In the past few days, the news and internet have been buzzing with talk of a new version of Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Auburn University professor Alan Gribben’s new edition of the book replaces the N-word, which is used 219 times, with the word “slave.” According to Gribben, many readers cannot get past Twain’s use of the N-word to understand the commentary he is making about American racism. Gribben may have a point. However, Huck Finn was published in 1884, and with it Twain was pointing out the complexities of racism and prejudice in 1840s Missouri by depicting life as it was. As Twain wrote, Jim Crow laws were being passed throughout the South, denying civil rights to African-Americans at a rapid pace. Are we to erase this depiction and forget about it?
Although I abhor the N-word, sanitizing history does not sit right with me. It is important that young people (and old for the matter) understand the history of racism. Reading novels, written during a period of immense oppression and segregation, gives people insight into the mistakes that our country has made and also points to some progress. We need to understand why the word was used, who used it, and the ways it oppressed and continues to oppress.
There is a dangerous trend happening in the United States right now. People are rewriting textbooks in several states to soften the atrocities of slavery. The governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, omitted any mention of slavery when celebrating the state’s Confederate History Month. And why, by the way, are we celebrating the Confederacy? Others, including Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, are pretending that the civil-rights era and the years prior to it were “not so bad” even though they remember distinctly and some participated in acts of racism. Still others are reminiscing about the “good old days”—the 1950s—when “life was simple.”
Having conducted hundreds of oral-history interviews, I know one thing for sure: People tend to offer a version of history that presents them in a favorable light. I’ve interviewed former segregationists who told me: “That’s the way it was. We didn’t know any different. We didn’t know it was wrong. We thought separate was really equal.” Comforting words, perhaps, but far from the truth.
Nothing is less comforting for Americans than the N-word. Taking it out of a book may make for easier reading, but to do so leads us down a slippery slope toward collective amnesia. The N-word has a vicious history in the United States, and one that must be remembered so that we don’t repeat it.
20 Responses to Erasing the N-Word in Huck Finn Erases History
nelson1962 - January 6, 2011 at 11:10 pm
When I heard about the new version a few days ago I thought, “it’s about time.” Now after reading this, you’re right, you cannot rewrite good or bad history…but hopefully, we learn from it.
music_librarian - January 7, 2011 at 9:43 am
Virginia’s governor’s name is McDonnell, not McConnell. I voted against the guy, but we ought to get his name right.
marktropolis - January 7, 2011 at 2:38 pm
“Gribben may have a point.”
Irrespective of his public statements, I would argue that Gribben is acting similarly to McDonnell and Barbour, in finding ways to sanitize our racial/racist history, dare I say white-washing.
Discussion of this is ongoing over at John Jackson’s Brainstorm blog: http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/perhaps-knowledge-is-not-entirely-situated
johnkelly - January 7, 2011 at 3:23 pm
What’s this N word, why don’t you for F sake spell it out, its Nigger and it’s part of US history.
John in Ireland
rmelton5 - January 7, 2011 at 3:39 pm
None of you go far enough. Professor Gribben is guilty of academic misconduct and should be publicly and professionally sanctioned for his actions. It’s very similar to, but in an odd sense the opposite of plagiarism, frankly. In one case, you’re using some other author’s words as if they were your own, with no credit. In the other, you’re putting your own words into the author’s text, with no textual basis for doing so. Both are dishonest.
jonif - January 7, 2011 at 4:00 pm
I agree
barber5-January 7, 2011
swish - January 7, 2011 at 4:07 pm
I hate censorship as much as anybody, but this version will not be the only version available. We will all still be able to read the book as it was originally written. And as long as that’s the case, and as long there is some introductory note somewhere explaining that Twain’s original language was changed, I don’t especially object to having an expurgated version out there.
Lately I’ve seen some DVDs of films I’d originally seen years ago on television. Wow, what a difference. Huge, important scenes were cut out of the TV versions to sanitize the films for general audiences. I sure prefer the unedited versions. But I’m not sorry that they were originally shown on TV, in any state of completeness. If they hadn’t been, I (and many other people) most likely would never have seen or heard of those films at all.
steiny - January 7, 2011 at 4:28 pm
But will schools use these books with the word in it? That is the question!
giant_bug - January 7, 2011 at 5:03 pm
You’re thinking this is new? I skimmed a high school edition of Huck Finn thirty years ago that had this Bowdlerization in it.
The Guardians of Public Morals are Ever Vigilant.
sullivab - January 7, 2011 at 5:53 pm
What the heck, at the Tea Party-inspired reading of the US Constitution in Congress yesterday, they expunged phrases that referred to slavery. I guess that some must keep alive the belief that the constitution was divinely inspired, and cannot admit that it is a temporal document that reflects the zeitgeist of 18th century America.
mrb4481 - January 7, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Having been the sole black child in an otherwise white school and having raised four children in the same environment I prefer not to have black children suffer the humility of having their white peers read that word aloud. I do not believe that young children will experience this in the sophisticated intellectual way that so many posters assume. I think the edited version is just fine if the book is to be taunt in K-12 and the original version can be used at the college level, be available in public libraries or purchased by anyone who wants to. I am also well aware of the sanitizing of slavery and the whole civil rights period. When my children were in school I was told that white parents were protesting the teaching of slavery in the middle school curriculum because it made white people look bad. Why should black children be humiliated in class by using the N word ? In the literary context, the user of the wordmmay be a colorful character but is not seen by the white reader as any source for personal humiliation. I think that there are some white posters who might not view the experience of the classroom presentation of this literature as so benign if their child was the only white child in a classroom of black children with a black teacher when this book was being read.
jbfjbf - January 7, 2011 at 8:44 pm
@mrb: Good observation of the lack of empathy. But, the sanitation of history is wildly reprehensible and reminiscent of former and current communist countries. The past is over. We have appologized for the sins of our forefathers a thousand times over.
It is time to focus on the behavior of today’s individuals, not their political correctness. As a side note, I am more comfortable with someone who insults another person face-to-face than I am with people who insult you behind your back.
iriselina - January 8, 2011 at 4:20 am
Iris from India,
Gandhi introduced the word “Harijan”, “children of God” in place of the derogatory word for the lower castes in India.
Now even that word carries a negative connotation and so these folk call themselves “Dalits” or “those who suffer”.
[I taught in a theological college, in Bangalore, and we speak of Dalit Theology: a liberation theology for the oppressed.]
However, more than names its a question of giving respect to all irrespective of colour, caste or creed. That is the real issue.
Why should white be superior to black, anyway and why the Brahmin to the shudra?Human arrogance is the cause of it all and name changes dont help.Nor does tampering with history and literature.
11144703 - January 8, 2011 at 1:03 pm
“Nothing is less comforting for Americans than the N-word.”
Has anyone told Marybeth that a a number of young African Americans use it loudly and promiscuously? Yes, they’re subverting its power, blah, blah…so what? These young people use it quite comfortably, along with other repugnant terms for women and gay people.
And can someone tell all these readers such as mrb4481 that there is more to the world than pure black people and pure white people. Have they ever heard of multi-racial Americans and Asian Americans? They’re both here and you better start to acknowledge them because their kids are doing way better than your kids.
msumenglish - January 8, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Why not rewrite all of history and bowdlerize all of literature when the small-minded or the politically correct demand it? In fact, why not allow television executives to decide what we should teach in the classroom and encourage students to read Classics Illustrated instead of the real thing?
rick1952 - January 8, 2011 at 7:51 pm
I think we need to keep in mind context, including the age of the reader/listener when we consider this issue. When I read Huck Finn to my 8 year old son, who is very dark-skinned (back in 1988), I considered context and age – so I used the word slave in place of the N-word. Now, as a 30 year old young man, I am sure he can handle seeing and reading the N-word in Huck Finn.
Let’s use common sense – there are other literary pieces that we reserve for older, more mature readers/listeners and that is how we should think when it comes to this particular piece of literature. Not everything needs to be based on abstract, scholarly thought – sometimes, the empathy and common-sense of persons like mrb4481 is what is needed.
dr56coll - January 8, 2011 at 9:44 pm
The experience of African Americans, Blacks or Negros in American history is significant. To change the written words representing that period changes history. Why is it that America is ashamed of any aspect of its history? Should Native Americans be ashamed of how they were treated and therefore hang their heads in shame? Of course not, history cannot be changed and neither should the literature depicting those events. I read Huck Finn in Jr. high school, as I recall it was about the friendship between two young boys, one white and one a negro.I thought it was a great book that represented possibilities and the innocence of youth during a harse time in history. Come on people ” are we all ashamed of who we are, whose issue is this really? Where is the pride for what we fought to change and have changed? Let history stand as it was written, as it was in 1884! How do our children learn from our history if it changes and the truth hidden because of words that maybe offensive,slavery was offensive and oppressive! Do we wipe out all to that including the war, President Lincoln etc., etc., STOP, we are going to far in our attempt to feel better about ourselves.History should have already improved your life, hasn’t it?
chandrak - January 10, 2011 at 9:40 am
Erasing the N-Word in Huck Finn Erases History. It is like the Soviet Union where they change the history whenever they want. Are we going in that path? How can you change history? Just to please certain groups of people, history may be rewritten. Is this correct?
jabberwocky12 - January 10, 2011 at 11:45 am
I’m just surprised that it’s taken so long. After all, only in the USA can someone buy a work by Joseph Conrad called “The N—– of the ‘Narcissus’” Sheesh!
Yup, they censored the work by foregin authors, and no-one protested. How long did you think it would be before they started on their own authors?
Josh Eklow - March 1, 2011 at 1:16 pm
LOL WUT