"Is Huckleberry Finn a racist book?"/ "This book is racist"

When I began reading the book, at first I thought it was racist, but as the book went on my opinion changed. As we all know, Twain likes to use satires to express his opinions on certain aspects of society. Throughout the book, Twain uses small satires.I think most people miss the big satire, which is the whole book. Twain is satirizing the Southern society, throughout the whole book. He's making fun of the way they talk and their views on slavery. Yes, I understand that some of the words he uses may be offensive to some, but if they look past the words and at the bigger picture they'll understand his point of view. So I think even though some of his words are harsh it helps get his point across. The people that believe this book is racist need to take another look and remember the style of writing he's using.
I think his point of view on slavery is kind of obvious. The book is talking about how Huck helped Jim get to freedom. On their journey Huck fights with his conscience about wheather he's doing the right thing by helping Jim. Each time Huck comes to the conclusion that Jim deserves to be free and that they really are not so different from each other. Even though the people around Huck and Jim are racist, they treat each other like equals. The two of them become very close and learn to look out for each other. When times get rough they know they can always count on each other. For example. when Jim is taken prisoner on the Phelps farm, Jim knows that Huck's going to help him escape. That's exactly what Huck does even though they both end up right back there.
Time and time again they look out for each other, like when Jim discovered that dead man was Huck's Pap. Even though Pap treated Huck really bad, Jim didn't let Huck see his Pap like that.When the two white men were looking for runaway slaves, Huck lied and said Jim was white. So these reasons I believe that the book is NOT racist and in reality it's just a book about two people who become friends over a long journey.

I could not possibly agree more, babycassi, and thank you so much for posting this thread. I discussed a little regarding Mark Twain's The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn yesterday, in fact, and reflected on the precise issue. Unfortunately, in the United States, immense numbers of libraries have banned the novel, due to having so many complaints of racism and use of racial slurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by babycassi816

As we all know, Twain likes to use satires to express his opinions on certain aspects of society.

---

Indeed, Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) actually did not consider himself racist, and saw no use of owning or laboring slaves; on the contrary, he enjoyed emphasizing the humor in such a ridiculous idea of using slaves. I surprise myself how angry I get on this issue, due to the book's banning (along with many other novels of its time), and even found that most of the people who made the complaints had never read Mark Twain, or merely had a lack of understanding. Clearly, as you said, the typical reader can witness the values of friendship Twain places between two people of, at that time, very opposing origins; true, yes, Finn lied to people about Jim's race to help him escape, but that, I think, mostly highlighted some of Mark Twain's own beliefs regarding the problem.

Here is an essay which Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) wrote, entitled "What is Man"

http://emotionalliteracyeducation.co...ine/wman10.htm

I am trying to find things about Mark Twain to help me decide if he could be considered a racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witches and Infant Damnation

I haven't any idea that Shakespeare will have to vacate his
pedestal this side of the year 2209. Disbelief in him cannot
come swiftly, disbelief in a healthy and deeply-loved tar baby
has never been known to disintegrate swiftly; it is a very slow
process. It took several thousand years to convince our fine
race--including every splendid intellect in it--that there is no
such thing as a witch; it has taken several thousand years to
convince the same fine race--including every splendid intellect
in it--that there is no such person as Satan; it has taken
several centuries to remove perdition from the Protestant
Church's program of post-mortem entertainments; it has taken a
weary long time to persuade American Presbyterians to give up
infant damnation and try to bear it the best they can; and it
looks as if their Scotch brethren will still be burning babies in
the everlasting fires when Shakespeare comes down from his perch.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Human's Chamelion Nature

Old Man. Study, instruction, lectures, sermons? That is a
part of it--but not a large part. I mean ALL the outside
influences. There are a million of them. From the cradle to the
grave, during all his waking hours, the human being is under
training. In the very first rank of his trainers stands
ASSOCIATION. It is his human environment which influences his
mind and his feelings, furnishes him his ideals, and sets him on
his road and keeps him in it. If he leave that road he will find
himself shunned by the people whom he most loves and esteems, and
whose approval he most values. He is a chameleon; by the law of
his nature he takes the color of his place of resort. The
influences about him create his preferences, his aversions, his
politics, his tastes, his morals, his religion. He creates none
of these things for himself. He THINKS he does, but that is
because he has not examined into the matter. You have seen
Presbyterians?

Y.M. Many.

O.M. How did they happen to be Presbyterians and not
Congregationalists? And why were the Congregationalists not
Baptists, and the Baptists Roman Catholics, and the Roman
Catholics Buddhists, and the Buddhists Quakers, and the Quakers
Episcopalians, and the Episcopalians Millerites and the
Millerites Hindus, and the Hindus Atheists, and the Atheists
Spiritualists, and the Spiritualists Agnostics, and the Agnostics
Methodists, and the Methodists Confucians, and the Confucians
Unitarians, and the Unitarians Mohammedans, and the Mohammedans
Salvation Warriors, and the Salvation Warriors Zoroastrians, and
the Zoroastrians Christian Scientists, and the Christian
Scientists Mormons--and so on?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Truth Seekers

I told you
that there are none but temporary Truth-Seekers; that a permanent
one is a human impossibility; that as soon as the Seeker finds
what he is thoroughly convinced is the Truth, he seeks no
further, but gives the rest of his days to hunting junk to patch
it and caulk it and prop it with, and make it weather-proof and
keep it from caving in on him. Hence the Presbyterian remains a
Presbyterian, the Mohammedan a Mohammedan, the Spiritualist a
Spiritualist, the Democrat a Democrat, the Republican a
Republican, the Monarchist a Monarchist; and if a humble,
earnest, and sincere Seeker after Truth should find it in the
proposition that the moon is made of green cheese nothing could
ever budge him from that position; for he is nothing but an
automatic machine, and must obey the laws of his construction.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mind as Machine

I think that the rat's mind and the man's mind are the
same machine, but of unequal capacities--like yours and Edison's;
like the African pygmy's and Homer's; like the Bushman's and Bismarck's.

---

It's a great book, one of the greatest I've ever read. I'v read it three or four times and I can't find anything racist in it, but it is a first person narrative told from the point of view of someone accustomed to using the word 'nigger' and I suppose some people who don't really know how to read a novel (a) mistake this for the author's voice and (b) fail to notice all the ways in which the author signals his distaste for racism.

It's interesting that another of the greatest books in the English language, Conrad's Heart of Darkness, also concerns a river voyage and also touches on racial issues, as a result of which it has been accused of racism.

I believe there is a lot of racism in The Adventures of huckleberry Finn. I do acknowledge the time that he wrote the story to be in and the dialect he is using. Some people are posting that the book isn’t really racist it is just the dialect he is writing in. But the racism in this book goes deeper than that.
The book isn’t racist because of how many times they use the word nigger. You have to pay attention to how people act. Like how Huck says that Jim has a “level head for a nigger”. Why can’t he have a level head? Just because he is a nigger he isn’t suppote have a level head. How shocked Huck was to find out Jim care for and missed his family so much. People assumed that slaves didn’t care or have the same feelings for there families as a white man does. Just because there black. Even down to the way Huck make Jim feel so below him sometimes.
Slaves were basically a different species to white people back then. Whites assumed they had none of the brains or feeling a white person would have. I also believe that Huck is working threw his racism threw out this book. He goes from playing jokes on a sleeping slave. To struggling with almost turning Jim in twice. All the way to apologizing to Jim for making him feel so bad the night they got separated and Huck told him that it was all a dream. :flare:

We would like to disagree with you.
The book has got a certain historical and geographical setting. That dictates quite a lot in a novel - including the way how people think about things.
Do you think that white free people in America that time thought that they and the black slaves were equal? We have got a nagging feeling that they didn't.
Twain is merely reflecting and showing how people thought then, in our opinion; there is a difference between what the author thinks and what the characters of the novel think. The author doesn't think like a racist.
If this book were racist, then Jim would actually have been shown as a emotionless and dumb person and so on. He isn't shown like that in the book.
In the book, Jim is shown as a smart, caring man, despite of what the other characters think of him.
Is that racist?
We think not.

And of course, welcome to the forums.

Rascist Huck? Maybe. After all, his character is raised in the southern U.S.A during a time when rascism was rampant. But is the book meant to perpetuate rascism? IMHO...the story highlights rascism so as to remark upon its awful and enduring practice. The rascism in this story is not condoned, but instead is glaringly portrayed so as to encourage its eradication. As far as I know, slavery is not something M. Twain championed, but abhorred. As should we all......

lizzzzzzz during the time frame the book to place Huck's attitude was a standard norm for white people who had slaves. Not everyone white treated a slave the same way but the majority did. Even though Huck's father was a drunken abuser should not mean that Huck can related to what Jim went through either. I am not saying that racsim is right but did you stop think maybe that was Mark Twain's point in the story? Mark Twain could have written Huck Finn in order so show just how racist people truly can be. After all he showed us how it affected Jim as a person not just as a black slave. I agree with baddad's reply and that he is right. This book is banned from most schools and has been burned in some towns throughout the last couple of decades. I do not believe any book should be banned or burned because we are afraid of what is written inside it.

Burned!!!!!????? Banned!!!!???? What century am I living in????

^ twenty-first. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baddad

Burned!!!!!????? Banned!!!!???? What century am I living in????

---

Yeah, I heard about Huck Finn being burned in the late eighties and many protest's from parents who did not want their children reading in it the school library. My school removed it from the selves during my junior year and it was not fair because Mark Twain is one of my favorite arthurs. Hitler burned thousands of book during WWII and that hurts. I would have loved to see what those books were about. I love books very much and it is a shame when they are lost.

i beg to differ. i condemn book-burning (what a waste of tree! please recycle), but i actually believe that some books deserve to be banned. look, statistic shows that one book is published every five minutes (source withheld on request ;)), and i doubt that all of these books are worth my--your--time. i also advocate book-banning in junior and high school because some books just are inappropriate for kids. (like that book forever by judy blume, for example; i read it when i was in high school and i was scarred for life). oh, they can read them later in life, like in college, but junior and high school libraries shouldn't stack crap like that.

i'm rambling. excuse me, i just ate enough for three people.

Plus, book burnings help bring the community together and provide a source of warmth to the homeless.

(my original post, which the post underneath mine refers to was "Oh, what grim tidings that blue, size four comic sans MS font brings!)

^ we need the cheeriness. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by underground

i beg to differ. i condemn book-burning (what a waste of tree! please recycle), but i actually believe that some books deserve to be banned. look, statistic shows that one book is published every five minutes (source withheld on request ;)), and i doubt that all of these books are worth my--your--time. i also advocate book-banning in junior and high school because some books just are inappropriate for kids. (like that book forever by judy blume, for example; i read it when i was in high school and i was scarred for life). oh, they can read them later in life, like in college, but junior and high school libraries shouldn't stack crap like that.

i'm rambling. excuse me, i just ate enough for three people.

---

Not heard of that book but if it scarred you then why was it in your school library. Besides isn't the adults that should be supervising what kids read, watch, and listen too. I realize not every book is for everyone but I always have been more mature as a kid and I read books beyond my grade level. Should I have waited with those whom weren't ready yet? I was not scared and children can understand more then we adult give them credit for. I think that perhaps each child after 15 can decide what they can read or not.

I find it all quite disturbing at how many books have been banned or burned.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...dbooksweek.htm

I don't need the gubbmint or anyone else telling me what I can and cannot read.

Hello, lizzz, welcome to the forum. :)
Yes, unfortunately, libraries in the U.S. (and other countries) have banned many classical pieces of literature, due to its offense to others.
Calling Mark Twain's The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn racist, I would have to disagree with you, lizzz. If Twain's other material seems available, he readily admits not feeling racist, as his contemporaries of his time. The plot of Huck Finn explains much: a rebellious boy, beaten by his father attempts helping his friend (a slave of African origin) escape to the North for freedom; on the way, he encounters the Duke and King, who he knows consist of nothing besides lies, but carries on, unaffected. True, Huck Finn lies to get his utilitarian way through problems, but he shows respect toward every character, even those who lie to him, like the Duke and King. He realizes the equality of every being, but disagrees with others' ideals of morals and ethics. That he insists on using a specific six-letter word, beginning with an 'n,' I find entirely due to the era, though you deny it, lizzz; every era in time owns a certain vocabulary, and each following era decides whether to retain or refuse it - many teenagers and young adults, for example, in the mid 20th century, insisted on calling each other 'cats,' a less vulgar term, but something rarely seen in the 21st century.
Very true, lizzz, Mark Twain does exhibit some tendencies that sound racist to someone in the contemporary time, but focusing on the plot of Huck Finn, I think, seems immensley important, considering that most people who make complaints of Twain have never read his work, but heard the details of it. In essence, I recommend viewing this work more holistically (in plot) than analytically (in details, vocabulary, etc.).
Absolutely no book deserving banning or burning, in my opinion. Just like watching television, using the Internet, and having access to newspapers and magazines, books offer a form of free expression. I cannot call myself a fan of every genre of literature, but I would never attempt erasing some of the literary art's history that formed it into what it has evolved to today. By banning and burning, one ***umes what sounds in the best interest of readers, when that proves impossible to determine. If art has no freedom, then banning and burning it all sounds most preferable, followed by creating (yes, creating) new forms, so others can get easily offended and ban and burn it all again.

Tom Sawyer was not banned from our school library and Mark Twain always stated it was based on his childhood experience's with a dash of fiction thrown in. His words best discribes why he wrote Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn.

Quote:

---

Quoted from Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain:MOST OF THE ADVENTURES recorded in this book really occurred; one or two were experiences of my own, the rest those of boys who were schoolmates of mine. Huck Finn is drawn from life; Tom Sawyer also, but not from an individual- he is a combination of the characteristics of three boys whom I knew, and therefore belongs to the composite order of architecture.
The odd superstitions touched upon were all prevalent among children and slaves in the West at the period of this story- that is to say, thirty or forty years ago.

Although my book is intended mainly for the entertainment of boys and girls, I hope it will not be shunned by men and women on that account, for part of my plan has been to try to pleasantly remind adults of what they once were themselves, and of how they felt and thought and talked, and what queer enterprises they sometimes engaged in.

---

Quote:

---

Mark Twains explantory from The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
EXPLANATORY

IN this book a number of dialects are used, to wit: the Missouri negro dialect; the extremest form of the backwoods Southwestern dialect; the ordinary "Pike County" dialect; and four modified varieties of this last. The shadings have not been done in a haphazard fashion, or by guesswork; but painstakingly, and with the trustworthy guidance and support of personal familiarity with these several forms of speech.

I make this explanation for the reason that without it many readers would suppose that all these characters were trying to talk alike and not succeeding.

---

lizzzzzzz these are his words and I feel perhaps you should re-read the book once again with a different perspective. I hope you do not feel as if I am being harsh with you or that I favor racism because I do not. People today do not want to look beyond what they see and often beauty is hidden deeper then the surface be it a person or a book. Words are so easily misinterupted that we forget to re-read and re-read again to see if we truly understand. Believe me I know what racist sounds like and I have seen what it can do. I hope that I did not offend you and is so my apologies.

Lizzzzzzzzzzz your complaint against racism falls on my completely apathetic ears. If people want to be racist, books are the place to do it. People have a right to believe whatever they want. BUrning books because they are racist or intolerent makes just as much sense as burning books because they are not in compliance with the communist/nazi/insert repressive, book burning regime here/ view.

I know you didn't say 'lets go burn books'. But your post had an unspoken complaint. The posted complaint was, "this book is racist" the unposted complaint was, "it's on your web page and it shouldn't be because it's racist!"

Also something i want to throw out there. Just because a book is racist or wrong doesn't make it not worth reading... (double negative in my sentence but deal with it)

Just to be clear: those of you who claim to abhor censorship in all its manifestations would defend The Turner Diaries just as vigorously as you defend Huckleberry Finn?

http://www.dnsb.info/The%20Turner%20...s%20(eng.).gif

Nowhere is Pierce's promotion of violence clearer than in The Turner Diaries, a novel he wrote under the pseudonym Andrew Macdonald. Considered required reading by virtually every member of the white supremacist movement in the United States and by many extremists abroad, the book describes the world takeover of an all-white guerilla army called the Organization, and the army's systematic extermination of blacks, Jews and "race traitors."

The Turner Diaries is thought to be the inspiration behind a number of violent crimes, most notably Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in April 1995. The bombing, which killed 168 people, was the worst terrorist act ever committed in the United States. McVeigh was so impressed with the Diaries that he sent copies of the novel to friends, with notes encouraging them to read it, and sold the book at weekend gun shows. In addition, in a search of the car McVeigh drove on the day of the bombing, F.B.I. agents found a copy of a highlighted passage from the Diaries, which focused on terrorist bombings of the United States Capitol and an airliner bound for Tel Aviv.

The Diaries also inspired a crime spree in the early 1980s perpetrated by a white supremacist gang called The Order (the inner circle of resistance fighters in the Diaries was named The Order). Led by Robert Mathews, the Order attempted to bankroll an Aryan revolution; its crimes included murder, robbery, counterfeiting and the bombing of a synagogue. More recently, inspired by The Order and The Turner Diaries, members of a white supremacist gang calling itself the Aryan Republican Army committed 22 bank robberies and bombings across the Midwest between 1992 and 1996.

The activities of The Order have also been cited as a role model for an alleged conspiracy by a group of white supremacists in East St. Louis, Illinois, who called themselves The New Order. In March 1998, federal authorities arrested three men in the group who planned to bomb the Anti-Defamation League's New York headquarters, the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. They had also talked of bombing state capitols and post offices and poisoning public water supplies with cyanide. Like other admirers of The Order, members of the group were reportedly heavily influenced by The Turner Diaries.

(from the Anti-Defamation League website)

Basil, are you saying that anything containing violence in it is going to have a bad influence on society? Because before man started writing books and long before tv was invented there as been violence upon the Earth. I am tired of hearing how this book influenced this person to kill someone. The instinct to kill does not need a book to fulfill the act. Yeah, I will admit anything can influence someone to do something horrible but in the end the person committed the act all on their own. We too must take the responsibility for our own acts instead of conveniently placing blame onto another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ancestor

Not heard of that book but if it scared you then why was it in your school library.

---

"scarred," i said. "scarred."

Imho......One does not have to agree with the message written in order to impart value to any written word. Words are naturally doubled edged, and interpretation or action taken by anyone because of a few printed words in no manner dictates the word's inherent goodness or evil. Instead, it only indicates a pathology in the limited range of thought and intrepretation of those digressing from a path honouring the realities of social enlightenment. Inanimate objects cannot perform dastardly deeds. That honour is left up to the only animal that kills for reasons other than hunger, or perceived imminent danger to self, human beings.

An art form should not be judged on the merits of its bad art, nor should inferior pieces be disposed of, as they have the potential to impart as much knowledge of the art form as do masterpieces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by underground

"scarred," i said. "scarred."

---

Forgive me I left out a r I knew it was scarred and meant no offense. If you do not wish to talk about that is fine. I have been scarred myself but not by a book and I survived that ordeal. I was just curious if the book scarred you then why have that kind of book in a library where children can check it out. Again I am sorry.

Basil. That book shouldn't be banned from libraries either, or burned. Mein Kampf or however you say it shouldn't be banned either.

In fact there should be nothing banned from public libraries. There should be no government censorship for adults.

First of all, I will move this thread to Mark Twain subforum so that other people who are interested can view it, too.

Second, I agree with most of what has been said so far regarding Twain and racism (I think Tal has put it nicely). While reading books, we need to take into consideration the time and place they were written and/or the story takes place. For Twain to reflect the events in his time, it was necessary for him to include words such as 'nigger' in his book because that is simply how things were. How credible would we consider him as an author, for example, if his stories included a mayor/judge of black origin considering the times it was written?

Moving on to the censorship issues... I think we need to draw a line between the books which, like Huckleberry Finn, are simply reflection of the times and/or societies they write about and the books which aim to create/aggravate/inflame negative feelings such as racial hatred and advocate violence.

Basil raises a valid point: Would you not be concerned at all if books like he posted were freely circulating? It would not bother you at all if your children/siblings were reading these? And those who are dead against all sort of censorship, would you have felt the same if one of your dear ones had been a victim of Oklahama City Bombings? Not to bring in politics into this discussion but do you feel the same way about say the 'literature' published by Al-Qaeda, which openly encourages and justifies killings of Americans?

As a parent, I would be VERY worried if I found my child reading some of these books and I somehow feel relieved that they are not freely available in the market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basil

Just to be clear: those of you who claim to abhor censorship in all its manifestations would defend The Turner Diaries just as vigorously as you defend Huckleberry Finn?

---

Ironically, I have managed to read The Turner Diaries and, as imthefoolonthehill mentioned, Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. Do these works corrupt all minds? No. Do I consider myself a white-supremacist, striving for a cruel form of eugenics, and eliminating anyone hindering me? Definitely no. Nonetheless, though I disagree with several ideas in both of the books, I have the right to disagree with those thoughts, reject them, which, in turn, only strengthens my own ideas.
People's minds do not consist of blank slates that get filled with what they read; otherwise, I would find my mind corrupted by reading these two particular books, among many others. Restricting the viewing of certain pieces of literature, I find entire nonsense, preventing minds from growing independently, away from so-called libraries' norms of what society should or should not read. As I said, I have learned much from disagreeing with many works of literature (such as the two mentioned); one can perhaps learn more from disagreeing than agreeing with something read. The concept that all readers and libraries will agree what seems suitable to read sounds entirely unrealistic and utopian - something that will never occur. Any mind corrupted by reading certain works, I think, sounds like an unsound, weak mind with absolutely no development of autonomous cognition; perhaps this just seems my opinion.

Both Mono and Scheherazade made excellent points which I agree with both. We need to realize the not everything written is going to be suitable for some people. A number of things can cause a person to turn into a violent person we may never know for sure whether it is from influence from a book, person, or if our DNA has a violent strand. We can study the causes for centuries and may never know the true cause. If you do not want your children exposed then make sure they are not. Perhaps that is all we can do without stepping upon someone's rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lizzzzzzz

I believe there is a lot of racism in The Adventures of huckleberry Finn. I do acknowledge the time that he wrote the story to be in and the dialect he is using. Some people are posting that the book isn’t really racist it is just the dialect he is writing in. But the racism in this book goes deeper than that.
The book isn’t racist because of how many times they use the word nigger. You have to pay attention to how people act. Like how Huck says that Jim has a “level head for a nigger”. Why can’t he have a level head? Just because he is a nigger he isn’t suppote have a level head. How shocked Huck was to find out Jim care for and missed his family so much. People assumed that slaves didn’t care or have the same feelings for there families as a white man does. Just because there black. Even down to the way Huck make Jim feel so below him sometimes.
Slaves were basically a different species to white people back then. Whites assumed they had none of the brains or feeling a white person would have. I also believe that Huck is working threw his racism threw out this book. He goes from playing jokes on a sleeping slave. To struggling with almost turning Jim in twice. All the way to apologizing to Jim for making him feel so bad the night they got separated and Huck told him that it was all a dream. :flare:

---

Your post makes me wonder if the most dangerous form of literature isn't chatroom posts in colours that create blinding optical effects.
As for your objections to Huck Finn, the key point you seem to be missing is that the book is fiction written in the first person. The author does not write in his own voice - which would allow him to express his own views clearly - but in Huck's. Yes, Huck could be described as racist, but since the book is fiction that is not evidence that the author is racist too. Furthermore, Huck's racism is solely a result of ignorance. When he expresses racist views or assumptions, they are simply the opinions he has been brougt up with.
Why would Twain do this, rather than writing in a more direct way that would allow him to clearly oppose racism? He probably had many reasons. But, in terms of communicating an anti-racist message, one can see that writing in the voice of of a racist was pretty cunning. Imagine the effect on a racist. Although he is ignorant enough to be racist, Huck is a person of great feeling, intelligence, wit and charisma. His feeling for Jim overrides his racism and, as the examples in your post all show, he spends the book learning to see that his racist assumptions are unfounded. For a racist reader, there is good reason to hope that reading this would make them less racist. One can imagine this reader beginning the book relating to Huck's racism and then, as the book progresses, changing his views along with Huck. Whereas, if Twain had simply begun by saying 'Racism is a blight on humanity', his racist readers might not have bothered to read any further.

Sorry, but I was reading Twain when others my age were still struggling with Dick and Jane, and Huck Finn has been one of my favorites. What I see is a white boy raised in a age where blacks were considered below whites coming to respect his friend and consider him an equal. He had to struggle to go appoligize, yes, but never regretted it and when it came down to him getting Jim out of slavery, having been taught that it was wrong, he was willing to risk his immortal soul. "All right, then, I'll go to hell!" And he tears up the letter telling the widow where Jim is. You should read some of Twain's scathing editorials of the period before calling him a racist. Especially the one he wrote when a black man was hanged by mistake for a crime he didn't commit. Twain was merciless in his denouncment of the ones responsible. :flare:

You have to look at the time the book was set in. It was set in the antibellum era where ppl if you like it or not did not treat each other equally. Heck people are not treated equally today. Huck Finn has historic value in that it depicted slavery as it was in all its pain and brutality.

My adopted grandfather came from the background of slaves and large plantations and such. He had to leave the south because he didn't wish any workers under him to be mistreated or to be treated badly. they burned a cross on his property and he left with his family and came to Canada. It by no means is more free here, we just have more space and don't notice or won't notice as much.
this is what i believe. i think nothing racist was ever meant but the culture was permeated with it and without meaning to things were said in the book that honestly if it was written now in this year would have been changed. not the value of the book but the way and the careful choice of wording.
nothing evil or cruel was intended at all. but for instance i heard the man that raised me as my father, he was raised in Canada after his father came from the deep south after the cross burning and he still i heard him talk in my opinion dreadfully bad about blacks.
he told me once that blacks are better in the boxing ring because of the way their skulls are made, they can take beatings better and survive. after i finished being sick in the bathroom i calmed down, realizing he in his ignorance meant it as a compliment. He would take his shoes off in respect if we were visiting a poor black man's home and he always talked to them with the deepest respect and care. it was just that he picked up some of the ambience and flavour of the generations of the wealthy south that matter of factly spoke a certain way, even if they released their slaves out of love.
so no i do not believe Samuel in any way meant to be racist and we should treasure his works because we need to face things as they were, not pretend we don't still deal with certain issues, be they politically correct or not. love overcomes all things as it did with Huck and Jim. That is all that matters. and one thing more, when i was little and had a nanny, she greatly influenced me in love of British and Celtic things. And when i went to the deep south on holiday my friends nannies greatly influenced them, all blue eyes and blonde girls. Their moms had owned golliwog dolls that they loved and took to bed with them. they are hideous looking representations of blacks and many still have them today. it is what is meant and we can go around book burning and saying this and that but we could be very wrong. many girls from that time not long ago still talk with the strange wordings their black nannies used and they love their nannies just as much as their own white parents.

saying that this Huckleberry Finn is rascist is like saying the Diary of Anne Frank support Nazism. :confused: people always think that just because a book talks about something it supports it. the same situation applies to The Giver, whom people think supports Euthanasia. you have to look past the ink (roughly one millionth of a milimeter) to the real meaning. Its not too hard folks. 'Nigger' was no more a bad word then, than 'people of color' is
now. 'People of color', particularly those below or near to the overty line, regularly call themselves 'niggers' the same as a white person would call a friend 'dude.' The concept of "Doublespeak" must at least be comprehended, if not accepted for anyone to fully understand literature.
On the matter of book burning and censorship, I'm in 8th grade and have read more books than most people 4x my age. Just because Battlefield Earth was written by the man who esentially founded Scienology (or whatever Mr. Hubbard called it) does not meen it should be banned because it ofend christians. I happen to disagree with Hubbard on the matter of religion, it does not make Battlefield Earth any less of a book. GUllivers Travels was banned in its day for ideals everyone on this forum (i can only hope) agree with. 1984 and Shogun are books that some would consider inapropriate for someone my age, but they are amung my favorite books, and 1984 has ideals in it that have completely altered my metaphysical philosophies. :argue: #1 amendment is freedom of speech, and in my opinion, constitutionally, book censorshipped should be reversed. It should be ilegal to stifle anyones opinion that that person has voiced in book form.

I think that censorship or basically blaming a book for inciting any sort of violence is an ill-aimed panacea.

I think that most `normal' well-adjusted people process some of the more disturbing information/literature/media out there and remain `normal'.

The minority ill-adjusted dysfunctional person will end up doing any number of anti-social acts if they go on living their life without any realisation that they need help, until they end up in jail or something. A book can be a convenient way out I suppose.

Kids who enact `revenge' or violence of some sort on their peers are disturbed and ill-adjusted and need help. They will find guns or violence or whatever else to express their outrage and anger. I think there is not enough prevention in place to staunch such need in the first place. Oh ya, but parents can blame the govt. on how their kids are turning out, blame school system etc.

People start believing that the gov'ts job is to protect them from disturbing things. People start forgetting how to make their own moral and value judgements, they don't have to because the gov't. is thinking for them.

That is disturbing. :)

I think that one has to take into account the premise of a book, why it was written.

Is it a non-fictional instruction manual?
Is it revisionist fiction history?
Is it an autobiographical memoir?

Thankfully there are books being written, even today, that are direct result of the current culture. So that in 100 years from now someone will get an idea of how things were in our time. No it isn't all rainbows and roses :)

You have a point Scher about drawing the line.. but I still think it's more accurate and authentic to have a wide-range of `literature' from any given point in history for future reference. So in Twain's time, what if all his books had been censored and burned and we now don't have an accurate portrayal of African-American history? I don't want my history sanitised, I want to know how wretchedly horrible Hitler was, so hopefully it never happens again.

Children unfortunately have to be exposed to uncomfortable ugly things sooner or later. If I had children of my own, of course my responsibility, I would do my utmost to prepare them for the ugly things in this world that will IMO never go away. At least I can hope that they will then be well-adjusted people armed and ready to deal with such moral and social quandry. Exposure to the dogma and beliefs of religious sects and splinter groups included. ;)

Sweeping things under the rug doesn't make them go away, the accumulation will just trip you up and come back to haunt you. In My Opinion, Your Mileage May Vary. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

---

I will disagree with you, and if you want a good reason, here's what most of the forum thinks about banned books (please note that i am not saying this with a mean tone):
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=13550

who is "you"?

__________________
I enjoy Bach, Vivaldi, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Eminem, 50 cent and Switchfoot. says T.zahn
my reply to the above statement is --- i enjoy sibalius, queen, led zeppelin, eric bibb, grappelli and many more

Hello,
I have to agree that Huck Finn is not racist, but a social commentary on racism and slavery...which is a subtle yet distinct difference, and ingenious in that way, since anything blatantly and explicity liberal would never have gotten published back then, do you see how clever that is? We can never mark any written material as unpublishable anymore...just look at the past to find out what a horrible crime it is to censor ideas, words, combinations of words, .....it is a hypocrisy to judge others anyway, unless one is willing to turn that scathing microscope onto oneself as well.

Hmmm...I dare say that although people could take it the wrong way through misinterpretation, Mark Twain's book isn't really racist, so much as being a portrait of what people were like, and how they thought. I suppose that I never really warmed to Huck because of his rather narrow minded beliefs, but then again, I have to read the book with the social attitudes of the time in mind. It seems to me that Huck is the victim of ignorance and a white supremacist education which most people had in those days anyway. Basically, I think Twain was simply reminding us of how people were, and considering the way people treated former slaves afterwards when the book was published, he was also pointing out to readers what was still happening to that very day. Sure, it wasn't exactly Harper Lee, but give the man a break.

As for the burning of books, that's the way people react when they go overboard with political correctness. In the end, I think it's the reader's choice.