Censoring Huck Finn - Have you seen this???

[Barry Goldwater]

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

...

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

 

:iagree:

 

 

On the other hand, I am extremely offended by the publishers' continued proliferation of the hurtful term, "HUCKLEBERRY" in the title of this book, as I have been called one many times by mean, hurtful people.

[Murphy101]

On the other hand, I am extremely offended by the publishers' continued proliferation of the hurtful term, "HUCKLEBERRY" in the title of this book, as I have been called one many times by mean, hurtful people.

 

*snort*:D

[mommaduck]

:iagree:

 

 

On the other hand, I am extremely offended by the publishers' continued proliferation of the hurtful term, "HUCKLEBERRY" in the title of this book, as I have been called one many times by mean, hurtful people.

Tattoo it and wear it proudly...Uncle Kracker does :D

[Farrar]

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.

 

It *is* a tragic commentary on race relations in this country. And it's also helping perpetuate those issues. Until we can face our history and understand it with some depth (which Twain's writings can be one piece of doing) then this issue will keep cropping up. I don't think anyone should use the "n" word lightly and it obviously calls for a serious discussion, but if you don't let Huck Finn be a way into that discussion, then just when do you have it? It's not a shame Twain chose to use the "n" word, we should be grateful that he gave us an enduring piece of literature that continues to allow us a way in to a very relevant conversation. In other words, we should let the book do what all great books do - and spark discussion, not try to cut that discussion off by removing elements of it we don't like or somehow think we should forget about.

 

ETA: I just wanted to add that I think this is very different from children's versions of literature, such as condensed books particular for kids. In that case, many issues are removed and typically the story is allowed to take center stage as a sort of introductory way into the book, which presumably the reader will come back to as a teen or adult. This is an edit that is clearly meant to be read by teens who would otherwise read the original version.

Edited January 5, 2011 by farrarwilliams
one more thought

[Mejane]

In other words, we should let the book do what all great books do - and spark discussion, not try to cut that discussion off by removing elements of it we don't like or somehow think we should forget about.

 

 

 

Really. Otherwise, it's just a story about two guys on a raft. ;):D

[myfunnybunch]

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.

 

 

Ouch. Usually it's not the teachers that are the problem. It's the parents of students in the teacher's class who go to the principal and to the media and make a big stink over "the 'n' word". Parents who are overcome by political correctness so that they can't see the value of the kinds of discussion sparked by the language in Huck Finn make a fuss, and the teacher's hands are often tied.

 

A teacher can choose whether or not s/he feels comfortable and competent enough to teach Huck Finn (and competently defend the decision to do so). The problem is when a comfortable and competent teacher wants to teach it and isn't allowed. I'm not sure what's better, to deal with the problem by not teaching it at all, or exposing kids to it in a censored form and letting them seek out the original on their own.

 

Cat

[Ibbygirl]

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

 

That's a good question. I wonder that too. I wonder if the version itself will state somewhere on there that it is not the original version. On the one hand, I can really see the quandry for the teacher (and principal) in the schools, but on the other hand, I agree that something is lost if we go down this road.

[Corraleno]

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.

Why does silently reading the word nigger over 200 times, instead of hearing the teacher read it, somehow eliminate all offense to African-American kids? :confused:

 

If a homeschooling parent or a teacher in a Christian school chooses to edit out the part of Gilgamesh where Enkidu has sex with the temple prostitute, or even just changes the the word "prostitute" to another word (kind of like changing "nigger" to "slave") and skips the passages about sex, should they also be considered stupid, pathetic teachers who just need to grow up?

 

I see posts here all the time from parents looking for a version of Gilgamesh without the sex. I bet if this same publisher announced that many teachers in Christian schools had said that they would love to teach Gilgamesh but were uncomfortable with the sex, and they had therefore decided to publish an edition that changed the word "temple prostitute" to something less suggestive, and glossed over the sex part, not only would there not be this hue and cry over "censorship," there would be plenty of parents asking where they could buy it.

 

I've seen posts here from parents who black out words and/or pictures in books with sharpies, or who tear all the human reproduction pages out of high school biology books before letting their kids read them. I see people complaining all the time about books being taught in public schools that offend their personal sensibilities or religious beliefs. Somehow chainging or eliminating something that offends us is seen as sound practice and common sense, but if someone else changes or eliminates something that doesn't personally offend us, then that's censorship.

 

Jackie

Edited January 5, 2011 by Corraleno

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Why does silently reading the word nigger over 200 times, instead of hearing the teacher read it, somehow eliminate all offense to African-American kids? :confused:

 

If a homeschooling parent or a teacher in a Christian school chooses to edit out the part of Gilgamesh where Enkidu has sex with the temple prostitute, or even just changes the the word "prostitute" to another word (kind of like changing "nigger" to "slave") and skips the passages about sex, should they also be considered stupid, pathetic teachers who just need to grow up?

 

I see posts here all the time from parents looking for a version of Gilgamesh without the sex. I bet if this same publisher announced that many teachers in Christian schools had said that they would love to teach Gilgamesh but were uncomfortable with the sex, and they had therefore decided to publish an edition that changed the word "temple prostitute" to something less suggestive, and glossed over the sex part, not only would there not be this hue and cry over "censorship," there would be plenty of parents asking where they could buy it.

 

I've seen posts here from parents who black out words and/or pictures in books with sharpies, or who tear all the human reproduction pages out of high school biology books before letting their kids read them. I see people complaining all the time about books being taught in public schools that offend their personal sensibilities or religious beliefs. Somehow chainging or eliminating something that offends us is seen as sound practice and common sense, but if someone else changes or eliminates something that doesn't personally offend us, then that's censorship.

 

Jackie

 

And some of us don't actually censor these works; literary, artistic or otherwise. Once you change the work it is no longer the same. Some folks here won't even use abridged versions of classic literature but wait for the child to be old enough to read the real deal. I choose my children's exposure to these types of things based on their maturity and ability to handle the information/images. There aren't sharpie drawn panties on the statue of David in our art books (and he sure didn't have boxers on when we saw him in Florence) and when we read Huck Finn it will be as Twain wrote it-otherwise it won't be Huck Finn. What is next--Uncle Tom's Cabin? How could that be the rally point of the abolitionists if it did not use offensive language? There is a difference between censorship and waiting for a child to be mature enough to handle a topic. I find censorship and the alteration of an original work to be offensive in all cases.

[mommaduck]

Why does silently reading the word nigger over 200 times, instead of hearing the teacher read it, somehow eliminate all offense to African-American kids? :confused:

 

If a homeschooling parent or a teacher in a Christian school chooses to edit out the part of Gilgamesh where Enkidu has sex with the temple prostitute, or even just changes the the word "prostitute" to another word (kind of like changing "nigger" to "slave") and skips the passages about sex, should they also be considered stupid, pathetic teachers who just need to grow up?

 

I see posts here all the time from parents looking for a version of Gilgamesh without the sex. I bet if this same publisher announced that many teachers in Christian schools had said that they would love to teach Gilgamesh but were uncomfortable with the sex, and they had therefore decided to publish an edition that changed the word "temple prostitute" to something less suggestive, and glossed over the sex part, not only would there not be this hue and cry over "censorship," there would be plenty of parents asking where they could buy it.

 

I've seen posts here from parents who black out words and/or pictures in books with sharpies, or who tear all the human reproduction pages out of high school biology books before letting their kids read them. I see people complaining all the time about books being taught in public schools that offend their personal sensibilities or religious beliefs. Somehow chainging or eliminating something that offends us is seen as sound practice and common sense, but if someone else changes or eliminates something that doesn't personally offend us, then that's censorship.

 

Jackie

Because, in the passage I'm thinking of, if you change the word to slave, then you are just removing the intent of using the word and it's just a white guy talking about a slave. Use of the word, along with the descriptions of the man (not flattering, trust me) show the ignorance and contradictory nature of his racism. Twain was making fun of bigoted people and in the midst of that he brought about a relationship between a young white boy and a black man. If it only changes the word, but not the meaning, that is one thing. In this case, at least in the passages I remember, it also would change the meaning and intent. The book opens plenty for positive discussion and Twain was obviously a bit ahead of his time.

Edited January 5, 2011 by mommaduck

[Murphy101]

Ouch. Usually it's not the teachers that are the problem. It's the parents of students in the teacher's class who go to the principal and to the media and make a big stink over "the 'n' word". Parents who are overcome by political correctness so that they can't see the value of the kinds of discussion sparked by the language in Huck Finn make a fuss, and the teacher's hands are often tied.

 

Cat

 

Then my same opinion would apply to some parents. The real deal is better, IMO. No question in my mind about it.

 

Why does silently reading the word nigger over 200 times, instead of hearing the teacher read it, somehow eliminate all offense to African-American kids? :confused:

 

If a homeschooling parent or a teacher in a Christian school chooses to edit out the part of Gilgamesh where Enkidu has sex with the temple prostitute, or even just changes the the word "prostitute" to another word (kind of like changing "nigger" to "slave") and skips the passages about sex, should they also be considered stupid, pathetic teachers who just need to grow up?

 

Possibly. They certainly loose some respect for their education method. I think it's ridiculous. If the kid isn't old enough for the teacher to explain it, fine. Plenty of other other literature to choose from. If they are old enough to have a simple explanation, then that's not a valid excuse to avoid a material. And yeah, there's. Reson I don't comment on those Gilgamesh threads. I don't think it appropriate then either. Tho there is a big difference. We have no idea who wrote it and much is up for interpretation. Very different from a well known and document author and his works, such as Twain.

 

And some of us don't actually censor these works; literary, artistic or otherwise. Once you change the work it is no longer the same. Some folks here won't even use abridged versions of classic literature but wait for the child to be old enough to read the real deal. I choose my children's exposure to these types of things based on their maturity and ability to handle the information/images. There aren't sharpie drawn panties on the statue of David in our art books (and he sure didn't have boxers on when we saw him in Florence) and when we read Huck Finn it will be as Twain wrote it-otherwise it won't be Huck Finn. What is next--Uncle Tom's Cabin? How could that be the rally point of the abolitionists if it did not

use offensive language? There is a difference between censorship and waiting for a child to be mature enough to handle a topic. I find censorship and the alteration of an original work to be offensive in all cases.

 

Us too.:iagree:

[Corraleno]

Again, there's a huge difference between a parent choosing discretion for her children in their own home versus a publisher changing the author's original intent.

What about teachers in Christian schools "choosing discretion" for the children in their class? If it's only parents who have the right to tailor materials and methods to the sensibilities of their students, then are the private school teachers wrong? And if the issue is really "author's intent," as many posters have suggested, then why is it any less offensive for parents to change the story and mess with the author's intent?

 

And some of us don't actually censor these works; literary, artistic or otherwise. Once you change the work it is no longer the same. Some folks here won't even use abridged versions of classic literature but wait for the child to be old enough to read the real deal. I choose my children's exposure to these types of things based on their maturity and ability to handle the information/images. There aren't sharpie drawn panties on the statue of David in our art books (and he sure didn't have boxers on when we saw him in Florence) and when we read Huck Finn it will be as Twain wrote it-otherwise it won't be Huck Finn. What is next--Uncle Tom's Cabin? How could that be the rally point of the abolitionists if it did not use offensive language? There is a difference between censorship and waiting for a child to be mature enough to handle a topic. I find censorship and the alteration of an original work to be offensive in all cases.

I don't censor works, either, and if my kids read Huck Finn they will read the original. However, I know that there are many many parents here who do censor what their kids see and read, and yet I don't see people jumping all over them and telling them they're being stupid or pathetic or should just grow up and stop censoring things.

 

We, as homeschoolers, insist that we should have the option to teach our kids whatever we want, however we want, using whatever materials we want, and yet there are people here insisting that other teachers (who have explicitly asked for an edition of Huck Finn without the n-word) should not be allowed to have that option, and should be forced to either teach Huck Finn with all 219 n-words intact, regardless of how offensive their students find that, or not teach it at all.

 

There are literally dozens of editions of Huck Finn available, and no one is going to be forced to use the one "n-word-less" version, so what's wrong with having that as an option? :confused:

 

Jackie

[Murphy101]

I don't like it when publishers do it.

I don't like it when public or private school teachers do it.

I don't like it, but feel it falls under personal freedom when other home school parent teachers do it.

 

Personally I think it's lying. By omission at the least.

 

It no different than claiming I said something I didn't just because you didn't like my attitude or word choice.

[Ibbygirl]

Really. Otherwise, it's just a story about two guys on a raft. ;):D

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol: that made me laugh out loud literally. tee hee. :)

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

We, as homeschoolers, insist that we should have the option to teach our kids whatever we want, however we want, using whatever materials we want, and yet there are people here insisting that other teachers (who have explicitly asked for an edition of Huck Finn without the n-word) should not be allowed to have that option, and should be forced to either teach Huck Finn with all 219 n-words intact, regardless of how offensive their students find that, or not teach it at all.

 

There are literally dozens of editions of Huck Finn available, and no one is going to be forced to use the one "n-word-less" version, so what's wrong with having that as an option? :confused:

 

Jackie

 

What is wrong is that it is no longer Twain's Huck Finn. They better not even consider marketing it as anything but an altered version of the original or that would be unforgivable and dishonest. Furthermore, these alterations don't just remove particular words but their removal alters the meaning of the words and entire passages. Perhaps these school systems that have such trouble teaching Huck Finn should reconsider teaching the book rather than demanding a cleaned up version. The attitudes and lessons of Twain's writing haven't changed and they result in student's having to face some hard truths about the past. If they eliminate the language that is only one element of the story, the injustice and prejudice of the time still remains. Do we clean that up next?

[Slartibartfast]

Because, in the passage I'm thinking of, if you change the word to slave, then you are just removing the intent of using the word and it's just a white guy talking about a slave. Use of the word, along with the descriptions of the man (not flattering, trust me) show the ignorance and contradictory nature of his racism. Twain was making fun of bigoted people and in the midst of that he brought about a relationship between a young white boy and a black man. If it only changes the word, but not the meaning, that is one thing. In this case, at least in the passages I remember, it also would change the meaning and intent. The book opens plenty for positive discussion and Twain was obviously a bit ahead of his time.

 

I agree, Twain was ahead of his time. He was a white southern author who had a black man as a hero in his novel, that says a lot IMO.

 

I know people will buy the watered down version, I guess chalk another point up for willful ignorance. I don't think it is a good thing but if people are determined to white wash very little will stop them.

 

I find editing biology texts to be a bit silly...but I find editing Twain to be BEYOND THE PALE. It is completely missing the point. There is no point to reading that book edited. Just skip it and have your kids read fluff. It is not literature if you take out the important bits.

 

That is like reading Madame Bovery without parts where she acts like a whore or P&P without Lydia or Oliver Twist without all the child labor bits.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Sis

[mommaduck]

 

That is like reading Madame Bovery without parts where she acts like a whore or P&P without Lydia or Oliver Twist without all the child labor bits.

Or Anna Karenina without the affair.

[Slartibartfast]

Or Anna Karenina without the affair.

 

Or The Scarlett Letter without the adultry.

 

"What does this A stand for?"

 

"Asks too many questions!"

Edited January 5, 2011 by Sis

[Princess Peach]

One of the comments on the Yahoo story mentioned censoring/editing a movie, particularly for language, so that it can be shown on TV. It made me wonder what the difference is between that and this...thoughts?

[newbie]

I think they should focus more on censoring movies and tv. Leave literature as it is, let us do the censoring.

 

I censored out half of my dd's college book, I am sure the professor was not very happy, but One Hundred Years of Solitude, now that needs censoring.

[jenL]

One of the comments on the Yahoo story mentioned censoring/editing a movie, particularly for language, so that it can be shown on TV. It made me wonder what the difference is between that and this...thoughts?

 

A book is the true literary piece of work, created by the original author, in this case Twain.

 

A movie is not the original piece of literature as it's been written by a screenwriter who has already altered the original book (if the movie is based upon a book). They advertise it as "based upon", honestly revealing that it is not the original. As for editing it, it takes permission for that to occur, and the FCA rules must be followed, so the producers will alter it.

 

When it comes to Huck Finn, what is being discussed is altering the original work and selling it as the novel. Imho, this is dishonest, and Twain should be rolling over in his grave! To me, this is pure censorship. There are ways to handle the teaching of this novel without having to say the "n" word 219 times. In my opinion, it's just another way we are dumbing down America, trying to be PC for certain groups and not for others, and another way we are trying to "rewrite" our history.

 

If you begin with 2 words in this novel, where does it go next??? Take out all the negative Jewish references in Anne Frank or Night because it will offend the Jews? Remove the poverty in Dickens' novels because we don't want to see children being abused/starving?

 

To me, this is just WRONG, and I'm so tired of others telling us how to think. Instead, we need to embrace the good, bad, and ugly of our history. Ugliness still exists, and I'm not advocating for it, but it's human nature. In denying it, we cannot learn from it, change it, and grow from it. What needs to happen are mature discussions surrounding Twain's story, not censorship and pretending it didn't happen, especially since it is still happening in areas of this country today. Ignorance does not equal intelligence!

[Murphy101]

One of the comments on the Yahoo story mentioned censoring/editing a movie, particularly for language, so that it can be shown on TV. It made me wonder what the difference is between that and this...thoughts?

 

Don't agree much with that either. If you don't want to watch it - then don't.

 

ETA: if they are going to censor something, I wish it would be the dadblum cotton picking commercials that I don't have a choice over until they are playing. At least for tv shows I can look at the guide and just not watch them. Commercials don't give that option.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Martha

[Shawna in Texas]

This was read orally to us in 9th or 10th grade. Our teacher had the accent down and she told us that she felt hearing it was important. She used slave. She told us ahead of time that she was doing so. If she had used the other word, I think it would have only served to distract the class.

 

We watched Romeo and Juliet in 9th grade. She told us that she edited a 5 second part out.

 

Teachers edit things all the time. I don't see why it's a problem that they sometimes have an easier job of it. I don't plan on buying an edited copy of this particular book, but I do have cleaned up versions of Gilgamesh and children's versions of Homer's epics.

[Mejane]

I censored out half of my dd's college book, I am sure the professor was not very happy, but One Hundred Years of Solitude, now that needs censoring.

 

 

Really? In college? :confused:

[Tammyla]

Our local middle schools, purchased $8000 worth of copies last year...Decided not to use them, and shredded them instead. The waste of dollars and the shredding of books, got to me.

 

We read it in my 8th grade literature class.

[Murphy101]

Really? In college? :confused:

 

It is a trash book. So is Girl with Dragon Tatoo. (lots of repulsive ways to sexually hurt and or murder women through the book) However,I wouldn't have edited it for my dd or ds. If it was a class I was taking, I would likely have skipped those parts. And I imagine at some point I'd work my dissatisfaction into an answer somewhere.;)

 

But by college, a student should have self editing ability. In theory.

[Mejane]

It is a trash book. So is Girl with Dragon Tatoo. (lots of repulsive ways to sexually hurt and or murder women through the book) However,I wouldn't have edited it for my dd or ds. If it was a class I was taking, I would likely have skipped those parts. And I imagine at some point I'd work my dissatisfaction into an answer somewhere.;)

 

But by college, a student should have self editing ability. In theory.

 

I've not read either book, so I'll take your word for it. In any case, I agree with the bolded.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Perfect! Those parents editing out the parts of Gilgamesh are usually doing it for high school students! What's the difference??

 

 

Those parents aren't necessarily the ones on here opposing the re-writing of works by Mark Twain.

 

And I have to ask, aside from plays, why are high school students reading books aloud in class? They should be reading them as homework and class time should be dedicated to discussion and study of the work itself-not reading out loud.

Edited January 6, 2011 by JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst

[Corraleno]

I think they should focus more on censoring movies and tv. Leave literature as it is, let us do the censoring.

 

I censored out half of my dd's college book, I am sure the professor was not very happy, but One Hundred Years of Solitude, now that needs censoring.

It is a trash book.

Actually, One Hundred Years of Solitude is one of the 30 classic novels recommended by SWB in The Well Educated Mind.

 

Jackie

[Barry Goldwater]

Actually, One Hundred Years of Solitude is one of the 30 classic novels recommended by SWB in The Well Educated Mind.

 

Jackie

 

(Full disclosure - I haven't read One Hundred Years...but if I could get certain people to leave me alone for 100 years, I'd be really happy...)

 

That may be...but there are a number of "Great WORKS of LITERATURE" that I have found to be complete garbage...there's some threads on that topic as well. It's fascinating to me how there can be such diverse opinions on such a thing.

 

Not meaning to digress from the subject of PC censorship...

[pqr]

...I'd hate to be in a class here in Texas, my town especially, listening to the ignorant students chuckle and snort every time it was read. Here a majority of people use the N word casually. Racism is alive and thriving in Brenham, TX.

 

Nice of you to say that about your town.

A question.

As your town is 70% white, 22% black and 10% hispanic is the "majority of people" 51% overall or are you speaking just of one group?

If you are just speaking of whites that means that 72% use that word casually.

Are you really asking us to believe that a full 51% of your town use this word in evry day language, because I find that very hard to believe. In all the places that I have lived I have never been anywhere where a majority (or even a significant minority) of the people use that word casually, ie in the open and without reservation. It is a word that all but the most jaded, if they use it, do so quietly and I imagine only among those who they trust.

 

There are many other Texans on this board and I would be interested in hearing their views as to towns such as you describe. When I was in Texas the people were generous and polite what you describe has no relation to what I saw. Further as many Texans are armed to the teeth one would wonder if throwing such slurs around openly and publicly would be particularily healthy. I always subscribed to Heinlein's maxim "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life"

[Jenny in Atl]

Why does silently reading the word nigger over 200 times, instead of hearing the teacher read it, somehow eliminate all offense to African-American kids? :confused:

 

If a homeschooling parent or a teacher in a Christian school chooses to edit out the part of Gilgamesh where Enkidu has sex with the temple prostitute, or even just changes the the word "prostitute" to another word (kind of like changing "nigger" to "slave") and skips the passages about sex, should they also be considered stupid, pathetic teachers who just need to grow up?

 

I see posts here all the time from parents looking for a version of Gilgamesh without the sex. I bet if this same publisher announced that many teachers in Christian schools had said that they would love to teach Gilgamesh but were uncomfortable with the sex, and they had therefore decided to publish an edition that changed the word "temple prostitute" to something less suggestive, and glossed over the sex part, not only would there not be this hue and cry over "censorship," there would be plenty of parents asking where they could buy it.

 

I've seen posts here from parents who black out words and/or pictures in books with sharpies, or who tear all the human reproduction pages out of high school biology books before letting their kids read them. I see people complaining all the time about books being taught in public schools that offend their personal sensibilities or religious beliefs. Somehow chainging or eliminating something that offends us is seen as sound practice and common sense, but if someone else changes or eliminates something that doesn't personally offend us, then that's censorship.

 

Jackie

 

It's interesting, at my daughter's high school, they do read Huck Finn (in 11th). It's not the edited version, and they do read parts aloud in class (the class reads whole bk:svengo:). This school is 65% black, and no one seems to have problems with this text. Not all liberal-evil-government schools have issues with bks that reflect history. I've been less than thrilled with my daughter's lit class (she's already read most of what they are covering) but still they have read whole bks, not excerpts. In her first four months they covered Lord of the Flies, Catcher in the Rye, six short stories, and the Odyssey. But, then she goes to a charter school, so it's most likely not the norm.

[Murphy101]

(Full disclosure - I haven't read One Hundred Years...but if I could get certain people to leave me alone for 100 years, I'd be really happy...)

 

That may be...but there are a number of "Great WORKS of LITERATURE" that I have found to be complete garbage...there's some threads on that topic as well. It's fascinating to me how there can be such diverse opinions on such a thing.

 

Not meaning to digress from the subject of PC censorship...

 

Indeed. Being a classic does not make a book have universal appeal by any stretch. And many would argue that some books are only classics because they were popular. NPR had just such a discussion about girl with dragon tattoo the other day.

 

Nice of you to say that about your town.

A question.

As your town is 70% white, 22% black and

10% hispanic is the "majority of people" 51% overall or are you speaking just of one group?

If you are just speaking of whites that means that 72% use that word casually.

Are you really asking us to believe that a full 51% of your town use this word in evry day language, because I find that very hard to believe. In all the places that I have lived I have never been anywhere

where a majority (or even a significant minority) of the people use that word casually, ie in the open and without reservation. It is a word that all but the most jaded, if they use it, do so quietly and I imagine only among those who they trust.

 

 

There are many other Texans on this board and I would be interested in hearing their views as to towns such as you

describe. When I was in Texas the people were generous and polite what you describe has no relation to what I saw. Further as many Texans are armed to the teeth one would wonder if throwing such slurs around openly and publicly would be particularily healthy. I always subscribed to Heinlein's maxim "An armed society is a polite society. Manners

are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life"

 

I just read her post to dh and he said, sure a white guy might use the n word in public. He'd probably be shot shortly afterwards, but hey stupid abounds everywhere so sure some might bandy it about. Black people might use it among each other, but there usually is not any snickering or chuckles if a white person says it. My dad lives in Mississippi in the country and says the same thing.

 

ETA: Which is not to say her town might not be horridly racist. Just that I doubt it is as blatant with that word as implied. If that made any sense.

 

Even so, no one said racism doesn't exist. Simply that editing it out doesn't help the situation.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Martha

[pqr]

ETA: Which is not to say her town might not be horridly racist. Just that I doubt it is as blatant with that word as implied. If that made any sense.

 

 

 

Perfect sense.

[Corraleno]

It is a word that all but the most jaded, if they use it, do so quietly and I imagine only among those who they trust.

I've heard that word used many many times, quite publicly and not at all quietly, in many parts of this country. I was in an upscale shopping mall in the South a couple of years ago when a young interracial couple walked by and I was shocked by the things people said, including "n-lover." I've heard little old ladies use that word in casual conversation like it was perfectly normal. When I was in a PA grocery store last year, I saw two guys pointing at packages of pigs feet and saying "I don't eat that sh*t, that's n*gger food!" Etc. Believe me, that word is alive and well in this country, and it's not used in hushed tones just among good 'ol boys, either.

 

Jackie

[mommaduck]

I've heard that word used many many times, quite publicly and not at all quietly, in many parts of this country. I was in an upscale shopping mall in the South a couple of years ago when a young interracial couple walked by and I was shocked by the things people said, including "n-lover." I've heard little old ladies use that word in casual conversation like it was perfectly normal. When I was in a PA grocery store last year, I saw two guys pointing at packages of pigs feet and saying "I don't eat that sh*t, that's n*gger food!" Etc. Believe me, that word is alive and well in this country, and it's not used in hushed tones just among good 'ol boys, either.

 

Jackie

Yep. It's still an issue.

[Shawna in Texas]

And I have to ask, aside from plays, why are high school students reading books aloud in class? They should be reading them as homework and class time should be dedicated to discussion and study of the work itself-not reading out loud.

 

 

Most books we didn't. This particular teacher really wanted us to hear the dialect. It's why I plan on reading it aloud, probably next year, unless I can find a good audio. I haven't looked.

 

 

 

 

 

There are many other Texans on this board and I would be interested in hearing their views as to towns such as you describe. When I was in Texas the people were generous and polite what you describe has no relation to what I saw. Further as many Texans are armed to the teeth one would wonder if throwing such slurs around openly and publicly would be particularily healthy. I always subscribed to Heinlein's maxim "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life"

 

I live an hour from Brenham, but from my experience living in a few of the small towns in the Houston, Austin, and San Antonio triangle, I stay in the larger cities. While I'm sure there are small cities where racism is nil, I've never lived there. Admittedly, it's here in Houston as well, but people put on their nice face usually. In the smaller towns, while the people are kind and hospitable, they love to gossip about so and so who has the colored baby, but at least they were married, so it's not all bad. My point is that you can hear it at the grocery store in small towns. In the larger cities, they wait until they get in the car. And of course, I don't have a % for this. I can only speak of extended family and people that I meet.

[pqr]

I've heard that word used many many times, quite publicly and not at all quietly, in many parts of this country. I was in an upscale shopping mall in the South a couple of years ago when a young interracial couple walked by and I was shocked by the things people said, including "n-lover." I've heard little old ladies use that word in casual conversation like it was perfectly normal. When I was in a PA grocery store last year, I saw two guys pointing at packages of pigs feet and saying "I don't eat that sh*t, that's n*gger food!" Etc. Believe me, that word is alive and well in this country, and it's not used in hushed tones just among good 'ol boys, either.

 

Jackie

 

As you so clearly remember the instances, even to the point of going back a few years, it would seem to indicate that they made an impression and are perhaps not quite as frequently used as you might suggest.

 

I hear the f word all the time (a word that I find offensive), and really cannot remember an instance that someone used it several years back...hence the difference, because the usage is so common I do not remember the specifics of use. Conversely, the use of the word being discussed is obviously sporadic or cases dating back years would not have had the impact that they appear to have had. I, like you, do however remember the cases in recent years when I have heard that word used, simply because it is now (thankfully) much rarer than in the past.

 

I also did not say that the word was not used, just that I question the assertion that OVER 50% of the people in a town use the word on a casual basis.

Edited January 6, 2011 by pqr

[UnsinkableKristen]

Hm. I feel the need to defend the honor of Texans on this board.

 

I am a native Texan, and lived here on and off my whole life. I have yet to hear that particular racial slur come from a single person's mouth. I have lived in north TX, central TX, and south TX. And not always urban, either.

 

I don't doubt that some racists are out there, but I doubt it's any worse here than anywhere else. As a matter of fact, I find TX to be particularly diverse and accepting.

 

:iagree: I saw much worse quiet (and blatant) racism while living in Indiana than I've ever seen since moving to Texas.

[Ibbygirl]

Indeed. Being a classic does not make a book have universal appeal by any stretch. And many would argue that some books are only classics because they were popular. NPR had just such a discussion about girl with dragon tattoo the other day.

 

 

 

Is that book considered a classic?? I thought it was just popular fiction. It is interesting to think about what makes a classic "classic" and who decides.

[pdalley]

Our local news did a really good story on this. They solicited comments from everyone they could:

 

One was a retired teacher who not only taught but attended what they used to call a 'colored' school down here. She was adamant that the book NOT be changed. She pointed out that people needed to know the speech that was used back then and if we censor or mask what happened we can run the risk of forgetting it. She happened to be black. (They interviewed her on camera)

 

Another was a woman who posted on the site that no African American child should have to hear that word in a classroom. And I could see her point until someone else quite rightly pointed out... (in a post)

 

We will mask this N word in a literary classic but allow rap artists to fill the airwaves with it constantly?

 

(I have no idea what the races or demographics of the other two people were btw)

 

 

It's a very interesting thing. I lean toward leaving it as it is. My kids will know that racism did indeed exist and still does. We live in the deep south and there is no hiding that from them. These words leads us to discuss what it was like then and just how horribly wrong it was to treat people as if they were less than simply due to the color of their skin - be it red or black or whatever color.

[Cindyg]

Or The Scarlett Letter without the adultry.

 

"What does this A stand for?"

 

"Asks too many questions!"

 

This was the LOL post in this thread for me.

 

I'm from Texas. Once in my entire life I heard a white man refer to a black man, pejoratively, as a "chocolate." (I was beyond shocked!) I've never heard a white person refer to a black person with the N word. But I don't get out much, and I hang around with nice people. (Also, I don't listen to rap music or comedians very often.)

 

We listened to Huck Finn (audio book) when DS was about 11. The lessons in that book on racism, right and wrong, and cultural expectations were profound. I can't imagine a student missing it. And the best part of the book is discussing these issues in the proper historical context of the book.

 

ETA: I taught one year in a public high school. While it was great to tackle this book as a homeschooling parent, I can TOTALLY understand why a public school teacher wouldn't want to wade into these waters. I totally get that.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Cindyg

[Corraleno]

As you so clearly remember the instances, even to the point of going back a few years, it would seem to indicate that they made an impression and are perhaps not quite as frequently used as you might suggest.

That's because I live in a predominantly Hispanic area where African-Americans make up about 2% of the population, so I don't hear the n-word used here very often. I do hear it used quite casually and publicly when I visit the South, or Eastern states that have large AA populations. I cited those particular examples because they were loud, public uses of the term in contexts one wouldn't expect. I didn't think it was necessary to try to catalog every instance I've ever heard it.

 

Jackie

[Mrs Mungo]

Pqr-your experiences do not negate someone else's life experiences. I'm from Oklahoma. My dh is from Texas (he grew up in a wealthy area of Dallas). My immediate family never, ever would have used that word (and not for a lack of racism in some of them) and they fall at all points of the political and financial spectrum. However, I *often* heard people use it in public settings without apparent shame or fear of reprisal. Dh's experience was similar.

[pqr]

Pqr-your experiences do not negate someone else's life experiences. I'm from Oklahoma. My dh is from Texas (he grew up in a wealthy area of Dallas). My immediate family never, ever would have used that word (and not for a lack of racism in some of them) and they fall at all points of the political and financial spectrum. However, I *often* heard people use it in public settings without apparent shame or fear of reprisal. Dh's experience was similar.

 

 

But not, I assume, by a majority of the people on a casual basis. I never denied that it is used, perhaps in some areas even frequently.

 

My issue is the trashing of a town with the following "I'd hate to be in a class here in Texas, my town especially, .... Here a majority of people use the N word casually. Racism is alive and thriving in Brenham, TX."

 

Texan after Texan has posted here saying that this does not match their experience in the state. Unless Brenham is some sort of Brigadoon I can not see a majority of people using that term in a casual (ie open and public) manner.

Edited January 6, 2011 by pqr

[TravelingChris]

I have a very big issue with the change. This is a book that is normally assigned in the year American Literature is studied= typically 11th grade. We are talking about 16 and 17 yo students. By this age. novels shouldn't be censored. Yes, they can be chosen with different objectives in mind but I really think that whether it is public schoolers deciding to censor Huckleberry Finn or Merchant of Venice or homeschooler deciding to censor Grapes of Wrath or some other novel due to language or sex, it is a disservice to the student. High school students should be exposed to many different viewpoints that existed throughout history. Not all students go to college and these years are the last years some of them will be discussing any of these issues.

[Murphy101]

Is that book considered a classic?? I thought it was just popular fiction. It is interesting to think about what makes a classic "classic" and who decides.

 

Indeed. And it is interesting how often popular fiction of the time makes the list.

 

And for the n word being casually and publicly used. I'm stickin solid with pqr on this one. Sure it is used like that occassionly. But I wouldn't go anywhere near saying it's a majority. That implies one can't hardly go through any given day of errands without hearing it from people and that is no where near my experience. I hear GD and the F bomb in casual public outings far more often than the n word. And still I wouldn't call that a majority.

[pdalley]

Indeed. And it is interesting how often popular fiction of the time makes the list.

 

And for the n word being casually and publicly used. I'm stickin solid with pqr on this one. Sure it is used like that occassionly. But I wouldn't go anywhere near saying it's a majority. That implies one can't hardly go through any given day of errands without hearing it from people and that is no where near my experience. I hear GD and the F bomb in casual public outings far more often than the n word. And still I wouldn't call that a majority.

 

 

Here, in a still very racist part of the country (mostly the small rural country I was born in - not town we live in now) - IME and I've lived here my whole life - most of the times I hear that word are in rap songs. Seriously. Not in public and not with my own racist relatives.

 

When they start making them refrain from saying it in rap music then I'll worry about it being in Huck Finny and Tom Sawyer.

[A.D.]

Here, in a still very racist part of the country (mostly the small rural country I was born in - not town we live in now) - IME and I've lived here my whole life - most of the times I hear that word are in rap songs. Seriously. Not in public and not with my own racist relatives.

 

When they start making them refrain from saying it in rap music then I'll worry about it being in Huck Finny and Tom Sawyer.

 

A publishing company is choosing to edit the word. No one is making them do so.

FTR, many of those who are uncomfortable with the word being used in Huck Finn also are against the use of that word in music and comedy as well.

 

I can also tell you that when you have been called that word in a hateful manner, that you can become more sensitive to its use around your children.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

The problem is that the company is choosing to edit Huck Finn. When they are done are they going to put Twain's name on it? Once they are done it is no longer his original work, it may not even be his original intent. He doesn't get a vote since he is dead and his copyright is expired. So does that mean we can go around altering an original work and offer it for sale under the author's name? Do we get to clean up all literature we find objectionable or outdated? If they are going to do this perhaps the publisher needs to label it a re-telling or adapted to no include racial epithets, something to indicate that these are not actually the authors words.

 

I'm not out for hurting or offending anyone but I'm not sure we can hijack an author's work and change it to suit our needs and then offer it for sale under the author's name. That is just dishonest.