New Huck Finn books are missing a certain something....
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
- Status
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.
--Patrick
*Just like when I get upset at people because they ask me a dozen times whether or not they are upsetting me.
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.
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?
That's cute.
Twain did not use the word lightly.
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.
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.
Necronic
Staff member
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.
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.
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.
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.Adammom said:
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.
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.Espy said:
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.)
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.
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
Roger Ebert's take is interesting.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/01/04/new.huck.finn.ew/index.html
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.
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.
Necronic
Staff member
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...
Necronic
Staff member
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).
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.
Considering how careful and precise he was on word choice, I'm fairly certain he did.
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.
- Status