https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/17/roald-dahl-books-rewritten-offensive-matilda-witches-twits/

"Words matter," begins the discreet notice, which sits at
the bottom of the copyright page of Puffin's latest editions
of Roald Dahl's books. "The wonderful words of Roald Dahl
can transport you to different worlds and introduce you to
the most marvellous characters. This book was written many
years ago, and so we regularly review the language to ensure
that it can continue to be enjoyed by all today."

Put simply: these may not be the words Dahl wrote. The
publishers have given themselves licence to edit the writer
as they see fit, chopping, altering and adding where necessary
to bring his books in line with contemporary sensibilities.
By comparing the latest editions with earlier versions of
the texts, The Telegraph has found hundreds of changes to
Dahl's stories.

Language related to weight, mental health, violence, gender
and race has been cut and rewritten. Remember the Cloud-Men
in James and the Giant Peach? They are now the Cloud-People.
The Small Foxes in Fantastic Mr Fox are now female. In
Matilda, a mention of Rudyard Kipling has been cut and Jane
Austen added. It's Roald Dahl, but different.

I have some sympathy for an author electing to revise a work when
times change. Someone who bought the copyrights to a dead author's
work not so much.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 05:40:09 UTC, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/17/roald-dahl-books-rewritten-offensive-matilda-witches-twits/
>
> "Words matter," begins the discreet notice, which sits at
> the bottom of the copyright page of Puffin's latest editions
> of Roald Dahl's books. "The wonderful words of Roald Dahl
> can transport you to different worlds and introduce you to
> the most marvellous characters. This book was written many
> years ago, and so we regularly review the language to ensure
> that it can continue to be enjoyed by all today."
>
> Put simply: these may not be the words Dahl wrote. The
> publishers have given themselves licence to edit the writer
> as they see fit, chopping, altering and adding where necessary
> to bring his books in line with contemporary sensibilities.
> By comparing the latest editions with earlier versions of
> the texts, The Telegraph has found hundreds of changes to
> Dahl's stories.
>
> Language related to weight, mental health, violence, gender
> and race has been cut and rewritten. Remember the Cloud-Men
> in James and the Giant Peach? They are now the Cloud-People.
> The Small Foxes in Fantastic Mr Fox are now female. In
> Matilda, a mention of Rudyard Kipling has been cut and Jane
> Austen added. It's Roald Dahl, but different.
>
> I have some sympathy for an author electing to revise a work when
> times change. Someone who bought the copyrights to a dead author's
> work not so much.

Editors edit. They always have. How do you know that
Puffin didn't put all that stuff in to start with? They had
Rudyard Kipling stuff that needed selling.

And fresh edits mean fresh copyright, eh!

Also, what of this is yours, and what is copyrighted
property of the Daily Conservative?

In article <1393895a-89ae-4135-b7ca-cf85c866ca44n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, 18 February 2023 at 05:40:09 UTC, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>
>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/17/roald-dahl-books-rewritten-offensive-matilda-witches-twits/
>>
>> "Words matter," begins the discreet notice, which sits at
>> the bottom of the copyright page of Puffin's latest editions
>> of Roald Dahl's books. "The wonderful words of Roald Dahl
>> can transport you to different worlds and introduce you to
>> the most marvellous characters. This book was written many
>> years ago, and so we regularly review the language to ensure
>> that it can continue to be enjoyed by all today."
>>
>> Put simply: these may not be the words Dahl wrote. The
>> publishers have given themselves licence to edit the writer
>> as they see fit, chopping, altering and adding where necessary
>> to bring his books in line with contemporary sensibilities.
>> By comparing the latest editions with earlier versions of
>> the texts, The Telegraph has found hundreds of changes to
>> Dahl's stories.
>>
>> Language related to weight, mental health, violence, gender
>> and race has been cut and rewritten. Remember the Cloud-Men
>> in James and the Giant Peach? They are now the Cloud-People.
>> The Small Foxes in Fantastic Mr Fox are now female. In
>> Matilda, a mention of Rudyard Kipling has been cut and Jane
>> Austen added. It's Roald Dahl, but different.
>>
>> I have some sympathy for an author electing to revise a work when
>> times change. Someone who bought the copyrights to a dead author's
>> work not so much.
>
>Editors edit. They always have. How do you know that
>Puffin didn't put all that stuff in to start with? They had
>Rudyard Kipling stuff that needed selling.
>
>And fresh edits mean fresh copyright, eh!
>
>Also, what of this is yours, and what is copyrighted
>property of the Daily Conservative?

Touche, I suppose: I did edit the smart quotes into ASCII :-)

That said, I don't believe Thomas Bowdler should be a guiding light.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 10:40:09 PM UTC-7, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> a mention of Rudyard Kipling has been cut and Jane
> Austen added.

Ouch.

From CBC, a more liberal source,
https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/roald-dahl-censorship-allegations-1.6753828

I learned two additional facts:
1) Salman Rushdie is on record as calling these changes absurd censorship; and
2) Roald Dahl, during his life, was a "virulent anti-Semite".

Ouch.

In any case, though, while I would be outraged if we were talking about these changes
being made to a critical edition of the works of Roald Dahl to be used by college students
writing essays about his life and work... this isn't it. Rather, it's an edition that will go into
the hands of actual _children_.

Thus, whatever else one might think, this effort is at least well-intentioned.

Young children - _very_ young children, even, apparently - have impressionable minds.
So the literature they read shouldn't permeate their minds with the biases and
prejudices of a bygone day. Biases and prejudices that would be unconsciously
absorbed before they knew better, before they had any defenses with which to look
critically at what they read.

Given how carefully conservatives control children's literature to expunge every
mention of sex from it - something pretty much everyone agreed was necessary
without any need to even think about it back when I was young - I'm not really
sure if sympathy is appropriate when _they_ complain about the censorship of
children's literature.

My natural inclination is to view these alterations as wholly unnecessary, and the
works in their unexpurgated form as harmless, but I can't really get angry about
this kind of thing. Instead, the censorshp efforts of Ron de Santis in Florida
schools, now *that's* something that has me upset.

Of course, to some, this is just another front in the same war: the war to protect
children from liberal indoctrination. Guarding against children growing up with the
mental biases of a bygone age, and telling them the truth about slavery and racism...
these are supposed to be _bad_ things?

Maybe in a world without Ron de Santis, I would have been more inclinded to
criticize the tampering with Roald Dahl's children's books.

John Savard

On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 03:07:52 UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 10:40:09 PM UTC-7, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > a mention of Rudyard Kipling has been cut and Jane
> > Austen added.
> Ouch.
>
> From CBC, a more liberal source,
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/roald-dahl-censorship-allegations-1.6753828
>
> I learned two additional facts:
> 1) Salman Rushdie is on record as calling these changes absurd censorship; and
> 2) Roald Dahl, during his life, was a "virulent anti-Semite".
>
> Ouch.

We might examine "virulent". I think you aren't taking being racist
seriously if you aren't going to the meetings. And then there's
those who /organize/ the meetings. Should "virulent" be reserved
for those who are spreading the word actively?

....and I see that more than one other author has
already used the title _Tales of the Unexpurgated_.

On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 12:31:11 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 03:07:52 UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 10:40:09 PM UTC-7, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> > a mention of Rudyard Kipling has been cut and Jane
>> > Austen added.
>> Ouch.
>>
>> From CBC, a more liberal source,
>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/roald-dahl-censorship-allegations-1..6753828
>>
>> I learned two additional facts:
>> 1) Salman Rushdie is on record as calling these changes absurd censorship; and
>> 2) Roald Dahl, during his life, was a "virulent anti-Semite".
>>
>> Ouch.
>
>We might examine "virulent". I think you aren't taking being racist
>seriously if you aren't going to the meetings. And then there's
>those who /organize/ the meetings. Should "virulent" be reserved
>for those who are spreading the word actively?

It is indeed possible to distinguish between different levels of evil
in all forms of prejudice -- but, in the end, it doesn't matter
because they must /all/ be countered to eliminate the prejudice.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

In article <30f4c274-a926-4966-b157-21c9f49441c7n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>...and I see that more than one other author has
>already used the title _Tales of the Unexpurgated_.

(Hal Heydt)
Oscar Brand recorded an album (back when that meant "33-1/3
record") called "X" and it came in a plain, brown wrapper. He'd
gotten tired of cleaning up the lyrics of old songs so they were
suitable for popular consumption. The version of "The Bastard
King of England" is rather different than most people have heard.

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 03:07:52 UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 10:40:09 PM UTC-7, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> > a mention of Rudyard Kipling has been cut and Jane
>> > Austen added.
>> Ouch.
>>
>> From CBC, a more liberal source,
>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/roald-dahl-censorship-allegations-1.6753828
>>
>> I learned two additional facts:
>> 1) Salman Rushdie is on record as calling these changes absurd censorship; and
>> 2) Roald Dahl, during his life, was a "virulent anti-Semite".
>>
>> Ouch.
>
> We might examine "virulent". I think you aren't taking being racist
> seriously if you aren't going to the meetings. And then there's
> those who /organize/ the meetings. Should "virulent" be reserved
> for those who are spreading the word actively?

I did enjoy Mordecai Richler's demonstration of how all Bond villians are
undoubtedly Jewish. Unfortunately, I read all the Bond novels at an age where
Pussy Galore sounded like a real name.

In article <tt4572$1d2r2$1@dont-email.me>,
David Duffy <davidd02@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 03:07:52 UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 10:40:09 PM UTC-7, Ted Nolan
><tednolan> wrote:
>>> > a mention of Rudyard Kipling has been cut and Jane
>>> > Austen added.
>>> Ouch.
>>>
>>> From CBC, a more liberal source,
>>>
>https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/roald-dahl-censorship-allegations-1.6753828
>>>
>>> I learned two additional facts:
>>> 1) Salman Rushdie is on record as calling these changes absurd
>censorship; and
>>> 2) Roald Dahl, during his life, was a "virulent anti-Semite".
>>>
>>> Ouch.
>>
>> We might examine "virulent". I think you aren't taking being racist
>> seriously if you aren't going to the meetings. And then there's
>> those who /organize/ the meetings. Should "virulent" be reserved
>> for those who are spreading the word actively?
>
>I did enjoy Mordecai Richler's demonstration of how all Bond villians are
>undoubtedly Jewish. Unfortunately, I read all the Bond novels at an age where
>Pussy Galore sounded like a real name.

Buonaparte Ignace Gallia & Dr. No? Seems unlikely.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:39:15 PM UTC-7, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:

> >I did enjoy Mordecai Richler's demonstration of how all Bond villians are
> >undoubtedly Jewish. Unfortunately, I read all the Bond novels at an age where
> >Pussy Galore sounded like a real name.

> Buonaparte Ignace Gallia & Dr. No? Seems unlikely.

Indeed. It's true that at least _one_ of the Bond villains was Jewish, but that in
itself is not evidence of bigotry. However, the original Fleming novels do contain
much that is incorrect by contemporary standards.

John Savard

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 10:37:41 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 9:39:15 PM UTC-7, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>
> > >I did enjoy Mordecai Richler's demonstration of how all Bond villians are
> > >undoubtedly Jewish. Unfortunately, I read all the Bond novels at an age where
> > >Pussy Galore sounded like a real name.
>
> > Buonaparte Ignace Gallia & Dr. No? Seems unlikely.
>
> Indeed. It's true that at least _one_ of the Bond villains was Jewish, but that in
> itself is not evidence of bigotry. However, the original Fleming novels do contain
> much that is incorrect by contemporary standards.
>
I think I've found the essay referred to.

https://www.commentary.org/articles/mordecai-richler/james-bond-unmasked/

It does not actually claim that Mr. B. I. G. had something in common with Sammy
Davis Jr..

John Savard

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 04:20:52 -0000 (UTC), davidd02@tpg.com.au (David
Duffy) wrote:

>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 03:07:52 UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 10:40:09 PM UTC-7, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>> > a mention of Rudyard Kipling has been cut and Jane
>>> > Austen added.
>>> Ouch.
>>>
>>> From CBC, a more liberal source,
>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/roald-dahl-censorship-allegations-1..6753828
>>>
>>> I learned two additional facts:
>>> 1) Salman Rushdie is on record as calling these changes absurd censorship; and
>>> 2) Roald Dahl, during his life, was a "virulent anti-Semite".
>>>
>>> Ouch.
>>
>> We might examine "virulent". I think you aren't taking being racist
>> seriously if you aren't going to the meetings. And then there's
>> those who /organize/ the meetings. Should "virulent" be reserved
>> for those who are spreading the word actively?
>
>I did enjoy Mordecai Richler's demonstration of how all Bond villians are
>undoubtedly Jewish. Unfortunately, I read all the Bond novels at an age where
>Pussy Galore sounded like a real name.

Anything's possible, I suppose, but "undoubtedly" seems a bit of a
stretch.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 9:07:52 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 10:40:09 PM UTC-7, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > a mention of Rudyard Kipling has been cut and Jane
> > Austen added.
> Ouch.
>
> From CBC, a more liberal source,
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/roald-dahl-censorship-allegations-1.6753828
>
> I learned two additional facts:
> 1) Salman Rushdie is on record as calling these changes absurd censorship; and
> 2) Roald Dahl, during his life, was a "virulent anti-Semite".
>
> Ouch.
>
> In any case, though, while I would be outraged if we were talking about these changes
> being made to a critical edition of the works of Roald Dahl to be used by college students
> writing essays about his life and work... this isn't it. Rather, it's an edition that will go into
> the hands of actual _children_.
>
> Thus, whatever else one might think, this effort is at least well-intentioned.

No, it isn't.

This crap always starts with a pretext that someone can pretend is for the good. "It's for the children." It never stops there, and the good intention is just that, pretext.

It's still an attempt to rewrite reality, to rewrite the past, for the sake of whatever ideology motivates the person mutilating the work.

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 9:07:52 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 10:40:09 PM UTC-7, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > a mention of Rudyard Kipling has been cut and Jane
> > Austen added.
> Ouch.
>
> From CBC, a more liberal source,
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/roald-dahl-censorship-allegations-1..6753828
>
> I learned two additional facts:
> 1) Salman Rushdie is on record as calling these changes absurd censorship; and
> 2) Roald Dahl, during his life, was a "virulent anti-Semite".
>
> Ouch.
>
> In any case, though, while I would be outraged if we were talking about these changes
> being made to a critical edition of the works of Roald Dahl to be used by college students
> writing essays about his life and work... this isn't it. Rather, it's an edition that will go into
> the hands of actual _children_.
>
> Thus, whatever else one might think, this effort is at least well-intentioned.
>
> Young children - _very_ young children, even, apparently - have impressionable minds.
> So the literature they read shouldn't permeate their minds with the biases and
> prejudices of a bygone day. Biases and prejudices that would be unconsciously
> absorbed before they knew better, before they had any defenses with which to look
> critically at what they read.
>
> Given how carefully conservatives control children's literature to expunge every
> mention of sex from it - something pretty much everyone agreed was necessary
> without any need to even think about it back when I was young - I'm not really
> sure if sympathy is appropriate when _they_ complain about the censorship of
> children's literature.
>
> My natural inclination is to view these alterations as wholly unnecessary, and the
> works in their unexpurgated form as harmless, but I can't really get angry about
> this kind of thing. Instead, the censorshp efforts of Ron de Santis in Florida
> schools, now *that's* something that has me upset.
>
> Of course, to some, this is just another front in the same war: the war to protect
> children from liberal indoctrination. Guarding against children growing up with the
> mental biases of a bygone age, and telling them the truth about slavery and racism...
> these are supposed to be _bad_ things?
>
> Maybe in a world without Ron de Santis, I would have been more inclinded to
> criticize the tampering with Roald Dahl's children's books.
>
> John Savard

To my knowledge, deSantis has not attempt to _rewrite_ someone else's past work. He has attempt to exercise control over what the public-funded school system teaches and uses, which is a right of the State government (and the voters beyond them), and you can agree or disagree with that agenda, but he isn't trying to turn past authors and speakers into something they were not. The comparison isn't apples and oranges, it's apples and tires.

On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 3:07:52 AM UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 10:40:09 PM UTC-7, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > a mention of Rudyard Kipling has been cut and Jane
> > Austen added.
> Ouch.
>
> From CBC, a more liberal source,
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/roald-dahl-censorship-allegations-1..6753828
>
> I learned two additional facts:
> 1) Salman Rushdie is on record as calling these changes absurd censorship; and
> 2) Roald Dahl, during his life, was a "virulent anti-Semite".
>
> Ouch.
>
> In any case, though, while I would be outraged if we were talking about these changes
> being made to a critical edition of the works of Roald Dahl to be used by college students
> writing essays about his life and work... this isn't it. Rather, it's an edition that will go into
> the hands of actual _children_.
>
> Thus, whatever else one might think, this effort is at least well-intentioned.
>
> Young children - _very_ young children, even, apparently - have impressionable minds.
> So the literature they read shouldn't permeate their minds with the biases and
> prejudices of a bygone day. Biases and prejudices that would be unconsciously
> absorbed before they knew better, before they had any defenses with which to look
> critically at what they read.
>
> Given how carefully conservatives control children's literature to expunge every
> mention of sex from it - something pretty much everyone agreed was necessary
> without any need to even think about it back when I was young - I'm not really
> sure if sympathy is appropriate when _they_ complain about the censorship of
> children's literature.
>
> My natural inclination is to view these alterations as wholly unnecessary, and the
> works in their unexpurgated form as harmless, but I can't really get angry about
> this kind of thing. Instead, the censorshp efforts of Ron de Santis in Florida
> schools, now *that's* something that has me upset.
>
> Of course, to some, this is just another front in the same war: the war to protect
> children from liberal indoctrination. Guarding against children growing up with the
> mental biases of a bygone age, and telling them the truth about slavery and racism...
> these are supposed to be _bad_ things?
>
> Maybe in a world without Ron de Santis, I would have been more inclinded to
> criticize the tampering with Roald Dahl's children's books.
>
> John Savard
We know what happens to children that read a lot of Roald Dahl - they are grown up now, and they didn't by and large turn out Nazis or anti-semites. On the basis of current campaigns I have made a quick check of my memories to see if there is anything Roald Dahl that fosters censorship and cancel culture, but I don't see a plausible connection :-). We are in fact in the fortunate position of having a literature in English that dates back centuries, with intelligibility dropping off once you get past Shakespeare, but encompassing a wide variety of cultures over time. If we truly believe that diversity is strength, we should be enouraging the reading of a varied sampling from this in the original, perhaps with forewords principally giving historical background necessary to understand it. I am certainly very suspicious of organisations that say that children can only safely be brought up with one view of the world - theirs.

On 23/02/23 09:34, Andrew McDowell wrote:
snip
> We know what happens to children that read a lot of Roald Dahl - they
> are grown up now, and they didn't by and large turn out Nazis or
> anti-semites. On the basis of current campaigns I have made a quick
> check of my memories to see if there is anything Roald Dahl that
> fosters censorship and cancel culture, but I don't see a plausible
> connection :-). We are in fact in the fortunate position of having a
> literature in English that dates back centuries, with intelligibility
> dropping off once you get past Shakespeare, but encompassing a wide
> variety of cultures over time. If we truly believe that diversity is
> strength, we should be enouraging the reading of a varied sampling
> from this in the original, perhaps with forewords principally giving
> historical background necessary to understand it. I am certainly very
> suspicious of organisations that say that children can only safely be
> brought up with one view of the world - theirs.

Co-incidentally, today there was a headline in the propaganda rag, The
Guardian, which included the words; definitely, Merchant, antisemite,
Venice.

On Wednesday, 22 February 2023 at 20:34:12 UTC, Andrew McDowell wrote:
> We know what happens to children that read a lot of Roald Dahl -
> they are grown up now, and they didn't by and large turn out
> Nazis or anti-semites.

Let's not deny that some of them have. After all, they come
from /somewhere/.

However, I'll confidently claim, without looking for evidence,
that most people who read a lot don't grow up prejudiced.
Unless they read a lot of a particular thing, perhaps.
But otherwise, hatred is the opiate of the illiterate. But I'll
also make an exception again of people who make a career
of being prejudiced, who do it to make their living.
The organizers that I mentioned. And the writers and the
public speakers. I'm asserting that they know they're in the
wrong and they do it on purpose anyway. To get money.
To get power.

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 3:34:12 PM UTC-5, Andrew McDowell wrote:
> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 3:07:52 AM UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 10:40:09 PM UTC-7, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > > a mention of Rudyard Kipling has been cut and Jane
> > > Austen added.
> > Ouch.
> >
> > From CBC, a more liberal source,
> > https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/roald-dahl-censorship-allegations-1.6753828
> >
> > I learned two additional facts:
> > 1) Salman Rushdie is on record as calling these changes absurd censorship; and
> > 2) Roald Dahl, during his life, was a "virulent anti-Semite".
> >
> > Ouch.
> >
> > In any case, though, while I would be outraged if we were talking about these changes
> > being made to a critical edition of the works of Roald Dahl to be used by college students
> > writing essays about his life and work... this isn't it. Rather, it's an edition that will go into
> > the hands of actual _children_.
> >
> > Thus, whatever else one might think, this effort is at least well-intentioned.
> >
> > Young children - _very_ young children, even, apparently - have impressionable minds.
> > So the literature they read shouldn't permeate their minds with the biases and
> > prejudices of a bygone day. Biases and prejudices that would be unconsciously
> > absorbed before they knew better, before they had any defenses with which to look
> > critically at what they read.
> >
> > Given how carefully conservatives control children's literature to expunge every
> > mention of sex from it - something pretty much everyone agreed was necessary
> > without any need to even think about it back when I was young - I'm not really
> > sure if sympathy is appropriate when _they_ complain about the censorship of
> > children's literature.
> >
> > My natural inclination is to view these alterations as wholly unnecessary, and the
> > works in their unexpurgated form as harmless, but I can't really get angry about
> > this kind of thing. Instead, the censorshp efforts of Ron de Santis in Florida
> > schools, now *that's* something that has me upset.
> >
> > Of course, to some, this is just another front in the same war: the war to protect
> > children from liberal indoctrination. Guarding against children growing up with the
> > mental biases of a bygone age, and telling them the truth about slavery and racism...
> > these are supposed to be _bad_ things?
> >
> > Maybe in a world without Ron de Santis, I would have been more inclinded to
> > criticize the tampering with Roald Dahl's children's books.
> >
> > John Savard
> We know what happens to children that read a lot of Roald Dahl - they are grown up now, and they didn't by and large turn out Nazis or anti-semites. On the basis of current campaigns I have made a quick check of my memories to see if there is anything Roald Dahl that fosters censorship and cancel culture, but I don't see a plausible connection :-). We are in fact in the fortunate position of having a literature in English that dates back centuries, with intelligibility dropping off once you get past Shakespeare, but encompassing a wide variety of cultures over time. If we truly believe that diversity is strength, we should be enouraging the reading of a varied sampling from this in the original, perhaps with forewords principally giving historical background necessary to understand it. I am certainly very suspicious of organisations that say that children can only safely be brought up with one view of the world - theirs.

I expect to see 'Huckleberry Finn' pop up on the 'woke radar' any day. Or is it just so
far beyond the Pale that no school will admit it exists?

pt

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:56:29 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
<johnny1a.again@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 9:07:52 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 10:40:09 PM UTC-7, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> > a mention of Rudyard Kipling has been cut and Jane
>> > Austen added.
>> Ouch.
>>
>> From CBC, a more liberal source,
>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/roald-dahl-censorship-allegations-1..6753828
>>
>> I learned two additional facts:
>> 1) Salman Rushdie is on record as calling these changes absurd censorship; and
>> 2) Roald Dahl, during his life, was a "virulent anti-Semite".
>>
>> Ouch.
>>
>> In any case, though, while I would be outraged if we were talking about these changes
>> being made to a critical edition of the works of Roald Dahl to be used by college students
>> writing essays about his life and work... this isn't it. Rather, it's an edition that will go into
>> the hands of actual _children_.
>>
>> Thus, whatever else one might think, this effort is at least well-intentioned.
>
>No, it isn't.
>
>This crap always starts with a pretext that someone can pretend is for the good. "It's for the children." It never stops there, and the good intention is just that, pretext.
>
>It's still an attempt to rewrite reality, to rewrite the past, for the sake of whatever ideology motivates the person mutilating the work.
>

I watched the DVD /Daffy Duck: Frustrated Fowl/ last night.

It starts by showing (for an excessively long time) a statement about
how the cartoons were done /then/ and do not meet the standards of
/today/.

It also states that to change them would be the same as saying that
the offensive material had never been used.

So WB, at least, would agree with you.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 06:01:50 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 3:34:12?PM UTC-5, Andrew McDowell wrote:
>> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 3:07:52?AM UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
>> > On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 10:40:09 PM UTC-7, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> > > a mention of Rudyard Kipling has been cut and Jane
>> > > Austen added.
>> > Ouch.
>> >
>> > From CBC, a more liberal source,
>> > https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/roald-dahl-censorship-allegations-1..6753828
>> >
>> > I learned two additional facts:
>> > 1) Salman Rushdie is on record as calling these changes absurd censorship; and
>> > 2) Roald Dahl, during his life, was a "virulent anti-Semite".
>> >
>> > Ouch.
>> >
>> > In any case, though, while I would be outraged if we were talking about these changes
>> > being made to a critical edition of the works of Roald Dahl to be used by college students
>> > writing essays about his life and work... this isn't it. Rather, it's an edition that will go into
>> > the hands of actual _children_.
>> >
>> > Thus, whatever else one might think, this effort is at least well-intentioned.
>> >
>> > Young children - _very_ young children, even, apparently - have impressionable minds.
>> > So the literature they read shouldn't permeate their minds with the biases and
>> > prejudices of a bygone day. Biases and prejudices that would be unconsciously
>> > absorbed before they knew better, before they had any defenses with which to look
>> > critically at what they read.
>> >
>> > Given how carefully conservatives control children's literature to expunge every
>> > mention of sex from it - something pretty much everyone agreed was necessary
>> > without any need to even think about it back when I was young - I'm not really
>> > sure if sympathy is appropriate when _they_ complain about the censorship of
>> > children's literature.
>> >
>> > My natural inclination is to view these alterations as wholly unnecessary, and the
>> > works in their unexpurgated form as harmless, but I can't really get angry about
>> > this kind of thing. Instead, the censorshp efforts of Ron de Santis in Florida
>> > schools, now *that's* something that has me upset.
>> >
>> > Of course, to some, this is just another front in the same war: the war to protect
>> > children from liberal indoctrination. Guarding against children growing up with the
>> > mental biases of a bygone age, and telling them the truth about slavery and racism...
>> > these are supposed to be _bad_ things?
>> >
>> > Maybe in a world without Ron de Santis, I would have been more inclinded to
>> > criticize the tampering with Roald Dahl's children's books.
>> >
>> > John Savard
>> We know what happens to children that read a lot of Roald Dahl - they are grown up now, and they didn't by and large turn out Nazis or anti-semites. On the basis of current campaigns I have made a quick check of my memories to see if there is anything Roald Dahl that fosters censorship and cancel culture, but I don't see a plausible connection :-). We are in fact in the fortunate position of having a literature in English that dates back centuries, with intelligibility dropping off once you get past Shakespeare, but encompassing a wide variety of cultures over time. If we truly believe that diversity is strength, we should be enouraging the reading of a varied sampling from this in the original, perhaps with forewords principally giving historical background necessary to understand it. I am certainly very suspicious of organisations that say that children can only safely be brought up with one view of the world - theirs.
>
>I expect to see 'Huckleberry Finn' pop up on the 'woke radar' any day. Or is it just so
>far beyond the Pale that no school will admit it exists?

I believe a PC version has been around for quite some time.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Thursday, 23 February 2023 at 14:01:53 UTC, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 3:34:12 PM UTC-5, Andrew McDowell wrote:
> > On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 3:07:52 AM UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 10:40:09 PM UTC-7, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > > > a mention of Rudyard Kipling has been cut and Jane
> > > > Austen added.
> > > Ouch.
> > >
> > > From CBC, a more liberal source,
> > > https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/roald-dahl-censorship-allegations-1.6753828
> > >
> > > I learned two additional facts:
> > > 1) Salman Rushdie is on record as calling these changes absurd censorship; and
> > > 2) Roald Dahl, during his life, was a "virulent anti-Semite".
> > >
> > > Ouch.
> > >
> > > In any case, though, while I would be outraged if we were talking about these changes
> > > being made to a critical edition of the works of Roald Dahl to be used by college students
> > > writing essays about his life and work... this isn't it. Rather, it's an edition that will go into
> > > the hands of actual _children_.
> > >
> > > Thus, whatever else one might think, this effort is at least well-intentioned.
> > >
> > > Young children - _very_ young children, even, apparently - have impressionable minds.
> > > So the literature they read shouldn't permeate their minds with the biases and
> > > prejudices of a bygone day. Biases and prejudices that would be unconsciously
> > > absorbed before they knew better, before they had any defenses with which to look
> > > critically at what they read.
> > >
> > > Given how carefully conservatives control children's literature to expunge every
> > > mention of sex from it - something pretty much everyone agreed was necessary
> > > without any need to even think about it back when I was young - I'm not really
> > > sure if sympathy is appropriate when _they_ complain about the censorship of
> > > children's literature.
> > >
> > > My natural inclination is to view these alterations as wholly unnecessary, and the
> > > works in their unexpurgated form as harmless, but I can't really get angry about
> > > this kind of thing. Instead, the censorshp efforts of Ron de Santis in Florida
> > > schools, now *that's* something that has me upset.
> > >
> > > Of course, to some, this is just another front in the same war: the war to protect
> > > children from liberal indoctrination. Guarding against children growing up with the
> > > mental biases of a bygone age, and telling them the truth about slavery and racism...
> > > these are supposed to be _bad_ things?
> > >
> > > Maybe in a world without Ron de Santis, I would have been more inclinded to
> > > criticize the tampering with Roald Dahl's children's books.
> > >
> > > John Savard
> > We know what happens to children that read a lot of Roald Dahl - they are grown up now, and they didn't by and large turn out Nazis or anti-semites. On the basis of current campaigns I have made a quick check of my memories to see if there is anything Roald Dahl that fosters censorship and cancel culture, but I don't see a plausible connection :-). We are in fact in the fortunate position of having a literature in English that dates back centuries, with intelligibility dropping off once you get past Shakespeare, but encompassing a wide variety of cultures over time. If we truly believe that diversity is strength, we should be enouraging the reading of a varied sampling from this in the original, perhaps with forewords principally giving historical background necessary to understand it. I am certainly very suspicious of organisations that say that children can only safely be brought up with one view of the world - theirs.
> I expect to see 'Huckleberry Finn' pop up on the 'woke radar' any day. Or is it just so
> far beyond the Pale that no school will admit it exists?

It's been controversial since it was published - at least.
If someone complains about it in 2023 then it's hard
to tell whether A. they don't like it being sympathetic
to Black people, or B. they don't like what Black people
are /called/ in it, or C. pretending B but actually A.
So I always assume that it's C.

On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 10:12:26 AM UTC, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 February 2023 at 20:34:12 UTC, Andrew McDowell wrote:
> > We know what happens to children that read a lot of Roald Dahl -
> > they are grown up now, and they didn't by and large turn out
> > Nazis or anti-semites.
> Let's not deny that some of them have. After all, they come
> from /somewhere/.
>
> However, I'll confidently claim, without looking for evidence,
> that most people who read a lot don't grow up prejudiced.
> Unless they read a lot of a particular thing, perhaps.
> But otherwise, hatred is the opiate of the illiterate. But I'll
> also make an exception again of people who make a career
> of being prejudiced, who do it to make their living.
> The organizers that I mentioned. And the writers and the
> public speakers. I'm asserting that they know they're in the
> wrong and they do it on purpose anyway. To get money.
> To get power.
It has long been the claim of those selling education that it will also make people more civilised, and long been the case that educators have been disappointed with the people they have educated. One result of widespread literacy was the popular press. I think that educators would be better off merely claiming to teach people testable skills, if only for the reason that it is much easier to try different ways of imparting these skills, measure the results, and see which is best.

On 23 Feb 2023 at 17:56:49 GMT, "Robert Carnegie"
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 23 February 2023 at 14:01:53 UTC, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I expect to see 'Huckleberry Finn' pop up on the 'woke radar' any day. Or is it just so
>> far beyond the Pale that no school will admit it exists?
>
> It's been controversial since it was published - at least.
> If someone complains about it in 2023 then it's hard
> to tell whether A. they don't like it being sympathetic
> to Black people, or B. they don't like what Black people
> are /called/ in it, or C. pretending B but actually A.
> So I always assume that it's C.

It is indeed always C. Early controversy was A directly.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"It's made of people?"
"There's already a drink like that - Soylent Cola."
"How does it taste?"
"It varies from person to person." -- Fry and Leela

Oh, incidentally.

I didn't immediately recognize the old Soviet joke, about how the
victory of Communism was historically inevitable, but the past
keeps getting rewritten, so I Googled it, and my first result was

https://sharedhistory.eu/11-archive/41-the-future-is-certain-it-is-only-the-past-that-is-unpredictable-anna-doma-ska

And I certainly don't approve of racism, or preventing refugees from
finding refuge, or the murder of the mayor of Gdansk...

But I was still a bit annoyed at what I felt was dishonesty.

It wasn't sheer bigotry at people who were _different_ - who
looked different, who came from a different cultural background,
and so on - entering Europe that fuelled the emergence of
right-wing political parties.

How about the mobs of young people that went around destroying
people's cars for fun in France?

Or the German celebration that was marred by thugs distracting
women by fondling them to steal their purses and such... with rapes
taking place in a few instances... which the celebrants weren't warned
about, since a similar thing took place in Sweden shortly before, but
was hushed up since they were afraid it would fan anti-immigrant
sentiment?

Yes, it's wrong to blame an entire racial group for the crimes of a
few.

But it's _also_ wrong for politicians to be indifferent to the need of
ordinary people, who can't afford to send their children to private
schools or live in gated communities, for public safety. Limousine
liberals, as the epithet goes, bear a significant share of the responsibility
if an exasperated populace finally turns to fascists or their ilk in
desperation to find someone willing to confront the problem of crime
that has made their communities less livable.

Immigrants will be economically disadvantaged. They may be hard-working,
but their children will expect full equality, and likely not get it - and so there
are going to be problems. If an excessive amount of immigration is allowed
because businesses demand cheap labor - well, aside from hurting the
bargaining power of the working class, this also makes the places where they
live less safe. There will be pushback for something that should never have
happened in the first place.

The trouble is that the likeliest result - someone like Trump, or worse - isn't
what the country needs as a correction. It needs instead what it didn't have
in the first place; people who weren't bigots, but who did put the interests of
the ordinary person first, instead of allowing themselves to be manipulated
through ideology into dividing their supporters and helping businessmen
exploit the working class, which is what liberals should be against.

So while the article is laudable enough for being against bigotry, it is
simply dishonest in pretending that the current backlash against immigrants
has no cause but bigotry, ignoring the serious decline in the safety and
livability of Western Europe because of irresponsibly allowing in an excessive
number of immigrants.

John Savard