Reply With QuoteCan't help but think that the byline image reflects the writer's sheer excitement about being able to get that word into a published piece so many times. Quite disturbing otherwiseOriginally Posted by Burney
concede that this is probably fair enough...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ace-names.html
Can't help but think that the byline image reflects the writer's sheer excitement about being able to get that word into a published piece so many times. Quite disturbing otherwise
Happy Kānuka!
zp_Kanu_Cele_990424_CSport_229.jpg
It's true enough that times and mores change and we adjust accordingly; one just wonders how far your story is from this story. Not very far at all, I'd suggest. A slippery slope?
https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...age-harper-lee
Yeah. He even gets a few 'Darkies' in at the end as well.
Funny corruption of my post there, randomly adding "388" at the end, making it look like I was saying "Happy Kanuka! 388 today"
I would argue that the book exists in a clear historical context and thus can be read in that context. The place names, on the other hand, exist in the modern day and - in the context of modern mores - are clearly no longer appropriate or fit for purpose.
How old is he claiming to be, out of interest?
I might argue that words are not offensive in isolation, they only become offensive when used offensively; furthermore these place names, whilst existing in the modern day, also have a clear historical context and tell us something of the mores of the settlers who named them, just as the book tells us of the mores of the US south in the 30s.
I might argue that, but I probably can't be ársed.
Exactly but who can't love a line like this
while the Bible received complaints against its “religious viewpoint”.
Posting Permissions