I am not one to advocate censorship, but I get the emotion behind those people who are uncomfortable with the use of certain racial words in Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn.”
Imagine if in our modern classrooms, instead of reading Huck Finn, teachers chose Twain’s classic travelogue “Roughing It” instead.
I could laugh with Twain’s writing on polygamy and pioneers in Salt Lake City in the book:
“With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I was feverish to plunge in headlong and achieve a great reform here — until I saw the Mormon women. Then I was touched. My heart was wiser than my head. It warmed toward these poor, ungainly and pathetically ‘homely’ creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said, ‘No — the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure — and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence.’”
But while laughing, I would be conscious of the fact that my ancestors and their looks are the brunt of his joke. I might feel excluded by such humor, even though I am mature enough to see that Twain meant little ill by it and can even see some value in how his humor might break down stupid stereotypes.
Still, would I like it if modern school children were getting some of their impressions of Mormons from such humor? I don’t think I would like it. I might even complain to the school board about it.
As most know, Twain’s writing about Mormons was part of his times. Mormons were often portrayed as weird people because of their private lives, and that caused some pain then — and now.
With that background, it seems the news media have not lost interest in the private lives of Mormons even today.
Recently, two of America’s leading newspapers ran articles about Mormon dating within a few days of each other. To be sure, neither seemed malicious. Indeed, Mormons were seen as favorable — if quaint — in both. One was written by a Mormon, not an outsider, but it was a Mormon, who in the story, publicly stated her intent to soon fundamentally violate the commandments and covenants of her Mormon upbringing.
About that seeming quaintness: Back in the day, Mormons were outside the national norm because of their marital practices. Today, Mormons, who no longer practice polygamy, can seem quaint because of their traditional respect for monogamous marriage and for full chastity. Kind of an irony, actually, that change in perception. Yet this irony shows how we Mormons are sometimes excluded from the national mainstream through nothing but our Mormon beliefs.
The irony shows why I might feel sensitive about some news stories in ways non-Mormon writers might not understand.
The Washington Post’s piece on Mormon courtship was part of a regular series in the style section called “On Love.” The story written by Ellen McCarthy came out on Jan. 7. The well-written piece talked about the rapid courtship and eventual marriage of a Mormon couple in the Washington D.C. Temple.
Had the writer written the story for a Mormon audience, I would have been largely touched. It talked of how the couple felt as though they had been directed to get together at BYU and then overcoming the challenges to their relationship. It seemed like a classic, weepy Mormon story.
Many Mormons and non-Mormons probably quite liked it.
But, somehow, the article seemed to me as if it were another one of those articles that seem to say, “Hey, look at those Mormon weirdos over there! I can’t believe how quickly and how young they get married!”
So, in context of history and of the newspaper’s large audience, the story bothered me.
To be sure, I don’t object to news articles like the one in the Post. It seems the whole intent of this Post column remains to celebrate the diversity of experience of those who love and the ways they love.
Reporting on diversity is an important part of what journalists do. That doesn’t change the fact that it made me a little uncomfortable for reasons of which the author likely knew little.
This all relates to the recent controversies over a new version of Huck Finn that deletes its racially charged words.
Because of those sections about Mormons in “Roughing It,” I think I can get part of the concerns about race in Huck Finn, even if I don’t fully understand it.
Would I censor Huck Finn or change its text? No. Huck Finn must stand on its own merits, and it seems to me to be a story about overcoming racial misperceptions. As such, it remains an important book and should for a long time.
However, would I object to those who might not want it taught to their children in school? No. My experience as a Mormon provides me with compassion for that point of view.
