How can we balance sensitivity and historical accuracy when teaching?

And Mark Twain was definitely a better advocate against slavery than those that want to be his editor today. Gods, he had enough trouble getting this published in the first place. I am in favour of people reading more Mark Twain than just Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn.

If he were still writing today he would be targeted by Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh every second day.

Oh but I dream that would be a heavenly battle.

history is most certainly NOT a nebulous thing. It is simple fact, and should be recorded honestly and completely without editing by future generations. It is not only making all historical information untrustable in doing otherwise, it deprives future generations to comment, discuss, investigate and learn about causes and issues that need attention in all times. Would you take away the chance in the future for some child to ask 'daddy, what was a nigger, and why was it a bad thing to say'? and in doing so remove the option for a discussion on historical context as well as important issues then and now?

There are those who say he who controls history controls everything, and they are not far wrong.

So for you to say 'we owe it to historical accuracy' while also saying 'there is room for revision' is to me hypocritical and mutually exclusive.

yes, history is a nebulous thing because the perception of it changes as society changes. Take a course in historiography - the study of the study of history and you will learn this. Each society and generation looks at history differently thus it is a changing thing. The problem is we tend to infuse our current values into that perception and pass judgement hence the reason I said we should view history in its context rather than our own.

A simple example - The Middle Ages. You can find numerous different viewpoints from different time periods on how the Middle Ages are perceived. Some saw it as a dark age of superstition and ignorance, some saw it as simply a transitionary period, and others saw it as a time of progress.

"So for you to say 'we owe it to historical accuracy' while also saying 'there is room for revision' is to me hypocritical and mutually exclusive."

Well no surprise you miss the point but revising history which was revisionist to begin with ie "the victors write the history books" is not the same as politically correct history or dreaded revisionism, it is putting things back in its proper context.

So long as both parties involved consent it is okay you ass hat.

By the way, what do you do for employment? My money is still on you living in your mother's basement or attic.

In a lot of ways this is going at the problem from the wrong direction. Huckleberry Finn is a great story and honestly portrays what people thought at the time and how they lived. That it is funny is a bonus.
What you need is not a balderized version of Huck FInn but more and better trained teachers, schools that well maintained and encourage learning. By rewriting Mark Twain you are wasting time and effort that could be better spent really teaching.

And really teaching Mark Twain would be a revolutionary act in today's right-wing insanity.

The bible is so altered that the majority of people have no clue what was originally written.

Mark Twain said something very similar to that. He found it hilarious that his books would be banned based on his language while the bible was left on the shelves.

You are correct sir ! ( now that I think about it ; it is both too pornographic, ethnically insensitive, sexist, homophobic,......and well,.... basically,.... "hate speechy". )

The notion actually amuses me more and moer the more I think about ! +^d !

Jesus CHRIST that funny !

Huck Finn was banned originally because it portrayed Jim as human being. Without the "N"-word you cannot understand what an effort it was for Huck to decide to help Jim instead of turning him in.

lol i love the onion... :D have ya donated recently :D

yeah :D i donate few here and there at random times

I agree with you 100%, when it comes to history the truth trumps all else.

More like a trying to create a more complete illusion of history, that's a slippery slope even with the best of intentions.

"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." ...George Orwell

Now THAT'S a quote from 1984 illustrating the danger of trying to edit history

Yes...that is true also. I never understood why so many people like to perpetuate falsehoods.

Give me all the information I need to form thoughts and opinions based on truth.

^'d so simple and so true

you are being sarcastic right?

haha yes. I was worried it wouldnt seem sarcastic tho eek

The problem with that ideology is that history is not politically correct, and literary works usually reflect the time period in which they were made. Besides, if you never expose your children to something and teach them what is appropriate and what is not, then you're not doing them any favors. All you are doing is making sure that when they do come across something that is sexist, racist, agist, or any other kind of politically incorrect thing you can imagine, they won't know how to react. You can't teach kids how to respond to something without exposing them to it, and this kind of stuff is never going to go away. It might shift and change form a bit, but it will never go away.

In regards to Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, yes, I think that the N word should be kept in the book and the book should as it be mandatory reading for high schoolers. I also think that English classes should spend time discussing why the word was so frequently used in the book, why it is offensive, and why it is not a word that people should use to put other people down in this day and age.

If we forget our past we are doomed to repeat it.

Fuck politically correct. The world is not politically correct. Teaching kids that it is only sets them up for a huge disappointment.

We all have messed up at one point. Broken something, or said something hurtful. And there is nothing in the world we would rather do then go back and change it. But that is just not the way things work.

No. You have to deal with the fact that you broke it. You have to deal with the fact you said it. You have to deal with it. Day in and day out. Because it happened.

As bad as things are, you can take solace in the fact that you learned to never do that again.

Debra, the past is full of mistakes and hatred. Changing words in a book will not fix them. There is no fixing most things. We must simply accept the past and the stories written in those times as they are.

That's just crazy talk, espicially this part- "At the expence of historical accuracy." How can we teach or reinforce the idea of a civil society if we're not taught that we were once not so civil, not to mention I don't really think we will ever live in a completly "civil society". What other events would you like to re-write in order to reinforce the notion of a civil socity- the revolution, civil war, slavery, civil rights movement, women's suppression or should we just cut these out all together?

No, it's from the year 2011, and I came up with it. I developed most of my more sophisticated vocabulary in the 1980's so that is why my writing and jargon may sound dated.

You couldn't be more wrong. History is filled with racism and sexism not fit for developing minds. Teaching it would probably give a child trauma.

Parts of history are offensive to even most adults. Its necessary to reform history when we teach to be more politically correct, in order to prevent unnecessary offense, and trauma.

Society needs a more PC history.

They can understand the pain of African Americans just by looking at the Present. More than enough of a case for that.

History is just too offensive at times.

That is totally insane. That's robbing future generations of their past! We have no right to do that. The truth must be told.

That's popular in China and Iran.

Trauma...? We all learned the same way and do not suffer trauma based on learning about history. The amount that history is already altered before it ever gets to a classroom should upset you. The idea that we should shield kids from the world as it stands is insane. If you are not given a working understanding of the world as it is then how do you suggest that these "developing minds" cope with reality as the grow older?

Are we talking about kindergardeners, or are we talking about sophomores in high school? I ask because you are referring to them as children, and children kind of implies younger than pre teen.

No, a child should probably not be reading Huck Finn. The concepts and terminology are probably beyond a child's ability to understand anyways. At the same time a child should not be reading an unedited or unwatered down version of Moby Dick for much the same reasons. The language and concepts are too complex.

Now a teenager who is studying American History should be subject to Huckleberry Finn as is. It is a work of literary art not only because people like it, but because people hate it. It invokes a strong response from people. Honestly, if you are going to edit the many various uses of the word nigger out of the book because you aren't adult enough to realize that it was a word commonly used by white people during those days to offensively and casually describe African Americans, then you might as well petition that the statue of David have it's stone penis cut off because someone might take offense to their children seeing what a mans dick looks like.

And honestly, as offensive as history is, forgetting about it, changing it, or shielding the next generation from it is an offense to those who suffered through the offenses. If you really want to talk about what is offensive and how offensive history should be edited to be politically correct, then let's talk about slavery, let's talk about how the European settlers killed off countless numbers of Native Americans in order to colonize the countryside however they pleased, let's talk about about something more recent like how women didn't use to have the right to vote. Really, should these things be edited out of history or dumbed down because you deem it too offensive for our "children?" Kids take this shit for granted today and they are required to learn something about it, what's going to happen if they know nothing about it, or if they know some watered down fairy tale about it?

That aside, kids really aren't even learning the real nitty gritty history in most public schools anyways. Many are having to relearn history if they enroll in a college because the crap that they learn in K-12 is mostly inaccurate. If you really want to have a better understanding about what you are saying in regards to this subject, I suggest reading, "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James W. Loewen.

"They can understand the pain of African Americans just by looking at the Present. More than enough of a case for that."

I can't tell if you are being serious or not. If you are being sarcastic then it really doesn't help your argument, in fact quite the opposite. However, if you are being serious... honestly, words cannot describe what an ignorant wench you would be if you seriously thought that the next generation can understand the pain of African Americans just by looking at the Present. They will know that pain is there, but without context the next generation will never understand the racist and painful actions that African Americans have had to deal with and still have to deal with. And if they cannot understand the causes of that pain then there is no hope to mend it.

Based upon this statement from you alone, I would guess that you truly are either ignorant to the history of racial problems in this nation and how they continue to effect our nation today, or you live in an almost entirely white neighborhood and/or town and have never really talked with someone of a different ethnicity about this subject.

lol methinks debra is looking to fill the colbert role here on current

An interesting view but, it is so wrong-headed that it is dangerous.

Our children need to understand where we come from. Protecting them from trauma is ok, responsible but you don't do that by tweaking Sam Clemens work. He did a great job addressing slavery and the horror in a way that 10 and 12 year olds could understand. Start tweaking his language and you make it boring. It won't be read.

Spend more time with more and better trained teachers and you might pull America out of the insanity that was the last forty years. Invest in your children it is an investment for infinity.

Problem... who the hell is the teacher.

Theres plenty PLENTY of teachers with their own viewpoints. You think all teachers are going to say homosexuality is accepted in today's society?

I do agree with teaching historical accuracy though. Just pointing out an issue with the later part.

^d i agree 110%

More and better trained teachers. invest in education. Compare the amount spent on education and the amount spent on prisons.

If you do that then you can put up with the homophobic teacher because pool is larger.

I really love your point about what would be taught if everything that offended someone was removed! There would not be anything left. So many excellent points and comments here.
I also think we need to give young people much more credit in their ability to understand. As I see it, changing even one word is censorship!