AMNESIA

A few years ago, I attended a lecture concerning the ethical issues surrounding the use of drugs which induce amnesia. These drugs apparently are used in order to cause persons who have undergone painful and traumatic experiences to have their memories of these experiences lessened or erased. I was unfamiliar with this issue before and found the talk very interesting. One of the ethical issues raised by the lecturer concerning the use of amnesia inducing drugs was the wisdom in creating a situation in which we allow ourselves to forget things which although painful are important that we remember. An example given was war. Is society better off if soldiers returning from wars do not remember the horrors of war or is it more important that they and we remember the pain caused by terrible events and times so that we are more diligent in ensuring that they do not happen again? (For those interested in learning more about this issue, they can find a number of scholarly studies and discussions. See, for example a legal paper by Professor Kolber.

I thought of this issue of us wishing to forget or sanitize the past in the current controversies over the deletion of offensive words from literature and music. As you are probably aware, there is a controversy concerning the deletion of the 'N' word from Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. The debate is so intense that even writing the word in news reports and discussions of the issue is avoided, the word being replaced by the phrase "the 'n' word" (as I myself have done here). I concede that my own unwillingness to use the word here may seem hypocritical to some, in view of the point of this posting. (But in my defence I note the obvious. This posting is not a classic piece of literature and I can fully make my argument without offending anyone.)

I note in passing that I recently attended a theatrical production of "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom"
a 1982 play by African American playwright August Wilson. The play was put on by the Arizona Theater Productions in Phoenix. It is about an African American blues legend, her band, and her record producers. The "n" word is used liberally in the script, dozens of times, when the band members were referring to each other. If the word had not been used, the play simply could not have been performed. I must admit I found the use of the word jarring. It made me feel uncomfortable. Seated near me were several African American members of the audience. I noted that they did not return to their seats after the intermission for the second half. I wondered how they felt about the play and whether they left because of that.

Another similar controversy concerns the use of the word "faggot" in the Dire Straits 1985 song "Money For Nothing". The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has banned the playing of the song on Canadian radio unless that word is replaced by a non offensive one. This ruling has resulted in very strong protests and plans by at least one radio station to play the original song over and over.

These efforts to sanitize literature, music, art ( there is a debate now in Vancouver concerning the cancellation of an exhibit of paintings devoted to the memory of missing and murdered women) are in my opinion understandable but misplaced. No-one wants to be offensive and insensitive to the legitimate feelings of others. But how can we remember the nature of the horrors and injustices of the past if we are prevented from having actually to see them as vividly as we can? Is amnesia an answer? And what of the rights of the novelists, song writers and artists who struggle to communicate their messages as effectively and skilfully as they could? Should we be rewriting their literature, songs and repainting their art works so they do not cause offence? This is not a black and white issue - there are grey areas. But surely rewriting "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" or the song "Money for Nothing" does not fall into a grey area.