[Clintonfatigued]

This is a tough call. The word in question is a repulsive word and other books have been banned from school libraries for offensive language.

[Xenalyte]

It’s not a tough call at all. It’s censorship, is what it is.

[JayVee]

“Censorship” is a pretty ugly word, too.

[JayVee]

“Censorship” is a pretty ugly word, too.

[Figment]

Words aren’t repulsive. People can be though. You know going in the words are there, so don’t read them. Changing the books only screws with the authors original intent of using them in the first place

[muawiyah]

There's no tough call here at all. Slaveowners were disgusting people. They spoke in a disgusting manner. They served a disgusting purpose. They did disgusting things.

All of that has to be brought over in that book. Eliminating it is to make the slaveowners look like nice guys.

[madprof98]

Hell, no, this is NOT a “tough call.” This is cultural insanity. If Mark Twain were still around, he would have more than enough new material on hand to keep him churning out satires til this country waves the final white flag of surrender.

[John 3_19-21]

Hope you have on your asbestos jammies.

“Play those rhythmically suggestive tonal patterns Caucasian male adolescent.”

[sargon]

This is a tough call.

I don't think it's a tough call at all. The book should be presented the way Mark Twain wrote it, not in some watered-down politically correct form. Mark Twain was one of the most enlightened people of his era, and as Retain Mike noted:

Now comes Mark Twain in 1876, just a few years after the decline of the KKK, saying that even “poor white trash” like Huck Finn can figure out that “Nigger Jim” is just like him. Twain washes away the entire pretense built up from etiquette, education, wealth, etc. that people generally use to form their opinions of themselves and others. Because of [Twain's] precise choice of words, what remains on that raft is two people who can look directly into each others’ eye.

In his final indictment Twain through Huck Finn tells the reader that the accoutrements of civilization prevent one from being human and recognizing the humanity in others. I guess I find that lesson timeless.

Mark Twain fiercely opposed censorship. In light of the totality of what we know about him as an individual, both the facts and nuance mitigate strongly against censorship of Twain's works.

It borders on the absurd, in my book...

[Skepolitic]

In Orwell’s novel 1984, Winston Smith had an acquaintance named Syme. He was an employee at the Ministry of Truth, in the Newspeak section. His specialty was destroying words with the objective of completely replacing Oldspeak, or standard English, with Newspeak by 2050. He did this by editing out the Oldspeak words from the texts of literature as well current publications.

Unfortunately, Syme became an unperson. He was replaced by Alan Gribben.

[Smokin' Joe]

At the time the book was written, and even into the 1960s, the word in question was used to refer to individuals of a particular race with no visible means of support, no desire to obtain any, and character considered somewhat less than moral, at least by 'respectable' standards.

It was not, in many areas, a blanket perjorative, but reserved for the lowlife. Words like "Cracker" and "White Trash" were the equivalent in caucasian circles.

Descriptive euphamisms from "Colored People" to "Negro" were used to describe more resepctable folks with dark skin, and "Black" came in later, at least where I grew up.

But, take a word out of historical contest, and you start creating problems...

There was a time when piling faggots up and burning them would be a great centerpiece for an outside party ("faggots" were then known as bundles of firewood).

Now, you'd probably get a SWAT team response to any such announced gathering. Not to mention the 'green' police and a host of alphabet organizations with acronyms, which when one attempted to pronounce them, would sound like someone drowning in a toilet bowl.

I think Samuel Clements would have been appalled at the progress the ninnies of the nanny state have made, and the thinness of American skin in this era of alleged "well adjusted-ness". Chances are he'd have preferred his books be banned, at least that way, people would rush to read them--as written.

As for me, I never saw a "right to not be offended" anywhere, and with so many people around so willing to be offended (unless they are in abject denial of another's attempt to be offensive), it is probably a good thing.

[fhayek]

This is not a tough call. It is the easiest call in the world. Has anyone ever read the book? It is probably the most profound call for racial comity every written. A black man and an innocent white boy thrown together by circumstance on a raft traveling toward an inevitable destination. Do I need to beat you over the head with a club to get the symbolism? Change a single word of the text? - Never.