The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. [Archive]

Louis VI the Fat

01-07-2011, 12:33

Books are re-translated all of the time. They must be, because the language becomes incomprehensible as time passes. Shakespeare is unreadable, Chaucer might as well have been Icelandic.

The connotations of words change. Their register changes. Etc. The polite words 'negro' or 'coloured' of only a few decades ago are pejorative now. One would have to re-translate the respectful 'coloured' of the civil rights movement into the closest modern equivalent of 'Black', or run the risk of making the user of the word sound like those he opossed, a social conservatist.

'Nigger' in Mark Twain's era was offensive. There was more social acceptance of the word back then, but it was nevertheless considered an offensive word. One would not have to re-translate it into a modern equivalent. A conclusion which has the nasty side effect of rendering everything I've written thus far in this post moot and pointless. Which in turn serves me right for not thinking ahead when posting.

Twain deliberatly tries to capture the speech of particular regions in particular eras, down to class, race and gender. It would be a shame if this artistic quality of his work would be lost in a re-translation. Especially when so much is easily understood by the reader, or, if not, has the even bigger benefit of teaching the reader the history of the age.

Still I would not oppose the swapping of the n-word with something slightly less offensive for educational purposes, or even for popular editions. If twelve year olds are confronted with the n-word in the classroom, it will dominate thought and discussion so much that more is lost than gained. Also, should one want to confront a twelve year old black kid with it in the first place? The offensive descriptions in the post above - as those persevering with my ramblings find out here - serve a literary and rhetoric purpose: to serve as an example. To show that one may rationally realise full well they serve a literary purpose, but the confrontation with them still makes one uncomfortable

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~~

I am decidedly bored by these manichean left-right worldviews dominating so many threads. 'It's bad, so it belongs to 'the other camp''.

Yawn...

rory_20_uk

01-07-2011, 12:54

We do get ourselves in such a muddle about what to call... erm... people who we'd do a sickle cell blood test on.

White, whitey, European, Caucasian are all fine for my skin colour.I've never been to the Caucasus but that doesn't appear to matter.

But black, nigger, coloured, African? Not only does it depend on the era one is in, but also one's own race (black people can use nigger of course...)

Then there's the lot in the middle. The half-cast, oh sorry mixed race. Whoops MEO - multiethnic origin. And how pale before one stops being black and becomes MEO? And how pale before a MEO becomes white?

Nigger is offensive, but the others it seems that one has to be careful as there is something wrong with being of darker skin.

Disclaimer: my WIFE is mixed race. Except she says she's black. How you can have Spanish and Chinese ancestry as well as African and not be mixed race beats me. My son is mixed race for obvious reasons except he appears "white" - easily paler than those from the South of Europe.

~:smoking:

al Roumi

01-07-2011, 13:11

I am decidedly bored by these manichean left-right worldviews dominating so many threads. 'It's bad, so it belongs to 'the other camp''.

Yawn...

Fais do do, Louis mon petit frere
Fais do do, t'auras du lolo.

Subotan

01-07-2011, 13:12

I think this kind of editing is appropriate for use in schools - imagine being the only black kid in your class which was reading Huck Finn and coming across that word over 250 times during the book. Editing such as this allows children and young people to be educated about Twain whilst not feeling uncomfortable.

Of course, it goes without saying that ordinary versions for sale in shops to be read by private individuals should remain completely unchanged.

So, should we leave writings from over a hundred years ago alone and see them in the context of when they were written or, like the Ministry of Truth, re-write them to suit modern sensibilities?

"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." -- George Orwell

Hyperbole much? Few things grate on me as much as the use of 1984 to protest against teeny weeny insignificant issues like this, or speed cameras or whatever. Orwell's Oceania was the perfect expression of the sheer malevolence of the totalitarian state, and should never ever be used to describe nothing else other that, except maybe the perfect cup of tea.

Louis VI the Fat

01-07-2011, 13:25

Fais do do, Louis mon petit frere
Fais do do, t'auras du lolo. :zzz::Zzzz:

Slyspy

01-07-2011, 17:08

I think this kind of editing is appropriate for use in schools - imagine being the only black kid in your class which was reading Huck Finn and coming across that word over 250 times during the book. Editing such as this allows children and young people to be educated about Twain whilst not feeling uncomfortable.

Of course, it goes without saying that ordinary versions for sale in shops to be read by private individuals should remain completely unchanged.

Hyperbole much? Few things grate on me as much as the use of 1984 to protest against teeny weeny insignificant issues like this, or speed cameras or whatever. Orwell's Oceania was the perfect expression of the sheer malevolence of the totalitarian state, and should never ever be used to describe nothing else other that, except maybe the perfect cup of tea.

To be honest I couldn't disagree more with the idea of editing such texts for use in schools. A text such as Huck Finn isn't read in schools just for the sake of reading, it is there to be studied, to be analysed, to be explained, to be contextualised and to be used as a springboard to the study of associated topics. Leave it alone, warts and all.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-07-2011, 17:29

Old Eric foresaw the problems with runaway socialism authoritarianism, so he's ok with me.
fixed.

Noooo, you didn't fix it! It's a very important point that runaway ideologies become authoritarian. I like capitalism and egalitarianism, but I should admit that the runaway versions of them are bad...WITHOUT trying to rebrand them.

I think this kind of editing is appropriate for use in schools - imagine being the only black kid in your class which was reading Huck Finn and coming across that word over 250 times during the book. Editing such as this allows children and young people to be educated about Twain whilst not feeling uncomfortable.

What happens when you imagine it?

Ronin

01-07-2011, 17:38

if they think it is damaging to children...then just take it off the school curriculum...... and even that is a dumb idea.
changing a book to make it PC is a travesty.

drone

01-07-2011, 17:42

I think some of you are missing the point. The word was offensive then, and is offensive now. But Mark Twain did this deliberately to highlight the character of Jim against the rest of the white trash in the book. IA is right, this is a whitewashing of a critically satirical book. By removing the n-word, the publisher is attempting to clean up the past.

The word has nothing to do with Twain, it has everything to do with the story and point he is trying to get across. No point in teaching the book if it gets neutered, which may very well be the end-goal of the publisher.

I hear they are also taking out "Injun" as well. Someone on Slashdot said it best, there isn't an editor alive qualified to touch Samuel Clemens' work.

Furunculus

01-07-2011, 18:11

To be honest I couldn't disagree more with the idea of editing such texts for use in schools. A text such as Huck Finn isn't read in schools just for the sake of reading, it is there to be studied, to be analysed, to be explained, to be contextualised and to be used as a springboard to the study of associated topics. Leave it alone, warts and all.

i agree with you, but the problem was that this seminal piece of literary work was not being taught in schools precisely because teachers were uncomfortable reading it in a classroom in the 21st century.

personally i think that says more about the teachers than anything else, but is it better to see it part of the curriculum in modified form, or not taught at all?

a completely inoffensive name

01-07-2011, 20:22

Twain wrote the n-word because he specifically wanted to use the word the n-word. He didn't choose slave or black or spook because those didn't convey the message of the book the way he wanted to. The point of the book is to throw at you this utterly backwater society of the times by taking this hateful word that is still very much taboo to say in the public discourse and then have every single white person use it as a common descriptor, "n-word this and n-word that." Which was really how it was back then, it's not even fiction in that sense. The book portrays Jim as one of the better characters in the book while most of the white southerners are complete white trash, even though the society takes it for granted that that Jim is just a n-word and thus lesser then everyone else. By taking the word out and swapping it with a "politically correct" term, you take the fangs out of the entire bite towards racists. Which is why racists like to do this kind of stuff under the guise of being "politically correct". The word slave doesn't have the same effect as n-word does, so your impression of the white trash southerners saying "slave Jim" instead of "n-word Jim" is not as negative, which humanizes them more and makes them less hated in the eyes of the reader.

You turn the Southerner's into the poor misguided ignorant people who just didn't know any other way of life besides slavery rather then the hate filled bastards many of them actually were. It doesn't take a genius or an education to figure out that blacks are people too, hell Huck figured it out by the end of the book.

Furunculus

01-07-2011, 20:40

Which is why racists like to do this kind of stuff under the guise of being "politically correct".

you know what, i really wasn't aware that bnp/kkk members were at the forefront of those demanding the reincarnation of huck-finn as a pleasant and innocuous tale..........................?

InsaneApache

01-07-2011, 20:45

Slave doesn't cut it for a whole plethora of reasons, least of which was the Barbary Corsairs. :book:

a completely inoffensive name

01-07-2011, 20:54

you know what, i really wasn't aware that bnp/kkk members were at the forefront of those demanding the reincarnation of huck-finn as a pleasant and innocuous tale..........................?

bnp/kkk members are at the forefront of keeping those they hate down. If they notice that by treating blacks as babies who can't handle a word, they get to censor books which satirically criticize their philosophy, then they will go along with it.

Subotan

01-07-2011, 21:00

What happens when you imagine it?
I see that kid feeling extremely uncomfortable, and I do not doubt at all the possibility of said child rejecting Huck Finn on that basis alone, despite it being a criticism of racism.

To be honest I couldn't disagree more with the idea of editing such texts for use in schools. A text such as Huck Finn isn't read in schools just for the sake of reading, it is there to be studied, to be analysed, to be explained, to be contextualised and to be used as a springboard to the study of associated topics. Leave it alone, warts and all.
See:

i agree with you, but the problem was that this seminal piece of literary work was not being taught in schools precisely because teachers were uncomfortable reading it in a classroom in the 21st century.

personally i think that says more about the teachers than anything else, but is it better to see it part of the curriculum in modified form, or not taught at all?

Sasaki Kojiro

01-07-2011, 21:09

I see that kid feeling extremely uncomfortable, and I do not doubt at all the possibility of said child rejecting Huck Finn on that basis alone, despite it being a criticism of racism.

Uncomfortable in an all white school, ok. But why made extremely uncomfortable by huck finn and rejecting it on that basis? Everyone knows that it's historical and the teacher will introduce it properly.

Brenus

01-07-2011, 21:28

“Fais do do, Louis mon petit frere
Fais do do, t'auras du lolo.”

Maman est en haut,
Qui fait du gateau,
Papa est en bas,
Qui fait du chocolat…

I prefer “V’la bon vent, V’la joli vent, V'la bon vent Ma mie m'appelle”

I don’t know. The problem is Nigger is now offensive and was used as an offensive name at that period.
But to change it is somehow to mild the Racism, to soften the Period.
Because it was no white Slaves at this time, to change “nigger” to slave is to erase this aspect.
Yes words change. Josephine Baker had the “Revue Nègre” in Paris but nobody would call a black with this word in France now. At least not in public…
But in alteration to denial, we change the perception of the Reality: A War Lord becoming a Local Authority, a thug a freedom Fighter etc.
But, as far as I remember, at school, a teacher is here to explain the context and the book.
This book, in the original version shows what ware racism, slavery and a kind of society of that period.
Would you cut off the child prostitution in Dickens, or put Fantine (Cosette’s mother, Les Misérables) at the trap because he became a prostitute, or Gavroche should go home because we don’t want Children Soldiers?

Furunculus

01-07-2011, 21:29

bnp/kkk members are at the forefront of keeping those they hate down.

If they notice that by treating blacks as babies who can't handle a word, they get to censor books which satirically criticize their philosophy, then they will go along with it.

you made two statements there, and yet failed to demonstrate a link between the two. i refuse to accept an implicit link in the absence of evidence.

Subotan

01-07-2011, 22:11

Uncomfortable in an all white school, ok. But why made extremely uncomfortable by huck finn and rejecting it on that basis? Everyone knows that it's historical and the teacher will introduce it properly.
So the teacher has to say to the class "Ok kids, now remember when Twain says the word "nigger", he's not being racist!"? We're educating children here, not fully developed adults.

But to change it is somehow to mild the Racism, to soften the Period.
I completely reject this. The racism of the South wasn't just nasty name-calling, but all the associated hatred, prejudice and murder that that society upheld. By saying that our ability to view the racism of the period has somehow been softened by the minor edits to the text, you shift the focus of the debate away from the deeds and towards the language.

Would you cut off the child prostitution in Dickens, or put Fantine (Cosette’s mother, Les Misérables) at the trap because he became a prostitute, or Gavroche should go home because we don’t want Children Soldiers?
Don't be silly. Bad things in novels that happened historically do not approach nearly the same level of controversy as what the word "nigger" does today.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-07-2011, 22:20

So the teacher has to say to the class "Ok kids, now remember when Twain says the word "nigger", he's not being racist!"? We're educating children here, not fully developed adults.

We aren't educating children. Young adults. Who teaches huck finn in grade school?

rory_20_uk

01-07-2011, 22:21

Teach it at GCSE - they're 15-16 years old by then. Considering by 16 the "children" can legally get married and start a family I'd hope they can cope with a Nasty Word that they'd've heard for years from other sources, and probably with no teacher led discussion.

~:smoking:

a completely inoffensive name

01-07-2011, 22:52

you made two statements there, and yet failed to demonstrate a link between the two. i refuse to accept an implicit link in the absence of evidence.

I don't have one. But it really doesn't take a link to a biased website to note that throughout history, bigots always gloss over their bigotry through "reasonable" arguments. We can't have gays equal in the military because it will disrupt unit cohesion. N-word's can't be integrated with the white because their brains are genetically inferior. hey, I'm looking out for the coloreds I don't see why we need to punish them by having them subjected to the superior standards that whites must go through in school. Let's not have the n-word in Huck Finn because I'm just looking out for the kids and blah blah blah.

The Stranger

01-07-2011, 22:56

i never understood all that fuss about a word... its not the word that pisses people off, the word is just a token its what the token signifies that pisses people off. change the thoughts that people have not the words that people use...

mind control FTW

Furunculus

01-08-2011, 00:49

I don't have one. But it really doesn't take a link to a biased website to note that throughout history, bigots always gloss over their bigotry through "reasonable" arguments. We can't have gays equal in the military because it will disrupt unit cohesion. Niggers can't be integrated with the white because their brains are genetically inferior. hey, I'm looking out for the coloreds I don't see why we need to punish them by having them subjected to the superior standards that whites must go through in school. Let's not have nigger in Huck Finn because I'm just looking out for the kids and blah blah blah.

that all sounds very nice, but i'm not seeing a demonstrated linkage to justify your statement.

racists, in my limited experience, have never had anything to say about huck-fin, let alone that the "n" word should be removed, either for reasons stated or otherwise.

i don't accept your premise.

Subotan

01-08-2011, 01:30

We aren't educating children. Young adults.
It's still not hard to take lines such as:

. Without HELP, mind you-- 'thout HELP! THAT'S wher 'tis. Don't tell ME, s'I; there WUZ help, s'I; 'n' ther' wuz a PLENTY help, too, s'I; ther's ben a DOZEN a-helpin' that nigger, 'n' I lay I'd skin every last nigger on this place but I'D find out who done it.
etc.
out of context.

i never understood all that fuss about a word... its not the word that pisses people off, the word is just a token its what the token signifies that pisses people off. change the thoughts that people have not the words that people use...
So if I understand correctly, you're saying that the solution is to no longer consider "nigger" offensive? That's... extreme...

The Stranger

01-08-2011, 02:01

It's still not hard to take lines such as:

etc.
out of context.

So if I understand correctly, you're saying that the solution is to no longer consider "nigger" offensive? That's... extreme...

that is not extreme...not the word nigger is offensive as showed by the frequent use of it in black rapsongs and it is used by negroes all the time. it is the thoughts that usually pass through ones mind when that word is uttered that are offensive.

Subotan

01-08-2011, 02:04

No, you're wrong. It's at the discretion of the group which is the target of the racial slur as to whether the slur is offensive or not.

Furunculus

01-08-2011, 02:17

No, you're wrong. It's at the discretion of the group which is the target of the racial slur as to whether the slur is offensive or not.

that sounds dangerously close to macpherson report jibberish to me!

The Stranger

01-08-2011, 03:09

No, you're wrong. It's at the discretion of the group which is the target of the racial slur as to whether the slur is offensive or not.

come again? so if i understand correctly what u say is: it is not an insult when the word is uttered but when it is received as an insult? regardless of the intention of the one that utters it?

And how is this very different than what i said? It is still not the word but the thoughts of the people about the word that are at the root of people being pissed off...

And its not entirely at the discretion of the group who is being "insulted" (or who is feeling insulted) but also at the discretion of the insulting person (he may very well have the intention to hurt someone with the words he uses) and of the enviroment (the people that have nothing to do with it directly but either approve or disaprove of that action).

ive seen it happen many times, when per example i was not offended by the word nigger being hurled at me while the the enviroment were still like oh oh thats so wrong you cant do that its offensive. what ive noticed is the people most concerned with discrimination and racism are usually not the people who are at the center of this. but the onlookers that actually dont have much to do with it...

generally people dont like to be called certain things because of the negative connotation to the word (not a direct negative definition) not because the word actually means (in terms of definition) something bad or because they dont like the sound of the word. nigger is a bad word because of all the negative emotions and history attached to the word not because the word itself actually means something bad.

and by just ignoring the word or by making the word disappear this will not make the history or negative emotions dissapear. by trying to do so, by trying to censor them out, is just being naive, shortsighted etc. its a typical political shortterm solution.

Louis VI the Fat

01-08-2011, 03:31

What word starts with 'N' and ends with 'R' that no civilised man should call a black person?

Neighbour.

Oh alright, that was pathetic. :oops:

And this hot on the heals of the sad Detroit thread. Does anyone remember why so many Black men moved to Detroit? That's because they heard there were no jobs there.

:creep:

Strike For The South

01-08-2011, 03:40

This will just further the dumb

The Stranger

01-08-2011, 03:41

a completely inoffensive name

01-08-2011, 04:41

that all sounds very nice, but i'm not seeing a demonstrated linkage to justify your statement.

racists, in my limited experience, have never had anything to say about huck-fin, let alone that the "n" word should be removed, either for reasons stated or otherwise.

i don't accept your premise.

Well I understand where you are coming from, but you have to note that this isn't an empirical statement I am making here. This kind of thing is in the realm of the social sciences and unless somehow, someone took a poll of racists and asked them what their favorite way of keeping the black person down is, there wouldn't be a link to defend the statement beyond all skepticism.

EDITED OUT because I think it was a terrible analogy.

EDIT: And I am not saying all racists would use this tactic, just the crafty ones. The extremely ignorant bigots would be more blunt in their hatred and would not get how censoring a book would be beneficial to them.

EDIT 2 hours after the post: I really should have chosen a better example. Hmm I will just take that out and leave it as it is.

Megas Methuselah

01-08-2011, 07:54

Furunculus

01-08-2011, 11:49

come again? so if i understand correctly what u say is: it is not an insult when the word is uttered but when it is received as an insult? regardless of the intention of the one that utters it?

And how is this very different than what i said? It is still not the word but the thoughts of the people about the word that are at the root of people being pissed off...

And its not entirely at the discretion of the group who is being "insulted" (or who is feeling insulted) but also at the discretion of the insulting person (he may very well have the intention to hurt someone with the words he uses) and of the enviroment (the people that have nothing to do with it directly but either approve or disaprove of that action).

ive seen it happen many times, when per example i was not offended by the word nigger being hurled at me while the the enviroment were still like oh oh thats so wrong you cant do that its offensive. what ive noticed is the people most concerned with discrimination and racism are usually not the people who are at the center of this. but the onlookers that actually dont have much to do with it...

generally people dont like to be called certain things because of the negative connotation to the word (not a direct negative definition) not because the word actually means (in terms of definition) something bad or because they dont like the sound of the word. nigger is a bad word because of all the negative emotions and history attached to the word not because the word itself actually means something bad.

and by just ignoring the word or by making the word disappear this will not make the history or negative emotions dissapear. by trying to do so, by trying to censor them out, is just being naive, shortsighted etc. its a typical political shortterm solution.

good post.

sadly, what subotan exhibits above is a perfect example of DEEPLY misguided conclusions regarding racism resulting from the murder of Stephen Lawrence, and the Macpherson report carried out by the police as a consequence.

you had an unfortunate black kid who was viscously murdered by a bunch of other kids, the investigation of whom was hindered and obstructed by the local police.

the fact the murderers were related to crime families that had links to corrupt police was considered 'unfortunate', so it became a race crime rather than a corruption crime.

having opted for this direction in a murder case with a high public profile there was then a need to conduct a public report to explain how such a terrible crime could have occurred.

two significant conclusions arose:
1. that the police are institutionally racist, so mandatory sensitivity training for everyone rather than public corruption cases for a few, as that was the only way to account for a lack of evidence of racism.
2. that the definition of racism depends on whether offence is perceived by the 'victim' rather given by the 'perp' because there was no other way to pin racism as a motive to the murder.

The first conclusion is utterly ludicrous, and a miscarriage of justice, but a happy excuse that prevents the exposure of (what was) endemic corruption in certain parts of the MET.
The second conclusion is so tragically and DEEPLY wrong-headed it quite surpasses the understanding of society that such a chronic idiocy can be considered both correct and normal.

[edited for accuracy - cheers IA]

InsaneApache

01-08-2011, 12:29

good post.

sadly, what subotan exhibits above is a perfect example of DEEPLY misguided conclusions regarding racism resulting from the murder of damilola taylor, Stephen Lawrence and the Macpherson report carried out by the police as a consequence.

you had a unfortunate black kid who was visciously murdered by a bunch of other kids, the investigation of whom was hindered and obstructed by the local police.

the fact the murderers were related to crime families that had links to corrupt police was considered 'unfortunate', so it became a race crime rather than a corruption crime.

having opted for this direction in a murder case with a high public profile there was then a need to conduct a public report to explain how such a terrible crime could have occurred.

two significant conclusions arose:
1. that the police are institutionally racist, so mandatory sensitivity training for everyone rather than public corruption cases for a few.
2. that the definition of racism depends on whether offence is percieved by the 'victim' rather given by the 'perp' because there was no other way to pin racism as a motive to the murder.

The first conclusion is daft, but a happy excuse that prevents the exposure of (what was) endemic corruption in certain parts of the MET.
The second conclusion is so tragically and DEEPLY wrong-headed it quite surpasses the understanding of society that such a chronic idiocy can be considered both correct and normal.

Just in the interests of accuracy.

Subotan

01-08-2011, 13:56

come again? so if i understand correctly what u say is: it is not an insult when the word is uttered but when it is received as an insult? regardless of the intention of the one that utters it?

And how is this very different than what i said? It is still not the word but the thoughts of the people about the word that are at the root of people being pissed off...

I still think it's very arrogant and extreme that you can just arbitrarily decide that "nigger" should no longer be considered offensive to black people.

And its not entirely at the discretion of the group who is being "insulted" (or who is feeling insulted) but also at the discretion of the insulting person (he may very well have the intention to hurt someone with the words he uses) and of the enviroment (the people that have nothing to do with it directly but either approve or disaprove of that action).
So racists should be able to use the excuse "Oh, but I didn't mean it in THAT way, just in this way!"? Besides, the people who are the target of such abuse are nearly always savvy enough to tell when they are being insulted.

ive seen it happen many times, when per example i was not offended by the word nigger being hurled at me while the the enviroment were still like oh oh thats so wrong you cant do that its offensive. what ive noticed is the people most concerned with discrimination and racism are usually not the people who are at the center of this. but the onlookers that actually dont have much to do with it...
No, I'm not the target of such abuse, but fifty/sixy years ago, I would have been the target of similar abuse in Great Britain, and god knows how recently I would have been (still would be?) the target of similar abuse back in Northern Ireland (Coming from a mixed Catholic/Protestant background...). Saying "Oh no, you're white, you can't talk about discrimination" is a pretty poor argument.

generally people dont like to be called certain things because of the negative connotation to the word (not a direct negative definition) not because the word actually means (in terms of definition) something bad or because they dont like the sound of the word. nigger is a bad word because of all the negative emotions and history attached to the word not because the word itself actually means something bad.
There's a completely direct connection. A golliwog doll and the word "golliwog" are both as offensive as each other because they both mean exactly the same thing. Saying that "nigger" isn't bad because it's the connotations which are bad is completely irrelevant! If the word "Jigglypuff" instead of "nigger" historically, then "Jigglypuff" would be the controversial word, but it isn't, so it doesn't matter! The fact of the matter is that "nigger" is offensive, as is "Paki", and as is "Taig" and that's that.

and by just ignoring the word or by making the word disappear this will not make the history or negative emotions dissapear. by trying to do so, by trying to censor them out, is just being naive, shortsighted etc. its a typical political shortterm solution.
Excuse me? Did you actually read what I said about the topic at hand?

I think this kind of editing is appropriate for use in schools - imagine being the only black kid in your class which was reading Huck Finn and coming across that word over 250 times during the book. Editing such as this allows children and young people to be educated about Twain whilst not feeling uncomfortable.

Of course, it goes without saying that ordinary versions for sale in shops to be read by private individuals should remain completely unchanged.

I'm not even arguing what you say I am - I'm not saying we should censor it or the history from historical books and the like, since it did happen, it was used, and it is important to document just how commonly a word with such negative connotations was used back then. However, does that mean that children should be forced to be exposed to the word through state education in the classroom? Of course not - it is still perfectly possible to educate young people about racism in the South AND Huck Finn without using "nigger" in the classroom.

Besides, I think we would all agree that the tabooification (That's not a real word but who cares) of the word "nigger" in civilised conversation has only been a good thing.

The second conclusion is so tragically and DEEPLY wrong-headed it quite surpasses the understanding of society that such a chronic idiocy can be considered both correct and normal.

[edited for accuracy - cheers IA]
How so? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say - are you saying that racism quite surpasses the understanding?

The Stranger

01-08-2011, 13:58

good post.

two significant conclusions arose:
1. that the police are institutionally racist, so mandatory sensitivity training for everyone rather than public corruption cases for a few.
2. that the definition of racism depends on whether offence is perceived by the 'victim' rather given by the 'perp' because there was no other way to pin racism as a motive to the murder.

The first conclusion is daft, but a happy excuse that prevents the exposure of (what was) endemic corruption in certain parts of the MET.
The second conclusion is so tragically and DEEPLY wrong-headed it quite surpasses the understanding of society that such a chronic idiocy can be considered both correct and normal.

[edited for accuracy - cheers IA]

well there is not just one side to the argument. as i already said in my first post i think it is a triangle of relations.

because you cannot just say it is offensive when it is so perceived by the people who are targeted by the so called offense. like if I would say something about mohammed in a general way that muslims wouldnt like to hear, i would never do that with the intention to offend. yet most likely some of them would be offended.

but at the same time you cannot just put the offense in the intention of the offender because if no offense is received one may ask himself if there actually was an offense.

and then there is the third party and you could call it law, enviroment etc. because in case that per example an act was commited and while no offense was intended and no offence was received an was PERCEIVED by the law or by the people who saw it then there will still be occasions that the thing will go to court or to the principles office or to the parents. and then stuff still can get bigger than it is...

i think the third party should not at all be involved in the offender offended relation but sadly enough in our society that relation has expanded to offender-offended-puplic oppinion. and as i said before the people that usually are most outraged by such things are not the offended party but the public oppinion... while usually they have nothing to do with it.

another personal example: when i went to st.petersburg with my university, the people who planned the trip were a bit afraid that something might happen to me because russians are stereotyped (and there is truth in it for some russians but the country is so big...) to be not so friendly to black people (and a lot of other kinds of people for that matter). and they were pretty upset about it and wanted to know how i felt and that i was sure to know that they didnt feel about it the same way. and dont get me wrong, it was very nice of them and i know it was full of good intentions but it had never crossed my mind and i wasnt bothered by it at all.

then one day we were there and i was looking for an atm a few drunk guys came across our path and they started talking in russian and making clear that i was unwanted there shouting stuff. i just said i dont speak russian and moved on. funny thing was that the people i was with were more shocked by the event than i was. and in return because they were so shocked i started thinking about it all and then i really got pissed off, sad and moody (thats what happens when i think about certain things to deep... :S)

well that is to illustrate the point that the third party can have severe impact on the process. because i was not directly offended by their behaviour, i was appalled yes, but not personally offended. i just saw them as drunk guys wanting something from me. it was not directly clear that they were acting that way because i am black, because they spoke russian and they were drunk... but because it was labeled rascist by the people i traveled with it became rascist...

The Stranger

01-08-2011, 14:09

i still think it's very arrogant and extreme that you can just arbitrarily decide that "nigger" should no longer be considered offensive to black people.

I am black and i am not offended. not by the word that is to say. i am neither offended personally by the negative history attached to the word, i am appalled however by it. i could be offended by the thoughts, biases and emotions that go through someonese mind, the hatred in someones eyes when he calls you that word.

you are getting me all wrong. I am not saying that people should no longer be offended when they are called nigger by someone. im saying that the WORD nigger is not the problem. and by hiding the word you will solve nothing. another word will just take its place because as long as the wounds of the negative history, emotions and hatred are not cured it will never go away.

So racists should be able to use the excuse "Oh, but I didn't mean it in THAT way, just in this way!"? Besides, the people who are the target of such abuse are nearly always savvy enough to tell when they are being insulted.

but everyone can always be offended. i can be offended by what i quote just now. ofcourse it is difficult. but we have no problem in court determining what someones intentions were when we charge him with attempted murder.

No, I'm not the target of such abuse, but fifty/sixy years ago, I would have been the target of similar abuse in Great Britain, and god knows how recently I would have been (still would be?) the target of similar abuse back in Northern Ireland (Coming from a mixed Catholic/Protestant background...). Saying "Oh no, you're white, you can't talk about discrimination" is a pretty poor argument.

that is a poor argument indeed. yet the question: have you ever been target of discrimination? is still a valid question. but then again i never posed that question. and i have never said anything like hey you are white so stfu... that is all yourself here... i dont know how we even got to this because nothing i said in my post directs us to here...

There's a completely direct connection. A golliwog doll and the word "golliwog" are both as offensive as each other because they both mean exactly the same thing. Saying that "nigger" isn't bad because it's the connotations which are bad is completely irrelevant! If the word "Jigglypuff" instead of "nigger" historically, then "Jigglypuff" would be the controversial word, but it isn't, so it doesn't matter! The fact of the matter is that "nigger" is offensive, as is "Paki", and as is "Taig" and that's that.

no that is exactly what matters. the fact that the word can just as easily be replaced by another word and still have the same value and impact is EXACTLY the entire crux of the matter because it shows, atleast i believe that, that it is not the word itself (the letters arranged in a particular way) but the meaning of the word and all the things that are attached to it.

but im now halfway in your point and i realise that were not talking about the same thing and you wont see what im trying to point out... i think we need reenk roink to translate for me!

Excuse me? Did you actually read what I said about the topic at hand?
that was not aimed at you in particular. it was a general statement. so keep your pants on :)

Furunculus

01-08-2011, 14:40

How so? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say - are you saying that racism quite surpasses the understanding?

well quite, racism is beyond my understanding, but no, i was actually referring to the idiocy that is the legal definition of racism post macpherson; that it is no longer to be an empirical definition that can be weighed and judged, it is now a metaphysical construct that morphs into existence at the whim of the 'victim' or random third parties who feel the need to throw their tuppence into the pot. it is no way to operate a system of law, and in fact bears a greater resemblance to the inquisition!

on a related note, an excellent post-morten of the lawrence affair and racism idiocy it spawned:

http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_otbie-racism.html

Among the report’s many pernicious recommendations was the following: “The definition of a racist incident should be any incident which is perceived as racist by the victim or any other person.” Nothing could be better designed to destroy the possibility of easy—dare I say normal—relations among people of different races. For the notion that racism is so pervasive and institutionalized that it is everywhere, even where it appears not to be, induces in the susceptible a paranoid state of mind, which then finds racism in every possible situation, in every remark, in every suggestion, in every gesture and expression. It is a charge against which there is no defense.

Two incidents in my clinical experience illustrate this nonfalsifiability. In the first, the lawyers for a black defendant asked me to appraise his fitness to plead. The defendant faced charges of assaulting another black man, out of the blue, with an iron bar. The man was obviously paranoid, his speech rambling and incoherent; his lawyers could obtain no sensible instructions from him. I argued that he was unfit to plead. Whereupon the man’s sister denounced me as a racist: I had reached my conclusions, she charged, only because her brother was black. Her 15-year-old daughter started to describe to me her frequent difficulties in understanding her uncle, only to be told to shut up by her mother. The lawyers had been unable to obtain instructions from the defendant only because they were white, the sister persisted. Give her brother black lawyers, and he would be perfectly reasonable. Of course, if I had said that he was fit to plead, she could have claimed with equal justice (which is none) that I came to that conclusion only because he was black.

The second case, far more serious, ended in a man’s death; the blame was partly mine. A black man in his mid-twenties arrived at our hospital with severely cut wrists. He was nearly exsanguinated and needed a large blood transfusion; his tendons also needed an operation to repair. By all accounts, he had been a perfectly normal man, happily employed, a few weeks before, but suddenly he had stopped eating and become a recluse, barricading himself in his house until police and family broke in to reach him. His suicide attempt was not one of those frivolous gestures with which our hospitals are all too familiar. If ever a man meant to kill himself, this man did.

His mother was by his bedside. I told her that her son should remain in the hospital for treatment (you’d hardly have to be a doctor to realize this). At first she was perfectly agreeable; but then a friend of the young man, himself young and black, arrived and instantly accused me of racism for my supposed desire to lock the patient up. I tried to reason with this friend, but he became agitated and aggressive, even menacing. Whether from conviction or because she, too, felt intimidated, the mother then sided with the friend and started to say that I was racist in wishing to detain her son.

I could have insisted on the powers granted to me by law—asking a court to have social services replace the mother as the patient’s nearest relative for the legal purpose of keeping him in treatment. But I did not fancy the process: the young friend had threatened to bring reinforcements, and a riot might have ensued in the hospital. Instead, I agreed to the demand that I let the patient go home. The two said that they would look after him, and I made them sign a paper (of no legal worth) acknowledging that I had warned them of the possible consequences.

This piece of paper they screwed up into a ball and threw away immediately outside the ward, where I found it later. I had made copies, and it was one of these that I sent to the coroner when, six weeks later, the young man gassed himself to death with car exhaust. The notion of ubiquitous, institutionalized racism resulted in his death; and I resolved that it would never intimidate me again.

rory_20_uk

01-08-2011, 14:43

Rather like bullying. In UK law, it is bullying if the victim feels bullied...

~:smoking:

The Stranger

01-08-2011, 14:55

imo that is rather troublesome because it puts everything with the so called victim

atleast if someone is being bullied or being offended it assumes that there is another person who is doing the bullying or is doing the offending, aka the bully or the offender. but if you put the entire process of offense in the hands of the socalled victim than all you can rightly say is he FEELS offended or he FEELS bullied. this no longer needs a active engagement of a 2nd person with the intention of bullying or offending.

i see two problems 1) is already treated by Furnunculus. in the same way that it is hard to determine the intention of the offender it is evenly hard to know the true feelings of the person who claims to feel offended. everyone can feel offended by anything. as furnunculus said it is no way to build a legal system because it eliminates the effect of the guilty party...
2) it makes them the problem. this reasoning makes the victim the problem and only he has the solution. because if he feels offended he should do something about it, why should i be bothered with it? just get over it right? stop feeling offended then...?

Furunculus

01-09-2011, 12:46

hmmm, i hadn't considered the second point, but it has merit too.

Reenk Roink

01-09-2011, 18:59

Damn, if I had thought to try this angle several years back I wouldn't have to read those awful books... :wall:

The Stranger

01-09-2011, 19:00

what are you saying? :P

Reenk Roink

01-09-2011, 19:09

what are you saying? :P

They would never consider removing the books because they were crappy, so you might as well try this charged angle to do it. I never did actually read the books except to pick some quotes out for papers, but even the reading sparknotes was torture enough...

By the way, a big :no: to all the people here freely using the n-word in lieu of the phrase "n-word" or equivalent, whatever poor rationalizations of "free speech" or "non-PC" they may try to cook up. :rolleyes:

a completely inoffensive name

01-09-2011, 22:37

By the way, a big :no: to all the people here freely using the n-word in lieu of the phrase "n-word" or equivalent, whatever poor rationalizations of "free speech" or "non-PC" they may try to cook up. :rolleyes:

I am not claiming free speech or being "non-PC" in my use. I am simply making a point that Twain used that word for a reason. It seemed to me that if I made a post about how we need to not censor this word to keep the powerful message of the book, I would be somewhat undermining my own point by censoring the word itself in my own post and instead keep covering it up with some other designator of that word.

I don't see why it is 100% wrong in every single case for someone to say the "n-word". How is that conductive to the discourse about race in America and how is it acceptable when we are talking about censorship. I felt foolish typing out the statement in my first draft, "We must protect that word because Twain wanted to show how prevalent the word was back then and he wouldn't have wanted to censor...that "n-word"."

Beskar

01-09-2011, 22:48

Specific words being "taboo" is a silly concept. Especially since language is so flexible and changing. Language is a tool which we express ourselves and convey the intentions of the speaker to the listener. There are no such things as "bad words".

For example, you could simply replace a racist usage of 'n-word' with 'black' and it would just be as bad. It is obvious in the context how the statement is used.

HoreTore

01-09-2011, 22:51

Beskar

01-09-2011, 22:58

There may not be "bad words", but there are certainly "flammable words".

Ie. words that when used will ruin most civilized debate, or "hog the spotlight" in such a way that it obscures everything else.

It is usually the context they are used. You could be around some friends singing the f-word song harmlessly, but at grandma's house, she doesn't want to know about the f-word, especially as she hasn't seen any for a good 20 odd years. However, the issue isn't in the 'word' itself, it is more the connotations and implications of that word. The n-word is a case where is it pretty much unjustifiable to use it unless you want to brand yourself 'racist', even though some people argue that people use it between themselves, it is still what it is, highlighting an individuals race.

In a mock example, "Those new neighbours are Horetores, a inferior and savage people.", "Go away Horetore, back to Norway where you belong!". It is bad enough saying 'horetore' in this context, that a bad word wouldn't make a difference. So replace Horetore with n-word, the statement is identical. No more, no less.

HoreTore

01-09-2011, 23:21

I was referring to when one is debating, not anywhere else.

Ie. if I call someone a conservative, its allright, even though my argument may be very critical. If I refer to someone as a "f-ing consvative", on the other hand, that is likely to overshadow everything else and it'll turn into a flame wae in no time.

For proof, I present all youtube discussions...

Reenk Roink

01-10-2011, 00:04

I don't see why it is 100% wrong in every single case for someone to say the "n-word". How is that conductive to the discourse about race in America and how is it acceptable when we are talking about censorship. I felt foolish typing out the statement in my first draft, "We must protect that word because Twain wanted to show how prevalent the word was back then and he wouldn't have wanted to censor...that "n-word"."

My comment was more directed to how freely it is being bandied about in the Org Backroom, which has standards of decency. If we were discussing the f word on the Org given the standards it has about obscenities, I don't think it would give the posters a free ride to actually say the word itself, even in referential terms.

However, I'd add that in a serious discussion about race issues, I doubt people would take you seriously if you actually use the n-word. I wouldn't. I caught a glimpse of Oprah discussing the issue (NO I DO NOT WATCH OPRAH I JUST FLIP HER SHOW ON TIME TO TIME TO SEE WHAT'S ON HER MIND :stare:) and she basically had a very good talk about the n word without ever saying the n word.

a completely inoffensive name

01-10-2011, 00:20

My comment was more directed to how freely it is being bandied about in the Org Backroom, which has standards of decency. If we were discussing the f word on the Org given the standards it has about obscenities, I don't think it would give the posters a free ride to actually say the word itself, even in referential terms.

However, I'd add that in a serious discussion about race issues, I doubt people would take you seriously if you actually use the n-word. I wouldn't. I caught a glimpse of Oprah discussing the issue (NO I DO NOT WATCH OPRAH I JUST FLIP HER SHOW ON TIME TO TIME TO SEE WHAT'S ON HER MIND :stare:) and she basically had a very good talk about the n word without ever saying the n word.

I understand where you are coming from, but Twain uses the word in his book over 200 times, do we not take him and the book's message seriously?

InsaneApache

01-10-2011, 02:36

They would never consider removing the books because they were crappy, so you might as well try this charged angle to do it. I never did actually read the books except to pick some quotes out for papers, but even the reading sparknotes was torture enough...

By the way, a big :no: to all the people here freely using the n-word in lieu of the phrase "n-word" or equivalent, whatever poor rationalizations of "free speech" or "non-PC" they may try to cook up. :rolleyes:

Pretty hard to discuss the subject without using the word 'nigger'.

Reenk Roink

01-10-2011, 02:55

I understand where you are coming from, but Twain uses the word in his book over 200 times, do we not take him and the book's message seriously?

I don't take his books seriously. :beam:

But yes, I am not one of those people who disregards the different contexts of when Twain wrote to the one of today. However, that means, in today's context, when discussing the use of the n word in Twain's work, there is no need to use the n word. Otherwise you make yourself look like InsaneApache.

a completely inoffensive name

01-10-2011, 03:02

I don't take his books seriously. :beam:

But yes, I am not one of those people who disregards the different contexts of when Twain wrote to the one of today. However, that means, in today's context, when discussing the use of the n word in Twain's work, there is no need to use the n word. Otherwise you make yourself look like InsaneApache.

I see. Well, I will from now on just to refer it as the n-word, if only to make sure I am taken seriously and that my point is considered.

Louis VI the Fat

01-10-2011, 03:09

Pretty hard to discuss the subject without using the word 'nigger'.The explicit use of the 'nigger word'* is a statement of intent in this thread. The badge that shows one regards this in light of the protection of English (language) literature from a political infringement on the realm of artistic license and tradition.

One can needlesly say nigger nigger nigger here while not even considering doing so elsewhere.

*deliberate, for comical effect.

Reenk Roink

01-10-2011, 03:37

I see. Well, I will from now on just to refer it as the n-word, if only to make sure I am taken seriously and that my point is considered.

Thanks, which is why I see your posts fit to reply to. Rather than stubbornly stick to trying to make some [silly, pointless, and simply wrongheaded] statement, you actually have an issue to discuss. :bow:

ajaxfetish

01-10-2011, 04:47

Rather than stubbornly stick to trying to make some retarded statement,
In some circles, retarded is just as offensive as nigger. That's the trouble with excessive offense-taking and taboo. It shuts down clear communication.

Ajax

ajaxfetish

01-10-2011, 04:47

Sorry, double post.

Reenk Roink

01-10-2011, 04:48

In some circles, retarded is just as offensive as nigger. That's the trouble with excessive offense-taking and taboo. It shuts down clear communication.

Ajax

True. I was wrong in using that word.

a completely inoffensive name

01-10-2011, 06:01

Thanks, which is why I see your posts fit to reply to. Rather than stubbornly stick to trying to make some [silly, pointless, and simply wrongheaded] statement, you actually have an issue to discuss. :bow:

no problem. :D

Furunculus

01-10-2011, 09:44

I don't take his books seriously. :beam:

But yes, I am not one of those people who disregards the different contexts of when Twain wrote to the one of today. However, that means, in today's context, when discussing the use of the n word in Twain's work, there is no need to use the n word. Otherwise you make yourself look like InsaneApache.
in that case I will ALWAYS use uncomfortable words in front of you.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-10-2011, 09:51

in that case I will ALWAYS use uncomfortable words in front of you.

What for?

The Stranger

01-10-2011, 10:36

My comment was more directed to how freely it is being bandied about in the Org Backroom, which has standards of decency. If we were discussing the f word on the Org given the standards it has about obscenities, I don't think it would give the posters a free ride to actually say the word itself, even in referential terms.

However, I'd add that in a serious discussion about race issues, I doubt people would take you seriously if you actually use the n-word. I wouldn't. I caught a glimpse of Oprah discussing the issue (NO I DO NOT WATCH OPRAH I JUST FLIP HER SHOW ON TIME TO TIME TO SEE WHAT'S ON HER MIND :stare:) and she basically had a very good talk about the n word without ever saying the n word.

but what exactly wouldve been the substantial difference in her speech if she had used the n-word. apart from the fact of course she is using the n-word.

The Stranger

01-10-2011, 10:40

True. I was wrong in using that word.

i never get that... why would you be wrong in using the word retarded. you are wrong when you are using it in such way when you (clearly) intend to hurt, putt off, insult someone etc. i dont see why it is wrong if you use it globally for example: like some people are retarded. wrong when you say [insert name] is a retard.

and how far will you take such precautions. if you consider all the languages in the world, and i think you will have to do so if you want to consider all the people in the world. as someone already said before me it will pretty much effectively shut down all comunication, definitly if the definition of insult is it is an insult when someone feels insulted... i foresee a whole lot of trouble which is actually already occuring now, per example within the debate about islamists etc and the cartoonwars.

Furunculus

01-10-2011, 11:35

What for?

because hyper-sensitivity about other peoples interpretations of your words leads to the degeneration of language, and thus to effective communication as beskar rightly points out. it should be resisted.

and possibly because i can be a bit of a penis

Slyspy

01-10-2011, 17:56

I'm offended by the word penis used in a public setting and by the implication that all penises are Furunculusist by nature.

Furunculus

01-10-2011, 18:01

I'm offended by the word penis used in a public setting and by the implication that all penises are Furunculusist by nature.

i was going to say "d***", but figured a more physiological/medical term would be deemed less offensive, and yet still convey the fact that i am a person of (some might say: needlessly) limited sensitivity..............

did i hit that?

The Stranger

01-10-2011, 18:27

nailed it.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-10-2011, 18:31

i was going to say "d***", but figured a more physiological/medical term would be deemed less offensive, and yet still convey the fact that i am a person of (some might say: needlessly) limited sensitivity..............

did i hit that?

Dick is the only word for penis that means insensitive/rude. And the c one is the only offensive one I can think of.

Furunculus

01-10-2011, 21:42

Dick is the only word for penis that means insensitive/rude. And the c one is the only offensive one I can think of.

that's the very word i was looking for! :laugh4:

nailed it.

rawsome. :balloon2:

Reenk Roink

01-11-2011, 00:04

in that case I will ALWAYS use uncomfortable words in front of you.

That presumes that I would even consider carrying a drawn out serious conversation with you in the first place. :rolleyes: :smug:

but what exactly wouldve been the substantial difference in her speech if she had used the n-word. apart from the fact of course she is using the n-word.

She would have been taken much less seriously (most importantly by me), and probably would be losing ratings. Style matters I'm afraid.

i never get that... why would you be wrong in using the word retarded. you are wrong when you are using it in such way when you (clearly) intend to hurt, putt off, insult someone etc. i dont see why it is wrong if you use it globally for example: like some people are retarded. wrong when you say [insert name] is a retard.

Yeah, there is obviously the fact that the n word is basically by consensus more offensive in general than the r word we refer to, and the n word in almost every context except a couple of very special ones used by black people exclusively is a huge taboo whereas the r word is not anywhere close to that, and so I could have argued against ajax's point like that, but the implicit point in his statement that needlessly offensive words and language should be was right. I don't think ajax was arguing that, and rather he was arguing the opposite point, but I don't accept the opposite point. Avoiding offensive language is better from both a theoretical and practical standpoint than trying to change societal views on taboo. :juggle2:

and how far will you take such precautions. if you consider all the languages in the world, and i think you will have to do so if you want to consider all the people in the world. as someone already said before me it will pretty much effectively shut down all comunication, definitly if the definition of insult is it is an insult when someone feels insulted... i foresee a whole lot of trouble which is actually already occuring now, per example within the debate about islamists etc and the cartoonwars.

A slipperly slope argument isn't going to cut it. There are some words that are just more bad than others, and we can see this distinction by what you can and cannot say on TV, radio, and in the forums. And I understand that there are people who always try to fight socially constructed norms to make silly, pointless, and usually wrongheaded statements, but all they serve to do is cause the annoyance of others, the status quo is basically unaffected. For example, the Gameroom's rules on swearing are much stricter than the Backroom's. I adjust my vocabulary as such there, out of respect of the rules (in the Backroom I say hell a lot). And also for example, Sigurd has said that the word 'damn' carries a grave meaning in Norway, while it really doesn't in America. So if I ever discuss something with Sigurd, I will make sure to avoid that word or anything related, in interest of the conversation.

EDIT: TS, I guess this is the best way I can put it, in both the context of debate AND dialogue. Analogize a debate to a battle. One of the most important things, if not the most important thing is to choose the battlefield to favor you. The battle is a long way towards won if you do this. Or to have a meaningful dialogue, both sides have to agree to some common ground to proceed. Now, if you can find someone willing to use the n word itself in a discussion, well good for you. But I'd be willing to bet that your discussion is simply not going to be taken seriously at all by many. After all, could you go on NPR, or CNN, or even FOX and use the n word in such a discussion? It doesn't matter how good your points are at that point, as your style sucks, and it does matter.

ajaxfetish

01-11-2011, 01:55

Dick is the only word for penis that means insensitive/rude.
Prick?

Ajax

edit: perhaps tool?

Sasaki Kojiro

01-11-2011, 03:04

Prick?

Ajax

edit: perhaps tool?

GOD**** LINGUISTS

:furious3:

The Stranger

01-11-2011, 10:19

She would have been taken much less seriously (most importantly by me), and probably would be losing ratings. Style matters I'm afraid.

but that is not substantial... i think id go with what horetore says. some words are inflammable and heat up the discussian when used but i dont think its is because that specific set of letters when used, or the sound of it. but rather tone, context, connotations, the entire historic aftermath.

because if i would say the same thing with different words over and over again, even if i would use polite words one time and inflammable words the other time people would get offended the same way because of the same thought that is behind each phrasing.

if i would say

those dirty niggers are stupid and refuse to get their big butts to work

or

those blackies know nothing and sit at home all day

is maybe only a tiny bit worse than.

negroes are not intelligent and they are lazy

indeed style matters. and its a difference when you call someone a dimwitted idiot or when you call someone ill-informed. but the difference is gradual not substantial. dimwitted idiot is a case of a flammable word which will heat up the discussion and a rude way of implying the latter.

yet imo people should not put taboos on the words because it implies that the word is the only problem and once we get rid of the word we have gotten rid of the problem. as shown by this attempt to censor it and by previous attempts to censor it. i think its a heavy simplification of this particular situation but as of most other similar situations. i believe that once the root of the problem is dealt with, the negative history, emotions, biases etc the word which resembles and symbolises these things for many people will dissappear as well or will be used in another context.

EDIT: TS, I guess this is the best way I can put it, in both the context of debate AND dialogue. Analogize a debate to a battle. One of the most important things, if not the most important thing is to choose the battlefield to favor you. The battle is a long way towards won if you do this. Or to have a meaningful dialogue, both sides have to agree to some common ground to proceed. Now, if you can find someone willing to use the n word itself in a discussion, well good for you. But I'd be willing to bet that your discussion is simply not going to be taken seriously at all by many. After all, could you go on NPR, or CNN, or even FOX and use the n word in such a discussion? It doesn't matter how good your points are at that point, as your style sucks, and it does matter.

i agree that it is a point that should be taken into account. and i indeed agree that if you know the use of such a word will hurt the person you debate or converse with any decent and polite and civilised person would refrain of such a word and any person who does his best not to be a hypocrite will try to refrain of these words whenever he can. but while that is being said, i dont believe that the word is the problem. it isnt because if it was we would just stop using it and everything would be fine. but no, instead we must use an abreviation or a synomym to say the same because there is still need of that being said.

a completely inoffensive name

01-11-2011, 11:58

but that is not substantial... i think id go with what horetore says. some words are inflammable and heat up the discussian when used but i dont think its is because that specific set of letters when used, or the sound of it. but rather tone, context, connotations, the entire historic aftermath.

because if i would say the same thing with different words over and over again, even if i would use polite words one time and inflammable words the other time people would get offended the same way because of the same thought that is behind each phrasing.

if i would say

those dirty niggers are stupid and refuse to get their big butts to work

or

those blackies know nothing and sit at home all day

is maybe only a tiny bit worse than.

negroes are not intelligent and they are lazy

indeed style matters. and its a difference when you call someone a dimwitted idiot or when you call someone ill-informed. but the difference is gradual not substantial. dimwitted idiot is a case of a flammable word which will heat up the discussion and a rude way of implying the latter.

yet imo people should not put taboos on the words because it implies that the word is the only problem and once we get rid of the word we have gotten rid of the problem. as shown by this attempt to censor it and by previous attempts to censor it. i think its a heavy simplification of this particular situation but as of most other similar situations. i believe that once the root of the problem is dealt with, the negative history, emotions, biases etc the word which resembles and symbolises these things for many people will dissappear as well or will be used in another context.

i agree that it is a point that should be taken into account. and i indeed agree that if you know the use of such a word will hurt the person you debate or converse with any decent and polite and civilised person would refrain of such a word and any person who does his best not to be a hypocrite will try to refrain of these words whenever he can. but while that is being said, i dont believe that the word is the problem. it isnt because if it was we would just stop using it and everything would be fine. but no, instead we must use an abreviation or a synomym to say the same because there is still need of that being said.

It should come down to what is pragmatic. It is pragmatic to use a censored version of the word, because people can't be bothered to see beyond petty connotations to get at your larger meaning. That seems to be the bottom line, although I completely agree with everything you just said TS, you gotta be realistic about real situations. Saying the n-word just kills your point before it is made, no matter how truthful.

The Stranger

01-11-2011, 13:49

It should come down to what is pragmatic. It is pragmatic to use a censored version of the word, because people can't be bothered to see beyond petty connotations to get at your larger meaning. That seems to be the bottom line, although I completely agree with everything you just said TS, you gotta be realistic about real situations. Saying the n-word just kills your point before it is made, no matter how truthful.

i agree. but this should be common sense and not a law. to force people to do so by law or taboo (unwritten law?) is the wrong way imo. we should try to get rid of the word by getting at the heart of the problem, aka the riddance of the word is secundary to the riddance of the problem, it is a result of getting rid of the problem. getting rid of the word doesnt solve much it is as if by ignoring the word and thus the problem we have solved it. but this is not the case.

but you are right, to use the word as if you are a loose cannon will help nothing. perhaps by using the word at all you will help nothing. but by simply ignoring the word you will help nothing either.

ajaxfetish

01-11-2011, 17:37

yet imo people should not put taboos on the words because it implies that the word is the only problem and once we get rid of the word we have gotten rid of the problem. as shown by this attempt to censor it and by previous attempts to censor it.

I think this is illustrated particularly clearly in the shifting terms for mental retardation. People have strong negative feelings towards mental retardation, and any terms used for it quickly collect negative connotations and become offensive. Idiot (used as a medical term starting around 1400) became rude, as did imbecile (since the 1700s) and moron (since the early 1900s). Retarded became the polite way to say it in the late 1800s / early 1900s, but became offensive in turn, though it's still used in technical/legal writing. Handicapped was introduced a little later, and while it hasn't yet become as derogative as the earlier terms (in my experience), it's collected enough negativity that the preferred term is now disabled (or even differently abled, whatever that's supposed to mean). I wouldn't be at all surprised to see disabled become the new schoolyard insult, if it hasn't started already, and then there will be a search for a new term. Targeting the language has done nothing to remove the underlying bias. The result, instead, has been to make respectful people insecure in their word choice, as the 'correct' term becomes so malleable that it's hard to know what will cause offense. This discourages communication for those whose input would likely be most valuable and neutral.

The same process occurs with ethnic slurs. Terms such as negro and coloured used to be preferred, and occur frequently in the speeches of civil rights leaders. Now it can be a touchy question of whether to say black or African American, with further complications for referring to black people who are not American, or who are recent immigrants from Africa. I don't know whether the underlying attitudes will ever change, though I hope they will. In the meantime, though, the constant linguistic dance to avoid offense is decidedly inconvenient and I think counterproductive.

Ajax

rory_20_uk

01-11-2011, 18:04

You left off cretin, mongoloid / downs, special needs, special, spastic...

Human beings have a natural aversion to those with low IQ and accompanying physical abnormality as they are more likely to be poor genetic stock, and definitely less able to provide as a partner. Nature culls such individuals naturally but we have to hide our feelings behind increasingly meaningless words to show how we so love them, and how brave the parents are to have such loving children whist quietly thanking their lucky stars that they were not similarly "gifted" in this way

~:smoking:

Fisherking

01-11-2011, 19:10

The term in the book is referring to blacks as slaves. Simply replacing the word with slave does not convey the full meaning and negro-slave does not fit the dialog.

It is used in Tom Sawyer too along with the name Injun-Joe so I suppose we should be looking at changing that to First Nation Joe or Joe of Native American Extraction? And while we are at it should we update melancholy to depressed?

Too many people walk around with a chip on their shoulder and take everything and anything as an insult.

Changing the dialog to suit a few malcontents and burry the sense of history is a bad idea. Rewriting the books for school children is even worse. They are to be educated, not cloistered.

It is just like Indian. Most prefer it over Native American in the US. But there is a small group that screams about it and they are the same ones yelling about the names of baseball teams.

There is a hill just out side of Yakama, Wa called “Squaw Tit”. Everyone knows it. It is a local landmark. You can’t inter the city from the north, south, or west without seeing it. The Yakama Tribe has not insisted on a name change but my guess is a few of you will be insulted by it.

InsaneApache

01-11-2011, 19:18

Well I know what a squaw means but as this is a R13 forum I'd get a warning for telling you. A tit is a small bird, bit like a sparrow.

The Stranger

01-11-2011, 20:04

Fisherking

01-11-2011, 22:26

but indian is just plain confusing XD since indian people come from india...

LOL was it your turn under the bridge tonight?

The Stranger

01-11-2011, 22:45

LOL was it your turn under the bridge tonight?

yes! its nice and cosy there :)

a completely inoffensive name

01-12-2011, 00:41

i agree. but this should be common sense and not a law. to force people to do so by law or taboo (unwritten law?) is the wrong way imo. we should try to get rid of the word by getting at the heart of the problem, aka the riddance of the word is secundary to the riddance of the problem, it is a result of getting rid of the problem. getting rid of the word doesnt solve much it is as if by ignoring the word and thus the problem we have solved it. but this is not the case.

but you are right, to use the word as if you are a loose cannon will help nothing. perhaps by using the word at all you will help nothing. but by simply ignoring the word you will help nothing either.

No we shouldn't get rid of the word, but we simply must adhere to the social pressures of self censoring ourselves if we are to even reach other people and convince them to not ban the word. It's one big ****** up set up, but it's what we are presented with. I don't think anyone who is asking to refrain from saying the n-word is also advocating for eliminating it completely from all texts including huck finn.

Many choice are determined by social pressures than what we really want. Girls can't eat what they like because society tells them to stay skinny, nudists can't walk on their lawn naked because society says that going outside naked makes you a pervert and a flasher. Society is oppressive like that and unfortunately it is the most decentralized institution of all time because it literally consists of all of us, so there really is no way of being able to change it without massive support.

Reenk Roink

01-12-2011, 02:15

i agree. but this should be common sense and not a law. to force people to do so by law or taboo (unwritten law?) is the wrong way imo. we should try to get rid of the word by getting at the heart of the problem, aka the riddance of the word is secundary to the riddance of the problem, it is a result of getting rid of the problem. getting rid of the word doesnt solve much it is as if by ignoring the word and thus the problem we have solved it. but this is not the case.

But the point (my point at least) has never been on the 'law' side (otherwise I would report every offending post here and send a big PM to Seamus and Banquo complaining and bringing up certain Org rules in an attempt to get the posts edited, the thread closed, and the parties warning points, and at least for yourself and acin, I don't want that to happen).

I don't think anyone who is asking to refrain from saying the n-word is also advocating for eliminating it completely from all texts including huck finn.

:yes: I can read the book unedited and discuss it's diction without explicitly using the word in my discussion, which is kinda how these things probably go in most schools.