News Should Classic Literature Be Altered for Modern Sensibilities?

[nismaratwork]

I think that's an excellent point. It won't necessarily harm kids to read an edited version, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Sure, it's just another of many tiny deprivations that add up to our modern lad and lass.

 

[mugaliens]

Having read only a few of the responses, please allow me to say that I've received private e-mails from three people, all of African-American descent, who say:

"Let it ride."

I don't where that come's from, but it makes sense.

So, Let it ride.

 

[mugaliens]

Huck Finn isn't an appropriate book for young children, even without the n-word. If Mark Twain were alive today, I doubt he'd be happy with the people changing his book.

As my ten-year-old son would say... WWSHSHPSHSHPPP! (it's a whip stricking against a backstop).

Meaning, he gets it as a 10-year old, and knows FULL WELL the racial issues and is well on his way towards understanding the political issues.

Let's not repeat WWII, people. In fact, let's not repeat WWI.

I've had enough. You have, too.

See you tomorrow. I don't care where you are, or why. Dump it. Let's start tomorrow.

Oh, scrap it - let's start tonight. Let's start today!

I am only human. It's late where I am, and I need sleep, so I'll tackle this tomorrow.

- swamper

 

[Proton Soup]

Having read only a few of the responses, please allow me to say that I've received private e-mails from three people, all of African-American descent, who say:

"Let it ride."

I don't where that come's from, but it makes sense.

So, Let it ride.

it doesn't make sense to me. what does it mean? let what ride?

 

[DaveC426913]

Having read only a few of the responses, please allow me to say that I've received private e-mails from three people, all of African-American descent, who say:

"Let it ride."

I don't where that come's from, but it makes sense.

So, Let it ride.

I think what he's trying to tell us is that three of his black friends aren't offended. And if blacks aren't offended, then that makes it OK!

They get to decide after all.

 

[Proton Soup]

oh well. public domain now. does that make it fair game?

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/76/76-h/76-h.htm

 

[ThomasT]

ok, having read the posts, I'm going to suggest that the OP has been pretty much beaten to death and that the consensus seems to be that 'Huck Finn' shouldn't be censored and presented to young and impressionable readers but that it should remain uncensored and presented to older, presumably less impressionable readers. Is that the case?

If so, then it still remains that the word, "cool person", is a part of the past and present vernacular, which is off-topic, but a fact, imho, nonetheless.

Continuing off-topic, and I expect to be warned or whatever, I hear this sort of language whenever I have to take the public transit or visit the public library. I have to wonder why African Americans refer to themselves as "niggers". Can anyone enlighten me wrt this?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Continuing off-topic, and I expect to be warned or whatever, I hear this sort of language whenever I have to take the public transit or visit the public library. I have to wonder why African Americans refer to themselves as "niggers". Can anyone enlighten me wrt this?

That has long been a double standard in the black community. It is generally viewed as ghetto talk. The usage seems to have been popularized again by gangster rap.

My best take on this was that between blacks, and only between blacks, it is considered a term of unity and cultural identity - a common cultural scar worn as a badge. When I was living in gangland LA., on rare occasion a white guy could call a black guy "cool person" without insulting him, but only in private, and only if they were close friends. You didn't dare say this out loud in front of other blacks.

Leaders of the black community have addressed this issue and do condemn the use of the word by anyone.

 

[ThomasT]

That has long been a double standard in the black community. It is generally viewed as ghetto talk. The usage seems to have been popularized again by gangster rap.

My best take on this was that between blacks, and only between blacks, it is considered a term of unity and cultural identity - a common cultural scar worn as a badge. When I was living in gangland LA., on rare occasion a white guy could call a black guy "cool person" without insulting him, but only in private, and only if they were close friends. You didn't dare say this out loud in front of other blacks.

Leaders of the black community have addressed this issue and do condemn the use of the word by anyone.

Thanks for the reply. Your take aligns with mine more or less. I lived in a sort of ghetto community in New Haven, CT for a while where I was introduced to this vernacular, and have been curious about it ever since.

 

[CAC1001]

Off-topic, but as an aside, in addition to the "n" word being used by many blacks, I have also heard that the "gangsta" style of dress which only blacks can pull of wearing also has origins from the slave days, from the do-rags to the oversized clothes, which originated from when a boy who was a slave would start to outgrow his clothes; I don't know how based in fact that is though, but it wouldn't surprise me if it also was like a "common cultural scar" as Ivan Seeking describes that has been adopted today as a form of dress that some blacks wear as a form of unity.

 

[ThomasT]

Off-topic, but as an aside, in addition to the "n" word being used by many blacks, I have also heard that the "gangsta" style of dress which only blacks can pull of wearing also has origins from the slave days, from the do-rags to the oversized clothes, which originated from when a boy who was a slave would start to outgrow his clothes; I don't know how based in fact that is though, but it wouldn't surprise me if it also was like a "common cultural scar" as Ivan Seeking describes that has been adopted today as a form of dress that some blacks wear as a form of unity.

Are you referring to the 'droopy pants' phenomenon.? Maybe you're right. To me, it just looks like juvenile ignorance. But I'm amenable to being corrected.

But it isn't something that 'only blacks can pull off', I think. In fact, it seems to be a 'requirement' among the 'bad boy' or 'gangsta' wannabes of current times just like the greased back long hair and tight pants of the 'bad boys' of my era (the 50s and 60s).

Modern (current) urban public schools are, inreasingly, predominately black and hispanic. Political considerations suggest that this trend will continue. And demographic projections based on current political orientations suggest that by, say, the, 2070's virtually all urban public schools will be around 80% black and hispanic.

Here's a thought, will the teachers of the 2070's even consider presenting a literary work like Huck Finn, censored or not, to the publlic middle school or high school classrooms of that time, since those classrooms will be populated by, mostly, black and hispanic students?

It seems more likely to me that the American classrooms of the future will focus more on the historical heritages of, and the historical literary contributions pertaining to, their primary constituents -- which is to say that this sort of discussion about censoring, or not, the word "cool person" from "Huck Finn" won't be a consideration, because works like "Huck Finn" won't be required reading, at any level. That is, I would expect the 'white' literary legacy to be slowly but steadily phased out in American schools and in America in general. And, yes, of course, it might not be readily apparent by, say, 2070. But, it's going to happen. I really think that it's inevitable.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Not read all the responses on the first few, but can you imagine if they removed the word cool person from To Kill a Mockingbird. I've never read Huckleberry Finn, yet I assume they are similar in context.

In context (especially when that context is mocking racism) removing the word removes the power of the story.

 

[DanP]

I can't believe that I'm throwing you this bone,

Then don't doit. Got it ?

 

[CAC1001]

Are you referring to the 'droopy pants' phenomenon.? Maybe you're right. To me, it just looks like juvenile ignorance. But I'm amenable to being corrected.

No, I meant the style of the clothing itself, such as shorts that go down below the knees and the short-sleeve shirts that have sleeves that go beyond the elbow.

 

[nismaratwork]

No, I meant the style of the clothing itself, such as shorts that go down below the knees and the short-sleeve shirts that have sleeves that go beyond the elbow.

You could just say, "FUBU".

 

[WhoWee]

That has long been a double standard in the black community. It is generally viewed as ghetto talk. The usage seems to have been popularized again by gangster rap.

My best take on this was that between blacks, and only between blacks, it is considered a term of unity and cultural identity - a common cultural scar worn as a badge. When I was living in gangland LA., on rare occasion a white guy could call a black guy "cool person" without insulting him, but only in private, and only if they were close friends. You didn't dare say this out loud in front of other blacks.

Leaders of the black community have addressed this issue and do condemn the use of the word by anyone.

I think you're on the right track Ivan. I honestly believe that removing the "n" word and the "i" word will distract from the intended use of the words to make an intended point. Jim was treated harshely - this was a way of emphasizing his struggle. Editing, IMO, does nothing but water down a classic.

I heard a black preacher comment (something to the effect of) "a man can't eat a steak because the baby can't chew it". He is outraged over the action.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think you're on the right track Ivan. I honestly believe that removing the "n" word and the "i" word will distract from the intended use of the words to make an intended point. Jim was treated harshely - this was a way of emphasizing his struggle. Editing, IMO, does nothing but water down a classic.

I heard a black preacher comment (something to the effect of) "a man can't eat a steak because the baby can't chew it". He is outraged over the action.

Well... I agree. Maybe there's a solution here... the publisher did this because they can't sell the original to schools... well... communities need to get together and provide the REAL book to their kids when the school hands out this new abomination.

The publisher sells books, and the right ones, and the kids aren't pithed before they can even grow.

 

[DanP]

Sure, I laugh every-time someone insists to use politically different terms in referring to other races, cultures and so on.

But truth be told, every time you refer to someone different with a derogatory term, you contribute to what can be called psychologically artificial speciation. You basically add another brick to the wall separating "Us" from "Them". It's easy to make "them" appear less than human, subhuman, barely counting as a human being. Zimbardo, Milgram and others had their warnings, time and again.

Do you Americans recall the statement of the "unidentified Kuwaiti women" before the Congress of US pre Gulf War I ? Well, part of the approval rates with which US entered that war where due to this very efficient trick of making Iraqi appear another species. A species which takes babies out of incubators and let them die. And as you can see, it doesn't take much.

Still, I don't approve of butchering books and of revisionist history. And yeah, tbh, kids will not be brain washed if they read early on a revisionist book. they would not loose too much, if anything. But this doesn't make it OK to butcher the book.

That has long been a double standard in the black community.

Ivan, this is not a double standard. You've been somehow correct in your assessment of why it is used inside the black community. But the more important point is that when used between the members of the same group it will not contribute to widen the gap between "us" and "them". But it becomes a tool of artificial speciation when used by whites.

 

[nismaratwork]

Sure, I laugh every-time someone insists to use politically different terms in referring to other races, cultures and so on.

But truth be told, every time you refer to someone different with a derogatory term, you contribute to what can be called psychologically artificial speciation. You basically add another brick to the wall separating "Us" from "Them". It's easy to make "them" appear less than human, subhuman, barely counting as a human being. Zimbardo, Milgram and others had their warnings, time and again.

Do you Americans recall the statement of the "unidentified Kuwaiti women" before the Congress of US pre Gulf War I ? Well, part of the approval rates with which US entered that war where due to this very efficient trick of making Iraqi appear another species. A species which takes babies out of incubators and let them die. And as you can see, it doesn't take much.

Still, I don't approve of butchering books and of revisionist history.

There's no arguing with the essentials of what you're saying, but I think something like Twain's works could be a way for all people to reject that particular slur... not because we HAVE to... because we want to. A good teacher should use this book to humanize generations of people who were either enslaved, or once 'freed', treated like... well... there were "white folk", and there were animals, and there were, "niggers". Huck Finn really drives home the dehumanizing nature, not just of language, but of the times! In the setting, Jim is treated as LESS than a pet, or an animal in the field even though he's supposedly free.

Of course, plenty of teachers just hand out a book, say, "read chapters X-Y"... and that's it. Still, that's a problem with how something is being taught, not the material. When it comes to dehumanizing, what does it say about the (hopefully waning) culture of some black people calling each other, "cool person". I was listening to NPR (much to my chagrin) the other day, and a young lady (black) was raised to NEVER use that word, but in life she encountered it all of the time from her boyfriend, friends, in the neighborhood and at school. Eventually, she started to use it casually... hmmm.

Anyway, the main point is that in the program there was a bit talking to a former gang member who talked about this word. He pointed out that when they were preparing to feud, or kill someone (or just angry) that person stopped being, "Bob", and started being, "That ******". He talked about how on one hand, it's this jocular exchange, but in the next breath it's being used to degenerate someone... by dehumanizing them. I don't know if he's correct, but he pointed out that if people had to stuck to, "My brother", instead of, "My cool person", wouldn't it be a little less glamorous and EASY to talk about, "Kill that brother!" or the like?

Beyond the Milgram experiment, you can observe the pathology of killers (not "heat of passion") and note the process of first making a person a thing. Bob becomes, 'the target', or 'tango', or a thousand other things... and it puts a little scrim between the reality of ending a human life and the effect that has on so many others still living. In the case of a soldier this kind of divorce is, at many times, necessary to function and survive, but it's undesirable in everyday social milieus. It's the responsibility of those not in the immediate line of fire, or with more experience, along with training, to temper that when needed.

Louis C. K. has a wise, if somewhat profane view that matches yours and mine. I... really hope that given the context of this discussion, mentors will understand that I'm posting this for value, not amusement. I'm going to redact according to PF standards... which is ironic... however those key points where he's making a point, I'm leaving in. Honestly, when you read it, you'll see why I feel like such an a*****e for editing it at all.

Everybody has different words that offend them. Different things that they hear that they get offended by. To me, the thing that offends me the most is every time that I hear the n word. Not cool person by the way. I mean, the n word, literally. Whenever a white lady on CNN with nice hair says, 'the n word.' That's just white people getting away with saying [REDACTED 'n-word]. That's all that is. They found a way to say cool person. N word. It's bull[REDACTED CURSE] because when you say 'the n word' you put the word cool person in the listener's head. That's what saying a word is! You say 'the n word' and I go, 'Oh she means cool person.' You're making me say it in my head. Why don't you f[REDACTED CURSE]ing say it instead, and take responsibility for the s[REDACTED CURSE]ty words you want to say. Just say it. Don't hide behind the first letter [REDACTED PUNCHLINE]

edit: I think there's some irony that in a group of bright and supposedly mature adults, we also imbue curses with magical power, or accept that others do and create rules to appease them. I'm not fighting for my right to cuss here, but when quoting something... really? Yep...

 

[nismaratwork]

<snip>Ivan, this is not a double standard. You've been somehow correct in your assessment of why it is used inside the black community. But the more important point is that when used between the members of the same group it will not contribute to widen the gap between "us" and "them". But it becomes a tool of artificial speciation when used by whites.

It's hardly a study, but I think you might find the gang member's experiences interesting.

 

[DanP]

Of course, plenty of teachers just hand out a book, say, "read chapters X-Y"... and that's it. Still, that's a problem with how something is being taught, not the material. When it comes to dehumanizing, what does it say about the (hopefully waning) culture of some black people calling each other, "cool person". I was listening to NPR (much to my chagrin) the other day, and a young lady (black) was raised to NEVER use that word, but in life she encountered it all of the time from her boyfriend, friends, in the neighborhood and at school. Eventually, she started to use it casually... hmmm.

I don't see why you are puzzled. The way you are raised by parents to behave socially is not as salient as the influence of your peer group. Conformity and compliance to your peer group will take precedence over whatever education you got from your parents.

Anyway, the main point is that in the program there was a bit talking to a former gang member who talked about this word. He pointed out that when they were preparing to feud, or kill someone (or just angry) that person stopped being, "Bob", and started being, "That ******". He talked about how on one hand, it's this jocular exchange, but in the next breath it's being used to degenerate someone... by dehumanizing them.

Psychological speciation doesn't occur only between different races. It occures very readily anywhere between groups of conflicting interests. It owuld make no difference if the word cool person wouldn't have been used at all in society. Its too easy to find a replacement for it :P

I don't know if he's correct, but he pointed out that if people had to stuck to, "My brother", instead of, "My cool person", wouldn't it be a little less glamorous and EASY to talk about, "Kill that brother!" or the like?

No, he is not right. Group dynamics take precedence over what terms are used in the community at large. If it wasn't the word cool person, another one would have taken precedence over whatever terms where used by the community.

Beyond the Milgram experiment, you can observe the pathology of killers (not "heat of passion") and note the process of first making a person a thing. Bob becomes, 'the target', or 'tango', or a thousand other things... and it puts a little scrim between the reality of ending a human life and the effect that has on so many others still living. In the case of a soldier this kind of divorce is, at many times, necessary to function and survive, but it's undesirable in everyday social milieus. It's the responsibility of those not in the immediate line of fire, or with more experience, along with training, to temper that when needed.

Not all killers are clinical cases. More than that, predatory type aggression does not depends of dehumanizing the target of aggression. The process of dehumanizing is not always salient in taking another life. Humans are perfectly equipped to kill without fooling themselves with dehumanization, when hey are motivated to end anther human life. And there are countless reasons why a persons might want to kill another.

Dehumanization is important when you want someone to act against a group which done nothing to them, and act efficiently. It effect, it becomes a powerful motivational factor.

In the case of the army, the principal of indoctrination is not to dehumanize others. It is a brilliant mechanism to take men of different avenues of lives and make them act together like kin. Like a band of brothers, they say.

Dehumanization of the "others" is more often than not the tool of political propaganda. It is the tool which finally defines the "Other" and unleashes the "band of brothers" on the "others"

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't see why you are puzzled. The way you are raised by parents to behave socially is not as salient as the influence of your peer group. Conformity and compliance to your peer group will take precedence over whatever education you got from your parents.

You're often right, but for myself in areas such as smoking or drinking, my entire peer group chose to engage in that, and I didn't. I'm not a religious kook, I just didn't want to, and appreciated the logic offered by my parents. I also didn't vandalize, which is something a lot of suburban kids seem to enjoy (peer group included), and I've never cheated on person or academics (or anywhere else I know of). I have vices, issues and all the normal crap, but there wasn't magical instant precedence.

Obviously this is purely anecdotal, and I'm not saying that peer groups don't STRONGLY influence people; they do, but it's not a fait accomplit.

Psychological speciation doesn't occur only between different races. It occures very readily anywhere between groups of conflicting interests. It owuld make no difference if the word cool person wouldn't have been used at all in society. Its too easy to find a replacement for it :P

Agreed 100%, and in fact replacements are there and in common use. I recently heard some white kids talking about some (sp?) "jups"... "czups'?. I asked politely what they were talking about, and once one stopped running and the others realized I was genuinely interested, they answered, "It's like, the new way to call black guys, you know, the n-word." Yeah... they said 'Ehn-Whord', in the same breath as their replacement.

No, he is not right. Group dynamics take precedence over what terms are used in the community at large. If it wasn't the word cool person, another one would have taken precedence over whatever terms where used by the community.

Agreed, as per previous, but another word would have less history and impact... of course, the flipside is that exposure does breed familiarity. I don't think people realize that the 'denaturing' of the word isn't going to end the way they want or expect.

Not all killers are clinical cases. More than that, predatory type aggression does not depends of dehumanizing the target of aggression. The process of dehumanizing is not always salient in taking another life. Humans are perfectly equipped to kill without fooling themselves with dehumanization, when hey are motivated to end anther human life. And there are countless reasons why a persons might want to kill another.

Oh, I agree that most killers aren't what a court or doctor would call, "incompetent". By the same token, some people can dehumanize others, some can't, and some have people in their lives who should be concerned, but aren't... you see where I'm going? Besides, you're certainly right that people will kill for any reason, but MOST murders aren't exactly unpredictable in terms of their compostion.

You have first and foremost:
-Nearest and Dearest
-In the context of other criminal behaviour or past
-...
...
...
and WAAAAY at the bottom are the minority of psychopaths. Yet... the damage done by ONE of them often lasts a lifetime, as they're bound to spend their lives in and out of the system, unable to control themselves and unaware that is even an issue. However, what are the most common motives for murder anyway? Money? Betrayal? Panic during a crime? Lust? I would expect that it lines up with M.I.C.E. (Money, Ideology, Compromise, Ego), as everything else seems to.

Dehumanization is important when you want someone to act against a group which done nothing to them, and act efficiently. It effect, it becomes a powerful motivational factor.

In the case of the army, the principal of indoctrination is not to dehumanize others. It is a brilliant mechanism to take men of different avenues of lives and make them act together like kin. Like a band of brothers, they say.

Dehumanization of the "others" is more often than not the tool of political propaganda. It is the tool which finally defines the "Other" and unleashes the "band of brothers" on the "others"

You do say however that dehumanizing is not necessary for people to kill, and you're right, but it HELPS. Of course, this is why we train our military in a particular fashion, to overcome the initial resistance you describe.

Of course, we can only really talk about the PROCESS of dehumanizing in those killings which were premeditated. Given that, it's probably a good thing to note that from serial killers to housewives, dehumanizing or re-engineering perceptions in general is part of the process. The person is a "bastard", "that person", "the enemy", "the cause of a wrong", "less than killer", all the way to the extreme of serial killers who actually use their victims as a kind of repeated 'stand-in' and rarely see them as people to begin with.

People are complex.

 

[DanP]

You're often right, but for myself in areas such as smoking or drinking, my entire peer group chose to engage in that, and I didn't. I'm not a religious kook, I just didn't want to, and appreciated the logic offered by my parents. I also didn't vandalize, which is something a lot of suburban kids seem to enjoy (peer group included), and I've never cheated on person or academics (or anywhere else I know of). I have vices, issues and all the normal crap, but there wasn't magical instant precedence.

Obviously this is purely anecdotal, and I'm not saying that peer groups don't STRONGLY influence people; they do, but it's not a fait accomplit.

What are you trying to sell me ? That you are immune to conformity because you don't smoke and others in your group do ? You are not. You have plenty of social attitudes coming from your peer social group. I can say this with utmost confidence, because we all have:P Conformity and compliance acts most powerfully on the lines of the social identity of the members in the group. It's more correct to assume that the group does not finds smoking part of that social identity, then to give it as an arbitrary example.

do say however that dehumanizing is not necessary for people to kill, and you're right, but it HELPS. Of course, this is why we train our military in a particular fashion, to overcome the initial resistance you describe.

The resistance is not to the act of killing itself. The resistance is against the fact that you have to put your unimaginably precious being and life in the line of fire and risk death,maiming,elimination from gene pool :P This is the reason why fighting units are shaped into bands of brothers by indoctrination. It's called pseudo-kinship. Evolution have kin selection. Army invented brilliant mechanism to use evolutionary modulated behaviors by changing arbitrary ppl into "kin" by indoctrination. It gives ppl reasons to stay in the line of fire for idiotic political reasons.

It's interesting to look in combat units which where dragged in unpopular wars. Say, like Vietnam. Look into the rates of troops killing their own officers, in what units this happened, and how it was fought off by command, and what impact it had in the actual fights against the enemy.

Of course, we can only really talk about the PROCESS of dehumanizing in those killings which were premeditated. Given that, it's probably a good thing to note that from serial killers to housewives, dehumanizing or re-engineering perceptions in general is part of the process. The person is a "bastard", "that person", "the enemy", "the cause of a wrong", "less than killer", all the way to the extreme of serial killers who actually use their victims as a kind of repeated 'stand-in' and rarely see them as people to begin with.

Dehumanization simply have a modulative effect on expression of aggression. Nothing more. It does NOT creates aggression by itself. At most it creates indifference, and widens the segreagations between groups. What, do you go berserk and kill other species like a madman ? No you dont. You don't start to kill dogs only because they are subhuman. It is not by far required for expression of aggression in any form and level , up to and including killing. And no, not in all killers dehumanization is part of the process of taking the executive decision to take a life. You simply can't generalize it as you do. Other motivations are enough to unleash aggressive behaviors, or to act as modulators of aggression. And dehumanization is far more important in dynamics of group aggression, then in predatory aggression of A vs B, individual vs individual.

 

[nismaratwork]

What are you trying to sell me ? That you are immune to conformity because you don't smoke and others in your group do ? You are not. You have plenty of social attitudes coming from your peer social group. I can say this with utmost confidence, because we all have:P Conformity and compliance acts most powerfully on the lines of the social identity of the members in the group. It's more correct to assume that the group does not finds smoking part of that social identity, then to give it as an arbitrary example.

If I were trying to sell you on an immunity to conformity, I wouldn't have mentioned "issues", and "vices". My point was in response to your assertion that, of course he would be overwhelmed by his peer group. In fact, that is OFTEN true, but not the axiom you seem to believe, unless you really want to fully open the nature vs. nurture can of worms. I conform in my language here, and I conform in a thousand other ways, but that doesn't mean you couldn't point out a particularly pernicious conformation and eliminate it.

I also stated that my own story is just that, and an anecdote. To be blunt, that's really all that's required to rebut the absolute statement:

Conformity and compliance to your peer group will take precedence over whatever education you got from your parents.

If that bolded is, "often", or, "tends", then you're right, I've got nothing. If you're making that axiomatic however, falsify with an example and discard.

The resistance is not to the act of killing itself. The resistance is against the fact that you have to put your unimaginably precious being and life in the line of fire and risk death,maiming,elimination from gene pool :P This is the reason why fighting units are shaped into bands of brothers by indoctrination. It's called pseudo-kinship. Evolution have kin selection. Army invented brilliant mechanism to use evolutionary modulated behaviors by changing arbitrary ppl into "kin" by indoctrination. It gives ppl reasons to stay in the line of fire for idiotic political reasons.

Yes, but explain to me why we use silloutte-reaction training? There is a lot of training that focuses on survival in a warzone, but there is training to assess-react in a flash, and shoot if needed... with all shots being an attempt to kill. This is proper in my view, if you want a functional military, with the main problem being blue vs. blue events.

Remember that, like the Brazilian URV, that pseudo-kinship CAN and often does become real, but yes, of course it's a useful strategy... so what? Look at the racial slurs that go in and out of vogue within and without the military in comparison with each war. We didn't fight the North Vietnamese, we fought VC, "gooks", or "zipperheads". We didn't fight Arabs, we fought "towelheads", and everyone else just uses, "American"... The military just needs to be an echo chamber for existing hostility and bam, your dehumanizing is built in.

Then, if you have the tempermant and skill, your place is determined. A better thing to research is the relative cultures of:

1.) Air Force in the era of CQ engagements
2.) Modern Air Force
3.) Drone Operators (if there is a sub-culture)
4.) Navy surface and sub
5.) Army in general, infantry in particular
6.) Marines
7.) Everything under the umbrella of special forces.

I believe you'll find that lower personal risk of death from enemies, and a higher incidence of killing from a distance breeds a deeply dehumanized attitude. That seems to be mostly from a lack of humanity being perceived in the first place, and the training you mentioned. The middle-ground seems to be the Navy, with the biggest spike coming in front-line infantry.

It's interesting to look in combat units which where dragged in unpopular wars. Say, like Vietnam. Look into the rates of troops killing their own officers, in what units this happened, and how it was fought off by command, and what impact it had in the actual fights against the enemy.

Yes, not too many people remember the origin of the term "fragging", as a verb. Of course, that was an army of volunteers AND conscripts, and still stands as the greatest failure in training and execution in US history.

Dehumanization simply have a modulative effect on expression of aggression. Nothing more. It does NOT creates aggression by itself. At most it creates indifference, and widens the segreagations between groups. What, do you go berserk and kill other species like a madman ? No you dont. You don't start to kill dogs only because they are subhuman. It is not by far required for expression of aggression in any form and level , up to and including killing. And no, not in all killers dehumanization is part of the process of taking the executive decision to take a life. You simply can't generalize it as you do. Other motivations are enough to unleash aggressive behaviors, or to act as modulators of aggression. And dehumanization is far more important in dynamics of group aggression, then in predatory aggression of A vs B, individual vs individual.

Right, that's why I said it isn't NECESSARY, but it helps. What's calling someone a "dick", if not a tiny modulation to AVOID conflict through catharsis. You're also right about predation, yet oddly enough you won't find people more divorced from the humanity of their victim than a serial killer. It's CLEARLY not the cause, just some part of the process of them turning their victim (in their mind of course) from a person, into a representation of their object of lust, hate, and madness. I simply offered it as a contrast in a unique psychology.

 

[DanP]

Yes, but explain to me why we use silloutte-reaction training? There is a lot of training that focuses on survival in a warzone, but there is training to assess-react in a flash, and shoot if needed... with all shots being an attempt to kill. This is proper in my view, if you want a functional military, with the main problem being blue vs. blue events.

So what's your point ? This type of training is not designed to eliminate a hypothesized resistance of humans to killing which so many humans seems to keep dear because if it would not be so absolute as they believe their whole moral system would collapse and they would get depressed for several years.

It is designed to get you the skills you need to survive and engage the enemy effectively , in accordance with the ROE in effect in a war zone.

It has nothing to do with either creation of pseudo-kinship , or dehumanization propaganda.
It gives you skills. And skills pay the bills.

 

[mugaliens]

As long as the young children that have been taught this is inappropriate are told that this was considered acceptable at the time so they understand. It was not all roses and lollipops back then. The past should not be covered up and hidden from them, they just need to be told how it was.

Bingo. I hate revisionism. I love honesty. It is what it is, just as it was what it was.

I read the publisher has received a barrage of angry mail telling him what a dope he is for bending over backwards to appease the politically correct crowd. Let's hope he yanks the effort altogether. Meanwhile, http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/Twa2Huc.html" , as well as from dozens of other websites, so have at it!

I have just one question: Who in the world is Clara Gabrilowitsch?

 

[WhoWee]

Bingo. I hate revisionism. I love honesty. It is what it is, just as it was what it was.

I would add - keep it age-appropriate.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I would add - keep it age-appropriate.

I probably misunderstood the way you meant this,

Do you mean, remove the word to give it to younger children or give the book to older children to read?

 

[radou]

Here's a brief illustration of what's going on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNSR52VG__4

 

[turbo]

I would add - keep it age-appropriate.

I first read Huckleberry Finn, Tom Sawyer, and Life on the Mississippi when my parents bought a house. A walk-in closet well-stocked with cheap editions of classic books became my bedroom, so I had a LOT of late nights. I was 10. The idea that I had not been exposed (repeatedly) to the word "cool person" by that age is laughable. If children are old enough to read Clemens' books (understand the words and concepts) they are old enough to provide mental context and/or ask an adult "why" if they have a question. There is no need to eviscerate classics to satisfy some PC idiots.