Huckleberry Finn to be Censored — Page 2

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3378694

In other cultural mispractice:

http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/pre1976

Go check out the list -->

http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/pre1976

TheBoost said:

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

But in all honesty, is it better to get a classroom of teenagers to confront these issues in a book that is 'censored,' or to deny them the work totally?

what is better is to protest the schools that would deny the students the original work or would teach an altered version and try to get their heads out of the sand(and for teachers to refuse to cooperate with such schools), instead of caving to their demands.  

The demands are from people, usually parents, usually middle-class, usually white. (I'd be interested in any black leaders who want to censor to the language in "Huck Finn"). Schools don't make demands. Schools follow policy. 

fine then protest whatever/whomever does make the policy.

TheBoost said:

Principals and teachers are civil servants, not policy makers.

Here I thought teachers, real teachers, would want to stand up for whats right.

TheBoost said:

Something like "Huck Finn" being on a banned book list is usually up to the elected school board. I think it would be very sad for a teacher to lose their job because they think "Huck Finn" is without worth without the N-word. 

I didn't say it was without worth.  I agree, it would be sad.   But it would also be sad for teachers to compromise their principals.    

TheBoost said:

I'd love to see a School Board nominee run on the platform "I'll put more racial slurs into your child's education!"

it wouldn't be that, it would be: "I'll make sure you children read classic literature as it was written"

TheBoost said:

If you want to eliminate banned book lists, get in line. While you're trying to change the fundamentally irrational, reactionairy, and painfully conservative underpinings of American public education, generations of students will be denied a chance to be taught "Huck Finn."

and if we don't how many generations of students will be denied the chance to be taught the REAL Huck Finn?    Huck Finn has been banned many times and the bans have been fought against and overturned many times.   

TheBoost said:

Warbler said:

  In order to be polite in this post, I said n-word instead of the full word, but didn't have to abbreviate the word cracker.    

 Does the word 'cracker' carry with it the history of centuries of violence, oppression, slavery, and murder?

Is it a double standard, or are the words just not equal in meaning?

They not be equal in meaning, but they are both still racial slurs.   Should some racial slurs be acceptable and other not?   Which are and which aren't?  How do we decide?

none said:

In other cultural mispractice:

http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/pre1976

What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2011? Under the law that existed until 1978 . . . Works from 1954

 

Go check out the list -->

 

http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/pre1976

not really sure how that's a cultural mispractice(its just the way the copyright laws work), or what it has to do with altering classic literature.   

I haven't read this entire thread word for word but this news is ridiculous.  Anyone who wishes to censor Huck Finn clearly hasn't the slightest grasp of what the book is about.  The whole POINT was to show how horrid and fallible racism is... 

TheBoost said:

 Does the word 'cracker' carry with it the history of centuries of violence, oppression, slavery, and murder?

Is it a double standard, or are the words just not equal in meaning?

They not be equal in meaning, but they are both still racial slurs.   Should some racial slurs be acceptable and other not?   Which are and which aren't?  How do we decide?

Neither are generally "acceptable" in polite discourse, but to say one isn't clearly worse than the other is silly. Does someone really need to "decide?"

 *ss and c*nt are both rude terms for body parts, but I'll use only one of them in front of my mother.

canofhumdingers said:

I haven't read this entire thread word for word but this news is ridiculous.  Anyone who wishes to censor Huck Finn clearly hasn't the slightest grasp of what the book is about.  The whole POINT was to show how horrid and fallible racism is... 

Try reading anything at all about it, and you'll see that what you're saying is far from the editor and the publisher's mind. The introduction to the book is available online, as are numerous quotes from the editor.

Reading before opinions is an awesome way to do things.

TheBoost said:

*ss and c*nt are both rude terms for body parts, but I'll use only one of them in front of my mother.

You cant say cant?

TheBoost said:

TheBoost said:

 Does the word 'cracker' carry with it the history of centuries of violence, oppression, slavery, and murder?

Is it a double standard, or are the words just not equal in meaning?

They not be equal in meaning, but they are both still racial slurs.   Should some racial slurs be acceptable and other not?   Which are and which aren't?  How do we decide?

Neither are generally "acceptable" in polite discourse, but to say one isn't clearly worse than the other is silly. Does someone really need to "decide?"

apparently you are doing so with the n-word and cracker.   Also I didn't say one wasn't worse than the other, I said there was double standard.

TheBoost said:

 *ss and c*nt are both rude terms for body parts, but I'll use only one of them in front of my mother.

I would use neither of those terms in front of my mother.

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

 *ss and c*nt are both rude terms for body parts, but I'll use only one of them in front of my mother.

I would use neither of those terms in front of my mother.

Should I make the obvious mom joke?

Probably not.

TV's Frink said:

Probably not.

correct.

http://blog.al.com/scenesource/2011/01/auburn-montgomery_professor_al.html

Rare article that actually does the bizzare action of talking to the editor and publisher about what they did!

http://www.newsouthbooks.com/twain/introduction-alan-gribben-mark-twain-tom-sawyer-huckleberry-finn-newsouth-books.html

Actual Intro from the book.

As this was done to help get the book into schools it wouldn't otherwise get into, and not to replace the original, I have no problem with it.

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

Neither are generally "acceptable" in polite discourse, but to say one isn't clearly worse than the other is silly. Does someone really need to "decide?"

apparently you are doing so with the n-word and cracker.   Also I didn't say one wasn't worse than the other, I said there was double standard.

 A 'double standard' implies two things that are the same are treated differently.

That the N-word and Cracker are both rude terms for race is true, but to imply they are in any way the same is just monumentally ignorant.

The N-word and 'colored person' are both generally unacceptable terms in mannered conversation. They both refer to black people but the fact one is so clearly worse than the other is not a double standard. It's an overwhelming fact.

TV's Frink said:

As this was done to help get the book into schools it wouldn't otherwise get into, and not to replace the original, I have no problem with it.

 I have a deep problem with the school in the first place. I wish this book didn't serve a purpose. I don't like it one bit, but I too can see the purpose.

Reading up on whats on the webs about this over lunch, I am appalled at the racism I'm seeing.

"Grow Up Black America!" was on comment. There's an overwheliming view that this was done by a black person for other "whiny blacks" (also a comment).

"The Koran offends me. When can I burn it?" asked another genius.

Also I see the word "Orwellian" a lot. Which is funny because the purpose of "New Speak" in 1984 wasn't to avoid offending people. The purpose of NewSpeak was to be able to talk without thinking (duckspeak).

When faced with an issue like this, the people who respond with "Orwellian" or my favorite "PC run amok!" are the ones being Orwellian.

Gaffer Tape said:

So you're arguing that removing the offensive words are more conducive to thinking than keeping them?  I can't even begin to wrap my head around that...

I said nothing even resembling that.  Just pointing out that there is nothing "Orwellian" about any of this.

I also stand that the words "politically correct" have no place in any reasonable discourse. They're the embodiment of 'doubleplusgood duckspeak.' It's a meaningless reactionary term that ends all thought and discussion.

Gaffer Tape said:

Stop listening to reactionary parents.  Stop being so easily cowed by political correctness.  Guess what?  The role of schools is to EDUCATE, not WHITEWASH so-called objectionable content. 

You do realize the public school are run by elected officials who are elected by the reactionary parents because they do these type of things?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the problem is fundamental to the system.

I'm thrilled to see a little life in off-topic for once, thought it's too serious for my taste. ;-)

TheBoost said:

http://blog.al.com/scenesource/2011/01/auburn-montgomery_professor_al.html

Rare article that actually does the bizzare action of talking to the editor and publisher about what they did!

http://www.newsouthbooks.com/twain/introduction-alan-gribben-mark-twain-tom-sawyer-huckleberry-finn-newsouth-books.html

Actual Intro from the book.

after reading the intro, I have to say he does have a point

TheBoost said:

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

Neither are generally "acceptable" in polite discourse, but to say one isn't clearly worse than the other is silly. Does someone really need to "decide?"

apparently you are doing so with the n-word and cracker.   Also I didn't say one wasn't worse than the other, I said there was double standard.

 A 'double standard' implies two things that are the same are treated differently.

That the N-word and Cracker are both rude terms for race is true, but to imply they are in any way the same is just monumentally ignorant.

I agree they are the not same, but they are similar.  Again, they are both racial slurs.  Also my double standard statement wasn't just about comparing the reaction to the use of cracker to the use of the n-word. 

TheBoost said:

I also stand that the words "politically correct" have no place in any reasonable discourse.

I disagree.   the words are a term that has meaning.   I believe it can be used in reasonable discourse.    

TheBoost said:

Reading up on whats on the webs about this over lunch, I am appalled at the racism I'm seeing.

"Grow Up Black America!" was on comment. There's an overwheliming view that this was done by a black person for other "whiny blacks" (also a comment).

while it certainly wasn't done by a black person, I can understand why one might at first think it was.   Black people would clearly be more offended by the use of the n-word then would be white people.    I at first thought it was done by a black person.   If that makes me racist, so be it.     But lets face it, it was done so the book could be read to and by black people without offending them, and/or so it could be read it school districts where the original would be banned for fear of offending black people.  

TheBoost said:

"The Koran offends me. When can I burn it?" asked another genius.

he's making a comparison.   There was a church in Florida that wanted to burn the Koran because it offended them.   The church was roundly criticized for that and eventually called off the burning.     I guess what the guy that made that statement was saying was why it is wrong to attack the Koran but ok to go after Huck Finn?

TheBoost said:

When faced with an issue like this, the people who respond with "Orwellian" or my favorite "PC run amok!" are the ones being Orwellian.

not really sure how wanting to preserve the original version of a classic book and thinking that version is the one that ought to be taught to kids is  Orwellian.