Friday, November 30: The play will go on. Gary Hines will have to find a different idiotic cause. Will somebody give that man a real job? Or a hobby?
————————————————————-
6:47 a.m. PT: Provocative title, eh? Keep reading.
When I was a teen, my grandmother used to watch “Murder, She Wrote.” I thought the hour-long mystery drama was exceedingly boring. Years later, after the show went into syndication, I watched a few episodes to see if the show lived up to its 80s hype. Indeed. I was hooked. I’ve probably seen every episode from all 12 seasons.
I’d heard the main character, a teacher-turned-mystery-novelist named Jessica Fletcher, was modeled after British mystery author Agatha Christie, who wrote such books as The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (my favorite), Murder on the Orient Express, and Death on the Nile. I don’t know whether it’s true, but I started reading Christie’s novels. I was hooked.
(See Agatha Christie’s Official Site)
I especially enjoyed the novel And Then There Were None. It was originally published in 1939 under the title Ten Little Niggers, which came from a nursery rhyme of the same name. The title eventually was changed to Ten Little Indians, then to And Then There Were None.
By now you’ve probably heard the latest NAACP uproar. With no important work left to do, a local NAACP branch president in Ohio pitched a fit complaining about an upcoming high school performance of a play based on the book.
Gary Hines, who owns a “diversity training” consulting company that no doubt exists because of and has benefited from skin color preferences, said the “lack of diversity” at the school explains why a play based on a book with an offensive original title was chosen.” The school caved and canceled the play. (Source)
Two points here. First, Christie was a product of her times. When she chose the title Ten Little Niggers, the term nigger was in common usage, at least in the U.S. In due time, the title was changed. That doesn’t make it any less offensive, but the book’s original title doesn’t detract from the intricately plotted story she wove together. The book itself isn’t racist in the least. I’d recommend her books to anyone who wants to enjoy a good, old-fashioned, “cozy” English murder mystery.
Second, I think it was ridiculous of the school to cancel the play. But you already know what I think. If Hines is bored with his day job to the point of complaining about a high school play (free advertising for his skin color-based business?), I’d recommend he give it up and travel the country researching racist intent behind everything from local laws to historical landmarks to gun control (I wonder if he believes in the right to bear arms…) to works of art to church traditions. If he looks hard enough, he’ll find it.
The very concepts of dialogue, discussion, and debate have deteriorated in this country, thanks to that odious practice called political correctness, let alone actually engaging in these things. It saddens me that individuals and institutions prostrate themselves before the PC god, deathly afraid of appearing insensitive at best or racist at worst.
Both Christie’s book and play have inherent value worth discussing, and discussing “offensive” things would help those high school students hone their intellect. Engaging in debate – learning how to formulate and support arguments, cross-examine opponents, etc. – is a stimulating exercise that shouldn’t be stifled because the subject might be controversial or offensive. Canceling the play, no matter how trivial it may seem to have done so, sends the wrong (albeit PC) message.
But believing that makes me a product of times past, gone forever.
Also see Michelle Malkin’s posts here and here.
Update: Commenter Doug writes: “Just a note: Christie’s novel was never published in the U.S. under its orginal title, only as ‘Ten Little Indians’ and ‘And Then There Were None.’ Amazingly, the Brits stuck with the orginal title until the 1980s. This is the first controversy I can recall over the book, which is the world’s bestselling mystery novel.”
Look at that Google juice, man. Not a cool distinction, but nevertheless…
Later…Commenter and blogger Bob Krumm writes: “Mr. Hines apparently isn’t against all plays containing the n-word–even plays that still use it. Just three years ago he, himself, appeared in a community theatre production of A Raisin in the Sun.”
Very good!
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 46 comments }
Does this mean Hines is against gun control since the racist roots of that Democrat policy are far more heinous than Christie’s non-gaff. Unlike Christie’s title, the Democrat gun control movement stemmed from Democrat desire to kill, terrorize and control southern black folk.
Incidentally, “And Then There Were None” was my first Christie novel. I thought it was great, though my tastes tend more towards fantasy and science fiction.
Kalroy
Spot on, Kalroy.
If changing the title of Christie’s novel doesn’t make it any less offensive, how could attending Mr. Hines’ diversity training make me or any other “person not of color” any less offending? It seems to me that he is saying, “There is no redemption but through Gary Hines.”
Remember a few months back when some teachers in a black school were “lynching” a student because they wanted to make sure that the children didn’t forget their “heritage”? This falls into the same category – I read that book probably 45 years or go, and it was always “Ten Little Indians”. I also learned “eenie meenie miney moe” as “Catch a tiger by the toe” – and that’s how I taught it to my kids. I knew that a different term was used in the original, but my kids didn’t, because I never told them. So – if we wipe out the racist terminology from our cultural memory, then it’s gone. What I see here is a need for some blacks to keep the term in use so they can be offended – they don’t really _want_ the terms they object to to disappear. They _want_ to keep picking the scab.
To be honest, I don’t really understand why “nigger” is so offensive. It’s really just a variant of the latin term for black. It’s just a descriptive – so why is it so offensive to a people that these days prefer to be called “blacks” – the english translation of negro? I was taught not to use it – “it wasn’t polite” – so I didn’t, but I really don’t understand the _offensiveness_ of the term.
Just a note: Christie’s novel was never published in the U.S. under its orginal title, only as “Ten Little Indians” and “And Then There Were None.” Amazingly, the Brits stuck with the orginal title until the 1980s. This is the first controversy I can recall over the book, which is the world’s bestselling mystery novel.
LSB says that the NAACP has “no important work let to do”; I strongly disagree. I believe the NAACP has a functional role to play in today’s society and there are many good things it can and should do in the name of combating racism and discrimination.
But boy, Hines’ bone-headed protest certainly lends itself to that criticism. There’s nothing wrong about letting the public know about the play’s history, and I’ll bet if he had approached the school suggesting that a blurb be put in the program about the play’s history, that would have been fine AND educational.
But advocating censorship? For a high school play which, as it stands today, is not the slightest bit racist or offensive? That’s worse than being overly PC; that’s just plain mean.
I’ll bet there are several high school students, and members of the greater community-at-large who now have a very dim view the NAACP.
Way to shoot yourself in the foot, NAACP.
LaShawn, I happen to live in the area of that school (our church actually meets at that school and was told we could go ahead and meet this weekend due to the cancellation). The NAACP’s repeatedly used phrase has been that “you can’t ignore history.” The counterargument has been that you can’t erase it either by avoiding products of that history. The students really hoped to use it as a springboard to discussion. For a group that keeps howling for diversity and discussion, they certainly backtracked when the offer was made. This play has been in the works for the last year. If they want to inform, then they should do so. But this is certainly not an effective means of creating meaningful dialog on the subject. I cannot believe this has made national news.
It’s interesting to me how many influential figures of the past were freely racist and it was acceptable to so much of society. I know it was the nom-du jour but it still reduced people to less than an equal person before the user.
Now if only we could eliminate it’s common usage today…
I’m a huge Agatha Christie fan, and Ten Little Indians isn’t racist at all. The title was changed quickly because it was insensitve even then. One of the NAACP’s objections is that there was a black and a noose on the original cover sixty years ago. They don’t realize that is because one of the characters is hung.
If Hines ever finds out the origin of General John Pershing’s nickname we may have to stop celebrating Veterans Day lest we accidentally celebrate what he did for the World.
Mr. Hines apparently isn’t against all plays containing the n-word–even plays that still use it. Just three years ago he, himself, appeared in a community theatre production of A Raisin in the Sun.
http://www.bobkrumm.com/blog/?p=1654
Over at Michelle Malkin’s, she received an email from one of the actors who said that after all the work they put into rehearsals, they want to go ahead and put it on in spite of Hines. Right now they’re looking for another venue. I hope they get it.
However, I’m betting that Hines and possibly the school admin will try to punish the kids for their unPC-ness, perhaps with remedial training by Hines. I’m sure it won’t be for lack of trying. This should be interesting.
Speaking of MM, here’s another item deriving from the original being discussed. Consider it your humor for the day…pc idiocy run amok…
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/28/more-diversity-lunacy-the-army-intelligence-and-security-commands-list-of-forbidden-words/
I find it interesting that Hines’ obvious financial interest in this affair was reported rather than covered up. Looks like the NAACP’s Teflon is finally starting to wear off.
I emailed the school board and asked them if their intention is to never permit that play to be performed due to what the title of the book was in the UK.
I would be very suspicious of any ‘diversity training’ that Mr. Hines would try to offer. I think he has issues to work out first.
There isn’t anything racial about the novel, of course. The original title is offensive, I agree, but what the ten littles were or weren’t had nothing to do with the story. It was a counting-out rhyme.
There are still some pretty bad examples of racism. My son’s best friend’s family, who are black, felt they had to move out of our town because of the way they were treated here. And I live in an “enlightened” area. Uh-huh. But this kind of stuff makes a mockery of the entire issue. It makes it harder for people to accept that real examples of bigotry exist, because they’ve seen so many phony examples. If you’re going to cry, “Wolf!”, you’d better be able to show that there really is a wolf out there.
An organization that uses the used-to-be-polite-but-now-is-un-PC term “Colored People” in its name takes exception to a play adapted from the most popular mystery novel in the world that was never called by it’s offensive British title in this country and that actually never had any racist content. Rich. If they’ve run out of real work how about making even a small effort to “advance” the ethnic Africans of Darfur who may be way over in Africa, but who are being harmed for the color of their skins and their faiths by the henchmen of the government of Sudan?.
Wikipedia confirms something that I have known for some time (and something that I suspect most Agatha Christie fans or Anglophiles in general would know):
“In the United Kingdom and other parts of the English-speaking world, the word was often used to refer to people of Pakistani or Indian descent, or merely to darker-skinned foreigners in general…”
This doesn’t make the “N-word” acceptable for use, but it does somewhat deflate the argument that the word is a derogatory term exclusively meant for those of African origin.
There’s something tangential to this in the book I’m reading: “Red Star Over Hollywood” by Ronald and Allis Radosh. At one point the Communist Party was criticizing its own member writers for “white chauvinism” for small things like words/phrases such as “whitewash” and “black sheep”. Dalton Trumbo, one of the Hollywood 10, ran afoul of this himself!
You can find this material using the “search inside the book” feature over at Amazon.
I wonder if he despises the Democratic Party since they were the ones originally on the wrong side of the slavery issue.
Also, Mr. Hines appears to be unaware that “across the pond” certain words have different meanings. “Nigger” was not the pejorative term in Britain that it is in the U.S. until the 1980’s. Here are some other examples of differences:
If you ask for a rubber in the U.S. you will be given a condom. In Britain you will be given an eraser.
In the U.S., “shag” is a dance. In Britan it is slang for having sex.
And my favorite is the shock that registered on my husband’s English grandmother’s face when I told him to “Get off his fanny” and do something. In the U.S. it a polite way of saying bottom. In Britain it means female genitalia. I was mortified.
No word should be legislated out of use, Mark.
If people made a choice to eliminate it, that’s great, but the Government should stay out of it.
Currently, if someone says something you find offensive, punish them by not being around them.
If enough people ostracize someone, they’ll get the idea.
Back in high school, I read through all of Christie’s work – finely crafted, original, tricky (Murder of Roger Ackroyd, anyone?) and a joy to read.
If we do not remember what it used to be like, we cannot appreciate how far we have come. When a work is presented and discussed in light of the accepted mores and standards of the times in which it was written, we gain a greater understanding of those times, and the progress (or lack thereof) since then. It makes no sense to me to be offended at a common term or behavior in a a work written years and years ago, when those living when it was written would not have themselves been offended. It’s a waste of time to try to rewrite literary history to make it PC, when we should be concentrating on addressing legitimate injustices that exist today.
Jim C., re that “black sheep” thing–
Just today on tv I heard a black woman refer to her jailbird son as “the black sheep of the family.”
Stella!–
You are absolutely right. “Knock up” is another one–in Britain it only means a wake-up call (or a knock on the door).
Which maybe is really, really needed over here right now.
Cue the choir: “Hal-le-lu-jah, hallelujah Hallelujah…”
According to Michelle, the show will go on.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/10-little-indians-will-go-on/
Too fast on the trigger:
An excerpt (read the rest at the link in #28:
Sounds like a major case of backpedaling once the story went national. Thank God for the blogosphere, otherwise, the PC-Stormtroopers would have gotten away with it.
“If we do not remember what it used to be like, we cannot appreciate how far we have come.”
Which is the whole point of such exercises in ridiculousness.
If we do appreciate how far we’ve come we might be inclined to tell the NAACP to declare victory, collect their medals, and go home already; and then Mr. Hines would have to find a real job.
La Shawn, great points as always. But when you said, and correctly I might add, that novels and plays like this one are a springboard to discussion and debate in order to help kinds hone their skills, you have forgotten one important point.
The PC crazed crowd does not want our students to be able to discuss, debate and discern for themselves what is, for them, proper behavior. For the PC left, the message is “toe our line of ‘proper’ behavior, or else.” Young adults thinking for themselves! Perish the thought.
This doesn’t make the “N-word” acceptable for use, but it does somewhat deflate the argument that the word is a derogatory term exclusively meant for those of African origin.
The protest is absurd and NAACP ought better to focus on other issues, like economic/financial education. And of course diversity training is one of the more evil creations of modern times.
However, I do take small issue with those making the effort to show that the use of the word nigger is benign in Britain, or that it’s impossible to understand why people take offense.
I don’t think American blacks have ever suggested that “nigger” was exclusive to us here. (Every American being niggers, but not every nigger being an American black).
However, it is exclusively used in most cases to represent dark skinned people, and not in a good light. The niggers of Britian were the Asian elements of Indian and Pakistani decent due to skin color. Wherever you are, or go, if dark skinned, there is a negative name for you. It’s not term of endearment.
And the reason it can be offensive to blacks (and less mentally offensive coming out of the mouths of blacks) is because it was the descriptive term used by generations of whites in speaking of our parents, grandparents, great grandparents, and beyond. And the attitudes of those who used the word most freely, contributed to some serious setbacks for blacks, whether it’s something like my grandfather NOT being able to live or work anywhere he wanted, to blacks being unable to get certain types of insurance or education.
A slave can call a fellow slave “Slave” in jockular jest, but the son of the slave owner cannot come and say, “Yo, sup slave” without a twing of weirdness.
It ought not be a hard distinction to make, though the word should not be used by anyone at all.
#32 – Please let me know where to send your Christmas present, your post is worth it! Thank you!
A slave can call a fellow slave “Slave” in jockular jest, but the son of the slave owner cannot come and say, “Yo, sup slave” without a twing of weirdness.
I did my student teaching at a high school with a large black and Latino population (whites were a distinct minority). What about the “twing of weirdness” I felt whenever I heard my black students call each other “nigger”? It is still common today.
Frankly, I have no sympathy for the notion that “nigger” is offensive when spoken by white (or “non-colored”) people, but somehow less offensive when used by blacks (or “colored” minorities). The entire debate about “nigger” (and the Confederate flag, for that matter) seem to be an effort to avoid substantive issues while keeping blacks in a more-or-less state of perpetual outrage – and prevent them from dwelling on the failure of black “leaders” to deliver them to the Promised Land via government fiat.
Trish, you brought back memories of my younger days when I was visiting England and being asked out on a date by a local man. He said “I’ll come by around 8pm and knock you up.” I was shocked!! I guess the expression on my face must have clued him in because he hastily said, “I mean, I’ll knock on your door.”
Heh heh heh!!!
I understand why “nigger” is an offensive term, but then, it needs to be perceived as offensive no matter who uses it. I strenuously object to referring to it as “the N word.” How ludicrous, as if “nigger” has so much power that to spell it out might destroy someone. Give me a break.
People find themselves on the wrong battlefield for one simple reason: cowardice. Some blacks are too afraid to fight real racism, and they don’t want to touch black racism at all. So they busy themselves with nonsense. Some gays are too afraid to fight real oppression (that’s why they can’t speak out against Islam, which calls for the wholesale slaughter of homosexuals) so they have to pretend that gay marriage is the most important human rights endeavor of the past five centuries. Some feminists (okay, MOST feminists) are too cowardly to speak out against the outrageous human rights abuses against women in Muslim countries, or even those Muslim immigrants right here at home who are being murdered for “honor,” and so they continue to natter on about abortion rights and the lack of government subsidized daycare, or the imaginary glass ceiling in the business world.
So many cowards and liars. But more people are waking up to what they are.
As an educator I am appalled at the decision to proceed with the play under any name. The title, the previous title, the new title, and the lyrics to the song or ‘nursery rhyme’ from which they were derived are racist, and it is very clear that faculty, administrators, parents and students at Lakota East are aware of that. Continuing in arrogance despite the pleas of aggrieved groups is reprehensible. Supporters of the play may think that now ‘there are none’ to stand up and respond, but this too is a sign of deep and abiding ignorance- the same ignorance that allows them to unabashedly use the name ‘Lakota’ and stick ‘tomahawks’ in the helmets of their team. These symbols are not funny and they do no honor to Native Americans. They are offensive, and the continued use of those symbols dishonors the school district. Listen to the national outcry, and consider how respectable institutes of higher learning will respond to Lakota east graduates with this abominable behavior the symbol of their school. How can this play represent a ‘teachable moment’ when the entire school district consistently endorses racism? Who there is qualified to teach about ‘diversity’? The play is the tip of the iceberg. The call to stop the play is NOT about censorship. It is about more free speech – it is about hearing at long last the voices of people Lakota East PRETENDS to emulate but continues to ignore. Shame on all of you who support the censorship of indigenous people!
batyah–
oh, my goodness, yes. Sticks and stones. . .
Finn, let’s be honest, here. You say a slave can call a fellow slave “slave”, but the son of the slave owner can’t. What about the son of the abolitionist? Why should he be blamed for something he not only didn’t do, but fought against? That’s really what your argument is saying. If “nigger” is an offensive word(and it is), it’s offensive when any person says it–otherwise the entire concept of racial equality means nothing.
When black people realize they’re degrading themselves by using the word, we’ll be on to something.
And Finn–”Wherever you are, or go, if you are dark-skinned, there is a negative name for you”? No. Wherever you are, or go, if you are dark-skinned, light-skinned, or somewhere in between, there is a negative name for you. If you are white, wherever you go there is a negative name for you, just as there is if you are black.
The difference is that most of the rest of us don’t use those words to refer to ourselves. Black people need to stop degrading themselves this way.
Nicole, wow! Taking us from the various titles of the subject play into censorship of indigenous people was a teachable moment of pretzel logic. However, I must say your aggrieved & heartfelt post is sincerely wrong on so many levels.
For starters, check out La Shawn’s archives on Native Americans.
1) Everyone born here is a Native American,
2) The Indians who met the Colonials were at one time migrants from Asia,
3) Naming a school and/or mascot after Indian tribes and/or objects (i.e. Sioux, Lakota, Cheyenne, Choctaw, Tomahawk, Brave etc) is INDEED a form of paying respect. So spare us the contrived insult.
As for the content of the play, do you even know the story? If so, please point out where racism is promoted? Otherwise, please don’t spout talking points on the basis of fevered imaginings.
We’re often told by educators to never judge a book by its cover. I would also emphatically add that one shouldn’t judge a book by the catalog of words used, rather, judgment should be reserved for the arrangement of said catalog. By your standards, I’m guessing that you think Gone with the Wind, Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Uncle Tom’s Cabin, among other classics, are also vile & racist books.
Not knowing the critical difference is indeed a sign of deep and abiding ignorance. It also further proof of a failing education system that mass-produces un-critical, but PC, citizens.
There are some great comments on this site.
The NAACP complaining because of what the play’s title was in 1939? I laughed when I saw that LSB filed under “Lunacy”. That’s where it belongs.
As far as the NAACP having no important work left to do, well . . . as presently constituted, I agree. But the organization still has potential to do good with the right leadership.
Each time a director quits, I fantasize about applying for the job. If appointed, I would change its focus to promoting actual advancement instead of moaning about minor or nonexistent insults.
Since racism is no longer the primary obstacle to advancement for Colored People, and illegitimacy is, then why shouldn’t the NAACP de-emphasize fighting racism and redirect their primary effort to fight illegitimacy?
Just a fantasy, I know.
Heh. I have a relative-in-law who is black. One time he was over at my house watching TV in the family room (he was about 11 at the time) and I heard him shout: “Oh great, it’s my favorite TV show coming on!” Curious, I hurried into the family room to see what it was that had excited his enthusiasm so much. That’s So Raven, perhaps?
Murder She Wrote!
PS — in the stage play and movie versions of the novel, Mrs. Christie allows two of the accused murders to escape their deaths because they turned out to be innocent of the crimes they were accused of by the mysterious owner of “Indian Island.” She wrote the stage version specifically for the American market and being half-American herself, she knew that optimistic Americans would prefer that ending to the one in the novel, where all characters are guilty and all die.
Andy, what a great response. My hat’s off to you. I wasn’t even going to bother responding to that nonsense (in fact, at first, I thought she was writing a humorous satire), but you did a great job. Thanks.
However, I do take small issue with those making the effort to show that the use of the word nigger is benign in Britain,
I agree, it’s both silly and irrelevant, because:
or that it’s impossible to understand why people take offense.
I do find it impossible to understand why people are taking offense at something that was recognized, corrected, and apologized for many years ago!
batyah, thanks. That’s the thing about inane nonsense. Personally, I can’t abide letting any such post stand uncorrected lest:
1) the posters think themselves correct and continue perpetuating PC garbage, and,
2) others, not knowing better, think the nonresponse to mean it’s valid.
Even better is that such posters don’t get the last word even if we agree to disagree.
It should interest all black americans that the first gun control laws were passed to prevent the newly freed slaves from obtaining firearms for self defense and their a conservative rap song that tell of it and why dose the NACP support gun control when it was used to disarm the newly freed slaves?
Maybe they should clean their own house before raising such a ruckus. The last I heard, the term “colored” was considered racist, and it’s right there in their organization’s name.
Boy you’re lucky. I posted my two cents about this news story and got a bunch of angry parents and teachers responding to me. Thanks for sharing…
We’ve given up watching shows in syndication (especially on Hallmark) because they have been butchered to make way for more commercials. Sometimes rendering the show to be totally incomprehensible.
The last straw was when Hallmark chopped off the ending of a Columbo. Do yourself a favor. Treat yourself to the Murder She Wrote boxed sets.
Also the Perry Mason boxed sets are excellent.
Even shows on the network are crapped up with those promos for upcoming shows (they call them sniping. There are some network execs that need to be sniped!)
And on the flip side, Charlie Brown’s Christmas, a 25 minute show is put in an hour time slot so we can be bombarded by 35 minutes of commercials. This undermines the message of the show which is that Christmas in not about stuff.
No wonder viewership is down.
Out here in CA, the NAACP is supporting civil rights violators, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Pechanga has eliminated 25% of their tribe, denied those terminated due process, attorneys, right to confront their accusers and the CA NAACP is supporting them in expanding their gaming operations. Guess the ‘good old days’ when civil rights meant something are gone for good.
Comments on this entry are closed.