[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Editing literature to conform to current custom

[Mary Jennings]

Cindy wrote:

>Mary Ann wrote:
>
> >"nigger" was an acceptable term when Kipling wrote his stuff
>
>Really?  I wasn't aware that this word was ever *acceptable.*  I
>thought it was *common* at one time, but I wasn't aware that it was
>ever *perfectly fine* with black people.

:::::bangs head on computer desk:::::  That was *not* phrased properly, was 
it?  What I meant was that the N-word would have been thought of as 
acceptable--perhaps "normal" would be better--by Kipling's intended 
audience, which I assume is white Americans of his time.  A thousand 
apologies for not making myself clear.

>As for the argument that Kipling's words shouldn't be changed
>because he originally wrote in English, it doesn't bear up well
>under scrutiny.  If Kipling had written the book in French with the
>same exact racial slur, and it had then been translated to English,
>would it then be OK to delete the N-word?  That seems like an odd
>place to draw a bright line.

I would be interested (in a strictly objective manner) in knowing if other 
languages have direct translations for the N-word, and if so, if modern 
editions of Kipling have also changed these words to less or non-offensive 
ones.  Thinking of my parent's mother tongue (Dutch), I can think of a 
translation for Negro, but not for Nigger.  Of course there might be one, 
and my parents never used the word so I don't know it.  For that matter, was 
the N-word transation used in every language in the first place, or was a 
less offensive term used from the start?  Just curious.

>Now, I understand Amanda's suggestion that she wishes to expose her
>childen to the original slur in the text so that they can learn.  I
>think this argument collapses under close examination.  Readers can
>be divided into those who understand that the N-word has been
>deleted in the original text, and readers who have no clue about
>this and why it was done and what it all means.  If you leave the N-
>word *in* the text, the readers who do *not* understand all of this
>may be badly misled about what Kipling was intending to say there --
>and in the case of children, they really may get the wrong idea
>about the propriety of the N-word.  If you delete the N-word,
>however, people like Amanda are still free to explain the whole
>thing to their children, even to the point of explaining that she
>won't tolerate anyone uttering the N-word in her home.  Doesn't that
>indicate that the better policy might be to delete the slur in this
>particular case?

I agree, and stick my original point of including somewhere in the text what 
the original word was and why it has been changed.  It's better to let kids 
know where and how a word originated and why it's offensive rather than just 
tell them it's a bad word and not to use it.

I'm assuming that Beth didn't call anyone a "darkie" before she said the 
word to me and I could put her right.  She's pretty sensitive and would fall 
to pieces if she unknowingly insulted someone.  I don't wrap my kids in 
cotton wool (and they've got the bruises to prove it), but I don't believe 
in exposing them to possible hostility due to avoidable ignorance either.

Mary Ann
(who should proofread her posts better)

_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com