Export thread

http://shelf-life.ew.com/2011/01/03/huckleberry-finn-n-word-censor-edit/?hpt=T2

That's right, folks. New editions of the classic book "Huckleberry Finn" is dropping the name "Nigger Jim" and just calling him "Jim". Not only that, but Injun Joe is no longer going to have the word "Injun".

Now, I think it's common knowledge that I don't care much for that word in general, but I'm not sure I agree with the revisionism of historical and classic novels.

Thoughts?

Hey, modernization worked so well for The Bible, right?

On a similar note, I'd love to see a sanitized version of The Sound of Music with all the Nazi references taken out. I'm sure it would be awesome.

--Patrick

This is a fucking travesty. No sane person likes those terms, but they are a big part of the novel. It takes away from the immersion and history behind those classics.

EDIT: Though, on second thought, it's not like you can't buy copies with the original text. I'm just bothered anyone out there feels they need this to make it more PC. It misses the whole point when you do that.

ET walkie talkies anyone?

What Tress said, put me down for as well.

Meh.

I'm just pleased we can say nigger now. I have no real reason to use the word, but purely as a word, I think it needs to stretch its legs, maybe find a new meaning in life. Maybe we can redefine it to mean those assholes who leave church pamphlets at my doorstep telling me to repent.

I heard this one comic say she wants to make it a brand of chips. That way the only time anyone gets mad about the word is when you run out.


Cause it ain't a party without some N-words.

Nachos?

spoiler'd due to white guilt

I would be perfectly fine with it as long as they explained the changes, their reasoning for them, and provided information on how to obtain the original in the front matter just prior to the start of the text.

Language changes over time, and there's room for both people who want to study the original texts, and those that want texts that have been brought closer to modern language for ease of understanding.

While one might be able to help students dissociate the word gay from modern usage in one passage in one book, I honestly don't think many students today could truly read huck finn without our modern usage, no matter how much time is spent explaining proper historical context.

phil said:

I heard this one comic say she wants to make it a brand of chips. That way the only time anyone gets mad about the word is when you run out.


Cause it ain't a party without some N-words.

Click to expand...

I love her!

This makes me think of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ

phil said:

spoiler'd due to white guilt

Spoiler

nigchos?

Click to expand...

i lol'd so hard

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

While one might be able to help students dissociate the word gay from modern usage in one passage in one book, I honestly don't think many students today could truly read huck finn without our modern usage, no matter how much time is spent explaining proper historical context.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I am very much against censoring unpleasantness, especially within artwork. Are there offensive words in Huck Finn? Are there offensive, racist characters in Huck Finn? Yes to both. But it is a product of its time, where racist people both real and fictional existed, and trying to pretend they didn't does more harm than good.

Also, please note, this is different from a prominent racist display. If a city had a racist motto, for example, I would not be in favor of keeping it for the sake of historical purity. The difference would be something on prominent display, versus a work of art that one has to choose to read.

Kati made a good point, in that Tom Sawyer is brought in at the end of the book, and the dialogue between them is such that you can tell how much Huck has grown/matured over the course of the novel since his use of the term has declined by its conclusion.

Now that'll be gone, and I'm sure that was one of Twain's important plot points (if subtle).

--Patrick
(Disclaimer: I'm one of those people who gets stoked into a seething white-hot rage about the fact that Disney will probably never allow an uncensored version of Song of the South to see the light of day, no matter how much demand there might be)

Hmm... a dick move, if you don't mind me saying so.

North_Ranger said:

Hmm... a penis move, if you don't mind me saying so.

Click to expand...

Revised for political correctness. Somehow, I think it failed, which is fitting given the context.

Ravenpoe said:

I disagree. it is a product of its time, where racist people both real and fictional existed, and trying to pretend they didn't does more harm than good..

Click to expand...

But the word has a different meaning and connotation today than it did then. Strongly so, and significantly different.

My expectation is that if a person reads the book as-is, they get a different message out of it due to our current language use than intended, or if you like, than readers of that time would and did.

Art is open for interpretation, sure.

But the language change has been quite drastic in this particular case, and it really changes the book and characters.

I'm not saying all new copies should have this change - I'm saying that it's ok to print one edition with the changes, specify the changes in the front matter so readers are aware of it (though chances are good they ordered it this way on purpose) and let the people choose.

Are you insisting that people should not be allowed to print it with changes, and thus readers should not be permitted to read altered versions, even though they do so at their own choice?

Would you rather a child not read the book at all than read the altered book, if that's the only choice their parents or their school gave them?

Do you therefore disagree with changing a movie so it can be shown on TV during prime time, because the director's artistic vision is compromised?

What about re-writings, such as Pride and Prejudice and Zombies? Is this artist sullying the sacred art of Jane Austin?

I'm not trying to argue that this is a good move, or the right move, I'm arguing that it's a valid choice for some people who may be unable to read the book without coloring it with their own definition of the given words.

Nigger: Biannoshufu's taking it back.

When we get to a point where current social mores can define what should and shouldn't be in a book we are in trouble. There is a potentially slippery slope here, but using this exact same reasoning its easy to argue that the word should be removed from To Kill A Mockingbird as well. We should probably remove some of the words from Boys in the Hood while we're at it, heck why not even sanitize American History X. Why not remove some of the more lascivious and mysogonystic text from Cantebury Tales, or clean up some of Elliot's more anti-semetic poems. Clearly the anti-muslim sentiments present in the Chronicles of Narnia have no place in modern society as well, what with the current political climate. The entire book "Invisible Man" should probably be taken off the shelves. No good can come from being exposed to such hatred. Same goes for the film "Birth of a Nation". Who cares if Spike Lee even considers it an incredibly important piece of film history.

An artists work should never be changed by its inheritors. We have absolutely zero right to pass judgement on the writings of an author. The writer himself doesn't even really have that right, as when it is published it becomes a piece of the american cultural tapestry, and must be preserved. History should never be re-written in a way to overcome our own uncomfortableness with the issues of that period of time.

It does a disservice to our historical understanding of the time. When you teach a class talking about the horrors of the racism present in slave days, then read this book and see that the boy was using 'PC' terms, that will do no service to making people understand how pervasive the problems were, or how far we have come. We need to meet the 'heathen chinee' and all the other problems of our past that we have worked to remove from our culture. But we can't forget them. To forget them would be a disservice to those that helped remove them, and to those it hurt.

Edit: Let me also add that I am entirely uncomfortable with the use of that word in this thread (outside of its direct contextual quotation ala Dave's post.) There is no reason to use it now. It is NOT something you can 'take back', and to be honest its increasing use in the white american 20 somethings and below population sincerely bothers me. The amount I hear it on gaming vent/TS channels is severely disturbing.

Necronic said:

Edit: Let me also add that I am entirely uncomfortable with the use of that word in this thread (outside of its direct contextual quotation ala Dave's post.) There is no reason to use it now. It is NOT something you can 'take back', and to be honest its increasing use in the white american 20 somethings and below population sincerely bothers me. The amount I hear it on gaming vent/TS channels is severely disturbing.

Click to expand...

Here's the problem Nec, for many, MANY under 30 somethings the word is merely something used in the music and culture they enjoy. This goes for people of all colors. It's part of their entertainment. It's in every rap, r&b and hiphop song they are sold. It's probably a great example of language changing over time. That doesn't make it "right" and it doesn't make it "okay" but the chances are, what it means to the a 14 year old asian/black/white kid who is gaming is probably totally different than what it means when you hear them using it. Thats the trouble with language, it's terribly malleable and there are those who can't accept the change of the meaning of a word away from what they are familiar with (and I'm not saying they should accept it, but accept it or not it doesn't stop it from changing).

Ok, I changed my mind. We should change every book written with words we might find distasteful because someone might misunderstand it. Writers should only use plain language and aim to upset the least amount of people.

Viva writing revolution!

I'm really tired of being upset by writers to be honest. The things they write are just so upsetting.

So what if word meanings change over time? Have we stopped making annotated books? If we don't at least try to get familiar with the history surrounding a book's setting, we might a well be looking at a half-finished Sesame Street coloring book anyway, for all we could gain from it. I'm not saying we need to know the old definition/connotation of every word we come across in order to benefit from a book, but isn't that part of why we read? To learn and get in touch with another place or time?

Just to be clear, I am not advocating for taking this word out of Huck Finn or changing ANYTHING. I was really just replying to Nec's edit on his post at the bottom there about people being upset by the words modern usage. I am never for censoring the arts. Unless they suck.

Understood. My post wasn't directed at anyone in particular. Should've mentioned.

Awww, c'mon. I wanna be absurd.

Don't make me censor you.

"Nigger Jim" is not in the book. He was always called Jim. The idiots/racists called him Nigger. "Nigger Jim" came from a popular review of the work.

While I am against the move, but I can see that now days people are a little too sensitive to having that word used so often in a classroom.

Espy said:

Don't make me censor you.

Click to expand...

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!

Jiarn said:

Nigger: Biannoshufu's taking it back.

Click to expand...

in quite a niggardly fashion, I might add

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

But the word has a different meaning and connotation today than it did then. Strongly so, and significantly different.

My expectation is that if a person reads the book as-is, they get a different message out of it due to our current language use than intended, or if you like, than readers of that time would and did.

Click to expand...

You mean they won't see it as crude, vulgar, and offensive?

Covar said:

You mean they won't see it as crude, vulgar, and offensive?

Click to expand...

Many in the younger generations won't see it that way.

Espy said:

Many in the younger generations won't see it that way.

Click to expand...

They will if they are one of a few blacks in a class...

Espy said:

Here's the problem Nec, for many, MANY under 30 somethings the word is merely something used in the music and culture they enjoy. This goes for people of all colors. It's part of their entertainment. It's in every rap, r&b and hiphop song they are sold. It's probably a great example of language changing over time. That doesn't make it "right" and it doesn't make it "okay" but the chances are, what it means to the a 14 year old asian/black/white kid who is gaming is probably totally different than what it means when you hear them using it. Thats the trouble with language, it's terribly malleable and there are those who can't accept the change of the meaning of a word away from what they are familiar with (and I'm not saying they should accept it, but accept it or not it doesn't stop it from changing).

Click to expand...

Ah, ye old "the word doesn't mean the same thing anymore" defense. I find it interesting that all the people that would argue this would also never in a thousand years walk into a room filled with black people and use the word there. People intrinsically know the meaning of that word, and at such a deep level, that all the superficial dressing you can put on that word will never change its meaning. The meaning of the word hasn't changed in the slightest. The old usage is still just as nasty and recognizable as it always has been.

You could argue that there are 3 distinct uses of the word in contemporary culture-
White -> black : Traditional slur
black -> black : either a pronoun with positive or negative contextual meaning, or a slur
White -> white : same pronoun, more often with a negative connotation (see current use of word "faggot" or "gay")

The second usage, the one that is derived from hip hop and R&B is used as justification for the 3rd usage, which is ridiculous. Do white people walk around calling each other soul brother/sister? Do we call each other 'vato'? No. We can argue that it is from music, but frankly I think it's the alure of the taboo combined with a total lack of understanding of the cultural impact of the first usage, beyond a general fear of using it in the first use listed.

And fear itself represents the wrong attitude. It's not a word to be feared. It's a word to be respected. Fear makes us PC to the point of being stupid. Fear of the word ends up giving us ridiculous instances where politicians careers are destroyed for using an entirely unrelated term that simply sounds similar.

When you show the word the proper respect, however, you can easily see that the third usage has no place in the white colloquial vocabulary. There are too many other words that could be used that have the same meaning, and it is patently obvious that people that use it like that are not a hair's breadth above a 5 year old who shouts penis as loud as he can. In fact, people that use it in that sense are far lower as the child at least has the excuse of being a child, something a 14 year old will be quick to say he is not (and honestly, don't act like it's just 14 year olds using it. I have heard plenty of adults use it as well.)

Not that they won't learn the hard way. Either through loosing a job or having their teeth kicked in they will learn that you do not bandy that word about. In either case, its a lesson they could have learned earlier and easier if there wasn't this apologetic nonsense for the usage of the word.

Ah, the old "No, I'm right!" defense. I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

Personally, I'm far more offended by efforts to cleanse the past* than I am by whatever the past actually contained. I am far more interested in What Actually Happened than I ever am in making it palatable. The whole idea of denying our society's past never sits well with me (doomed to repeat it, etc.).

--Patrick
*Just like when I get upset at people because they ask me a dozen times whether or not they are upsetting me.

Necronic said:

People intrinsically know the meaning of that word, and at such a deep level, that all the superficial dressing you can put on that word will never change its meaning.

Click to expand...

This is my point. Literature cannot be read by our society without associating it with the pejorative meaning.

Necronic said:

The meaning of the word hasn't changed in the slightest.

Click to expand...

I hate to call you out on such an obvious mistake, but please reference 16th century material that uses the word in the pejorative.

It wasn't until the 1800's that it started being used in the pejorative (in the US, much later in Europe), and there was still a lot of literature being written at that time in which it was not being used with the racist connotation. (Source)

Moreover, Charles Dickens and Mark Twain created characters who uttered the word as contemporary usage

Click to expand...

Meaning which that the word, at the time, was no different than saying black.

Right now, the word has a very different meaning than black.

So, the only questions we should care about are:

- Has the word changed (arguably it has)
- Was Twain's usage pejorative, and if so was it insulting to the degree it is today (arguably it was not in both cases)
- Can we reasonably expect students to be able to read the work, casting aside their current connotation and replacing it with the intended connotation?
- Is it reasonable to "translate" the work so that it maintains the intended connotation, or should we allow the work to change over time simply because our language usage has changed?

To be clear, I'm not interested in a modified work - if my kids read it, I expect they'll read it in the original form. But I'm not going to pretend that there isn't value in the effort, nor am I going to believe in the absurdity of "the sacred text." We translate works from other languages, and even from the same language from other times for a variety of reasons. Why shouldn't this book get the same treatment?

Necronic said:

When you show the word the proper respect, however, you can easily see that the third usage has no place in the white colloquial vocabulary.)

Click to expand...

That's cute.

Twain did not use the word lightly.

Moreover, Charles Dickens and Mark Twain created characters who uttered the word as contemporary usage. Twain, in the autobiographic book Life on the Mississippi (1883), used the term within quotes, indicating reported usage, but used the term "negro" when speaking in his own narrative persona.[8]

Click to expand...

Also remember that the Civil Rights group is the NAACP not NAAN. Nigger was at best ignorant usage of negro, at worst a slur. That went back even to the Civil War days.

The year before my first teaching assignment: a teacher was fired from that school because he could not say "negroes." He had such terrible pronunciation that it kept coming out "neggras." He was counseled to either say it properly or start saying Africans, African-Americans, or Blacks. He never changed and his students remained offended, until he was asked to resign.

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

This is my point. Literature cannot be read by our society without associating it with the pejorative meaning.

Click to expand...

You're right, the pejorative meaning will be associated. But it will be associated within the historical cultural context where it is contained. Which is very important.

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

I hate to call you out on such an obvious mistake, but please reference 16th century material that uses the word in the pejorative.

Click to expand...

Fair point (and always call me on an obvious mistake), my only counter would be that the pejorative usage was definitely the dominant understanding until the late 80's/early 90's, and it's naive to think that the term has changed so much in the last 20 years that white people can toss it out without regard to the pejorative context.

In a way it's like the intelligent design arguers saying that evolution isn't real because it doesn't happen in 100 years.

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

To be clear, I'm not interested in a modified work - if my kids read it, I expect they'll read it in the original form. But I'm not going to pretend that there isn't value in the effort, nor am I going to believe in the absurdity of "the sacred text." We translate works from other languages, and even from the same language from other times for a variety of reasons. Why shouldn't this book get the same treatment?

Click to expand...

Because we are not translating it. We are sanitizing it. There is a huge difference. Translators generally try very hard to let their own bias come in to the works they are translating. They want to take something and preserve it as much as possible when translating it. This is the exact opposite.

Adammom said:

That's cute.

Click to expand...

Think about when you were a kid and you were introduced to guns or fireworks for the first time. If you had a good instructor they told you that you shouldn't fear these things, but you must always respect them. That's how you handle dangerous things. You don't hide it. You don't pretend they don't exist. You are always very aware of every part of them because they are so powerful, so dangerous.

Another good one was fry oil. If you've ever fried up something in a big pot of fry oil you know that the safest way to do it (aside from using a fry basket) is to drop it from the smallest height possible. If you are afraid of the oil and drop it from 6 inches the oil will undoubtedly splash and could burn you, but if you drop something into the oil from a centimeter or less you won't get burned.

The reason I say that you have to respect that word is that it has a lot of important history in it, and it is important to understand that history and understand the word's affect on history. It's impossible, as a white person, to truly understand the power behind it, but understanding that there is a power behind it is important. Being afraid of it will only make things worse in the long run giving us overly PC nonsense.

I'll admit it's a bit of an odball metaphorical way to think about it, but it just makes sense to me that way.

Espy said:

Ah, the old "No, I'm right!" defense. I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Maybe. Assuming you have a black friend please use that word with him in the friendly banter version that seems to be the new definition. If it works out for you then yeah, I'll agree to disagree, hell, I might even agree with you. Just because blacks can say it in a friendly way to other black people doesn't mean white people can say it to black people. So instead they just say it to other white people. They know what the primary usage of the word is.

I just don't get why people are so desperate for cultural identity that they grab ahold of something that has a very significant and very complex meaning to another group and say "Oh HAI that's kool and I'm going to use it now!".

South Park had one of the best episodes on the use of that word that I have ever seen, and the conclusion that Stan comes to in the end is something that is very hard for anyone to accept in general, but it is the right conclusion. (Cliff's notes version of the episode. Stan's dad drops an n-bomb on national televion, Stan falls out with Token over it, tries to understand why Token is so mad and keeps trying to empathize with him. Token continuously rebuffs him until Stan says "I don't get it and never will" which in the end is what Token wanted to hear.)

Necronic said:

They know what the primary usage of the word is.

Click to expand...

This is, as far as I can tell the only part of your response to me that is even remotely close to talking about what I was talking about. In no way did I address whether or not white people could say it to black people. My post was focused solely on the fact that language is malleable and words meanings can and do change over time (not to mention have multiple meanings). It had nothing to do with whether or not black people would find it offensive if you went and said it to them.

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

This is my point. Literature cannot be read by our society without associating it with the pejorative meaning.



I hate to call you out on such an obvious mistake, but please reference 16th century material that uses the word in the pejorative.

It wasn't until the 1800's that it started being used in the pejorative (in the US, much later in Europe), and there was still a lot of literature being written at that time in which it was not being used with the racist connotation. (Source)

Meaning which that the word, at the time, was no different than saying black.

Right now, the word has a very different meaning than black.

Click to expand...

Yeah, i think you might be confusing social acceptability of the word with it's meaning. The word means the same thing now as then, we just see it as more offensive because it's associated with how black people where treated at the time Huck Finn was written, and that behaviour is no longer acceptable. Kinda like the lazy mexicans from Speedy Gonzales... it's not like being called lazy wasn't offensive whoever it was addressed to.

Also note how the link you provided also references a french word that was a pejorative.

Plus, it kinda takes away from Huck's growth if you lessen the implication that he starts out looking at Jim as inferior... and as i recall (man, i think it's been more then half my life since i read it) that's a pretty important part of the book.

Anyone know a black guy, who's take we can get on this?


Roger Ebert's take is interesting.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/01/04/new.huck.finn.ew/index.html

Well i guess replacing it with "slave" does help a bit... although "Slave Jim" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

But it most certainly should make it clear that it's a modified version... i hated it when i realised i read censored stuff and my knowledge of it was wrong...

I think they should change Jim's name to DJ Jazzy Jim. Preeeettty sure that'll keep the same context that the censors are going for.


My two cents: it doesn't matter how the word is used today; especially when it comes to studying American literature. When you read the book in English class, it's the teacher's responsibility to make sure the students understand the concept and meaning of the word as it is written. That's the whole point of literary critique and critical thinking. What the hell is the point of even introducing the book in a classroom if it's not the original work? To tell a nice story? There is more to literary analysis than reading the damn thing and discussing the plot. How it's written and the language used is just as important if not more so. If this is not true, why bother with the actual text? Would someone be against a classroom using Cliff's Notes and Wikipedia plot summaries instead of the actual novel? I think everyone would have a shitfit over do that, but that is EXACTLY what replacing the language does.

That's why I'm against altering the text. If anything this is further proof that society is getting more and more pathetic by holding our children's hands through everything instead of letting them figure things out for themselves. Little Johnny can figure out the context and meaning of words in literature. His education should provide him the tools to do that; not point and tell him what it is. That's not critical thinking, that's memorization and that's why so many kids these days are so fucking stupid.

Espy said:

This is, as far as I can tell the only part of your response to me that is even remotely close to talking about what I was talking about. In no way did I address whether or not white people could say it to black people. My post was focused solely on the fact that language is malleable and words meanings can and do change over time (not to mention have multiple meanings). It had nothing to do with whether or not black people would find it offensive if you went and said it to them.

Click to expand...

Ah ok. Sometimes I get so self-righteous and full of myself that I don't even realize what I am arguing against. I clearly have the talents for politics.

To the point you really made, I agree that words can change their meaning, but I don't think that word really has yet.

Oh yeah, I agree it hasn't changed yet, just like I don't think South PArk was right when they said that "F*g" had changed its meaning either. Whats happening is that the word now was very strong and differing connotations to folks and can be used in a variety of ways (not that I'm saying it should but you get my drift). Personally I would doubt if either of those words ever fully changes their meanings but weirder things have happened...

I had a good conversation with my gf last night about it, as it is suck a completely unique word. The connotations of the word are affected by the user in a way that I don't think is true of any other word, plus there is also the whole 'taking it back' concept, which I don't think applies to any other word (although the gay community may have taken back some of their words).

k\hh

--Patrick

Here's something to ponder. There's been a lot of speculation about what the word would have meant when used by people in the time period, but what did the word mean to Mark Twain? Did he write it with the social implementations and slurs in mind?

Considering how careful and precise he was on word choice, I'm fairly certain he did.

Ravenpoe said:

Here's something to ponder. There's been a lot of speculation about what the word would have meant when used by people in the time period, but what did the word mean to Mark Twain? Did he write it with the social implementations and slurs in mind?

Considering how careful and precise he was on word choice, I'm fairly certain he did.

Click to expand...

He did use that word specifically with social implementations and slurs in mind. Mark Twain was a friggin genius. The use of the word is very specific. That's my point. It's a point of literary analysis that is critical for a classroom to interpret. Changing it waters it down. The excuse for the change is just that! The "won't someone think of the children" fucktards believe our teenagers need their hands held through everything. THIS is why they're all growing up to be mindless consumer morons.