Welcome to the Slaughterhouse: Kindness, censorship, the 1st Amendment and me!

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
Welcome to the Slaughterhouse, America!!

By Nicholas Meyeres

Recently, according to Publishers Weekly, NewSouth Books' upcoming edition of Mark Twain's masterpiece "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" will remove all instances of the "n" word… and when I say “n” word I don’t mean “nachos”.

But the real question is, “why”?

Some people would likely point to the hurtful nature and origin of the term, and the intent of its use, but isn’t it still historical in context, and shouldn’t we always endeavor to make history as accurate as possible? Besides, don’t we have the “right“ to say it if we want to? After all, do we look to censor our public school history books, as well; or for that matter our bibles, holy books, and dictionaries because they also contain words and concepts that some people may find offensive?

Perhaps it is the context of the word, or who wrote them.

If you think that, you couldn’t be more wrong.



Mark Twain was very precise in his verbiage- he knew EXACTLY what he was saying, and more importantly, he knew WHY he was saying it. He used the word because it made people uncomfortable to use it even back then, and frankly, it was simply commonplace to use the term at that point in history. Therefore, he used it to be historically AND intellectually truthful. After all, sometimes harsh language is the only thing some people understand in order to start any kind of dialog at all.

So, having said that, was Twain a racist for the use of the word over 200 times in the novel, or was it something more? After all, it does SEEM a little bit excessive by our standards today.

A little known history that was just uncovered at Yale University found that he paid for at least one black person to attend that University’s Law School and for another black person to attend a southern university to become a minister. That clearly isn’t the actions of a racist if you ask me.

In fact, I think there are very few folks (at least in America today) that are TRUE racists at all. There are some, yes, but I think you have to look very hard to find those individuals who aren't simply "soft bigots" or just being ironic. I think we all agree that racism at it’s core is a very, very ugly thing, and I am sure we would know it if we really saw it in action today.



Still, I was approached with the notion that this will actually allow the book back into school libraries because (as most people already know) “Huck Finn” is one of the most banned books around right now. If this happens, will it increase readership and availability into the hands of children everywhere to be able to enjoy the same story that I grew up with? Or, is it an attempt to pacify a small minority of people who think they know what’s best for us all, and who want to change what we know as “true history”? If it is the former, great! But, I am not so sure that it is.

Honestly, I can't personally see any other motivation other than the unnecessary censorship of a brilliant piece of literature myself. But, then again, censorship is one of my (seemingly many) hot button issues these days. And as Voltaire put it, “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it?”

Or, for that matter, like our 1st President of the United States of America said, "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."

And that is how I live my life.

Sure, you may not live your life as such, but I do. And if there is a choice between censoring history because a few people are made uncomfortable by some of its content, or allowing it to be available to those who choose to seek it out, untarnished… well, I know which side of the debate I fall on. My personal opinion is, rather than shielding people from the truth and from history, we should allow them access to untainted accounts (whether it be from a history book or a great American novel like “Huck Finn”) to determine for themselves what life truly was like.

Of course, I may be blinded by the blatant censorship of one of my very favorite books, by my very favorite author of all time.



… But, now to the important part: The United States Constitution. The Constitution does protect the freedom of speech of every citizen, and even of non-citizens, that is true — but only from restriction by Congress (and, by virtue of the 14th Amendment and state legislatures, as well). But does that mean it is all-encompassing? Not quite- there are plenty of other places where you could speak but where speech can and often is suppressed.

For example, freedom of speech can be restricted in a work place. Employers (right or wrong) can restrict your right to speak in the office about politics, about religion, about legal issues, even about “Desperate Housewives” if they choose to. The same restrictions that apply to the government do not apply to private persons, employers, or establishments for the most part. For that matter, the government could not prohibit the sale of any newspaper lest it breech the freedom of the press clause- however, no newsstand MUST carry every paper against its owners' wishes.

And then, of course there’s libel, defamation of character, and yelling “bomb!” in a crowded New York City airport. Some forms of speech just simply are not allowed- even in America.

In other words, the 1st Amendment applies to the Federal Government DICTATING how we think and talk to each other, but not how WE think and talk to each other. It also does not dictate which religion we endorse or do not endorse as a Nation. Congress has no authority over us in that regard, but we do have the ability to create local and state laws as individuals and employers if we see fit to do so with the overall understanding that the Constitution ultimately has the final say in the day’s end. After all, we are a land based on constitutional law, not politically correct, religious or personal interpretation of the law.



Having said that, NewSouth Books' does have the "right" to change Twain's masterpiece because this work was published before January 1, 1923, and is thus in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago. But the question is, "should they change it?" That is a question that could (and likely will) be debated for many years to come.

Either way, I will say this much- because we are all individuals who have had different experiences over the course of our own lifetimes, we see many things (obviously) much different from one another- for better or worse. My good AND my bad experiences have shaped my world view today- just like I am sure yours did you, and hers did her, and his did his, and anyone else's did theirs.

It's true, I can't walk in your shoes and I don't know what you've been through in life- but, frankly, I’m not so sure I even want to know, either- I have enough of my own bad experiences to live with. I am simply as honest as I can be- I can empathize, but that's about it. Likewise, some of my experiences would seem foreign to you because you wouldn't know how to react if they happened in your life.

Still, having said all of that, I also feel that it doesn't even truly matter if we completely understand one another in this life- all that matters is that we don't kill each other, or intentionally harm one other BECAUSE we're different. Besides, even though I am a product of what my experiences have made me- I am also who I am today because it is who I CHOOSE to be, not who I’ve become.

After all, we all have a thin skin about something even though we try all day long to tell ourselves and each other otherwise. When it’s all said and done, what is most important is the old adage of being true to yourself. That's all there really is, and that's all that ever really matters.

… So, after all of that, do we have the “right” or even the duty to censor ourselves, each other, or history because some people’s experiences allow for a more amplified feeling that they are offended by what we do or what we say to them because of that thin skin? That answer, at least, is a simple one for me: “Fuck no, nigga’!”