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

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.

 

....

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 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.

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.

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.

 

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

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.

 

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. 

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.

 

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. 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.