Dumbing down of America or showing sensitivity?

[Ansley]

Originally Posted by Raphael

If you did DED, your buddies from the Houston lynch mob wouldn't be free to drive away fro Houston each and all who do not care to join that clique of flamers, insulters, and spewers of ethnically-derogatory slurs.

Sounds like you should take this back to the Houston forum.

[Raphael]

Send DED back to Houston and I will.

Meanwhile, you should focus on the issue of this thread:

Originally Posted by Raphael

The OP did not use the racially derogatory term. He used the first letter only, with stars. So did the great lawyer Johnny Cochrane many times during the OJ trial, whern he accused Mark Furman of using the word that starts with that letter, now censored away from eccie as well as from the novels of one of America's greatest authors, Mark Twain, whose novel, Pudd'nhead Wilson, must be deemed anti-racist as it recognizes (and appreciated) the existence of aristocracy among P*** of C***.

What is DED going to do next? Is he going to censor all news clips, speeches and interviews of Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders, who throughout the sixties used a word that is no longer accepted today, i.e, the spanish term that describes a color that is the absence of light and not a color, school teachers of all racial, national and ethnic background assure us?

[Happy Diver]

After they've censored out all the bad things people did in the past, people will forget they were done and just repeat them.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Happy Diver

After they've censored out all the bad things people did in the past, people will forget they were done and just repeat them.

Then we'd really have a hole-y Bible.

[Happy Diver]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Then we'd really have a hole-y Bible.

LOL, yep.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Raphael

The OP did not use a racially derogatory term. He used the first letter only, with stars. .

Uhhh, no he didn't.

He was only repeating a news story but you are incorrect in your statement.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by Ansley

Sounds like you should take this back to the Houston forum.

Sorry Ansley,
We sent him to take a shower and he climbed out the bathroom window while we weren't looking.

C'mon Rafe, let's go back to Houston. I've got a new can of Axe for you.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by WTF

Uhhh, no he didn't.

He was only repeating a news story but you are incorrect in your statement.

Correct. The OP did spell out the word.

Originally Posted by Raphael

How about practicing what you preach? I am sick and tired of the xenophobic slurs on the French in Houston.

On D&T it seems to be slurs about anybody not from Texas

[discreetgent]

Guilty as charged, I spelled out the entire word in the original post.

[discreetgent]

A postscript. The NYT has a Room for Debate section where various people knowledgeable in a field are asked to comment on some issue. They had one about the new edition of Huck Finn. Commentators included men, women of all colors, liberals, conservatives. Aside from the larger than usual number of respondents what struck me was that almost uniformly they thought that the new edition was a bad idea.

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

PC run amuck?

New edition of Huckleberry Finn which substitutes the word *edited by staff-derogatory racial remarks DED* with slave

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/books/05huck.html?hp

Probably...but it's not a Johnny-come-lately problem. As far back as 1955, CBS tried to televise a version of the story that made no mention of slavery & had a white actor portraying Jim.

Abridged versions of the book have been around at least since I was a young reader. Somehow one made it into my possession at...sheesh...11 or 12 years old. When my Dad found out, he had a fit. He insisted that we do a "comparative" reading of unabridged & abridged versions. Very interesting discussions of anti-Bellum culture, race relations, and censorship followed in our house. It made quite an impression on me.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has been a thorn in the side of "educators" for quite some time now. The consensus seems to be that it's an important piece of American literature but nobody can seem to figure out how to approach it in the context of "modern" cultural mores...which I find to be a shame. They continue to try...and fail...to edit it in a fashion which makes it more "palatable" to current tastes while retaining the power of it's message. It just doesn't seem to occur to anyone to simply read it as it was written & discuss what we find endearing..and repulsive...about it all at the same time. It's as if we consider young minds incapable of understanding the dichotomy....

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

3) people who lived in the 19th century actually had shameful customs and used vulgar words.

"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." -- George Orwell

Or...to put it another way...

Who controls the past now controls the future
Who controls the present now controls the past
Who controls the past now controls the future
Who controls the present now?

-- Rage Against The Machine, "Testify"

Originally Posted by DickEmDown

"Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it"...


Although I agree with most on this thread, ECCIE does not allow any derogatory racial remarks


#2 - Derogatory racial remarks are simply unacceptable, period. Disrespect another's ethnic background and you will most certainly regret it.

Certainly an admirable aim, DeD...but t'would be nice if the rule went on to define what constitutes a derogatory racial remark. Or, at least that the mods had conferred to decide as to the context in which a potentially inflammatory word was being used before deciding a rule had, in fact, been broken.

In this instance, a word that had been edited out of a work of literature was referenced. It wasn't a comment directed at anybody. It's not difficult to make the case that the repeating of a word which has been edited from a widely-recognized piece of literature in a discussion regarding the appropriateness of the censorship doesn't rate a violation of rule #2. To carry the thought to it's conclusion...censoring a post in a discussion about censorship is one of the more through-the-looking-glass moments I've seen in quite a while.

You do a fine job of "cat herding" down here in H-town but, IMHO, you jumped the gun on this one.

Originally Posted by DickEmDown

Trust me...I do. I was made aware of this thread via PM from a "couple" of members. Oh yeah, I'm not limited to post only in Houston



You have and I suggest you continue with it...



I don't have a list but the word I edited out is still considered derogatory to some African American people no matter how many times we hear it on the radio, TV, from our kids etc....

Sorry, when it comes to censorship...I trust no one...not even you who I respect a great deal.

Again, see above. This isn't the radio, the TV, or one of your kids referring to one of his boyz. This is a widely-established American author satirizing Southern antebellum society....commenting on the hypocrisy & vulgarity of it by piercing the myth of it's gentility & civility.

Originally Posted by discreetgent

At the risk of getting points.

DED that is absolute bullshit in the context of this discussion. Hiding the word simply highlights it. Hey, do you have a word in this post you can now censor?

If this sentiment is a point-able offense...point me too!

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Sisyphus

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has been a thorn in the side of "educators" for quite some time now. The consensus seems to be that it's an important piece of American literature but nobody can seem to figure out how to approach it in the context of "modern" cultural mores...which I find to be a shame. They continue to try...and fail...to edit it in a fashion which makes it more "palatable" to current tastes while retaining the power of it's message. It just doesn't seem to occur to anyone to simply read it as it was written & discuss what we find endearing..and repulsive...about it all at the same time. It's as if we consider young minds incapable of understanding the dichotomy....

I find it fascinating that Huck Finn is so prominent in this way while so many others are left alone. Take a look at The Merchant of Venice. There is a lot in that play that is objectionable in a similar way yet I have never heard of a movement to change it, ban it from school libraries, not teach it, etc. One would think that if educators have figured out how to teach Merchant of Venice they could figure out what to do with Huck Finn.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Sisyphus

You do a fine job of "cat herding" down here in H-town but, IMHO, you jumped the gun on this one.

I never thought I would wistfully ask "where is JB?"

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Sisyphus

Probably...but it's not a Johnny-come-lately problem. As far back as 1955, CBS tried to televise a version of the story that made no mention of slavery & had a white actor portraying Jim.

Abridged versions of the book have been around at least since I was a young reader. Somehow one made it into my possession at...sheesh...11 or 12 years old. When my Dad found out, he had a fit. He insisted that we do a "comparative" reading of unabridged & abridged versions. Very interesting discussions of anti-Bellum culture, race relations, and censorship followed in our house. It made quite an impression on me.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has been a thorn in the side of "educators" for quite some time now. The consensus seems to be that it's an important piece of American literature but nobody can seem to figure out how to approach it in the context of "modern" cultural mores...which I find to be a shame. They continue to try...and fail...to edit it in a fashion which makes it more "palatable" to current tastes while retaining the power of it's message. It just doesn't seem to occur to anyone to simply read it as it was written & discuss what we find endearing..and repulsive...about it all at the same time. It's as if we consider young minds incapable of understanding the dichotomy....



Or...to put it another way...

Who controls the past now controls the future
Who controls the present now controls the past
Who controls the past now controls the future
Who controls the present now?

-- Rage Against The Machine, "Testify"



Certainly an admirable aim, DeD...but t'would be nice if the rule went on to define what constitutes a derogatory racial remark. Or, at least that the mods had conferred to decide as to the context in which a potentially inflammatory word was being used before deciding a rule had, in fact, been broken.

In this instance, a word that had been edited out of a work of literature was referenced. It wasn't a comment directed at anybody. It's not difficult to make the case that the repeating of a word which has been edited from a widely-recognized piece of literature in a discussion regarding the appropriateness of the censorship doesn't rate a violation of rule #2. To carry the thought to it's conclusion...censoring a post in a discussion about censorship is one of the more through-the-looking-glass moments I've seen in quite a while.

You do a fine job of "cat herding" down here in H-town but, IMHO, you jumped the gun on this one.



Sorry, when it comes to censorship...I trust no one...not even you who I respect a great deal.

Again, see above. This isn't the radio, the TV, or one of your kids referring to one of his boyz. This is a widely-established American author satirizing Southern antebellum society....commenting on the hypocrisy & vulgarity of it by piercing the myth of it's gentility & civility.



If this sentiment is a point-able offense...point me too!

+1 Well stated.

[atlcomedy]

I blame WTF for DED's intrustion on our civil discussion.

BTW, still looking for a list of those words that are deemed unacceptable....