I think Mark Twain knew what he was doing

It can really be fun writing a column in this era of political
correctness and the absurdities that fall within that subject. There
are just so many of those absurdities out there that the subject
matter appears to be never-ending.

The latest of which is the rewriting of Mark Twain’s Huck Finn.
I can understand that there are those out there who do not approve of
Twain’s use of “The N-Word”, but we need to remember that in the
time this literary treasure was written, the use of the word was
pretty much universal.

But aside from the embarrassment, anger, or disgust that Twain’s use
of the word may cause some people, there are also First Amendment
issues with making changes to the work, especially when the author is
no longer around to defend his choice of language. Guarantees of
freedom of speech and freedom of the press come readily to mind here.

The book was first published in England in 1884 and in the United
States the following year. And for over 125 years it has been
recognized as one of the great American novels.

Now, all of a sudden, we have a great need to fix a novel which many
believe was written as a scathing look at racism in this country.
Changing the dialogue in Twain’s masterpiece will not only diminish
the impact of the satire, but take something valuable away from the
basic story itself - the vernacular of the southern antebellum society
of the 1860’s, the people of the time period in which the novel is
set.

All of this commotion over the language used in the book,
specifically the terms “injun” and “nigger” is nothing new. It
was criticized back when the book was first released, and even more so
as we moved into the 20th century, primarily because of its “racial
slurs”. Now, it seems, we are going to change the two words in
question to “indian” and “slave”.

I don’t know about you, but somehow I don’t believe that changing
those two words in the Huck Finn novel is going to do anything to curb
racism in the United States today. And it is certainly not going to do
anything to enhance the original satirical intent of the novel.
All this brings to mind another question.

Just who is it that determines our minds are so delicate that we need
someone to filter what we are reading, hearing or seeing?

I tend to see this attack on American literature as an infringement
on the rights of, not only the author, but also on me, the reader. I
like to think that I possess enough basic intelligence to recognize
satire when it lies before me, and I take offense at someone other
than myself attempting to protect my “sensibilities” through this
or any other form of censorship.

The purpose of the change is to try and get the book back on reading
lists in the classrooms where indignation over the terms used has
caused it to be banned. But a book that has stood as an American
classic for the past 125 years, probably needs very little help
remaining on the reading lists of those who value literature for the
sake of literature. Those who would ban it have trouble seeing
beyond their own prejudices, and project those prejudices on to the
rest of us. And if they, those who would see it banned, hold enough
sway with their local school boards and administrations, it will be
banned from some classrooms.

More’s the pity.

But don’t diminish the work to satisfy the vocal few. The work
stands on its own merits. Just by attempting to ban it, they are
engaging the discussion that the original work intended. To change it
would stifle that vital discussion.

Since it was written, the book has continued to stir the controversial subject
of racism. Just that fact alone should be enough to leave things as
they are. As time passes we are becoming more and more reluctant to
tackle an issue such as racism aloud, and tend to squelch anything
that might provoke that discussion, hoping it will go away. This
appears to be just one more case of that.

Fact is, unless you bring the subject to the forefront and beat it
down by confronting it, it will just sit festering in the background
awaiting a new opportunity to raise its ugly head.

I believe the terms “injun” and “nigger” to be offensive, not
only to those to whom the terms may be directed, but also to anyone who
believes racism to be an evil. But I also believe that if we keep
shoving the subject under the bed where no one can confront the evil,
it will never go away.

Banning two words in Twain’s classic novel can have a more detrimental
impact than you might suspect.

(I wrote this as a column for the 2-3-11 issue of NSN, but the subject of censorship pisses me off so much I thought I'd throw it in front of a few more people)