High School Urged To Take 'Huck Finn' Off Reading List

[MA-Caver]

I found this rather upsetting.

'Huckleberry Finn' wins a first round in St. Louis Park
Parents' request to have it removed from high school's required reading list was rebuffed, but they plan an appeal.
By Dan Wascoe, By DAN WASCOE
Last update: March 21, 2007 – 11:10 PM

Ken Gilbert read the story of Huckleberry Finn in the late 1960s in a segregated black North Carolina school, but he doesn't remember much about Huck's adventures and the book's status as an American classic.
What he does remember is class discussions of the n-word. Mark Twain used it over and over.

"Why were there so many usages of the same word?" he said. "We never got to the story line. It was the racial issue."

When daughter Nia was assigned to read it in her 10th-grade honors class, his memories of a racially volatile childhood came surging back. Now Gilbert and his wife, Sylvia, are reviving a century-old debate by asking St. Louis Park High School to remove the novel from the required-reading list.

So far their request has been declined, but an appeal is planned.

While controversy over the book dates back to the 1880s, debate over use of the n-word by schools, theaters and even black entertainers continues to make news.

For Gilbert, a 52-year-old small-business owner, there's not much question: While no word should be banned entirely, he said, he believes it should not be tolerated in informal conversation or popular entertainment. For blacks, he said, "There's no word that brings you to a lower level. ... It makes children feel less than equal in the classroom."

He does not seek to ban the book from the school. "I don't care if all of America reads the book," he said, but he doesn't want it to be required classroom reading.

More here: http://www.startribune.com/1592/story/1071200.html

Basically almost anything written by Twain is a classic (IMO). Now because of a word people want it removed. Might as well have a book burning and lets throw in a few hundred more books with the same word in it.
I talked to a black co-worker about this at my job today. He thought it was stupid just like I did. He's read the book, (in his younger days) and he said he wasn't bothered by it and he still isn't. He told me he understands that's the way people talked back then, the word was a means to describe a man of color... back then in the deep south along the Mississippi river. Now, it's degrogatory...anywhere, and depending upon it's use and context it should be.
I'd thought we'd grown up since the publication of the novel in 1885. Maybe we have... or I should say... MOST of us have. Some people are still thin skinned enough to let this bother them.
Well, okay, but to judge a book simply of a word? As I remember it both Finn and Sawyer told a great story about growing up in the south after the civil war.
Yet here, author Earl Ofari Hutchinson writes:

This misses the point. Words are not value-neutral. They express concepts and ideas, and often reflect society's standards. If color-phobia is one of those standards, then a word as emotionally charged as "******" can reinforce and perpetuate stereotypes. It can't be sanitized by overuse. It can only send a signal to non-blacks that it's OK to use the word.

Even some black defenders of the "N" word have recanted. After a trip to Africa in the late 1970s, the comedian Richard Pryor stunned a concert audience by pledging that he would never use the word "******" again. Pryor, who had made a career out of using the word in his routines, softly explained that the word was profane and disrespectful.

In today's volatile climate of racial hostility and polarization a campaign to get Websters to "deracialize" its definition of the word is worthwhile. But the campaign I would like to see is one that prods Webster's to delete "****** completely -- and to get African Americans to delete the word from their vocabulary as well.

http://www.pacificnews.org/jinn/stories/3.20/970926-nword.html

Another author Charles Taylor, writes: January 22, 2002 | "I am addressing the contention that the presence of ****** alone is sufficient to taint ... any ... text. I am addressing those who contend that ****** has no proper place in American culture and those who desire to erase the N-word totally, without qualification, from the cultural landscape. I am addressing parents who, in numerous locales, have demanded the removal of 'Huckleberry Finn' from syllabi solely on the basis of the presence of the N-word -- without having read the novel themselves, without having investigated the way in which it is being explored in class, and without considering the possibilities opened by the close study of a text that confronts so dramatically the ugliness of slavery and racism. I am addressing the eradicationists who, on grounds of racial indecency, would presumably want to bowdlerize or censor poems such as Carl Sandburg's '****** Lover,' stories such as Theodore Dreiser's '****** Jeff,' Claude McKay's '****** Lover,' or Henry Dumas's 'Double ******,' plays such as Ed Bullins' 'The Electronic ******,' and novels such as Gil-Scott Heron's 'The ****** Factory.'"

And why stop there? To the list that Randall Kennedy provides in his new book "******: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word," you could add Joseph Conrad's "The '******' of the Narcissus," Dick Gregory's autobiography "******" (with its touching dedication to his dead mother, "If you ever hear the word '******' again, remember, they're advertising my book"), the stand-up comedy of Richard Pryor or any historically accurate discussion of racism or the civil rights movement.

It didn't matter that the ugliness of "******" was precisely LBJ's point. Such blanket refusals to print "******" simply eradicate context and intent. You can't argue with that kind of nonthought. When it comes to this sort of cleaning up of history, the result is, of course, to erase history itself, and thus our ability to learn anything from it. But there's a problem. How do you defend "******"?

There was a similar protest about a University of Wisconsin at Madison professor who used "niggardly" during a Chaucer class -- this time the complaint came from a student to whom the professor had explained the word's origins. And a professor at Jefferson Community College in Louisville was dismissed because of the lone protest of one black student (out of nine in class of 22) upset by the professor's inclusion of "******" in a class discussion on taboo words.

These are examples of stupidity masquerading as sensitivity. In one sense, though, as even the professor in the Louisville case acknowledged, that sole protesting student had a point. "******" is an enormously loaded word, and there's cause for worry when it's divorced from its potential to hurt (that doesn't, however, mean that hurt feelings should trump intellectual inquiry).

The irony, though, of the word's reemergence is that it's largely due to its use among African-Americans, particularly comics and hip-hoppers. Kennedy writes that the word was taboo for most of the prominent black comics of the '60s -- people like Godfrey Cambridge, Dick Gregory, Nipsey Russell and the great Moms Mabley. Not that those comics didn't address racism or the battering it inflicted on black self-image. But it took Richard Pryor to make public the shared secret of the word's use among blacks.

"He seemed racially unconcerned," Kennedy writes of Pryor, "with deferring to any social conventions, particularly those that accepted black comedians as clowns but rejected them as satirists." That Pryor, as Kennedy notes, performed before mixed-race audiences made his gambit even more daring. It may be hard to remember now, but Pryor's performances were often initially very discomforting if you happened to be white. That's not just because he brought black hostility to whites onstage ("this is my favorite part of the show -- when the white people come back and find out ******s have taken their seats") but because he was offering up black rage and at the same time wasn't afraid to make fun of it.

If you were white, it wasn't uncommon to react with a nervous titter, wondering if it was appropriate to laugh. And yet such was Pryor's artistry that, in the course of his performance, those fears and taboos melted away, if not uniting audiences, then at least making them realize they were united in their preconceptions.

Arguably, Chris Rock has gone even further. Kennedy quotes at length from Rock's incendiary routine that begins "I love black people, but I hate ******s ... You can't do anything without some ignorant-*** ******s ****ing it up." Anticipating charges that he shouldn't air his people's dirty laundry, Rock mocks blacks who say, "The media has distorted our image to make us look bad." To which he answers, "Do you think I've got three guns in my house because the media's outside my door trying to bust in?"

Kennedy describes a sketch on one of Rock's CDs in which a white man who approaches Rock to compliment him on the critical things he says about blacks receives a punch in the mouth. "Rock's message is clear," Kennedy writes; "white people cannot rightly say about blacks some of the things that blacks themselves say about blacks."

That may be a double standard, but it's not one that violates the basic commonsense principle that context is everything. And it's a double standard we all abide by: "Just as a son is privileged to address his mother in ways that outsiders cannot (at least not in the son's presence), so, too, is a member of a race privileged to address his racial kin in ways proscribed to others." Even Pryor, at the end of "Live on the Sunset Strip," tells us he doesn't want to use "******" anymore, and especially doesn't want to hear it from "hip white people" telling "****** jokes" (presumably in the same way that white hipsters made "spade" acceptable parlance in the '60s).

"******" is, above all, an argument for the restoration of context and intent in judging uses of the word. Kennedy isn't just a good, clear writer, he's possessed of the uncommon virtue of common sense. That's particularly evident when he's writing on legal challenges involving the use of "******." Kennedy abhors things like campus speech codes, but he does allow that the word can create a hostile work environment and believes employers should be held liable for such. But in every instance he cites, whether it's a legal case or not, he makes common sense his standard.

By far the most intriguing such case that Kennedy writes about is a 1988 incident in Arkansas where a white high school teacher, fed up with her all-black class misbehaving, said, "I think you're trying to make me think you're a bunch of poor, dumb ******s, and I don't think that " [emphasis added]. Parents demanded her ouster, and the school board demanded her resignation, which she gave. Except that 124 out of 147 of the school's students (all but two of them black) signed a petition asking the school board to give the woman a second chance.

Clearly, the students could see that her remark, ill-chosen as it was, was not an expression of bigotry but of frustration. Had she really thought them "poor, dumb ******s," she wouldn't have added "and I don't think that." Kennedy calls the students' actions "a sensible and humane response," and continues, "The offer of a second chance ought not to be automatic but should instead hinge on such variables as the nature of the offender's position and the purpose behind his or her remark."

But I'm sure Kennedy would forgive me for calling these niggling flaws. Kennedy's argument that "******" has far too complex a history, far too many uses, to ever have just one meaning makes his book an implicit plea not to limit the richness of African-American vernacular. There have been other controversies over that heritage in recent years, most notably in the arguments over Ebonics. The most sensible response came from Stanley Crouch, who argued that of course Ebonics exist and no, they shouldn't be taught.

Crouch said that black vernacular derives its richness in relation to traditional English and that its invention and humor could only be appreciated by someone who knows what it's riffing on to begin with. (That's an appropriate argument coming from someone who's written so well about jazz. It's like saying you have to know "Someday My Prince Will Come" or "My Favorite Things" to appreciate the changes Miles Davis and John Coltrane wrought on them.) And "******" is part of that heritage; the comedy of Richard Pryor, to cite one example, would be unthinkable without it. The power of "******" is that Kennedy writes fully of the word, neither condemning its every use nor fantasizing that it can ever become solely a means of empowerment. The word "******," in all its uses, will always be with us. The book "******," for the pleasures of its clarity of thought and prose, deserves to be, too.
http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2002/01/22/kennedy/index.html

 

[Empty Hands]

The point of the n-word in the story isn't to portray "how people talked." It was gratuitous even for the late 1800's. Twain deliberately had Huck use excessive amounts of this word to contrast the attitudes of the surrounding culture, and Huck's own internalized attitudes, against Huck's realization of Jim as a real human being. Without that word, a big part of the impact of the story is lost. In the end, Huck would rather be damned to Hell than betray his "******" friend.

On another note, why are we going through this controversy yet again? Will "Catcher in the Rye" be next? Here's for the vain hope that people would have grown up a little in the last hundred years.

 

[Cryozombie]

Oh, they should not ban the book, they should just re-write it the way Family Guy did and call him N-word Jim.
​

 

[bushidomartialarts]

much as i share macaver's concern, this sort of thing isn't worrisome to me.

huck finn, catcher in the rye, farenheit 451, anne frank...they all wind up on the chopping block in some school district every few years. end result: the motion gets denied and the media attention sells a few extra copies of the book. if i were a smart literary agent, i'd be actively trying to get books 'banned' in podunk school districts.

what concerns me more is the economic censorship that's creeping deeper and deeper into our culture. albums and books get changed or banned entirely out of pressure from wal-mart or barnes and noble. many ideas (some of which are reprehensible) aren't available because the large chains won't carry them.

the 'in school censorship' of the huck finn type doesn't hurt. it gets too much attention, too many people get uptight. besides -- the best way to get a teenager to read a book is tell them they shouldn't. this other sort is sneaky, insidious and downright dangerous to the marketplace of ideas our nation is founded on.

 

[shesulsa]

The point of the n-word in the story isn't to portray "how people talked." It was gratuitous even for the late 1800's. Twain deliberately had Huck use excessive amounts of this word to contrast the attitudes of the surrounding culture, and Huck's own internalized attitudes, against Huck's realization of Jim as a real human being. Without that word, a big part of the impact of the story is lost. In the end, Huck would rather be damned to Hell than betray his "******" friend.

On another note, why are we going through this controversy yet again? Will "Catcher in the Rye" be next? Here's for the vain hope that people would have grown up a little in the last hundred years.

Contextual usage is the argument and I agree. However, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea to delay the required reading of books with these now-unacceptable words until a higher grade and older age.

 

[Empty Hands]

Contextual usage is the argument and I agree. However, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea to delay the required reading of books with these now-unacceptable words until a higher grade and older age.

The article in question involved a 10th grade girl in an Honors course. I would hope they could manage when and when not to use unacceptable words by then.

Generally though, I see no reason to restrict works on the level of "Huck" or "Catcher" past 6th grade or so. Hiding words away and making them only available to the older just gives them a power and allure they don't need to have. Younger than that, kids might have trouble with appropriateness. Generally though, kids are smarter than we give them credit for. I would have no problem with my kids reading any of these works at any age they expressed an interest.

 

[exile]

The point of the n-word in the story isn't to portray "how people talked." It was gratuitous even for the late 1800's. Twain deliberately had Huck use excessive amounts of this word to contrast the attitudes of the surrounding culture, and Huck's own internalized attitudes, against Huck's realization of Jim as a real human being. Without that word, a big part of the impact of the story is lost. In the end, Huck would rather be damned to Hell than betray his "******" friend.

EH's point is one that countless exasperated critics have made over several generations. We know that Twain hated slavery and bigotry, and if anything goes out of his way to make it clear that Jim is Huck's moral mentor and, at times, real-world rescuer. Huck is the complete innocent (as vs. his opportunistic hustler friend Tom Sawyer), who uses the vocabulary his background has provided him to state truths that are very uncomfortable for that background. What Huck's repeated use of the N-word does is damn the smug society that that taught him that word, but failed—because of his fundamental goodness—to train him to the arrogant white supremacy that the word conveyed to those who used it. More than one critic has noted that one of Twain's themes, especially strongly expressed in Huckleberry Finn, is that culture attempts to corrupt the individual and often succeeds, but doesn't necessarily do so every time; in the end, some people rise above their upbringing. That's Huck.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Let them change Huck Finn and what book do you think they will they change next. Could be just about any book they feel is offensive, ok now what do they think is offensive. The Iliad depicts violence, so let’s edit that next, Just about anything by Hemmingway likely offends someone so why not edit that too. Oh and Poe, lets not forget Poe... he's too depressing and dark so lets say it was a Macaw instead of a Raven a Macaw is a much more colorful bird. oo oo and lets not forget Shakespeare suicide and death that’s offensive.

Lets just chuck the lot and read books about smurfs okie dokie

Please oh please make these people go away.

 

[Kacey]

There was a story I read years ago about banning a particular edition of "Little Red Riding Hood", not because of the words, but because the picture of Little Red Riding Hood showed a bottle of wine (appropriate to the time when that edition was published) in her basket.

For more information on banned books, visit the American Library Assocation (ALA) Banned Books Week site.

 

[Carol]

Lets just chuck the lot and read books about smurfs okie dokie

Mmmmm Hmmmm. A community that's all men save for one woman. Like THAT's gonna fly.

 

[Andrew Green]

and a COMMUNIST community with only one woman at that.

 

[Amazon]

Maybe next we should ban "Hardy Boys" books for excessive use of the word ejaculate.....

 

[Carol]

Nancy Drew ejaculated also...

 

[Steel Tiger]

In the UK some uptight group wants to have the Famous Five books (a long time children's favourite) rewritten because two of the Children are named, wait for it, Dick and Fanny.

 

[Dave Leverich]

Lol, and Jalopy, I had to ask dad what the heck a jalopy was... It's funny how time changes what words are commonplace.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

much as i share macaver's concern, this sort of thing isn't worrisome to me.

huck finn, catcher in the rye, farenheit 451, anne frank...they all wind up on the chopping block in some school district every few years. end result: the motion gets denied and the media attention sells a few extra copies of the book. if i were a smart literary agent, i'd be actively trying to get books 'banned' in podunk school districts.

what concerns me more is the economic censorship that's creeping deeper and deeper into our culture. albums and books get changed or banned entirely out of pressure from wal-mart or barnes and noble. many ideas (some of which are reprehensible) aren't available because the large chains won't carry them.

the 'in school censorship' of the huck finn type doesn't hurt. it gets too much attention, too many people get uptight. besides -- the best way to get a teenager to read a book is tell them they shouldn't. this other sort is sneaky, insidious and downright dangerous to the marketplace of ideas our nation is founded on.

Bingo!

The Catcher in the Rye was the most popular book in mother's all girl Catholic high school in the late 50's/early 60's. Why? Because any student caught with it was whipped with a strap by a sadistic nun. No, the didn't read it to get whippings, lol, they read it because it was FORBIDDEN!

Hey, better to forbid classics than junk. My mother's generation read Catcher in the Rye, my older sister's read Flowers in the Attic (genuine trash).

 

[Grenadier]

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a classic work of literature. By the time these kids are reading it, they've probably already heard plenty of racial terms, mostly from their peers, internet communities, etc.

Trying to ban the book, claiming that it's racist, is ignorant, at best. From what I recall, in that book, Jim was an outstanding character, and portrayed in a positive light, and considered one of the protagonists of the story.

When I was a child, we read books that were written for the children, and yes, there were books that used the term "******" in it. Even one of my favorites, Sounder, has the sheriff busting into the main character's home, and arresting the father of the boy, saying "There are two things I can smell a mile away. One's a ham boiling, and the other's a thieving ******." Then when the boy goes to visit the father in the jail, he's treated very poorly.

Yes, the term was racist, but the way it was used was to teach us a lesson about how people were treated back then. We strongly sympathized with the boy, and yes, even his father (who had stolen things from the smokehouse to feed his family). If anything, such works of literature turned many of us who read those books, *away* from racism.

Sometimes, these critics need to actually read the books, before deciding that they should be banned. They're missing the message.

 

[Kacey]

Sometimes, these critics need to actually read the books, before deciding that they should be banned. They're missing the message.

They should... but it's much easier to be outraged over a word than an issue, and much easier to ban a book than improve the situation that leads to the word having such a negative context.

 

[Empty Hands]

Maybe next we should ban "Hardy Boys" books for excessive use of the word ejaculate.....

Jesus Frank, what did you do that for?!?

 

[Touch Of Death]

Nancy Drew ejaculated also...

Damn I need to read me some Nancy Drew.
Sean