Political correctness

@zahlanzi said
Is the original Huckleberry Finn still available if you want it?
Since the answer is yes, maybe you might want to postpone the use of the word "orwellian".

Taking the Ns out of Huck Finn is no different than reading a 10 page summary of the book. Or adapting the book as a screenplay. Would you also call them "altering history" ?

" In ten years, or maybe even only fi ...[text shortened]... y and becomes . . . Trump."
Me thinks thou art having too much fun down the slippery slope fallacy.

There is a scene in the film "Full Metal Jacket" in which one soldier screams in rage at a fellow soldier "Are you are homosexual!?" The film was marketed as a historically accurate portrayal of the VietNam war, from the American point of view, in part because some of the people who worked on the film had actually fought in that war. I submit that no soldier at that time would have screamed any such thing in rage. The word would have been "faggot", so the supposedly historically accurate film was falsifying history. I know why the producers did it though; they were afraid of a public backlash and poor reviews if they used the historically accurate word.

Falsifying history for political correctness is a bad idea. If we expunge hateful words from our history, we forget how repulsive we once were. If new editions of Huck Finn expunge the N-word, how are modern readers to know which version is the correct one? If modern readers cringe when they read the N-word in the original version, it is a good sign; it shows we have made some, albeit faltering, progress since it was written. Twain intended the reader to cringe; sanitize the words, and you alter its message.

PC is what happens when teetotlers re-write the Bible and claim Jesus drank Cola-Cola at the last supper.

@moonbus said
There is a scene in the film "Full Metal Jacket" in which one soldier screams in rage at a fellow soldier "Are you are homosexual!?" The film was marketed as a historically accurate portrayal of the VietNam war, from the American point of view, in part because some of the people who worked on the film had actually fought in that war. I submit that no soldier at that time woul ...[text shortened]... what happens when teetotlers re-write the Bible and claim Jesus drank Cola-Cola at the last supper.

PC is what happens when you can spell any derogatory name for a race EXCEPT ONE on social media. You just did it.

@moonbus said
There is a scene in the film "Full Metal Jacket" in which one soldier screams in rage at a fellow soldier "Are you are homosexual!?" The film was marketed as a historically accurate portrayal of the VietNam war, from the American point of view, in part because some of the people who worked on the film had actually fought in that war. I submit that no soldier at that time woul ...[text shortened]... what happens when teetotlers re-write the Bible and claim Jesus drank Cola-Cola at the last supper.

"There is a scene in the film "Full Metal Jacket" in which one soldier screams in rage at a fellow soldier "Are you are homosexual!?" The film was marketed as a historically accurate portrayal of the VietNam war, from the American point of view, in part because some of the people who worked on the film had actually fought in that war. I submit that no soldier at that time would have screamed any such thing in rage. The word would have been "faggot""
If you believe that Full Metal Jacket was sanitized for the public you must have only watched those particular 10 seconds. Or you were asleep through it. Try a different example.

But leaving that aside for a moment, did they use real bullets in that movie? Did real people die? Did they invade another country?

Did you get the point of the movie or was the point lost because you didn't hear faggot when you thought you really should have?


"Falsifying history for political correctness is a bad idea."
It's not history, it's entertainment. Entertainment directed towards people who want to read Huck Fin without the Ns. For those that just can't enjoy that book without the N's and think the horrors depicted in it just loose all meaning and are simply too tame, the full N-ed version is freely available.

"how are modern readers to know which version is the correct one"
by doing some research.

"Twain intended the reader to cringe; sanitize the words, and you alter its message"
Twain intendend for you to read about the treatment of human beings and cringe. He had no idea the n word will be what you cringe about. If all they take out is the n-word i doubt he will mind.


If i want to write a history book about world war 2 aimed at 7 year olds, i will perhaps leave out some of the details. That doesn't mean i am rewriting history.

"PC is what happens when teetotlers re-write the Bible and claim Jesus drank Cola-Cola at the last supper."
This is some more of that hyperbole you love to overuse.

@teinosuke said
As I said, I agree the character is highly problematic in this day and age. But I don't think it can actually be considered a celebration of slavery to depict someone who was freed from slavery by a saint.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/02/the-dutch-are-slowly-recognizing-that-their-blackface-tradition-of-zwarte-piet-is-racist-and-weird/

In August 2015, a United Nations-convened committee on racial discrimination in Geneva called on the Dutch government to "promote the elimination of those features of the character of Black Pete which reflect negative stereotypes and are experienced by many people of African descent as a vestige of slavery."

@moonbus said
There is a scene in the film "Full Metal Jacket" in which one soldier screams in rage at a fellow soldier "Are you are homosexual!?" The film was marketed as a historically accurate portrayal of the VietNam war, from the American point of view, in part because some of the people who worked on the film had actually fought in that war. I submit that no soldier at that time woul ...[text shortened]... they were afraid of a public backlash and poor reviews if they used the historically accurate word.

Being a work fiction, omitting offensive words wouldn't count as "falsifying" history. Fiction, by it's very nature, is "false", even if based on real events. Not every detail of an actual event needs to be perfectly spot on in order to accurately portray it.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

There's a difference between PC and racist.

You're racist.

@vivify said
The character wears the attire of a minstrel show. He's not a symbol of liberation.

The character is supposed to be a Moor dressed in Spanish court attire from the 17th century.

Slaves wear rags.

@vivify said
PC culture goes too far but it's one of those cases where it's better to err on the side of caution until we arrive at more reasonable limits.

Describing something as "PC" is too often used a pejorative by people who want license express bigotry. Zwarte Piet, a racist character from the Netherlands that originated while slavery was still active (and was originally portra ...[text shortened]... al brats than to deal with bigots who want an excuse to spread racism, white supremacy, sexism, etc.

Feel free to discuss it.
You know my opinion on the matter.

And just because something offends someone, doesn’t convince me that it should be banned.
And just because it shouldn’t be banned, doesn’t mean you should offend people.

@moonbus said
There is a scene in the film "Full Metal Jacket" in which one soldier screams in rage at a fellow soldier "Are you are homosexual!?" The film was marketed as a historically accurate portrayal of the VietNam war, from the American point of view, in part because some of the people who worked on the film had actually fought in that war. I submit that no soldier at that time woul ...[text shortened]... they were afraid of a public backlash and poor reviews if they used the historically accurate word.

In 1987, when Kubrick made Full Metal Jacket, it seems most unlikely that audiences would have protested at the use of that word. Homosexuality was still highly stigmatised and homophobic language was commonly, casually used in film and television. Witness the following exchange from a family entertainment film, Teen Wolf, made just two years earlier, with its clear (if comically phrased) implication that lycanthropy is less unsettling than homosexuality.

Scott: Styles, I got something to tell you. It's kind of hard, but...
Stiles : Look, are you gonna tell me you're a fag because if you're gonna tell me you're a fag, I don't think I can handle it.
Scott: I'm not a fag. I'm... a werewolf.

@vivify said
Being a work fiction, omitting offensive words wouldn't count as "falsifying" history. Fiction, by it's very nature, is "false", even if based on real events. Not every detail of an actual event needs to be perfectly spot on in order to accurately portray it.

In addition, moonbus' claim to know that "no soldier at the time" would have used a particular word suggests a remarkably comprehensive insight into the vocabulary of an awful lot of people.

@zahlanzi said
"There is a scene in the film "Full Metal Jacket" in which one soldier screams in rage at a fellow soldier "Are you are homosexual!?" The film was marketed as a historically accurate portrayal of the VietNam war, from the American point of view, in part because some of the people who worked on the film had actually fought in that war. I submit that no soldier at that time wo ...[text shortened]... Jesus drank Cola-Cola at the last supper."
This is some more of that hyperbole you love to overuse.

Twain wrote Huck Finn as entertainment, but re-writing it is falsifying a piece of cultural history. Of course Twain could not have known what a load the N-word would someday bear, and that is exactly my point. We cannot know either. Five, ten, twenty years from now, the PC crowd will condemn some other words, and there is no end of it. They’ll be re-writing not only Huck Finn, but Steinbeck, Hemingway, Faulkner, Kesey, Kerouac, Capote, then Updike, Vonnegut, Wharton. Expunging the N-word from Huck Finn is literary vandalism, same as prudish Christians chipping the penises off Roman statues.

See for example the following article, which illustrates how fragile history is. Sometimes there is only one copy of original sources.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-56537339

@shavixmir said
The character is supposed to be a Moor dressed in Spanish court attire from the 17th century.

Slaves wear rags.

"Supposed to be" doesn't always reflect reality. "Black Pete" is a racist caricature.

@shavixmir said
And just because something offends someone, doesn’t convince me that it should be banned.

I agree. In cases of historical record-keeping or educating about history, I don't think anything should be banned. If it's just for entertainment purposes like to tell some jokes, that's a different issue and context matters.

@moonbus said
Twain wrote Huck Finn as entertainment, but re-writing it is falsifying a piece of cultural history.

That depends. If it's being re-written for certain audiences like children, I don't thank that's okay, so long as the original is also still accessible.

@vivify said
"Supposed to be" doesn't always reflect reality. "Black Pete" is a racist caricature.

No. You find it a racist characture.
Lots of people don’t.

The interesting thing is that there’s nothing inherently wrong with racist stereotypes.
I give you Asterix as an example.

Intention and context are what make racist stereotypes insulting or acceptable.

The worst thing about the Black Pete discussion is that the social justice warriors (or activists) place speed of change above rationality.
And this has led to a complete polarisation in society.

If the activism had planted seeds and every few years reminded society of the flowers growing, Black Pete would have changed within a generation or two without any friction in society.
And for this they should be damned.

I have no problem with multi-coloured Petes. And if large groups of people find a kid’s party insulting, I’m pretty sure there’s no real issue with changing it.

However, the pressure, exaggeration and false narrative (slaves, etc. ) attempt to make whole generations view something they’ve spent decades seeing as innocent fun as something evil. Making out that if you like Black Pete, you’re obviously a racist.

And that is so wrong. That is pure poison.
And it brings out right-wing extremists who suddenly sound rational to massive groups of people.
And then it’s partially justified to use the term racist (towards certain elements). And all parties become entrenched.

Now, the left and the intellectual listen to the critisism of Black Pete and shrug. And that’s a reasonable amout of people. So, Black Pete changes to multi-coloured Pete (although not fast enough for the activists).

But... what’s happening because of this in society? Do you think Holland’s becoming more inclusive? Oh hell no. There’s a large swing to right-wing extremism in mainstream politics.

So, winning the Black Pete battle (sort of), but losing the war. Creating a division within society which is going to be very hard to bridge.

And for that short-sightedness they should be damned as well.

And extreme right-wingers should be damned anyway.