New Version of "Huckleberry Finn" Removes the "N" Word

[Robert]

Tom, yes, something affecting the entire human species.

Really, the word "murder" should be a serious enough word. There shouldn't be any need to invent grandiose phrases like "crimes against humanity." I suppose the cheaper life gets, the grander become the crimes.

[mariab]

I find it amazing that French people are able to take themselves so seriously. It's too bad they're not debating the merits of bathing.

I'm not sure where that originated, that Americans are so convinced that the French have poor hygiene. It's only Americans who claim this.

As for gypsies, that word has no negative connotations here in America.

Duh! Cause there're no Gypsies in America. Believe me, if you had some, there would be negative connotations. Na, was that pc?
Oh, by the by, I just remembered: The French Gypsy debate was about a Gypsy lady who extracted thousands of € from the French government for some kind of moral compensation or other for her folk, but she kept the money for herself.

The truth is, political correctness is merely a devise to allow white people to feel even more superior over the other races than we already are.

But mostly I loved the “towel head“ part. I'm still not clear, though, why Paul Begg and not, say, Chris George.

[Tom_Wescott]

Robert,

I would say that crimes against humanity are any crimes that threaten us with extinction. That fair?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Actually there's a pretty intense debate that was going on in France last year about the Gypsies and political correctness. Haven't followed up, but it has generated quite a bit of hysteria.

I find it amazing that French people are able to take themselves so seriously. It's too bad they're not debating the merits of bathing. As for gypsies, that word has no negative connotations here in America.

The truth is, political correctness is merely a devise to allow white people to feel even more superior over the other races than we already are.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Getting back to whther the N word should be removed from Twain's books - I can see two sides of the argument.

My gut feeling is that this is a word so loaded with oppression and disrespect it should never be seen in a workl of literature.

However - as the word is used completely contextually - its removal might smother debate about the original use of the word in that type of literature and the role that the word played in America's full history. Keeping the word in and including a short passage at the start of the book about its use then - and its non use now might help readers in the future.

I am adamantly against it being removed. Its inclusion is a teaching moment if ever there was one.

Huck Finn is especially vital to me as I had an epiphany with this novel when I taught a special ed population. The word was not included in the edition that we used because it was a reduced language version used for low readers who had to be taught the curriculum regardless. The edition took out all the colloquialisms and simplified the plot as well. I was teaching a population of signing Deaf students at the time. I was well aware that because of their language barriers, they did not pick up on all the history that other people absorb naturally so I spent a very long time pre-teaching the history in which the book was set. I discussed the civil war, how slaves were trying to escape to the North to be free, the consequences of helping a slave escape, etc. I thought I had done a fairly good job of contextualizing the novel for my students.

Halfway through the book, was the first mention of the word "black" in relation to Jim. One of my students (black) said..wait, Jim is black?? And I said yes, (duh) he's a slave escaping North and the student replied "Blacks were slaves?" That's when I realized that for all my wonderful pre-teaching I had neglected to mention one salient fact...that slaves were black. It had seemed such a blatantly obvious detail to me that I had never thought to specify it, merely discussing the plight of slaves, etc. Because the book was so politically correct, the students were way into it before they actually picked up on that important detail that I had neglected to teach them.

Now of course, hearing students probably don't have the awareness issues that deaf populations might have. But I don't think that we should censor something we find offensive because it will make for uncomfortable teaching moments. If you aren't comfortable explaining tough things, you shouldn't be a teacher in the first place.

We're not talking about literary scholarship here and this is a kid's book.

Uh No. Huck Finn is not a children's book. Neither is Oliver Twist. Just because there is a child protagonist doesn't mean the book was written for children. And Watership Down is not a cute fluffy book about bunnies either.

[mariab]

Stephen Thomas:
We're not talking about literary scholarship here and this is a kid's book.
It's not about “literary scholarship“, but about manipulation of authenticity, and Huck Finn is NOT a kid's book, it's one of the true masterpieces of American lit.

To Robert:
I didn't personally come up with the term “crime against humanity“ ;-), it's how they call it (legally and in international diplomacy). Basically it can be applied to any crime/mistreatment pertaining to abuse of a group of people and including violation of human rights.

[c.d.]

CD's choice of words intrigues me. I don't see how English can be 'forced' on anyone in America. It's something you should learn if you want to live here. Oklahoma, where I live, has made English its official language, which means Spanish will no longer appear on any government documents, applications, etc. You will have to know English in order to fill them out. This is not a bad thing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

I was talking about the 1800s when the tribes were required to live on reservations. Indian children were forced to learn English and beaten if they attempted to speak in their native tongue.

c.d.

[Robert]

I am still none the wiser about crimes against humanity. If you murder a million people then you are guilty of one million murders. "Humanity" seems to refer to the lowest common denominator.

I suspect that "crimes against humanity" is something the lawyers have dreamed up to keep the money coming in.

I can think of one example where the phrase might have some meaning, and that would be where someone causes the total extinction of the human race.

[Stephen Thomas]

My gut feeling is that this is a word so loaded with oppression and disrespect....... and its non use now might help readers in the future.

Quite so, Limehouse

We're not talking about literary scholarship here and this is a kid's book.

This happened 70 years ago and quite right too........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Then_There_Were_None

[mariab]

Yours truly,
Paul Begg

Love that impersonation. (However, to my knowledge, Mr Begg is not a wop, a spic, a sambo, or a Gypsy. Or is he?)

[mariab]

Limehouse wrote:
as the word is used completely contextually - its removal might smother debate about the original use of the word in that type of literature and the role that the word played in America's full history.
Absolutely. How can we study racism if we don't see its manifestations in the original sources?

Tom Wescott wrote:
No, since Gypsy isn't a race. If someone's a gypsy, it's okay to call him that.
Actually there's a pretty intense debate that was going on in France last year about the Gypsies and political correctness. Haven't followed up, but it has generated quite a bit of hysteria.

[mariab]

Could someone fill me in on what constitutes a crime against humanity? To me, if you commit a crime against a person then it's a crime against that person. If you commit a crime against a million people then it's a crime against a million people. Where does humanity come in?

The underlined part in your post constitutes the definition for a crime against humanity. You can further read about it as defined by the UN.

Limehouse wrote:
My gut feeling is that this is a word so loaded with oppression and disrespect it should never be seen in a workl of literature.
Now we're getting into a discussion about censorship. “Correcting“ the classics for reasons of political correctness is not only ridiculous, it's anti-constitutional. The “nig*er“ word is being used by black people in intimate situations, both humorously and aggressively. I (as white) have even used it among (close) black friends in an intimate situation, in the same fashion that people on casebook might call Fisherman “you crazy Swede“. I predict that by the middle of the 21st century this word might lose its negative connotation (in intimate situations, obviously not in official speech).

[Tom_Wescott]

"If a gypsy is calling himself a gypsy, is he a racist person?"

No, since Gypsy isn't a race. If someone's a gypsy, it's okay to call him that. I'm not sure the same would apply to wops, spics and sambos, though, you silly towel head.

Yours truly,

Paul Begg

[Limehouse]

Getting back to whther the N word should be removed from Twain's books - I can see two sides of the argument.

My gut feeling is that this is a word so loaded with oppression and disrespect it should never be seen in a workl of literature.

However - as the word is used completely contextually - its removal might smother debate about the original use of the word in that type of literature and the role that the word played in America's full history. Keeping the word in and including a short passage at the start of the book about its use then - and its non use now might help readers in the future.

[dmann30]

Could someone fill me in on what constitutes a crime against humanity? To me, if you commit a crime against a person then it's a crime against that person. If you commit a crime against a million people then it's a crime against a million people. Where does humanity come in?

Just to clarify - are you saying that people are not humans?