Revisions of literature whitewash history

In today’s world, the act of teaching, learning and even reading are all highly political. What is taught, how it is taught, what is read, how it is read, these are all questions that we are reckoning with on a daily basis. And unfortunately, the current trajectories of our answers represent a conscious erasure of uncomfortable history.

In 2022, Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed the Individual Freedom Act, more commonly known as the Stop W.O.K.E Act. This law criminalizes any instruction that discusses identity as a basis for discrimination. Since its passage, this law has prompted various decisions that constitute censorship — prime examples include rejecting 42 widely accepted math textbooks and banning AP African American Studies from being taught in the state. This law promotes an inaccurate representation of a complicated history and a similarly complicated present by erasing struggles, contributions and experiences that deviate from traditional nationalist narratives of life.

Recent developments have expanded the erasure of history from an ill-intentioned conservative policy phenomenon to a well-intentioned social literary trend that is nonetheless highly problematic. Specifically, es-

Posthumous revisions of offensive language in literature, while well-intentioned, whitewash history tates — which oversee posthumous decisions regarding authors’ work — and publishers of many famous authors are revising offensive language in already published works in order to reflect modern language norms. Among the affected authors are Agatha Christie, Roald Dahl and Ian Flemming. This ablelist and body-shaming language has been replaced with body-neutral language. And in Ian Fleming’s books, racial slurs have been censored. With many cases, the estates and publishers assert that their revisions align with what the authors themselves would have wanted — that is to say contin- perficial inclusivity and permit uncomplicated adoration of well-liked authors. However, this is at the expense of a genuine historical understanding which critiques offensive undertones and overtones without erasing them.

Moreover, the removal of specific marginalizing and its contemporary implications are exactly what legislation such as the Stop W.O.K.E Act attempts to prohibit. Learning critical race theory disrupts simplified narratives of white supremacy. Similarly, learning that authors we idealize were themselves employing marginalizing language disrupts their status as literary models. These are disruptions with which we must engage. specific erasure of history is especially concerning because it is disguised as a well-meaning attempt to remove marginalizing language from classic books. However, it is essential to see this for what it is — an unwillingness to discuss the complicated and problematic historical context in which these authors lived and their own marginalizing prejudices. Instead of historically contextualizing these offensive phrases, the phrases, along with an opportunity to learn nuanced history, are simply erased. In Agatha Christie’s books, stereotypical references to ethnicity and racialized descriptors have been removed. In Roald Dahl, much of the ued relevance for their stories. But we must question whether these revisions actually do violence to authentic historical narratives.

Walter Benjamin once asserted that “there is no document of civilization that is not at the same time a document of barbarism.” Novels, as historical documents of past human civilizations, are documents of barbarism. To revise their language is to damage a document of history and to excuse the original barbarity by pretending that it never happened. Acknowledgement of complexity in these texts complicates the value of these novels and contextualizes their perspectives. Revisions promote su- and overtly offensive phrases cannot erase the overall offensive dispositions of the author, which inevitably appear in the plot at a subtler level. For example, the removal of a racial slur does not mean that the character’s behaviors will not conform to racialized stereotypes. But in removing the blatantly offensive, publishers have absolved the public and themselves of interrogating racism, ableism, ethnic stereotyping and sexism in literature. We are no longer obliged to engage with why a racial slur is condemnable today if it was once acceptable or why popular authors display problematic tendencies.

These conversations regarding past

Instead of changing literary language to reflect present norms, we should discuss its historical context and the flaws of the authors. It is useful and vital to discuss the social milieu of past centuries — their flaws, their norms and their modern day implications. Failure to engage in these conversations, both inside classrooms and in more public forums like social media, will whitewash a complicated past and permit historical misunderstandings.

NAIMA SAWAYA is a Viewpoint Writer who writes about Academics for The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.

The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the authors alone.