Mark Twain scholar and editor Alan Gribbin has publicized that a new version of one of Twain’s most notable works, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, will replace the word “nigger” with the word “slave.” Gribbin states, “After a number of talks, I was sought out by local teachers, and to a person they said we would love to teach (‘Tom Sawyer’) and ‘Huckleberry Finn,’ but we feel we can’t do it anymore. In the new classroom, it’s really not acceptable.”
First and foremost I would like to ask what “the new classroom” is, as well as the difference between the old one and the new one. The new classroom appears to me to be an environment in which students are kept from learning about the injustices of the world, reading the classics, and gaining a realistic perspective of our surroundings. America’s desire for political correctness has gone too far. I am not and have never been in favor of banning or challenging books, and I am certainly not in favor of desecrating a classic. I feel that challenging or banning books, or doing to books what Gribbin is doing to Mark Twain’s work, is an underhanded violation of freedom of speech and should not be allowed in the United States.
Every ethnic group has a derogatory term used by others to describe or address them. Spic, kike, honky, terrorist, wetback, Jap, chink, and greaser. While neither of these terms have been used as often in history as the word “nigger,” they strike just as much of a chord with the other ethnic groups when coming from the mouths of those who don’t belong to that group. The word “nigger” carries negative connotations and memories of lynching, slavery, inequality, and overall abuse, as Oprah Winfrey states, but the word “kike” also carries painful memories, like those of gas chambers, branding, being packed in trains, and families forever lost; we’ve all heard the stories. Every pejorative term has weight for the group the word pertains to. To erase the word “nigger” from The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, or from any other related period piece, is to erase a piece of history. I am in total agreement with Whoopi Goldberg’s stance on the issue. We need to teach children about the injustices of the world; they need to learn about all cultures and the troubles they faced before they were accepted in society. The United States had several dark moments in its history concerning the civil rights and liberties of certain groups of people, particularly people of color and Japanese background in the wake of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. It would be appallingly narcissistic of America to only teach people about the good times in its history.
Rapper Jay-Z argues that “It’s [the N-word] just become part of the way we communicate. My generation hasn’t had the same experience with that word that generations of people before us had. We weren’t so close to the pain. So in our way, we disarmed the word. We took the fire pin out of the grenade.” He argues that what gives the N-word power is the speaker’s intention. There are some people who say *n-word* after every other word, and there are those who refuse to utter it in any context. To some, the word is now a term of endearment. However, on the flip-side, if it were a term of endearment, does that mean that people of Hispanic, Caucasian, Asian, and Native American descent are free to throw the n-word around as they please? I think not. If the fire pin really has been taken out of the grenade, why is this controversial word free to be used by some and prohibited for others? The word nigger, much like the words kike, Jap, spic, honky, chink, and terrorist have been methodically used to humiliate and hurt the groups those names address; they inflict serious emotional distress.
With this being said, disparaging terms do in fact humiliate, hurt, and enrage, but under our First Amendment rights there really is no word that we as Americans are not allowed to say, nor should there be. This, like many issues we are facing today, concerns the ethics of the individual. In the case of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, what we need to consider is that the novel is a period piece, and therefore written in the language that reflected the time and social context. It does not necessarily reflect the views of Twain as a person, nor is the language meant to offend. It is the language of the period.
In elementary and middle school, our generation read several challenged and banned books in class, among them Bridge to Terabithia, Fallen Angels, Flowers for Algernon, The Giver, Of Mice and Men, and To Kill a Mockingbird. Before beginning these books in class, the school would send release forms home to parents asking if the children were allowed to read the particular book, explaining the controversial content. I can’t remember one instance in which a parent did not allow their child to read a book because of a little controversial content. Schools need to change their stance on banning Huckleberry Finn and all others; sending a release form home has proven effective. Now granted, reading Lois Lawry’s The Giver or Roald Dahl’s The Witches in an elementary school setting is not the same as reading Judy Blume’s Forever, which is filled with sexual content inappropriate for children of that age, but ultimately it is a parent and child’s (of a certain age) mutual decision to decide what the child can and cannot be exposed to. Parents can take the time to research the book, tell their kids about it, explain why the school is asking if it is acceptable for them to read it, and ask the child how they feel about it. If elementary and middle schools consider it inappropriate to have children read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn with its 219 n-words, an alternative would be to have the novel be a part of the high school curriculum.
My mother has always considered reading important; especially reading the books that have made history, the books that have made people want to ban them, the books that get people talking. She wanted me to be exposed from a young age to different kinds of thinking and literature. She says that once we start limiting peoples’ ability to expose themselves to all kinds of knowledge, we are opening a clear path toward communism.
To put it all into perspective, banning the word “nigger” from one of Mark Twain’s most acclaimed works is taking political correctness too far. While the word may still be offensive, it acts as a portal to a significant part of American history. It holds painful memories and connotations, but it has also shown the struggle of a particular ethnic group who has risen against adversity and been accepted in society. It would be unfair to alter the original, intended language of such a notable piece of literature; it would be unfair to alter the original, intended language of any piece of literature. When we change the words of a work, we also change the voice, put aside the historical context, and ignore what the writer wanted to make of his or her piece. To erase “nigger” from Huckleberry Finn, or from any other related book, is to erase a part of history.
