The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Hide the 'niggers!'

I think...

  • ...it's a travesty for such an important work to be censored like this.

    Votes: 80 87.0%

  • ...the replacement of the two controversial words is a terrific idea.

    Votes: 8 8.7%

  • ...Gribben and La Rosa are TOTALLY fucking, and that explains this whole sorry affair.

    Votes: 4 4.3%
  • Total voters
    92
Status
Not open for further replies.
elvin1 said:
It's a fucking novel.
Click to expand...

No -- it's not merely a novel. It wasn't even "a fucking novel" when it was written -- it was pointed social commentary. And it remains pointed social commentary.
But it is a novel, an excellent one, one which still captures imaginations, and is therefore the best tool one could put in a classroom to study the issues it treats.
One of those issues is the status of blacks as a people, an independent culture seen from the outside by most is a way that fit into a single word, "nigger".
Lose that word, and yes, it's "a fucking novel", because the message has been ripped from it, the value for appreciating a culture that gave birth to ours is gone, and it's not much different than a comic book.

elvin1 said:
The word does not need to be used 200 fucking times.
Click to expand...

So you want authors to lie about the societies they're portraying.

elvin1 said:
We're not talking about the words slavery or African American. This is different.
Click to expand...

Right -- neither of those words would work. Neither contains the connotations carried back then by "nigger". So the term "nigger" is essential to the book.

It's because the book uses the word over two hundred times that the thing is powerful and valuable. It allows the reader to ask not just if the word should be used, but if it is always used the same and then how is it different when different people use it? (good bridge there to today's usage)
 
I swore off but can't let Jaydens remark fall by the wayside.

Sir, given the vernacular of the time in which the book was written,

Jim was not described as or gave any indications of being or in in any

manner exhibited behavior that would have warranted using terms like

faggot or cocksucker.

Read the novel, not a synopsis grouping of posts, and get the feel of the

life and times depicted...|

or, we could go with different versions

Tapioca.............spicy..................mother fucking controversial....EH?
 
I promise you I can quote Neville Chamberlain to a Grade 7 Social Studies class. I can say "Peace in our time" when I explain Chamberlain's place in history, and nobody in the class will think I'm personally trying to give the Sudetenland to Germany.

It is offensive to call someone a nigger. It is not offensive to read a story about someone else who was offensive, particularly when the point of the story is to show the folly of that offence. It is not offensive to teach children about the offence using literature to help them understand it. In fact it does the children/young adults a great service, and it helps the community generally to show proper respect for equality to understand how the community once was not equal.

It is offensive for grown men and women to climb the euphemism treadmill by changing it to "the Enwerd" all the time.

It doesn't matter if the rest of us delude ourselves into thinking that "Enwerd" is more polite somehow. In the hands of a racist, that too can become a stick to poke someone with.

Here's the most perfectly unambiguous racist statement I can imagine that someone could say while "respecting" this convention of being polite by not actually saying the word "nigger."

Hey N-word, come over here and shine my shoes.
Click to expand...

If a person actually directed a comment like that at another human being, it would be formally polite, but unambiguously racist.

It's not the vocabulary that matters, it is the context. So as adults could we please stop saying "N-word" or "En-Star-Star-ger" or any other silly censorious nonsense that distracts from the real issue of respect and equality.
 
Kulindahr said:
Perhaps the most sensible idea in this thread yet came from LilBit, who proposed abridging the thing for younger folks.

LilBit for publisher!
Click to expand...


Hey Hey Hey! If it weren't for me, no one would have known Lilbit posted that.

No one.

You are welcome Lilbit.
 
When I used the word "children" in regards to offering this book to students, I was referring to the high school juniors I taught, who are still treated like children when it comes to "protecting" them from such literature. I would not give the book to pre-high school aged kids, but then I would not have given most of the books I taught at the high school level to kids younger than that.

I think it's over-simplifying to accuse the "gays" in this thread of supporting this book when they wouldn't support one that consistently used the word "faggot." You might as well have said "white gays" and just called us racists. Yes, I taught Huck Finn. I also gave students an option to read something else. And yes, I would have taught them a book with the word "faggot" used throughout if it was a quality book and it carried the kind of historical and social significance that Huck Finn does.

And I would invite anyone who didn't want to read it to pick one of the other selections available then, too.
 
Killjoke said:
When I used the word "children" in regards to offering this book to students, I was referring to the high school juniors I taught, who are still treated like children when it comes to "protecting" them from such literature. I would not give the book to pre-high school aged kids, but then I would not have given most of the books I taught at the high school level to kids younger than that.

I think it's over-simplifying to accuse the "gays" in this thread of supporting this book when they wouldn't support one that consistently used the word "faggot." You might as well have said "white gays" and just called us racists. Yes, I taught Huck Finn. I also gave students an option to read something else. And yes, I would have taught them a book with the word "faggot" used throughout if it was a quality book and it carried the kind of historical and social significance that Huck Finn does.

And I would invite anyone who didn't want to read it to pick one of the other selections available then, too.
Click to expand...

:=D::sex:

I am going to quote Killjoke for this excellent post. No one is going to read it if you post it. Just like Lilbit.

The things I do for the small people.

You are welcome, Killy.
 
Ram said:
:=D::sex:

I am going to quote Killjoke for this excellent post. No one is going to read it if you post it. Just like Lilbit.

The things I do for the small people.

You are welcome, Killy.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent post. Ram, I wholeheartedly agree with what you said about high school students, the word "faggot," literary merit and so on...
 
I don't support racism.

I don't support stupidity.

I don't support censorship because it leads to the two above.Call a book out for what it is.Never change it.

will Dick Gregory's "Nigger" be next? what a great book. More people need to read it.

http://www.dickgregory.com/about_dick_gregory.html

Or is that different due to the context? Who gets to decide what the context is?

I guarantee you before any child gets assigned huck finn, he will have heard the word many times, and will have a concept of it based on his home environment.
 
I don't think it makes sense to abridge it for young children. If they're old enough to deal with the scary bits (I mean, for heaven's sake, there's an attempted lynching in that book!) they're old enough to understand about the racist language.
 
Críostóir said:
I don't think it makes sense to abridge it for young children. If they're old enough to deal with the scary bits (I mean, for heaven's sake, there's an attempted lynching in that book!) they're old enough to understand about the racist language.
Click to expand...

I think this is a very good point.

It's like how American TV sensors titties but not bazookas. If they can handle one, they can handle the other.
 
Críostóir said:
I don't think it makes sense to abridge it for young children. If they're old enough to deal with the scary bits (I mean, for heaven's sake, there's an attempted lynching in that book!) they're old enough to understand about the racist language.
Click to expand...

They abridge novels for adults.... my mom gave me enough of the damned things I donated them and got a receipt for over $400 from the... oh, whatever thrift store we have down the street this year (it's been Catholic, Baptist, Episcopal... it might be Teen Challenge just now).

And a good abridged job will leave you going, What did they leave out? and get you back to reading the real one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top