Let me ask this in reply...(i may lose this argument in everyone's eyes but I'm going down fighting).../

 

Is there any situation where a parent (pick their race) would be justified in not wanting their child reading this book based solely on the language?

 

In my opinion, no. Especially if they understand Twain, what his views were and the story itself.

I don't see how those words add value to the book. While the inclusion of the words might provoke conversation between the student and parents, chances are, it won't. An edited version of the book would be just fine with me if that's what my kids were reading. I don't love the political correctness, but school is so much different today than when I was a kid. The administration probably doesn't want to get sued by some crazy parent who objects to the words their kids are being exposed to in the book.

 

Twain was using the word to ridicule racism. Changing it to slave removes the whole point.

 

edit: Here's a blog from an English teacher explaining why Twain wrote what he wrote. The novel is anti-racist at its core, and removing such an ugly, painful, hurtful word removes the impact of it.

 

http://saraegoodman.blogspot.com/2011/01/d...n-american.html

Edited January 7, 201115 yr by StrangeSox

FWIW, n***** Jim is probably the most positive character in the book, and Twain's use was intentional. Twain was an outspoken critic of racism and imperialism and a proponent of civil rights throughout his writings, particularly in "To the Person Sitting in Darkness".

 

That is the worst part about all this. I guarantee you that the vast majority of the people calling for the edit don't know jack s*** about Mark Twain, the time period in which the book was published/written or the concept of satire. Context (verbal and social) is incredibly important when reading or discussing a piece of historical literature.

That is the worst part about all this. I guarantee you that the vast majority of the people calling for the edit don't know jack s*** about Mark Twain, the time period in which the book was published/written or the concept of satire. Context (verbal and social) is incredibly important when reading or discussing a piece of historical literature.

Here's the question though...

 

How many of the kids getting the correct version wind up understanding Twain's logic here?

 

I flat out didn't. I thought it was just the style of the time.

That is the worst part about all this. I guarantee you that the vast majority of the people calling for the edit don't know jack s*** about Mark Twain, the time period in which the book was published/written or the concept of satire. Context (verbal and social) is incredibly important when reading or discussing a piece of historical literature.

 

I think a lot of people, even those who are opposed to the censorship, just assume Twain was a racist but that he was just a "product of his times."

 

If he had written a book making some other point, and just used n***** to use the word, I'd maybe see the point in softening it. But that word is part of the foundation for the novel.

Here's the question though...

 

How many of the kids getting the correct version wind up understanding Twain's logic here?

 

I flat out didn't. I thought it was just the style of the time.

 

Unfortunately, you should have had a better teacher who gave you a background on Twain before you read the novel. You can't fault Twain for that.

 

or watched the three hour Ken Burns documentary!

Unfortunately, you should have had a better teacher who gave you a background on Twain before you read the novel. You can't fault Twain for that.

 

or watched the three hour Ken Burns documentary!

So, if a person who wound up with something of an advanced degree and who was in advanced-level classes throughout his time in the public education system didn't get that part...what fraction of American students do you think understand it?

Here's the question though...

 

How many of the kids getting the correct version wind up understanding Twain's logic here?

 

I flat out didn't. I thought it was just the style of the time.

 

I would hope that English teachers would be able to convey that to their students.

I would hope that English teachers would be able to convey that to their students.

Anyone else want to agree with me that this didn't happen for them?

So, if a person who wound up with something of an advanced degree and who was in advanced-level classes throughout his time in the public education system didn't get that part...what fraction of American students do you think understand it?

You read the book while taking classes for your advanced degree?

So, if a person who wound up with something of an advanced degree and who was in advanced-level classes throughout his time in the public education system didn't get that part...what fraction of American students do you think understand it?

How many times did you read the book in school? I remember going over this in college.

I think a lot of people, even those who are opposed to the censorship, just assume Twain was a racist but that he was just a "product of his times."

 

If he had written a book making some other point, and just used n***** to use the word, I'd maybe see the point in softening it. But that word is part of the foundation for the novel.

They could substitute the pc words, footnote the change with an explanation, and his intention is known and open for discussion. Repetition of the words adds no value. And, even then, the impact of the words won't be quite understood by the kids reading them. My kids don't know the word "n*****" because I don't use it. What's the value of them learning it in 6th grade when they're at their most immature?

You read the book while taking classes for your advanced degree?

No, I read it in advanced-placement classes in high school. (maybe middle school, one of those years).

So, if a person who wound up with something of an advanced degree and who was in advanced-level classes throughout his time in the public education system didn't get that part...what fraction of American students do you think understand it?

 

Poor teaching isn't a reason to censor a book so as to remove its meaning. If teachers can't properly put the book into context and ensure that the students understand Twain, then they shouldn't be teaching the book at all. Neutering it so that you can have kids read a "classic" just makes the situation worse.

 

FWIW, Twain's probably my favorite writer and I think he should be taught more than he is.

I didn't read the book in high school, but if I had, I can say with almost total confidence my AP English teacher would've covered that.

They could substitute the pc words, footnote the change with an explanation, and his intention is known and open for discussion. Repetition of the words adds no value. And, even then, the impact of the words won't be quite understood by the kids reading them. My kids don't know the word "n*****" because I don't use it. What's the value of them learning it in 6th grade when they're at their most immature?

 

Again, a teaching point. Instead of telling a kid "hey, this word is bad" you provide context. You make its use more real.

 

Poor teaching isn't a reason to censor a book so as to remove its meaning. If teachers can't properly put the book into context and ensure that the students understand Twain, then they shouldn't be teaching the book at all. Neutering it so that you can have kids read a "classic" just makes the situation worse.

 

FWIW, Twain's probably my favorite writer and I think he should be taught more than he is.

 

Did you grab his autobiography? I haven't yet, but I hear it's like 600 pages in 8 pt font. And that's only the first part of it.

Anyone else want to agree with me that this didn't happen for them?

 

who cares? What does it change? Even if it isn't satire, it's what it was. It's real. Huck finn is largely read in freshman year of high school. We can stop with the "george washington cut a cherry tree! And martin luther king was a great man." and start getting into the real sacrifices and uglyness that happened to show just how great the struggles actually were.

They could substitute the pc words, footnote the change with an explanation, and his intention is known and open for discussion. Repetition of the words adds no value.

 

The casual, frequent use of such a dehumanizing word in the antibellum south was a strong point of the novel.

 

And, even then, the impact of the words won't be quite understood by the kids reading them. My kids don't know the word "n*****" because I don't use it. What's the value of them learning it in 6th grade when they're at their most immature?

 

So don't teach it in sixth grade. Wait until high school.

 

On the other hand, my fiance is student teaching middle school English right now. Two series that are really popular with 7th graders involve a post-apocolyptic world where children are forced to fight to the death, and a story whose backdrop is a war over abortion that was finally settled by allowing parents to "abort" their children at 13 for organs.

 

These aren't novels they're covering in class, but they're not light reads either.

Edited January 7, 201115 yr by StrangeSox

Did you grab his autobiography? I haven't yet, but I hear it's like 600 pages in 8 pt font. And that's only the first part of it.

 

No, but I watched the Ken Burns doc and I've read a lot of his Innocents Abroad and some other short semi-autobiographical stuff.

Edited January 7, 201115 yr by StrangeSox

Again, a teaching point. Instead of telling a kid "hey, this word is bad" you provide context. You make its use more real.

 

Right, words don't have magical power, and pretending they don't exist doesn't make the ideas and thoughts they convey disappear.

Right, words don't have magical power, and pretending they don't exist doesn't make the ideas and thoughts they convey disappear.

Well, words must have some power, or there'd be no argument here.

Right, words don't have magical power, and pretending they don't exist doesn't make the ideas and thoughts they convey disappear.

 

So how exactly do you contextually teach the ills of racism if you pretend that it didn't exist by wiping it out of history?

So how exactly do you contextually teach the ills of racism if you pretend that it didn't exist by wiping it out of history?

 

What? I'm arguing against censorship and white-washing here.

So, if a person who wound up with something of an advanced degree and who was in advanced-level classes throughout his time in the public education system didn't get that part...what fraction of American students do you think understand it?

 

That just means when your parents and teaches called you their "special student" it wasn't the good kind of special.