Censorship of Huck Finn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who fives a rat's rump about punctuation, grammar, whatever. I started this thread because I am against censorship of any kind. Twain was writing about another time and place and the book depicts the mores of that time. Also, he was condemning slavery. Get back to the subject of "Censorship" of books. This, as I said, was my issue.

Ah the paradox! The opponent of censorship disapproves of others' writing and wants to cut it off.

But, joking aside, I agree that we're getting hung up on what are more likely to be typos than real errors. Give the other guy some slack.

And back to the original point, I dislike the censorship, either of the book or of the terms we are able to use in our own discussions, but I am also subject to a continuing case of "on the other hand". [Yes, I know the period should be inside the quotes, but I prefer to reserve that formation for times when it makes logical sense.]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who fives a rat's rump about punctuation, grammar, whatever. I started this thread because I am against censorship of any kind. Twain was writing about another time and place and the book depicts the mores of that time. Also, he was condemning slavery. Get back to the subject of "Censorship" of books. This, as I said, was my issue.

Ah the paradox! The opponent of censorship disapproves of others' writing and wants to cut it off.

But, joking aside, I agree that we're getting hung up on what are more likely to be typos than real errors. Give the other guy some slack.

And back to the original point, I dislike the censorship, either of the book or of the terms we are able to use in our own discussions, but I am also subject to a continuing case of "on the other hand". [Yes, I know the period should be inside the quotes, but I prefer to reserve that formation for times when it makes logical sense.]

"On the other hand" she had a wart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who fives a rat's rump about punctuation, grammar, whatever. I started this thread because I am against censorship of any kind. Twain was writing about another time and place and the book depicts the mores of that time. Also, he was condemning slavery. Get back to the subject of "Censorship" of books. This, as I said, was my issue.

Ah the paradox! The opponent of censorship disapproves of others' writing and wants to cut it off.

But, joking aside, I agree that we're getting hung up on what are more likely to be typos than real errors. Give the other guy some slack.

And back to the original point, I dislike the censorship, either of the book or of the terms we are able to use in our own discussions, but I am also subject to a continuing case of "on the other hand". [Yes, I know the period should be inside the quotes, but I prefer to reserve that formation for times when it makes logical sense.]

"On the other hand" she had a wart.

On the other hand she very carefully balanced her checkbook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You are ridiculous and outrageous. Humans have a very dark side, and a very dark past. I agree that white people created, for example, the cultural problems between the Hutus and the Tutsis. But those Africans are the ones who actually chose to murder each other in such horrible ways.
.

Nice
The killings occured under the watchful eye of the UN. If you remember, United Nations was formed after world war 2, to insure that what happened there would never happen again. It did, and the UN troops were there and did nothing.
Imagine if they had had oil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Historical biases will not go away. I am quite familiar with African history, and have lived in one African country. I am still astounded by what the civilized western nations did to Africa, the extend to which they try and wash away their own responsibility for the problems that they caused that still affect African nations.
The thought of white American people thinking this land belongs to them because they are the best and most deserving is bizarre.
The native american is still waiting to be declared president of the USA. Until then, only the colonialists rule. I cannot help but wonder why nobody could care less that obviously there is more to the story and the red man did not deserve what they got.
White man just know how to swindle, lie and kill

You are ridiculous and outrageous. Humans have a very dark side, and a very dark past. I agree that white people created, for example, the cultural problems between the Hutus and the Tutsis. But those Africans are the ones who actually chose to murder each other in such horrible ways..

did you know:
America would not have the blacks if it was not for the English who broght them over for the White Americans to buy
America would have the red nations, if they had not been killed by the white man, their history is not taught in schools. The schools do not even teach Africas history. For some reason a part of Europes history is taught. Dumb nation to not know its roots.
The folks stolen from Africa did not leave mothers and fathers and children and wiwes behind without them ever mourning their loss.
Africa named Lake Victoria and Victoria Falls after the English Monarch
The English Monarch (Queen Victoria) started the last 'gentlemans war', that ended up being the first war that was photographed (year 1900), and the first a war, and the first war criminal in the true sense of the word was an English Lord.
Queen Victorias grand daughter was the wife of Tsar Nicholas and got shot with her children, English royals cancelled their plans of safe refuge. Some royal jewels belonged to the Romanovs. The biggest diamond in the world was found in South Africa, and made part of the royal jewels. Sacrelidge
So the concentration camps where invented by the Brittish, perfected by the Natzies, and despite that, the annihilation of the red man is never mentioned.

1. The first slaves in the US colonies were sold by the Spanish and Dutch, not the English.
2. Native Americans in what is now the US and sub-saharan Africans tended not to have writing systems, so their history is necessarily less comprehensive than the Europeans.
3. ?
4. ??
5. ???
6. ????
7. You cannot compare the concentration camps which the British used in South Africa, horrific as they were, with the concentration camps used by the Nazis. The British sought to contain the Boer population during a period of guerilla warfare, and released the inhabitants as soon as the war was over. The Nazis sought to exterminate the Jews, Romanies etc.

In short, your understanding of history is random at best, and your thought processes are not very clear.

[Anonymous]

You are right, they did not have writing systems. Does not mean they did not know their history, and does not mean that they never had any history that would be worth exploring or knowing.

Boer war was in the year 1900, and the first war criminal of the century got to be an English Lord, he did not face trial, but was given a new title of Viscount, then he used that to go and work for the Tsar of Russia and got to burn Poland. He died in 6.6.1916. There are memorials in England to honor this man. The woman who exposed those camps got to be called hysterical. The word 'necessity' was invented.