"It's Twain, Jim, but not as we know it."

[Matt Black]

Apparently, there's to be a new version of Huck Finn produced next month with the N-word and 'Injun' removed with Jim described simply as a 'slave'. What do posters think about this? Does it make the novel more or less accessible? Should other works such as To Kill a Mockingbird be similarly redacted to suit modern sensibilities or should offensive words be seen within their socio-historical contexts as illustrative of their times?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Apparently, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12126700] there's a new version of Huck Finn out with the N-word removed[/url], with Jim described simply as a 'slave'. What do posters think about this? Does it make the novel more or less accessible? Should other works such as To Kill a Mockingbird be similarly redacted to suit modern sensibilities or should offensive words be seen within their socio-historical contexts as illustrative of their times?

This is extremely 1984esque. We can't hide the reality of history. Both stories tell the problems of racism. Neutering them dilutes that message.

 

[Matt Black]

I agree; it also misses the point that Twain, by the standards of his time, was anti-racist.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

It also misses the point that a White Person can be Niggardly.

But, then context and intent means nothing to the PC Crowd!

 

[Matt Black]

'Niggardly' has a different etymology.

 

[rbell]

Monumentally stupid idea. (the edited book, that is)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

'Niggardly' has a different etymology.

Like "Welshing" on a bet (Taffie) LOL

 

[Matt Black]

That does have ethnic connotations in its etymology.

Isn't this blatant Bowdlerisation?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That does have ethnic connotations in its etymology.

Isn't this blatant Bowdlerisation?

Are you concerned that Americans may be corrupting their own cultural history, perhaps?

 

[Matt Black]

Yes, and also I don't believe in censorship or making something 'politically correct' retrospectively. For example, we had a children's author in this country called Enid Blyton, whose Noddy books contained various golliwog characters. Recent new TV and written versions of the Noddy franchise have seen 'Mr Golly' replaced by 'Mr Sparks' and the introduction of Dinah Doll as a token black character. Now, I have no objection to that as it is (a) no longer appropriate that we use that sort of language and (b) these are entirely brand new Noddy stories. What I do object to though is the airbrushing-out of the Gollies from the pre-existing stories actually penned by Blyton herself. The use of the term then was not generally abusive so it is inappropriate to remove it from books written then; it is considered racially abusive now and it is therefore appropriate to remove it from Noddy books written now.

 

[sag38]

It's the same stupidity that lead to "Parent One" and "Parent Two" designations instead of "Father" and "Mother" on U.S. passports. After all we don't want to offend the child who has two dads or two mommies.

 

[sag38]

Now in the very politically charged country of Canada the song "Money for Nothing" by Dire Straits has been banned because it uses the word "little fa**ot." The context doesn't matter. The isn't being derogatory to homosexuals. It's being derogatory to those who don't like them and call them fa**ots. It's the word that matters and so it has been banned. This kind of idiocy is soon to follow right here in the good ole USA. Thank you to everyone who votes for Democrats. You will be partly to blame and responsible when more and more terms, books, songs, plays, movies, etc., are banned or edited because someone is offended by a term. Such is the play ground of liberals.