The Censorship of Huck Finn

            Do you believe that authors should be censored? While we are at it, should we throw out the first amendment altogether? A publisher has come out with a censored version of Mark Twain’s classic American novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. In this version, the publisher has switched the “n-word” with the word slave. The reason for this is to make schools feel more at ease with having the book in their schools. I do not believe anyone’s words should be tampered with, especially those of an American treasure like Mark Twain’s timeless classic, because it changes the power of the novel, it does not erase the “n-word” from America’s past, and it is unconstitutional.

 Mark Twain’s novel has grittiness to its language that gives the book its lower class American feel. Twain wanted the reader to feel like they were in the shoes of a poor child in the American south. So instead of writing everything in proper English, he wrote using slang words and phrases that were part of the common vernacular of the time. This was not something often done at the time Mark Twain wrote this novel. However, after reading it many believe that it gave the book more power and feeling then if he had written using only accepted vocabulary. The reason we want children to read this novel is for its powerful moving story.

Changing a word does not erase that word or its meaning from life. Taking the “n-word” out of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn does not mean the word no longer exists. The word still has the past in American life that made it offensive to begin with. Keeping the “n-word” in the novel can teach a lesson to a student that is never easy to learn. That lesson is why and how a word like the “n-word” can become so hated. Also, why someone should never use such a word like that while referring to others. It is an emotional and sometimes painful lesson to learn, but it is one that should not be forgotten or over looked.

Taking an author’s words and changing them to not offend other people is censorship, and censorship is unlawful according to the Constitution of the United States. The change being made is one to make others feel more comfortable. That is not a reason to change anyone’s words. The first amendment is to the freedom of speech. This is exactly the kind of protection that amendment is for. If anyone objects lawfully to this change in the school, then I believe that they could take it to the Supreme Court to have it changed back.

Finally, author’s words are like a painters brush stroke, or a note in a musical piece. You would not want to take out the notes in a Mozart’s sonata, nor censor parts of a painting from Rembrandt. Mark Twain is not here to defend his words, nor his he able to give permission to change them. Without his presence it falls to us to protect his legacy.

Thoughts on the Boston Massacre

                 There are many questions surrounding the famous Boston Massacre. How did it begin? Was there an order given to fire on the crowd? What affect did it have on the aftermath? Looking at depositions and facts collected from people that were there, you can begin to piece this event together and find some of these answers. I intend to show that there was no order given to fire, and that an object thrown from the crowd was the spark that ignited the incident.

First, it is important to know the events that led up to the Boston Massacre. Tensions between the British and the American colonist began to rise after the French and Indian War, known by some as the Seven Year War. In 1763 at the end of the war there were British soldiers all through the colonies. Most were stationed in people’s homes. A new law passed by the government did not allow for expansion by the colonist past the Appalachian Mountains. These things forced on the American colonist made them feel as if they were lesser citizens then those of the British Isles. Furthermore, the British needed to find a way to pay for what they had spent fighting the French and Indian War. They began to tax the American colonist heavily. Taxes on all imports such as sugar, food, and anything else except tea started to get the colonist in an uproar. The Stamp Act in 1765, which is an act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, and other duties, in the British colonies and plantations in America, towards further defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same; and for amending such parts of the several acts of parliament relating to the trade and revenues of the said colonies and plantations, as direct the manner of determining and recovering the penalties and forfeitures therein mentioned, was so unpopular that it was overturned just two years later.

The town of Boston itself had been particularly bitter since 1768 when Britain sent two regiments to Boston to enforce the Laws of Parliament. This infuriated the people of Boston. “They will not find a rebellion, they might in fact make one.” said Benjamin Franklin. The tensions of the Bostonians rose rapidly at this time. This lead to many confrontations between the colonist and the British soldiers. Therefore, in March the tensions came to bloodshed.

On March 5, 1770 a group of Bostonians were traveling up King's Street. They began to heckle a sentry in front of the town custom house. The heckling began to escalate, colonists began gathering in groups. Then a group of British soldiers came to the defense of the sentry. After that the reports begin to vary.

In depositions taken from the incident, it is clear that a stick or other object was thrown from the crowd knocking down one of the soldiers. Seven different people gave accounts of an object or objects being thrown from the crowd. What makes this even more prevalent was the fact that there were people on both sides of the political divide commenting on the sticks. Edward Gerrish who claimed to start the argument with the sentry said, “Saw some persons with sticks coming up Quaker Lane.”, a man who was obviously anti-British talking about men with sticks. On the other side was Captain Preston himself who claimed, “While I was thus speaking, one of the soldiers, having received a severe blow from a stick.” A woman named Jane Whitehouse who seemed not to have any political affiliation said, “I saw one man take a chunk of wood from under his coat throw it at a soldier and knocked him down.”

The best evidence of the order to fire not being given is the fact that the shots were not fired at once. Muskets were not as accurate as the later rifling guns. Because of this it was normal military behavior to fire all the guns at once. The famous engraving by Paul Revere showed all the soldiers firing their weapons at once on the command to fire. Revere not being there this is probably how he imagines the event. According to the depositions, as many as five people recall hearing one shot after another before more shots started firing. “Half a minute after first gun to second, same to third.” said Ebenezer Hinkley. Robert Goodall said, “They all fired one after another.” It seems clear that they had not fired all at once the way it was known to occur with the old style muskets.

The thought that the British soldiers randomly fired on and murdered innocent civilians is probably from the way leaders of the revolution used the event. Those leaders got anti-British sentiments whipped into a frenzy. After a few years the colonist got the revolution they wanted, and the Boston Massacre was one of the major reasons for it. In 1775, a month before the battle of Lexington, a ceremony was held at the location of the Boston Massacre. At the ceremony Joseph Warren said, “Take heed, ye infant babes, lest, whilst your streaming eyes fixed on the ghastly corpse, your feet slide on the stones bespattered with your father's brains.”

Response to Grass

 GRASS

by: Carl Sandburg (1878-1967)

ILE the bodies high at Austerlitz and Waterloo,

Shovel them under and let me work--

I am the grass; I cover all.

 

And pile them high at Gettysburg

And pile them high at Ypres and Verdun.

Shovel them under and let me work.

Two years, ten years, and passengers ask the conductor:

What place is this?

Where are we now?

 

I am the grass.

Let me work.

“Pile the bodies high” says Carl Sandburg giving us a dark and dramatic image right at the beginning of the poem. What did Sandburg mean by Grass with its imagery of death and nature? I believe that the author was meaning to show us the effect that time and nature has to have in covering up the destructive force of mankind.

The destructive force of man is evident in the poem. Its meaning is given to us by the mention of well known and important places where a battle has taken place. The author gives the never ending feel of destruction by placing the battles, in chronological order, from two different centuries. Austerlitz and Waterloo taking place in the beginning of the 19^th century, Gettysburg later on during the Civil War, and Ypres and Verdun in the early 20^th century during World War II.

It is written from the point of view of grass, almost as if nature itself was talking to you. Saying that no matter what damage you can inflect time can cover it up. The last stanza is very short and to the point. It rounds the poem out and ties it all together. It gives the impression that in the end there is just nature.

The three stanzas of the poem gives a clear point at the beginning and the end. It moves you to almost a futile look at what we as humans do. Nothing that we as mankind can do will last forever.