Original version of Huckleberry Finn censored.

[DBOSHO]

*The*Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has been*censored, found unfit historical literature for readers and rewritten. A new edition of*The*Adventures of Huckleberry Finn*omits a racial epithet that has caused controversy since the book took its place decades ago on the shelf of great American literature.** In place of the word n - - - - -, the word "slave" will be substituted in a combined edition of*Huckleberry Finn*and Tom Sawyer,*to be published next month by NewSouth Books.

Professor, Alan Gribben, of English at Auburn University-Montgomery, says his new edition is for readers who cannot get past the slur to take in the rest of the book — and thereby understand Twain's opposition to racism.

Both Banning and censoring books happens almost every week in the United States. Often people take notice of banned books, protest, and the banned is lifted. Sometimes nobody notices and the banned book stays lost to a school or country.* When a book is lost so is a piece of our history.

Censorship in all forms must be opposed in the United States; it is an old pastime and hobby of many without thought of preserving our literary history.

We, the people of United States, have a history.* We have been far from perfect, our thoughts, deeds, and written words have evolved.* The idea of loosing or out right changing our literary history is against The First Amendment that was adopted on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The American Revolution was not just a revolution of politics but also literature. The colonists published an abundance of newspaper articles, books, essays, and pamphlets in opposition to numerous**forms of British tyranny. Thomas Paine's Common Sense (1776) and Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence (1776) are two well-known and influential examples of revolutionary literature.*

In the spirit of our history do we want people rewriting our literature?* Is it better to pretend our literature history was written “politically correct” according to our standards?* Wouldn’t it be better to teach our children to read critically?* To not be controlled by books, movies, games... but to be able to think and speak with purpose about what they read, see or do. To learn and understand words and be able to discuss their meaning and improperness’ in today’s society.* Perhaps we might be better to honor and embrace our past literature, read it with our children.* Discuss it as a family and make an informed decision as a family of our values.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Lbedrock1

I don't think I have become a PC Pussy because I would choose not to be call a N*gger or any other racial word you can come up with. I also don't want my child to have to read garbage in school that depicts others that look like him as that either. This was considered a classic years ago and Im pretty sure it wasn't a classic because of the word that they changed in it. Maybe you like to read N*gger, Sp**k, M*nkey and other words when they refer to others but you could try and put yourself in their shoes and understand they shouldn't have to put up with it. If you use words that a commonly used for all people like Punks I can understand where you would say that we have become PCP's because it doesnt refer to any race. I don't care if you call me a word that you would call your cousin but at least try and understand it doesn't make people PC pussies because they dont want to be called a racial slur or even hear it....now back to the Chiefs.

If people could be bothered to discuss this in the proper forum.

Originally Posted by Ta-Nahisi Coates

I'm obviously not Mark Twain, but having written a book, I can only imagine how hard Twain worked. I would be incensed if someone went through my book and took out all the "****ers" or "bitches" or "mother****ers." It's really just a hair short of some stranger, in their preening ignorance, putting their hands on your kid.

To me that's the worst part; surely we are, as Jamelle says, peddling whitewashed ignorance, but much worse we're actually peddling it at Twain's expense. I think the worse part of censoring Twain, is that it's a shocking act of disrespect toward the writer, executed by people who claim to hold up his legacy.

I am remembered to the historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor, who aptly noted that when people whitewash Robert E. Lee, and claim he was anti-slavery, what they are implicitly claiming is that the actual Robert E. Lee—one of the greatest generals of the past two centuries—isn't good enough.

This is actually much worse, because the invocation of ****er by Twain is not a moral failing. But because of our needs, Twain isn't good enough. Because we can't handle the story of who we were, and evidently who we are, Twain must be summoned up from the dead and, all against himself, submitted before the edits of amateurs.This is our system of fast-food education laid bare: Children are roaming the halls singing "Sexy Bitch," while their neo-Confederate parents are plotting to chop the penis off Michelangelo's David, and clamoring for Gatsby and Daisy to be reunited.

Let us all live in a world of warm snugglies. Let the air-conditioning anesthesia sprawl free. May the flowers of happiness multiply out. May Mark Twain's ghost haunt us all.

Actually, no. You're right, lets erase all of these references and ugly truths, and a generation from now there'll be no more talk of 400 years of oppression because it actually never happened.

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Are there seriously people out there that dont have the mental capacity to put this into "context" ??

It's focused on kids. The book is good for kids, but the language (in our modern society) puts it at a more mature level than it used to be. If a teacher is choosing between not using the original version and using this version, I'd rather than use this than not.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by kstater

I'm gonna be in the minority here. Don't like it,don't buy it. I'm sure there is still unedited copies out there.

Again as I said in the REAL thread, I'm OK with it, so long as it's titled 'Huckleberry Finn' by NewSouth Books, based on the novel 'Huckleberry Finn' by Mark Twain.

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by kstater

I'm gonna be in the minority here. Don't like it,don't buy it. I'm sure there is still unedited copies out there.

Not just unedited copies out there (ie, old publications)... but all of the new ones that are published now that aren't published by this one company... have the original text.

It's one selected publisher making this alternate edition available for younger readers.

[Baby Lee]

.

Originally Posted by Roger Ebert

"I'd rather be called a N***** than a Slave."

FTR - Rog has apologized and admitted he'd rather be called neither.

[LaChapelle]

The power of Whitlock

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by jAZ

It's focused on kids. The book is good for kids, but the language (in our modern society) puts it at a more mature level than it used to be. If a teacher is choosing between not using the original version and using this version, I'd rather than use this than not.

I think saying this book is for kids is selling this book short. This isn't a book for kids. This is a classic that tackles enormous social and literary issues that are way too complex for a kid to process, regardless of whether you use the N-word or not. If kids want to read it on their own, fine, give them the edited book. But teachers shouldn't make young kids read this and then treat it like Winnie the Pooh.

But if I want a teacher teaching this to kids? I absolutely want that word in there. It's like sex ed... do you want your kids to learn about it from a high schooler in the hallway or someone who can put it in the right context? They're going to learn about the word and racism anyway, and I think it's a hell of a lot better to tackle it in the presence of responsible adults.

[jAZ]

Anyone upset about this should be furious with the Congress for removing references to slavery in their reading of the Constitution yesterday.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2....php?ref=fpblg

House Reading Amended Slavery-Free Constitution This Morning
Evan McMorris-Santoro | January 6, 2011, 10:44AM

Members of the House of Representatives, led by their new Republican majority, will kick off the 112th Congress this morning with a reading of the U.S. Constitution. The reading is largely a political maneuver, so it's no real surprise that the Constitution you'll hear read on C-SPAN this morning will be the politically correct version.

It's fairly likely that no elected politician wants to stand up and read aloud the Founder's vision of African Americans as equaling three-fifths of a white person, so the GOP has decided to leave that part, and others, out when the Constitution is read today.

From The Daily Caller:

Instead of reading the Constitution in its entirety, House members will read an "amended version" that only includes the sections and amendments that were not changed at a later date. The decision in part will allow members to avoid reading less pleasant sections, like the clause in Article 1, Section 2, which counted black slaves as three-fifths of a person.

The reading of the Constitution on the House floor has never been done before, and it's only happening today thanks to the tea party. Throughout the campaign last year, "returning to the Constitution" (in a vague and largely undefined way) was sacred to the tea party, and supporters of reading the document aloud today seem to hope that hearing the words in the House chamber will cause members to adhere to the document more closely.

Democrats and Republicans are expected to participate in the reading, but not all members of Congress think it's a worthy use of their time.

From a Washington Post interview with Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY):

Nadler called the "ritualistic reading" on the floor "total nonsense" and "propaganda" intended to claim the document for Republicans. "You read the Torah, you read the Bible, you build a worship service around it," said Nadler, who argued that the Founders were not "demigods" and that the document's need for amendments to abolish slavery and other injustices showed it was "highly imperfect."
"You are not supposed to worship your constitution. You are supposed to govern your government by it," he said.

Whatever the motivation of the supporters of reading the Constitution today, it's clear that politics is playing a major factor in what's being read. So, what won't you hear about in the version of the Constitution entered into the Congressional record today? The DC's Chris Moody offers this rundown:

The Constitution contains nine parts that were later changed -- including an entire amendment, the 18th, which banned the manufacturing and sale of alcohol -- which will be left out of Thursday's reading. The omitted sections, which do not apply to the 112th Congress, include the so-called "three-fifths clause," the election of senators by state legislatures and the original process outlined for electing the vice president.

On MSNBC's "Last Word" Tuesday, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who's the man in charge of the reading today, defended the scheme -- and the decision to leave out some of the words written by the Founders.

From the transcript:

[Show host Lawrence] O'DONNELL: So, we've established that this was a document written by men, fallible men, who made some grievous--in the case of slavery--grievous mistakes. Why is it that you think we need to somehow return to what? A literal interpretation of the Constitution or some flexible interpretation, or a flexible interpretation that is determinative--something that can be determined only by Republicans?

GOODLATTE: No, I think that what we should return to is a debate in the Congress that looks at the Constitution and looks for a foundation for any laws that the Congress adopts. We are a nation of laws, not of men. And the Constitution is the foundation for those laws.

And so, we think that a lot of times today, members of Congress introduce a bill because they think it's a great thing. And it might be a wonderful thing, but it may not at all be what was intended by our Founding Fathers to be a part of our federal government, as opposed to what our states do or what we as individuals do in a free country.

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I think saying this book is for kids is selling this book short. This isn't a book for kids. This is a classic that tackles enormous social and literary issues that are way too complex for a kid to process, regardless of whether you use the N-word or not. If kids want to read it on their own, fine, give them the edited book. But teachers shouldn't make young kids read this and then treat it like Winnie the Pooh.

But if I want a teacher teaching this to kids? I absolutely want that word in there. It's like sex ed... do you want your kids to learn about it from a high schooler in the hallway or someone who can put it in the right context? They're going to learn about the word and racism anyway, and I think it's a hell of a lot better to tackle it in the presence of responsible adults.

Don't do that to my post.

I didn't say that Huck Finn is merely a kids book, as your interpretation assumes. I said that this edition is focused on making it acceptable to younger readers.

Each age group of readers will read it at a different level. You don't start teaching 3rd graders calculus just because you are teaching them math. You start with the simple parts and deeping the childs understanding as they get mature.

This book is a tool in that effort.

But mostly it's a way for a publisher to release a new product that people will buy because there is pent up demand for such a product.

End of story.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

But if I want a teacher teaching this to kids? I absolutely want that word in there. It's like sex ed... do you want your kids to learn about it from a high schooler in the hallway or someone who can put it in the right context? They're going to learn about the word and racism anyway, and I think it's a hell of a lot better to tackle it in the presence of responsible adults.

Welcome to sex ed class kids, where we speak frankly about how cocks and ****s work.

[stevieray]

rap will take up the slack...because after all, it's only a bad word for some, but not everyone.

I agree with BL's take...if you're going to modify the original, own it.

[fan4ever]

[QUOTE=stevieray;7328538]rap will take up the slack...because after all, it's only a bad word for some, but not everyone.QUOTE]

Exactly, everyone's in an uproar over something that rap music has already taken care of; when kids read that Jim is Huck Finn's n*gger, they'll just assume he's part of Huck's posse. A total non-issue.

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Again as I said in the REAL thread, I'm OK with it, so long as it's titled 'Huckleberry Finn' by NewSouth Books, based on the novel 'Huckleberry Finn' by Mark Twain.

Heh. That's fair enough.

[JD10367]

Sometimes this country really sucks.

Imagine if they tried to rerun some of the original "Saturday Night Live" shows?

Like the one with Chevy Chase and Richard Pryor hurling slurs.

"Honky."

"N****r."

"DEAD honky."

[Donger]

Originally Posted by jAZ

Anyone upset about this should be furious with the Congress for removing references to slavery in their reading of the Constitution yesterday.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2....php?ref=fpblg

House Reading Amended Slavery-Free Constitution This Morning
Evan McMorris-Santoro | January 6, 2011, 10:44AM

Members of the House of Representatives, led by their new Republican majority, will kick off the 112th Congress this morning with a reading of the U.S. Constitution. The reading is largely a political maneuver, so it's no real surprise that the Constitution you'll hear read on C-SPAN this morning will be the politically correct version.

It's fairly likely that no elected politician wants to stand up and read aloud the Founder's vision of African Americans as equaling three-fifths of a white person, so the GOP has decided to leave that part, and others, out when the Constitution is read today.

From The Daily Caller:

Instead of reading the Constitution in its entirety, House members will read an "amended version" that only includes the sections and amendments that were not changed at a later date. The decision in part will allow members to avoid reading less pleasant sections, like the clause in Article 1, Section 2, which counted black slaves as three-fifths of a person.

The reading of the Constitution on the House floor has never been done before, and it's only happening today thanks to the tea party. Throughout the campaign last year, "returning to the Constitution" (in a vague and largely undefined way) was sacred to the tea party, and supporters of reading the document aloud today seem to hope that hearing the words in the House chamber will cause members to adhere to the document more closely.

Democrats and Republicans are expected to participate in the reading, but not all members of Congress think it's a worthy use of their time.

From a Washington Post interview with Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY):

Nadler called the "ritualistic reading" on the floor "total nonsense" and "propaganda" intended to claim the document for Republicans. "You read the Torah, you read the Bible, you build a worship service around it," said Nadler, who argued that the Founders were not "demigods" and that the document's need for amendments to abolish slavery and other injustices showed it was "highly imperfect."
"You are not supposed to worship your constitution. You are supposed to govern your government by it," he said.

Whatever the motivation of the supporters of reading the Constitution today, it's clear that politics is playing a major factor in what's being read. So, what won't you hear about in the version of the Constitution entered into the Congressional record today? The DC's Chris Moody offers this rundown:

The Constitution contains nine parts that were later changed -- including an entire amendment, the 18th, which banned the manufacturing and sale of alcohol -- which will be left out of Thursday's reading. The omitted sections, which do not apply to the 112th Congress, include the so-called "three-fifths clause," the election of senators by state legislatures and the original process outlined for electing the vice president.

On MSNBC's "Last Word" Tuesday, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), who's the man in charge of the reading today, defended the scheme -- and the decision to leave out some of the words written by the Founders.

From the transcript:

[Show host Lawrence] O'DONNELL: So, we've established that this was a document written by men, fallible men, who made some grievous--in the case of slavery--grievous mistakes. Why is it that you think we need to somehow return to what? A literal interpretation of the Constitution or some flexible interpretation, or a flexible interpretation that is determinative--something that can be determined only by Republicans?

GOODLATTE: No, I think that what we should return to is a debate in the Congress that looks at the Constitution and looks for a foundation for any laws that the Congress adopts. We are a nation of laws, not of men. And the Constitution is the foundation for those laws.

And so, we think that a lot of times today, members of Congress introduce a bill because they think it's a great thing. And it might be a wonderful thing, but it may not at all be what was intended by our Founding Fathers to be a part of our federal government, as opposed to what our states do or what we as individuals do in a free country.

And jAZ in with the mid-course correction to DC!