Censorship
zooby
Join Date: 2003-08-26 Member: 20236Members
Join Date: 2003-08-26 Member: 20236Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">and why those who support it should die.</div> Score one for the censors:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Language police bar 'old,' 'blind'
LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) --Oh heck: Hell hath no place in American primary and high school textbooks.
But then again you can't find anyone riding on a yacht or playing polo in the pages of an American textbook either. The texts also can't say someone has a boyish figure, or is a busboy, or is blind, or suffers a birth defect, or is a biddy, or the best man for the job, a babe, a bookworm, or even a barbarian.
All these words are banned from U.S. textbooks on the grounds that they either elitist (polo, yacht) sexist (babe, boyish figure), offensive (blind, bookworm) ageist (biddy) or just too strong (hell which is replaced with darn or heck). God is also a banned word in the textbooks because he or she is too religious.
To get the full 500-word list of what is banned and why, consult "The Language Police," a new book by New York University professor of education Dianne Ravitch, a former education official in President George H.W. Bush's administration and a consultant to the Clinton administration.
She says she stumbled on her discovery of what's allowed and not allowed by accident because publishers insist that they do not impose censorship on their history and English textbook authors but merely apply rules of sensitivity -- which have expanded mightily since first introduced in the 1970s to weed out gender and racial bias.
Ravitch's book is taking people by surprise the same way that Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" did in the 1960s in exposing the effects of pesticides.
'The Older Person and the Water'
She says a lot of people are having fun finding new titles for Ernest Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea" which presents problems with every word except "and" and "the." Ravitch said old is ageist, man is sexist and sea can't be used in case a student lives inland and doesn't grasp the concept of a large body of water.
But some people say the phenomenon of sanitizing words and thought is not isolated to textbook publishers seeking not to offend anyone so that sales can be as wide as possible.
The New York Times recently reported that National Institute of Health researchers on AIDS are not only avoiding using words like **** and homosexuals in e-mails so as not to offend conservatives in the Bush administration, they are also inventing code words.
Times journalist Erica Goode reported that one researcher was told to "cleanse" the abstract of his grant proposal of words like ****, homosexual and transgender even though his research was on HIV in **** men.
Nor is the government the only source of constraint or censorship in the watch-what-you-say business. Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer, recently banned racy men's magazines from its shelves although it continues to sell sexy underwear.
According to Ravitch both the right wing and the left wing get what they want in American textbooks, for example an emphasis on family values and equality among ethnic groups.
"Everyone gets their pet causes incorporated in textbooks. The history texts are reluctant to criticize any dictator unless they are long dead. And even then, there are exceptions like Mao is praised in one text for modernizing China but his totalitarian rule is not mentioned," she said.
She was also unhappy to see photos in one text of Saudi women working as doctors and nurses because that implied that they had gender equality.
"You also can't say Mother Russia or Fatherland or brotherhood in texts and that's both silly, trivial and breathtaking. It is like George Orwell's 'Newspeak' come to life," she said in an interview, referring to the manipulation of language in "1984."
Ravitch said that textbook publishing is controlled by four main publishers and they aim to sell texts state by state, thus forcing them to dumb down the books and make the language as inoffensive as possible. "They don't want controversy and they don't want people screaming," she said.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is getting on ridiculous proportions. It's OUTRIGHT LYING!!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Language police bar 'old,' 'blind'
LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) --Oh heck: Hell hath no place in American primary and high school textbooks.
But then again you can't find anyone riding on a yacht or playing polo in the pages of an American textbook either. The texts also can't say someone has a boyish figure, or is a busboy, or is blind, or suffers a birth defect, or is a biddy, or the best man for the job, a babe, a bookworm, or even a barbarian.
All these words are banned from U.S. textbooks on the grounds that they either elitist (polo, yacht) sexist (babe, boyish figure), offensive (blind, bookworm) ageist (biddy) or just too strong (hell which is replaced with darn or heck). God is also a banned word in the textbooks because he or she is too religious.
To get the full 500-word list of what is banned and why, consult "The Language Police," a new book by New York University professor of education Dianne Ravitch, a former education official in President George H.W. Bush's administration and a consultant to the Clinton administration.
She says she stumbled on her discovery of what's allowed and not allowed by accident because publishers insist that they do not impose censorship on their history and English textbook authors but merely apply rules of sensitivity -- which have expanded mightily since first introduced in the 1970s to weed out gender and racial bias.
Ravitch's book is taking people by surprise the same way that Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" did in the 1960s in exposing the effects of pesticides.
'The Older Person and the Water'
She says a lot of people are having fun finding new titles for Ernest Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea" which presents problems with every word except "and" and "the." Ravitch said old is ageist, man is sexist and sea can't be used in case a student lives inland and doesn't grasp the concept of a large body of water.
But some people say the phenomenon of sanitizing words and thought is not isolated to textbook publishers seeking not to offend anyone so that sales can be as wide as possible.
The New York Times recently reported that National Institute of Health researchers on AIDS are not only avoiding using words like **** and homosexuals in e-mails so as not to offend conservatives in the Bush administration, they are also inventing code words.
Times journalist Erica Goode reported that one researcher was told to "cleanse" the abstract of his grant proposal of words like ****, homosexual and transgender even though his research was on HIV in **** men.
Nor is the government the only source of constraint or censorship in the watch-what-you-say business. Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer, recently banned racy men's magazines from its shelves although it continues to sell sexy underwear.
According to Ravitch both the right wing and the left wing get what they want in American textbooks, for example an emphasis on family values and equality among ethnic groups.
"Everyone gets their pet causes incorporated in textbooks. The history texts are reluctant to criticize any dictator unless they are long dead. And even then, there are exceptions like Mao is praised in one text for modernizing China but his totalitarian rule is not mentioned," she said.
She was also unhappy to see photos in one text of Saudi women working as doctors and nurses because that implied that they had gender equality.
"You also can't say Mother Russia or Fatherland or brotherhood in texts and that's both silly, trivial and breathtaking. It is like George Orwell's 'Newspeak' come to life," she said in an interview, referring to the manipulation of language in "1984."
Ravitch said that textbook publishing is controlled by four main publishers and they aim to sell texts state by state, thus forcing them to dumb down the books and make the language as inoffensive as possible. "They don't want controversy and they don't want people screaming," she said.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is getting on ridiculous proportions. It's OUTRIGHT LYING!!
Comments
Truly, censorship is the tool of an extremely weak, struggling cause. Censorship like this just basically represents what is wrong with america - the voluntary decay of the cognitive portion of society.
Thank God this doesn't pertain to me. I'd have to bust a cap...
"Chronologically Advanced Human in the Large Expanse of Water"
Oh god...
//kills self
**** **** **** **** ****
Orwell = Prophet of the twentieth century
Orwell = Prophet of the twentieth century <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's amazing how realistic his view of the future was and how we can see many of his views in society.
"There's not much else to fix... I mean, African Americans aren't really the victim of society anymore, in fact they're being idolized by the youth and are among the richest individuals in the music industry... I know ! Let's attack free speech..."
Unfortunately this is the case in politics, you can't say that you disagree with homosexuality without being called a homophobe, or say that you dislike something without it being misunderstood and being called a bigot. The problem is that people are seeing what isn't there, they like to pretend that they're malicious, they dig too deep to find any truth, but instead they dig so deep that they make up their own truths.
"After talking to Nem in IRC I think I should clarify.
I was meaning to say that as from a governmental side, racism de jure is dead. Sure, it's still in the hearts of some individuals, but there's no law that can stop that. Both parties agree it's bad, as well as Independent, and Green parties.
The fight to end racism has ended on a policy basis, because we've already amended our constitution. Now, many liberals are left with no real civil rights agenda. Many radical liberals have resorted to these semantics.
Sorry if I made it sound so weird, looking back, it doesn't really make too much sense.
De facto racism still exists, but from a political standpoint, political groups cannot really address that problem, it's left up to parents, peers and the community"
NOT lawmakers, NOT government. Personally I would be far more comfortable if textbooks were written by the government than any private company. Id rather see the constitution throw its spin on what kids learn than what companies persueded by vocal groups with bias agenda's are writting.
This really is getting frigging ridiculous. I've worked in the service and hospitality industry and we can't say "Ma'am" any more, because apparently people can find that offensive. Search me, it always seemed to be a term of politeness and respect.
I think the real underlying reason is that people are scared to get sued. If there wasn't such a massive drive to sue anyone for just about anything these crazy things wouldn't be coming up. Oh god I same come. Oh no I said god! Oh heck I said no!....
Just completely and utterly stupid.
Edit: Well bugger me....
Now now, that has homosexual conotations, you can't use that word.
these pressure groups (who are apparently suffering from WAY too much free time), not only fail to grasp what is and what is not offesive, they also **** up the language for the rest of us...
just imagine the day this BS jumps from textbook to dictionary :s
I find that offensive, seeing as to how my last name is Wang.
It can try to censor Mark Twains books for using his contemporary term for Blacks, it can try to ban certain anatomical terms from the public, but it'll never get them out of peoples heads by this, and thus, it'll fail.
So much for the original topic, now for something I couldn't let slip by.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"There's not much else to fix... I mean, African Americans aren't really the victim of society anymore, in fact they're being idolized by the youth and are among the richest individuals in the music industry... I know ! Let's attack free speech..."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sirus, I know you usualy as someone who thinks before he writes, so how the hell did you come up with this?
The average difference in income between Blacks and Whites hasn't changed by a percent since the abolition of slavery, the amount of black people in high-ranking official or economic positions is still in no relation to their part of the population, and ethnical frictions are still far from over. The L.A. riots are no 15 years old, you know?
Oh, but of course, some of them "are among the richest individuals in the music industry". Yeah, well, the same could be said about the times of Miles Davis, who was once arrested by a violent police officer for taking a smoke in front of a Whites-only music club in which he had been playing a celebrated and sold out concert.
Wow dude, a thread full of sarcazm and yet you fail to see when the slightest bit is thrown your way?
In anycase. The ESRB rating system is far from censorship. Everything should be rated for content. Same as they list ingredients on food. Everyone has the right to know what theyre getting before they buy it.
Stan: "But isn't that Fascism?"
Stan's Dad: "No, because we don't call it Fascism."
Stan: "But isn't that Fascism?"
Stan's Dad: "No, because we don't call it Fascism." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not sure if that was aimed at my comment about the ESRB, but if the games industry doesnt regulate itself those same **** regulating textbooks will surely do it. Nothing about the rating system tells a designer what they can or cant put into a game.
ELLOWEL.
"Chapter 28 Wrap-Up: In conclusion, Saddam Hussein's tyrannical governing and rampant killing sprees were direct offenses against the righteous goodness of American Democracy."
ELLOWEL.
"Chapter 28 Wrap-Up: In conclusion, Saddam Hussein's tyrannical governing and rampant killing sprees were direct offenses against the righteous goodness of American Democracy." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The constitution, not politicians. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Besides thats what the 15 year old textbooks taught when I was in school. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Now, there are options:
1)The government can paradoxically censor the censors.
2)Government reinstates market forces.
I'd like to see the second option happen. But thats OT into school choice.
More on topic, I disagree with the idea of censorship unless it is supplied by the culture. For example, racial slurs are generally taboo, not because of law (though hate crime legislation is ridiculously hypocritical). Society has decided that kind of behavior is unacceptable.
Nem is dead on; government restrictions on language are failures.