Sawickipedia Tumblr, The question of whether Mark Twain’s classic...

The question of whether Mark Twain’s classic Huckleberry Finn should be censored first came up a year after it was published, and the pressure on the often politically incorrect (then and now) book hasn’t stopped in the 125 years since, earning it fourth place on a list of the US’s most banned books.

Now a Twain scholar from Auburn University in Alabama believes he has found a way to teach Huck Finn without all the controversy about race and language: Alan Gribben is editing a new version of the classic novel that will remove all 219 instances of the “n-word,” replacing it with the word “slave.” The book will also replace the word “Injun…”

Michael Whitney writes at FireDogLake. “You ruin the original intent of the book and force new readers to run from the reality in which the book was written and the historical context that followed.”

“

—

New edition of Huckleberry Finn replaces n-word with ‘slave’

This is a fucking travesty. If you’re so thin-skinned, so immature, that you can’t be reminded of American history and how much progress has been made then don’t read the fucking book. This censorship is so typical of fauxgressives, who perpetually demand that the entire world change to accommodate their sensibilities. Heaven forbid they say, “Gee, may I should change my own reaction to the stimuli rather than deprive everyone of the stimuli.” —sez ryking

vruz: we don’t want history (or reality of any kind) in Disneyland. it’s quite amusing that the “responsible” middle class “adults” are the main sponsors of this infantilism.

(via vruz)

And I bet progressive-political correct liberal adults are leading the charge at that. Ironic that “progressives” are perhaps the leading cause of the disneyfication of society.

(via sawickipedia)

Rafer sez:
The GOP claims that Disney existed in Good Ole Days and the Dems push for Tomorrow Land. Neither is true, reasonable, human or humane.

(via rafer)

I think I’ve finally figure it out - Social Conservatives are at least overt fascists. Social Progressives are passive-aggressive fascists - they make it sound like they want a tolerant, open society when what they want is to impose their disneyland view on everyone. Both are fascists.

And honestly @rafer given your seemingly recent anti-fascist sentiments I still don’t understand how you support a large, active government - maybe theoretically it’s possible for a government to be anti-fascist, but practically speaking it will never happen and becomes the very tool to enforce - whether actively or passive-aggressively - fascist policies.

(via sawickipedia)

Rafer sez:
You mistake the size of government for the death of checks and balances. Size is a far secondary problem.

(via rafer)

No I don’t mistake it at all - the size of government - measured by the money flowing through it - makes it impossible for the checks and balances not to be corrupted by that very money. Thus it is impossible for checks and balances as designed to work at scale.