Language police bar 'old,' 'blind'

Wednesday, May 28, 2003 Posted: 11:36 AM EDT (1536 GMT)

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 gay 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 gay, homosexual and transgender even though his research was on HIV in gay 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.
***********

The new reality?

Taking political correctness to a whole new level...

Dear god.

There's being unoffensive, and then there's just being fricking rediculous.

Can't call a spade a spade anymore.

The world is slowly comming to an end.............

You mean kids will have to learn to read ON THEIR OWN! God no!

That means it's up to their PARENTS to turn them on to literature!

What are we gonna do?!

(No one reads textbooks for real world experience. I avoided them as much as possible. When I wanted to read I got a real book.)

Originally posted by Ed Blank
You mean kids will have to learn to read ON THEIR OWN! God no!

That means it's up to their PARENTS to turn them on to literature!

What are we gonna do?!

(No one reads textbooks for real world experience. I avoided them as much as possible. When I wanted to read I got a real book.) Well no one reads textbooks for unreal world experience either do they? These kids now a days are being taught to be idiots. I mean,this is ridiculous. You cannot say someone is "old", or"blind"? What is that about? PC at its worse. Its totally destroying our country one word at a time. Oh well, until the day i die i will remain a word ogre.

A.D.H.D: Kids are not paying attention in school... NO SHIT. They are bored. Unless they put porn in the textbooks kids will hardly pay attention. No one learns to be an adult in class. We learn that on our own or with the help of other adults who care (or who at least take time to relay info; good or bad).

Dont' worry about what's in textbooks, worry about what's on MTV.

Originally posted by Ed Blank
They are bored. Unless they put porn in the textbooks kids will hardly pay attention. No one learns to be an adult in class. We learn that on our own or with the help of other adults who care (or who at least take time to relay info; good or bad).

Dont' worry about what's in textbooks, worry about what's on MTV. I guess i come from a different generation then. You see, i was taught to be an adult in class as well as at home. I guess that is because when i went to school, we were not busy shooting each other and killing teachers. My generation actually had respect for other people. We were not taught that the sun revolved around us. And guess what? The had no porn in my textbooks and i still paid attention. That is because I knew there would be a penalty if i didnt.
Dont worry about what is in textbooks, but rather what is on MTV? MTV is something parents can and should limit. Textbooks are the TOOLS used to teach our young children. And you say dont worry?

Yeah, you must be pretty out of touch.

When you were a kid books were the highest form of educational media. Now they have educational TV and the internet. Seeing as how you are reading this you know about at least one of those media.

I am not saying that a person CAN'T learn in school. I am saying that booklearning itself is archaic. Kids know this and are probably not getting their "education" out of books. They are being fed info through various higher tech sources. Everytime I see someone writing a paper they are doing research online.

Kids are getting their share of off color, non-PC lingo from myriad other sources so don't fret if they can't learn about Slavery from Huck Finn. The History Channel will be running a much more in depth look at it soon.

Originally posted by Ed Blank

Kids are getting their share of off color, non-PC lingo from myriad other sources so don't fret if they can't learn about Slavery from Huck Finn. The History Channel will be running a much more in depth look at it soon. Oh yeah? And just what are they going to be using as a reference? Hopefully not the textbooks of today that are more useful wiping your butt with than actually teaching anything.

It is like George Orwell's 'Newspeak' come to life," she said in an interview, referring to the manipulation of language in "1984."
More than that. It's like the entire Ministry of Truth working their asses off.


Kids are getting their share of off color, non-PC lingo from myriad other sources so don't fret if they can't learn about Slavery from Huck Finn. The History Channel will be running a much more in depth look at it soon.
Who said the History Channel wasn't bias? Who said the sources on the internet aren't bias? We know the history textbooks are definately bias. At this rate, however, the news channels, history channel, websites will all be censored. The carnivore program. It has the ability do such a thing. It scans words on TV, internet and your phone lines. It could be programed to hack into and edit those words on the internet. TV wouldn't be that hard to censor, just need those big corporations to go along with it(wouldn't be that hard, just bribe them). Freedom of speach and the press is gone. The press was never there in the first place.

As such, the true scholars will again go underground to read forbidden text, while the great unwashed gaze mindlessly into the ever present video screens...

They censor everything. Everything is biased. Porn is even censored to some degree. They can't show people having sex with children or dead bodies.

Get over it. Someone controls all media and they allow what they deem appropriate.

Once more, there is plenty of information available that a person cannot be considered educated without digesting. The very least of these sources is public school textbooks.

Then why call them textbooks? Why not just call them what they are. Politically Correct toilet paper.

That might not work. Glossy pages aren't absorbent. :p

Apparently the kids of today are not either.

Originally posted by Ed Blank
They censor everything. Everything is biased.
This is the best point made in this entire thread. The best lesson I ever learned from my History Prof was that history itself is biased. Everything we know as 'fact' is perverted and bastardized because we rely on sources which are biased inherently.

While HaVok makes some good points, comments like:

You see, i was taught to be an adult in class as well as at home. I guess that is because when i went to school, we were not busy shooting each other and killing teachers. My generation actually had respect for other people.
Completely turned me off of anything you had to say. Who are you to say that all students of today are busy polishing thier semi-automatics, and have no respect for anyone? Sorry, but BULLSHIT ALERT. Crimes by students have been around for a long, long time.

Students today aren't all disrespectful, uncaring, jaded morons with nothing better to do with themselves but shoot up other students. Media continues to develop, and a few seconds of fame means more then they ever did before. We also hear more about crimes that have occured simply due to the spread of the media. It spreads it around, spawns ideas, people know it, the media knows it, but anything to make a buck, right?

Granted, education today has some serious issues which need to be looked at. But is it the student's fault they're being brought up and taught as they are? As Sir Thomas More put it (Utopia, Part III):

"For if you suffer your people to be ill educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this but that you first make thieves and then punish them?"

Children today are brought up amongst media and a society which teaches them exactly what we condemn them for. Yet you still believe it's the student's fault? Maybe. Maybe you say that the student, despite being brought up as they are, should have the common sense to not behave as they do, to not act out with violence? Well I hate to say it, but common sense isn't common, and we can't blame a CHILD for acting as they've been taught.

Wow. I cannot put into words how intelligent that was. And on this site! :eek:

I don't think Havok ment every kid....... Lets be seroius more kids today have less respect then they did in yesteryear. When is the last time you have seen a young boy hold a door for a lady or help someone? It happens, but not nearly as much as it use to. When is the last time a young kid bumbed into you and said sorry, or excuse me? almost never. I agree with some of your statement, one thing you forgot is population.

No, I did not mean every kid in school today is a criminal. The majority of kids are not. However, are you trying to say that violent crime in school is not a LOT more prevalent today than 2 decades ago? If you are, sorry but, BULLSHIT ALERT. You seem to be concentrating on the ALL when i was pointing out that crime in school is not only more visible, but there is just more of it. Where i went to high school, the worst thing that ever happened while i was there was someone getting beat up. That same high school today has a group of security guards that roam the grounds at all times. When i approached one of them to talk about it years ago I asked if they were really neccessary. His reply was that yes it was. And not only that, he said most times he and his co-workers were not a detterent. That the police had to come in almost weekly to diffuse situations. He talked of students pulling guns on other students. Knives being used to coerce students to do something. This stuff just didnt go on when i went to high school.

I never said it wasn't more prevalent. I said that your comment of "My generation actually had respect for other people." certainly suggested that you had a very low opinion of this generation, which isn't necessarily right (but hey, opinions are free, thats why everyone's got them).

As for why it's more prevalent, well I already went into that.

Education: Kids are more educated now than they ever have been. Even with PC textbooks.

Violence: Americans become increasingly more violent. It's almost like everyone has the right to own as many guns (which shoot as many rounds per minute) as possible.

Seem like some kind of correlation. The "smarter" we become the more evil we seem. It's the whole Adam and Eve thing.

Will we destroy ourselves with clever gadgets? If so, how clever were we really?

Originally posted by Ed Blank
Education: Kids are more educated now than they ever have been. Even with PC textbooks.

Violence: Americans become increasingly more violent. It's almost like everyone has the right to own as many guns (which shoot as many rounds per minute) as possible.

Seem like some kind of correlation. The "smarter" we become the more evil we seem. It's the whole Adam and Eve thing.

Will we destroy ourselves with clever gadgets? If so, how clever were we really?
Education: Kids are more educated now than ever? Not so. Kids cannot pass a simple standardized test. That is why there are so many lawsuits pending. And these tests are simple problem solving and grammar, mixed in with a little basic mathmatics. So how are they more educated?

Violence: Last time i checked, it was illegal for a school age kid to own firearms. So what was the point in bringing this up?

Originally posted by HaVoK
Education: Kids are more educated now than ever? Not so. Kids cannot pass a simple standardized test.

I think the kids that want to be educated are more educated than ever. The rest of the kids are worse.

Kids these days may not be able to recite all of the American presidents from Washington to Bush Jr., but they are learning other skills which become more useful to them down the road. Life skills, job skills, interpersonal skills, all which were not a part of the curriculum decades ago.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Education: Kids are more educated now than ever? Not so. Kids cannot pass a simple standardized test. That is why there are so many lawsuits pending. And these tests are simple problem solving and grammar, mixed in with a little basic mathmatics. So how are they more educated?

Violence: Last time i checked, it was illegal for a school age kid to own firearms. So what was the point in bringing this up?

Where did the Columbine kids get their guns from?

The fact that there are enough guns in America for every man woman and child to hold one in each hand means that they will end up in the "wrong" hands. Guns, especially handguns, are made for killing people.

Completely agree with you Ed.

It's simple logic.

- Killing people is illegal.

- Handguns are made for killing people.

- Therefore....


I'll let you finish it.

Don't touch my guns. Don't even think about touching my guns. Guns are for killing varmints -- those that walk on 4 legs, as well as those that walk on 2.

Let me just chime in: The Second Amendment is outdated. There is no more need for a "militia". However, criminals will still find a way to get guns, even if they're illegal. If Joe Schmoe doesn't have a gun because they're illegal, what's to stop any criminal from burglarizing his house and killing his kids?

The need for a militia may again present itself. Leave the 2d Amendment as it is.

Originally posted by Ed Blank
The fact that there are enough guns in America for every man woman and child to hold one in each hand means that they will end up in the "wrong" hands. Guns, especially handguns, are made for killing people.

This is the most assinine post made yet!!!!!! :rolleyes: Alot of people own guns for different reasons, some for hunting, some to get rid of varmits, some just for sport. Alot of people down south carry handguns when they go fishing just incase of a close run in with a snake. Some people carry guns when they go hiking or camping for protection. I own 5 rifles and not once have I shot a person, the only time my guns come out is when I hunt or I want to go shoot at targets.

Ed I'm sorry, but you really need an education on guns before you go around making stupid post. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Maybe we should quit making cars after all they kill more people then guns.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Let me just chime in: The Second Amendment is outdated. There is no more need for a "militia". However, criminals will still find a way to get guns, even if they're illegal. If Joe Schmoe doesn't have a gun because they're illegal, what's to stop any criminal from burglarizing his house and killing his kids?

There are factories producing millions of guns. The reason for this is the gun market. If we didn't have factories making guns criminals would not have guns.

No crackhead or gangbanger ever made a gun.

(to es..fan) Varmints huh? And you, of course, decide who the varmint is. Sounds a little "Heil Hitler" to me.

Originally posted by mad dog
This is the most assinine post made yet!!!!!! :rolleyes: Alot of people own guns for different reasons, some for hunting, some to get rid of varmits, some just for sport. Alot of people down south carry handguns when they go fishing just incase of a close run in with a snake. Some people carry guns when they go hiking or camping for protection. I own 5 rifles and not once have I shot a person, the only time my guns come out is when I hunt or I want to go shoot at targets.

Ed I'm sorry, but you really need an education on guns before you go around making stupid post. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Maybe we should quit making cars after all they kill more people then guns.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

First of all, cars are used for a legitimate purpose, transportation. Whereas hand guns aren't used for a specific purpose, and no, they're not used for hunting. Collecting rifles/hunting weapons is one thing, but handguns is another. Any sport in collecting something which is specifically designed to kill another human being isn't a 'sport', it's sick.

And using a hand gun for a run in with a snake? You have experience with firearms I'm guessing... trying to hit a moving snake (which would be the only one that would cause any harm, as ones that are sun bathing aren't aggressive), is damn near impossible, not to mention impractical. Anyone with any experience with snakes know the better ways to deal with one in the event of an aggressive incident.

Secondly, the fact you own rifles for hunting, fine... I don't argue with that. Rifles aren't hand guns.

And thirdly, sure, people kill people... but more specifically, stupid people kill people. Would you give a stupid person a weapon? I didn't think so.

Originally posted by Borg Hunter
If Joe Schmoe doesn't have a gun because they're illegal, what's to stop any criminal from burglarizing his house and killing his kids?

The fact of the matter remains that the majority of children who either a) kill themselves or b) kill others have access to firearms directly in the home. There are more deaths by firearms in accidents then there are murders. How do you prevent a child from using a gun and accidentally hurting himself or others, or worse, intentionally? Don't give them access. One of the best ways is to nip it at the bud, and not give them access to them in their own homes.

One doesn't have to be "heil hitlerish" as Ed says, to know what a varmint that needs killing looks like.
When it comes to killing people, one bullet launcher is pretty much like any other. They get the job done.
Don't get so weirded out over handguns. Teach the child to respect the weapon, just as you do with any other dangerous object.

How do you teach a 4 year old the difference between a water pistol and a handgun?

Children don't have the 'common sense' (hell, half the adults in the world don't) that you or I might. Dad's toys are still toys, and you know kids want to play with the forbidden. Maybe you're willing to risk putting a firearm in your children's arms, but I wouldn't be.

I already have put firearms in my childs hands. I provided him with weapons training beginning around age 4. He's now over 21, and just fine, thank you.

Originally posted by mad dog
This is the most assinine post made yet!!!!!! :rolleyes: Alot of people own guns for different reasons, some for hunting, some to get rid of varmits, some just for sport. Alot of people down south carry handguns when they go fishing just incase of a close run in with a snake. Some people carry guns when they go hiking or camping for protection. I own 5 rifles and not once have I shot a person, the only time my guns come out is when I hunt or I want to go shoot at targets.

Ed I'm sorry, but you really need an education on guns before you go around making stupid post. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Maybe we should quit making cars after all they kill more people then guns.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

So where are the crackheads and Trench Coat Mafia's getting guns from?

I want an answer from Mad Dog.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Blank
[B]The fact that there are enough guns in America for every man woman and child to hold one in each hand means that they will end up in the "wrong" hands. Guns, especially handguns, are made for killing people. [B] [QUOTE]


OK....and when these handguns do wind up in the "wrong" hands, whose fault is that? And when i say fault, i mean who do we charge with a crime for allowing the "wrong" hands to get a gun?

Drunks in motor vehicles kill plenty more than folks with handguns. Seen anyone go after Budwiser or Seagram's yet? What about Chevy or Ford? No, of course not.

I find it strange that the same people who scream that their liberties are being taken away from them because of the "patriot act" are some of the same people supporting restrictions in our rights to bear arms. Handguns are not owned by honest american people for the use in murder, they are owned for protection against any harm that may befall them or their families. Restriction of hand guns are only going to take hand guns away from honest people. Why cant people understand this?

DON'T TOUCH THE FUCKING SECOND ADMENDMENT!!! There is a need for a militia Borg, "A little rebellion now and then...is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." - Thomas Jefferson

And without the second admendment protecting our rights to have guns, it would make it a hell of a lot easier, and faster, for the government to continue to become a corporate police state.

And wonderful Bush is about to renew the law against semi-automatics. The military gets fully autos, while we get to sit around with our rifles from the 19th century.

Thread closed. Let's resume it in the new thread I made in Politics.

I'm reopening the thread here...and back on topic, too. I was just reading in a high school English textbook, there is an entire section on using "non-sexist language". For example, don't use "mankind", use instead "civilization". Which is completely asinine, of course.

Don't be so close minded. Let the non-sexist language add to your fund of knowledge. You don't want to be caught using the same claptrap over & over. Always remember: if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I'm reopening the thread here...and back on topic, too. I was just reading in a high school English textbook, there is an entire section on using "non-sexist language". For example, don't use "mankind", use instead "civilization". Which is completely asinine, of course.

I think I heard about that one. Is that the one that goes on and on about making sure that you don't have female characters that stay home and take care of the kids, blacks that eat fried chicken, asians that have wise sayings, etc.?

No, but that is idiotic too. Blacks can't eat fried chicken? Jeez...everybody likes fried chicken!

It just gets worse & worse. What the hell happens when you try to call a spade a spade? Does hilary - the ex first bitch - invade your nightmares?

i think "political correctness" is so stupid.
it seems like those lacking a sense of humor came up with all that crap.
:rolleyes:

p.s. is it okay if i recommend two
or more websites(not advertising
my services though)?

This CRAP infuriates me to no end! What have we turned into, a bunch of over-sensitive dumb-asses!?

Originally posted by harlowgirl83
This CRAP infuriates me to no end! What have we turned into, a bunch of over-sensitive dumb-asses!?

I agree with you. And yet (to bring it up again), you turned on Trav for allegedly being a homophobe. So who's being oversensitive?

Well Mr. Hutz, you are right...but I think that Trav was wrong for trying to say that just because someone is homosexual, they molest kids. People can use whatever names they please but that was harsh to keep saying that gays molest kids...that's a really horrible thing to say about any group of people, don't you think?

Oh definitely.