Censorship of Huck Finn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so members of the black community don't use the N word constantly?

Some do. Are you having difficulty following this discussion?

[Anonymous]

Biblical treatments of women make me embarrassed and uncomfortable. References to whore, virgins, and ad nauseum discussion of how may pigeons I have to burn after menstruating or child birth are humiliating. Stories of giving your virgin daughter to your guests to abuse and kill make me feel worthless.

Should the Bible be edited to be more politically correct? No! It should be taught exactly as it is so we can all see this ugliness for the misogyny that it is. To do anything else is to sanitize history. The same goes for race in literature. We can't deny the ugliness of what happened, nor should we.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biblical treatments of women make me embarrassed and uncomfortable. References to whore, virgins, and ad nauseum discussion of how may pigeons I have to burn after menstruating or child birth are humiliating. Stories of giving your virgin daughter to your guests to abuse and kill make me feel worthless.

Should the Bible be edited to be more politically correct? No! It should be taught exactly as it is so we can all see this ugliness for the misogyny that it is. To do anything else is to sanitize history. The same goes for race in literature. We can't deny the ugliness of what happened, nor should we.

This is a very reasoned conclusion to come to, that I'm sure many people can, and do agree with. It is easy for you to feel this way as an adult. This can't be said of someone in middle school, or even most of high school. After being out of school for so long, we forget what it was like to be that age. Then you graduate from high school and realize just how many things you thought were all important, don't really matter very much at all. Or vice versa.

I have been an avid reader my entire life. I do not use the N-word, at all. I don't like it and I'd prefer others around me don't but there isn't very much I can do to control others word usage. As an adult, it doesn't bother me to read it in literature for pretty much the reasons you listed above. I would've been mortified in middle or high school. I fully understand why schools would prefer not to introduce it to students at a certain age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biblical treatments of women make me embarrassed and uncomfortable. References to whore, virgins, and ad nauseum discussion of how may pigeons I have to burn after menstruating or child birth are humiliating. Stories of giving your virgin daughter to your guests to abuse and kill make me feel worthless.

Should the Bible be edited to be more politically correct? No! It should be taught exactly as it is so we can all see this ugliness for the misogyny that it is. To do anything else is to sanitize history. The same goes for race in literature. We can't deny the ugliness of what happened, nor should we.

This is a very reasoned conclusion to come to, that I'm sure many people can, and do agree with. It is easy for you to feel this way as an adult. This can't be said of someone in middle school, or even most of high school. After being out of school for so long, we forget what it was like to be that age. Then you graduate from high school and realize just how many things you thought were all important, don't really matter very much at all. Or vice versa.

I have been an avid reader my entire life. I do not use the N-word, at all. I don't like it and I'd prefer others around me don't but there isn't very much I can do to control others word usage. As an adult, it doesn't bother me to read it in literature for pretty much the reasons you listed above. I would've been mortified in middle or high school. I fully understand why schools would prefer not to introduce it to students at a certain age.

I am the poster you are responding to. When I talked about my experiences learning the Bible, I was referring to my K - 12 career in school. Even without it being pointed out to me, I was able to see the ugliness of the Bible for what it was.

I think if Huck Finn is taught with sensitivity and acknowledgement of the terrible attitudes it represents, all the kids learn more and stand a better chance of improving race relations and, for black students, self image. Because the book paints a far uglier picture of whites than blacks, when looked at from a modern perspective. If my teachers had devoted even one class to the depiction of women and why we reject those depictions today, the utter nonsense of the Bible in that regard, I would have respected them much more. I might even be a Catholic still.

You use it as a teachable moment. All these kids eventually have to learn about the Holocaust, witch burnings, genocide... the ugliness of the world. When else are they going to learn about the terrible things that happened in history, why they were wrong, and how we as a people must work to make sure they don't happen again? Seems to me a sensative teaching of Huck Finn might get all the kids in the class to question many of their attitudes, including whether they really want to be using a word like the "N" word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biblical treatments of women make me embarrassed and uncomfortable. References to whore, virgins, and ad nauseum discussion of how may pigeons I have to burn after menstruating or child birth are humiliating. Stories of giving your virgin daughter to your guests to abuse and kill make me feel worthless.

Should the Bible be edited to be more politically correct? No! It should be taught exactly as it is so we can all see this ugliness for the misogyny that it is. To do anything else is to sanitize history. The same goes for race in literature. We can't deny the ugliness of what happened, nor should we.

This is a very reasoned conclusion to come to, that I'm sure many people can, and do agree with. It is easy for you to feel this way as an adult. This can't be said of someone in middle school, or even most of high school. After being out of school for so long, we forget what it was like to be that age. Then you graduate from high school and realize just how many things you thought were all important, don't really matter very much at all. Or vice versa.

I have been an avid reader my entire life. I do not use the N-word, at all. I don't like it and I'd prefer others around me don't but there isn't very much I can do to control others word usage. As an adult, it doesn't bother me to read it in literature for pretty much the reasons you listed above. I would've been mortified in middle or high school. I fully understand why schools would prefer not to introduce it to students at a certain age.

I am the poster you are responding to. When I talked about my experiences learning the Bible, I was referring to my K - 12 career in school. Even without it being pointed out to me, I was able to see the ugliness of the Bible for what it was.

I think if Huck Finn is taught with sensitivity and acknowledgement of the terrible attitudes it represents, all the kids learn more and stand a better chance of improving race relations and, for black students, self image. Because the book paints a far uglier picture of whites than blacks, when looked at from a modern perspective. If my teachers had devoted even one class to the depiction of women and why we reject those depictions today, the utter nonsense of the Bible in that regard, I would have respected them much more. I might even be a Catholic still.

You use it as a teachable moment. All these kids eventually have to learn about the Holocaust, witch burnings, genocide... the ugliness of the world. When else are they going to learn about the terrible things that happened in history, why they were wrong, and how we as a people must work to make sure they don't happen again? Seems to me a sensative teaching of Huck Finn might get all the kids in the class to question many of their attitudes, including whether they really want to be using a word like the "N" word.

Ideally, I agree with the last poster. But what happens if either the students or the teacher (or both) are not up to the subtleties of dealing with the emotions now built into the word? Just look at the problems we have discussing debating whether to write the actual word in quotes or use a circumlocution, and imagine a teacher trying to explain the significance (or lack of significance) of Huck actually applying it to Jim. Think how difficult it is to discuss it orally, with a class full of touchy teens, where you can't pause and calculate how to phrase each thought the way we can here.

[Anonymous]

I'm a teacher in a mixed race family (Black white and other fabulous heritages). I'm against this censorship and plain old dumbing down. What happened to teaching a text when it's age-appropriate, footnotes, annotation and plain old teaching and discussion? That's what makes a text accessible versus threatening- whether it's Twain or Shakespeare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a teacher in a mixed race family (Black white and other fabulous heritages). I'm against this censorship and plain old dumbing down. What happened to teaching a text when it's age-appropriate, footnotes, annotation and plain old teaching and discussion? That's what makes a text accessible versus threatening- whether it's Twain or Shakespeare.

ITA

[Anonymous]

Wow, all this pressure to understand the conditions of the black farm labourers in Mississippi. No books on the fate of the Indians whose land was stolen and who got to disappear from the history books.

Or have we forgotten that the Brittish started the slave trade, Americans bought them. Indians had to disappear

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, all this pressure to understand the conditions of the black farm labourers in Mississippi. No books on the fate of the Indians whose land was stolen and who got to disappear from the history books.

Or have we forgotten that the Brittish started the slave trade, Americans bought them. Indians had to disappear

There are books on the American Indians. But are we supposed to talk about them when the topic is the edited version of Huck Finn?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, all this pressure to understand the conditions of the black farm labourers in Mississippi. No books on the fate of the Indians whose land was stolen and who got to disappear from the history books.

Or have we forgotten that the Brittish started the slave trade, Americans bought them. Indians had to disappear

There are books on the American Indians. But are we supposed to talk about them when the topic is the edited version of Huck Finn?

the american indians were as murderous as the european settlers. each tribe displaced the one before it, often murdering the men and enslaving the women. this is especially true in the more populated regions of central and south america.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
the american indians were as murderous as the european settlers. each tribe displaced the one before it, often murdering the men and enslaving the women. this is especially true in the more populated regions of central and south america.

Europeans had better guns.
And they had the slaves the Brittish got for them
And, for the natives to die out like that, they were more ruthless
What does central and south America have to with this?

[Anonymous]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, all this pressure to understand the conditions of the black farm labourers in Mississippi. No books on the fate of the Indians whose land was stolen and who got to disappear from the history books.

Or have we forgotten that the Brittish started the slave trade, Americans bought them. Indians had to disappear

There are books on the American Indians. But are we supposed to talk about them when the topic is the edited version of Huck Finn?

the american indians were as murderous as the european settlers. each tribe displaced the one before it, often murdering the men and enslaving the women. this is especially true in the more populated regions of central and south america.

That's not really accurate. There were some tribes that had conflict, and others that engaged in regional trade with each other.

[Anonymous]

This is like the fourth time you've brought up the indians. What are you like one thirty second native American or something?

I already said in an earlier post that other genocides also need to be taught. Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.

And as a PP said, this thread is about Huck Finn. Start your own thread about Native Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, all this pressure to understand the conditions of the black farm labourers in Mississippi. No books on the fate of the Indians whose land was stolen and who got to disappear from the history books.

Or have we forgotten that the Brittish started the slave trade, Americans bought them. Indians had to disappear

There are books on the American Indians. But are we supposed to talk about them when the topic is the edited version of Huck Finn?

the american indians were as murderous as the european settlers. each tribe displaced the one before it, often murdering the men and enslaving the women. this is especially true in the more populated regions of central and south america.

That's not really accurate. There were some tribes that had conflict, and others that engaged in regional trade with each other.

point is, lets not pretend the native americans were these "noble savages" leaving in peaceful harmony with their neighbors and nature. they were just like every other human tribe - some aggressive, some more so than others. the Incans and Aztecs were just brutal, and if not for the disease, I'd argue the peasants were not much worse off living under the spanish. in north america the population was much less, so there was more room and less conflict, but still the iriquois and others were very warlike.