>>>>>Common decency and respect in language and speech has nothing to do with cultural and period representation (the good, the bad, and the ugly) in literature. Literature highlights and shows periods in time and different cultures and experiences and hopefully provides a clear picture and emotes feelings -- the language served the purpose of truly representing horrifying views and language 20 years before the civil war in the deep south. It is a view into history. If you are offended by the language in it - you should be - it served its purpose. Removing the words totally destroys the intention of the author.
>>>>>
>>>>>It has nothing to do with whether you or I think it is okay to use that language today or in the past. It was never okay. However, it was life then. The book is truly an inspirational book if you read it when you are sober or look back on this discussion later I really think you will see it all differently.
>>>>>
>>>>>Really, are you ok? You have a college degree and you are an avid reader --
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW, the last time I was called a "squaw" I was 19 and working part time in a nursing home while attending college. It was a 70 year old woman who called me a squaw. I let it go. It didn't offend me one bit. I was surprised, but not offended. It was another sign of someone who never evolved. If I were to write a book and include that experience in it, I would use the words used at the time - ugly and all.
>>>>
>>>>Since we both have Norwegian blood, we can call each other Vikings. We better use it now; who knows, maybe someone will find that word offensive in the future?
>>>
>>>LOL! There are already folks who use the term disparagingly.... Have you seen the movie Pathfinder? After they watched that movie, one of my daughter's friends told her: "Your ancestors killed each other!"
>>
>>If more people really knew more about the vikings, it could in deed become a disparaging. There are a lot of myths about them, many of which are untrue. For instance, the vikings did not use helmets with horns in them.

The next few years will be very interesting. I live in the area where most of the viking ships which are in museums in Oslo, were found. Now new technology, based on satellites being able to "see" the surface of the earth, has made it possible for archaeologist to locate a few more places where viking ships may be buried. One of these places is very close to where the Oseberg ship was found, and since the ground mostly consists of clay, they hope to find a viking ship which is very well preserved.

>But it helps perpetuate the image :o) I'm always amazed at how "tall" they make them appear in movies (dwarfing everyone else) when examination of skeletons shows that the average male was 5 ft 7-3/4 in. tall (my height) and the average woman 5 ft 2-1/2 in....
>
>Of course there were skeletons found that were much taller - as tall as 6' or more (and they had more rich stuff in their graves which suggests height helped someone prosper or be seen as superior during the time) but the majority were not that tall unless all of the skeletons have disappeared and only the shorties were left to be found :o)