Politics and Religion

The New Edition of Huckleberry Finn...
charlottesweet See my TER Reviews 3763 reads
posted

Please read the article.

My only thought(s): you can't sweep America's past under the carpet. Slavery/racism are still present, perhaps in different forms.

Priapus531129 reads

Of course, idiots don't realize one has to put the book in the historical timeframe that it was written. "Huck Finn " is a masterpiece & one of the key works of literature of the 19th century ( published in 1885 ).

Charlotte , you earlier brought up HP Lovecraft, now Twain------2 great authors ! Girl, you got great lit. taste !-----:)

-- Modified on 1/4/2011 11:50:12 AM

He uses a word that was common at the time and was not even derogatory when it was written.

In fact, the book is very UN racist since it treats Jim as a very favorable character, clearly a better person than Tom who lives in his fantasy life to the detriment of Jim.

Posted By: charlottesweet
Please read the article.

My only thought(s): you can't sweep America's past under the carpet. Slavery/racism are still present, perhaps in different forms.

But it was written in the 19th Century when use of that word was common.  
As others have stated, it is not a racist novel.  It shows a friendship that develops between the two runaways.  One an abused young boy, the other a black slave.  
Mark Twain does a great job in creating interesting stories that also give us a snapshot of life in 19th Century America.

I don't think it's a good idea to change a classic.
Would anyone dare put pants on Michael Angelo's "David"?
(Then again I do remember Ashcroft covering the breast of Lady Justice).
But no classic art of any type should be kept in the form the creator envisioned.  That goes for books, painting, statues, movies, music, etc.)


He did not permanently change the statue.  He did no like it, so when he had to appear before it, it was covered, and then uncovered when he left.  He did not want to see it, but when he was not there he did not impose his views on anyone else.

It is not like the Taliban that destroys it or groups that censor it.

Ashcroft did the ultimate "turn the channel."  He didn't want to see it, so he exercised his ability no to see it, but he did not impose his views on anyone else during the rest of the time.

Posted By: Makwa
But it was written in the 19th Century when use of that word was common.  
As others have stated, it is not a racist novel.  It shows a friendship that develops between the two runaways.  One an abused young boy, the other a black slave.  
Mark Twain does a great job in creating interesting stories that also give us a snapshot of life in 19th Century America.

I don't think it's a good idea to change a classic.
Would anyone dare put pants on Michael Angelo's "David"?
(Then again I do remember Ashcroft covering the breast of Lady Justice).
But no classic art of any type should be kept in the form the creator envisioned.  That goes for books, painting, statues, movies, music, etc.)


He did not permanently change the statue.  He did no like it, so when he had to appear before it, it was covered, and then uncovered when he left.  He did not want to see it, but when he was not there he did not impose his views on anyone else.

It is not like the Taliban that destroys it or groups that censor it.

Ashcroft did the ultimate "turn the channel."  He didn't want to see it, so he exercised his ability no to see it, but he did not impose his views on anyone else during the rest of the time.

Posted By: Makwa
But it was written in the 19th Century when use of that word was common.  
As others have stated, it is not a racist novel.  It shows a friendship that develops between the two runaways.  One an abused young boy, the other a black slave.  
Mark Twain does a great job in creating interesting stories that also give us a snapshot of life in 19th Century America.

I don't think it's a good idea to change a classic.
Would anyone dare put pants on Michael Angelo's "David"?
(Then again I do remember Ashcroft covering the breast of Lady Justice).
But no classic art of any type should be kept in the form the creator envisioned.  That goes for books, painting, statues, movies, music, etc.)


If before censoring Huck Finn, they had to remove the n-i-double-g-e-r word from everything, I guarantee Twain's greatest work would be untouched.  Because nobody is going to touch the very average rap song.

FIrst, only uncomprehending, illiterate jackasses would say that Huck Finn is racist. Or, as is more likely the case, ignorant dumbasses who have never troubled to actually READ the book before condemning it.

On one hand, sadly I am not at all shocked by this change, in fact I'm surprised it has taken this long. I am still outraged by it. For fuck's sake, lets just behonest about our history. There is no changing the fact that this nation was built on the backs of slave labor. First in the form of indentured slavery and later as the number of indentured slaves coming from Europe waned, imported slaves from Africa and the carribean islands. We can't change that. We can't undo the fact that for more than a century, the commonly held belief of most Americans was that blacks were inferior to whites. That is just our history, so lets stop trying to re-write it and instead accept it for what it is, and move on.

What makes this change truly ironic is that Huck Finn was a stinging criticism of racism, and now here we are trying to white wash it because we are now embarrassed by our history. Its times like this that I wish I DID believe in some sort of afterlife. Twain would surely be spinning in his grave right now. I can only imagine the choice and colorful words he would level at the ignorant buffoons who think re-writing history is possible, or a good idea.

This is truly completely ignorant, and so very typical of the lunatic left.

Register Now!