Um, Crivens, use of the n-word by Blacks is a sign unfathomable self-hatred.
Um, Crivens, use of the n-word by Blacks is a sign of unfathomable self-hatred.
I don’t think I agree with Huck Finn is strongly anti-racist. Consider, for example,
I think it’s reasonable to think that this is written straight-facedly, that is, what Twain is saying is that some “niggers” can be mighty good. In other words, “some of my best friends are black”.
I wouldn’t think that such attitude is in line with the contemporary thinking, or at least contemporary “progressive” thinking.
That said, removing a truly extraordinary book like Huck Finn from the curriculum is a great disservice to the students who might not read it as a result - there are lots of non-offensive books with the same theme, but there are really few books(if at all) of the same literary quality.
Judging a book for its author’s politics(unless it’s on the order of Mein Kampf) is pretty silly, and anyway, sensitive souls should mind the preface:
amarinth –
I’m truly puzzled - how come lessons about Huck Finn were degrading, embarrasing, etc? Could you explain?
Just remided me…
Mark Twain would beg to differ:
Errr, in the first sentence, substitute “with” with “that”.
mic84, did you read any of what I wrote?
Do you know anything about Mark Twain?
:rolleyes:
Yes.
Well, I read most of his fiction, and I know that he vocally protested American imperialist practices. Also, Tom Sawyer was partly autobiographical.
Nothing that I know about him contradicts the interpretation. Please note that it’s not a criticism as much as it is an observation.
I wasn’t meaning Guin was supposed to be quiet. I was speaking of the rest of the people who get anal over this.
Are they gonna challenge Roots, too? I think THAT book has the word used a few times.
A question: How could you write a book that had race relations in the mid-1800’s as a backdrop, or as the primary theme, and NOT use that word?
Capacitor, please don’t speak for others this way. Reclaiming words used as insults can be a very powerful thing. A word like “nigger”, or “faggot”, for two contemporary examples of words used this way, develops out of a very real desire to negate a (black or queer) person’s humanity. The use of it among the group takes the meaning away from the word; if the word is used as a mark of pride, it no longer has the power to make the hearer instinctively panic - I used to jump every time I heard the word faggot, whether or not it was directed at me. These types of attacks hurt, but using the word makes it no longer dangerous and it can become a mark of group identity, and a show of the group’s pride and strength.
Whether or not you think it’s appropriate or not, some people in minority groups find it quite useful to take away the weapons of the people who would use them. Please respect their desire to do so.
Mic, I don’t think you can read this passage in a straight-forward manner. Note that Huck is the narrator, so the thoughts expressed are those of the character, not the author. I think the book shows some real personal growth on Huck’s part, and it’s the author’s intention to demonstrate it. The book doesn’t speak in a moralistic manner; it’s necessary to read into it, but my own reading at least is that Huck is beginning to grow out of the casual racism he has due to the milieu in which he grew up. (Though I can’t remember that particular passage or the context within the book.)
That seems to be contrary to the position of those who are challenging the book.
No one should be surprised that the word “nigger” excites irrational fear among those who don’t trouble themselves with context. Just remember a civil servant in Washington D.C. who lost his job a few months back for using the word “niggardly” in a completely correct context because officials like his boss would rather knuckle under to protests of the ignorant than to tell them they were wrong. The word he used only sounded like the offensive term, and that was enough for the mob.
Thank the Constitution for the First Amendment. The ignorant can just go to hell.
Of course, what I proposed is not the only possible interpretation of Twain’s intent. I should note, though, that Twain occasionally does agree with Huck. (e.g., " Human beings CAN be awful cruel to one another", or the colonel’s “I know you clear through was born and raised in the South, and I’ve lived in the North; so I know the average all around. The average man’s a coward.” are examples, IMHO, of Twain “using” his characters to express his own opinions)
I don’t remember Huck changing his views on race or slavery, either, though.
from the article linked in the OP:
Can someone direct me to the Black Mass/orgy scene in this book? Apparently I missed it the last time I read it.
OT: So there’s people out there who don’t think we should read literary masterpieces that accurately portray the mindset of the historical period they’re set in. There’s a saying that comes to mind here, something about those who can’t remember history…hm. Forgot the rest.
I am interested in your perspective. What made it degrading? Did the book make people behave in a derisive manner when they wouldn’t have otherwise? Is there a better way of prompting intelligent discussion surrounding vile racism, one that precludes the language of the vile racist? Do you agree that part of our schools’ mission is to intellectually challenge our students, even when it’s uncomfortable, even recognizing that some will refuse to meet the challenge?
There may be those who would interpret that passage as proof that the Martians are in control of the world’s governments. The fact that this interpretation is possible doesn’t make it any less asinine (or out of context).
That passage is filtered through the sensibilities of the narrator. Understand? An ignorant but well-meaning lad who is wrestling with an awful moral dilemma–i.e., his society has taught him that he risks hellfire for helping a slave escape, yet he sees firsthand the undeniable humanity of his true friend. This is the central conflict of the novel. Try reading in context.
I can’t see any legitimate reason for ever banning any books from the library.
Removing one from the list of required reading is obviously different, but the circumstances under which reading lists or course curriculae are modified should be public and should include the students and teachers themselves. I hate to hear of such decisions being made in response to the small politics of vocal groups of people not doing very much thinking.
I don’t agree that the book should be banned from curricula.
However, if I were fourteen years old and the teacher had us go around the room, reading passages out loud, I probably would be uncomfortable. There were some kids I went to high school with who would have relished being allowed to say “nigger” over and over again, with impunity, just to provoke reactions. That uncomfortable feeling is something that cannot be helped. Perhaps as an adult you can choose what things you’ll get bothered about, but as a youngster small things like that can irk you and make the anger in your heart turn you away from great literature.
Southern literature was forced down our throats when I was growing up. Many of the books we were assigned had “nigger” in them. I can’t remember having a summer reading list that didn’t contain a “racial” book like HF. And then after English, we’d have to sit in history class and learn about slavery and the Black Codes and Jim Crow. It’s amazing we black children didn’t grow up more self-hating.
I think banning books like HF is someone’s weak attempt to prevent this. Perhaps well-intentioned, but it shouldn’t be done.
“Uh? Uhhh!!! Nigger word BAD! BAD nigger word! Nigger word in book? BOOK BAD! BOOK BAD! UHHHHH!! UH! UH!”
This attitude is considerably easier than thinking things out, much less actually reading the book to ponder what it might or might not say about racism and thinking it all out for yourself.
Note that this doesn’t contradict the reading I proposed, to wit, that Jim is singled out by Huck Finn as well as Mark Twain as a slave who’s worth being helped to escape because of his character and friendship, as opposed to all the others, who are not.
And no point beind rude to me about it all, really.
This is total tripe. If you want people to change their behaviour in race realtions, then they have to understand the whole history behind it. Reading sounthern literature of the time is an excellent introduction to the midset of the slave owners, and the slaves themselves.
We can’t expect a cirriculum along the lines of: " Well children, a long time ago there were some very naughty people, who treated another group of people in a very mean and derogatory manner. We all know that was silly, and terrible way to behave, and isn’t it nice that we all treat each other equally today?"; to do an adequate job of explaining to children the intricacies of post slavery America.
Secondly, there is a urgent need to encourage and require reading on the part of junior high and high school students. If you think that offering them purely safe, soft, and clean fare is going to hold their attention, you’ve got another thing coming. This is the time where they are learning to make MORAL choices. If they don’t have reading to make them think about such things, then all they’ll have to judge on is what their friends tell them. This reading provides an oppourtunity to make an objective choice about a sensititve issue.
The world can be a nasty place and often is far worse that ANY book can ever exhibit. If you want to censor something, don’t let them watch the news.