(On a personal level however, I do also find it petty and pedantic, let history speak for itself!)

My grandmother (b. 1870) used the term ”darkie’ which was common in Ohio in 1880 but would be considered taboo and condescending today, yet she hadn’t a racist bone in her body. When a new hotel opened in my home town in 1884, the waiters and maids – all Negro – arrived in town with great fanfare and greeted the press with a impromptu rendition of “New Coon In Town”. Try that today.

I recall an old Lakota who felt ” Native American” unfairly omitted most of of us – he figured if you’re born here, you’re a native American.

It’s often easier to point out a false dichotomy than it is to figure out what appropriate actions should be taken in a particular situation — but thanks.

Mike

Ah, the tyranny of the ‘or’.

You entirely underestimate the depth of pain caused by racism. This is a hurt that will take a long time to subside. Every insensitive remark or behaviour stirs it back into life and prolongs the healing process.
We help the healing process when we take affirmative measures to respect the hurts caused by racism.
It comes down to a simple equation, which is more important? Actions to help the recovery from a deep injustice or respecting the accuracy of a text?
Having lived for a long time in a deeply racist country I can appreciate the importance of respecting racial sensitivities in every little way as an important way in which I can contribute to the healing process.

How does Sean know that replacing the “n” word with a more culturally appropriate term would be “massively unfair” to Twain? I have a feeling that if Twain was aware how the term has morphed over time and understood the political/cultural sensitivities surrounding it today, he would likely give some thought to the issue… perhaps even agree to a less inflammatory term. Like most authors, rather than holding out for a “must word” he would likely be more keen to have his work widely read. Editing of texts/editions goes on all the time.

The term “slave” could be used along with a footnote stating plainly what the original term was. An explanation for the decision could also be included in a preface for example. That way students would ‘get it’ without having to read the “n” word in racially mixed classroom settings. Sure it’s nice to think that kids would be able to neatly slot it all into historical perspective and be culturally hip about it, but I’m afraid that is rather naive given the incendiary nature of the word and the type of emotion it stirs up.

réalta fuar says that “few black students are actually upset by the use of “that” word”… hmm, depends on the circumstances and who is using it. Depends also on the reception, and you can be sure the presence of the word in Huck Finn would provoke reactions in the classroom.

The impatience with PC attitudes can unfortunately become a knee-jerk tendency across-the-board if there is any perceived move to sanitize. On the whole censorship is a lousy idea, but there are cases such as this where the benefits of making the book widely accessible outweigh the value of retaining “that word” at all costs within the main body of the text. Contrary to a few commentators above, I don’t believe that such a modification would radically compromise the power of Twain’s message. As with most things, there just needs to be a little flexibility and common sense.

Thinking about it this way, the question is whether a more faithful translation is to preserve the combination of letters (or sounds) of the original, or do we want to preserve a deeper meaning of the work. In my mind, translating 19th century “nigger” to 21st century “nigger” may not be a particularly good translation, as the connotations the word acquired since Mark Twain’s time deforms the original meaning of the word.

Editing for content, which is oftentimes also unpleasant, is a different story.

I clicked the additional link (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100050346/mark-twain-huckleberry-finn-and-nigger-jim-sense-or-censorship/) and was moved by its attempt to get people to read the book in the first place. I’m an African-American born in Alabama and have not changed my stance that this is a hugely dumb move. Yes, it’s painful to read. But, isn’t that partly the point. Discomfort stirs you to move. Let today’s youth read the book in it original, raw form and obtain some sort of reaction to engage in society and make sure that things are never that bad again. Cleansing this gem will keep their minds submerged in the stagnant water of apathy in which this generation dwells.

It also reminds me of the Soviet’s trying to censor their history. I don’t see it as any different ’cause the principle’s the same.

Also … what are they going to do with Uncle Tom’s Cabin when they read it?

sarcasm
Of course, I wouldn’t mind a bit if the powers that be decided to ban and burn all copies of A Tale of Two Cities. No person should ever have that atrocity as ‘required reading’…
/sarcasm

A different situation since he holds the copyright, but note that Steven Spielberg changed some things in a new edition of ET to make them more politically correct.

When will we see a no-smoking version of, say, Casablanca?