Bucky, I am majoring in English/ Secondary Education. I have spent many hours observing English classes in a variety of high schools; I have observed five in the last year. I have spent even more hours in English classes discussing literature with future teachers, and in my experience most are not very sohisticated literary critics. Furthermore, I have never seen a teacher take a “reader response” approach to teaching literature. Most teachers in my experiance use a streamlined type of formalism mixed in with a heavy dose of character identification. There seems to be a belief that students can only enjoy literature if they can identify with it.
My observations are mostly based on teachers as they are today, not as they are being trained for tomorrow, and many are the result of poor traing programs. I am sure you are a very good teacher Bucky, and I hope to be a very good teacher myself soon. But part of the reason I want to be a good teacher of literature is that I fucking love it, and I think many teachers of English do not and have little or no passion or ability for converting people to the same sensibilities.
Lastly, The fact that Huck Finn has always been taught is no recomendation it be taught now, nor is the fact that a book is “forgotten” sufficent to decry it–books move in and out of the cannon all of the time, as different critical techniques arise that give us different ways of interrpreting them.
Melville’s racism or lack of it is not the issue–the issue is the treatment of racism in a particular story. I certainly do not think that the issue of racism should be ducked–instead, I think that there are great works that handle the issue brilliantly , without the baggage that Huck Finn carries. I want to teach literature, not spend all my time wrangling with my students, fellow teachers, administrators, and parents over the literature I am teaching.
Sorry mando Jo, but God damn you’re opininated. Oh well, this is Great Debated, why the hell not?
Theres a difference between understanding and appreciating satire. I can’t speak for my peers, but I was able to understand Huck finn rather easily, especially with the teacher that I have.
Really? I guess that’s your interpretation of it.
Personally I took the scene where Huck simpley does the impossible (for that time frame) and apologizes to Jim for playing a trick AND DOES IT SINCERLY as a jab toward societies’ wrong doings. This ELEVATES Jim, not infantalizes him. This is then showed again when Huck “chooses” to goto hell and at the end of the book where Jim saves Tom.
as for the generalization against teachers I say let them. Personally I think that literature has a meaning behind it, but it’s not something you can dechiper. You can make extrapolations, you can make hypotheses and a myriad of other things, but you can NOT know what the author meant. Therefore I believe that is it up to the student to develop their own thoughts on the literature but with a teacher guiding them, giving them ideas, possibilities not facts.
As for melville, haven’t read the book–so no comment.
Oh, and that last comment where you talk about the “baggage” that Huck Finn holds; I think that’s BS. The supposed racist “baggage” that Huck Finn has is just that–supposed. Anyone who understands it even slightly knows that it isn’t. All the controversy around that book that i’ve seen is out of ignorance with maybe a small nearly irelevant point.
I had an English teacher like Manda Jo in high school. She only taught the things that she liked and grasped firmly. Of course, this meant that she had all the answers when it came to certain works of literature.
No one was allowed their own response or interpretation because she knew the “correct” answers. She would not teach something that could be open to various interpretations because she could not control the parameters. We ended up reading nothing but Thoreau, Emerson, Dickinson, and Melville. We tried Walt Whitman but all of his poetry was about having sex with women (see what I mean) so it was pointless to read.
Now, I could understand not “letting” or wanting a teacher to take her class through A Modest Proposal if she truly thought it was about canibalism but Huck Finn? I think it would be better to teach a book with all that baggage to ensure that kids didn’t put it down after reading the word, “nigger”, a few times.
Let them tackle the easy-to-read, no-symbolism-to-point-out, no-controversial-terminology books on their own time. Those don’t need to be taught.
“You don’t have insurance? Well, just have a seat and someone will be with you after you die.” --Yes, another quality sig custom created by Wally!
A Jesusfied sig: Next time I covet thine opinion, I’ll ask for it!
The main arguments for Jim’s infantilization mostly spring from the adventures in the last ten chapters of the book, when Tom Sawyer reenters the story and he and Huck try to rescue Jim. Although they have no idea when Jim will be “claimed or sold” and Huck and Jim are both under the impression that either fate means being sent down the river to a living death, they spend three weeks inacting elaborate escape plans despite the fact that Huck could of just walked of with Jim any evening. This is not a passing incident-it takes up all of chapters 34-41, before the actual escape attempt even begins. Huck and Jim go around warning everyone that something is up before hand, to give the situation more drama. There are three possible interpretations of Jim’s reactions to all this, which is to play along with but a passing word of dissent: either he, himself, an adult man, is so childlike that he is swept up in the drama of it himself, unable to appreciate the real consequences of not escaping; or, he is so deeply entrenched in the racist ideology of the day that he is incapable of gainsaying the commands of a middle class white boy (Tom Sawyer; Huck is trash and a different case); or he is aware of the stupidity of all this drama in the face of a real tragedy but is so dependent on the help of two ten year old boys that he is forced to allow them to use him as a toy in their games, even allowing them to import snakes and rats and spiders into the cabin he is held in. None of these possibilities make people very comfortable. Many people just ignore the last fifth of the book and teach it up to the famous “Then I’ll go to hell” line and sort of dribble off from there.
The other problem with the end is the revelation that Jim was free the whole time. First, this removes any point or significance from what has gone before: the whole journey down the river was pointless. Second, Tom Sawyer knows Jim is a free man and hides it from him and Huck so that he can use Jim as a toy in an elaborate game of make believe. This is a horrible thing to do, and shows that Tom is no better than the rest of the River society. Third, Jim is, in the end, freed not by his own agency, but by the whim of Miss Watson. He is robbed of the right to be a hero. For the rest of his life his freedom is something he will have to be grateful to white people for, not something he can take pride in.
Another problematic point is the argument in chapter 14 when Jim can’t understand the idea of a foreign language. It is very reminiscent of the vaudeville routines popular at the time, when a black person or a person in blackface would have long, nonsensical, almost logical arguments with a white straight man. The humor in these scenes was similar to the humor in “Kids say the darndest things” style sketches today. The same goes for Jim’s wild superstitions. In the late nineteenth century the superstitions of blacks and white trash were viewed as proof of unsophistication and ignorance by the literate public. There is something distinctly childlike about believing that a man fell of his roof because three years earlier he looked at the new moon over his left shoulder.
A couple quotes:
Bored2001:
No, these things elevate * Huck*, not Jim.
Bored 2001:
I am not talking about the contents of the book when I say baggage-I am talking about the knee-jerk reactions students, parents, and administrators, who may never of read the damn thing, have when they hear the title. I am talking about the controversy that surrounds the book, and which makes it so that a teacher teaching it spends more time talking about the controversy than the novel itself. Teachers that teach Huck Finn have to spend hours defending it to parents and administrators, and preparing alternate lessons and tests for the handful of students whose parents refuse to let them read it (this happens with a lot of books).
Evilbeth:
Evilbeth, if this were my attitude, would I be in Great Debates? There is nothing I prefer to a good argument. I am going into teaching so as to always have fresh blood to argue with. In any case, I tend to think that one of the main reasons we teach literature is not to teach literature but to teach effective argumentation. The Melville book I am suggesting has every bit as much ambiguity and controversy inherent in it as anything Twain ever wrote; the last thing I want to do is stifle debate or avoid the hard questions. I just think it is easier to get to the hard questions if you start with fewer preconceptions.
I do not believe that “Huckleberry Finn” was a racist book, any more than I believe that “The Last Temptation of Christ” was an anti-Christian novel, or that Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” was pro-cannibalism or anti-Irish.
The problem is, MArk Twain has long been identified (VERY wrongly!) as a kiddie author! Sure, the Tom Sawyer series falls into that category, but “Huckleberry Finn” certainly does not!
So, the question isn’t “Should Huck FInn be banned”- it’s WHEN and WHERE is it appropriate for kids to read it?
A third or fourth grade teacher who assigns “Huckleberry FInn” to her class is asking for trouble. THough I realize that Mark Twain used the word “nigger” casually for the sake of accuracy (Southerners DID toss around the word casually in those days), 9 and 10 year olds aren’t likely to appreciate that. They’re more likely to start throwing the word “nigger” around in the schoolyard, leading to hurt feelings and fistfights.
Mark Twain is NOT a safe, kiddie author a la Franklin Dixon. Huck and Jim are not the Hardy Boys. (Where anyone got that idea is beyond me.) Worthy of reading in high school? Yes. In grade school? Judgement call, but PROBABLY not. That doesn’t mean the book should be “banned,” only that it should be taught at an appropriate level.
I would like to second something that Astorian just pointed out, a fact that, it seems to me, is getting lost in the shuffle. We’re spending so much time arguing about English teachers, that I think we’re missing a point. And I’m going to put it in bold, because I think it’s important.
Mark Twain wrote for an adult audience.
Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn were both written by a master storyteller, a man who was educated, literate, erudite (is that redundant?), and an adult, with an adult’s tastes and sensibilities. He was writing for an audience that he assumed was ALSO educated, literate, erudite (whether it’s redundant or not), and adult, with adult tastes and sensibilities.
I understand why children are given these two books to read–they are seminal in the field of American literature. To scholarly types, they are living proof that the field of 19th century literature is not the sole province of the British, that “Americans can write, good, too!” This is why Mark Twain is important.
But it is deeply silly to expect children to understand all the adult subtext, and (sorry, Manda Jo) I think it is even sillier to try to expect them to understand concepts like “the infantilization of Jim”. That’s a term from a college curriculum on “American 19th Century Literature”, and I’m not even sure I understand what it means, and as you can (hopefully) see from my posts :), I am a well-read, literate adult.
Give the kids the book, let them read it, and be done with it.
And don’t try to tidy it up by taking out the word “nigger”. Mark Twain never used a word casually, without thinking; he always meant exactly what he said. “Nigger” was a casual pejorative of the day, and he used it that way. The polite way to say it would have been “Negro”, which had been around for a long time. He meant to say “nigger” and he did, because that was how the people he was writing about talked. If he’d used the polite term, “Negro”, all the adults he was writing for would have put the book down halfway through as being unbelievable.
It would be like reading a story about sailors or truck drivers that was presented as being a “slice of life”, in which nobody ever said “fuck” or “Goddamn”.
“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen
Personally I believe that that entire episode about Jim’s freedom was showing society’s condemation of Jim. Seriously, do you believe that anyone(of the audience it was written for) who actually saw that happening to Jim would let Huck and tom do it?
As for Huck I think it showed the corrupting ability of society on the “noble savage” that Huck is.
Again–your interpretation. I believe that Huck treating Jim as a PERSON elevates him from the animal-like position that SOCIETY gives him.
So if we ignore the problem it’ll just go away? :rolleyes:
My sentiments exactly.
Same thought ran across my mind =) I like teachers who actually argue with their students instead of stating their “superiority”
It’s a nice thought to use a book that can teach the same lessons but don’t carry the same “baggage” as Huck Finn, but how long do you think it will be before it’s decided that the book you’re using should be banned because of its objectionable content. Will you then find another book that hasn’t been banned yet? Then another? The point is to fight ignorance, not give in to it.
If we do not expose (secondary school) students to the conditions of the past as shown in the history and literature of the time, how in the world will they get any sense of what life was like? Everybody knows that computers have always been around, right? And TV? I can remember when we got our first TV station. “Most people today have the historical awareness of tree shrews.” (-Cecil Adams)
The book is not only a masterpiece of 19th Century American literature but also an enjoyable read. I love Shakespeare but without the background into the conventions of Elizabethan literature, the atrocious wordplay he uses that four centuries have outmoded, and all the other fun stuff that goes into an appreciation of it, it’s all stuff and fustian. Moby Dick is deep but an annoyingly intensive read. Twain writes a story for the masses but with the depth to carry additional meaning. Banning it in the name of political correctness or family values is just plain inane.
I had wondered when I began reading this thread if somebody would bring up the alleged homosexual subtext. There is an absolutely hilarious essay by literary critic Leslie Fiedler called “Come Back to the Raft, Huck, Honey” (a direct quote from African American Joe) that deals with this insanity.
Sorry I have been gone for so long; things got hectic.
I want to restate/clarify my position. I would not choose to teach Huck Finn for two reasons: One, the knee-jerk reaction to the book by students, parents, and administrators who may or may not ever have read it (the baggage), and two, the fact that the book has some very problematic “subtexts”.
Problem one: the baggage
Bored2001 suggests that not wanting to deal with the misconceptions and antagonism of parents, students, and administrators is an attempt to ignore the problem in the hopes that it will go away. Damn straight. One thing I’ve learned in this life is that you have to pick your battles. The hours we have on this earth are finite, and the hours in the classroom even more limited. I do not think this particular battle is worth fighting, year after year after year. I think it would ultimately be less worthwhile than spending my time introducing my students to similar issues and problems in other texts where students can approach it with an open mind. If a good proportion of my students have already decided, or been told, that enjoying Huck Finn is a sign of racism, I will have to dedicate my entire teaching approach to overcoming this one preconception and getting them to at least read the damn thing in a less than hostile mindset. I would not be able to talk about the text at all. It is worth mentioning that I live in the Deep South; Odds are that I will teach at a predominately black school. I am white. In such a situation, many students will have already presupposed a racist bias on my part. For those students who see me as a white person defending a white person out of racial sympathy, no argument, however eloquent, will be persuasive. Of course the issue of racism in Huck Finn is important and worth debating (I’m here, aren’t I?); but there are half a dozen other things that would have to be left out if such a debate were to take place. This is always a contentious issue, and people become so invested in their positions in it that it can not be done briefly.
Cleosia raises the good point that any book can acquire baggage. This does not worry me for two reasons. First, baggage like that of Huck Finn’s takes decades to develop. People that have no set opinion on any other novel will jump in the fray on the “is racist” or “isn’t racist” side, before they even open the book . It can be uncanny. I think that often times the sides line up based more on people’s own self-conceptions than on their reasoned opinions. People who consider themselves iconoclasts will decry Twain; people who think of themselves as patriots or literati will jump to defend him. Because self concept is so wrapped up in it, people can not be receptive to different opinions without loosing face. I just can not imagine any other book acquiring inspiring such a powerful, to the point of being immutable, positions on itself. Second, it is my dear hope that the problems with discussing past racism in a culture that still deals with race issues will disappear over the next few generations as intermarrige and education take care of the problem.
Problem two: The contents
My objections to Huck Finn are not a simplistic aversion to the word “nigger” or to the issue of racism. My objections center on the character of Jim himself. He is the only significant black character. In any work where race is an ever-present issue and there is only one character of the oppressed race, that character is going to be seen in some sense as representative of his race as a whole. Jim is presented as childlike to the point of imbecility. This is the most harmful of all the negative stereotypes about blacks: that they are “grown up children”. This was one of the main justifications for slavery. Blacks were intellectually inferior, and thus needed whites to take care of them, to “rescue” them from their own shortcomings. Slaveholding was a charitable act; blacks were “the white man’s burden”. If there is any facet about nineteenth century racism that I think needs to be highlighted it is this concept of slavery as a positive good. However, in Huck Finn Jim never rises above the stereotype of the childish black; instead, he reinforces it. Nor is there any suggestion in the text that perhaps Jim is not like this, but rather that Huck sees him this way due to Huck’s prejudices. Nor do we ever see a contrasting, intelligent, dignified, adult black man. The reason I am so fond of the idea of using “Benito Cereno” as a substitute for this text is that in that story it is the main character, Delano, is almost murdered because he is incapable of even contemplating the idea that a slave is not an idiot, a sambo. He misses all evidence to the contrary (evidence that is obvious to the reader) and it nearly costs him his life and the life of his crew. The text clearly shows that a condescending, humorous stereotype is as racist as a violent, animalistic one. I think this is a profound point that Huck Finn fails to make. As far as Mark Twain himself goes, I think the point is moot: we read a book, not a man. But I suspect that Twain was like the rest of us-someone raised in a racist society, more overt then than now, who was against his will instilled with racist beliefs. Like all of us, black, white or purple, he struggled all of his life to transcend these, with varying success.
A few quotes:
Bored2001 said:
I still don’t see how Huck’s opinion-the opinion of a child-could transform an adult from an animal into a person. It is to Huck’s credit that he realized Jim’s worth, but it is a change inside of Huck, not Jim. The only way Jim can be “elevated” is through his own action-by escaping, by refusing to be tortured and degraded for the amusement of boys, by facing his enslavers and demanding his personhood be acknowledged. Theoretically, Jim could also elevate himself through his thoughts. Unfortunately, the limited perspective means that we have access only to his actions, and it is by these actions that we must judge him.
Bored2001 again:
I do not have a cite for this, unfortunately, but according to one professor of mine the end was the most popular part of the book when it was first published. It was the part most often read aloud, and people found in side-shakeingly funny. The idea that all the farce was horrid through the eyes of Jim did not really arise in the popular imagination until much later.
Notthemama said:
And I think it is silly to expect that they won’t get them. They may not be able to use fancy words to describe these subtexts (hey! I paid good money for my liberal arts education and I am going to use it, damnit.) but they can and will certainly get the impression that Jim acts like a child and that he is supposed to be an “average” black man.
I was told that. I still read it and found it mildly amusing. But definitlely not racist.
Don’t you think that anyone in high school should be at least mature enough to form their own opinions?
That’s like giving up before trying!
Hrm, Uncle tom’s cabin? That sure convinced alot of people…
And Ignoring it will solve this problem…
:rolleyes:
Simple, Huck is a Noble-savage of sorts. His morals are outside of societies. Therefore Huck’s acceptance of Jim shows the evils of society. Therefore this elevates Jim in showing that it is Society that is oppressing Jim and not Jim himself as being inferior.
It takes time to understand things. Just like when Huck was first banned by the Concord Libary. They claimed that it was vulgar, immoral and not suited to be read by children. They simply didn’t understand the book. But I do admit you caught me on this one. Still, I can revise my argument no? Isn’t that the point of argument? =)
Perhaps it was an attempt to force the people
into seeing how horrible their socitey was. It’s only when faced with your most horrible evils do you have the courage to correct them.
OK, after MandaJo’s last post I had to go back and read her previous posts more carefully, and now I see a couple more things that might help clarify this discussion, before it degenerates into people just raggin’ on each other over whether or not Huck Finn is racist. The OP is about censorship.
There were three things I realized upon re-reading MandaJo.
One is that she’s still in college–she’s not a teacher just yet. Come back in 10 years, after she’s had some actual experience in the American school system. Don’t be too quick to condemn her as “just like all the other English teachers who only teach what they understand”, OK? She hasn’t actually taught anything yet. A teacher’s teaching style evolves over time; I can practically guarantee you that her mindset in 10 years will be very different from her mindset today. MandaJo, I don’t mean that in a negative way, OK? Heck, my mindset today is very different from the way it was 10 years ago.
She’s got a lot of theoretical knowledge as to how Huck Finn SHOULD be taught, but once you get into a classroom, and are getting feedback from a lot of kids, things can change pretty quick. She wouldn’t be the first teacher who ever scrapped an entire lesson plan and just went with the flow.
Second, in all of this talk about “whether kids can understand the satire/racism/whatever”, I realized that some of us are talking about two completely different age groups–big kids, and little kids. I was under the impression that MJ was an El.Ed. teacher (dunno why, reading late at night, I guess), so…Fourth, fifth, and sixth-graders are a whole 'nother animal from high school kids. I WOULD expect at least a high school sophomore to be able to understand Huck Finn with an adult’s comprehension, perhaps with a little help from a teacher who gently points things out. I wouldn’t expect little kids to understand it as anything other than an adventure story, a sort-of sequel to Tom Sawyer.
Third, she says she’s almost certainly going to end up as one of the few white teachers in a mostly-black high school in the Deep South. Hey, under those circumstances, I’d be extremely hesitant to try to teach Huck Finn. Talk about baggage! You just know there’d be one or two kids who would be real hard-cases about the “racism” in it, wrecking any chance of a sensible discussion.
I’ll close by saying, “Thank God for public libraries”. If a school does decide not to allow a book to be taught, or if a teacher chooses not to cover a particular book, kids can still get hold of a copy and read it, if they really want to. (And then probably wonder what all the fuss was about–like me, with Catcher in the Rye. I never did figure out why everyone was so upset.)
So, that’s what I came here to say.
P.S. I’ve been an obsessive/compulsive reader since I was about 6 years old, but I have to admit I’ve never even heard of the Melville book you’re talking about. Benito who?
“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen
There are two problems with this. One, if Huck’s moral authority is that profound–if he is our guide to what is right and wrong in the story, and not just the narrator–than the end of the book becomes very problematic: if Huck’s treatment in the apology scene is powerful enough to elevate Jim, than Huck’s behavior in the next ten chapters is enough to degrade Jim. You can’t have it both ways. Second, if Jim’s actions never transcend that of the streotypical happy nigger, Huck’s “elevation” is pretty useless. He is saying to Jim: even though you are child-like and incapable you are still a human being, and deserve some respect." Big whoopty-do! This is hardly a pinnacle of moral development.
Bored2001:
No, as I tried to explain above, it is picking my battles. The little issue of “Is Huck Finn racist” is incidental next to the bigger issues of “How did racism affect nineteenth century thought?” “How does racism affect us today?” “What does it mean to be racist?” “Why is racism dangerous?” “How can we avoid racism in our own life?” I do not want all of these important things to get drowned out in the “Good book/Bad book” debate. Here on the board I don’t jump into every single arguemrnt I have the slightest opinion on, because I don’t have the time. A classroom is the same way. I don’t want to fight glorious, hopeless battles–I want to teach
Nothtemama said:
Oh, I know this. But I think that if I understand and can clearly explain what I think now, and why, then I will be better able to change effectivly when I am faced with new information. I need some sort of working theroy to start out with.
Nothtemama:
Exactly. And this goes both ways. I, myself, did Huck Finn twice in high school, both times at middle class white schools. There, the opposite was the case. Many white students felt obligated to defend Twain blindly, myself included. There was a feeling that to decry anything about Twain was to decry American civilization itself. The very idea that such a famous American author could have any trace of racism about him made the students (myself included) so uncomfortable that it was not to be considered. Now I realize that Mark Twain dod not succed in completly transending the racist culture he was raised in, and that that is OK–he is a great writter in spite of and behaps because of that failure, and his work is still valid. Many kids can not see this–they see racism as uniformly bad and unforgivable. I actually have nightmares of a class with an equal racial mix diving down race lines to have this arguement. Can you imagine? That is the best way in the world to deepen racial predjdices.
Notthemama:
Not just public libraries, but school libraries as well. As I said earlier, I would fight tooth and nail any attempt to remove Huck Finn from a schhol library, and I plan to keep copies in my classroom. ( I have been collecting cheap copies of classics and good books at garage sales and thrift stores for years so thwat my class can have it’s own circulating library) I just think I can be a more effective teacher using other texts.
Like I said before Upon Huck’s reentry into society corrupts him. That further pokes fun at society in the timeframe, and probably society at the time.
Jim never transcends a child-like manner? He doens’t save Tom? He doesn’t genuinely care for Huck?
Personally I believe that if you don’t take a stand against an evil it’ll simply persist until someone does. I do, however, agree somewhat on your line of thinking.
Oh, and you’re still giving up.
You can either take a risk and increase their knowledge about the races or you can stand by and do nothing and allow the racial preconceptions to persist. Personally I would try the riskier method…
If the opportunity cost of fighting the good fight is that the students get less of an education to begin with, then what are you fighting for? If you strive for a principle for the sake of young minds, and have to sacrifice those minds for that principle, what have you won? You have won the right to congratulate yourself on not giving up, and at a terrible cost that others had to pay.
Why not teach Huck Finn along with teaching about its censorship history and issues? Those who dislike the book then get an opportunity to defend why they would censor it (or at least remove it from their class) or get a chance to have their views evolve.
Manda Jo, perhaps one problem that you have with the book is that you’re only seeing it in terms of race? This is the impression I get from your posts. ANY 19th Cnetury book will have some possibility for racial tension–exclusion of non-white characters is enough for some to want the book excluded.
I say entger the fight knowing that it’s coming–don’t shy away from it. Otherwise, you avoid Huck today and Anne Frank tomorrow and Shylock next week and finally you’re left (maybe) with Dick and Jane.
This is a good argument, but it still does not address the problem of Jim’s character. Caring for Huck does not make him a man; a child cares. Saving Tom does not make him a man–he is sacrificing himself for the sake of his primary oppressor, and he never even acts upset or ironic about the situation. When the doctor is scared to leave Tom with Jim for fear that Jim might run away, he doesn’t tell the doctor not to, or reassure him, or anything. Jim is completely subservient throughout the book to every white except, rarely, Huck. And this is because Huck is serious trash, about the same social strata as Jim. And even then Jim talking a little harshly to Tom is portrayed as a shocking, unprecedented, and never repeated event. It doesn’t change anything in any of the characters. Huck decides, for a passing moment, that Jim is human in spite of his racial limitations. He never sees, nor is there any evidence for the rest of us to see, that those racial limitations don’t exist, are in themselves the problem, because they are manifested in Jim, not contradicted. If I am gong to teach a book with only one black person in it, I do not want that black person to be Jim. I do not feel that all black characters need to be positive–in “Benito Cereno”, the slaves are positively savage, just as are the slavers and the northerners. Everyone is evil. But the main black character is not a Sambo.
I believe in fighting evil, not “taking stands”. It is my belief that fortified positions are best attacked from behind. I feel that if I begin a discussion on racism with Huck Finn, where students have strong pre-existing opinions that are based on little beyond their idea of whether or not the book “should” be racist, I will get nowhere. If I start with a neutral text I can get them to start thinking and questioning, and from there they will be better able to form reasoned opinions about Huck Finn when and if they read it. Bluntly, I don’t care if they always have the wrong opinion about any single text, even Huck Finn: what I want is for them to have opinions about racism that they have reached through reason and argument, not out of a desire to defend or decry an American Icon.
And I prefer something that works. * Huck Finn* gets people’s blood boiling, and they don’t reason or argue, they rant. Blacks vs. whites ranting at each other is a very, very bad thing. I have worked hard to come up with a text that I think allows for discussion of racial themes without excessive peer pressure to “stick up for your race”, so that people will be free to think.
Bucky:
Bucky, have you been reading my posts? There is nothing I want to do so much as talk about race and racism. (Since you can’t really talk about sex or god in the classroom, what else is there?) But I think that discussions of Huck Finn, to an extent greater than any other book in America, tend to degrade into “Was Mark Twain racist or not?” discussions that drown out everything else. I don’t want that debate to eat up hours of class time and preclude any discussion of racism itself.
Yes, I have, and that’s my point. An English teacher’s primary jobs are:
to teach how the English language is used,
to teach how the English language should be used (especially in expressing thoughts, ideas, feelings, etc. with others),
to teach how individual students can use the English language (as readers, writers, speakers, and even as listeners) more effectively,
Other.
Teaching aout race is part of #4 on the list! Besides, Huck Finn is NOT just about race–that is the filter through which your posts suggest you are seeing it. But that is not your primary job, no matter how important you think it is. S
hould I teach computer literacy in Phy Ed? Should I teach drug awareness in physics? Should I teach basketball skills in public speaking?
If it is okay for you to focus on something that is not the primary focus of the job, why not for everyone? Why could I not then use my history classes to teach that women are inferior or that slavery was good? Your posts suggest zeal, but zeal is not always a teacher’s best friend. What if you also wanted to teach that Christ is our Saviour?
Huck Finn is about racism, but it is about much much more than that. But an English class should not have racism as its primary focus.
P.S. Did you read my post, discussing that pro-censorship folks want to ban almost ALL 19th Century literature becase failure to include non-white characters means that they are racist books? Would you agree with them?
P.P.S. What else is there? A very very short list might include: love, relationships, justice, identity, nationalism, ethics, beauty, sentence structure, propaganda, the power of myth, spelling, argumentation, research, politics, fads, suicide, grief, hate, etc.
