The sooner the term is suppressed, the sooner it can be put back into practice.

PC talk is just Orwell's Newspeak.

This whole issue pisses me off. Basically, some people want to criminalize the word...but only when a white person speaks it.

Reminds of the huge controversy that shouldn't have amounted to a ripple in the pond, but somehow it did. A high school student called himself a "nigga" when replying to his teacher, so the teacher said, "well, get away from the door, nigga."

Yet, somehow the white teacher got in trouble for this...which wouldn't have happened had the kid called himself an artichoke...or the teacher had been black.

The teacher was absolved, but that's not the issue. He shouldn't have gotten in trouble in the first place.

Actually, the teacher got a 10-day suspension. My bad.

Patrick,

For once, we are in complete agreement. This is a very real attempt at re-writing history. If the terms that were commonly used during that time period are removed, it comes across to me, as a way of alleviating the "white guilt" that we are supposed to feel (I've never felt that, personally).

The question this begs is, if we are going to allow this type of rewrite, where will it stop? What level of censorship is allowable?

I think that the edit, that was apparently (laughably) done by a Twain Scholar if memory serves, is fucking stupid. Have we really gotten so damned PC that even classic literature has to edited to make people feel better? What's next? Taking the word God out of all Shakespeare's plays? It's a book people. If you don't like it then don't read it. Literature isn't about warm fuzzies and political correctness. It's about telling a story. It's about evoking emotion through words. If you felt something while reading it, then the writer did their job. Editing it generations later in an attempt to make it more 'PC' is like a slap in the face to the author in my opinion.

Huck Finn was NEVER meant to be a childrens book anyway. Twain himself was shocked that it was even being read in schools. Why not read Tom Sawyer instead if they want to expose the kids to Twain? Fewer N words and a bit more apporopriate to younger readers, although, again, Twain never wrote his books for kids.

I can't stand this butchery of a classic novel for the sake of the chiiiillldrrrreeeennn...
Have people forgotten about history and the context of the word? The N word is completely appropriate to the book considering it's subject matter, it's time frame, and it's location. That's how people spoke in the South in that time. Shit, its how black people address eachother now! Hearing the N word read aloud, IN CONTEXT,in a BOOK, which isn't directed directly AT THEM, isn't going to scar our precious little children anymore than the violent video game mom and dad is buying for them. In fact, the book, if they actually used their brains while reading it, might actually teach them something.

In the literal sense, "Slave" is just as bad, if not worse in my opinion.

The whole thing is just laughably and unforgivabley stupid.

What a fucking farce. Twain is one of my favorite authors. I shall have to make myself a note never to buy anything published by this house again. I refuse to buy Harry potter too, since they dumbed down the vocabulary for the American edition.

Has anyone ever bothered to poll Blacks on this question? I have the suspicion that this is one of those 'controversies' that's being driven by a handful of professional agitators.

The other question that I'd like to see Blacks polled on is whether they find it condescending that people refer to nigger as the 'n-word'. This just seems extremely childish to me.

How's that national dialog on race working for you, nation of cowards?

I think I was just told I have nothing to say. To be more precise, I can say anything, as long as it doesn't offend you.

I am being sarcastic. It would be fairly hypocritical for a whiter than white guy married to a Japanese girl to start drawing racial lines. Bad manners are a big turn off for me, also. But this is just insane. You can't remake history to be the way you want it to have been. The word was used, and it was deliberately offensive, as was the attitude and behaviors of many during those times. It would be more productive to acknowledge that we've bettered ourselves.

Is it too late to sue my drill instructor?

So we censor Mark Twain, but not Kanye West...

I agree that this is rewriting history, but I think the aspect that I find most offensive is the fact that they're presuming to rewrite someone's work without their permission, and he's not even alive to defend his work.

Does the right of intellectual property mean nothing?

Twain is white, therefore rational and deliberative. West is black, therefore impulsive and aggressive. It's racist to expect West to control himself. Get with the program.

I can only imagine what Twain himself would have to say about this.

>>Has anyone ever bothered to poll Blacks on this question? I have the suspicion that this is one of those 'controversies' that's being driven by a handful of professional agitators.

You might want to rewrite that question, mel.
Not because "poll Blacks" comes across as politically incorrect. It just looks fucking ugly.

Amy's "vandalizing" is the perfect term for this stupid censorship.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana
If we deliberately whitewash (pardon the pun) our literature so that it no longer accurately reflects the problems our society confronted in the past, how can we ensure that we don't repeat them? Removing past ugliness from the cultural consciousness doesn't erase it, but it will probably ensure that it happens again. We need to be able to freely discuss and confront things we don't like, fear, or feel uncomfortable about. Editing that book does nothing to advance us as a civilized society (unless we're advancing towards some sort of Orwellian paradise).

As I said over at our blog IS THAT REALLY DESIRABLE?(http://tinyurl.com/28wqdc2), it's about time the world's well-meaning PC busybodies stopped trying to water down every little thing. It's kind of the intellectual equivalent of all those antiseptic products; studies show that kids who aren't sanitized within an inch of their lives become stronger and healthier because they build up resistance to germs. Well, people need to build up resistance to life's slings and arrows and harsh realities, too, and they'll be all the better for it in the long run.

DorianTB: the world's well-meaning PC busybodies

I don't think they're well-meaning at all.

It's ironic that "nigger" disappeared from the lexicon in the period of around 1975 to 1990, only to resurface from the black entertainment industry.

It's equally ironic that Quentin Tarantino can use "nigger" freely, in it's most derogatory meaning, but Mark Twain using it in the context of his day in a book about a very noble interracial friendship is not acceptable.

Well, the good news is that our children won't ever be exposed to that word again. Guess I better throw out my Patti Smith collection.

damn naggers (SP ref), yes another sign of how liberalism spurn PC has no leash

People learn, or perhaps are born with, mental filters that can cause dissonance. Right now I'm imagining the experience of reading Huck Finn and that word, and feeling delight that it can invoke in me curiosity about living in another time and perhaps actually feeling the way people felt then - whether good or bad, great literature can transport you that way. But even if it moves me, it doesn't make me a racist. If anything, overuse of the word removes its power. Which means the PC police are likely whining about meanings no longer attached to the labels. Which another poster probably said much more simply than I just did. But I imagine that if a person desensitived themself to a historically pejorative word, they would also enjoy the ability to say it without clogging their own filters. Which may explain why black people so often call themselves niggas.

The vandalizing didn't stop with Nigger Jim. There's no more Injun Joe in this edition either. Where will this end?

Never mind that a professor of literature is incapable of comprehending that changing Nigger Jim's name to something more sanitary completely destroys the author's intent & meaning:

"The people whom Huck and Jim encounter on the Mississippi are drunkards, murderers, bullies, swindlers, thieves, liars, frauds, child abusers...All are white. The one man of honor in this phantasmagoria is Nigger Jim, as Twain called him to emphasize the irony of a society in which the only true gentleman was held beneath contempt."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff12999.asp

But, but...if we outlaw it, it will just go away! I mean,look at the drug laws. Look at underage drinking. Look at child abuse. We've got strict laws forbidding all of those things, and none of them exist in our society. Right?

You can't legislate morality. Which all of us here apparently know, but the Ivory Tower Liberals just can't seem to figure out.

Entertainment Weekly's website had a blurb on this story. To play devil's advocate, they floated the idea that it would be similar to TBS airing an edited version of "The Godfather." For that comparison to hold water the original text would have to be available as well. Is that the case with "Huckleberry Finn"? Not that it would make me feel better about the idea.

"The one man of honor in this phantasmagoria is 'Nigger Jim,' as Twain called him to emphasize the irony of a society in which the only true gentleman was held beneath contempt."

So well put.

Some people have joined the publisher's Facebook only to express their disgust. Which I did, and to announce I would no longer be purchasing new books from that publisher.

I suppose they'll have to get to "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee and Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin."

I mean, God forbid our teachers who use the book in the classroom should actually instruct their students that the use of this word in our modern times is considered offensive.

I mean, teachers that actually teach something? Good Lord, what am I thinking? How presumptuous of me to expect that?

I can just see Mel Brooks hopping up and down yelling "The Sheriff is a slave". What? He said the sheriff just waved.

Actually, it would be "The sheriff's a sl[BONG]"

Howard Johnson probably wouldn't have much of a response to that.

Huck Finn was NEVER meant to be a childrens book anyway. Twain himself was shocked that it was even being read in schools. Why not read Tom Sawyer instead if they want to expose the kids to Twain? Fewer N words and a bit more apporopriate to younger readers, although, again, Twain never wrote his books for kids.

Sabrina
______________________

Got a source, regarding Twain's "shock"?

I don't know that "Tom Sawyer" is any better, since it's clearly escapist literature. Not to mention that if Twain had any objections to OTHER types of racism, you certainly don't see any sign of it in that book! (Of course, one could argue that that's why it might be better to read TS in school rather than at home, where there might not be any adults pointing out the vicious racism in the book.)

I also wonder why there are TWO Jims; when I was a kid, I thought they were the same kid. Now, of course, I know the age difference was far too big, since only a few months supposedly passed between the books.

Also, as an 11-year-old, I could never shake the idea that Huck was evil, since he lied about as often as he breathed. ("I'm supposed to SYMPATHIZE
with this horrible liar? I'm appalled!") So I misunderstood most of the book.

Why stop here? Let's make Jim an African Nobleman touring the country incognito.

That doesn't make sense either, but why stop now? Isn't Huckleberry Finn demeaning to the Irish? Let's change the title to John Smith while we're at it.

Why stop there, if we're going to insulate our kids from offensive terms?

Moby Masculine Private Part
Mrs. Chatterley's Very Good Friend
Strong Disagreements And Peace
Harry Potter and the Socially Inhibited Person of Azkhaban
Antisocial Behavior and Punishment

I can just see Mel Brooks hopping up and down yelling "The Sheriff is a slave". What? He said the sheriff just waved.

Posted by: Eric at January 6, 2011 11:22 AM

I don't remember if the AMC channel version of Blazing Saddles edited out any use of "nigger" in the movie but I found it hilarious that they edited the beans/fart scene. Instead of the cowboys farting it was the horses. Totally ruined the scene.

What the hell is wrong with these people? They plan to defeat government censorship with self censorship?

What’s next? They going to release a copy of 'The Red Badge of Courage' edited to remove all traces of Fleming's cowardice? Or perhaps they'd prefer I use the Orwellian 'really ungood unbraveness'?

These people are traitors to the ideals this county stands for.

Now would be a good time for Sarah Palin to ask the librarian for the fourth time how to go about removing offensive books from the library...not that she ever had any intention of actually going through with this. She was just doing her part to get to know the people who were working for her.

As if banned and censored books weren't sufficient to leave you all with the jimjams, it seems Michele Bachmann is considering a run for the White House...can this get any worse? Oh, why the hell not? If we're going to have a semi-psychotic serial liar, we may as well go with one who's open about it.

Watching the Weeper of the House in an interview right now. At the very least, he allowed his skin to return to a natural hue...better still, he didn't start bawling again.

Michelle Bachmann: For those who think Sarah Palin is just too brainy.

So, Leona...you could never have any sympathy for an abused orphan who was taken in and fed religious dogma that never made very good sense to his practical/survivalist mentality? Maybe the problem, then, is yours...from within.

As for escapist literature...oh, do please elaborate!

I taught high school for seven years; and, against the department head's advice, I dusted off the books from the back of the closet and dove in head first. One black parent called and was disturbed that we were reading the book. After explaining to her that Twain was an abolishionist and Jim symbolically becomes the only real father-figure Huck can depend on and love, I recommended that she read the chapters along with us and contribute to discussions via emails with me. She agreed.

It's interesting to note that during Twain's time, the book was censored for another reason: Many people found it improbable and inappropriate that a black man and a white boy could achieve the kind of relationshop Jim and Huck do.

How dare any publishing house presume to toy with masterpiece genius. How eternally rude.

This is similar to the Jerrold Nadler whine about the reading of the U.S. Constitution in the House today.

What was read is the Constitution as it stands today. No one argues the phrase "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." was text in the original document; especially as abhorrent the concept is now.

But through the Amendment process (13th and 14th) that phrase was stricken. The same way that the 18th and 21st exist. Eighteenth was prohibition -- twenty-first was the repeal. Do they need to be mentioned as the Constitution stands now?

Reading the original Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer -- without editing should be regarded as historical text -- and taught that way. A disclaimer in the front of the book along the lines of:

There are words and ideas in this book that no longer considered acceptable. We present this book as originally composed by the author. This should be considered as historical fiction with the mores and values of the time of original publication.

Part of the lesson plan to teach it should include a similar disclaimer and discussion.

But the difference between the Constitution and Huck Finn:

Huck Finn was written as fiction and the author has passed. If Frank Herbert's son were to edit Dune -- I would cry foul as well. That he continues to use the world built up to in Dune; I have no issue.

The Constitution was designed to be edited. We retain the knowledge of the original -- but we know it has been changed. It is an imperfect document. But reading it as it applies to form our government today is the thing to do -- not PC.

Jim P: Huck Finn was written as fiction and the author has passed. If Frank Herbert's son were to edit Dune -- I would cry foul as well. That he continues to use the world built up to in Dune; I have no issue.

Funny you should mention that, Jim P. It seems that J.D. Salinger sued and successfully blocked the publication of a piece of fan fiction depicting Holden Caulfield as an old man. Fan fiction is generally ignored, since no profit is involved. But since this was going to be published and stood to make a profit, the publication was blocked.

I have no issue with this. It seems wrong to me to take someone else's character, their intellectual property, then presume to do other things with it. You want to write novels? Fine. But create your own characters. You don't get to take someone else's character with their characteristics, history, personality all fleshed out and make money from someone else's work.

Upon learning the verdict, the embittered author Fredrik Kolting said, "Call me an ignorant Swede, but the last thing I thought possible in the U.S. was that you banned books."

Well, boo-frigging-hoo. Excuse us for allowing authors to have the final say so over what happens to their characters.

I have no issue with this. It seems wrong to me to take someone else's character, their intellectual property, then presume to do other things with it. You want to write novels? Fine. But create your own characters. You don't get to take someone else's character with their characteristics, history, personality all fleshed out and make money from someone else's work.

I can agree with this ruling -- I would have an issue with Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson trying to extend out Duncan Idaho. But that would be from the "critics" viewpoint that Frank had "finished" that particular world. But it wouldn't be from the intellectual rights view. Brian should now own the IP rights.

If you want to talk about FanFic -- look at John Ringo and David Weber (and a lot of the Baen house). All they ask is that you at least submit it to them first -- ok writers get the permission as long as they don't go off target or use the main characters. Good writers are asked to collaborate.

The one I would consider the ultimate desecration in literature: Someone trying to follow up with Fran and Stu from The Stand.

I feel a new blogpost of my own coming on...

I'm in about 6 Facebook discussions over this. Thankfully the rational people are winning. I actually had one girl say, "Well, is it okay if they change it and put a discussion question in at the end of the book?"

Um, no, for a couple of reasons. 1) It's Mark Twain's book. Don't like it? Don't read it. And, if it's being taught in schools, someone needs to pull those teachers aside and tell them they need to make the INTENT and CONTEXT clear, and 2) HOW can you debate the use of the word if you've never read the original?

The stupid, it hurts. And Mark Twain is likely spinning wildly in his grave right now.

From what I gather, the teachers are avoiding the book because of the awkwardness in dealing with the use of the word "nigger."

I suppose just rewriting an American classic is easier than giving teachers some guidance in handling it.

Idiots.

Kg: So, Leona...you could never have any sympathy for an abused orphan who was taken in and fed religious dogma that never made very good sense to his practical/survivalist mentality? Maybe the problem, then, is yours...from within.
_______________________

Please tell me you're lying about being a high school teacher. You can't even spell "abolitionist."

Not to mention you didn't even notice that I said I was ELEVEN when I read it for the first time. Aside from having a very strong opposition to stealing and lying (especially Huck's lying to anyone ASIDE from his horrible father), I couldn't begin to grasp that there was any parallel between Huck's flight and Jim's flight, mainly because I didn't understand why Huck didn't want to return to the widow and try to break legal ties with his father.

Sometimes I think that even decades ago, parents expected their kids to understand more than they ever could. When I was barely ten, my mother practically yelled at me for not understanding that James Thurber's reference to Missionary Ridge in "The Dog That Bit People" was a reference to the Civil War. We were NEVER taught about the Civil War in that much detail in fourth grade - if at all. Besides, how was I supposed to know that Thurber was born in the 19th century - or that Missionary Ridge wasn't a mission building, which was what I thought at the time?

I'm offended!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waehONGY-yI

If I had to change it, as a former teacher, I would go with Black Jim, as in Stephen Foster's 'Ole Black Joe'. This would convey the meaning without being offensive to moderns.

BTW, I had a 6th grade student who was very offended that the Niger River was on a map on my classroom wall. He wanted to complain to the office.

Nigger and Niger both mean black. It's based on Latin.

Patrick, Palin did not seek to remove any books from the library. She sought advice on moving them from the children's section to the adult section of the library.