Yeah rewriting historically accurate classic literature because someone might get offended by the way people actually talked back then is stupid and does everyone a disservice.
If you get offended when some random guy on the bus uses the n-word then thats fine, he's an asshole. If you get offended when Twain uses it in a story that takes place in the south then you need to reevaluate your priorities because you're getting too easily offended.
Its not a big jump from editing classic books to make people feel better to banning books to make people feel better.
Yeah, I'm sorry but I agree with Fartacus... as painful as that was to write.
Especially considering how few teachers could actually get the historical context across to their students in any kind of meaningful way. I know if I was reading a book about how sub-human Jews were, despite its historical accuracy, I would have been deeply hurt by that as a child. Hell, I was hurt by fucking Merchant of Venice when I was a kid. As an adult I have a pretty good understanding of its historical context, but as a kid all I knew was that the Jew was fucking evil and that was just par for the course as far as Jews went, at least according to Shakespeare.
I can understand wanting to preserve historical accuracy, but it's not like removing the n-word neuters the story or takes away the racial implications. It just helps expand the books audience.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I mean just look at yourselves, all of you, for Christ's sake!
You're a bunch of white men, mostly or all straight and able-bodied and young, many of whom are educated and well-off, and you're spending this whole thread patting each other on the back for how people in discriminated-against groups should shake it off and "not make everything about race/gender/ability/age/sexuality/etc" and just quiet down please...
But then when something happens that you don't like that has to do with race, something that is even quite benign and doesn't insult or demean you personally, you're all thrown into such an inflamed tizzy you'd think someone pissed on your shoes or wiped their dick on your mom's face.
For a bunch of people who seem to think everyone else should stop making such a fuss, you all throw a pretty big tantrum over some pretty insignificant shit.
That's because we're protecting people of all races and creeds. The idea that a book, especially a historical book, cannot have characters that use offensive language or do offensive things is very, very dangerous.
Anyone who wants to edit Huck Finn really ought to read 1984 first.
If we need to move Huck Finn to higher age groups, that is fine. If we need to write a preface to it, that's fine too. But rewriting history because we don't like it is extremely dangerous, as well demonstrated throughout history and throughout the world. As one example of hundreds, the idea that rape isn't a polite topic directly revictimized rape victims in the past, and public perceptions still makes both reporting and recovery more difficult than they should be.
Yeah rewriting historically accurate classic literature because someone might get offended by the way people actually talked back then is stupid and does everyone a disservice.
If you get offended when some random guy on the bus uses the n-word then thats fine, he's an asshole. If you get offended when Twain uses it in a story that takes place in the south then you need to reevaluate your priorities because you're getting too easily offended.
Its not a big jump from editing classic books to make people feel better to banning books to make people feel better.
You do understand that trying do defend the purity of literature, especially of the era concerned, is much like trying to defend the purity of the English language?
Yeah rewriting historically accurate classic literature because someone might get offended by the way people actually talked back then is stupid and does everyone a disservice.
If you get offended when some random guy on the bus uses the n-word then thats fine, he's an asshole. If you get offended when Twain uses it in a story that takes place in the south then you need to reevaluate your priorities because you're getting too easily offended.
Its not a big jump from editing classic books to make people feel better to banning books to make people feel better.
You do understand that trying do defend the purity of literature, especially of the era concerned, is much like trying to defend the purity of the English language?
Two things that are unrelated.
Yes language changes. That has fuck all to do with censorship, which is what this is.
This is censorship and no different than the fundies who try to get Harry Potter banned from elementary schools.
Yeah rewriting historically accurate classic literature because someone might get offended by the way people actually talked back then is stupid and does everyone a disservice.
If you get offended when some random guy on the bus uses the n-word then thats fine, he's an asshole. If you get offended when Twain uses it in a story that takes place in the south then you need to reevaluate your priorities because you're getting too easily offended.
Its not a big jump from editing classic books to make people feel better to banning books to make people feel better.
Um, yeah, it is. Slippery slope fallacy is not persuasive.
And I'm sorry have you read it? He uses the word in the narration and in the description of the character. It's not just dialogue.
Furthermore, you can't just say "it's a disservice." What is that disservice, exactly? Can you explain it? Because, again, I've explained the other side perfectly reasonably.
I mean god it would go such a long way if people could even just acknowledge that yes, it is problem that we teach a book that causes a certain group of students a lot of pain and discomfort. Can't you even admit that?
You're literally just saying "their human feeling and pain does not matter, but my intellectual, abstract, and impersonal connection to some book that I probably didn't even finish when someone made me read it in high school is."
I don't understand how anyone can feel that way and not be aware of their own utter lack of sympathy or kindness wrapped up in that statement.
But it does make you feel viscerally, doesn't it? You get some emotional gut response that tells you it's wrong to change that book, even though the content and meaning is essentially unaltered, and you have little or no personal investment in the book itself, and the change is doing nothing to personally insult or demean you.
Can you please be self-aware enough to examine that? Because really I think what it comes down to is that people in privileged groups (I know this is a sticky word here on this forum, but I'm not using it to dismiss anyone, I'm describing what I see as a legitimate fact about the world, and of course it's worth mentioning that I too am privileged in essentially all possible dimensions) have a visceral response to being told what they can and cannot do by under-privileged groups.
I think it's evolutionary and I think it's a response that makes sense and is understandable but shouldn't be taken at face-value or accepted, necessarily.
Human beings are built to be highly invested in figuring out status and systems of order -- who should obey and who should be obeyed, who commands respect and who commands disdain, who deserves help and who deserves punishment, etc. It's one of our most basic tasks; it's so basic that almost anything that isn't sex can be reduced to it.
So, just as we all recoil when we're asked to do something by someone we dislike, or even worse commanded to do something by someone we feel doesn't deserve their authority, I think people in socially-privileged groups find it insulting or constraining to be "told" or "commanded" what to do by people in under-privileged groups, even if that "command" is really nothing more than a request not to be constantly insulted and belittled. Our brains, I think, are to an extent built to believe that it is our right to insult and belittle, and it is their duty to accept it without comment. If we feel so benevolent so as to bestow kindness upon them, and use their words, then they should feel thankful, but to have the temerity to be indignant if we choose not to is to overstep their bounds -- to forget their place.
I think this is the motivating feeling behind anti-PC sentiment: "you're not my dad! You can't tell me what to say!"
Yeah rewriting historically accurate classic literature because someone might get offended by the way people actually talked back then is stupid and does everyone a disservice.
If you get offended when some random guy on the bus uses the n-word then thats fine, he's an asshole. If you get offended when Twain uses it in a story that takes place in the south then you need to reevaluate your priorities because you're getting too easily offended.
Its not a big jump from editing classic books to make people feel better to banning books to make people feel better.
You do understand that trying do defend the purity of literature, especially of the era concerned, is much like trying to defend the purity of the English language?
Two things that are unrelated.
Yes language changes. That has fuck all to do with censorship, which is what this is.
This is censorship and no different than the fundies who try to get Harry Potter banned from elementary schools.
It's censorship when we make it illegal to print a version of Huck Finn with the N-word in it, or burn all the copies that contradict it.
We don't let middle-schoolers read "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" either, and Disney makes versions of fairy tales without all the authentic, original violence and disturbing imagery.
This is a private company choosing freely to modify a classic text to make it more accessible to a modern audience. Is Baz Lerhman's Romeo and Juliet censorship too? Should we rail against the teaching of West Side Story to high-school audiences?
yes I get that reading the n-word might hurt someone's feelings. And no I won't acknowledge its a problem kids might be taught Mark Twain in school.
But in the case of going back and memory holing classic literature I don't give a shit. If someone is that offended by it sorry. Same thing I'll say to any fundie who doesn't like His Dark Materials.
Censorship is never ok, even when its done to avoid hurting people's feelings. You don't have an argument, you have sentimental pinings based on someone's feelings.
This is a private company choosing freely to modify a classic text to make it more accessible to a modern audience. Is Baz Lerhman's Romeo and Juliet censorship too? Should we rail against the teaching of West Side Story to high-school audiences?
Don't conflate reinterpretations and retellings with filtering out bad words in classic literature, its stupid.
I think altering/censoring a text generally removes a lot of the context and fundamentally changes it. The satire and anger present in Huck Finn simply wouldn't work as well if you gutted the language the characters use, slurs and all.
I also think students should be able to go to school without having to confront racial slurs in any form. The goes for Huck Finn, this goes for Merchant of Venice, this goes for anything that could make a particular religious or ethnic group uncomfortable.
The obvious solution is to not teach Huck Finn in schools, or, to provide it as an option-let students choose from two or three books, one of which is Huck Finn. To make it mandatory is honestly pretty silly. Huck Finn's great, but that doesn't mean it absolutely has to be taught in schools, particularly since a lot of the dialects are tricky and I know at my school a lot of people just cliffs-notes'd it.
Also SS I think you are operating under an extremely broad definition of censorship here, one that ignores the notion of context entirely.
Freedom of speech does not mean the right to say whatever you want in any place at any time without consequence. This particularly applies to schools. If a kid or parent in a school started shouting racial slurs, they would be asked to leave. That's not censorship, it's creating a respectful school environment. That should also apply to coursework. I would expect (and I'm sure you would too) a school to fire a teacher who assigned Mein Kampf on the spot. You might learn a lot about Nazi Germany from reading it, but it's supremely offensive and there are plenty of other ways to learn about Nazis and WWII. Huck Finn is not in the same boat as Mein Kampf, not even close, but there are plenty of other good books about the antebellum south for school-age children that could be read intead of Huck Finn, so why not do just that?
yes I get that reading the n-word might hurt someone's feelings. And no I won't acknowledge its a problem kids might be taught Mark Twain in school.
Why? What does Huck Finn uniquely have to offer to the world that some other book couldn't fulfill? Again, I like the book and I'm not against teaching it, but you're acting like it would be the end of the world if we didn't so I think you need to do a little intellectual legwork here beyond "it's a classic."
We ignore plenty of classics written in other languages, in other parts of the world, by other cultures, by women, by oppressed groups -- why can't we decide that high-school kids would be better served by reading Things Fall Apart than Huck Finn? Is that a different argument from changing the language? If so, why?
Since your bar for "censorship" is so ludicrously low (if it's not taught in school, then we're censoring it!), then aren't we, by your definition, censoring the works of all these other authors? Or, hell, we don't even have to make it about a race/gender/privilege thing -- aren't we censoring the works of the Beats if we don't teach On The Road? Are we censoring the work of post-modernists if we don't teach Italo Calvino?
Where do you draw the line? Because so far your argument doesn't.
Censorship is when you bar people access to intellectual material. Making curriculum choices is not, and will never be the same thing as censorship. Modification and updating is not and never will be censorship -- unless it's governmentally mandated and universal.
And, again, I just want to point out your appalling lack of human empathy when you derisively admit that "the n-word might hurt someone's feelings" but you can't even bring yourself to admit it's a problem.
It's so sad and infuriating to see someone who can't see unjustified human pain as a problem, let alone in children having that pain foisted upon them by an institution that we already know does a poor job of serving their needs.
You can admit two things are both problematic but still make the argument for one over the other, on the basis of net benefit. That would be the decent and intellectually honest thing to do.
But in the case of going back and memory holing classic literature I don't give a shit. If someone is that offended by it sorry. Same thing I'll say to any fundie who doesn't like His Dark Materials.
Which is why we should never ban Philip Pullman books from libraries or have the law mandate the editing of his works. And why, as long as he owns the rights to his own work, no one should be allowed to edit and distribute it without legal permission.
Hell, you could make an argument that the un-edited version should be available in school libraries, maybe. Certainly I don't think it's going to disappear from the face of the earth anytime soon, or even from your local Barnes and Noble.
Censorship is censorship when institutions and authorities command it. Your hysteria demeans and trivializes the meaning of censorship. Respect is not censorship. Kindness is not censorship. Empathy and an awareness of the impact on the goals of an academic institution that offending and hurting students has is not censorship. If respect is censorship, then ignorance is strength.
Censorship is never ok, even when its done to avoid hurting people's feelings. You don't have an argument, you have sentimental pinings based on someone's feelings.
No, I have an argument -- you have a gut-reaction to being told what to do, or at best you have cold-hearted arrogance and a faith in your own traditions and assumptions that convinces you they need not be examined critically.
Don't conflate reinterpretations and retellings with filtering out bad words in classic literature, its stupid.
Oh that's rhetorical masterwork right there. Why is it stupid? Because I see it quite similarly. They're trying to do the same thing, in many instances -- make a classic work more accessible to contemporary audiences, preserving the emotional and intellectual content and impact while making the work more appealing to a new recipient.
If anything, filtering out a word or two is a far less egregious breach.
Again, you're still failing to meet any kind of burden of proof for "censorship" but you don't really care because this isn't about "censorship" in an intellectual, rational, or provable way; "censorship" is a stand-in word for "authority I don't respect," i.e. you feel like you shouldn't be told what to do, or anyone like you told what to do by an "authority" that you think doesn't matter. This is purely emotional on your part and it's a horribly unseemly emotion.
Also SS I think you are operating under an extremely broad definition of censorship here, one that ignores the notion of context entirely.
Freedom of speech does not mean the right to say whatever you want in any place at any time without consequence. This particularly applies to schools. If a kid or parent in a school started shouting racial slurs, they would be asked to leave. That's not censorship, it's creating a respectful school environment.
I agree with this post.
I don't think Huck Finn should be required reading in high school. Nor do I think that editing the work to remove instances of objectionable content (whatever the objection is) is a productive activity, so I oppose that effort.
But calling either thing 'censorship' is hyperbolic.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Fartacus, people do not have a gut reaction based on being told what to do by underprivileged groups. They have a gut reaction in response to any censorship or similar violation of common western humanist principles which have been hammered into us for years - free speech and the evil of censorship, in this case.
What you are arguing against is the idea that art and free expression should not be restricted by temporal political concerns. I say this without personally feeling rage at the idea of removing the word from the text.
I am curious about whether you would similarly censor Faulkner, or whether you would censor Heart of Darkness. The problem is that racism is one of the defining qualities of American culture and history, and so it is engaged by literature and must be engaged in the study of literature. Mark Twain is often the first instance in which students are made to consider that, because of this very issue.
When I was in high school, my teacher actually consulted the black students in the class when considering teaching Conrad, and when they said it would make them uncomfortable, he did not do it. I think this is a valid approach in high school.
Fartacus, people do not have a gut reaction based on being told what to do by underprivileged groups. They have a gut reaction in response to any censorship or similar violation of common western humanist principles which have been hammered into us for years - free speech and the evil of censorship, in this case.
What you are arguing against is the idea that art and free expression should not be restricted by temporal political concerns. I say this without personally feeling rage at the idea of removing the word from the text.
I am curious about whether you would similarly censor Faulkner, or whether you would censor Heart of Darkness. The problem is that racism is one of the defining qualities of American culture and history, and so it is engaged by literature and must be engaged in the study of literature. Mark Twain is often the first instance in which students are made to consider that, because of this very issue.
When I was in high school, my teacher actually consulted the black students in the class when considering teaching Conrad, and when they said it would make them uncomfortable, he did not do it. I think this is a valid approach in high school.
I think that is a valid approach as well.
And as I covered at length above, it's not censorship. People don't know what censorship even really means anymore, apparently, which is especially ironic because they go off spouting 1984 references without noticing the hilarious irony.
Yeah rewriting historically accurate classic literature because someone might get offended by the way people actually talked back then is stupid and does everyone a disservice.
If you get offended when some random guy on the bus uses the n-word then thats fine, he's an asshole. If you get offended when Twain uses it in a story that takes place in the south then you need to reevaluate your priorities because you're getting too easily offended.
Its not a big jump from editing classic books to make people feel better to banning books to make people feel better.
Um, yeah, it is. Slippery slope fallacy is not persuasive.
And I'm sorry have you read it? He uses the word in the narration and in the description of the character. It's not just dialogue.
Furthermore, you can't just say "it's a disservice." What is that disservice, exactly? Can you explain it? Because, again, I've explained the other side perfectly reasonably.
I mean god it would go such a long way if people could even just acknowledge that yes, it is problem that we teach a book that causes a certain group of students a lot of pain and discomfort. Can't you even admit that?
You're literally just saying "their human feeling and pain does not matter, but my intellectual, abstract, and impersonal connection to some book that I probably didn't even finish when someone made me read it in high school is."
I don't understand how anyone can feel that way and not be aware of their own utter lack of sympathy or kindness wrapped up in that statement.
But it does make you feel viscerally, doesn't it? You get some emotional gut response that tells you it's wrong to change that book, even though the content and meaning is essentially unaltered, and you have little or no personal investment in the book itself, and the change is doing nothing to personally insult or demean you.
Can you please be self-aware enough to examine that? Because really I think what it comes down to is that people in privileged groups (I know this is a sticky word here on this forum, but I'm not using it to dismiss anyone, I'm describing what I see as a legitimate fact about the world, and of course it's worth mentioning that I too am privileged in essentially all possible dimensions) have a visceral response to being told what they can and cannot do by under-privileged groups.
I think it's evolutionary and I think it's a response that makes sense and is understandable but shouldn't be taken at face-value or accepted, necessarily.
Human beings are built to be highly invested in figuring out status and systems of order -- who should obey and who should be obeyed, who commands respect and who commands disdain, who deserves help and who deserves punishment, etc. It's one of our most basic tasks; it's so basic that almost anything that isn't sex can be reduced to it.
So, just as we all recoil when we're asked to do something by someone we dislike, or even worse commanded to do something by someone we feel doesn't deserve their authority, I think people in socially-privileged groups find it insulting or constraining to be "told" or "commanded" what to do by people in under-privileged groups, even if that "command" is really nothing more than a request not to be constantly insulted and belittled. Our brains, I think, are to an extent built to believe that it is our right to insult and belittle, and it is their duty to accept it without comment. If we feel so benevolent so as to bestow kindness upon them, and use their words, then they should feel thankful, but to have the temerity to be indignant if we choose not to is to overstep their bounds -- to forget their place.
I think this is the motivating feeling behind anti-PC sentiment: "you're not my dad! You can't tell me what to say!"
Can you use a little bit more hyperbole, please? It's really helping the conversation along.
In all seriousness, editing older works in any way is silly. Where you see the removal of the n word as a good thing because it will preserve people's feelings (which is not really a logical argument), most of us see it as silly because A) Why are you trying to white wash the past? It's already happened. You can't change it and It can be a teachable moment. I've never seen or heard this word in my life, teacher. What does it mean? Well, it's a derogatory term for black people and you should NEVER use it and here's why, etc.
Oh, look. Little Johnny learned some useful shit at school! I'm so proud.
EDIT: Also, to be clear: I fully respect that the publisher can edit and change what they want. They're the one putting the book out. I have no problem with them doing it. I just find it silly.
On top of that, they're replacing it with the word slave. Who's to say people won't be offended by that word, too? How should we edit the next edition of the book so that they don't get upset? Where does it stop?
...and we're right back to the original thread topic.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
I mean just look at yourselves, all of you, for Christ's sake!
You're a bunch of white men, mostly or all straight and able-bodied and young, many of whom are educated and well-off, and you're spending this whole thread patting each other on the back for how people in discriminated-against groups should shake it off and "not make everything about race/gender/ability/age/sexuality/etc" and just quiet down please...
But then when something happens that you don't like that has to do with race, something that is even quite benign and doesn't insult or demean you personally, you're all thrown into such an inflamed tizzy you'd think someone pissed on your shoes or wiped their dick on your mom's face.
For a bunch of people who seem to think everyone else should stop making such a fuss, you all throw a pretty big tantrum over some pretty insignificant shit.
That's because we're protecting people of all races and creeds. The idea that a book, especially a historical book, cannot have characters that use offensive language or do offensive things is very, very dangerous.
Anyone who wants to edit Huck Finn really ought to read 1984 first.
If we need to move Huck Finn to higher age groups, that is fine. If we need to write a preface to it, that's fine too. But rewriting history because we don't like it is extremely dangerous, as well demonstrated throughout history and throughout the world. As one example of hundreds, the idea that rape isn't a polite topic directly revictimized rape victims in the past, and public perceptions still makes both reporting and recovery more difficult than they should be.
Have you even read 1984? It looks like you just decided to repeat the "vocabulary evolution baaaaaaaad" meme without checking to see if it's actually in the book.
HEY GUYS WOULDN"T IT BE TERRIBLE IF HUCK FINN WAS CENSORED
GOOD THING NOBODY'S PROPOSING THAT, BECAUSE CENSORING MEANS ELIMINATING ALL COPIES OF A TEXT, LIKE BURNING THEM OR SOME SHIT, AS OPPOSED TO MAKING AN ALTERED VERSION OF THE TEXT
CAN YOU FUCKERS PLEASE GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEADS SO I CAN STOP TYPING IN ALL CAPS THNX
Can you use a little bit more hyperbole, please? It's really helping the conversation along.
In all seriousness, editing older works in any way is silly. Where you see the removal of the n word as a good thing because it will preserve people's feelings (which is not really a logical argument),
Oh boy this is a whole gigantic topic unto itself. I'll keep it short and say that I don't think anyone can make a "logical" ethical or ought-argument without invoking a hedonic principle at some level of their underpinning assumptions. Even ascetics are ultimately hedonic, because their asceticism is in search of a higher hedonic yield, in forms distinct from those of literal hedonists.
I do think however the Western Liberal stigmatizing of compassion and empathy as irrational or illogical is a useful tool that has benefited powerful people and groups over the less-powerful by attempting to definitionally invalidate any appeal to people actually suffering.
At it's most egregious it's presented to us by conservative economists along the lines of "sure it's sad that people die because they don't have healthcare, but price distortions and stuff. Can't you be more rational?" At it's more trivial, it's used in instances like this.
most of us see it as silly because A) Why are you trying to white wash the past? It's already happened. You can't change it and It can be a teachable moment. I've never seen or heard this word in my life, teacher. What does it mean? Well, it's a derogatory term for black people and you should NEVER use it and here's why, etc.
No one is trying to white-wash the past. We're trying to make a present with a safe and comfortable education system that doesn't alienate and hurt minority students -- at no discernable benefit to anyone.
Oh, look. Little Johnny learned some useful shit at school! I'm so proud.
Amazingly you can teach kids not to be cruel and bigoted without teaching Huck Finn.
HEY GUYS WOULDN"T IT BE TERRIBLE IF HUCK FINN WAS CENSORED
GOOD THING NOBODY'S PROPOSING THAT, BECAUSE CENSORING MEANS ELIMINATING ALL COPIES OF A TEXT, LIKE BURNING THEM OR SOME SHIT, AS OPPOSED TO MAKING AN ALTERED VERSION OF THE TEXT
CAN YOU FUCKERS PLEASE GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEADS SO I CAN STOP TYPING IN ALL CAPS THNX
cen·sor
–verb (used with object)
6. to examine and act upon as a censor. 7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.
Would someone like to claim that this isn't what is being done? Becuase that's exactly what's being done.
You can stop typing in all caps now.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
I mean just look at yourselves, all of you, for Christ's sake!
You're a bunch of white men, mostly or all straight and able-bodied and young, many of whom are educated and well-off, and you're spending this whole thread patting each other on the back for how people in discriminated-against groups should shake it off and "not make everything about race/gender/ability/age/sexuality/etc" and just quiet down please...
But then when something happens that you don't like that has to do with race, something that is even quite benign and doesn't insult or demean you personally, you're all thrown into such an inflamed tizzy you'd think someone pissed on your shoes or wiped their dick on your mom's face.
For a bunch of people who seem to think everyone else should stop making such a fuss, you all throw a pretty big tantrum over some pretty insignificant shit.
That's because we're protecting people of all races and creeds. The idea that a book, especially a historical book, cannot have characters that use offensive language or do offensive things is very, very dangerous.
Anyone who wants to edit Huck Finn really ought to read 1984 first.
If we need to move Huck Finn to higher age groups, that is fine. If we need to write a preface to it, that's fine too. But rewriting history because we don't like it is extremely dangerous, as well demonstrated throughout history and throughout the world. As one example of hundreds, the idea that rape isn't a polite topic directly revictimized rape victims in the past, and public perceptions still makes both reporting and recovery more difficult than they should be.
Have you even read 1984? It looks like you just decided to repeat the "vocabulary evolution baaaaaaaad" meme without checking to see if it's actually in the book.
Only if people stop calling this vocabulary evolution when it isn't. Its changing classical literature so you find it less offensive.
HEY GUYS WOULDN"T IT BE TERRIBLE IF HUCK FINN WAS CENSORED
GOOD THING NOBODY'S PROPOSING THAT, BECAUSE CENSORING MEANS ELIMINATING ALL COPIES OF A TEXT, LIKE BURNING THEM OR SOME SHIT, AS OPPOSED TO MAKING AN ALTERED VERSION OF THE TEXT
CAN YOU FUCKERS PLEASE GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEADS SO I CAN STOP TYPING IN ALL CAPS THNX
The colloquial use of the term is valid. The sanitization of a text by partial removal of words, images, etc. is considered a form of censorship.
I mean just look at yourselves, all of you, for Christ's sake!
You're a bunch of white men, mostly or all straight and able-bodied and young, many of whom are educated and well-off, and you're spending this whole thread patting each other on the back for how people in discriminated-against groups should shake it off and "not make everything about race/gender/ability/age/sexuality/etc" and just quiet down please...
But then when something happens that you don't like that has to do with race, something that is even quite benign and doesn't insult or demean you personally, you're all thrown into such an inflamed tizzy you'd think someone pissed on your shoes or wiped their dick on your mom's face.
For a bunch of people who seem to think everyone else should stop making such a fuss, you all throw a pretty big tantrum over some pretty insignificant shit.
That's because we're protecting people of all races and creeds. The idea that a book, especially a historical book, cannot have characters that use offensive language or do offensive things is very, very dangerous.
Anyone who wants to edit Huck Finn really ought to read 1984 first.
If we need to move Huck Finn to higher age groups, that is fine. If we need to write a preface to it, that's fine too. But rewriting history because we don't like it is extremely dangerous, as well demonstrated throughout history and throughout the world. As one example of hundreds, the idea that rape isn't a polite topic directly revictimized rape victims in the past, and public perceptions still makes both reporting and recovery more difficult than they should be.
Have you even read 1984? It looks like you just decided to repeat the "vocabulary evolution baaaaaaaad" meme without checking to see if it's actually in the book.
Only if people stop calling this vocabulary evolution when it isn't. Its changing classical literature so you find it less offensive.
Which was not what was done in 1984, therefor proving my assertion.
–verb (used with object)
6. to examine and act upon as a censor. 7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.
Would someone like to claim that this isn't what is being done? Becuase that's exactly what's being done.
You can stop typing in all caps now.
You can still go to the bookstore and pick up a copy of Huck Finn in its perfect, unblemished form.
Hell a kid reading the book can still go and pick one up in its perfect, unblemished form for $4.99, he just won't be given it by the school. From a practical standpoint, it's moot, besides people getting their undies in a bunch at the prospect of providing an altered text in any way shape or form. This sort of shit happens all the time with translations, or readings, or performances. Why does it only matter when it's the n-word that's being removed? Where's your rage over other examples of text being altered?
I mean just look at yourselves, all of you, for Christ's sake!
You're a bunch of white men, mostly or all straight and able-bodied and young, many of whom are educated and well-off, and you're spending this whole thread patting each other on the back for how people in discriminated-against groups should shake it off and "not make everything about race/gender/ability/age/sexuality/etc" and just quiet down please...
But then when something happens that you don't like that has to do with race, something that is even quite benign and doesn't insult or demean you personally, you're all thrown into such an inflamed tizzy you'd think someone pissed on your shoes or wiped their dick on your mom's face.
For a bunch of people who seem to think everyone else should stop making such a fuss, you all throw a pretty big tantrum over some pretty insignificant shit.
That's because we're protecting people of all races and creeds. The idea that a book, especially a historical book, cannot have characters that use offensive language or do offensive things is very, very dangerous.
Anyone who wants to edit Huck Finn really ought to read 1984 first.
If we need to move Huck Finn to higher age groups, that is fine. If we need to write a preface to it, that's fine too. But rewriting history because we don't like it is extremely dangerous, as well demonstrated throughout history and throughout the world. As one example of hundreds, the idea that rape isn't a polite topic directly revictimized rape victims in the past, and public perceptions still makes both reporting and recovery more difficult than they should be.
Have you even read 1984? It looks like you just decided to repeat the "vocabulary evolution baaaaaaaad" meme without checking to see if it's actually in the book.
Only if people stop calling this vocabulary evolution when it isn't. Its changing classical literature so you find it less offensive.
Which was not what was done in 1984, therefor proving my assertion.
Ok I'll stop mentioning 1984 and you guys can stop denying advocating censorship, we can carry on now.
–verb (used with object)
6. to examine and act upon as a censor. 7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.
Would someone like to claim that this isn't what is being done? Becuase that's exactly what's being done.
You can stop typing in all caps now.
You can still go to the bookstore and pick up a copy of Huck Finn in its perfect, unblemished form.
Hell a kid reading the book can still go and pick one up in its perfect, unblemished form for $4.99, he just won't be given it by the school. From a practical standpoint, it's moot, besides people getting their undies in a bunch at the prospect of providing an altered text in any way shape or form.
You're operating under an incorrect definition of censor, the correct one is in the quote tree.
And it would be nice if people would stop pretending that the attitudes in Huck Finn are just part of the historic record, and realize that for a lot of people, they are very much a reality.
I mean just look at yourselves, all of you, for Christ's sake!
You're a bunch of white men, mostly or all straight and able-bodied and young, many of whom are educated and well-off, and you're spending this whole thread patting each other on the back for how people in discriminated-against groups should shake it off and "not make everything about race/gender/ability/age/sexuality/etc" and just quiet down please...
But then when something happens that you don't like that has to do with race, something that is even quite benign and doesn't insult or demean you personally, you're all thrown into such an inflamed tizzy you'd think someone pissed on your shoes or wiped their dick on your mom's face.
For a bunch of people who seem to think everyone else should stop making such a fuss, you all throw a pretty big tantrum over some pretty insignificant shit.
That's because we're protecting people of all races and creeds. The idea that a book, especially a historical book, cannot have characters that use offensive language or do offensive things is very, very dangerous.
Anyone who wants to edit Huck Finn really ought to read 1984 first.
If we need to move Huck Finn to higher age groups, that is fine. If we need to write a preface to it, that's fine too. But rewriting history because we don't like it is extremely dangerous, as well demonstrated throughout history and throughout the world. As one example of hundreds, the idea that rape isn't a polite topic directly revictimized rape victims in the past, and public perceptions still makes both reporting and recovery more difficult than they should be.
Have you even read 1984? It looks like you just decided to repeat the "vocabulary evolution baaaaaaaad" meme without checking to see if it's actually in the book.
Only if people stop calling this vocabulary evolution when it isn't. Its changing classical literature so you find it less offensive.
Which was not what was done in 1984, therefor proving my assertion.
Ok I'll stop mentioning 1984 and you guys can stop denying advocating censorship, we can carry on now.
Stretching the definition of censorship is no more valid than argumentum ad Hitlerum. So, can you find any harm from what is being done here, or are you just going to keep playing Six Degrees to Kevin Censorship?
And it would be nice if people would stop pretending that the attitudes in Huck Finn are just part of the historic record, and realize that for a lot of people, they are very much a reality.
Guy using the n-word on a bus =/= N-word in classical literature.
And it would be nice if people would stop pretending that the attitudes in Huck Finn are just part of the historic record, and realize that for a lot of people, they are very much a reality.
Guy using the n-word on a bus =/= N-word in classical literature.
Isn't that a grandfather clause, and therefor bad?
Stretching the definition of censorship is no more valid than argumentum ad Hitlerum. So, can you find any harm from what is being done here, or are you just going to keep playing Six Degrees to Kevin Censorship?
The definition of censorship was posted. I did not stretch it.
I'm not going to argue why its bad, because I'm not going to convince you.
You're operating under an incorrect definition of censor, the correct one is in the quote tree.
I didn't argue that. I'm saying it doesn't matter. Remind me why this example of censorship is bad? And don't give be some sort of blanket "censorship is EVIL" reason. I can give a perfectly reasonable explanation of why the school would not want to provide the original text, and since students can get another copy of the original text it's not as though their experience of reading Mark Twain is forever ruined. The school is providing an option.
I would also appreciate it if you could tell me that claiming an altered version of the text should not exist is not a form of censorship in itself. If believing that people have the right to alter texts and print them is a form of censorship, then hell yes I'm pro censorship because I think people should have the right to print whatever they goddamn want.
Stretching the definition of censorship is no more valid than argumentum ad Hitlerum. So, can you find any harm from what is being done here, or are you just going to keep playing Six Degrees to Kevin Censorship?
The definition of censorship was posted. I did not stretch it.
I'm not going to argue why its bad, because I'm not going to convince you.
You could if you could show some actual harm, so I guess you're right. You aren't going to convince me.
Also, you're stretching the definition you posted, as your use in no way fits "one's capacity as a censor."
Can you use a little bit more hyperbole, please? It's really helping the conversation along.
In all seriousness, editing older works in any way is silly. Where you see the removal of the n word as a good thing because it will preserve people's feelings (which is not really a logical argument),
Oh boy this is a whole gigantic topic unto itself. I'll keep it short and say that I don't think anyone can make a "logical" ethical or ought-argument without invoking a hedonic principle at some level of their underpinning assumptions. Even ascetics are ultimately hedonic, because their asceticism is in search of a higher hedonic yield, in forms distinct from those of literal hedonists.
I do think however the Western Liberal stigmatizing of compassion and empathy as irrational or illogical is a useful tool that has benefited powerful people and groups over the less-powerful by attempting to definitionally invalidate any appeal to people actually suffering.
At it's most egregious it's presented to us by conservative economists along the lines of "sure it's sad that people die because they don't have healthcare, but price distortions and stuff. Can't you be more rational?" At it's more trivial, it's used in instances like this.
most of us see it as silly because A) Why are you trying to white wash the past? It's already happened. You can't change it and It can be a teachable moment. I've never seen or heard this word in my life, teacher. What does it mean? Well, it's a derogatory term for black people and you should NEVER use it and here's why, etc.
No one is trying to white-wash the past. We're trying to make a present with a safe and comfortable education system that doesn't alienate and hurt minority students -- at no discernable benefit to anyone.
Oh, look. Little Johnny learned some useful shit at school! I'm so proud.
Amazingly you can teach kids not to be cruel and bigoted without teaching Huck Finn.
Fine. Let's make everything "safe and comfortable". Let's edit everything ever so that no one is ever offended. Wouldn't want people talking about anything controversial in school, now would we? No, we need to coddle children so that they're used to not having any of their views challenged. That will certainly prepare them for the real world.
While we're at it, let's never talk about slavery, Jim Crow laws, the Civil Rights movement, the Trail of Tears or the way the United States put Asian-American people in internment camps in the 1940's. We might offend someone, right?
And I realize you can teach children without using Huck Finn. On the flip side, you also can use it. So I guess we're both right.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
Can you use a little bit more hyperbole, please? It's really helping the conversation along.
In all seriousness, editing older works in any way is silly. Where you see the removal of the n word as a good thing because it will preserve people's feelings (which is not really a logical argument),
Oh boy this is a whole gigantic topic unto itself. I'll keep it short and say that I don't think anyone can make a "logical" ethical or ought-argument without invoking a hedonic principle at some level of their underpinning assumptions. Even ascetics are ultimately hedonic, because their asceticism is in search of a higher hedonic yield, in forms distinct from those of literal hedonists.
I do think however the Western Liberal stigmatizing of compassion and empathy as irrational or illogical is a useful tool that has benefited powerful people and groups over the less-powerful by attempting to definitionally invalidate any appeal to people actually suffering.
At it's most egregious it's presented to us by conservative economists along the lines of "sure it's sad that people die because they don't have healthcare, but price distortions and stuff. Can't you be more rational?" At it's more trivial, it's used in instances like this.
most of us see it as silly because A) Why are you trying to white wash the past? It's already happened. You can't change it and It can be a teachable moment. I've never seen or heard this word in my life, teacher. What does it mean? Well, it's a derogatory term for black people and you should NEVER use it and here's why, etc.
No one is trying to white-wash the past. We're trying to make a present with a safe and comfortable education system that doesn't alienate and hurt minority students -- at no discernable benefit to anyone.
Oh, look. Little Johnny learned some useful shit at school! I'm so proud.
Amazingly you can teach kids not to be cruel and bigoted without teaching Huck Finn.
Fine. Let's make everything "safe and comfortable". Let's edit everything ever so that no one is ever offended. Wouldn't want people talking about anything controversial in school, now would we? No, we need to coddle children so that they're used to not having any of their views challenged. That will certainly prepare them for the real world.
While we're at it, let's never talk about slavery, Jim Crow laws, the Civil Rights movement, the Trail of Tears or the way the United States put Asian-American people in internment camps in the 1940's. We might offend someone, right?
And I realize you can teach children without using Huck Finn. On the flip side, you also can use it. So I guess we're both right.
Congratulations! You just demonstrated the slippery slope fallacy!
Can you use a little bit more hyperbole, please? It's really helping the conversation along.
In all seriousness, editing older works in any way is silly. Where you see the removal of the n word as a good thing because it will preserve people's feelings (which is not really a logical argument),
Oh boy this is a whole gigantic topic unto itself. I'll keep it short and say that I don't think anyone can make a "logical" ethical or ought-argument without invoking a hedonic principle at some level of their underpinning assumptions. Even ascetics are ultimately hedonic, because their asceticism is in search of a higher hedonic yield, in forms distinct from those of literal hedonists.
I do think however the Western Liberal stigmatizing of compassion and empathy as irrational or illogical is a useful tool that has benefited powerful people and groups over the less-powerful by attempting to definitionally invalidate any appeal to people actually suffering.
At it's most egregious it's presented to us by conservative economists along the lines of "sure it's sad that people die because they don't have healthcare, but price distortions and stuff. Can't you be more rational?" At it's more trivial, it's used in instances like this.
I don't think it's necessarily appropriate for all educational environments, but the "harmful truth" approach has its own merits in advancing empathy and compassion for those harmed. To use an example, Al Jazeera more strongly emphasizes frank, uncensored coverage of "bad stuff," whether that is the results of a bombing or whatever. That approach does have its merits in showing actual human cost over what is often shown in American media.
This is the same thing, as inappropriate language in historical literature shows important, useful information that is not easy to whitewash. Yes, people in historical America were largely racist assholes, even the nice ones. That's useful and relevant information today as we still struggle with racism in America.
I think the value of keeping literature as is and teaching the problematic views in it is more useful than white washing it so we can teach it without appropriate historical context to inappropriately young age groups.
I mean just look at yourselves, all of you, for Christ's sake!
You're a bunch of white men, mostly or all straight and able-bodied and young, many of whom are educated and well-off, and you're spending this whole thread patting each other on the back for how people in discriminated-against groups should shake it off and "not make everything about race/gender/ability/age/sexuality/etc" and just quiet down please...
But then when something happens that you don't like that has to do with race, something that is even quite benign and doesn't insult or demean you personally, you're all thrown into such an inflamed tizzy you'd think someone pissed on your shoes or wiped their dick on your mom's face.
For a bunch of people who seem to think everyone else should stop making such a fuss, you all throw a pretty big tantrum over some pretty insignificant shit.
That's because we're protecting people of all races and creeds. The idea that a book, especially a historical book, cannot have characters that use offensive language or do offensive things is very, very dangerous.
Anyone who wants to edit Huck Finn really ought to read 1984 first.
If we need to move Huck Finn to higher age groups, that is fine. If we need to write a preface to it, that's fine too. But rewriting history because we don't like it is extremely dangerous, as well demonstrated throughout history and throughout the world. As one example of hundreds, the idea that rape isn't a polite topic directly revictimized rape victims in the past, and public perceptions still makes both reporting and recovery more difficult than they should be.
Have you even read 1984? It looks like you just decided to repeat the "vocabulary evolution baaaaaaaad" meme without checking to see if it's actually in the book.
I'm not even refering to Newspeak, actually, but rather the Ministry of Truth, and their propensity to rewrite history (very literally) in line with accepted view at the time.
programjunkie on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
And it would be nice if people would stop pretending that the attitudes in Huck Finn are just part of the historic record, and realize that for a lot of people, they are very much a reality.
This would make the book more relevant, not less.
Studying Huck Funn academically is not the same thing as saying, "Mark Twain was a pure genius and a complete saint. Read his words and know truth!" Literary study is part aesthetics, part history, and part cultural criticism. Twain is one of the United States's most important and popular writers, and he used an offensive word an awful lot. This is a significant part of our literary heritage, and at a certain level of sophistication, students of American Lit. should be encouraged to evaluate what that means for Twain, for the country, and for themselves. IMO, 10th grade English in a college prep program is at the right level for students to handle the material in a mature fashion.
I mean just look at yourselves, all of you, for Christ's sake!
You're a bunch of white men, mostly or all straight and able-bodied and young, many of whom are educated and well-off, and you're spending this whole thread patting each other on the back for how people in discriminated-against groups should shake it off and "not make everything about race/gender/ability/age/sexuality/etc" and just quiet down please...
But then when something happens that you don't like that has to do with race, something that is even quite benign and doesn't insult or demean you personally, you're all thrown into such an inflamed tizzy you'd think someone pissed on your shoes or wiped their dick on your mom's face.
For a bunch of people who seem to think everyone else should stop making such a fuss, you all throw a pretty big tantrum over some pretty insignificant shit.
That's because we're protecting people of all races and creeds. The idea that a book, especially a historical book, cannot have characters that use offensive language or do offensive things is very, very dangerous.
Anyone who wants to edit Huck Finn really ought to read 1984 first.
If we need to move Huck Finn to higher age groups, that is fine. If we need to write a preface to it, that's fine too. But rewriting history because we don't like it is extremely dangerous, as well demonstrated throughout history and throughout the world. As one example of hundreds, the idea that rape isn't a polite topic directly revictimized rape victims in the past, and public perceptions still makes both reporting and recovery more difficult than they should be.
Have you even read 1984? It looks like you just decided to repeat the "vocabulary evolution baaaaaaaad" meme without checking to see if it's actually in the book.
I'm not even refering to Newspeak, actually, but rather the Ministry of Truth, and their propensity to rewrite history (very literally) in line with accepted view at the time.
Stretching the definition of censorship is no more valid than argumentum ad Hitlerum. So, can you find any harm from what is being done here, or are you just going to keep playing Six Degrees to Kevin Censorship?
The definition of censorship was posted. I did not stretch it.
I'm not going to argue why its bad, because I'm not going to convince you.
You could if you could show some actual harm, so I guess you're right. You aren't going to convince me.
Also, you're stretching the definition you posted, as your use in no way fits "one's capacity as a censor."
Are you being purposefully obtuse or did you just not read the definition that is bolded, italicized and underlined?
There is more than one definition of the word. No one is stretching anything.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
Posts
If you get offended when some random guy on the bus uses the n-word then thats fine, he's an asshole. If you get offended when Twain uses it in a story that takes place in the south then you need to reevaluate your priorities because you're getting too easily offended.
Its not a big jump from editing classic books to make people feel better to banning books to make people feel better.
Especially considering how few teachers could actually get the historical context across to their students in any kind of meaningful way. I know if I was reading a book about how sub-human Jews were, despite its historical accuracy, I would have been deeply hurt by that as a child. Hell, I was hurt by fucking Merchant of Venice when I was a kid. As an adult I have a pretty good understanding of its historical context, but as a kid all I knew was that the Jew was fucking evil and that was just par for the course as far as Jews went, at least according to Shakespeare.
I can understand wanting to preserve historical accuracy, but it's not like removing the n-word neuters the story or takes away the racial implications. It just helps expand the books audience.
That's because we're protecting people of all races and creeds. The idea that a book, especially a historical book, cannot have characters that use offensive language or do offensive things is very, very dangerous.
Anyone who wants to edit Huck Finn really ought to read 1984 first.
If we need to move Huck Finn to higher age groups, that is fine. If we need to write a preface to it, that's fine too. But rewriting history because we don't like it is extremely dangerous, as well demonstrated throughout history and throughout the world. As one example of hundreds, the idea that rape isn't a polite topic directly revictimized rape victims in the past, and public perceptions still makes both reporting and recovery more difficult than they should be.
You do understand that trying do defend the purity of literature, especially of the era concerned, is much like trying to defend the purity of the English language?
Two things that are unrelated.
Yes language changes. That has fuck all to do with censorship, which is what this is.
This is censorship and no different than the fundies who try to get Harry Potter banned from elementary schools.
Shit better not read about the Old West either unless you offend an Indian.
We don't need to be going back through our old literature and making sure we're always been at war with Eurasia.
Um, yeah, it is. Slippery slope fallacy is not persuasive.
And I'm sorry have you read it? He uses the word in the narration and in the description of the character. It's not just dialogue.
Furthermore, you can't just say "it's a disservice." What is that disservice, exactly? Can you explain it? Because, again, I've explained the other side perfectly reasonably.
I mean god it would go such a long way if people could even just acknowledge that yes, it is problem that we teach a book that causes a certain group of students a lot of pain and discomfort. Can't you even admit that?
You're literally just saying "their human feeling and pain does not matter, but my intellectual, abstract, and impersonal connection to some book that I probably didn't even finish when someone made me read it in high school is."
I don't understand how anyone can feel that way and not be aware of their own utter lack of sympathy or kindness wrapped up in that statement.
But it does make you feel viscerally, doesn't it? You get some emotional gut response that tells you it's wrong to change that book, even though the content and meaning is essentially unaltered, and you have little or no personal investment in the book itself, and the change is doing nothing to personally insult or demean you.
Can you please be self-aware enough to examine that? Because really I think what it comes down to is that people in privileged groups (I know this is a sticky word here on this forum, but I'm not using it to dismiss anyone, I'm describing what I see as a legitimate fact about the world, and of course it's worth mentioning that I too am privileged in essentially all possible dimensions) have a visceral response to being told what they can and cannot do by under-privileged groups.
I think it's evolutionary and I think it's a response that makes sense and is understandable but shouldn't be taken at face-value or accepted, necessarily.
Human beings are built to be highly invested in figuring out status and systems of order -- who should obey and who should be obeyed, who commands respect and who commands disdain, who deserves help and who deserves punishment, etc. It's one of our most basic tasks; it's so basic that almost anything that isn't sex can be reduced to it.
So, just as we all recoil when we're asked to do something by someone we dislike, or even worse commanded to do something by someone we feel doesn't deserve their authority, I think people in socially-privileged groups find it insulting or constraining to be "told" or "commanded" what to do by people in under-privileged groups, even if that "command" is really nothing more than a request not to be constantly insulted and belittled. Our brains, I think, are to an extent built to believe that it is our right to insult and belittle, and it is their duty to accept it without comment. If we feel so benevolent so as to bestow kindness upon them, and use their words, then they should feel thankful, but to have the temerity to be indignant if we choose not to is to overstep their bounds -- to forget their place.
I think this is the motivating feeling behind anti-PC sentiment: "you're not my dad! You can't tell me what to say!"
It's censorship when we make it illegal to print a version of Huck Finn with the N-word in it, or burn all the copies that contradict it.
We don't let middle-schoolers read "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" either, and Disney makes versions of fairy tales without all the authentic, original violence and disturbing imagery.
This is a private company choosing freely to modify a classic text to make it more accessible to a modern audience. Is Baz Lerhman's Romeo and Juliet censorship too? Should we rail against the teaching of West Side Story to high-school audiences?
But in the case of going back and memory holing classic literature I don't give a shit. If someone is that offended by it sorry. Same thing I'll say to any fundie who doesn't like His Dark Materials.
Censorship is never ok, even when its done to avoid hurting people's feelings. You don't have an argument, you have sentimental pinings based on someone's feelings.
Don't conflate reinterpretations and retellings with filtering out bad words in classic literature, its stupid.
I also think students should be able to go to school without having to confront racial slurs in any form. The goes for Huck Finn, this goes for Merchant of Venice, this goes for anything that could make a particular religious or ethnic group uncomfortable.
The obvious solution is to not teach Huck Finn in schools, or, to provide it as an option-let students choose from two or three books, one of which is Huck Finn. To make it mandatory is honestly pretty silly. Huck Finn's great, but that doesn't mean it absolutely has to be taught in schools, particularly since a lot of the dialects are tricky and I know at my school a lot of people just cliffs-notes'd it.
Freedom of speech does not mean the right to say whatever you want in any place at any time without consequence. This particularly applies to schools. If a kid or parent in a school started shouting racial slurs, they would be asked to leave. That's not censorship, it's creating a respectful school environment. That should also apply to coursework. I would expect (and I'm sure you would too) a school to fire a teacher who assigned Mein Kampf on the spot. You might learn a lot about Nazi Germany from reading it, but it's supremely offensive and there are plenty of other ways to learn about Nazis and WWII. Huck Finn is not in the same boat as Mein Kampf, not even close, but there are plenty of other good books about the antebellum south for school-age children that could be read intead of Huck Finn, so why not do just that?
Why? What does Huck Finn uniquely have to offer to the world that some other book couldn't fulfill? Again, I like the book and I'm not against teaching it, but you're acting like it would be the end of the world if we didn't so I think you need to do a little intellectual legwork here beyond "it's a classic."
We ignore plenty of classics written in other languages, in other parts of the world, by other cultures, by women, by oppressed groups -- why can't we decide that high-school kids would be better served by reading Things Fall Apart than Huck Finn? Is that a different argument from changing the language? If so, why?
Since your bar for "censorship" is so ludicrously low (if it's not taught in school, then we're censoring it!), then aren't we, by your definition, censoring the works of all these other authors? Or, hell, we don't even have to make it about a race/gender/privilege thing -- aren't we censoring the works of the Beats if we don't teach On The Road? Are we censoring the work of post-modernists if we don't teach Italo Calvino?
Where do you draw the line? Because so far your argument doesn't.
Censorship is when you bar people access to intellectual material. Making curriculum choices is not, and will never be the same thing as censorship. Modification and updating is not and never will be censorship -- unless it's governmentally mandated and universal.
And, again, I just want to point out your appalling lack of human empathy when you derisively admit that "the n-word might hurt someone's feelings" but you can't even bring yourself to admit it's a problem.
It's so sad and infuriating to see someone who can't see unjustified human pain as a problem, let alone in children having that pain foisted upon them by an institution that we already know does a poor job of serving their needs.
You can admit two things are both problematic but still make the argument for one over the other, on the basis of net benefit. That would be the decent and intellectually honest thing to do.
Which is why we should never ban Philip Pullman books from libraries or have the law mandate the editing of his works. And why, as long as he owns the rights to his own work, no one should be allowed to edit and distribute it without legal permission.
Hell, you could make an argument that the un-edited version should be available in school libraries, maybe. Certainly I don't think it's going to disappear from the face of the earth anytime soon, or even from your local Barnes and Noble.
Censorship is censorship when institutions and authorities command it. Your hysteria demeans and trivializes the meaning of censorship. Respect is not censorship. Kindness is not censorship. Empathy and an awareness of the impact on the goals of an academic institution that offending and hurting students has is not censorship. If respect is censorship, then ignorance is strength.
No, I have an argument -- you have a gut-reaction to being told what to do, or at best you have cold-hearted arrogance and a faith in your own traditions and assumptions that convinces you they need not be examined critically.
Oh that's rhetorical masterwork right there. Why is it stupid? Because I see it quite similarly. They're trying to do the same thing, in many instances -- make a classic work more accessible to contemporary audiences, preserving the emotional and intellectual content and impact while making the work more appealing to a new recipient.
If anything, filtering out a word or two is a far less egregious breach.
Again, you're still failing to meet any kind of burden of proof for "censorship" but you don't really care because this isn't about "censorship" in an intellectual, rational, or provable way; "censorship" is a stand-in word for "authority I don't respect," i.e. you feel like you shouldn't be told what to do, or anyone like you told what to do by an "authority" that you think doesn't matter. This is purely emotional on your part and it's a horribly unseemly emotion.
I agree with this post.
I don't think Huck Finn should be required reading in high school. Nor do I think that editing the work to remove instances of objectionable content (whatever the objection is) is a productive activity, so I oppose that effort.
But calling either thing 'censorship' is hyperbolic.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
What you are arguing against is the idea that art and free expression should not be restricted by temporal political concerns. I say this without personally feeling rage at the idea of removing the word from the text.
I am curious about whether you would similarly censor Faulkner, or whether you would censor Heart of Darkness. The problem is that racism is one of the defining qualities of American culture and history, and so it is engaged by literature and must be engaged in the study of literature. Mark Twain is often the first instance in which students are made to consider that, because of this very issue.
When I was in high school, my teacher actually consulted the black students in the class when considering teaching Conrad, and when they said it would make them uncomfortable, he did not do it. I think this is a valid approach in high school.
I think that is a valid approach as well.
And as I covered at length above, it's not censorship. People don't know what censorship even really means anymore, apparently, which is especially ironic because they go off spouting 1984 references without noticing the hilarious irony.
Can you use a little bit more hyperbole, please? It's really helping the conversation along.
In all seriousness, editing older works in any way is silly. Where you see the removal of the n word as a good thing because it will preserve people's feelings (which is not really a logical argument), most of us see it as silly because A) Why are you trying to white wash the past? It's already happened. You can't change it and
Oh, look. Little Johnny learned some useful shit at school! I'm so proud.
EDIT: Also, to be clear: I fully respect that the publisher can edit and change what they want. They're the one putting the book out. I have no problem with them doing it. I just find it silly.
On top of that, they're replacing it with the word slave. Who's to say people won't be offended by that word, too? How should we edit the next edition of the book so that they don't get upset? Where does it stop?
...and we're right back to the original thread topic.
Have you even read 1984? It looks like you just decided to repeat the "vocabulary evolution baaaaaaaad" meme without checking to see if it's actually in the book.
GOOD THING NOBODY'S PROPOSING THAT, BECAUSE CENSORING MEANS ELIMINATING ALL COPIES OF A TEXT, LIKE BURNING THEM OR SOME SHIT, AS OPPOSED TO MAKING AN ALTERED VERSION OF THE TEXT
CAN YOU FUCKERS PLEASE GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEADS SO I CAN STOP TYPING IN ALL CAPS THNX
Oh boy this is a whole gigantic topic unto itself. I'll keep it short and say that I don't think anyone can make a "logical" ethical or ought-argument without invoking a hedonic principle at some level of their underpinning assumptions. Even ascetics are ultimately hedonic, because their asceticism is in search of a higher hedonic yield, in forms distinct from those of literal hedonists.
I do think however the Western Liberal stigmatizing of compassion and empathy as irrational or illogical is a useful tool that has benefited powerful people and groups over the less-powerful by attempting to definitionally invalidate any appeal to people actually suffering.
At it's most egregious it's presented to us by conservative economists along the lines of "sure it's sad that people die because they don't have healthcare, but price distortions and stuff. Can't you be more rational?" At it's more trivial, it's used in instances like this.
No one is trying to white-wash the past. We're trying to make a present with a safe and comfortable education system that doesn't alienate and hurt minority students -- at no discernable benefit to anyone.
Amazingly you can teach kids not to be cruel and bigoted without teaching Huck Finn.
cen·sor
–verb (used with object)
6. to examine and act upon as a censor.
7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.
Would someone like to claim that this isn't what is being done? Becuase that's exactly what's being done.
You can stop typing in all caps now.
Only if people stop calling this vocabulary evolution when it isn't. Its changing classical literature so you find it less offensive.
The colloquial use of the term is valid. The sanitization of a text by partial removal of words, images, etc. is considered a form of censorship.
Which was not what was done in 1984, therefor proving my assertion.
You can still go to the bookstore and pick up a copy of Huck Finn in its perfect, unblemished form.
Hell a kid reading the book can still go and pick one up in its perfect, unblemished form for $4.99, he just won't be given it by the school. From a practical standpoint, it's moot, besides people getting their undies in a bunch at the prospect of providing an altered text in any way shape or form. This sort of shit happens all the time with translations, or readings, or performances. Why does it only matter when it's the n-word that's being removed? Where's your rage over other examples of text being altered?
Ok I'll stop mentioning 1984 and you guys can stop denying advocating censorship, we can carry on now.
You're operating under an incorrect definition of censor, the correct one is in the quote tree.
Stretching the definition of censorship is no more valid than argumentum ad Hitlerum. So, can you find any harm from what is being done here, or are you just going to keep playing Six Degrees to Kevin Censorship?
Isn't that a grandfather clause, and therefor bad?
The definition of censorship was posted. I did not stretch it.
I'm not going to argue why its bad, because I'm not going to convince you.
I didn't argue that. I'm saying it doesn't matter. Remind me why this example of censorship is bad? And don't give be some sort of blanket "censorship is EVIL" reason. I can give a perfectly reasonable explanation of why the school would not want to provide the original text, and since students can get another copy of the original text it's not as though their experience of reading Mark Twain is forever ruined. The school is providing an option.
I would also appreciate it if you could tell me that claiming an altered version of the text should not exist is not a form of censorship in itself. If believing that people have the right to alter texts and print them is a form of censorship, then hell yes I'm pro censorship because I think people should have the right to print whatever they goddamn want.
You could if you could show some actual harm, so I guess you're right. You aren't going to convince me.
Also, you're stretching the definition you posted, as your use in no way fits "one's capacity as a censor."
Fine. Let's make everything "safe and comfortable". Let's edit everything ever so that no one is ever offended. Wouldn't want people talking about anything controversial in school, now would we? No, we need to coddle children so that they're used to not having any of their views challenged. That will certainly prepare them for the real world.
While we're at it, let's never talk about slavery, Jim Crow laws, the Civil Rights movement, the Trail of Tears or the way the United States put Asian-American people in internment camps in the 1940's. We might offend someone, right?
And I realize you can teach children without using Huck Finn. On the flip side, you also can use it. So I guess we're both right.
Congratulations! You just demonstrated the slippery slope fallacy!
I don't think it's necessarily appropriate for all educational environments, but the "harmful truth" approach has its own merits in advancing empathy and compassion for those harmed. To use an example, Al Jazeera more strongly emphasizes frank, uncensored coverage of "bad stuff," whether that is the results of a bombing or whatever. That approach does have its merits in showing actual human cost over what is often shown in American media.
This is the same thing, as inappropriate language in historical literature shows important, useful information that is not easy to whitewash. Yes, people in historical America were largely racist assholes, even the nice ones. That's useful and relevant information today as we still struggle with racism in America.
I think the value of keeping literature as is and teaching the problematic views in it is more useful than white washing it so we can teach it without appropriate historical context to inappropriately young age groups.
I'm not even refering to Newspeak, actually, but rather the Ministry of Truth, and their propensity to rewrite history (very literally) in line with accepted view at the time.
This would make the book more relevant, not less.
Studying Huck Funn academically is not the same thing as saying, "Mark Twain was a pure genius and a complete saint. Read his words and know truth!" Literary study is part aesthetics, part history, and part cultural criticism. Twain is one of the United States's most important and popular writers, and he used an offensive word an awful lot. This is a significant part of our literary heritage, and at a certain level of sophistication, students of American Lit. should be encouraged to evaluate what that means for Twain, for the country, and for themselves. IMO, 10th grade English in a college prep program is at the right level for students to handle the material in a mature fashion.
Which still isn't what's being done.
Are you being purposefully obtuse or did you just not read the definition that is bolded, italicized and underlined?
There is more than one definition of the word. No one is stretching anything.