“The n-word speaks to a society that casually dehumanized black people, ’slave’ was just a job description.”

I find it hard to grasp the true motives of the persons editing this novel. Are they insinuating that students and teachers are incapable of understanding when the n-word is put into context and not used as weapon of insult? This is PC gone wrong.The novel deals with a disgusting part of the U.S history: Deal with it instead of acting like the word never existed.

As brilliant a slap at PC as I’ve seen.

To edit the book is to make a deliberate attempt at changing history. Didn’t Orwell have something to say about that?

The editors claims they are sanitizing the word so kids won’t be uncomfortable is bullshit. The kids (students) are not and would not be uncomfortable with it, the black teachers would not be uncomfortable with it, BUT the white liberal administrators & teachers (having been conditioned for years) would extremely uncomfortable with it.

The nadless sack of liberalism in all it’s glory.

yungchii said:
“The n-word speaks to a society that casually dehumanized black people, ’slave’ was just a job description.” I find it hard to grasp the true motives of the persons editing this novel. Are they insinuating that students and teachers are incapable of understanding when the n-word is put into context and not used as weapon of insult? This is PC gone wrong.The novel deals with a disgusting part of the U.S history: Deal with it instead of acting like the word never existed.

Agreeed. Eventually, they will devolve it to “crimethink Jim.”

Leave Huck Finn as is, unchanged and unedited. It was appropriate for young children when I read it as a child and it is appropriate for them now. Use the opportunity to teach them(parents involved) how our culture has changed(or not) from when the book was written. Children are more intelligent than most people give them credit for and sheltering them from the harsh reality of human cruelty is not always doing them a favor. Many of them will already have heard the word from movies, television, the internet, or their friends.

Harry Flashman said:
As brilliant a slap at PC as I’ve seen.

To edit the book is to make a deliberate attempt at changing history. Didn’t Orwell have something to say about that?

It was brilliant. And the part about not reading part of the constitution , also great.

This sounds more like the over reaction of a few ignorant, loud mouthed parents who complained to the school board. Kids are far more astute than some adults give them credit for. Schools are supposed to educate and to teach children to THINK. In fact, the Chinese prime minister said on Charlie Rose, that that is what made american education so unique. In china, the children are disciplined and learn “automatically’, while in america the children are encouraged to explore etc….. The classroom is the right place to learn about about social justice and equality. It is so offensive to our children not to prepare them with answers to the broader questions about life in a democracy.

Since Huck Finn is a book in the public domain; several versions are readily available.

This is one version of the book that will targeted to children: just like abridged versions of Shakespeare, expurgated versions of the Bible, and children’s versions of other classics.

The choice isn’t between a “censored” version of Huck Finn and the original; schools have already stopped teaching Huck Finn completely because of the n-word. I’d rather have children read Huck Finn and have that prefaced with a discussion about why the book was edited than them never reading the book.

Everyone can sit atop Mount Pious and cite George Orwell, but Will somebody please think of the children!”

CarmanK said:
In fact, the Chinese prime minister said on Charlie Rose, that that is what made american education so unique. In china, the children are disciplined and learn “automatically’, while in america the children are encouraged to explore etc….. The classroom is the right place to learn about about social justice and equality.

The Prime Minister was probably humoring Charlie. Chinese students outperform American students in science, math, and reading. (In fact, so do Korean, Canadian, and Estonian children.)

American education is better in giving parents more choices in how their child is educated; even when those choices produce worse results.

CosmosDan said:
It was brilliant. And the part about not reading part of the constitution , also great.

Not true. The Constitution as it exists today was read, with all the amendments. Should they have left out the Bill of Rights? The point they were trying to make is that they are determined to take seriously the oath they took, to preserve and defend the Constitution. That includes all the amendments added — and not the phrases deleted –since the document was ratified in 1788.

This is a travesty. Why don’t we republish Catcher in the Rye. Why shouldn’t those of us who lean to the right have the right to selectively edit left leaning works that offend our sensibilities. And how about some of the black authors shouldn’t we reprint those works changed in ways that make them more appealing to us. The answer is that would be wrong and those authors have a right to publish things I and people like me don’t like. This revisionist crap has to stop. It’s ok not to like this book. It’s not OK changing it.

“Not true. The Constitution as it exists today was read, with all the amendments”

The 3/5th’s rule was an anti-slavery thing. The founders used it so that the pro-slavery south could not have more representation than the anti-slavery north. We can not rewrite history because it is uncomfortable.
They left that out as well as the 18th amendment.

On the whole Constitution thing; yeah they just left out the 3/5th of a person slave thing.

Oh, and the abolition of all liquor purchases in the nation.

Oh, and the VP being the person who got 2nd place in the Presidential election.

Oh and EVERY OTHER part of the Constitution that has since been repealed, changed, or revoked by alter amendments. They read the rules as the rules stand today; not as the rules used to be before we changed them.

Prior to 1983 one side of the bat for a baseball game could be flat… that’s not in the rulebook anymore because that isn’t the rule for bats anymore. If you were reading the Major League rules, you wouldn’t read that one side of the bat can be flat…because now it can’t.

But for some reason the Constitution should be read with all the extraneous crap that has since been removed? Sorry, I don’t see the value in that.