Monday, January 17, 2011
August Wilson, Mark Twain and “The N-Word”
AmericanTheatreWing: "I found myself particularly upset last week when I first read that David Snead, superintendant of schools in Waterbury CT, was planning to shut down an Arts Magnet School’s production of August Wilson’s play Joe Turner’s Come and Gone because it contained a hateful racial epithet, one sufficient incendiary that all reportage on the matter substituted the phrase “the n-word” in its place.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I don't really understand why this is an issue. Firstly, the use of a racial slur, however offensive it may be, is something which has been common throughout US history. Not that such behavior should be encouraged or even condoned, but if it is a word which has been used and is associated with a specific era, then why not show it? Of course it's demeaning, that's the point, but to dress up the post civil war south and pretend like it's all sunshine and butterflies and no one said the N word is ridiculous. African Americans had no education in Mark Twain's time, and it was a common phrase then. It's not racism to portray what is historically accurate. The same goes for an August Wilson piece. African Americans say the N word and are called the N word still today, and to censor or ignore that fact takes away from the point of the play, which is to portray the lives of the characters and communicate the overall theme of the show in a realistic and clear manner. If teachers can't communicate to their students that acting the way characters in Huck Finn or an August Wilson play do, and make sure that the students take it as a representation of a historical period that should be observed but not emulated, then there's a problem far greater than the N word in a few works of literature that needs to be dealt with.
I agree with the author. I think that in the historical context of this play and probably in the context of most plays it is all right to use the "n-word". I think to shut down a production for this reason is blatant censorship but it is also limiting young people's exposure to things they would experience anyways. That is to say if there was a problem in schools after a play like this is done then it was probably there before the play was done. I think that to say that this play is too intense for high school students is a cop out. Students are at a time when they are experiencing these things and if they aren't then they will when they leave high school, so sheltering them will do no good.
I do not think it is right to censor either of these writings. The fact that Wilson was black and Twain was white should not make a difference; in context of the story and time period, both writers used the n-word to show ignorance of those who were full of prejudice feelings and racism. To say that one of the authors could do something and the other cannot just because of their skin color is racist in itself. But besides that comment, I agree with Sherman; censoring these plays is a disservice to the children who needed to be exposed to the realities of that time period. If the children can be exposed to this play and then properly guided, there should be no issue with them being exposed to the time period and the way it truly was.
This is the second time I'm commenting here but here we go. I feel like this shouldn't even be a debate. No, it's not right for people to use racial slurs willy nilly and even if they're in anecdotes it's inappropriate in most circles. However, it's childish for people to take something that has an important historical message and censor it, as it destroys part of the message. The N word is necessary in Huck Finn, as it shows how accepted bigotry was in the American South. The fact that Jim speaks in an almost incomprehensible "negro" dialect is not racist but true to the culture of the time. Most African Americans spoke that way because they lacked any formal education. The whites in the book also spoke with specific dialects because of their status and upbringing, though this is not considered racist. While I have read very little of Wilson's work, I do understand that his word choices and style come from a unique experience, meant to tell the story of the black experience throughout the 1900s. If the N word is used in a historical era as a derogetory term, then audiences should feel uncomfortable because that's what the term is meant to do. There's no need to sugar coat history, and if teacher's are unable to make it clear that the language in Huck Finn, and other works of drama or literature of the same nature, is inappropriate by modern standards then they should find a way to do so rather than leaving out or censoring important works of art.
I completely understand what the school is doing and I agree with it. I think schools should foster a caring environment free of hate. However, I think literature is very different, especially when specific words are intrinsic to the text. August Wilson and Mark Twain both had reasons for putting the n-word in theirs plays. It brought something to the text and makes a point. I think as long as the students understand what the authors are doing and they don’t think that because the word is in a play or book, they can go around saying it, it’s fine
In both this case and the case of Huckleberry Finn, it really bothers me that people are unwilling to recognize context in interpreting rules and decisions. Both of these works are generally recognized as historically and culturally important, and are written in the context of the period they are documenting. The N-word is part of our history and our present even though we may have moral objections to its use, and makes sense in its context in these works. We should not try to rewrite history by cleansing it of anything we find objectionable.
I fall decisively on BOTH sides of this issue. The original language of a document should not be changed to accommodate modern sensibilities. That is so 1984. Revising dialogue to reflect how people use language today would be sacrilege on the artist’s work. Language evolves and the piece should reflect the language of the time. Today you would never use the term “negro” or “colored people” but when the United Negro College fund was founded in 1944 and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909 we can assume that the use of “negro” and “colored people” in these organizations titles was not meant to be defamatory.
“Joe Turner’s Come and Gone” is a wonderful play that deals with so much more than the use of racial epithets. These students should be exposed to this play. However, if the governing organization cannot see the forest for the TREE, I would recommend a discussion of the evolution of the words and then a softening the language for a modern audience but keep the intention of the material. If that is unacceptable, choose a different play with less mature theme.
This is outrageous. It is censorship at its worst. Not to mention they are denying the students a learning opportunity. This is a chance for the faculty to open a dialogue with the students about racism, its history and where we as a society are headed. To deny this opportunity is telling the students that the world is a shiny happy place and that nothing is wrong. This is part of why history repeats itself, because people refuse to look back and learn, maybe because it is taboo or too hard to discuss. The students should be allowed to preform the text as intended and then learn something from it. They may not be able to fully comprehend it now, but they will understand it soon.
Post a Comment