zlacker

> In Matilda, a mention of Rudyard Kipling has been cut and Jane Austen added.

Burning books was at least honest.

>>nhchri+(OP)
You left out the full quote

> She went on olden-day sailing ships with Joseph Conrad. She went to Africa with Ernest Hemingway and to India with Rudyard Kipling

> She went to nineteenth century estates with Jane Austen. She went to Africa with Ernest Hemingway and California with John Steinbeck

Possibly because both Kipling and Conrad wrote books with colonial themes

At the same time, if that tone gets erased (e.g. the way Conrad writes about the Congo), they're erasing the premise of their erasing

Edit: the only way I can somewhat make sense out of their decision is because I've read the authors they omitted

>>triest+Hj
The whole idea that colonial history needs to be swept under the rug is absurd. In fact it needs to be preserved, talked about and taught in a context of modern society. That’s how we stop the history from repeating itself.

- A person who grew up in a former colony

>>darth_+ek
The people wanting that seem to be entirely fine with repeating that history.

>>ilyt+eP
One can read Kipling with one's eyes wide open (the more so for the eyebrows constantly raised) and find his views on race revolting, yet still have to admit that he was something of a genius.

>>triest+Hj
> Possibly because both Kipling and Conrad wrote books with colonial themes

Keeping Hemingway in the list is the best joke

Yep, the wife cheater, womanizer, tabern fighter, alcoholic, animal cruelty lover that toke his own life, can stay. Good model for children. The other are subversive and must go (and our moral compass is not random at all)