I'm not afraid to admit that I'm a liberal. I suppose as liberals go, I'm fairly moderate, but still: I'm liberal. So, let's talk about the recent scandal involving a novel originally published one hundred and seventeen years ago: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
Apparently, there is a publisher (NewSouth Books) who is releasing a revised version of the classic, removing the word "nigger" and "Injun" from the book. They plan to replace "the N word" with "slave" and I haven't read what they plan to replace "Injun" with, but I'm kind of amused at the thought ("Oh no! Look out, Huck! It's Native American Joe!"). As far as I know, not every publisher is jumping on this bandwagon and the original will still be available to be read and purchased, but this new edition is gaining a considerable amount of press because of this revision.
Now, before we delve into the issue of censorship, let me say quite clearly: along with my liberal tendencies, I'm also extremely politically correct. I truly don't like racial slurs and I really cringe at the N word. In fact, typing it in the paragraph above was hard for me. I ignore it in songs that I otherwise enjoy, I don't say it, it's an ugly offensive word.
All of that said: this is a word that has existed for a few hundred years, and like many words, it has evolved in use, in context, and in acceptability. The novel is set in Missouri - Missouri -- remember? Missouri Compromise? Slave State? They had slaves there! Slavery was - IS - an abominable institution. BUT IT HAPPENED. The United States of America was a place where slavery was acceptable for a time. Not anymore - but it was the case back back back in the day. So, when Mark Twain - clever, wise, subversive, radical, abolitionist Mark Twain - was writing his two most famous novels (Huck and his pal, Tom), he was writing about more than young boys getting into scrapes. These stories were commentaries on the day, on the time, on the place. One of the tools an author has at his disposal for that task is dialogue, and Twain was no exception. In fact, he may just be the rule - Twain is a master of dialogue and uses his characters' words to bring the world to life, but also comment on that world. How many other books from 1884 are still read as a part of curriculum in schools across the country?
I think we need to be clear that preserving the vocabulary of a classic American novel does not condone any word's (or idea's) place in current American society. On the contrary, when you read "Huck Finn" or any other book from that time, you are gaining a glimpse into history, into the ideology of the day, and honestly, only one guy's opinion of that day. To make changes to that story, you are at best glossing over history and at worst trying to erase it. I read one opinion in support of the revisions that said something to the effect of "it's awkward being the only black kid in class and having to read 'that word.'" I don't deny or discount that opinion - I think it probably should be awkward, because today it's not nice to use that word (don't tell the Rap community, but it's not). But if we revised every piece of literature for awkwardness, what would we be left with? Books that have, at some point, been deemed controversial or have been banned -- Animal Farm, Grapes of Wrath, Howl, 1984, The Catcher in the Rye... the list goes on. I didn't necessarily enjoy all of these books (some of them I downright didn't like), but they have their place. They are all important pieces of literature - what they said combined with when and how they said it. Huckleberry Finn is absolutely on that list.
The issue is far larger than a revisionist history being forced into an old book. This is a book that is widely considered part of the canon of great American Literature and is taught as such in schools across the country. Here the issue takes a big leap and becomes part of one of the major Issues (with a CAPITAL I!) of our time: Education. I don't pretend to know everything - or even most things. If I had a perfect solution to the Education Issue, I'd be in politics, not food service. I received my high school diploma from a parochial school, albeit a fairly progressive one. I have a bachelor's degree from a public university, unaffiliated with any religious order. I have been exposed to many ways of thinking and I happen to tend to agree with the more "liberal" ones. I am well aware that pretty much any curriculum falls in with someone's political or social agenda, and I will admit that when I read about curricula that line up with "the other side's" ideology I kind of cringe. I can't help it. I am sure they do the same thing. But, ultimately, I believe we should be doing what we can to educate about the way things actually happened. About what is actually going on in the universe today. Shouldn't we be teaching our children how to think for themselves and look at the evidence and decide how they feel about it? Without bias?
I am going to go look to see if I still have my copy of "Huck Finn" - because when my kid is old enough to read it, he's going to read the original version. And we'll talk about it.
Recent Comments