Huck Finn and the Constitution
January 8th 2011 12:30
There have been two interesting examples of censorship in the past week – the one which got the most comment being a bowdlerized version of Sam Clemens’ classic Huckleberry Finn, in which the N-word is replaced with “slave”. Now the point of using the term N-word is to say that everybody knows the word, but we recognize how hateful it is to many millions of people, and so we make an attempt to refer to it semi-obliquely. The word, which appears over 200 times in Huckleberry Finn, was part of the common vernacular in the antebellum South, and its use is part of the authenticity of the language.
Even so, it’s not unreasonable to expurgate the book, even at the price of authenticity, as long as copies of the original remain freely available, and there’s no pretense that this is an authentic version. By substituting the less hateful term “slave”, Huckleberry Finn may be presented to children or immature adults such as Dr. Laura Schlesinger who went on a rant on the radio, and then resigned from her radio show because radio broadcasting limited her free speech. From ABC News "The reason is, I want to regain my First Amendment rights," she said. "I want to be able to say what's on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is the time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates, attack sponsors. I'm sort of done with that."
In the case of Dr. Schlesinger, the right to say something, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, does not guarantee the right to say it on the radio. Huckleberry Finn is a wonderful book, one of the high points of American literature, but while part of that value is due to its authenticity of language, the evolution of society makes the books in appropriate for children, and just as Dr. Schlesinger used her radio show to repeat the N-word 11 times, it’s predictable that children would use their own rights of free speech to repeat the word.
Our education system often works in layers, like an onion, with a simple presentation at first, and then with more detail, depth and understanding with further exposure. Huckleberry Finn is deep and rich enough so that it can be read as a child, but returned to in later years, with more understanding and more maturity. Some things should reasonably be kept out of the hands of children,
In contrast, the Republican majority of the House of Representatives announced that it would start the new session by reading the United States Constitution aloud. However, what was read was not the full Constitution, but the majority party’s own version. According to the New York Times:
In consultation with the Congressional Research Service and others, the leaders of the House had decided to read a version of the Constitution that was edited to exclude those portions superseded by amendments — including amendments themselves — preventing lawmakers from having to make references to slaves, referred to in Article I, Section 2 as “three fifths of all other Persons” or to failed experiments like Prohibition. Members were not provided with the version before the reading began.
Huckleberry Finn for children is one thing, the United States Constitution for Children, is another. The Constitution is a work of considerable brilliance, but it has evolved over time, and by a complete reading we can see its flaws, not only those of the original framers, but also those of the congresses that have come since. The Constitution was, like Huck Finn, a product of its time, but unlike Huck, it has had to adapt to changing understandings an conditions. A full reading helps show how the nation has evolved, how we have made mistakes and corrected them, how some rights are guaranteed, even when some part of the electorate finds them objectionable.
The Republican party has claimed reverence for the Constitution – but they started off by demonstrating that they haven’t really read it, and don’t understand it.
.
Even so, it’s not unreasonable to expurgate the book, even at the price of authenticity, as long as copies of the original remain freely available, and there’s no pretense that this is an authentic version. By substituting the less hateful term “slave”, Huckleberry Finn may be presented to children or immature adults such as Dr. Laura Schlesinger who went on a rant on the radio, and then resigned from her radio show because radio broadcasting limited her free speech. From ABC News "The reason is, I want to regain my First Amendment rights," she said. "I want to be able to say what's on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is the time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates, attack sponsors. I'm sort of done with that."
In the case of Dr. Schlesinger, the right to say something, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, does not guarantee the right to say it on the radio. Huckleberry Finn is a wonderful book, one of the high points of American literature, but while part of that value is due to its authenticity of language, the evolution of society makes the books in appropriate for children, and just as Dr. Schlesinger used her radio show to repeat the N-word 11 times, it’s predictable that children would use their own rights of free speech to repeat the word.
Our education system often works in layers, like an onion, with a simple presentation at first, and then with more detail, depth and understanding with further exposure. Huckleberry Finn is deep and rich enough so that it can be read as a child, but returned to in later years, with more understanding and more maturity. Some things should reasonably be kept out of the hands of children,
In contrast, the Republican majority of the House of Representatives announced that it would start the new session by reading the United States Constitution aloud. However, what was read was not the full Constitution, but the majority party’s own version. According to the New York Times:
In consultation with the Congressional Research Service and others, the leaders of the House had decided to read a version of the Constitution that was edited to exclude those portions superseded by amendments — including amendments themselves — preventing lawmakers from having to make references to slaves, referred to in Article I, Section 2 as “three fifths of all other Persons” or to failed experiments like Prohibition. Members were not provided with the version before the reading began.
Huckleberry Finn for children is one thing, the United States Constitution for Children, is another. The Constitution is a work of considerable brilliance, but it has evolved over time, and by a complete reading we can see its flaws, not only those of the original framers, but also those of the congresses that have come since. The Constitution was, like Huck Finn, a product of its time, but unlike Huck, it has had to adapt to changing understandings an conditions. A full reading helps show how the nation has evolved, how we have made mistakes and corrected them, how some rights are guaranteed, even when some part of the electorate finds them objectionable.
The Republican party has claimed reverence for the Constitution – but they started off by demonstrating that they haven’t really read it, and don’t understand it.
.
| 31 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by dr db karron
Comment by dr db karron
1) there is a new edition of Huckleberry Finn being released with significant editorial emendations Really Long Link in the heels of the Samuel Clemments postomous autobiography.
2) The new Congress version of the constitution read at the first new Congress session.
Comment by nightlydvdreview
Nightly DVD Review
Cinema Voyage
Green and Healthy
The Writer's Nook
We defend the freedom of black artists, such as rappers like Lil' Boosie, and Lil' Wayne by stating that the "n-word" and "cracker" are terms that are acceptable because it is part of their "culture." But then people like myself from mixed heritage find both of the terms offensive and no voice is given.
Why do we concern ourselves with the words from books written 150 years ago, that is not, if you really read it, "hate speech" but popular music of today idolizes those who kill police officers and attack people because they are white? Our priorities seem backwards.
Comment by Sam Uretsky
Random Mumblers Table
A sentence uttered makes a world appear
Where all things happen as it says they do;
We doubt the speaker, not the tongue we hear:
Words have no word for words that are not true.
Words themselves are neutral, but the meanings we ascribe to them -- keeping in mind that words change with time. When Mr. Clemens wrote, 150 years ago, he was writing in the language of his time -- but it's not the language of our time, and it takes a good deal of education to explain that words no longer mean what they used to. Some things are simply easier to teach to older people than to children. My concern in this case is because teaching Huck Finn in its original to schoolchildren is, in effect, giving kids a way to do damage before they're able to use it responsibly. We have age limits on driver's licenses, and should use discretion in other areas as well.
I'm writing this on January 9th, the day after Representative Giffords was shot. There's a quote on the Slate.com report " People looking for a moral in the shooting are finding the one they went in with..." That's true, but of course I find the incident confirms my own feelings about violence just as others will find the tragedy confirms their previously held opinions. I find myself thinking of Sarah Palin's "reload" and Sharon Angle's "second amendment remedies." I'm not prepared to comment on Lil' Boosie, and Lil' Wayne simply because I'm not familiar with their work -- but I think what's applicable is the famous line from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. about shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. There's nothing, as Auden wrote, wrong with the word "fire" but used improperly it can cause panic and harm. what we, rationally and collectively, have to decide are the circumstances in which it may be used.
Bob Dylan wrote "The Times They Are A-Changing" in 1964, and Rolling Stone included it in their list of 500 Greatest Songs of All Time -- but how does the stanza "Come senators congressmen please heed the call..." feel today? I don't know yet.
I apologize for having gone on so long.
Comment by nightlydvdreview
Nightly DVD Review
Cinema Voyage
Green and Healthy
The Writer's Nook
I am not a Palin supporter.
However, I think the problem does not lie with the politicians. I think it is with the media.
20 years ago, the media (left and right wing) did not so much exist. No one was placing much of a spin on the information given.
Today, if you watch Fox, they spin everything to the Right. The same story on CNN and MSNBC is spun to the left. So, no matter who we choose to get our information from, it has become twisted.
The news is supposed to give the facts, not the opinion of the reporter. THAT is what the editorial segment was for.
Another interesting thing is that if you do the research, all three major news organizations are owned by the same people in some grossly incestuous relationship.
Fox is owned primarily by one man who owns newspapers and news agencies around the world. (It is also partially owned by a Saudi Prince.)
CNN is owned by GE (who also owns the National Geographic channel WITH THE SAME MAN WHO OWNS FOX) GE Contracts with the US government to build jet engines for the FA-18 hornet and the F-14 Tomcat just to name a couple. The primary fighter aircraft for the US Navy.
MSNBC is owned mostly by microsoft, but has ties to GE.
We are told what they want us to hear.
But I digress.
I still think Twain's work should not be changed. Although it is a conundrum, truth is told through our fiction. He was telling the "truth" about the times when he lived. We do not have the right to alter an author's work. If so, we need to alter the writings of Harriet Beecher Stowe as well, since that term that so offends many people, is included in her book. We need to alter the writings of William Faulkner. We need to alter the writings of most of the authors of that time frame (and even later.)
History is supposed to be truthful, as well as the fiction that reflects it. If we deny what was originally said or originally done, then we do these people (the writers as well as the people of the time) an injustice.
Comment by dr db karron
Just like the Bible (King James Version, New American Translation... Coptic Scroll, Dead Sea Scrolls, or just roll your own)