Censoring Mark Twain?

[Backroads]

According to this article, the publisher felt like it was responding to teachers who felt the PC environments in their own schools was preventing them from teaching from the uncensored version. So while the publisher can be faulted, ultimately the blame comes from the fact that a lot of us--even in academia--just aren't mature enough to deal with these kinds of issues.

I remember in a torts class in law school where we were discussing a case--I think it was a 1930s case regarding dram shop liability (the idea that you can sue a bartender if his customer gets drunk and goes and damages something). The judge's ruling took great pains to point out that the customer was a Native American, and (to provide context) I commented that at the time there was a popular conception that Indians couldn't hold their liquor and that was probably why the judge was so preoccupied with the customer's race. After class I was ambushed by a Native American classmate who wanted me to understand that not only was that idea racist [with which I agreed], but that I was a racist for even having brought it up.

If graduate students are going seek to condemn and marginalize anyone who doesn't provide a whitewashed version of history, we certainly can't expect middle schools to handle the issue maturely.

Yet catering to their immaturity isn't going to change anything.

[Suzie]

I wish people...black people in particular were more uncomfortable with it's use in rap/hip hop among other blacks.

There are many black people who do not approve of the "n" word.

.I would note as well, that in just 230 years of existence as a country....a black man sits in the Whitehouse as President of the USA.

He is mixed.

[Elphaba]

IAnd while we have an ugly history...I would note as well, that in just 230 years of existence as a country....a black man sits in the Whitehouse as President of the USA. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think England has elected a black Prime Minister in their history? Ugly...yet ...

If the book were set in 2008, I could see the relevance.

I know this can't be right, but it sounds like you're saying that because we are no longer the horrible racists of the 19th century, it's okay to water down the history.

Again, that can't be right. But I can't figure out what you are saying.

Perhaps you're trying to add perspective, i.e., we're not like that anymore. If so, that's fair. But that fact doesn't warrant censorship.

By the way, I consider 230 years much too long to qualify as "just."

Elph

[Elphaba]

So while the publisher can be faulted, ultimately the blame comes from the fact that a lot of us--even in academia--just aren't mature enough to deal with these kinds of issues.

I completely agree. I was going to address this in my previous post, but felt it would water down my point.

Frankly, I have no problem with our students reading the book--I think they should. But, given it has the power to cause distress, I think it has to have a very specific approach--one that stresses the historicity of the word, as well as it's completely unnaceptable use today. bytor said he read it in jr. high, and I think that's a mature enough age to appreciate that approach. Perhaps, to be safe, high school would be more appropriate--I admit I'm conflicted.

However, I'm not a teacher, and therefore, realize I don't see the whole picture. Maybe it really is too difficult to teach it without real and sincere hurt feelings. I have no reason to think the intent was anything other than to genuinely solve a very thorny issue. I just think the censored version comes with it's own set of undesirable consequences which make it not worth it.

After class I was ambushed by a Native American classmate who wanted me to understand that not only was that idea racist [with which I agreed], but that I was a racist for even having brought it up.

If graduate students are going seek to condemn and marginalize anyone who doesn't provide a whitewashed version of history, we certainly can't expect middle schools to handle the issue maturely.

I had just watched

before reading your post. It talks about how to address someone who has made a racist comment, and that you never go there with the "You are a racist" conclusion, even if it's actually true.

To be honest, there was a time when I would have thought you were being a racist by your Native American comment as well. This was when I was the same age as a typical graduate student. It took me about a decade to realize that was nonsense.

But that, combined with my continued belief that we should call out racist remarks when we hear them, leads me to think I would probably have behaved the same as your fellow student. For that, I apologize on both his, and my once very young and naive, behalf.

Elph

Edited January 7, 2011 by Elphaba

[bytor2112]

If the book were set in 2008, I could see the relevance.

I know this can't be right, but it sounds like you're saying that because we are no longer the horrible racists of the 19th century, it's okay to water down the history.

Again, that can't be right. But I can't figure out what you are saying.

Perhaps you're trying to add perspective, i.e., we're not like that anymore. If so, that's fair. But that fact doesn't warrant censorship.

By the way, I consider 230 years much too long to qualify as "just."

Elph

Sorry I wasn't more clear. I am against censorship of course and I agree 230 years IS too long....but still, we have grown and thankfully as evidenced by the fact that we have elected a black president. I use "just" because 230 years is incredibly short span of time as far as history is concerned.

Edited January 7, 2011 by bytor2112

[bytor2112]

There are many black people who do not approve of the "n" word.

And many who do.....your point?

He is mixed.

Aren't we all? And he looks black.

[Suzie]

And many who do.....your point?

My point? I thought it was obvious: Be careful with generalizations.

Aren't we all? And he looks black.

Just because he looks black, doesn't mean he is. He is biracial.

[bytor2112]

My point? I thought it was obvious: Be careful with generalizations.

I wasn't generalizing.....

Just because he looks black, doesn't mean he is. He is biracial,

Black is not a race....it's a description.

[Suzie]

I wasn't generalizing.....

Black is not a race....it's a description.

Oh brothers, I could reply and explain eh but...something tells me that you will have the last word (we went through this before, right? )

[bytor2112]

Oh brothers, I could reply and explain eh but...something tells me that you will have the last word (we went through this before, right? )

No need.....I could explain as well, but whats the point? I totally understand that President Obama was born of mixed parents. His features appear more Negro than caucasion to most....so I would refer to him as black or African American if you prefer.

[Wingnut]

Frankly, I have no problem with our students reading the book--I think they should. But, given it has the power to cause distress, I think it has to have a very specific approach--one that stresses the historicity of the word, as well as it's completely unnaceptable use today. bytor said he read it in jr. high, and I think that's a mature enough age to appreciate that approach. Perhaps, to be safe, high school would be more appropriate--I admit I'm conflicted.

I was a junior in high school before I read Huckleberry Finn. In fifth grade, and again in ninth grade, I'd read Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry. I was not unfamiliar with the 'n' word by the time I read Huck Finn. The other takes place in Mississippi during the Depression, so there were definitely racist elements to it, including (if memory serves me well), the use of the 'n' word. There are lynch mobs and tarring and feathering. By the time I read Huck Finn, I still found myself uncomfortable with the 'n' word, but I understood its context. I was uncomfortable with the idea that it was used toward real people, not by its use in the book.

[Guest Alana]

I think part of the problem with censoring it is that the word is still widely used today. I see a lot of posts about how far we've come, but I guess it matters on who you've been talking to lately or what music you listen to. I do not think that censoring the book will help the n word become a thing of the past. It's an ugly hateful horrible word to use, and I think reading Huck Finn will help kids be able to discuss why it's not a good word, rather than them having to come to that conclusion from hearing it used flippantly in current day scenarios. I also would add that I think that if you're old enough to read Huck Finn then you're old enough to understand the history of the word, and why it's not just a 'bad word' but one that's hurtful and hateful.

[Guest]

The problem with all this is people taking offense when offense is not intended.

Really. Teach your kids WHEN to take offense and WHEN NOT to! Do you know that if I would have said cholera or leche infront of my parents I would be slapped half-way across the room??? Do you think my parents who now live 6 months out of the year in Houston would be so outraged to hear cholera or leche while shopping in Wal-mart???

By changing the literary piece INSTEAD of teaching when to take offense, teachers are doing their students a DISSERVICE!

[IAmTheWork]

Do you know that if I would have said cholera or leche infront of my parents I would be slapped half-way across the room???

Why? I guess those words must mean something I'm not aware of..?

It's obvious that the n-word is not always used in a derogatory way. But it is used in a nasty way by both white and coloured people (in various ways), and is used by some coloured people to ensure separation of culture, enforced social peer control, etc.

George Orwell was right about social mind control - he just got the date a bit out.

Edited January 7, 2011 by IAmTheWork
Spelling.

[Gwen]

i would think black ppl more than anyone would object to the censorship. if we are allowed to forget the way things were then kids will never understand why some things are so important, why such words are bad.

i agree with the point of needing to teach the kids not change the history. that is the only way our society will progress.

as for the kids not being mature enough to handle it i think that's hogwash. i watched the other guys not to long ago. that movie was so filled with language and suggestions and crap it was disgusting. and yet many many ppl said it was just the greatest, and many of them let their kids watch it, as young as middle school. if they can handle that crap they can handle the reality of the history of the n word.

[Guest]

Why? I guess those words must mean something I'm not aware of..?

In Cebu, Philippines, leche is equivalent to the "n" word. You're basically calling the other person immoral. It's a big beef in the Philippines that white people (i.e., British and Americans - associated with milky colored skin) legally endorses divorce and abortion and what-not. It is usually said with Yawa... the Cebuano term for devil. ("Lecheng yawa ka!")

Cholera is a disease that can wipe out an entire farm of chickens. You're basically cursing the other person that he starves to death... or something to that effect.

And if my mom sees this thread, I'd be in big trouble... but see, it doesn't even trigger the asterisks in the forum that normally gets a poster in trouble with the mods.

Edited January 7, 2011 by anatess

[Backroads]

The problem with all this is people taking offense when offense is not intended.

Really. Teach your kids WHEN to take offense and WHEN NOT to! Do you know that if I would have said cholera or leche infront of my parents I would be slapped half-way across the room??? Do you think my parents who now live 6 months out of the year in Houston would be so outraged to hear cholera or leche while shopping in Wal-mart???

By changing the literary piece INSTEAD of teaching when to take offense, teachers are doing their students a DISSERVICE!

Amen!

Hence my issue with censoring the word. Unless the word and its meaning and history and connotation are intelligently discussed, people are never going to learn when it's offensive and why it's offensive and everything involved.

I say this from a teaching point of view.

[Tarnished]

I remember when I was in high school doing a paper on banned books. What I found surprised me, I can't remember if it was Huck Finn or some other book but the book had originally been banned around the time it was produced for representing African Americans in a positive way. Then as time passed the book was banned for representing African Americans in a negative way by using the "n" word. When it comes to banning I think we often go a bit overboard for the sake of catering to the socially accepted way of thinking of our time.