Words have meaning.

I have been thinking recently of the group that seeks to censor Mark Twain's Huck Finn. I am deeply disturbed by this idea for several reasons. First, I am against censorship on it's face. So 'nuff said right? Oh, so very wrong.

To satisfy those who question my intention, the word to be censored is not part of my own vocabulary and if I hear it used in conversation I am quick to tell the offender what a bigot she it.

But that is not what this is about at all.

In the name of political correctness and sensitivity the words of one our greatest American authors would be altered. And in doing so the meaning changes.

In the context of Huck Finn, the word 'nigger' has a much more complicated connotation than the term 'slave'. The term slave does not always refer to someone who is black and the absolute oppression of an entire people is not inherently implied as it is with the term 'nigger'. The term 'slave' fails to convey the dehumanizing and torturous treatment of blacks in post-civil war America at the hands of whites.

Removing this term is absolutely revisionist history. Re-writing the words of Mark Twain robs our culture of a more realistic picture of southern society...the remnants of which still remain.

Is this a word that deserves any role in our current vernacular? NO. An emphatic NO. And the reason is that the word carries with it such deep offense that in the 21st century it simply doesn't belong. Not to mention there is no single word in the English language that can be directed at white people that comes anywhere within the same strataphere of carrying a similar level of offense.

The death of civil discourse in America

Our entire nation is mourning the events of this past Saturday at a Tucson Safeway. But the question is, can meaning be found in such a senseless act? It's hard to say. This event was on the heels of other acts of violence here in the Midwest. First an Omaha teenager shot and killed the associate principle and shot and critically injured the principal at his high school. This followed his suspension from school for driving on the football field. Then days later, here in Des Moines, a student was suspended after bringing a loaded gun on campus.

And it's important to remember the public discourse so common these days that might be setting the example. When you have Sharon Angle of Nevada suggesting "2nd ammendment remedies" for elections that do not turn out as one desires; Sarah Palin used a gunsight to target Gabriella Giffords congressional seat and we as a nation have been sitting on pins and needles just waiting for some wing nut to take these exhortations seriously enough to act on them.

Yes there has always been school violence and Political assasinations. And that is a terrible thing. But how much are we incentivizing the crazies to act out with violence? Is our national rhetoric becoming so hateful that we are telling members of society that incivility is appropriate behavior? Why isn't it possible for those in disagreement to engage in thoughtful and critical dialogue instead of resorting to maliciousness, foul language, and yes violence.

Recently I was involved in an on-line discussion in which one participant became especially vitriolic in her disagreement with the other members of the group. Several times she referred to the ideas of others as stupid or idiotic. In a later posting she finally resorted to fouled language. Now mind you, this was a pretty benign subject--nothing to do with politics or religion--just looking for opinions on a particular behavior. It should come as no surprise that the group picked up their toys and went home as evidenced by the lack of further posts to the site.

So again, one must wonder what is it about us that wants confrontation? What is it about our national identity that finds incivility in political dialogue helpful or appropriate? Clearly it is neither.

The question is no longer why do you blog? Now it is why don't you blog?

I have recently had the opportunity to participate in a conversation regarding why people blog. Naturally there were many different opinions expressed. Some believe it is for self expression,others believe it is for self-exposure and still other believe it is for self reflection. Many discussed the idea that blogging is one way of contributing to the community from which we often take so much. Another thought was that blogging is part of what web 2.0 technology is all about.
This was an asynchronous on-line discussion which has allowed for nearly 100 different comments so far. Needless to say everyone had something slightly different to offer.
And then someone said, "People blog because they are not talented enough to be published".
Abruptly the conversation stopped for a time. Two participants argued alternative views including that publication is not necessarily a metric of talent.
Another participant suggested bloggers only write for exposure and since exposure is greater in published documents then why wouldn't everyone want more exposure? Therefore, if people were talented enough to be published they would have no reason or motivation to blog.

These two individuals seem to completely miss the basic premise of web 2.0, which is a community of collaborators, sharers of Information if you will. In this brave new world, contribution of content is king and there are lots of opportunities to do so. Which is a good thing. The more voices that are heard the greater the democratization of mass communication. Thanks to web 2.0 just about anyone can have a voice. If their story is significant in some way, it will get exposure. In some cases, more exposure than could have ever been enjoyed had it been published in one paid publication.

I think many would disagree that people blog because they have no talent. I hope so.
Why don't you let me know what you think,