I suppose some good came of this at least if namekuseijin has received a forum ban.
I think (and this is just my opinion) that there is a bit of a gap in the description/Code of Conduct here. Think of meeting a bunch of these folks in person–I would talk about lots of stuff unrelated to IF (in between conversations about IF), but I wouldn’t try to start off-topic conversations that were likely to develop into heated arguments. If I want to have arguments about (fill in the blank) here I know plenty of places to get one.
So I’d be happier with a norm (not a code of conduct, perhaps) that people not try to start inflammatory arguments that aren’t related to IF, even on the Off-Topic board or in your signature–just as if we were all meeting in person. There’s a lot of room for judgment about what counts as inflammatory or not related to IF, but I feel like things would be better if we made an effort not to start these arguments. This isn’t supposed to be the no-holds-barred forum, after all.
(BTW, the original poster on the thread in question said that he brought it up because of another member’s signature.)
Well, if you watched the video I linked, it doesn’t seem that the woman who made it would agree; she specifically avoids using the word even though she’s analyzing it as a word. And, if you’re not one of the people a slur is directed at, it seems to me a bit presumptuous to tell those people how they should feel about it–that there’s no harm done to them if everyone knows you’re analyzing it as a word, and that they should be able to handle it being spelled out. (For one thing–I imagine–if you spell it out, everyone knows you didn’t think you needed to bother not spelling it out.)
I suddenly realised how patronising this sounded, so let me add that it’s not just mere concession; it’s also respect for other people and what they find hurtful.
The woman in the video does say “N-word” rather than the word itself, and many people do, especially when it’s being spoken about as a word. “N-word” isn’t a term that you’d really use conversationally as a noun, after all. But that’s just what I was responding to. Using the censored term still places the full term into people’s minds. The only way to not communicate the word is to not say anything about it at all. The same goes for any word, and in normal circumstances I never even allude to slurs for that reason. But talking intellectually about a slur means the slur is beating at the conversation’s heart and is right there on everyone’s lips. Omitting the final letters can be a gesture, which is how I view it in this thread, but censoring a quoted document still doesn’t make any sense to me. That logic implies that the document itself is offensive and ought to be edited or expunged.
Actually, I do think And Then There Were None is a much more evocative title, so I agree with the editing there. But never for something like Huck Finn or Invisible Man.
Since it’s sometimes hard to distinguish people’s tones online, I feel I should also say here that this is not an inflammatory argument from my perspective, and I don’t mean to get anyone angry. I think it’s a good conversation! I wish more people would be open to discussing topics like this and Charlie Hebdo in person.
What the document “is”, doesn’t necessarily mean that is what the document “ought to be”. For instance, Tom and Jerry come with a preface:
Some have taken issue with the “these attitudes were wrong then and are wrong now” as overly PC moralizing. I don’t really see it as such. They’re simply acknowledging that “it was a different time” is not really an excuse by itself when it is content you are responsible for rebroadcasting or reselling. Such a preface is not really necessary with something like Huck Finn or Invisible Man because that statement is really implicit in the work itself.
I suppose it is the way of the world that that preface is necessary. Personally, I find it scary that it’s necessary. But hey.
It’s just perspective, right? I think it’s frightening that for decades, really offensive depictions of minorities in theater and film were commonplace and accepted, everything from Charlie Chan being played by a white actor in yellowface to the minstrel shows that produced the song that And Then There Were None originally referred to. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I agree with you that it’s scary.
Putting a preface in before unedited work is one way to provide context. Self-censoring a mystery novel so that a wider audience might read it and enjoy the suspense without having to cringe is another way. Ultimately, we live in a free society where no one is forcing them to do either.
I never made such a statement. Sometimes the document really should be the way it is, like Huck Finn and Invisible Man. Sometimes it’s questionable at best and harmful at worst, like And Then There Were None’s original title. And sometimes it’s blatantly perpetuating a harmful attitude, like some Tom and Jerry cartoons.
But that’s why you have conversations about these subjects. The preface to Tom and Jerry isn’t censoring the original cartoons. It’s starting a dialogue, and the cartoons remain intact. On the other hand, saying “Ten Little N------” is censoring Agatha Christie. She actually titled her novel with that word. It would be like putting a censor bar over certain scenes in Tom and Jerry.
Of course the title was changed to And Then There Were None because it was offensive. A positive change, in my opinion. And usually when you discuss the book, you have no cause to mention the original title.
spankminister: It’s frightening for today’s audiences, certainly - and yes, I do cringe sometimes when I see some things treated. Maybe it’s women, maybe it’s black people, maybe it’s a deformity made fun of… I do think “Ye Gods, there’s no way they could do this today!”, and I’m not wistful for those days - some call it innocence, some call it ignorance, it’s a good thing that a lot of it is past.
But. Within the context that thei originated from… they were perfectly acceptable at the time.
You’re quite right, you know - a preface like that does provide enough context. But there’s a part of me that’s rebelling, going “But those are cartoons that I loved as a kid! That the whole world loved (afaik)! Why are they being treated this way?! Everyone always knew T & J was a particularly violent cartoon, but it made us laugh so much, and we didn’t turn out to be sadistic bastards!”
…which is, of course, indicative of how little I can meaningfully contribute here because I’m so attached to my memories of the cartoons. 
I daresay I’d be singing a different tune if I’d never seen them before. And then again, I don’t know. All I know is, I can cringe when watching a few things - but it’s a learning experience. It says to me, “This is how we saw the world. I should learn from this”. Isn’t that far, far better than to merely censor what we now find unacceptable?
As for Christie… the biggest evidence that the title was not offensive was that you could replace the N-word with Indians. Meaning that at no point was any offence made or intended. It was based on a nursery rhyme that was originally “Ten little injuns”, and also became “Ten little n-----s” (I feel so silly censoring this) and it’s probably in this fashion - Ten Little N-----s - that Christie heard it and used it, as she would use, say, Hickory Dickory Dock. It’s inherently innocent.
Right, I didn’t mean to suggest that you did, my apologies for being unclear.
You could replace the N-word in Christie’s novel not only with Indians, but with anything! With Martians it would still be the same, or with Sentient Sporks. The nursery-rhyme context was perfectly innocent. However, that racial slur is too loaded, and even in such an innocent context it still brings along its prejudicial baggage. That’s why I’d say it was questionable at best, and it was a good move to change it. There was no reason to introduce such potential negativity into the reader’s experience when it was irrelevant to the narrative. Plus the new title really is better. More sinister and mysterious.
Since you keep saying that, allow me to respectufilly disagree. I find “Ten little Whatevers” far more ominous!
I do not see how this logically follows. The fact that you could substitute a racial slur for another word does not mean the slur was less offensive. Also the fact that no offense was intended does not mean that no offense was made.
I strenuously disagree that it is inherently innocent, even if it were a nursery rhyme. How many fairy tales are incredibly misogynist, despite the fact that they were folk tales compiled to be children’s stories? Wikipedia cites a source on racist caricatures stating that the original song was a staple of blackface minstrel shows where white performers in blackface would trot out some of the most offensive racial stereotypes in theater, such as the escaped slave who longed to return to plantation life. It is a tough argument to say that the song as performed in this context is as innocuous as a rhyme about a mouse running up and down a clock.
Well, don’t substitute it for a slur, then. Substitute it for “Ten little tiddliwinkles”. It still fulfills its purpose. 
As to intent, it does matter because, like it or not, it’s a nursery rhyme (EDIT: Ok, it’s a comic song that became a nursery rhyme. Even if it never got into any nursery). I’m not entirely factually certain, but I believe when she wrote it, in England, that word did not have the weight that it had in America. It was completely innocent, and although we recognise the word is loaded, we can’t fault her; we have to understand the context of the time. It was perfectly innocent of her to pick up that nursery rhyme as she would have done any other.
As for the background check you did on the rhyme, again, take it in context. You wouldn’t want to see a minstrel show like that nowadays, unless it was satire or something, but it was normal back when they happened. Looking at our past and saying “My God, we were savages! How could we every think like that!” is, bluntly, wrong, because we’re assessing the past with our modern knowledge and sensibilities. We should be looking at our past and saying “My God, we really didn’t know any better back then. Let us learn from our mistakes.”
EDIT - I also doubt Christie knew about that particular aspect of the rhyme. No Wikipedia back then! Maybe she did, maybe she didn’t, but all she REALLY needed was a rhyme where the characters disappeared one by one by one.
The song performed in a minstrel show is absolutely racist. But just because something has a historically racist origin doesn’t mean that it can’t be transmuted into something positive by later generations. In Christie’s novel (granted, not too far removed from the minstrel shows, but still removed), the nursery rhyme has no racial motive behind its inclusion in the plot, and really is as innocent as other nursery rhymes like Hickory Dickory Dock if you don’t know its history.
Well, maybe not Hickory Dickory Dock. Ten Little Whatevers is much more violent than that. Maybe Three Blind Mice is a better comparison.
As for misogynistic fairy tales, I agree with you there too, and that’s actually one reason I love fairy tales. Not because I love misogyny, but because that’s one example of how fairy tales have so many twisted ideas about the human condition wrapped up into them, in so many different layers. I never go into a fairy tale wanting to read a harmless story about nice people doing good things. I treat fairy tales as doorways into the subconscious, which can be both beautiful and nightmarish.
I know that it sounds almost paradoxical, but perhaps this is the lesson we have to learn: that innocence is not an inherent property, but a relational one. That nothing is inherently innocent. That some of our own actions, performed in a perfectly innocent state of mind, will nevertheless be recognised by future generations as complicit in gross injustice; as the opposite of innocent; as having always already been guilty.
Of course, the opposite also happens. There have been people who were utterly convinced that they were guilty of horrible crimes against God and Nature for performing homosexual acts. We have come to recognise that they were innocent.
A clear conscience proves nothing. Not does a tormented one. The truth about what is just and what is unjust will always still have to appear. Justice happens in history.
You, sir, have given me food for thought. Many thanks.
It is, however, a very, very scary thought. To know that future generations will possibly re-interpret our life’s work, that we thought so innocent and worthy? That’s terrifying.
I think folks are being awfully quick to assume that Christie’s title wasn’t racist in context. It’s not like the n-word was ever innocent; it’s unlikely that Christie didn’t know what it meant, or that it wasn’t an awfully respectful form of address. It’s in fact likely that she got it from minstrel shows, which were popular in Britain before the war at least (Wodehouse mentions them in at least two or three of his novels that I can think of). And Christie was a reactionary, writing before World War II, with not a sterling record of anti-racism in other respects; it’s not shocking to think that she would casually toss in something that was racist against black people without thinking much of it.
And it’s not like you have to know the history of the song to know that it’s racist; you just have to know what the words in it mean.
And the title of the book was changed on first publication in the US in 1940, so it was not viewed as innocent and acceptable in the US at the time.