the book because of the incessant use of the n word (219 times). So it appears the main market for this book is schools where Huck Finn would otherwise not be taught at all.

 

Parents here skip over objectionable sections in read-alouds, or substitute words on the fly, or whatever, all the time. I've even read of people here using black sharpies to black out parts of nudes in art books. So why is it "idiotic" and "stupid" for one publisher to provide one edition of Huck Finn that replaces one particularly hurtful and offensive word with a different word? Teachers can certainly explain to the kids that the word was substituted, and why, and why people used it back then, without subjecting African-American children in the class to hearing the n word 219 times.

 

Jackie

 

Once one starts on this road where do we finish? How about Shakespeare, Dickens, Conrad, Kipling, the Bible?

 

Simply changing ONLY one or two words does not improve the situation. There is no justification. This is censorship, it may have a "human face" but it is censorship.

 

To excuse it with an ONLY reference is unacceptable. Should we ONLY remove racist terms from all books? How about misogynistic terms? How about anti-Semitic terms? How about anti-Islamic terms? How about anti-homosexual terms? How about terms that denigrate the malformed? How about terms that denigrate the truly stupid? Once one starts on this road where do we finish?

 

During the Victorian Era (and before), classical statues were deemed pornographic so while still wanting to display them, many performed a small bit of surgery. They ONLY removed a "bit".......is this acceptable?

 

Teach children an understanding of history, censorship is the lazy man's way out.

Edited January 5, 2011 by pqr

[Dayle in Guatemala]

I haven't read all the responses, so if I repeat, forgive me.

 

I don't agree at all with this. Where does it all end? Why is it when, growing up, schools told people who had a problem with their children reading literature with graphic language, violence, or sexual content that they needed to not censor, this is the way the real world at that time was/is, if it offends them they don't have to read it...blah, blah, blah. I'm thinking things like "Lord of the Flies", "Catcher in the Rye", "The Great Gatsby" etc.

 

I realize that the word in question is offensive--it absolutely offends me and always has. I realize that there are a lot of hurtful connotations to it and it's really, truly, a horrible portrayal of African Americans. I still don't think it's right to take it out of literature. In Huck Finn, Jim is a great character! The use of the n-word is culturally and historically what was used back in Mark Twain's Missouri.

 

We allow children/teens to read books and watch movies with swearing in them and teach our children/teens what is appropriate language. We can do the same with literature like Huck Finn.

 

I say the same thing to those people what has always been said, "If it offends you, don't read it."

[K&Rs Mom]

without subjecting African-American children in the class to hearing the n word 219 times.

 

 

I don't see how just hearing/reading that word is harmful, to students of any color. If the teacher was saying it TO anyone, that would be different, obviously, but it just being there on the page (or read aloud by a teacher or student) isn't a big deal IMO.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

Forgive me for asking this, but English isn't my first language, and I don't live in the States. However, I know the French equivalent of the 'n' word is also a banned word nowadays. What I don't know is if they carry the same connotation.

 

See, my parents use the 'n' word regularly. For them, it means nothing. It is not an insult. They grew up with that word, and that was it. It's a factual description. As for me, I cringe each time I hear them use it. It's hard for me to tell my kids not to use it, when they hear grandpa say it all the time (well, no, not really, there are few black people where we live so there's no daily need for the word). Anyway, I can see the word has completely changed its meaning within a generation or two. Could it be the same in English? Could it be that Twain used the word in a way we no longer do? Now, it's a bad word, but it may not have been that way before. Please enlighten me.

[Sahamamama]

And hopefully it won't sell.

 

It will sell to schools, where the pressure to be "politically correct" is strong.

 

I wonder, will the students KNOW they're reading an "edited" version? Will anyone have the decency to tell them?

[HRAAB]

I'm opposed to any censorship imposed on me. Whether I choose to censor what comes in my house is entirely different. I hate to think where this could lead.

 

Personally, I won't read Huck Finn out loud. I do have trouble saying that word so many times, but I also have trouble reading such poor grammar. The same reason I won't read The Yearling out loud. My older children read the book to themselves - and it won't be a censored version, either.

[Haiku]

 

Teach children an understanding of history, censorship is the lazy man's way out.

 

 

No one is forced to use this edition of the book. I'd rather a school teach this edition than not teach it at all.

 

One can certainly teach history and context without beating kids over the head with a word than can cause so much emotion that the main point of the book is lost.

 

I will read Huck Finn to my kids when they are older. I have black kids. I will not relish them hearing the word "nigger" 219 times. At least they will be with their mother. I wouldn't want to send them to school to hear that word 219 times.

 

Tara

[HRAAB]

Forgive me for asking this, but English isn't my first language, and I don't live in the States. However, I know the French equivalent of the 'n' word is also a banned word nowadays. What I don't know is if they carry the same connotation.

 

See, my parents use the 'n' word regularly. For them, it means nothing. It is not an insult. They grew up with that word, and that was it. It's a factual description. As for me, I cringe each time I hear them use it. It's hard for me to tell my kids not to use it, when they hear grandpa say it all the time (well, no, not really, there are few black people where we live so there's no daily need for the word). Anyway, I can see the word has completely changed its meaning within a generation or two. Could it be the same in English? Could it be that Twain used the word in a way we no longer do? Now, it's a bad word, but it may not have been that way before. Please enlighten me.

 

This reminds me of something this thread made me think about yesterday. I do not understand it and would like to. My nephew (his father is African American) uses the 'n' word constantly. I can barely stand to listen to him or read his updates, because every other sentence contains that word. I'm assuming it's entirely different if it is an African American using it? It certainly doesn't offend him or his friends in the context in which they use it - which can be either for friends or enemies????

[mommaduck]

he use of the n-word is culturally and historically what was used back in Mark Twain's Missouri.

 

And Clemens was using it in a context that he was making the point that the people using that term (and all their prejudices) were the ignorant ones. He makes them laughing stalks. That is a great lesson for kids that deal with prejudice (whether coming from a prejudice background or coming from a background of having that racism pointed in their direction). Most teachers simply want to read a book and say that they read it; they don't want to actually take the time to DISCUSS a book and it's implications upon the society of the time period and today's society. So many things could be learned.

 

When we moved to Amish country, I had to introduce my YOUNG children to "foul" words that had been forbidden. I introduced them and explained context as well. That in regular society, it shows immaturity and a small vocabulary (and one reason we don't use such words). That in basic training you would hear it, because it's shocking and motivational (but still not acceptable). That in Amish/Mennonite society (and with my mother) you will hear it in it's historical, proper context. If the puppy mill down the road lost a dog, they would not come asking if we'd seen a breeding, female dog...they would use the proper term for her. It's not manure in the road...it's horse****. And those aren't donkeys...think the biblical term. Censoring my children's ears any longer would not have benefited them.

[TN Mama]

It probably won't. Who wants a censored version of Huck Finn? I hope it backfires on them and they don't get the idea to mess with any other classics. :tongue_smilie:

 

:iagree:

[Mejane]

I read the book aloud. We talked about the language first. My kids practically flinched every time they heard the word, so I think it made the desired impression on them, iykwim. I don't believe in censorship, but I understand a teacher not wanting to say it over and over. It made me uncomfortable, too.

[mommaduck]

I read the book aloud. We talked about the language first. My kids practically flinched every time they heard the word, so I think it made the desired impression on them, iykwim. I don't believe in censorship, but I understand a teacher not wanting to say it over and over. It made me uncomfortable, too.

Why do they have to say it? Can't the reading be assigned and then discussed?

[HRAAB]

Why do they have to say it? Can't the reading be assigned and then discussed?

 

It was an assigned book when I was in high school, but by that time the teacher wasn't reading out loud to the class.

[mommaduck]

It was an assigned book when I was in high school, but by that time the teacher wasn't reading out loud to the class.

Exactly, that's why I'm puzzled. You also waste less time by assigning readings, then you can put more time into actually discussing the readings.

[Mejane]

Why do they have to say it? Can't the reading be assigned and then discussed?

 

Sure. It actually should be. It's high school reading, right? We just decided to do it as a read-aloud after Tom Sawyer.

[mommaduck]

Sure. It actually should be. It's high school reading, right? We just decided to do it as a read-aloud after Tom Sawyer.

I meant in the school system, not homeschooling ;)

[Parrothead]

Forgive me for asking this, but English isn't my first language, and I don't live in the States. However, I know the French equivalent of the 'n' word is also a banned word nowadays. What I don't know is if they carry the same connotation.

 

See, my parents use the 'n' word regularly. For them, it means nothing. It is not an insult. They grew up with that word, and that was it. It's a factual description. As for me, I cringe each time I hear them use it. It's hard for me to tell my kids not to use it, when they hear grandpa say it all the time (well, no, not really, there are few black people where we live so there's no daily need for the word). Anyway, I can see the word has completely changed its meaning within a generation or two. Could it be the same in English? Could it be that Twain used the word in a way we no longer do? Now, it's a bad word, but it may not have been that way before. Please enlighten me.

I know the meaning in the dictionary has changed since I was a child. Way back when, in my family's dictionary, the definition was "stupid person" or something similar. Now if you look it up the meaning has changed. It is a racial slur and probably the most offensive word in the English language.

 

This reminds me of something this thread made me think about yesterday. I do not understand it and would like to. My nephew (his father is African American) uses the 'n' word constantly. I can barely stand to listen to him or read his updates, because every other sentence contains that word. I'm assuming it's entirely different if it is an African American using it? It certainly doesn't offend him or his friends in the context in which they use it - which can be either for friends or enemies????

Yes, it has to do with tone and audience.

[Mejane]

I meant in the school system, not homeschooling ;)

 

Funny how "reading levels" don't always apply, isn't it? ;)

[kalphs]

Wow, if this book is being changed then will all great literature that isn't politically correct for today be changed?

:iagree:

It really bothers me when individuals/publishers feel the need to "censor" books/make them "politically correct."

With any piece of literature you need to look at the time period in which it was written. In Twain's writings the time period reflects the vocabulary. The words nigger and injun were vocbulary used during this specific time period in history.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Children (and adults, for that matter) need to understand that literature does not exist in a vacuum. It was written in a certain time, and in a certain place, and within a certain culture. Just because the time, place, and culture don't "jive" with YOUR time, place, and culture does NOT negate the relevancy of the work. It is always best to study works of literature in their unadulterated forms, even if you don't get warm fuzzies from it.

 

 

:iagree:

 

And I'm not sure that I agree with the PP about hearing such language being too difficult for kids. Based on the rap lyrics I've read in conjunction with several discussions on this board at least one of those words is used quite frequently. Between that and movies the word is "out there" (NOT, mind you, that I consider it an acceptable word in society today).

 

What is next? A kinder gentler animal farm where we use people as the characters so we don't upset animal rights activists? Perhaps they can rewrite Anne Frank with a happy ending too. :glare:

[unsinkable]

Apparently the only changes are replacing the "n word" with "slave" and replacing "injun" with another word (the article didn't specify). The editor (who is a Twain scholar, BTW, not some political bureaucrat) said he got the idea because so many teachers in the South said they didn't feel they could teach the book because of the incessant use of the n word (219 times). So it appears the main market for this book is schools where Huck Finn would otherwise not be taught at all.

 

Parents here skip over objectionable sections in read-alouds, or substitute words on the fly, or whatever, all the time. I've even read of people here using black sharpies to black out parts of nudes in art books. So why is it "idiotic" and "stupid" for one publisher to provide one edition of Huck Finn that replaces one particularly hurtful and offensive word with a different word? Teachers can certainly explain to the kids that the word was substituted, and why, and why people used it back then, without subjecting African-American children in the class to hearing the n word 219 times.

 

Jackie

 

Parents here also won't let their children read books in which characters disobey the parents. It makes me go :confused: ???

 

But, their kids, their choices.

 

Let the publisher do it and see what happens.

 

I wonder if the teachers will explain that every time they read the word slave, it was originally written as -----

[mommaduck]

 

What is next? A kinder gentler animal farm where we use people as the characters so we don't upset animal rights activists?

But that's why we have Bambi and Charlotte's Web!:tongue_smilie:

[kalphs]

:iagree:

Perhaps they can rewrite Anne Frank with a happy ending too. :glare:

Bump!

[stripe]

I don't see how just hearing/reading that word is harmful, to students of any color. If the teacher was saying it TO anyone, that would be different, obviously, but it just being there on the page (or read aloud by a teacher or student) isn't a big deal IMO.

I don't really agree that whatever someone reads passively in a book is perfectly acceptable. It's a word meant to denigrate.

 

I am not advocating censorship or removing the book from society or anything of that sort, and maybe it's okay or good for people to become offended. But.

 

It would also not make many happy to read stuff like "Caucasians are the most intelligent, Orientals are moderately intelligent, and Negroes are best suited for physical labor as they are less intelligent." I have seen these sorts of summaries in older books. I realize that there is a difference between these sorts of claims and fiction, but it must be considered that reading insults of one sort or another might impact students, and might provide fodder for other students to insult members of that group, in that way fueling bullying.

 

It may be worth reading Huck Finn anyway, but these issues should be considered.

[mommaduck]

I don't really agree that whatever someone reads passively in a book is perfectly acceptable. It's a word meant to denigrate.

 

I am not advocating censorship or removing the book from society or anything of that sort, and maybe it's okay or good for people to become offended. But.

 

It would also not make many happy to read stuff like "Caucasians are the most intelligent, Orientals are moderately intelligent, and Negroes are best suited for physical labor as they are less intelligent." I have seen these sorts of summaries in older books. I realize that there is a difference between these sorts of claims and fiction, but it must be considered that reading insults of one sort or another might impact students, and might provide fodder for other students to insult members of that group, in that way fueling bullying.

 

It may be worth reading Huck Finn anyway, but these issues should be considered.

Ever read The Freedom Writers or see the movie?

 

Books used in Room 203

Edited January 5, 2011 by mommaduck

[Snickerdoodle]

Crazy.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Snickerdoodle

[Old Dominion Heather]

Forgive me for asking this, but English isn't my first language, and I don't live in the States. However, I know the French equivalent of the 'n' word is also a banned word nowadays. What I don't know is if they carry the same connotation.

 

See, my parents use the 'n' word regularly. For them, it means nothing. It is not an insult. They grew up with that word, and that was it. It's a factual description. As for me, I cringe each time I hear them use it. It's hard for me to tell my kids not to use it, when they hear grandpa say it all the time (well, no, not really, there are few black people where we live so there's no daily need for the word). Anyway, I can see the word has completely changed its meaning within a generation or two. Could it be the same in English? Could it be that Twain used the word in a way we no longer do? Now, it's a bad word, but it may not have been that way before. Please enlighten me.

 

I think that what you are describing is a part of the problem in the use of the word. It is a racial slur for some. Simply a descriptor for others and a term of solidarity/endearment for others... Chris Rock and other comedians regularly use the word.

 

Judging by the use of the use of the word in Virginia, I think that the meaning of the word has changed subtly. Those of my grandparents age would use the word as a descriptor, but without malice... if that makes any sense at all. (I recognize that to many, this is a total contradiction. I can only say what my impression was.) If someone my age (37) used the word, it WOULD be a slur. (I've only heard one Caucasian person my age say that word in my entire adult life.) If an African-American used the word, it would have a totally different connotation.

 

The reaction of censoring the books and using THE word is somewhat like zero tolerance laws in schools, I guess. You protect against a would be suicide attack but also punish the seven year old who forgot his pocket knife was in the jeans he wore to school. You help end racism, but you turn those who meant no disrespect into villains.

[mommaduck]

I think that what you are describing is a part of the problem in the use of the word. It is a racial slur for some. Simply a descriptor for others and a term of solidarity/endearment for others... Chris Rock and other comedians regularly use the word.

 

Judging by the use of the use of the word in Virginia, I think that the meaning of the word has changed subtly. Those of my grandparents age would use the word as a descriptor, but without malice... if that makes any sense at all. (I recognize that to many, this is a total contradiction. I can only say what my impression was.) If someone my age (37) used the word, it WOULD be a slur. (I've only heard one Caucasian person my age say that word in my entire adult life.) If an African-American used the word, it would have a totally different connotation.

 

The reaction of censoring the books and using THE word is somewhat like zero tolerance laws in schools, I guess. You protect against a would be suicide attack but also punish the seven year old who forgot his pocket knife was in the jeans he wore to school. You help end racism, but you turn those who meant no disrespect into villains.

The way I learned it: if it ends in an "o" it was an old term descriptor (not acceptable now). if it ends with an "er" then it's a derogatory term. if it ends in an "a", then it's typically being used as a term of brotherly endearment. Again, WHO is saying it, WHO is the audience, and HOW is it being said.

[Murphy101]

I'm against any form of change or editing not approved by the author. (with the exception of language translations)

 

I think a teacher who can't teach Twain because of the n work needs a new profession and or to grow up. There is no reason to say the n word 200+ times. The students read the book. The class discusses it. Other than the time frame referenced as explanation, there is no reason to constantly repeat the word in the class discussion. That's just a stupid excuse or a sign of a pathetic teacher.

 

The sad thing is, it takes effort and searching to find unabridged or non "updated" versions of many books these days and many children and even adults have no idea that what they are reading is not the true version.

 

By all means if in personal reading at home someone skips or changes the word or even decides to not allow the book in their home - sure they have that right.

 

But I do think it is wrong for publishers to change an author's words to suit political comfort of the times.