Interesting question. My position on this is unequivocal though politically informed - no matter how offended or hurt you are, if you believe in freedom of speech and expression, you do not tolerate censorship or banning in any form whatsoever. There are ways and ways of expressing dissent or offense, but censorship is not one of them. To me, even one exception to this basic principle, no matter how trivial it may seem, is opening up a pandora's box. To give you just one example: in a disgraceful act of politicking, India banned Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses and the political and social consequences, not simply for the author, but the country as a whole, was disastrous.Yak wrote: But I really think that some small things do need to be changed. I don't want to see books in a store featuring a gollywog called 'Nigger'. Why does it have to be, to some people , all or nothing? Why not just change the most obviously hurtful bits and leave the rest?
But even if this weren't the case, the idea of expunging words and phrases from texts that were written in a different historical period does seem rather quaint to me. Seen through 21st century norms and values, nearly every historical text, regardless of its country of origin, will be offensive (and who knows what 21st century texts will look like to future generations). You can hardly alter every one of them.
But I am also curious about the public debate, if any, that might have surrounded the revision of EB's texts. I am guessing it has the sanction of UK law, because otherwise surely it would have invited lawsuits (??). Maybe someone can tell me more about this. I would be very interested.
Well, i'm waiting for the day i read Oliver Twist saying, "Please sir, I want some more Weetabix!".
of course, that it was written by Enid Blyton.
now well be more than one 'correct' answer to some quiz questions......
