Curious as to how Clyde will answer this.

 

Since you asked... although I thought I was pretty clear in my post.

 

We use this book in our classrooms to teach a lesson. This particular case has to do with racism. What's our goal? If it's to teach the actual lesson then the simple substitution of "slave" for word that is more offensive doesn't change that lesson. You say "why do we even have to change it?" As the article mentions it can become a distraction in the classroom and divert the student's attention away from the big picture. If you're 12 and the only black child in classroom of 25 kids and the n-word is recited do you think it's possible that at least one child in that room may be uncomfortable? Why should we make them uncomfortable? The lesson being taught doesn't change with the word "slave" being inserted. This is like complaining that your child's math teacher didn't teach you how to solve polynomials like your teacher did in 1974. The lesson is still being taught and the child is still learning it.

 

The rap example cited by a few tells me that the issue is not being graped.

I strongly DO NOT believe we should censor rap or Mark Twain or anything else!! How does the government draw the line once they start? That is my real question behind the question.

 

I have no problem with that. However, this is not a pure censorship issue. It's an educational environment issue.

 

How many of you would be calling for a teacher's scalp if he/she played Eminem songs in the classroom? Wouldn't you be advocating censorship by complaining?

I don't think you can divorce the choice of words of an author from what they are trying to communicate. Often times the author is using language to convey a certain message and the plot is simply the vehicle that allows them to do it, and thus ancillary to the value of the work. For instance, as the article pointed out, Twain was using these words to mock the culture that valued them. Even if another work that used them more sympathetically was being censored I would still say it's important for students to understand and grapple with the society where this language was common. Meddling with the finished work neuters the author's intent and value along with it.

 

It's a simple question for me.

 

Does the desired lesson/point come across?

 

I'd say that in this particular case it does. Simple enough.

 

If you believe that the point is not being made then I would think you have a valid argument. Those that just cry "censorship" without looking at the desired goal are being short-sighted.

For those that cry "censorship" how would you feel if my goal was to mock those that are violent towards women by having my junior high English students read the lyrics to "Kim?"

 

Would you protest if I changed the b-word to "woman" or the f-word with "heck" or "with a slit throat" to "with an injury to the neck?"

 

You'd want me to get the right meaning across, right?

Since you asked... although I thought I was pretty clear in my post.

 

We use this book in our classrooms to teach a lesson. This particular case has to do with racism. What's our goal? If it's to teach the actual lesson then the simple substitution of "slave" for word that is more offensive doesn't change that lesson. You say "why do we even have to change it?" As the article mentions it can become a distraction in the classroom and divert the student's attention away from the big picture. If you're 12 and the only black child in classroom of 25 kids and the n-word is recited do you think it's possible that at least one child in that room may be uncomfortable? Why should we make them uncomfortable? The lesson being taught doesn't change with the word "slave" being inserted. This is like complaining that your child's math teacher didn't teach you how to solve polynomials like your teacher did in 1974. The lesson is still being taught and the child is still learning it.

 

The rap example cited by a few tells me that the issue is not being graped.

What you're telling me is that we're not teaching the truth to kids because we're afraid the truth might make them feel uncomfortable. Yet the same word that makes said kid feel uncomfortable is highly likely being heard in the music the kid is listening to constantly with no discomfort whatsoever. That's why people are making the comparison.

I don't believe in sheltering kids from reality and I think it's important for them to know the truth about the past. This is simply PC nonsense that does no one any good.

What you're telling me is that we're not teaching the truth to kids because we're afraid the truth might make them feel uncomfortable. Yet the same word that makes said kid feel uncomfortable is highly likely being heard in the music the kid is listening to constantly with no discomfort whatsoever. That's why people are making the comparison.

I don't believe in sheltering kids from reality and I think it's important for them to know the truth about the past. This is simply PC nonsense that does no one any good.

 

It's not the teacher's job to assume what one child is comfortable with just because MANY children are. That's a sign of a teacher is in the wrong profession.

 

What is the truth about the past that is trying to be taught in this example?

My issue with this is very simple. This is Twain's work and nobody except Twain should be able to change any part of it. Since he is no longer with us,then it should be left be.

For those that cry "censorship" how would you feel if my goal was to mock those that are violent towards women by having my junior high English students read the lyrics to "Kim?"

 

Would you protest if I changed the b-word to "woman" or the f-word with "heck" or "with a slit throat" to "with an injury to the neck?"

 

You'd want me to get the right meaning across, right?

 

If you really thought Eminem was the best way to convey that message, then editing those words would destroy any meaning or power the song had.

It's not the teacher's job to assume what one child is comfortable with just because MANY children are. That's a sign of a teacher is in the wrong profession.

 

What is the truth about the past that is trying to be taught in this example?

My point is I think it betrays a great anti-racist novel by changing the words.

If the problem of racism in this country was long over with Huckleberry Finn would be the easiest book in the world to teach, I realize that, but as it stands the uproar over this book shows us exactly how much or how little America has changed. So I understand your view, I just feel it's a cop out by parents and teachers to pretend that the language of that period was void of the words in question. I think Habib worded it best when he said "it's important for students to understand and grapple with the society where this language was common. Meddling with the finished work neuters the author's intent and value along with it."

What's the harm? Does it somehow change the story? Does it change it's point?

 

If we believe that the story has value and should be taught to our youth then changing a few words to make it less offensive to some should be immaterial. Are we more interested in the big picture of the story itself or do we want to bicker about individual words used in the story?

In Mark Twain's own words, "The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter – it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning."

What you're telling me is that we're not teaching the truth to kids because we're afraid the truth might make them feel uncomfortable. Yet the same word that makes said kid feel uncomfortable is highly likely being heard in the music the kid is listening to constantly with no discomfort whatsoever. That's why people are making the comparison.

I don't believe in sheltering kids from reality and I think it's important for them to know the truth about the past. This is simply PC nonsense that does no one any good.

 

Kids are sheltered from reality all the time already. What kids are told about the history of America in the 6th grade is not exactly the truth.

Kids are sheltered from reality all the time already. What kids are told about the history of America in the 6th grade is not exactly the truth.

No , it's not an assumption, if they listen to Rap, they're hearing it.

I have a problem with the truth about history as well.

No , it's not an assumption, if they listen to Rap, they're hearing it.

I have a problem with the truth about history as well.

 

I am not siding, just stating that history is very much held back for kids.

I am not siding, just stating that history is very much held back for kids.

We're in agreement.

For those that cry "censorship" how would you feel if my goal was to mock those that are violent towards women by having my junior high English students read the lyrics to "Kim?"

 

Would you protest if I changed the b-word to "woman" or the f-word with "heck" or "with a slit throat" to "with an injury to the neck?"

 

You'd want me to get the right meaning across, right?

 

BGP ADMINISTRATION NOTE:

 

We realize that the above post technically violates Rule Number 8, referencing word filter violations. We have chosen to allow this post to remain as it is completely relevant to the topic. Please be mindful that this in no way denotes a leniency overall toward our application of Rule 8, and is not meant to be construed as leniency in any other forum or thread.