Changing History: Inclusion or Exclusion
WORDS BY EVANGELIA KARAGEORGOS.
“The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron, they’ll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be.”
When we start to make changes to classic texts, where do we draw the line between inclusion and the censorship of history and our culture? and who decides what that line is?
Thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and ideologies all change over time. They change with experience, education, and circumstances. They are influenced by what we consume, text, film, music, and conversation. But the question is, do we need to change our past, and our history every time these things change? Or do we preserve our past and create new?
In 2021, six Dr Seuss’s books were pulled from future publication for their portrayal of people of colour and Asian people. However, the latest victims of modern sensibilities, Roald Dahl and Enid Blyton have had their works undergo broad changes. Changes that are labelled as ‘inclusive’ and are (apparently) to protect our children from cultural, ethical and gender stereotypes and rude language in literature.
The changes to Dahl’s work were described as “minimal and well-considered”. Most of the changes are related to race, gender, weight, and mental health. With the words ‘ugly’ and ‘fat’being removed. Any reference to females changed to women, and gender-neutral terms preferred. However, editors had also added entirely new sentences to his stories.
Enid Blyton’s book series the Famous Five will have phrases like ‘shut up’, ‘don’t be an ass’, and ‘don’t be an idiot’ removed or changed. To make them acceptable to the modern reader. Through these days, let’s be honest, there are certainly a number of people who could benefit from not ‘being an ass’ and who should just ‘shut up’.
These are not small changes. These are big changes and change the original story.
So, why these words and phrases? They are still commonplace today, good, and bad. Why hide them from children? The world is filled with nastiness and meanness, and denying this,and hiding it means we don't teach our children how to navigate such things. Dahl and Blyton’s books teach kids to navigate life in an adventurous way. I have yet to meet any adult damaged by the words in these books.
I think Philip DiFranco sums this all up so well when he said: “I understand the desire to make something more accessible, but you’re changing what it is. It is a story written by a certain person at a certain place at a certain time. I think in general this is an edge of a coffee table that doesn’t need to be padded.”
I ask again where do we draw the line? Who decides what is inclusive and what to exclude? This is our artistic history; it is an attack on artistic creativity and freedom of expression. Exclusion in the name of inclusion.
The French versions of Roald Dahl’s books haven’t changed since they were translated in 1960. And the French don’t plan on making any adaptations. They believe in an author’sMoral rights, and this includes their right to authorship and respect for the integrity of their work. And though changes to a dead author’s work are not illegal the French believe ‘it is dangerous for culture’.
“How far back should we go? Baudelaire? Voltaire? The Bible? If books are changed in this way they are not the original works. It’s not far off censorship,”
Want a more inclusive and diverse text? don't re-write history, write new works. It's more inclusive to do this than it is to exclude what has come before. Changing/censoring the classics is not so much about inclusivity and more about exclusivity, it’s about censorship. And that's just hiding reality, our history, and our culture. What's more offensive is that it’s you they don't trust, it’s your ability as a parent, your ability to explain things like disrespectful use of words. Your ability to explain differences and appropriate behaviour and language. They don’t trust your choices and ability to raise your own children. So, they dilute the things around your children, so you cannot decide. And the reality is, kids are smarter and wiser than we might think.
I guess I just don't like where we are heading here censorship-wise. The policing of language and forced compliance by the minority is not what I imagined our goal was when we stood towards parliament and demanded to be heard.
EDITORIAL NOTE: This article has been reuploaded and was originally published in 2023.