Censorship for mark twain

Buy American · January-05-11, 10:27 AM

http://www.freep.com/article/2011010...replace-N-word

How can anyone do this in the United States of America? This is censorship to the fullest and this scares me because if they can change a historical book...what else are they going to change to suit each individual group of people and their sensibilities in the U.S.?
My father and uncles all fought Hitler for our freedoms and here today, because certain people are offended by the 'n' word, they are arbitarily rewriting a textbook so as not to offend blacks. Big brother has gone way too far....What's next?

**rb336** · January-05-11, 10:57 AM

Saw this "documentary" on Reconstruction. It included readings from letters of freed slaves. One of the readers read a letter and included the line "no one cares what happens to a woman of color" as if it was part of the letter. I know damn well that that phrase was not used by the writer of the letter in thelate 1860s, early 1870s. She probably said "no one cares what happens to a n_ woman." That is history, and it is pure ignorance to pretend the language was different than it was.

**Mikeg** · January-05-11, 10:58 AM

What Alan Gribben is attempting to do IS NOT censorship.

The censorship involving these classics has been on the part of school districts, which have suppressed these writings of Mark Twain because they deemed certain words he used to be offensive.

Twain's works are in the public domain and Alan Gribben as a private individual has decided to reprint them without the offensive words. He is taking the financial risk of publishing the edited books so that a certain segment of the book-buying population [[school districts) can buy them and expose another generation to these classics.

You should be directing your wrath on the school districts, who are the governmental bodies suppressing these books and practicing censorship.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-05-11, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Mikeg

What Alan Gribben is attempting to do IS NOT censorship.

The censorship involving these classics has been on the part of school districts, which have suppressed these writings of Mark Twain because they deemed certain words he used to be offensive.

Twain's works are in the public domain and Alan Gribben as a private individual has decided to reprint them without the offensive words. He is taking the financial risk of publishing the edited books so that a certain segment of the book-buying population [[school districts) can buy them and expose another generation to these classics.

You should be directing your wrath on the school districts, who are the governmental bodies suppressing these books and practicing censorship.

Let me get this straight:

The guy who is publishing and selling an altered book is being altruistic and attempting to "expose another generation to these classics."

Yet it's the people who BUY the books [[which are presumably sanitized and printed prior to purchase) who are censoring? What if a private school or individual buys the censored books? Are they equally guilty of censorship, in your eyes? What happens when the censored version of the book is the only version published? Is that the fault of the schools too?

Way to not let logic or reason get in the way of your ideology.

**Johnlodge** · January-05-11, 11:11 AM

I remember reading the book in school. Dealing with that word was an important part of the lessons. But no, easier to either ignore the book, or bleach it of any offending syllables.

**Detroitnerd** · January-05-11, 11:16 AM

This is what happens when you entrust struggles for social justice to the middle class.

**Mikeg** · January-05-11, 11:54 AM

Twain's books are no longer under copyright, so anyone can edit them and attempt to publish and sell them as an edited version. I fail to see how the private act of publishing an edited edition can be considered censorship as alleged by the original poster.

I believe that the only censorship being practiced is by those who have banned the use of Twain's books containing the offensive N-word.

Those who have suppressed the use of the original versions can decide on their own whether or not to purchase Alan Gribben's edited version. I don't consider it to be censorship on their part if they decide that their students can benefit by reading the edited version and therefore purchase Mr. Gribben's edited version.

However, given all of the controversy over Twain's characters use of the offensive N-word and the fuzzy thinking being exposed over this issue, I highly doubt that Mr. Gribben will be able to sell his full printing of 7,500 books.

**Johnlodge** · January-05-11, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Mikeg

Twain's books are no longer under copyright, so anyone can edit them and attempt to publish and sell them as an edited version. I fail to see how the private act of publishing an edited edition can be considered censorship as alleged by the original poster.

I believe that the only censorship being practiced is by those who have banned the use of Twain's books containing the offensive N-word.

Those who have suppressed the use of the original versions can decide on their own whether or not to purchase Alan Gribben's edited version. I don't consider it to be censorship on their part if they decide that their students can benefit by reading the edited version and therefore purchase Mr. Gribben's edited version.

However, given all of the controversy over Twain's characters use of the offensive N-word and the fuzzy thinking being exposed over this issue, I highly doubt that Mr. Gribben will be able to sell his full printing of 7,500 books.

It's not "fuzzy thinking" just because you disagree with it. People believe an American master's works should remain intact, and not cleansed of words or ideas somebody finds offensive. Just because the man has a legal right to do something doesn't mean it isn't open for criticism.

**rb336** · January-05-11, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Johnlodge

It's not "fuzzy thinking" just because you disagree with it. People believe an American master's works should remain intact, and not cleansed of words or ideas somebody finds offensive. Just because the man has a legal right to do something doesn't mean it isn't open for criticism.

Don't let Ted Turner deface my movie with his crayons!

- Orson Welles

An artwork that is changed to suit the tastes or bow to those "offended" by the content has been defaced. It is no longer the masterpiece but a sad copy of it.

Buy American · January-05-11, 12:22 PM

There are hundreds of thousands of books in the libraries all over this country with the so called offensive word in it, are the censors going to go through all of them and rewrite a man's words? What about the rappers and their use of the word? It's used all the time in their songs, are they going to take it out and use a different word? I don't think so. Some of the kids who would be reading Huck Finn have already been introduced to that word by their own parents and other family members because it's one of the most common words in their volcabulary, let's face that fact!
I am offended by the word WOP [[used to denigrate the Italian population); I am offended by the word spic [[used to denigrate Hispanics); I am offended by the word kyke [[ used to denigrate the Jews); and I could go on and on.
In my entire lifetime I have never heard of anyone saying they wanted those disparaging names of certain ethnic groups changed in the writings of any book. Next thing I forsee is the rewriting of the Bible because of the horrific things that are spoken about in it.....we certainly can't offend people can we. Instead of deleting words or phrases, teach children what's right and wrong today, leave history alone. I guess some authority figures don't have any confidence in the kids today and somehow think they will be tainted if they come into contact with what they may consider offensive....teach them about life and how to deal with it instead of treating them like a bunch of imbeciles who can't handle the "word".

**oladub** · January-05-11, 12:31 PM

Jefferson wrote his own Bible choosing to remove things he didn't think fit. Readers Digest used to print abridged versions of books which were widely distributed. Political fonts continue to twist the news any way they see fit. These sanitized Mark Twain books are just operating within the same freedoms of expression as the rest. I do hope, thought, that there is some mention in the forward that the text has been modified.

**Mikeg** · January-05-11, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Johnlodge

Just because the man has a legal right to do something doesn't mean it isn't open for criticism.

I fully agree. However, I believe that what he is attempting to do cannot be described as censorship. No one is taking away your right to read his edited edition. Unlike with the school districts' suppression of Twain's classics, the free market will decide whether Gribben's edited version of Twain's classics will be read by anyone.

**Johnlodge** · January-05-11, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

Jefferson wrote his own Bible choosing to remove things he didn't think fit. Readers Digest used to print abridged versions of books which were widely distributed. Political fonts continue to twist the news any way they see fit. These sanitized Mark Twain books are just operating within the same freedoms of expression as the rest. I do hope, thought, that there is some mention in the forward that the text has been modified.

Again, not a question of legality or whether he has the freedom to do it. But we are then also free to criticize it as horse shit, which we are doing.

Buy American · January-05-11, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Mikeg

I fully agree. However, I believe that what he is attempting to do cannot be described as censorship. No one is taking away your right to read his edited edition. Unlike with the school districts' suppression of Twain's classics, the free market will decide whether Gribben's edited version of Twain's classics will be read by anyone.

It is censorship. He is taking away the students right to read the uncensored version of Huck Finn. These students will not know any different version other than the censored one.

Buy American · January-05-11, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Johnlodge

Again, not a question of legality or whether he has the freedom to do it. But we are then also free to criticize it as horse shit, which we are doing.

I couldn't agree more....hope no one changes your statement to read "the dung of a horse".

**Johnlodge** · January-05-11, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Buy American

It is censorship. He is taking away the students right to read the uncensored version of Huck Finn. These students will not know any different version other than the censored one.

OK, now I have to take Mikeg's side. The guy is an idiot, IMO, but he isn't taking away anybody's right to read anything. The regular book is still readily available.

Buy American · January-05-11, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Johnlodge

OK, now I have to take Mikeg's side. The guy is an idiot, IMO, but he isn't taking away anybody's right to read anything. The regular book is still readily available.

Is the regular [[uncensored) book going to be used in any particular school system or does he just want to print 7,500 censored copies and let a school district purchase them at their discretion?

If the purpose is for students to read his censored version, then he is taking away the right of the student who is forced to read the censored version from reading the uncensored one.

I just confused myself!!!

**maxx** · January-05-11, 01:20 PM

And will Melville's story become "The Slave of the Narcissus"?

**Papasito** · January-05-11, 01:53 PM

If we don't acknowledge the mistakes of the past
We won't be able to make corrections for the future

gdogslim · January-05-11, 01:58 PM

It is called - Political correctness , It was first used to help spread communism, marxism.
http://www.politicallyincorrect.me.uk/ ,
is first and foremost an attack on free speech, clear thinking and discussion. Political correctness is perpetrated by the left in politics as a cover for their flawed ideology - a sort of cultural Marxism. By cloaking their strange ideas under the cover of not wishing to offend anyone [[which naturally appeals to peoples' better nature), they try to bypass debate and give a 'received wisdom' which must not be questioned. And anyone who disagrees with this 'received wisdom' must therefore be a really nasty person and deserves to be ostracised by their peers. This peer pressure is instrumental in enforcing and expanding political correctness. For example, if you question whether unfettered immigration into this country is necessarily a good thing or perhaps whether immigrants should be health checked, then you must be a nasty bigoted 'Little Englander'. Come on everyone - shout him down with cries of 'racist'. Of course, only the hard of thinking could be drawn into this charade - anyone with an ounce of common sense can see right through it.
So how did it all start? Political Correctness started in a think tank [[called The Frankfurt School) in Germany in 1923. The purpose was to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia. Why wasn't the wonderful idea of communism spreading? Read the short history here, the full history and purpose here or watch a 22 minute documentary here.
The Frankfurt school recommended [[amongst other things):

the creation of racism offences
continual change to create confusion
the teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
the undermining of schools and teachers' authority
huge immigration to destroy national identity
the promotion of excessive drinking
emptying the churches
an unreliable legal system with bias against the victim of crime
dependency on the state or state benefits
control and dumbing down of media
encouraging the breakdown of the family

Look familiar ?????? Looks like the playbook of the left in the U.S. doesn't it ???????

**Gistok** · January-05-11, 02:30 PM

... leftist.... blah blah blah.... what about "Creationists" and "Intelligent Design"?? What leftists are doing that?? .... ummmm NONE!!!!... that's the policy of the right...

So Slimdog... take off your rose colored glasses, stop drinking your Fox Kool Aid... and look at the world for what it is... there's plenty of problems with how both the far left and far right view the world and try to change it.... your one sided myopic ramblings about the left are about as transparent as it gets....

Think for yourself and stop letting Fox sound bites, and random bloggers think for you....

**Gistok** · January-05-11, 02:42 PM

And as far as Twains rewriting... small potatoes.

What about the re-writing of the King James Bible after 400 years??

And what about using "CE" and "BCE".... instead of "AD" and "BC"?? The year numbers haven't changed, so why must the lettering after 1,200 years of tradition? The Venerable Bede would be turning in his grave over that one...

A few word changes in Twain's works don't bother me as much as rewriting Shakespeare [[called "No Fear Shakespeare") and the Bible into modern English. It gets especially annoying when the Lord's Prayer and 23 Psalm have been modernized... but that's just me... if others want to read modernized versions... I don't care... just don't go changing our 1,200 year tradition of year dating....

**maxx** · January-05-11, 04:51 PM

And what about using "CE" and "BCE".... instead of "AD" and "BC"?? The year numbers haven't changed, so why must the lettering after 1,200 years of tradition?

Because there is something called rationality that trumps religious belief anyday.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce_info.htm

The Venerable Bede would be turning in his grave over that one.

Venerable Bede probably didn't know about when Herod the Great died or what Roman emperors actually did censuses. He just believed what he was told to believe.

**rb336** · January-05-11, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

What about the re-writing of the King James Bible after 400 years??

Which itself was a re-write of an earlier brit bible, which was a [[bad) translation of an oft-re-written latin bible, which was re-written from [[bad) translations of the greek and aramaic transcriptions of an old oral tradition along with some plagiarism of babylonian mythology

And what about using "CE" and "BCE".... instead of "AD" and "BC"?? The year numbers haven't changed, so why must the lettering after 1,200 years of tradition? The Venerable Bede would be turning in his grave over that one...

AD - anno dominae - or some variation, was used in some Roman documents to mean"year of our lord" refering to the reign of Julius Caesar, even though Julius Caesar considered the year to be 700 something from the founding of Rome. Dionysus Exigious [[sp?) suggested changing that to mean Christ [[yet another in the long line of con men) around 300CE. All Bede did was create the "BC" part. There are different calenders and dating systems even in christendom, and the actual dating conventions were later add-ons themselves. "CE" refers to "Common Era"

**Gistok** · January-05-11, 07:04 PM

Rb336 and Maxx... I just like to go "off" on the BCE/CE labels once in a while...

Just a matter of personal preference I guess. The irony in whichever convention you use, it still has the approximate birth of Jesus Christ as its' baseline... so as for offending other religions, etc... it's more cosmetic than anything else.

It is funny how Jehovah's Witnesses have used the new nomenclature since the 1960s in their Watchtower booklet publication.

But I refuse to switch from the nomeclature that the world's most popular building toy uses... no "CE" found there....