New edition of 'Huckleberry Finn' to lose the 'n' word

Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
New edition of 'Huckleberry Finn' to lose the 'n' word

Quote:
NewSouth Books’ upcoming edition of Mark Twain’s seminal novel Adventures of Huckleberry Finn will remove all instances of the “n” word—I’ll give you a hint, it’s not nonesuch—present in the text and replace it with slave. The new book will also remove usage of the word Injun. The effort is spearheaded by Twain expert Alan Gribben, who says his PC-ified version is not an attempt to neuter the classic but rather to update it.

 

I don't know if someone has posted this, but im curious, what do you guys think?

 

I appreciate why they want to 'update' it but I cannot help but be against it. If you want the book leave it as it was intended by the author or if you don't like that it is not "pc" for the times don't read it.  Everyone is capable of realising when the book was written and is capable of viewing it in that context, especially with the themes of the book. I'm fine with pc'ing things up which are made now, within limits. But im against watering down things from the past to make them more apropriate for the present.

 

http://shelf-life.ew.com/2011/01/03/huckleberry-finn-n-word-censor-edit/?hpt=T2

 

That said it is only one version of the book and no one is forcing anyone to read this version although it is likely that this is the versions schools would pick up.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: I wouldn't

Gauche wrote:

 I wouldn't write slurs in this forum because I don't know who will read it. Even if you are well intentioned, non bigoted or a member of that group it will still appear coarse and boorish. It's best to be avoided when possible.

Agreed.

Quote:
Sandy is the only person here who specifically said she uses racial slurs to disrespect people she doesn't like i.e. people who burgled her. 

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. WTF is the problem with some of you????

I did not say: '(I) specifically said she uses racial slurs to disrespect people she doesn't like i.e. people who burgled her. ' IT WAS AN HYPOTHETICAL, IMAGINARY, EXAMPLE OF A TIME WHEN I MIGHT BE TEMPTED, OUT OF ANGER, TO USE THE N WORD if in fact there should ever happen to be a Black crack-head-type person break into my house - or, commit some other heinous crime against myself or someone I care about. Under such a circumstance, said person would not be deserving of respect.

Fact is, I have never been burgled so, I don't know what I would call a captured, Black, crack-head burglar... probably just a 'crack-head burglar'. More likely, 'Mother-fucker' or, 'Son of a Bitch'.

I never said I USE RACIAL SLURS against people I don't like.

What is wrong with you people?????

I've said all I'm going to say on this subject - I'm fed up with all the bait and switch tactics being used against me.

Think what you will... it matters little to me. I've stated my opinion and I'm done. I don't need strangers on an Internet forum hurting my feelings. I can get that from my mother.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
 Not liking the people

 Not liking the people was wholly my assumption. Sorry about that.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The Moari word 'Pakeha'

 

which means white devil or white maggot depending on your interpretation is enshrined in the New Zealand constitution. When I was growing up in NZ the Moari kids called the white kids white c**ts or maggots.

This behaviour is by no means a one way street. The word 'Nigger' relates to the French word 'Niger', meaning black. Today we have a country called Niger and a country called Nigeria. Quelle horreur!

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
 I can understand why you'd

 I can understand why you'd say that but the name of that river precedes French colonialism. The word you're thinking of is noir which can describe objects or people and is not a pejorative.  

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Gauche wrote: I wouldn't

Gauche wrote:

 I wouldn't write slurs in this forum because I don't know who will read it. Even if you are well intentioned, non bigoted or a member of that group it will still appear coarse and boorish. It's best to be avoided when possible.

Sandy is the only person here who specifically said she uses racial slurs to disrespect people she doesn't like i.e. people who burgled her. 

Sunlight and scrutiny of a problem is the way you solve it, not sweeping it under the rug. I see no value in trying to pretend bad things happen and that people say  bad things.

And I do not see how any reasonable person KNOWING the title of the thread and the content of it, would consider it a thread full of racists.

If you go buy your logic, no one should even own Huckleberry Finn because someone might think you hate "niggers" because the word is used in that book.

Jebus kristos on a cracker.

Lots of believers come here read what we write in our blasphemy and we get accused of being bigoted toward's religion, are we, merely because we say their god is fiction or use the word "bullshit" referring to a claim they might make?

Should we not have a copy of the GOD DELUSION our our tables because someone might think we are commie fascists?

AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, Context matters and it DEPENDS on what is being said, when and where why in CONTEXT.

Bigotry should always be fought, that should never be in dispute. But we cannot nor should we sugar coat history or always walk on eggshells because we might hear ugly things. I would like to think we are all mature enough here to understand WHY we are having this discussion.

I UNDERSTAND the intent of not wanting to hurt others feelings. But in this case NO ONE is doing that. It is a discussion of history.

GERRRRRR GERRRRRR GERRRRRR GROWL, GRUMBLE (pulling hair out).

I

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Sunlight and

Brian37 wrote:

Sunlight and scrutiny of a problem is the way you solve it, not sweeping it under the rug. I see no value in trying to pretend bad things happen and that people say  bad things.

And I do not see how any reasonable person KNOWING the title of the thread and the content of it, would consider it a thread full of racists.

If you go buy your logic, no one should even own Huckleberry Finn because someone might think you hate "niggers" because the word is used in that book.

Jebus kristos on a cracker.

Lots of believers come here read what we write in our blasphemy and we get accused of being bigoted toward's religion, are we, merely because we say their god is fiction or use the word "bullshit" referring to a claim they might make?

Should we not have a copy of the GOD DELUSION our our tables because someone might think we are commie fascists?

AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, Context matters and it DEPENDS on what is being said, when and where why in CONTEXT.

Bigotry should always be fought, that should never be in dispute. But we cannot nor should we sugar coat history or always walk on eggshells because we might hear ugly things. I would like to think we are all mature enough here to understand WHY we are having this discussion.

I UNDERSTAND the intent of not wanting to hurt others feelings. But in this case NO ONE is doing that. It is a discussion of history.

GERRRRRR GERRRRRR GERRRRRR GROWL, GRUMBLE (pulling hair out).

I

 I don't know what problem you are trying to resolve. I'll assume it's racism. But even if The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn will end racism (it won't) you are not Huckleberry Finn so don't act like you're making any inroads in race relations by constantly posting slurs in a public forum.

I did not accuse anyone of racism or suggest anything so ridiculous. At the most I've accused people of being self-assertive in a rude way without regard for consequences.

 Context appears to be very important to you yet it seems you narrowly focus on purpose and ideology with apparently no consideration for audience and positioning. It's for this reason I fear your anti-racist crusade will ultimately backfire.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4517
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:GERRRRRR

Brian37 wrote:

GERRRRRR GERRRRRR GERRRRRR GROWL, GRUMBLE (pulling hair out).

Well at least we learned something useful in this thread. I always pictured Brian as not having enough hair left to pull any out. I guess I was wrong.  

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Gauche wrote:Brian37

Gauche wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Sunlight and scrutiny of a problem is the way you solve it, not sweeping it under the rug. I see no value in trying to pretend bad things happen and that people say  bad things.

And I do not see how any reasonable person KNOWING the title of the thread and the content of it, would consider it a thread full of racists.

If you go buy your logic, no one should even own Huckleberry Finn because someone might think you hate "niggers" because the word is used in that book.

Jebus kristos on a cracker.

Lots of believers come here read what we write in our blasphemy and we get accused of being bigoted toward's religion, are we, merely because we say their god is fiction or use the word "bullshit" referring to a claim they might make?

Should we not have a copy of the GOD DELUSION our our tables because someone might think we are commie fascists?

AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, Context matters and it DEPENDS on what is being said, when and where why in CONTEXT.

Bigotry should always be fought, that should never be in dispute. But we cannot nor should we sugar coat history or always walk on eggshells because we might hear ugly things. I would like to think we are all mature enough here to understand WHY we are having this discussion.

I UNDERSTAND the intent of not wanting to hurt others feelings. But in this case NO ONE is doing that. It is a discussion of history.

GERRRRRR GERRRRRR GERRRRRR GROWL, GRUMBLE (pulling hair out).

I

 I don't know what problem you are trying to resolve. I'll assume it's racism. But even if The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn will end racism (it won't) you are not Huckleberry Finn so don't act like you're making any inroads in race relations by constantly posting slurs in a public forum.

I did not accuse anyone of racism or suggest anything so ridiculous. At the most I've accused people of being self-assertive in a rude way without regard for consequences.

 Context appears to be very important to you yet it seems you narrowly focus on purpose and ideology with apparently no consideration for audience and positioning. It's for this reason I fear your anti-racist crusade will ultimately backfire.

 

Yes I have, but I guess I should not assume everyone can handle a mature discussion. If anything "backfires" in human history it is "good intent".

And yes, CONTEXT is important to me. I fear most people don't grasp that concept.

"Dont say this" "Dont say that" sets up taboos and often does more harm than good long term. You are making this about ONE word, when I am discussing human nature and psychology.

MY point in all this is "never" is a bad tactic because it can, and often does take out very useful tactics along with it.

Huckleberry Finn was for it's time very forward thinking and used the language of the time to open the door long term for blacks. To censor it is not only absurd, but ignores it's importance to all of humanity.

To censor this book would be like censoring Shindler's List because he was a Nazi and the movie depicted genocide.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

GERRRRRR GERRRRRR GERRRRRR GROWL, GRUMBLE (pulling hair out).

Well at least we learned something useful in this thread. I always pictured Brian as not having enough hair left to pull any out. I guess I was wrong.  

I do have hair. And I like shiny objects too.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

....

Huckleberry Finn was for it's time very forward thinking and used the language of the time to open the door long term for blacks. To censor it is not only absurd, but ignores it's importance to all of humanity. 

I know I'll be sorry I asked but, my curiosity can't resist...

Please explain, Brian, exactly how Huck Finn 'used the language of the time to open the door long term for blacks'.

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:I've said

Sandycane wrote:
I've said all I'm going to say on this subject -... I've stated my opinion and I'm done. 

 

Typical.  Everybody who says that they are done with a thread are never really done.  This has happened for pretty much anyone who has ever said that on any forum that I have ever been on.

 

Obviously, you are not done, so why say that you are?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: I don't know

Gauche wrote:

 I don't know what problem you are trying to resolve. I'll assume it's racism. But even if The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn will end racism (it won't) you are not Huckleberry Finn so don't act like you're making any inroads in race relations by constantly posting slurs in a public forum.

I did not accuse anyone of racism or suggest anything so ridiculous. At the most I've accused people of being self-assertive in a rude way without regard for consequences.

 Context appears to be very important to you yet it seems you narrowly focus on purpose and ideology with apparently no consideration for audience and positioning. It's for this reason I fear your anti-racist crusade will ultimately backfire.

 

Interesting points.

It seems that is where the whole discussion got a bit sidetracked.Whether it is appropriate to type a full word out or not. Whether it is the context of how the word is used that is important or not.

 No one on here thus far has used a racial slur for the express purpose of insulting a race of people.  Issue is whether or not it should be within the context of the discussion at all.

You can probably make an argument for that either way.

I have had people tell me that it is inappropriate for me to use the F-word as often as I do. (If I typed on here the way I talked, my typical post  to a theist would look like : Your making a f--king naked assertion out of some f--king bible that is not valid in the least f--king bit).

Is that the proper way of doing things ? Some could say it is just a word others would not.

I don't use racial slurs because I simply just do not. But when I get a bit emotional, the F-word comes out quite a bit.

I personally don't type the word f--k on here over and over for the simple fact that I would rather not. Obviously, it is not a word that can get you banned on here, but it is my personal choice to not use it.

How can you decide what is appropriate to say or not say on here ? I don't think anyone ultimately can. Unless, we are gonna bleep out certain words .

I actually can see both sides on this particular issue.

 

 

 

 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Sandycane wrote:
I've said all I'm going to say on this subject -... I've stated my opinion and I'm done. 

 

Typical.  Everybody who says that they are done with a thread are never really done.  This has happened for pretty much anyone who has ever said that on any forum that I have ever been on.

 

Obviously, you are not done, so why say that you are?

I am done, like I said, with the subject of using the 'n' word. I've stated my opinion on that and I am done.

However, Brian made a statement aside from the main subject which I felt deserved further exploration and so, I asked:

Quote:

Please explain, Brian, exactly how Huck Finn 'used the language of the time to open the door long term for blacks'.

I never said I was 'done with this thread', specifically. I am done arguing with Brian over the use of the 'n' word.

 ...and you are right; I wish I had a dollar for every time someone on a forum said they were leaving and never coming back - and then did.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Interesting points.

It seems that is where the whole discussion got a bit sidetracked.Whether it is appropriate to type a full word out or not. Whether it is the context of how the word is used that is important or not.

 No one on here thus far has used a racial slur for the express purpose of insulting a race of people.  Issue is whether or not it should be within the context of the discussion at all.

You can probably make an argument for that either way.

I have had people tell me that it is inappropriate for me to use the F-word as often as I do. (If I typed on here the way I talked, my typical post  to a theist would look like : Your making a f--king naked assertion out of some f--king bible that is not valid in the least f--king bit).

Is that the proper way of doing things ? Some could say it is just a word others would not.

I don't use racial slurs because I simply just do not. But when I get a bit emotional, the F-word comes out quite a bit.

I personally don't type the word f--k on here over and over for the simple fact that I would rather not. Obviously, it is not a word that can get you banned on here, but it is my personal choice to not use it.

How can you decide what is appropriate to say or not say on here ? I don't think anyone ultimately can. Unless, we are gonna bleep out certain words .

I actually can see both sides on this particular issue.

 

Hasn't everyone already decided what is appropriate to say here based on their reasons for saying it and the possible effects? Samuel Clemens as an author is able to put his audience in a position to understand and sympathize with his ideology using language that is at this time far more inflammatory than when he wrote it.

 If you can use that same language that is currently highly offensive to most people, while in all likelihood lacking his eloquence without it appearing brash and unnecessary then I applaud you because it's quite an accomplishment. 

Let's not pretend though that if you fail or if you just don't care that it doesn't appear brash and unnecessary and even crass. 

I get your point about the word "fuck" but it is arguably less offensive as it is not meant to dehumanize groups of people it's acceptable in a much broader set of circumstances.   

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: Hasn't

Gauche wrote:

 

Hasn't everyone already decided what is appropriate to say here based on their reasons for saying it and the possible effects? Samuel Clemens as an author is able to put his audience in a position to understand and sympathize with his ideology using language that is at this time far more inflammatory than when he wrote it.

 If you can use that same language that is currently highly offensive to most people, while in all likelihood lacking his eloquence without it appearing brash and unnecessary then I applaud you because it's quite an accomplishment. 

Let's not pretend though that if you fail or if you just don't care that it doesn't appear brash and unnecessary and even crass. 

I get your point about the word "fuck" but it is arguably less offensive as it is not meant to dehumanize groups of people it's acceptable in a much broader set of circumstances.   

 

True enough.

A good example of this would be those people in the Westboro Baptist Church that I am always bringing up. The ones that enjoy showing up at military funerals and waving signs that proclaim that God is killing U.S. soldiers for our sins and anti-gay slogans.

I have typed what those signs say to drive home a point about how insane they really are. Those signs are specifically designed to attack and demean gay people and they are pretty explicit.

If someone asked me to refrain from posting that content on here when I bring up Westboro's signs I probably would, but I would have to point out that I was not condoning what they said and only wished to show the level of hatred and bigotry that Westboro espouses.

Is crude language necessary to drive home a point ? Again some would say yes and some would say no.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Yes I have,

Brian37 wrote:

Yes I have, but I guess I should not assume everyone can handle a mature discussion. If anything "backfires" in human history it is "good intent".

And yes, CONTEXT is important to me. I fear most people don't grasp that concept.

"Dont say this" "Dont say that" sets up taboos and often does more harm than good long term. You are making this about ONE word, when I am discussing human nature and psychology.

MY point in all this is "never" is a bad tactic because it can, and often does take out very useful tactics along with it.

Huckleberry Finn was for it's time very forward thinking and used the language of the time to open the door long term for blacks. To censor it is not only absurd, but ignores it's importance to all of humanity.

To censor this book would be like censoring Shindler's List because he was a Nazi and the movie depicted genocide.

 

I never told you to do anything. I said what I would do and why and only because someone posed the question.

I didn't even read the book in English. The racial epithets that were removed were never in the edition I read in the first place. If you believe it is something essential that gives you a deeper understanding of the story then by all means share it because I am apparently mistaken in thinking I understand it just fine.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Gauche wrote:Brian37

Gauche wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Yes I have, but I guess I should not assume everyone can handle a mature discussion. If anything "backfires" in human history it is "good intent".

And yes, CONTEXT is important to me. I fear most people don't grasp that concept.

"Dont say this" "Dont say that" sets up taboos and often does more harm than good long term. You are making this about ONE word, when I am discussing human nature and psychology.

MY point in all this is "never" is a bad tactic because it can, and often does take out very useful tactics along with it.

Huckleberry Finn was for it's time very forward thinking and used the language of the time to open the door long term for blacks. To censor it is not only absurd, but ignores it's importance to all of humanity.

To censor this book would be like censoring Shindler's List because he was a Nazi and the movie depicted genocide.

 

I never told you to do anything. I said what I would do and why and only because someone posed the question.

I didn't even read the book in English. The racial epithets that were removed were never in the edition I read in the first place. If you believe it is something essential that gives you a deeper understanding of the story then by all means share it because I am apparently mistaken in thinking I understand it just fine.

 

If you get shot by a BB gun vs a 44 magnum, there most certainly would be a deeper meaning.

"n" vs "nigger" when everyone knows it means "nigger" is dancing around the magnum "nigger" attempting to make it a BB gun.

Bigotry isn't about words, it is about ignorance. If you are going to avoid "nigger" all the time, you forget the magnum it was and still is. CONTEXT in it's history without blanket taboos allows us to keep history in perspective.

You have to keep the ugly side of history, not because you like it, but because it is a learning lesson.

Which is why the Holocaust Museum DOES NOT avoid the word NAZI or JUDEN and SHOWS the mutilated dead bodies.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Words from an evolutionary

Words from an evolutionary standpoint have been a boon for our species, but it has also been our most needless source of strife. We use them to define our own tribal patterns and to demonize those outside our patterns and what happens to all of us in the end, the same thing.

Taboos do not solve problems, blanket statements don't solve problems. "Never" is a bad tactic when our detractors claim it, and labels are the biggest detriment to our species.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
History is over-rated. It's

History is over-rated. It's usually written by the survivors and always has a subjective slant to it, depending on which side of the battle/event the author came from.

Huck Finn may be a good piece of fiction but, I don't think that it should be used as a history book. Besides, I would much rather kids in school be taught examples of triumph and strength of the human condition rather than it's failures and faults.

Teaching each generation about things like slavery and Nazism keeps things like bigotry and race supremacy alive. Instead, lets focus on the good people do and stop feeding the negative.

Nazi museums and books containing the word 'n' do nothing to eliminate bigotry - possibly just the opposite when young impressionable minds read and see these things and try to act them out.

You are what you read.

Just my thoughts...

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:If you get

Brian37 wrote:

If you get shot by a BB gun vs a 44 magnum, there most certainly would be a deeper meaning.

"n" vs "nigger" when everyone knows it means "nigger" is dancing around the magnum "nigger" attempting to make it a BB gun.

Bigotry isn't about words, it is about ignorance. If you are going to avoid "nigger" all the time, you forget the magnum it was and still is. CONTEXT in it's history without blanket taboos allows us to keep history in perspective.

You have to keep the ugly side of history, not because you like it, but because it is a learning lesson.

Which is why the Holocaust Museum DOES NOT avoid the word NAZI or JUDEN and SHOWS the mutilated dead bodies.

 

 

Are you saying that you have a deeper understanding of the story because you were more offended by the terms in your edition than I was by the terms in mine?

If so then how do you know how offended I was? For that matter how do you know how offensive it was intended to be? The book is written in the common parlance of more than a century ago and is far more inflammatory now. In the early half of the twentieth century the book was banned frequently behind criticisms of the grammar but never racial slurs.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:Is crude language

Quote:
Is crude language necessary to drive home a point ? Again some would say yes and some would say no.

 

AND THAT IS MY POINT, you can never say never because CONTEXT is important.

JUST TODAY my black coworker used the word "nigger" while talking to our white boss.

Does that mean he hates himself?

IN ALL OF THIS MY ONLY POINT WILL EVER BE "IT DEPENDS"

Bigotry is the problem, not words. words are often used as the scapegoat to ignore that those whom you hate are really no different than you.

Epitaphs, slurs and pejoratives are mere reflections of insecurity. When we keep them in history and ridicule them, we minimize the harm they do to humanity The last thing we should do is give them taboo status which gives the hatemongers the very tribalism they want.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:Teaching each

Quote:
Teaching each generation about things like slavery and Nazism keeps things like bigotry and race supremacy alive.

That is utter bullshit.

Since you are a big fan of business, do you have a problem with instruction graphics that show how to do something which also show how not to do something?

Sweeping aside the ugly side of life is what religion and politics do. It bases it's appeal on emotionalism not pragmatism. When you ignore bigotry you perpetuate the same crap that causes a parent who was abused to abuse their own child.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4517
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:History is

Sandycane wrote:

History is over-rated. It's usually written by the survivors and always has a subjective slant to it, depending on which side of the battle/event the author came from.

Huck Finn may be a good piece of fiction but, I don't think that it should be used as a history book. Besides, I would much rather kids in school be taught examples of triumph and strength of the human condition rather than it's failures and faults.

Teaching each generation about things like slavery and Nazism keeps things like bigotry and race supremacy alive. Instead, lets focus on the good people do and stop feeding the negative.

Nazi museums and books containing the word 'n' do nothing to eliminate bigotry - possibly just the opposite when young impressionable minds read and see these things and try to act them out.

You are what you read.

Just my thoughts...

 

I disagree. I think reading books written during a time period is the best way to learn about it. It is one thing to learn what happened on what dates, but to truly understand a time period you need to understand what people at the time thought and what their lives were like. Especially with an author like Twain who was a satirist and was directly criticizing what he saw wrong in society. He wasn't just writing a fun story for kids, he wrote his books with the intent of making statements about and making fun of the culture at the time. Knowing what happened isn't enough, you also need to have a grasp on why it happened.

I also believe that those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it. It is crucial to learn about the bad things that happened in history so we can prevent them from happening again. I don't see how any person could read Mark Twain and come away thinking that the way blacks were treated was a good thing. I don't see how anyone could watch Schindler's list and think that the Nazi's were right. I know, for me personally, that actually seeing movies like Schindler's List and seeing actual pictures of the Holocaust had a big effect on me. It is one thing to say yeah the Nazi's were evil on some intellectual level, it is another to actually see it. Everyone should take a trip through the Holocaust Museum in D.C. and see exactly how dangerous and cruel humans can be. If you cover up the horrors of history and focus only on the good, we will see it happen again. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Gauche wrote:Brian37

Gauche wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

If you get shot by a BB gun vs a 44 magnum, there most certainly would be a deeper meaning.

"n" vs "nigger" when everyone knows it means "nigger" is dancing around the magnum "nigger" attempting to make it a BB gun.

Bigotry isn't about words, it is about ignorance. If you are going to avoid "nigger" all the time, you forget the magnum it was and still is. CONTEXT in it's history without blanket taboos allows us to keep history in perspective.

You have to keep the ugly side of history, not because you like it, but because it is a learning lesson.

Which is why the Holocaust Museum DOES NOT avoid the word NAZI or JUDEN and SHOWS the mutilated dead bodies.

 

 

Are you saying that you have a deeper understanding of the story because you were more offended by the terms in your edition than I was by the terms in mine?

If so then how do you know how offended I was? For that matter how do you know how offensive it was intended to be? The book is written in the common parlance of more than a century ago and is far more inflammatory now. In the early half of the twentieth century the book was banned frequently behind criticisms of the grammar but never racial slurs.

 

What is your solution? Tell me what blanket statement will solve this problem of when what word, ANY WORD, should be used? And who gets to decide for everyone else?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I

Beyond Saving wrote:

I disagree. I think reading books written during a time period is the best way to learn about it. It is one thing to learn what happened on what dates, but to truly understand a time period you need to understand what people at the time thought and what their lives were like. Especially with an author like Twain who was a satirist and was directly criticizing what he saw wrong in society. He wasn't just writing a fun story for kids, he wrote his books with the intent of making statements about and making fun of the culture at the time. Knowing what happened isn't enough, you also need to have a grasp on why it happened.

True enough.

One major thing that I have noticed alot of people do not grasp is simply the fact that 19th century writers, no matter how liberalistic their views would have been at the time, are not going to be of the same mindset that 21st century writers are operating from.

One of my favorite horror writers of all time is H.P. Lovecraft.

There have been accusations that Lovecraft was a racist from the literary world. But I do not think so. As his life progressed and changed, some of his works and the uses of his vocabulary changed. He never publicly stated what he felt on politics and much of his descriptives were not about race, but about mankind's fear of the unknown and the spiritual. But is it not reasonable to say that a man who lived in his time period would have used terms that ordinary people would have used in everyday language and not find it so surprising ? (No the n-word is not in Lovecraft's work, nobody jump the gun and come after me on that one).

I mean, one of my all time favorite political writers  George Orwell, talked about homosexuality being a mental illness that could not be helped by the poor fellows who suffered from it.  How Orwell might have looked at the gay issue from our times is anybody's guess. But should we dismiss Orwell and all of his writings because of an utterance that he made one time ? Even if it was a rather ignorant way of looking at it ?

People from different time periods would not hold the same outlooks that we do.

 

Even Abraham Lincoln by comparison of most liberalistic people of today would look like an utter racist.

 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

History is over-rated. It's usually written by the survivors and always has a subjective slant to it, depending on which side of the battle/event the author came from.

Huck Finn may be a good piece of fiction but, I don't think that it should be used as a history book. Besides, I would much rather kids in school be taught examples of triumph and strength of the human condition rather than it's failures and faults.

Teaching each generation about things like slavery and Nazism keeps things like bigotry and race supremacy alive. Instead, lets focus on the good people do and stop feeding the negative.

Nazi museums and books containing the word 'n' do nothing to eliminate bigotry - possibly just the opposite when young impressionable minds read and see these things and try to act them out.

You are what you read.

Just my thoughts...

 

I disagree. I think reading books written during a time period is the best way to learn about it. It is one thing to learn what happened on what dates, but to truly understand a time period you need to understand what people at the time thought and what their lives were like. Especially with an author like Twain who was a satirist and was directly criticizing what he saw wrong in society. He wasn't just writing a fun story for kids, he wrote his books with the intent of making statements about and making fun of the culture at the time. Knowing what happened isn't enough, you also need to have a grasp on why it happened.

I also believe that those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it. It is crucial to learn about the bad things that happened in history so we can prevent them from happening again. I don't see how any person could read Mark Twain and come away thinking that the way blacks were treated was a good thing. I don't see how anyone could watch Schindler's list and think that the Nazi's were right. I know, for me personally, that actually seeing movies like Schindler's List and seeing actual pictures of the Holocaust had a big effect on me. It is one thing to say yeah the Nazi's were evil on some intellectual level, it is another to actually see it. Everyone should take a trip through the Holocaust Museum in D.C. and see exactly how dangerous and cruel humans can be. If you cover up the horrors of history and focus only on the good, we will see it happen again. 

Thank you.


 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: What is your

Brian37 wrote:

 

What is your solution? Tell me what blanket statement will solve this problem of when what word, ANY WORD, should be used? And who gets to decide for everyone else?

 

 

When did I say that anyone should make that decision other than the individual? I'm talking about The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and what if anything readers should glean from that story. If you're saying that the slurs need to be used because the story demonstrates to the reader that their use is particularly invidious then I disagree and I'd like to see support for that from the text. I would also wonder why  you seem to toss around the terms so casually if you believe that.

If you mean that it's necessary to accurately depict the cruelty of slavery for a deeper understanding of how offensive that really was then I'm asking how that is a deeper understanding if it is more offensive now than it was then.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:That is utter

Brian37 wrote:

That is utter bullshit.

Since you are a big fan of business, do you have a problem with instruction graphics that show how to do something which also show how not to do something?

I have no idea what you are referring to...would that be like a picture of an employee with a smiley face wearing a hair net vs. one of an employee with long unnetted hair with a big red 'X' across his head?

Personally, I would think showing employees both the right and wrong way to do something would be confusing to the employee. Like telling someone, 'Don't think about pink flying elephants'.  Better to say, 'Think about orange cats'.

Quote:
Sweeping aside the ugly side of life is what religion and politics do.
Now, THIS is BS. You didn't think this through before posting, did you? Both politics and religion feed on fear-mongering, crime, poverty, disease, and everything else ugly you can think of.

Quote:
It bases it's appeal on emotionalism not pragmatism. When you ignore bigotry you perpetuate the same crap that causes a parent who was abused to abuse their own child.

I fail to see the connection between ignoring bigotry and abusive parents who were themselves abused as children...

In fact, the example of an abused child growing up to abuse his own child, and on and on, is a perfect, literal example of how ugly history is repeated from generation to generation. Only when there is intervention between an abusive parent and the child, to teach the child loving kindness in place of abuse, is the cycle of abuse broken.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
If you are saying it is up

If you are saying it is up to the individual, then we are on the same page.

I am not tossing around "nigger" needlessly, most certainly not out of hate. Merely making the point in this CONTEXT, LIKE ANY OTHER WORD, it is silly to shorten it when everyone knows what the word is.

You know what DEA means and DMV and IRS and IRA and NBA mean.

Why should ugly words be shortened because we find them ugly? Does it change the meaning? It is far more important to focus on the hate behind the word than the word itself.


 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

I disagree. I think reading books written during a time period is the best way to learn about it. It is one thing to learn what happened on what dates, but to truly understand a time period you need to understand what people at the time thought and what their lives were like. Especially with an author like Twain who was a satirist and was directly criticizing what he saw wrong in society. He wasn't just writing a fun story for kids, he wrote his books with the intent of making statements about and making fun of the culture at the time. Knowing what happened isn't enough, you also need to have a grasp on why it happened.

I still say history is over-rated. Writer's write for different reasons but, what we read has been filtered through their eyes. It's all subjective... and I see no sense in placing any importance on things that no longer exist. If as much time were spent on 'future' lessons instead of history lessons, we'd all be a lot better off, imo. I really don't give a shit about what happened 100 years ago- I want to know how I can make things better NOW and for future generations. Leave the history in the dust bin where it belongs.

Quote:
I also believe that those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.
Yeah, that's a famous quote but, what does it really mean and is it actually true? People are not any less bigoted, hateful and ugly today than they were in Huck Finn's day, are they? Sure, there are no more slaves in the US but, that has more to do with economics than the welfare of humanity. The Industrial Revolution was good for something - even though it put a lot of farmers out of work.

Quote:
It is crucial to learn about the bad things that happened in history so we can prevent them from happening again. I don't see how any person could read Mark Twain and come away thinking that the way blacks were treated was a good thing. I don't see how anyone could watch Schindler's list and think that the Nazi's were right. I know, for me personally, that actually seeing movies like Schindler's List and seeing actual pictures of the Holocaust had a big effect on me. It is one thing to say yeah the Nazi's were evil on some intellectual level, it is another to actually see it. Everyone should take a trip through the Holocaust Museum in D.C. and see exactly how dangerous and cruel humans can be. If you cover up the horrors of history and focus only on the good, we will see it happen again. 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Why should

Brian37 wrote:

Why should ugly words be shortened because we find them ugly? .... 

Precisely because they are ugly. It's the civilized thing to do, imo.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Sandycane wrote:Brian37

Sandycane wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Why should ugly words be shortened because we find them ugly? .... 

Precisely because they are ugly. It's the civilized thing to do, imo.

Thank you for the etiquette lesson.  But you are assuming I use them in all contexts.

But what does that do with the ugly part of history?

JUST NOW, ON MSNBC, a black pundint was blasting a white congressmen who used the 14th amendment to guilt Obama into "you should know the oppression of people" meaning Obama should have empathy for the unborn not being "equal"

This pundit rightfully said "Obama doesn't run his decisions through a "black" filter," and that he bases his position on the belief that women should have control over their own bodies"

Because the white congress person didn't use the word "nigger" does that mean he really is interested in the unborn. If it was just about the unborn, why did this white guy have to bring up race? You dont have to use slurs to be racist.

You keep making this about words, and words are not the issue. Human nature and psychology is.

If you want to say, "I wouldn't use that word all the time". I would agree. But you can also be racist without using that word.

When it comes to history above all else, to sugar coat it is to forget it, and to forget it is to repeat it.

 


 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
 Brian37 wrote:If you are

 

Brian37 wrote:

If you are saying it is up to the individual, then we are on the same page.

I am not tossing around "nigger" needlessly, most certainly not out of hate. Merely making the point in this CONTEXT, LIKE ANY OTHER WORD, it is silly to shorten it when everyone knows what the word is.

You know what DEA means and DMV and IRS and IRA and NBA mean.

Why should ugly words be shortened because we find them ugly? Does it change the meaning? It is far more important to focus on the hate behind the word than the word itself.

Did you know that in Japan it's considered polite to receive something given with both hands rather than one? It doesn't prevent you from dropping things, or increase your level of gratitude, or make any difference at all other than that people seem to like it more. People have an affection for formalities and to defy convention in defense of a cultural relic is swimming against a rather strong current. Attitudes change, over the course of a century perhaps dramatically. If your concern is preserving the works of Mark Twain then I think you're overreacting because they are not threatened.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Gauche wrote: Brian37

Gauche wrote:

 

Brian37 wrote:

If you are saying it is up to the individual, then we are on the same page.

I am not tossing around "nigger" needlessly, most certainly not out of hate. Merely making the point in this CONTEXT, LIKE ANY OTHER WORD, it is silly to shorten it when everyone knows what the word is.

You know what DEA means and DMV and IRS and IRA and NBA mean.

Why should ugly words be shortened because we find them ugly? Does it change the meaning? It is far more important to focus on the hate behind the word than the word itself.

Did you know that in Japan it's considered polite to receive something given with both hands rather than one? It doesn't prevent you from dropping things, or increase your level of gratitude, or make any difference at all other than that people seem to like it more. People have an affection for formalities and to defy convention in defense of a cultural relic is swimming against a rather strong current. Attitudes change, over the course of a century perhaps dramatically. If your concern is preserving the works of Mark Twain then I think you're overreacting because they are not threatened.

 

I don't think they are threatened as long as sunlight is always protected.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: Did you know

Gauche wrote:

 Did you know that in Japan it's considered polite to receive something given with both hands rather than one? It doesn't prevent you from dropping things, or increase your level of gratitude, or make any difference at all other than that people seem to like it more. People have an affection for formalities and to defy convention in defense of a cultural relic is swimming against a rather strong current. Attitudes change, over the course of a century perhaps dramatically. If your concern is preserving the works of Mark Twain then I think you're overreacting because they are not threatened.

 

My martial arts teacher taught us this tradition. On the one hand, no pun intended, it shows you are freely offering the gift wholeheartedly, with both hands and he said it also shows that, with both hands visible, you don't have a weapon hiding behind your back. Current generation may have forgotten the history behind the practice but, they still do it to respect tradition... I'm assuming.

Another thing Orientals will do out of respect for others... they will tell you a lie rather than hurt your feelings. I think that's nice.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4517
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Beyond

Sandycane wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

I disagree. I think reading books written during a time period is the best way to learn about it. It is one thing to learn what happened on what dates, but to truly understand a time period you need to understand what people at the time thought and what their lives were like. Especially with an author like Twain who was a satirist and was directly criticizing what he saw wrong in society. He wasn't just writing a fun story for kids, he wrote his books with the intent of making statements about and making fun of the culture at the time. Knowing what happened isn't enough, you also need to have a grasp on why it happened.

I still say history is over-rated. Writer's write for different reasons but, what we read has been filtered through their eyes. It's all subjective... and I see no sense in placing any importance on things that no longer exist. If as much time were spent on 'future' lessons instead of history lessons, we'd all be a lot better off, imo. I really don't give a shit about what happened 100 years ago- I want to know how I can make things better NOW and for future generations. Leave the history in the dust bin where it belongs.

Quote:
I also believe that those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.
Yeah, that's a famous quote but, what does it really mean and is it actually true? People are not any less bigoted, hateful and ugly today than they were in Huck Finn's day, are they? Sure, there are no more slaves in the US but, that has more to do with economics than the welfare of humanity. The Industrial Revolution was good for something - even though it put a lot of farmers out of work.

Yes, people as a whole are less bigoted and hateful today. Is racism extinguished? No. But it is far less prevalent and less socially acceptable than it was. Yes we can learn from history. There are two ways to learn things, from your own mistakes or from others. It is far less painful to learn from the mistakes of others. Why would you want to go back and reinvent the wheel when the instructions on how to make one are in a book?

I get your point that any historical book is written by someone it is filtered through their eyes, but when you are dealing with modern history you have more than one book and one author to rely on. I wouldn't rely on any one author as an absolutely authority of truth, but you can read from the perspectives of many different authors and get a good idea of history. 

History has many valuable lessons for us to learn, it seems foolish to me to ignore the mistakes and successes of our ancestors. Many of the problems we have today are not that different from problems that others have faced in the past.   

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:....Thank you

Brian37 wrote:

....

Thank you for the etiquette lesson.  But you are assuming I use them in all contexts.

But what does that do with the ugly part of history?

Quote:
When it comes to history above all else, to sugar coat it is to forget it, and to forget it is to repeat it.

You basically answered your own question.

However, history is not forgotten is it? And, history is constantly repeating itself, isn't it? All of the history books handed down throughout all of recorded time have not stopped crime, hate, bigotry, violence, oppression and war, have they? History has not been 'sugar-coated', no one has forgotten history and yet, history continues to repeat itself.

I think it may be time to go with Plan B and forget history altogether.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Sandycane wrote:Brian37

Sandycane wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

....

Thank you for the etiquette lesson.  But you are assuming I use them in all contexts.

But what does that do with the ugly part of history?

Quote:
When it comes to history above all else, to sugar coat it is to forget it, and to forget it is to repeat it.

You basically answered your own question.

However, history is not forgotten is it? And, history is constantly repeating itself, isn't it? All of the history books handed down throughout all of recorded time have not stopped crime, hate, bigotry, violence, oppression and war, have they? History has not been 'sugar-coated', no one has forgotten history and yet, history continues to repeat itself.

I think it may be time to go with Plan B and forget history altogether.

I think you are out of your mind.

Do you think that even before the slavery of blacks there were not slaves? You do know that the bible DOES NOT condone slavery, and even condones making sex slaves of captured girls and women. But, according to you we should forget history.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:No one

harleysportster wrote:

No one on here thus far has used a racial slur for the express purpose of insulting a race of people.  Issue is whether or not it should be within the context of the discussion at all. 

You're a bunch of crazy honkeys.  There, I hope I win something!

------------

By the way, this is an example of a thread gone terribly, terribly wrong.  What the hell, people?

------------

What the hell.  I'm not certain what anyone said to get this whole thing turned into a flame war, but if someone says a self-censored version of a word and everyone knows what that word is, you've just created what I like to call, "An exercise in futility".

The only *possible* exception I can see is if you are trying to keep a child's delicate ears from being scorched.  Among adults, either say a nice word or say nothing.  Using alternate self censoring language is just ridiculous and it makes everyone look silly.

 

Obviously anyone can do anything they want with the Huck Finn story, but if you are trying to teach kids something based on that story and they are too young to read a period piece with the word nigger in it, then they are too young to understand what the hell you're trying to teach them anyway.

 

Also, pretending a term is going to go away because some random sampling of adults abbreviates it into something else is silly.  The word nigger is imprinted in our culture and it isn't going anywhere.  It might make some people feel squeamish but that is tough cookie.  I think the word cunt is horrific and it makes me wince every time I hear it, but I'm not going to tell everyone in a discussion about feminism and sexual slurs to say, 'c-word' as a place-holder out of respect.  We're adults, right?

 

Anyway, flame on.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Brian37

Sandycane wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

....

Thank you for the etiquette lesson.  But you are assuming I use them in all contexts.

But what does that do with the ugly part of history?

Quote:
When it comes to history above all else, to sugar coat it is to forget it, and to forget it is to repeat it.

You basically answered your own question.

However, history is not forgotten is it? And, history is constantly repeating itself, isn't it? All of the history books handed down throughout all of recorded time have not stopped crime, hate, bigotry, violence, oppression and war, have they? History has not been 'sugar-coated', no one has forgotten history and yet, history continues to repeat itself.

I think it may be time to go with Plan B and forget history altogether.

Although I have to say this is the worst idea I've hear today, and I've spent some time talking to an apparently drunk David Henson.  People do horrible things because that is part of human nature.  The only way to combat that is to innoculate against it with knowledge.  Studies with toddlers have shown that racism is built in to us.  As soon as a kid develops the concept of self, they develop the concept of other, and other is not as good as self.

Everything we know about psychology shows that ignorance of the bad in human nature will not reduce the bad traits.  The only way to overcome them is to face them head on.

 

And Sandy, if you think history is endlessly repeating itself with no improvement, I have some news for you:

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
mellestad wrote:Sandycane

mellestad wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

....

Thank you for the etiquette lesson.  But you are assuming I use them in all contexts.

But what does that do with the ugly part of history?

Quote:
When it comes to history above all else, to sugar coat it is to forget it, and to forget it is to repeat it.

You basically answered your own question.

However, history is not forgotten is it? And, history is constantly repeating itself, isn't it? All of the history books handed down throughout all of recorded time have not stopped crime, hate, bigotry, violence, oppression and war, have they? History has not been 'sugar-coated', no one has forgotten history and yet, history continues to repeat itself.

I think it may be time to go with Plan B and forget history altogether.

Although I have to say this is the worst idea I've hear today, and I've spent some time talking to an apparently drunk David Henson.  People do horrible things because that is part of human nature.  The only way to combat that is to innoculate against it with knowledge.  Studies with toddlers have shown that racism is built in to us.  As soon as a kid develops the concept of self, they develop the concept of other, and other is not as good as self.

Everything we know about psychology shows that ignorance of the bad in human nature will not reduce the bad traits.  The only way to overcome them is to face them head on.

 

And Sandy, if you think history is endlessly repeating itself with no improvement, I have some news for you:

 

HOLY SHIT, SAY IT AINT SO!

You know he is a Muslim.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Yes,

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, people as a whole are less bigoted and hateful today. Is racism extinguished? No. But it is far less prevalent and less socially acceptable than it was. Yes we can learn from history. There are two ways to learn things, from your own mistakes or from others. It is far less painful to learn from the mistakes of others. Why would you want to go back and reinvent the wheel when the instructions on how to make one are in a book?

I get your point that any historical book is written by someone it is filtered through their eyes, but when you are dealing with modern history you have more than one book and one author to rely on. I wouldn't rely on any one author as an absolutely authority of truth, but you can read from the perspectives of many different authors and get a good idea of history. 

History has many valuable lessons for us to learn, it seems foolish to me to ignore the mistakes and successes of our ancestors.

Quote:
Many of the problems we have today are not that different from problems that others have faced in the past.   
And why is that? Obviously, we do not learn from the past. I really think that nothing much changes over time...just a new generation trying to figure out solutions to the same old problems... which never quite get solved.

I see your point but, talking about an instruction manual, blueprints or a recipe is not the same as using history as a guide for current human behavior.

No one will reinvent the wheel until they stop looking at the wheel. Here's a visual for you: there is a scene in the new movie 'Inception', where a girl is handed a piece of graph paper and told to draw a maze in less than 2 minutes that will take more than two minutes to complete. She tries several times, drawing rectangular. box-type mazes and can't do it. What does she do? She turns the paper over to the non-grid side and creates a circular maze.

That's the trouble with history, imo, it retards human evolution. People waste way too much effort thinking about the past and not enough about the undone possibilities.

Reading books and sharing information is a good thing but, clinging to the past is not, imo.

Letting go of our history will enable us to fly into the future untethered. (Oooh, wasn't that poetic! &nbspEye-wink

Time to quit, I'm starting to babble. (been a sloooow day at the shop )

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
mellestad

mellestad wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

No one on here thus far has used a racial slur for the express purpose of insulting a race of people.  Issue is whether or not it should be within the context of the discussion at all. 

You're a bunch of crazy honkeys.  There, I hope I win something!

------------

By the way, this is an example of a thread gone terribly, terribly wrong.  What the hell, people?

------------

What the hell.  I'm not certain what anyone said to get this whole thing turned into a flame war, but if someone says a self-censored version of a word and everyone knows what that word is, you've just created what I like to call, "An exercise in futility".

The only *possible* exception I can see is if you are trying to keep a child's delicate ears from being scorched.  Among adults, either say a nice word or say nothing.  Using alternate self censoring language is just ridiculous and it makes everyone look silly.

 

Obviously anyone can do anything they want with the Huck Finn story, but if you are trying to teach kids something based on that story and they are too young to read a period piece with the word nigger in it, then they are too young to understand what the hell you're trying to teach them anyway.

 

Also, pretending a term is going to go away because some random sampling of adults abbreviates it into something else is silly.  The word nigger is imprinted in our culture and it isn't going anywhere.  It might make some people feel squeamish but that is tough cookie.  I think the word cunt is horrific and it makes me wince every time I hear it, but I'm not going to tell everyone in a discussion about feminism and sexual slurs to say, 'c-word' as a place-holder out of respect.  We're adults, right?

 

Anyway, flame on.

Yes, it is pretty bad, isn't it but, it's like a car wreck, you just can't take your eyes off of it.

AND, that's 'cracker', not 'honkey' you jive turkey! Get hip to the new lingo!

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Racism and hate in general

Racism and hate in general are evolutionary traits.  We aren't going to naturally abandon them without tens of thousands of years of pressure from a type of natural selection never before seen.  Every horrific thing a human or civilization has ever done has been a natural result of human traits, governed by evolution.  It isn't going anywhere.

 

Our only chance is to find evidence based ways to educate ourselves and our children to overcome our less intellectual instincts.  You can't do that by ignoring history, because that is how we build new ideas and learn what *doesn't* work.

 

Sandy, have you ever read Lord of the Flies?

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


connerman
atheist
connerman's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Love the photo Answers in

Love the photo Answers in Gene......

 

We have no fisheries left in Canada to name.  So Dildo works just fine. Thanks

Understanding that there is no purpose in the Universe frees us all to find one.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's a shame all this energy

 

hasn't been directed in some new and thrilling direction instead of breast beating. Most the folks here seem strongly to the left on human rights, including the key protagonists.

In any case, I have not read the silly book beyond a couple of pages when young and I think I rejected it in favour of Swallows and Amazons and The Riddle of the Sands.

Now, thanks to you lot, I have just ordered it on Amazon. It had better be good, with deep social undercurrents, a solo by William Warfield and some decent fishing.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This Was The Review That Earned My 10 Dollars

 

(Review from Amazon written by JLIND555)

 

 

Okay, we all know the plot, so there's no sense in rehashing it; but this book has generated a great deal of heat and very little light lately, it's been banned in some school districts and attacked as racist garbage, so this review will address the question: Is "Huckleberry Finn", in fact, a racist book?

The charge of racism stems from the liberal use of the N word in describing Jim. Some black parents and students have charged that the book is humiliating and demeaning to African-Americans and therefore is unfit to be taught in school. If there has been a racist backlash in the classroom, I think it is the fault of the readers rather than the book.

"Huckleberry Finn" is set in Missouri in the 1830's and it is true to its time. The narrator is a 13 year old, semi-literate boy who refers to blacks by the N-word because he has never heard them called anything else. He's been brought up to see blacks as slaves, as property, as something less than human. He gets to know Jim on their flight to freedom (Jim escaping slavery and Huck escaping his drunken, abusive father), and is transformed. Huck realizes that Jim is just as human as he is, a loving father who misses his children, a warm, sensitive, generous, compassionate individual. Huck's epiphany arrives when he has to make a decision whether or not to rescue Jim when he is captured and held for return to slavery. In the culture he was born into, stealing a slave is the lowest of crimes and the perpetrator is condemned to eternal damnation. By his decision to risk hell to save Jim, he saves his own soul. Huck has risen above his upbringing to see Jim as a friend, a man, and a fellow human being.

Another charge of racism is based on Twain's supposed stereotyping of Jim. As portrayed by Twain, Jim is hardly the ignorant, shuffling Uncle Tom that was so prevalent in "Gone With the Wind" (a book that abundantly deserves the charge of racism). Jim may be uneducated, but he is nobody's fool; and his dignity and nobility in the face of adversity is evident throughout the book.

So -- is "Huckleberry Finn" a racist book? No. It's of its time and for its time and ours as well, portraying a black man with sensitivity, dignity, and sympathy. If shallow, ignorant readers see Jim as a caricature and an object of derision, that's their problem. Hopefully they may mature enough in their lifetime to appreciate this book as one of the greatest classics of American literature.

And for those who might be wondering -- this reviewer is black.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

(Review from Amazon written by JLIND555)

 ...And for those who might be wondering -- this reviewer is black.

 

I was thinking about reading it, too (I think I read it or, saw a movie of it a long time ago) But, I'll read it for free.

Oh and did you notice that the black revewier did NOT spell out the 'N' word?

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Sandy, have

mellestad wrote:

Sandy, have you ever read Lord of the Flies?

 

YES! for the first time, last year. I loved it. Why?

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Chapter 1:'After supper she

Chapter 1:

'After supper she got out her book and learned me
about Moses and the Bulrushers, and I was in a sweat
to find out all about him; but by and by she let it out
that Moses had been dead a considerable long time; so
then I didn't care no more about him, because I don't
take no stock in dead people.'

I like ol' Huck already!

 

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein