It looks like the editors at New South Publishing want to give history a make-over. They are removing the dreaded “N-word” from the newest editions of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. As a lover of history, I must say I am offended by this action. Rather than trusting parents to teach their children the history behind this racial epithet, New South Publishing is taking matters into their own hands and playing the role of Big Brother. It would benefit the causes of right-wing historical re-constructionists for people to forget the evil racist legacy of African enslavement; that way we can look upon the Confederate States of America as bold and heroic, something I refuse ever to do. Its this kind of nonsense that proves to me that political correctness works to disarm the oppressed so they do not have the means to talk back and confront racist lies.
I remember all to freshly the days when in my junior year of high school, in our American Studies class, our teacher asked one of my peers to read a portion of Huck Finn to the class. I unambiguously remember the student’s name, but the point is, he was repulsed (as a white male), to read the “N-word” out loud, so he struggled to even say Negro in its place. Of course me, being me, I got a kick out of all of this. The teacher, acting as the P-C police, struggled to explain the meaning behind that one word. For me, it was entertainment, and looking back and reflecting, I still laugh and feel the same way. It is not that racism is funny; it’s just that sometimes laughter is the best way to deal with oppression, to chuckle at the inner contradictions of situations when the logic of white liberalism turns in on itself. In this particular instance my junior year, I consciously knew I was being indoctrinated by exclusive views of English literature and U.S. American history that considered the histories of the oppressed as marginal. So, I thought it was ironic that the English teacher would go out of her way for one little offensive word when the exclusive nature of the required reading list for both semesters would seem to be more of an abomination.
If English (or History) teachers want to take a stand against racism, they better find a different hobby other than sugarcoating the texts of the past. A much more appropriate anti-racist practice is to include the history of the marginalized along side the mainstream, and not just wait until Black History Month, etc.
- “Whitewashing Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, Part 99,999″ and related posts (michellemalkin.com)
- Huckleberry Finn Without “the N-word”? (theroot.com)
- Updated Version Of Huckleberry Finn To Replace “N” Word With “Slave” (alan.com)
I agree with you. That said, the N word is a racial epithet not a epitaph.
Made the change. Thanks for stopping by, Blair!
Well said, Rod. As a white male it would seem to me such censorship is an attempt to baptize our own consciences without actually changing the root evil of racism in our own hearts that brought forth the American slave trade. While I sympathize with the reader who was afraid to use the “N” word (because as a white person we are not really sure what to do with our own horrible history at times), it is just another white power-grab to erase our history acting as if we never did those things or said those things.
Right on, Brian!
“it is just another white power-grab to erase our history acting as if we never did those things or said those things.”
Pingback: Tweets that mention Re-Writing Mark Twain, Sugarcoating History | Political Jesus -- Topsy.com
Is thinking transferred into your understanding of biblical translation? I admit I have not kept up with your series on this issue . . . so I was hoping you would be kind enough to give a brief response on the matter.
Actually, the Bible translation series is Chad’s, but for my two cents, I believe this is the approach that I take. I believe that chapter-for-chapter, the NRSV is the most accurate English bible translation.
But isn’t it precisely with the NRSV that ‘liberals’ can wash their hands of a specific gender trope that should or could remain in a more ‘literal’ translation? I am certainly not arguing for a perfect translation but it was the gender-inclusive stance of the NRSV that I was curious about here. I am also not saying that the two cases are equivocal but do seem to address a common concern raised here.
Graham Ward has a great article drawing on Luce Irigaray in which he criticizes ‘gender-inclusive’ language of absolving the need to examine the larger masculine structure of the language itself. Your thinking seemed to be in line with sort of position.
I really do not think my preference for the NRSV has anything to do with me being “liberal.” If I fall into your definition of liberal, I would like to know what that definition is. I have not read the Graham Ward article, but I see nothing wrong with the scare-crow you are trying to use, i.e., gender-inclusive language. Language is far from ever being neutral, let alone gender neutral. No where in the NRSV do I see any passage that makes Christ the Son of God a “child”; it is only gender inclusive when it comes to humanity, which is well within the historical context of a passage. If a chapter mentions the presence of women in a crowd, but then later we see “men” in some of the other English translations, then I see no problem with including women, using humanity, humankind, or men and women. If anything, using gender inclusive language keeps the differences between men and women in the passage, and for complementarians (not I since I am not one, but others)difference is what is important for gender relations. I argue that this is exactly what gender-inclusive language does.
There is no need to revert back to phallocentric views of language if the biblical text itself includes women already as part of humankind.
I am no real disagreement with your position. I was playing off ‘liberal’ as it read it in your post. The question was more focused on whether making the sort of shift that the NRSV does creates in its readers a false sense of ‘Ah, now we don’t have to deal with that issue anymore.’ It would seem that anyone reading the Bible with any integrity would continually be forced into that issue (more or less without regard to translation).
@David,
Well, I think my position on the NRSV is consistent with my view of Mark Twain’s Finn. We have both the text and the history of the text to work with.
Yup, no push back here.
Pingback: Week in Review: 01.08.2011 « Near Emmaus