Remove N-word: YES

Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) was a brilliant, thoughtful writer who wasn't afraid to stand up to authority and question prevailing wisdom. But in the 1880's, the N-word was ubiquitous. Thankfully, that has changed over the past 100 years and the word rightfully should be banished from the vocabulary of all non-black speakers. If the black community wishes to retain the term (why would they?) that is a separate matter.

Twain's works should be rewritten removing the N-word because he is a leader of American literature. Right now, would you want to read Huck Finn aloud to small children of colour? I wouldn't. But I'd love to read the story otherwise, as it is simply so entertaining.

BTW, Twain was a strong advocate of abolition:

"Twain was an adamant supporter of abolition and emancipation, even going so far to say “Lincoln's Proclamation ... not only set the black slaves free, but set the white man free also.” He argued that non-whites did not receive justice in the United States, once saying “I have seen Chinamen abused and maltreated in all the mean, cowardly ways possible to the invention of a degraded nature....but I never saw a Chinaman righted in a court of justice for wrongs thus done to him.” He paid for at least one black person to attend Yale University Law School and for another black person to attend a southern university to become a minister. Mark Twain was a staunch supporter of women's rights and an active campaigner for women's suffrage. His "Votes for Women" speech, in which he pressed for the granting of voting rights to women, is considered one of the most famous in history. Helen Keller benefited from Twain's support, as she pursued her college education and publishing, despite her disabilities and financial limitations."

As always, great discussion.

Brought to you by the Ministry of Truth

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
(Ministry of Truth)

Why stop at Twain?

And why limit our revisionism to racial usage?

Why don't we go back and clean up all the bad words and slurs and isms in the history of written words!

Maybe I'll launch a Facebook campaign to revise Protagoras' famous 'sexist' comment, "Man is the measure of all things." - to something more gender neutral, like "Human is the measure...."

The slippery slope to hell is often paved with noble intentions.

Huckleberry Finn

How will we know when we have won the race if we erase the starting point.

Mark Twain had very astute psychological reasons for using the N word and using it often. One analogy.... Would we make a big deal about child abuse if we never saw or read anything worse than "Oh you wicked child. Time out for you?" Similarily, would we protect whales were it not for the radical efforts of Greenpeace?

Only Bad Usage

Yes, they are still censors regardless of who or what else also censors.

Just because American papers, blog sites, namby-pambies, etc., are chickenshit about using the word nigger in an expository or explicational fashion does not make an argument for censorship of an historical and historic work of art; it makes an argument for trying to counter the timid stupidity, the dictional/grammatic ignorance, and the worrisome decent into paranoid political correctness that so many people are prone to.

There are no bad words; there are only bad uses of words and people too afraid of (or ignorant of) language to get over it, or to understand such important things as context. We need to challenge the contemporary misuse of language and words, not the words themselves.

And we should never, ever revise history just to make a bunch of nimby squeamish twats feel safer in their paranoid dark closets of ignorance. Does anyone really think Newspeak is the way to go?

So, we remove nigger from Twain, and the world's now a better place to live in? By even one percent of one percent of an iota?

/rolls eyes at the moon

Jeffrey J.

Jeffrey J, this is the very frst time I've even come close to disagreeing with you. I think you are completely missing the point -- Twain's point, that is.

Twain used the word nigger so ubiquitously as a way of saying "See, people. We have become so comfortable with thinking of negroes as non-people that we are completely comfortable using an ugly pejorative as a nominal norm."

So, if nigger is removed from the book Twain's primary point is entirely lost.

As for contemporary usage, if I write a narrative fiction that includes a character that is a white supremacist, and I want him to be really hateful (and hated), it rather loses the juice if I write:

It just doesn't work as well as the other would.

Different Hucks for Different Audiences

I was originally against this idea when I first heard about it. But, after hearing Gribben on the CBC the other day, and reading the linked explanation in the article, I've had a change of heart. I think if it helps get the book read by young people then it's a good thing. I doubt many teachers will assign it without mentioning the fact there have been changes to the text, so a discussion over the power of the word (any word really) will ensue nonetheless.

I do wonder how the two epithets in the original are rendered in foreign language translations and also note that there's varying translations of the Bible suited for both the lay reader and the antiquarian and/or academic. Twain's book is from another time and arguably that time had its own language. Its enduring strength is not in just those two words, so if an update keeps it on school reading lists, then maybe a small edit is an OK compromise and not much different from translating any book into another language.

Importantly, this single edition of the book won't remove the all the other ones from circulation. A quick check of the Project Gutenberg version shows the words in question unexpurgated from the text.

Lastly, what a book! More than a hundred years after its publication and it still has the power to provoke discussion of important issues. Of course, it is precisely because of the inclusion of these offensive and archaic words that it retains its power, so we would never want the original version to be lost, but as a teaching tool, I can live with these small, but important changes.

"Twain used the word nigger

"Twain used the word nigger so ubiquitously as a way of saying "See, people. We have become so comfortable with thinking of negroes as non-people that we are completely comfortable using an ugly pejorative as a nominal norm."

The word wasn't as roundly condemned in the nineteenth century as it is now. I'm not an Twain scholar but my understanding is that the inclusion of the epithets deleted from the NewSouth edition under discussion were originally included primarily because that's the way people talked.

"So, if nigger is removed from the book Twain's primary point is entirely lost."

I don't think so. You would have to make a stronger case that Twain's primary point hinged on a single word to convince me.

Language that changes with time

Even though the language has changed we still teach Shakespeare in the original (with maybe a few footnotes to help us.) In college I read Chaucer with a side by side page transliteration of his and today's English. Even the Miller's Tale.
Much of studying literature requires the reader to step back to earlier language or into an unknown location and much of teaching it involves helping the student understand the change with time. No teacher should let the students be surprised by a sudden vocabulary word that is no longer used.
Will Skinner's Our Hearts Were Young & Gay be next?

Geez, do they have too much time on their hands?

Are CURRENT TV shows and other media productions so damn clean and wholesome that would-be censors have to go back 100+ years to find something that is distasteful, primarily only to themselves? Any bets these "sensitive" types are all WHITE LIBERALS all sitting around waiting anxiously to be offended on someone else's account?

While we are at it...

Let's change the Flintstones theme song.

surely little children shouldn't be watching a show where Fred and Barney have a "gay old time."

Well then...

What of Joseph Conrad's Nigger of the Narcissus?

Christ, these are old books, keep them untouched. If people can't get their heads around the concept of context then perhaps they should take a course in critical thinking before reading 19th century literature.

This is all about selling books to schools.

It might be interesting ...

to come up with a list of books, songs, whathaveyou, that would become meaningless, or at least much reduced in their primary point or theme, if this kind of censorship became a trend. How about John Lennon:

etc.

Another issue that bothers me is that slave is not a synonym for nigger, and replacing nigger with slave defeats or negates the purpose of the prose.

More politically correct tempests in black teapots pointing fingers at kettles ... or summat like 'at.

@John Greg

Hi John:

I'm not sure you've proven your supposition that changing two expressions in this book makes it meaningless or substantially reduces its 'point'.

Have you read the editor's explanation for making this decision that's linked in the article? He makes a pretty strong case that the message in Huck Finn won't lose its potency, as the original version will still be available, and this version can sidestep one of the biggest controversies that makes teaching the book a problem. Wondering how you would respond to his particular points that he makes.

cheers,
CK

Yup, if you don't like history....

just rewrite it.

Censoring the "N" word

Some words are so vile they should be taboo. The N word is one of them. For the most part civilized people no longer refer to women with the "B" word mainly because women have gained their rights and don't allow it. The same is true of the "N" word. Black people no longer have to tolerate it either. In my poem, "Bees and Enns," I explain why it's important for us to treat each other with respect.

Well on that note then...

'The Taming of the Shrew' could use some editing....

The same is true of the "N"

The same is true of the "N" word. Black people no longer have to tolerate it either.
=========

yet black people call themselves that quite often.

History

Keep history the way it is, otherwise it is not history. Imagine if the word "flower" became a "bad" term. There are a lot of poems and works of art which would be ruined; simply because a poem or song would no longer have the same effect.

I am not trying to compare the N-word to flower and saying that the N word never used to be a bad word. I am saying that sometimes the meanings of words change but works of history do not belong to their original authors anymore.

Yes there is a double standard when coming to the N-word. Especially when you are not even allowed to READ the word. (according to schools)

History must be preserved as it is. Is talking about black people in slavery a sensitive issue? Is the killing of millions of Jews a sensitive issue? Perhaps we shouldn't teach our children about it because it is "bad" stuff. NO! We have remembrance day for a reason. So we never have war again. If we censer the N-word from history then we will forget about it. Our history, no matter how bloody, should never be forgotten.

twain

it is just a word.

changing the word 'nigger' changes the story in a significant manner, by faking the vocabulary of the time.

for political correctness.

political correctness is the realm of cowards and liars.

you know, the folks who are afraid to express their true feelings, and those who have ulterior motives.

hence the term.

this is unnecessary censorship.

refuse to participate in this fraud.

bitch to your school boards and elected officials.

boycott newsouth publishing until they switch back, or collapse under the weight of their convictions.

they have vandalized these wonderful stories.

Art Sheppard

Not sure what planet you live on but it's been my experience that women are the biggest users of the "B" word.

Words are just that, words. We apply the conotation and therefore are responsible for how we feel about any given word. If one can't deal with certain words the problem is theirs and not the writers.

Crhis Keam

My response is that I think he is focussing on the wrong target and building a sort of strawman argument that attempts to "fix" the issue by working at it ass backwards.

The "problem" is not a word, the problem is how the American public, and some other folks, use and view that word and the degree of hysterical manufactured fear and anger that surrounds that word, rather than its usage.

It doesn't matter that there are copies extant that still contain the word nigger. That does not in anyway whatsoever change the argument that this is hysterical political correctness gone nuts.

You don't just pick a piece of art and change it because you don't like it. That's what the Taliban is all about for fuck's sake. The Taliban doesn't like historic works of religious art, so it blows them up. Well we still have photographs of it!. Well, that's just bullshit. And yes it is, basically, the same thing, so don't tell me it's not. It's just a matter of degree.

@ snert: quite right.

Ooops

Sorry about the name misspelling Chris.

who dares rewrite a genius?

"Right now, would you want to read Huck Finn aloud to small children of colour?"

I'd be happy to do so. It would be an excellent opportunity to inform black children about their history. Whether they are African American, or children from other colonized countries.

I object to the fact that black people can use the term 'nigger' with each other, while nobody else can. I also object to the fact that I can use the terms 'faggot' and 'dyke' if I'm a homosexual, but other people can't because then it's consiered a hate crime.

Whatever happened to "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names can never hurt me". Words are merely words. Let them be.

History will never make any sense to anyone if it's continutally rewritten by the at-the-moment politically correct.

Rewriting Mark Twain is tantamount to rewriting Shakespeare. Or the Bible. Outrageously stupid idea. Totally unacceptable.

Playwrites have total control over their plays, i.e. all the words they've written, while screenwriters have none; and are often/ususally rewriten. Novelists, after going through the editing process, have total control of their stories.

Who would dare rewrite a genius?

Marushka

I agree 100%.

A Roger Ebert Quote (for interest's sake)

I think Roger Ebert puts it well when he discusses Huck Finn and the word nigger, to wit:

And the first of many commenters to his post also puts it well, to wit:

I wonder what's really going on??

But nobody's paying attention to the f#$%ing story

For the most part civilized people no longer refer to women with the "B" word

USA Today didn't just duck the word in the headline they spelt it "N ----" in their article.

So who didn't say fucking, bitch and nigger in their own head reading the above passages?

Twain chose the words he did, exactly as he did, because words are important.

Writing 'you F#$%-head' doesn't censor a thing in our thoughts. It's just another way we prove to one another that we do not want to hear the truth or to learn from the past. And lying to yourself isn't going to help matters.

My $.02.

samuidave

Not for long. It will have to rounded up to $.05 or down to $.00.............

censoring Twain

Substituting "slave" for "nigger" won't get more people to read Twain's book. They'll be reading Gribben's. Funnily enough, not the same thing.

Left-wing arch-conservatives?

Hallo,
Did you know that the bible gets censored by scholars all the time? And that the mainstream media pays no attention to this vile act?
It's because it's called INTERPRETATION. The text is scrutinized by numerous biblical experts and academics in accordance with its ability to be understood, as closely as was intended.
Sometimes the original words are jarring to current sensibilities, and thus distract from the overall intent. They are then safely replaced with words that say essentially the same thing.
For instance, the 'Oxford New Revised Standard Version' of the bible no longer uses the expression 'brothers' by itself. It now uses the expression 'brothers and sisters.' This was not the way the original writers recorded the text.
But it is the way that 50% of the population, ie women, can comfortably feel included in the teachings in the scripture. The only folks who HATE this, are you guessed it, the arch-conservatives. They believe that God wanted to exclude women from its readership for all time.
So are we too, being arch-conservative? Or do we just have an intriguing desire to hang on to 'nigger?'

Mark Twain probably did not

Mark Twain probably did not write Huckleberry Finn to be read by middle school children. Perhaps this censored edition is a book for middle school children - probably not.

One year when i taught the book to a very good highschool class, I made a point of sitting down before anything else with the one black student in the class to discuss the word and why Twain used it. After that, I discussed the issue with the class as a whole. i think the unit was a success, though the book is probably better appreciated by an adult audience.

I also found that in our discussions in the class none of us would use the word, nor would any of use even read passages with that "n word." When i selected passages I would read to the class in my best stab at a southern accent, I in effect censored myself by avoiding passages that would require me to utter the word.

And yet i would not change the text. It is my favourite American novel.

zanyjudy

The Bible is an alleged work of non-fiction. It needs to be continuously updated/edited/revised because as a user manual, it cannot stand both strict interpretation and the test of time. This is all despite God clearly proclaiming to neither add nor remove a single word. But faith replaces sound reasoning and rationality. Thus such grievous breaches of the most sacred law come, as all things biblical, with an explanation to dismiss the patently absurd.

Twain's work is one of fiction. It is also a piece of art. Do you suppose we should go re-chissel David, perhaps give him a loincloth to not offend?

Meeting the Twain

Hi all. One thing I love about writing for The Tyee is seeing the discussions the stories spark. Since writing this I’ve kept up on other articles about the controversy, so I thought I'd toss two more cents into the mix in response to the comments here, the discussions I've had, and other stories I've read.

1. I’ve read several times that Huck Finn is the 4th most banned/challenged book in the US, not the 11th.

2. Twain wrote this for kids, not for adults and certainly not for academics. This is from his introduction to Tom Sawyer (Huck was the sequel). "Although my book is intended mainly for the entertainment of boys and girls, I hope it will not be shunned by men and women on that account...." Huck Finn was a book written FOR kids that is no longer taught to a lot of kids because most US teachers would rather handle Ebola than the unexpurgated "n-word."

3. Merchant of Venice, Tropic of Cancer, the Bible etc. were not written for kids.

4. Shakespeare plays are rarely presented in their entirety. Printed untouched yes, produced untouched… not so much.

5. For the most part Canadian media had no trouble printing the offensive word. British papers proudly used it in their headlines. US papers almost universally avoided it. I watched a Colbert Report story on this and arguably the bravest living satirist, the guy who bashed George Bush from 10 feet away, did not speak the word Gribben pulled.

6. This ain't a "politically correct" left/right thing. The right wing media were just as reluctant to use the word as the left wing media. FOX News avoided it too.

7. If you’d like to cover your copy of the statue of David with a loincloth, or paint your replica of the Mona Lisa in day glo colours, have fun. Hey, it worked for Warhol. When the Taleban destroyed art they destroyed one of a kind pieces. I gather the existence of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, has yet to drive a stake through the heart of Pride and Prejudice. The reason authors don't all check into therapy the moment their books are adapted for film, graphic novels etc is THE ORIGINAL WORK IS STILL INTACT.

8. The slippery slope seems a lot less slippery in the age of the internet, public libraries and bookstores (use ‘em while we got ‘em) where millions of copies of the untouched edition are available for everybody to read --including kids who get stuck with the NewSouth edition. Wouldn't it be amazing if their parents demanded their kids study the original? Anyone wanna start holding their breath on that one?

9. I wish the media (and public) got even a fraction this outraged over science textbooks pulling out references to evolution.

For more fun here’s a link to a piece by Rick Riordan, a bestselling author who not only taught Huck Finn in class, but studied Twain under Gribben.
rickriordan.blogspot.com/2011/01/huck-finn-controversy.html

Happy commenting.

Mark

How dare you censor the, um, "N-Word"

Then how about re-writing the Bible? All that violence...Unless Twain gives the OK, just leave his piece as is. Those who don't like the "N" word...don't read it.

Bible edits

This list:

http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html

documents over 300 changes to the seven different versions of the Bible. That's just the English language versions. It is regularly rewritten without losing the central premise.

Don't like the newly revised version of Huck? Don't read it.

Rotting Apple Oagies

Being an apologist, hence, supporter of/for censorship is still being an apologist, hence, supporter of/for censorship regardless of how much caramel candy coating you dip it in.

Agreeing with, or accepting the censorship policy simply endorses and supports such flawed, irrational, ludicrous, knee-jerk reactionary processes.

It does not, will not, and cannot address the real issue, which is the idiocy of hyper-sensitive people who are mostly incapable of rational, intelligent, intellectual thought processes.

It is not really much different than that lunatic fringe of the feminist movement who wanted/wants to change or remove such words as history from the English language because it's perceived to be sexist! (/rolls eyes at general stupidity.)

And using the Bible as some kind of test case or balance sheet rationale is apples and oranges.

Editing isn't censorship

The book isn't banned, nor are original versions of the work unavailable. Neither is there any reduction in the number of words or ideas expressed in the book, except for the removal of a racial epithet and its replacement with a different, arguably more informative choice.

It's simply an alternate version. You are welcome not to read, just as you are with Reader' Digest condensed versions (do they still publish those?), Cliff Notes, or works which aren't in their original language. As for the Bible, several commenters have used it as an example of works which should never be altered and used it in defense of Huck Finn remaining exactly as it was written.

This edition isn't designed for the hyper-sensitive. It's designed so that teachers have some options. It is in fact, the exact opposite of censorship, as it opens up new audiences for an important work, and has absolutely no connection to initiatives such as using new, made-up words such as herstory, regardless of whether or not you view those as good or bad ideas.

Well ...

True.

True.

On this, we will have to disagree. As noted, I feel strongly that Twain used the word nigger for a number of important reasons. And I stand by my claim that removing the word lessens the meaning of the work.

More informative? Dis (or mis) informative would be a more appropriate term. Twain didn't use the word just because it was there, nor because it was common parlance. He used it with specific intent, and removing it, as I have claimed, reduces the meaning of the work -- or at the very least changes Twain's intent.

Yes, of course, I understand that. But I have been, all my life, a strongly anti-different-version kind of guy, whether it's a Cole's/Cliff Notes kind of a thing, or an abridged version to kowtow to simpletons, or what-have-you, but especially when the different version lessens or specifically changes tha author's intent, theme, and or general purpose in the work. I feel that all the excuses I've read for such actions are just mealy-mouthed apologia for squeamish of chickenshit prudes and their ilk.

And works translated from different languages is an enitirely different matter.

Well, I think its really a bit of both. And as I've said, I think the "different options" argument is weak and deals with the problem from the wrong angle.

Well, yes, I must agree with you on that point. That was a red herring on my behalf.

I guess we'll just have to remain at dsigreement on this issue. I will maintain that it is censorship, and you will maintain that it's teaching/access option, and there our twains shall not meet.

(Sorry, I just had to.)

samuidave

Sorry, sir, but the Bible is a book of literature, not non-fiction.
God didn't write it, although perhaps some of its wisdom is God-inspired. It is not even an historical document.
If you study its origins, you'll see it for the brilliant source of inspiration it is. But it remains remarkable partly because it is continually updated, as scholarship and society evolve. And guess where I learned this? In Seminary, from whence I graduated, prior to being ordained.

@John Greg

Thanks for your comments John. You raise important considerations to be sure. As I said in my first post, my initial response was one of opposition to the idea, and I share your belief that we absolutely need to be vigilant about clouding history's lens. Glad to have had the opportunity to share my thoughts with you.

cheers,
CK

New edition censors classic novel Huck Finn.

Controversy is erupting over a new edition of the noted author Mark Twain's“Huckleberry Finn” . NewSouth Books has censored all the phrases that people have objected to over the years, though the book is about challenging racism. The book used dialog that was common at the time, and was actually about the folly of racism. Numerous feel that despite delicate sensibilities having been offended, changing such a seminal work is a greater offense. The original novel may have words that are offensive to people of this generation but those words depict the racism issue of the past years, the years when the novel was written and published.