Should we censor historical language?

I am not sure Sambo was /is descriptive of anything except a white woman's rather dismissive , racist & generic name for 'native' children.

Use of the n word is a problem with Arthur Ransome as well as Enid Blyton. In his narrative prose in one book he refers to negroes, and in the same book the Lowestoft cabin boy - and in another book a Norfolk boatbuilder's son - refer colloquially to the n word; all this would have been the accepted usage and slang of the 1930s, and in that context is no evidence of him or his characters being racist, any more (probably less) than Enid Blyton was.

Words in books should be explained, not substituted.

In the case of Enid Blyton, surely the reference was to the popular rhyme that later became 10 little Indians and was the title of a detective story for adults not a children's book.

Well said, grumppa. Censorship is wrong. If a word has unpleasant connotations, that/those should be explained, and the reasons for choosing not to use the word will be clear. But people's choices should not be limited. It doesn't work anyhow – people deliberately use words deemed 'improper' for a variety of reasons, e.g. to be insulting, to be rebellious, even to remove the 'sting' of the word as in black people using nigger amongst themselves.

But surely we can't just let people choose whether to use certain words - I mean for example in published material written today? Or were you just talking about dealing with past use?
The fact that people deliberately use words that some find offensive isn't a reason for not censoring ( emotive word) them in public life. Not all black people use the n word - ones I know are appalled by its use

We can object when people use certain words. This keeps it and the reasons it is disliked publicly upfront. I think that's better than sweeping it under the carpet.

Also, once you start censoring, where do you stop? And who decides what is offensive and what isn't? It has to be all above board, I think.

Yes, historically, I think we should leave things as they are. Use of certain words is part of history. No point hiding it. Infact, I think it's dishonest to hide it.

The word 'nigger' is a case in point. The reason why that is deemed offensive by so many people is because of its usage in the past. We need to remember all that.

And educate children about it.

If you tell a child not to use a certain word, you have to be able to say why. And I mean say properly, not just tell them it's banned.

Here's an example of how important 'mere' words are. What is a disgusting idea to some people (state sanctioned murder) is regarded as simply the right thing to do if the patient chooses it (dying with dignity). You can't censor any of the terms people use whatever your feelings about the idea.

I would not want to expose words that are age inappropriate to children. There are some behaviours and words that they could struggle to comprehend until hey are older. I am ready to explain words like 'nigger' and 'paki' if they hear those words, and they do see some rather confusing images and objets d'art when visiting museums and galleries, but having seen 'behind the scenes' texts and pictures that have been removed from, or never put on, publc display, I am in favour of limited censorship in the same way that I don't want children being exposed to pornographic covers of lads mags.

It's is the most amazing thing with language that it evolves and we change with it. The 'thee Thou' of latter years is long gone and yet still published and should be as a reminder of what has passed. My daughter discusses the use of now inapprpriate words with her children and explains the difference between 'then' and 'now'.

There are a number of descriptive words used now and deemed acceptable but which I cannot bring myself to use.

Bags- the article is excellent. I often get quite cross at the use of 'pro- abortion' instead of pro- choice for example. However, and I haven't finished thinking this through yet, I'm not sure it really covers the issue about the use of words that people ( although not all of them) in particular 'groups' find offensive and how society should deal with their use. I now always say the 'n' word and not the full word after a long discussion with a black colleague who is very active in issues dealing with discrimination etc ( she was very involved in the early stages of the Lawrence case when no one was listening). So I do think that it's right to legislate against 'offensive language ' as it sends a strong message about the values of our society. Of course, it doesn't stop people using those words but neither do laws stop speeding or burglary but we still think its right to set standards of acceptable beviour through our legal system. I'm with When on how to deal with it with children and I would never want to expose a child to, for example, racist language in a book but would deal with any instances of its use as and when. Apart from racist and sexist language, the huge change in disabilist language which resulted from the disability movement in the 1990s is really to be welcomed and is nothing to do with censorship but about respecting and valuing people and the law has to lead sometimes rather than follow. Finally( and then I must get dressed) I'm unhappy with slippery slope arguments but haven't we aired that one recently?

I think there already is legislation against language that is used to incite hatred or violence.

Slippery slope arguments are logically indefensible and should be discarded from proper discussion.

About anything!

Well indeed. Look at the way Social Security has been renamed 'welfare' or the way one person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist, or public servants are labelled bureaucrats. There are endless examples and it behoves us all to aware of when we are being manipulated.

Can I also add 'politically correct' used in a perjorative context? It is often used to try to mock or undermine genuine attempts to redress a balance or challenge a prejudice.

Hear ,hear nanaej

Oh yes, nanaej!! As if it could not possible be taken seriously.

Bags! You made the slippery slope argument as in 'once you start censoring where do you stop'

Yes I know there is legislation re racist language etc - that was my point- that it was right to legislate or 'censor'

Do you remember when some 'academic' wanted the words to Ba Baa Black Sheep changed as they thought it racist. Well our local farm deliberately breeds black sheep as the wool gets a good price.

Brenda that story was eventually proven to be an urban myth probably made up by a journalist to undermine genuine attempts to reduce real racist language! We sang that all the time in my inner city nursery class and we sang baa baa white sheep too! Poor alliteration but it made the kids laugh!
At that school we changed the words to a lot of rhymes and songs to make them gender neutral. We worked hard (it was the 70/80s) to reduce gender inequality. I have never worked in a school since where boys and girls genuinely chose to play and work together so well.

bluebell, I don't think the legislation to deal with people who speak words deliberately to incite hatred or violence is censorship. After all, in certain contexts (such as a discussion on this thread, for instance) any particular word may not be being used offensively. It is not the language that is censored, but its intention. We are discussing language, including words like 'nigger' and how that has been and is used, without being offensive to anyone. In fact, I'd say most of us go out of our way not to incite hatred or violence, as any civilised person does. I suppose you could call it self-censorship, but as you see, I haven't censored the word nigger when I am just talking about its historical or offensive use. What I'm not doing is firing it at anyone in a deliberately nasty way. HUGE difference.