Commentary
N-word in 'Huck Finn' starts a conversation we need to have
by David Cazares, Minnesota Public RadioI sat with my daughter last weekend to discuss a book I thought she hadn't yet read, with no intention of choosing my words delicately.
Though she's only in middle school, I wanted her to know all about a controversial plan to remove the word "nigger" from Mark Twain's novel "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" -- and that she should read the unchanged work.
Allan Gribben, a professor of English at Auburn University, wants to give teachers and parents a choice that would make it easier for them to introduce young readers to the classic, sparing them from the hateful word. Gribben and NewSouth Books decided to replace the epithet with "slave."
To hear some tell it, that's a noble thing to do, as it might allow more young people to read Twain's novel without having to endure such hurtful repetition of the word. In his fictionalized account of pre-Civil War America, Twain uses the word more than 200 times. His use of it reflects its prevalence in the United States during that era -- and not only in the South.
To me, Gribben's effort to remove the word from the novel isn't so much a question of protecting our children, but of presenting them with a sanitized -- dare I say "whitewashed"? -- version of our troubled history.
I know how hateful the word is. I'm of black and Mexican-American heritage and have had it hurled at me, along with other vile insults. Like so many people of color I'm very much aware that the nation is a long way from recovering from its shameful legacy.
It's understandable that many parents, including black parents, would want to protect their children from a word that for more than a century was used to assault people. But this small censorship comes at a price: another denial of our nation's racist past.
Do we also look past the efforts of those who would romanticize the pre-Civil War period and who argue that the conflict was about so-called state's rights and not slavery? Should we pay heed to those who say there is no longer a racial divide, when a national conversation on race is still sorely needed?
I think not. If we needed a reminder of how not to ignore the past, we received one last week, when members of the House of Representatives read the Constitution -- omitting language about slaves being three-fifths of a person, or noting that the original document did not grant women the right to vote.
We simply can't change history, even or especially if it makes people feel uncomfortable. It should be told as it was. That's why we can't view Twain's novel --or 19th century America -- through a modern prism. Our national enlightenment on race is far too recent, and incomplete.
"Huckleberry Finn" isn't the ideal novel. Indeed, one can argue, as some scholars have, that the slave Jim is an imperfect, minstrel-like character.
However, the book derives power from Twain's portrayal of Jim as not just a slave, but a human being who wants to free his family -- no easy presentation in the 1870s. Huck, who speaks in the language of the day, is a moral voice, given his devotion to Jim.
Like Twain's characters, our nation is far from perfect. We fulfill its promise by seeking to change.
As I try to teach my multiracial daughters about our evolving society, I want them to understand how we arrived at this moment. I want them to celebrate enduring and majestic African-American contributions to art, science and the struggle for human rights. But I hope they will see how such an uplifting and faithful spirit emerged.
It came from a people who overcame the burdens of slavery, systemic oppression and discrimination. From people who endured a slur created to rob them of their humanity.
That's why I want them to read Twain's version of the text, "nigger" and all.
My daughter tells me she read "Huckleberry Finn," on her own initiative, last year, when we were briefly apart. At 13, she doesn't yet understand the complexities of the novel, its era or language, but she will.
"Huckleberry Finn" is a demanding read for young people the first time around. It requires teachers, and parents, to prepare for difficult conversations about history and race.
I can't help but think it's better to have such conversations than avoid them.
----
David Cazares is an editor for MPR News.
Comments (6)
Thank you for you honest opinion, I completely agree. History is somethig we can learn from but not change, we can only change the future.
Couldn't agree with you more David. History needs to be taught in the right context. And sometimes the words and the emotions they carry teach so much more about a people, about a time, about a place than all the dates and names we want to cram into our heads. For those of us who believe strongly in intellectual history, the original work with the word nigger in it 200 times is the only way to read it.
You're so right. It's ludicrous to think that we should rewrite historic books and documents in order to make them more accessible to contemporary readers. Better to have the conversations and work through the ugly realities than to cover them up.
I would add that this is as important for young people of all races. I don't want my white grandchildren to be "protected" from learning and understanding the racist and hateful attitudes, words, and experiences of American history. Better for them to read with discomfort, dismay, and even shock at how things have been in the past. Integrity and character for today is best served by an honest view of history.
Thank you so much for sharing your perspective.
I'm with the other commenters on this one. While I don't have the same connection to this issue in terms of heritage (being of German and Irish descent), I am connected to it in terms of history. It's frustrating to live in a time where people are so concerned with covering up what has happened in the past rather than learning from it.
I put the original text of "Huck Finn" along with Fort Snelling. There is some anger about it being kept open due to its role in the relocation of the Dakota people. However, how else will our children learn that piece of our history if it's gone?
Yeah, the rewording the book is bad.
What if someone wanted to rewrite the Bible, Koran, or Torah...
Same idea, the message would be altered. And I do hold the Twain works as near Holy... (Near, just not quite)
Criticism of books has always evolved with the social issues of this nation. The civil rights movement has forever changed the argument on Huck Finn. I wrote my master's thesis on Huck Finn and Uncle Tom's Cabin. You will notice we are not have the same argument over and over again for Uncle Tom because it was labeled a protest novel and endorsed by Lincoln. Twain gave us a subversive protest novel. Twain wryly attacks southern antebellum society and slavery through the sometimes non-linear misadventures of an incorrigible young boy and his friend. This book was originally banned from the Concord Library in Mass. Because of language, but not for the ubiquitous "N" word, but because he wrote in the vernacular and in southern dialect. It was considered controversial to write in such gutter and common language. Uncle Tom's Cabin was written as an abolitionist vehicle, but Huck was written after the war but set before the war. Twain made it so society could look back on itself and continue to see its flaws. In essence the war was over, but he wanted to make sure the south especially was not excused from their actions.
I think we need to keep this work intact but honestly Twain would welcome this new edition. He was a well known shameless self-promoter, and he saw censorship as the quickest way to sell a book. The students who encountered the new censored version will not be ignorant of its history, and their knowledge will at least start an important dialogue in the classroom
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
