Beyond Emancipation: A Response to "Why Is 'Slave' Less Offensive?"
In her article, “Why Is ‘Slave’ Less Offensive?” Francine Prose poses a unique question about the replacement of the word “nigger” in the novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn with the word “slave”. Is the word “slave” really a better alternative? Prose argues that using the word "slave" to replace the word "nigger" is more offensive because, while "nigger" is an extremely demeaning word, "[racial epithets are] not nearly so disgusting as an institution that treats human beings as property to be beaten, bought and sold." I agree that this is a horrific institution, and I do not wish to downplay the suffering of the slaves themselves. But “slave” seems to indicate the state of the person – if Jim is enslaved, he is a slave (not to deny that the word carries much weight). However, the use of the word “nigger” seems to go beyond emancipation, as seen when Pap Finn complains about the government and suffrage for free blacks. He displays his attitude when "[he]
I understand Prose’s
view that the word “slave” should bring up an appalling aspect of American
past. But I personally believe that the extension of the institution through
the word “nigger” and the extreme racist beliefs it conveys are almost more
disgusting and unreasonable. Slavery is not an American institution. Slavery
has been in existence in the world since ancient times. However, it is odd that
only in America was it based on race. Of course the word “slave” should be
considered offensive, but it is almost a universal term; however, something so
specific, cruel, and demeaning as the word “nigger” has the ability to hurt
people in a different way.
Is the censorship of the The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn a
matter of preventing discomfort for those whom the word may offend? Should we
make readers uncomfortable with its use, to the point where they choose not to
read the novel? I agree with Prose when she says censorship "might not be
the worst thing." I think that as long as the reader is conscious of
Twain’s true words, they do not constantly need to experience the pain of
coming across it two-hundred-some times. Prose says,“the understandable discomfort the word 'nigger' causes students and
teachers is part of a conversation; part of the point of reading that book in
school is to have that conversation.” It is essential not to deny the reality
of the racist mentality that was present during the slavery and post-slavery
eras. I do believe that the tension regarding the word should not be swept
under the rug, that we should confront the word in order to recognize the power
it once had, but we must discuss it tactfully enough so it does not affect people in the
way that it once did.
Francine Prose is a notable author, most recently of the novel Anne Frank: The Book, The Life, The Afterlife. She is currently president of the PEN American Center.
Works Cited
Prose, Francine. “Why Is ‘Slave’ Less Offensive?” The New York Times. New York Times Co.,
24 Jun 2011. Web. 9 Jan 2013.
I agree that the word "slave" is less offensive than the word "nigger," however, I do not think that it is as effective. In my opinion, it is inaccurate to replace such a strong word like "nigger" with a toned down word such as "slave." I do not think the word "nigger" should be causally slapped around by any means, but in the context of the novel, I think it is necessary to use "nigger" because of the power it holds and how it affects people who read the novel. It gives insight into the feelings of the time and shows the impact it has on society even today. Overall, I enjoyed reading your page and I understand where you are coming from. Nice job.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Hali! I agree that it is impossible to replace "nigger" with "slave" and still get the message across. I do think it would be a dangerous decision to censor the novel with "slave," because the true meaning would get lost through time. I do not particularly like the idea of people changing the words around. Perhaps I did not word this the best in my response, but I do completely think that "nigger," in this novel, adds so much more insight, and is far more demeaning than "slave." I guess it would be ideal for the novel to be read without the reader experiencing pain at the word (not talking about discomfort, here), and I suppose that in some cases, they will feel pain, for whatever reason, even though the word does have a context to it. I completely agree with what you're saying, but I wanted to try to consider it from a different perspective. Thank you for the comment!
ReplyDeleteI really liked your argument and reasoning behind why the word should remain in the novel. I especially enjoyed the part about how removing it may simply be to avoid those who it offends the discomfort of seeing it. In his article, David Matthews makes the case that many readers these days simply wish to avoid any "heavy lifting", in reference to the deeper and more educational approach that one must take with this novel. It seems to me that the use of "nigger" in this book offends those who do not look at it from this educational standpoint, which is a necessity if one wishes to fully understand the meaning behind the book.
ReplyDelete