the "N" word to be removed from Huck Finn

"Words only mean something if you let them." Plus the word isn't directed at anyone

 

Some people are so happy being sheep, that they toss every single person's rights out the window, as long as it doesn't effect them.

Although some may feel it is okay to change artists works, because a certain amount of time has passed and yet feel that making copies of it without changing it is... doesn't make it right.

These are the same type of people who sat back and watched as black people were kidnapped, beaten, tortured and killed in order to supply slave labor to make them rich while claiming it wasn't their fault because they didn't pick up a whip personally.

*reposted from where I mistakenly posted it earlier

 

Really.

I don't. I did not mean to imply that I use the word at all. So my apologies if I somehow mislead you into thinking that I agree with any derogatory or otherwise inapropriate use of the word. I personally feel that due to the racist connotation imposed upon the term, that it is not appropriate to use in civil conversation. Though that doesn't mean that I feel that literary works should be changed, banned, or burned simply for containing it. The usage in Twain's book in particular was clearly contemporary within the character's own life and times. To censor the work or others is to deny younger generations of an acurate portrail of African American history. Those who pay no heed to history are doomed to repeat it.

 

's okay

agree about the censoring - am against it [i'm pretty sure i posted as much]

maybe the word would be used less often if it were understood better, and for that, it has to be explained, and for that, it has to be seen

funny, currently listening to a jamaican reggae artist from around 1980 named ****** kojak

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emousyTTRdU"]YouTube - ****** Kojak & Mother Liza - Bam Bam

:afro:

 

I personally value human life over a poxy book.
There isn't any need to get too carried away, Tom. Jeez.

 

No Odon, you don't.... you may value the act of breathing, but human life is about more then that... and that is the part you seem to fail to grasp.

As for me getting carried away, the only people who would have a hard time understanding why it is wrong to change someone's creation in order to profit off of it, are people who have never created something of their own in the first place...

The only way it is possible to get to this point in life without creating anything and understanding that, is by living your life solely off the efforts of others.

You keep acting as if just because someone writes (or otherwise creates) something, it instantly become the property of those who read it, and should be modyfied to make them feel better about their own stupidity.

I don't understand what your point in arguing all this has been, unless it is nothing more then an attempt to argue a point that you don't care about (or even perhaps believe), but your arguments, are the reason I posted that the type of person who believe what you post, are no better then a slave owner was.

Oh, and if you reply that you have created things in your life, and are okay with others modifying them regardless of your wishes, then we have no basis for any type of conversation.

 

That's a fair comment, Tom.
But, this is only a book it isn't life or death.
Associating people who are not as worked up about this as you are with slave owners, or people who would turn a blind eye to human misery is ridiculous.
Far too much, Tom. Far too much.

No, Tom. Not instantly.
If he had written this last year my thoughts would be different.
Enough time has passed for his work to be appreciated in more forms than one.
His initial work is embedded into our literary history for his work to be not damaged by this current version.
I'm just suggesting: Chill out and read the original and ignore this version if it makes your blood boil so much.
I appreciate the reasons it has been changed, and that is all I am arguing about, really.

 

In the future when they start teaching kids in Scottish schools the literary works of Irvine Welsh, I wonder how much they will change the way it is written?

 

K... I'll try again...

The reason I feel so strongly about this, and the reason I am so against people being allowed to CHANGE artists works... is those works, are the only thing that ever survives time...

They are a person legacy... The only legacy a person can leave behind that doesn't involve taking advantage of others efforts. It is the most enduring sign of individulism that we will ever have..

Sure, things like the pyramids and the great wall will stand for another 1000 years... but they were not INDIVIDUALISTIC efforts...

When you create something, it is more then just the sum of its material parts... it carries a part of you with it... That is what makes art (in its various forms) so atttractive (or sometimes repulsive) to us... because it is a reflection of someone else's thoughts and ideas...

To change those... to better match others thoughts and ideas is wrong.... hell... it goes against the whole point of someone creating something...

 

Here "they" come again.

 

Tom, his original work isn't being written out of history.
His original work will remain.
There are enough people - including the scholars in this instance - who will make sure his original work survives into the future.

 

Who is "they"?

Just a side thought- how many times did they re-write the bible?

 

If the modyfied versions says Written by Mark Twain (or Samuel Clemens), then your argument falls apart...

And that is what you fail (or refuse to grasp)... When someone picks up a book and it says Written by Mark Twain.. .they should be reading the same book that Mark Twain wrote...

Not something that someone else bastardized for their own profits...

 

Exactly.

Mmm, about 10 times. Probably more. It depends on who you mean by "they", though.

 

Thousands apparently.

 

Both the original and a new version will say: written by Mark Twain.
One you will despise the other you won't.
It's called the best of both worlds.

 

Here you go, odon. A comprehensive dictionary definition of the word "they" for you. I googled it just for you.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/they

 

Ok, far more times than 10.

 

Yes, one of those other numbers that can't be counted on your fingers, odon. :2thumbsup:

 

No, its not the best of both world's, and that proves the point...

If two people pick up the same book, written by the same author, they should be reading the SAME BOOK...

Mark Twain DID NOT write a version of the book without the word ******...

It didn't happen... to change it now, and claim it was his work is not right.

Going by your argument, there should be nothing wrong with me painting my own version of the mona lisa and selling it as the original work...

Why don't you give that a try and see what happens?