| Historical Perceptions II | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 1 2011, 10:56 PM (282 Views) | |
| Basil Fawlty | Aug 1 2011, 10:56 PM Post #1 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Here is another interesting question on perceptions and culture. Where should the line be drawn in historical discussions when they involve inflammatory or prejudiced language, as primary sources often do? Is it right to censor objectionable material out of deference to an audience's sensitivities, or does doing so take away a good opportunity to learn something about the past -- possibly even to move beyond it? An example that often comes up in the American context is Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn. It is usually read in middle or high school, but has sometimes proved controversial for its use of the word "nigger." (It was, after all, the 19th Century South.) Because of this some districts have used edited versions, some have just not assigned the book, while others are adamant about keeping it in its original form for literary purity. I've noticed this issue also tends to come up a lot in World War II related topics, since it is very much ingrained in the pop culture. For instance, people playing Hearts of Iron will often say (completely innocently) things like, "I've finished the war in Europe, so now it's time to have another crack at the Japs." They have absolutely no malice in saying that (at least, that is what I assume) but if you were to say it outside that context, it would immediately be taken a completely different way. I find this interesting because it is not, strictly speaking, a historical context, it is roleplaying. It is trying to emulate historical attitudes and phraseology. What are your thoughts? |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Aug 2 2011, 10:27 AM Post #2 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
I certainly think there is a place for authentic language in the context of the original time and do lean towards the side of literary purity for the written word. In roleplaying, it is fair game Some terminology has lost acceptance in casual usage over time in other contexts. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Aug 9 2011, 03:39 PM Post #3 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I am generally in the literary purist crowd, although I could envision some logical exceptions for younger readers. For adults engaged in honest discussion and analysis, though, I think that generally does more harm than good. I used to get irritated with people who were afraid of verboten terms because to me, it only seemed to underscore the power that they have in the popular consciousness. Thus they get perpetuated even further. There is an argument for stripping away the controversy and inflammatory character in non-hostile settings, as it does tend to carry over. There are a number of terms I can think of that were originally invective, but are now used quite routinely in both popular and historical environments. Puritan is one. I've been told many Indian names also are derived from slurs or variations on the word "enemy." |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · History · Next Topic » |







2:40 PM Jul 11