DaveC426913 said:They're doing what they're doing because they think it's the right thing. You have to counter that by showing it's the wrong thing, not by agreeing to what could be done "without affecting other people" (i.e. harmless).
turbo-1 said:I knew exactly what "cool person" meant. As a child, my family and I were called "dumb frogs" too. I knew what pigeonholing and insults were intended to do.
I seriously doubt that there is a 10-year-old in the US that has not heard the word "cool person" over and over again in a variety of contexts. I don't think that it would be such a bad thing to read it in the words of an uneducated southern boy who is coming to realize that he is becoming friends with a black man. Clemens treated Jim with respect, and Jim's humanity would be diminished if the contrast between his friendship with Huck and his treatment by society at large was diminished.
Don't want your child to be exposed to "bad" words? It's your prerogative as a parent to protect them. Want to censor American classics so that other children can't be exposed? That's not so harmless, IMO.
BobG said:How much is there to age appropriateness anyway? Which part are we waiting for them to become mature enough to understand?
Regardless of the slur or insult, I think a 10-year-old that's spent anytime on a playground will understand what it means to be called names or to call someone names for no good reason. The essential truth of what's going on is there, even if the historical context isn't.
Or is part of the maturing developing the ability to understand why slaves were referred to in insulting terms (with the slave part being an important part of the sentence - not just a PC term)? Depreciating the human value of blacks made it feel more acceptable to use them as slaves.
Or is part of the maturing developing the ability to understand why blacks actually are less human and should be referred to in degrading terms?
I'm not sure which outlook benefits most by ensuring 'age-appropriateness'.
For the most part, I do think 10-years-old might be a bit young for the average reader to get full understanding out of the book, but I think that mostly depends on how much reading experience a particular child has. But not by very much even for average readers. I think this is middle school material at the latest and requires no censuring.
I might have been a bit precocious in my reading, but reading Twain at 10 posed no challenge to me. As I matured, I learned more with re-readings.BobG said:I'm not sure which outlook benefits most by ensuring 'age-appropriateness'.
For the most part, I do think 10-years-old might be a bit young for the average reader to get full understanding out of the book, but I think that mostly depends on how much reading experience a particular child has. But not by very much even for average readers. I think this is middle school material at the latest and requires no censuring.
Proton Soup said:the intellectual average of the classroom is one consideration.
another consideration is the maturity average.
maybe it's not appropriate for some high school classrooms, either. add in the social strife of any local geography, and i think you're left with a decision that has to be made at a local level.
Ivan Seeking said:I am always opposed to revisionist history. I don't care why they are doing it. Huck Finn is an American classic that is above tampering by bureaucrats.
As I pointed out earlier, replace 'you' with 'any other child'. Your personal experience is not a compelling argument.turbo-1 said:I might have been a bit precocious in my reading, but reading Twain at 10 posed no challenge to me. As I matured, I learned more with re-readings.