Anyone for a History Rewrite?

by **beltic caldy** » Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:01

This should get the keys clacking....or not perhaps.....I wonder what my friends on ITST think of this:

http://www.popeater.com/2011/01/06/roge ... n-twitter/

Not Ebert's comments themselves....that feels like a case of fingers getting ahead of brain....but the surgical excising of now politically incorrect (I'm pretty sure it wasn't that terribly correct a hundred-odd years ago either) terms/language.....if you agree with it, and I don't, you have to wonder what will happen to other literary/movie works in the future.......

thoughts?

by **Cro Morgan** » Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:36

Who the hell is that in the photo?!? Can't be Roger Ebert. :shock:

With regard to the censoring of Mark Twain's work: **** bullshit.

by **beltic caldy** » Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:54

lol!!!! the picture is peculiar!

by **jayl0ve** » Fri, 07 Jan 2011 23:45

I think it's just a word. People need to get over it. People love to act super-shocked and indignant when they hear somebody use that word but it's ok when their favorite rapper refers to himself and his criminal friends as such, 50 times in one song.

Anyways they need to just leave works of art as they are...who the f*** do these people think they are changing one of Twain's books??

by **coke4** » Fri, 07 Jan 2011 23:56

jayl0ve wrote:I think it's just a word. People need to get over it. People love to act super-shocked and indignant when they hear somebody use that word but it's ok when their favorite rapper refers to himself and his criminal friends as such, 50 times in one song.

Anyways they need to just leave works of art as they are...who the f*** do these people think they are changing one of Twain's books??

Completly agree. The censoring of the word is not going to help either, it just makes it more unspeakable.

Its an old book, a piece of art. Are we just going to change it and pretend the word was never used.

by **Moralspain** » Sat, 08 Jan 2011 00:05

coke4 wrote:
jayl0ve wrote:I think it's just a word. People need to get over it. People love to act super-shocked and indignant when they hear somebody use that word but it's ok when their favorite rapper refers to himself and his criminal friends as such, 50 times in one song.

Anyways they need to just leave works of art as they are...who the f*** do these people think they are changing one of Twain's books??

Completly agree. The censoring of the word is not going to help either, it just makes it more unspeakable.

Its an old book, a piece of art. Are we just going to change it and pretend the word was never used.

100% agree

by **beltic caldy** » Sat, 08 Jan 2011 04:00

holy crows, we're in agreement lol!!!!

aye, censorship gives nothing but power to the 'forbidden fruit' - ludicrous and lamentable.

we have a tv channel over here called 'UK Gold' - it has old tv shows, from the 60's and 70's - with some of these, we are now starting to see a warning before the program along the lines of 'please be advised that views and language used in this program are representative of views that were acceptable in the time they were made and do not necessarily reflect modern opinions' - surely a republish of a pure classic like Tom Sawyer would be served infinitely moreso with a strong foreword in the opening pages, contextualising the use of language that wouldn't make it to print these days?

by **VillaJ100** » Sat, 08 Jan 2011 04:42

beltic caldy wrote:holy crows, we're in agreement lol!!!!

aye, censorship gives nothing but power to the 'forbidden fruit' - ludicrous and lamentable.

we have a tv channel over here called 'UK Gold' - it has old tv shows, from the 60's and 70's - with some of these, we are now starting to see a warning before the program along the lines of 'please be advised that views and language used in this program are representative of views that were acceptable in the time they were made and do not necessarily reflect modern opinions' - surely a republish of a pure classic like Tom Sawyer would be served infinitely moreso with a strong foreword in the opening pages, contextualising the use of language that wouldn't make it to print these days?

True. I saw a episode of only fools the other day where del built a nuclear shelter. rodney and grandad were in there and they were talking about the effects of a nuclear war, and grandad said "what the point in surviving? everything would be dead and you can't grow any crops or anything cos everything would be all contaminated" and del says something like "im sure a paki shop will be open somewhere". and i admit, i laughed. mainly because of the comic timing and the context. some people would probably label me as bad as hitler though. at the end of the day, especially with comedy we need to remember they are just jokes and or stereotypes. By getting passionate, techincally you are defending it and so the point becomes more valid. Just laugh a little. And as was mentioned before, touching classics is just rediculous.

by **willjonesjrSUSPENDED** » Sat, 08 Jan 2011 08:18

Well, they can make a censored and uncensored version available to the public. I'm black, and I have always taken a great deal of offense to the word no matter where I heard it or who said it. I'm all for not having everything censored but I'm biased here because that is one of the most hurtful words someone can call me. I'm not sure how other minorities feel about certain words used against them but for me it is unacceptable. I'm not sure of many of you that can understand or not. I read half of that book for school when I was younger and the rest I did cliff notes because I just couldn't take it anymore. I needed to complete an important assignment but that is one of the most difficult books I've ever had to read that it nearly brought tears to my eyes because I felt I was being forced to read something that hurt on so many levels. I just can't agree with you guys on this, sorry.

by **TomBs** » Sat, 08 Jan 2011 11:13

I understand your point, but anyone could be offended by anything. It happens all the time, but some people tend to take offense far too quickly. I could well be offended by something else in the book, but I put up a shield for that. Especially with such an old book you should place it in the context of time, and see it as a part of history, a fact of the views in those times. Not always fun, but it can't be, it's just how it was. Censorship is the worst thing to do, you just turn your head away and don't see it, but it's still there, you're just trying to get away from reality. No matter how wrong it is or isn't, the only way to learn from it is to face it, not to censor it.

But tbh, American industries are weird in their censorship and prudiness.

by **coke4** » Sat, 08 Jan 2011 14:23

willjonesjr wrote:Well, they can make a censored and uncensored version available to the public. I'm black, and I have always taken a great deal of offense to the word no matter where I heard it or who said it. I'm all for not having everything censored but I'm biased here because that is one of the most hurtful words someone can call me. I'm not sure how other minorities feel about certain words used against them but for me it is unacceptable. I'm not sure of many of you that can understand or not. I read half of that book for school when I was younger and the rest I did cliff notes because I just couldn't take it anymore. I needed to complete an important assignment but that is one of the most difficult books I've ever had to read that it nearly brought tears to my eyes because I felt I was being forced to read something that hurt on so many levels. I just can't agree with you guys on this, sorry.

Im sorry, but I have to seriously disagree. I can never really fully understand how much pain the 'N' word causes you as I have never been subjected to racism or discrimination. However I fully disagree with censoring it because at the end of the day what does it really achieve. All it does is censor the word now, the word was still used, people were called it. Should we just forget it was ever used, forget how people were treated and pretend that word was never used, which I feel is disrespectful to the people who were called it.
And when we start censoring art where does it stop. There are people who have certain things in paintings, plays and books disrespectful so should we censor all them too.

by **djarvik** » Sat, 08 Jan 2011 15:48

The person who actually came up with this idea of censoring classic literature, or ANY literature, or censoring all together - should be shot with these legal guns that US have.

by **jayl0ve** » Sun, 09 Jan 2011 02:29

Communists, undoubtably.

by **AUSSIE_FABS** » Sun, 09 Jan 2011 07:36

They should just replace "n*gger" with "Oolalumpa". Then everyone will be happy and we can just pretend slavery and stuff didn't happen and that people were never racists.

I didn't use the word :wink:

I think they should censor this word.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ9_Jba_ ... re=related

by **beltic caldy** » Sun, 09 Jan 2011 14:32

yeah, ban everything that someone/anyone may possibly find offensive.....roll on Orwellian 1984 - anyone have the number for the thought-police?

we need to, as a people grow the hell up - nothing gives more power to ugliness than a forbidding, we know this and yet persistently do it.

Open the door, shine a light in, educate and trust that people, given the chance will simply make their own minds up.

LOVE Tim Minchin!!!!

Anyone for a History Rewrite?

Anyone for a History Rewrite?

Who is online