6 ms·

>But, in general, the best way to respond to language that some or most readers would find inappropriate is not with unexplained revisions but to surround origi

by slg 3y ago

>But, in general, the best way to respond to language that some or most readers would find inappropriate is not with unexplained revisions but to surround original works with context, in the form of critical introductions as well as annotations in new editions, wherever possible. I agree with this, however at a certain point we have to be pragmatic and avoid the perfect being the enemy of the good. These works are often never put into context. Sometimes that is because a child is reading the work themselves. Sometimes it is because the government is actively trying to make it illegal to provide that context. Therefore I wonder if it is just easier to remove a word here and there when it is mostly irrelevant to the story. Changing "natives" to "locals" or "fat" to "enormous" doesn't change anything material about those works. If anything it makes the original more accessible because it removes a potential distraction for a modern reader. It seems a little weird to me to be so dogmatic about the importance of preserving the exact original text as in many instances those were in flux too. The fact that the article uses Oompa Loompas as an example is especially strange considering the version the article wants to preserve is already a politically correct update of the original in which they were more clearly African slaves.

nemo44x 3y ago
When and where does it end? It's completely arbitrary. Why is the word you find offensive OK to edit but the ones I find not? It all becomes a political thing and everything gets ruined. We all know that controlling language is a form of power and that's the entire point of these revisions. Whoever controls the language controls the masses, it has been said. Destroy whatever was important and sacred to the culture you're colonizing and/or destroying. The first step is to change the meaning of words. And of course, it's "for the children".
- slg 3y ago
  >When and where does it end? It's completely arbitrary. Why is the word you find offensive OK to edit but the ones I find not? It all becomes a political thing and everything gets ruined. I don't buy this slippery slope argument. Where does it end? It ends wherever the rights holders of the books say it ends. If you want them to change a word you think is offensive, try to convince them to change it. >We all know that controlling language is a form of power and that's the entire point of these revisions. Whoever controls the language controls the masses, it has been said. Destroy whatever was important and sacred to the culture you're colonizing and/or destroying. The first step is to change the meaning of words. And of course, it's "for the children". This is a rather hyperbolic claim for changing a few sentences in a story about kids visiting a chocolate factory. No one is "controlling the masses" with Roald Dahl books. This isn't about changing the history books. It is ensuring that stories can still be enjoyed in the same way they were originally without being burdened with either an accompanied history lesson or what we now view as bigotry.
  - nemo44x 3y ago
    > If you want them to change a word you think is offensive, try to convince them to change it. Yeah, let's ratchet it up and take the culture war into absolutely everything. It's a bad precedent. You've already seen the right now taking up the left's tactics and it's not the kind of place anyone wants to be in. > This isn't about changing the history books. That's has been happening too! Revise so that everything was bad and everything we are doing is good. > what we now view as bigotry. "We"? who is "we"? If someone doesn't like our culture and wants their own then they should invent it. They are interlopers that should stop trying to take our culture and changing it to suit their belief system. They need to create their own idols and gods if the existing ones don't suit their arbitrary, new standard.
    - slg 3y ago
      >Yeah, let's ratchet it up and take the culture war into absolutely everything. It's a bad precedent. You've already seen the right now taking up the left's tactics and it's not the kind of place anyone wants to be in. What are you suggesting here? Should we curtail free speech by either restricting how a copyright holder can edit their work or that protests against those copyright holders should be limited? >That's has been happening too! Revise so that everything was bad and everything we are doing is good. What are you suggesting here? Should history never be reevaluated with modern context? >"We"? who is "we"? Society > If someone doesn't like our culture and wants their own then they should invent it. They are interlopers that should stop trying to take our culture and changing it to suit their belief system. They need to create their own idols and gods if the existing ones don't suit their arbitrary, new standard. I imagine this isn't your intent, but this might not even be indirect enough to be considered a dog whistle. Comments like "They are interlopers that should stop trying to take our culture" are exact phrases we might expect in a racist manifesto. Considering the topic at hand and your previous questioning of my use of pronouns, maybe be a little more cautious about your "our"s and "they"s.
      - shapenamer 3y ago
        "Careful, sir. I think you've had too much to think. Any more comments like that and the thought police may be alerted. We wouldn't want that, would we?"
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Georgelemental 3y ago
> However at a certain point we have to be pragmatic and avoid the perfect being the enemy of the good. These works are often never put into context. Then just don't make changes, and trust that your readers are capable of withstanding raw, unfiltered, uncensored exposure to words from a different time and place. You don't need to "protect" people from wrong opinions, and they don't want to be protected
crote 3y ago
It is historical revisionism, and making superficial changes to it is overall harmful. If a work is written by a racist author, changing a few words isn't magically going to make the author not racist. Their opinions will have influenced the entire story. The article clearly demonstrates this with the Death on the Nile example: the entire work is based on the framework of British colonialism, removing a few racist stereotypes isn't going to change anything about that! At best, you end up pretending that racism never existed - which isn't exactly a great thing to teach children either. Works like that should be provided as-is, with the required context as to why the work is the way it is. If we want to provide children with works that are more up-to-date with today's society, then start providing newer works. It's not as if nobody has written a book in the last few decades!

by slg 3y ago

nemo44x 3y ago

When and where does it end? It's completely arbitrary. Why is the word you find offensive OK to edit but the ones I find not? It all becomes a political thing and everything gets ruined. We all know that controlling language is a form of power and that's the entire point of these revisions. Whoever controls the language controls the masses, it has been said. Destroy whatever was important and sacred to the culture you're colonizing and/or destroying. The first step is to change the meaning of words. And of course, it's "for the children".

slg 3y ago
>When and where does it end? It's completely arbitrary. Why is the word you find offensive OK to edit but the ones I find not? It all becomes a political thing and everything gets ruined. I don't buy this slippery slope argument. Where does it end? It ends wherever the rights holders of the books say it ends. If you want them to change a word you think is offensive, try to convince them to change it. >We all know that controlling language is a form of power and that's the entire point of these revisions. Whoever controls the language controls the masses, it has been said. Destroy whatever was important and sacred to the culture you're colonizing and/or destroying. The first step is to change the meaning of words. And of course, it's "for the children". This is a rather hyperbolic claim for changing a few sentences in a story about kids visiting a chocolate factory. No one is "controlling the masses" with Roald Dahl books. This isn't about changing the history books. It is ensuring that stories can still be enjoyed in the same way they were originally without being burdened with either an accompanied history lesson or what we now view as bigotry.
- nemo44x 3y ago
  > If you want them to change a word you think is offensive, try to convince them to change it. Yeah, let's ratchet it up and take the culture war into absolutely everything. It's a bad precedent. You've already seen the right now taking up the left's tactics and it's not the kind of place anyone wants to be in. > This isn't about changing the history books. That's has been happening too! Revise so that everything was bad and everything we are doing is good. > what we now view as bigotry. "We"? who is "we"? If someone doesn't like our culture and wants their own then they should invent it. They are interlopers that should stop trying to take our culture and changing it to suit their belief system. They need to create their own idols and gods if the existing ones don't suit their arbitrary, new standard.
  - slg 3y ago
    >Yeah, let's ratchet it up and take the culture war into absolutely everything. It's a bad precedent. You've already seen the right now taking up the left's tactics and it's not the kind of place anyone wants to be in. What are you suggesting here? Should we curtail free speech by either restricting how a copyright holder can edit their work or that protests against those copyright holders should be limited? >That's has been happening too! Revise so that everything was bad and everything we are doing is good. What are you suggesting here? Should history never be reevaluated with modern context? >"We"? who is "we"? Society > If someone doesn't like our culture and wants their own then they should invent it. They are interlopers that should stop trying to take our culture and changing it to suit their belief system. They need to create their own idols and gods if the existing ones don't suit their arbitrary, new standard. I imagine this isn't your intent, but this might not even be indirect enough to be considered a dog whistle. Comments like "They are interlopers that should stop trying to take our culture" are exact phrases we might expect in a racist manifesto. Considering the topic at hand and your previous questioning of my use of pronouns, maybe be a little more cautious about your "our"s and "they"s.
    - shapenamer 3y ago
      "Careful, sir. I think you've had too much to think. Any more comments like that and the thought police may be alerted. We wouldn't want that, would we?"
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Georgelemental 3y ago

> However at a certain point we have to be pragmatic and avoid the perfect being the enemy of the good. These works are often never put into context. Then just don't make changes, and trust that your readers are capable of withstanding raw, unfiltered, uncensored exposure to words from a different time and place. You don't need to "protect" people from wrong opinions, and they don't want to be protected

crote 3y ago

It is historical revisionism, and making superficial changes to it is overall harmful. If a work is written by a racist author, changing a few words isn't magically going to make the author not racist. Their opinions will have influenced the entire story. The article clearly demonstrates this with the Death on the Nile example: the entire work is based on the framework of British colonialism, removing a few racist stereotypes isn't going to change anything about that! At best, you end up pretending that racism never existed - which isn't exactly a great thing to teach children either. Works like that should be provided as-is, with the required context as to why the work is the way it is. If we want to provide children with works that are more up-to-date with today's society, then start providing newer works. It's not as if nobody has written a book in the last few decades!