Originally posted by jaden101
The same N word issue is actually holding up the remake of the dam busters...If anyone remembers the dog's name was N****r (apparently this gets dubbed to Trigger) in some countries.
The tobacco brand Bigger Hare, seen here:
^Used to be called "N*gger Hair", but after the Civil War the company was forced to change its name. If you do a Google Image search of N*gger Hair, you'll find various old ads and containers of the former brand-name.
Originally posted by Robtard
Says the guy who's fascinated(fan-boy) by America, American culture and American television. Don't be angry or jealous, just move here, renounce your Germanicness and become a citizen.P.S. Avoid most of the South, Midwest and Eastern states. In fact, the Bay Area of California is about the only sensible(ie not shit) place to live, just bring lots of Marks with you. See you soon; bring me some Kinder Uberraschung, hard to get those here.
👆
Try not to feed the homeless people though. They're kind of an infestation.
Originally posted by leonidasI think it's ridiculous. Mark Twain was clearly a hipster in that he was just using the term ironically. He wasn't promoting the word. The word is just a part of a historical record of how people in the Southern United States spoke in the early to mid-nineteenth century. I doubt that Twain used the word colloquially. He was just writing "in-character."
are we today justified in reworking something like huck finn to eliminate the 'n-word'? michael chabon weighs in here:http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2011/01/the-unspeakable-in-its-jammies/69369/
what do you guys think about the issue?
Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
I think it's ridiculous. Mark Twain was clearly a hipster in that he was just using the term ironically. He wasn't promoting the word. The word is just a part of a historical record of how people in the Southern United States spoke in the early to mid-nineteenth century. I doubt that Twain used the word colloquially. He was just writing "in-character."
He uses it freely in his autobiography, it was simply the word of the times.
lol
i'm wondering--while i agree with the notion that it is whitewashing, it IS merely a different version. it's not like all the original versions are going to be burned or forgotten. we`see similar actions taken when classics are transcribed for children in children's books. can this not be seen as akin to that?
Originally posted by leonidasMeh, it just doesn't change the plot at all. It seems a bit picky to me. Plus it's kind of a waste of paper.
loli'm wondering--while i agree with the notion that it is whitewashing, it IS merely a different version. it's not like all the original versions are going to be burned or forgotten. we`see similar actions taken when classics are transcribed for children in children's books. can this not be seen as akin to that?
Originally posted by leonidasIf the book is to be read by young children then it being transformed to something that they can comprehend is understandable. Similar to simplifying Moby Dick so that a seven year old can read it. Children over twelve shouldn't be deprived of the opportunity to read historical literature in it's original form, period. We're too damn sensitive these days, I'm sick of people whining about how they're offended when it's obvious nobody is trying to offend them.
loli'm wondering--while i agree with the notion that it is whitewashing, it IS merely a different version. it's not like all the original versions are going to be burned or forgotten. we`see similar actions taken when classics are transcribed for children in children's books. can this not be seen as akin to that?
Originally posted by The MISTERYou have no idea how much the insinuation in your post pissed me off.
If the book is to be read by young children then it being transformed to something that they can comprehend is understandable. Similar to simplifying Moby Dick so that a seven year old can read it. Children over twelve shouldn't be deprived of the opportunity to read historical literature in it's original form, period. We're too damn sensitive these days, I'm sick of people whining about how they're offended when it's obvious nobody is trying to offend them.
I wouldn't use the term, because it is offensive to people, but I also don't go around calling people other offensive names. Anyways, the immortal Lenny Bruce:
I see no reason why you shouldn't have children exposed to the term at all. Even if it isn't socially acceptable, it is nonsense to try and hide it from them. By changing it, by making books "age appropriate", even if nothing about the message of the story is lost, we ensure that future generations will have the exact same hang ups about these things as we do today.
Face the problem, this is exactly what schools are for. educated and rational discussion about the content of literature.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
This stinks of the mid-'90's effort by some school boards to censor or ban The Diary of Anne Frank for being "too depressing".
They should have rewrote it with a Romeo & Juliet twist, Anne the Jewish girl and Einhard the prodigal Hitler youth fall madly in love, but their families won't have it.
I smell a classic.