Political Correctness

[Tori]

Are you sick of political correctness? What can we do about it?

IMHO The political correctness movement is divisive to the country as a whole because it is creating and accepting the pandering to special interest groups. It's sending the civil rights movement backwards in time instead of helping. Not to mention what it's doing to our history.


LOS ANGELES — A textbook review process taking place in states across the country has changed or eliminated references to everything from the Founding Fathers (search) to hot dogs, leaving many to charge educators with distorting history in the name of political correctness.

The review process, which is routinely done in many states, is meant to eliminate or replace outdated words or phrases. But what’s happening has a lot of people wondering – quite literally – "Where’s the beef?"

That’s because many textbooks will no longer feature pictures of hot dogs, sodas, cakes, butter and other kinds of food that are not considered nutritious. Nor will the books contain any phrases judged to be sexist or politically insensitive.

The Founding Fathers, for instance, are now referred to as "The Framers," in an apparent effort to make them sound less male-dominant. And there will be no more reading about Mount Rushmore (search), where the faces of four U.S. presidents are carved into stone, because it appears to offend some American-Indian groups.

The changes, which reflect a wide range of political correctness (search), have been brought about by pressure groups on both sides of the political aisle, as both Democratic and Republican legislators have been lobbied.

Snowman? No more. Melt that image and replace with Snowperson. Want to sail away on a yacht? No, again. It’s too elitist.

And if you think grandpa is a senior citizen, guess what? You’re wrong. That’s demeaning, according to the new standards. He is now simply an "older person."

The laundry list of words and images banned or considered offensive is not a short one. The word "jungle" has been replaced with "rain forest." The word "devil" has disappeared entirely, with no replacement.

Many of the changes seem to represent a direct assault on historical accuracy. For example, the new guidelines dictate American Indians should not be depicted with long braids, in rural settings or on reservations. There are no suggestions on how they should be depicted, however.

The problem there, say historians, is that some American Indians did wear their hair in braids, and generally lived in rural settings before being relocated to reservations.

Some say the changes are needed to better reach out to today’s diverse student population. Others have a different name for it.

"It's outright censorship," said author Diane Ravitch, who has written extensively on the subject of how the nation's schools have dealt with the issue. "It dumbs down our textbooks, makes them bland, far less interesting than anything children might see in the movies -- even in G-rated movies or TV.



"The problems that have happened in education is that the textbook publishers and the test developers have become so sensitive to any controversy that whenever they receive a complaint it is very likely that they will remove the source of the complaint," explained Ravitch.

Textbook publishers admit they are in a bind. They say if they don't adopt the changes made by large states like California and Texas, they would suffer severe economic consequences.

Still, there are those who defend the changes made.

"I think our textbooks should, to our greatest capacity, be free of any type of stereotyping," said Sue Stickel, deputy superintendent for curriculum and instruction for the California Department of Education (search). "We need to make sure that all ethnicities are represented. We need to make sure that both males and females are represented. We need to make sure that our materials cover the full gamut."

[Snowden]

Tori, it's a very sore point with me. Why on earth would being called an "older person" be better than being called a "senior citizen?" For that matter, why either one? We are simply people. Old, middle aged or young. Adult or child. This has been accepted language for centuries. I don't give a hoot what term others use to describe me; I would just ask them not to be vulgar. Anything else is okay.

Does being called "sight impaired" sound better than to be called "blind?" It's no help to the person's vision! He or she still can't see. Bob is very deaf - so should I call him "hearing impaired" and expect him to suddenly her better?

What this political correctness is doing is simply destroying our language. Certain words are descriptive - and the language draws no lines. You can say black as a compliment or to be disparaging - the word is the same. White people are simply of pale complexion - hardly white; but it's served for quite a while to describe people of little color - note, I am not saying people of color. This is not descriptive of anything or anyone. What color? Purple?

I didn't know our founding fathers were being described as framers. In the English language, a framer either frames a picture or a person - the first being okay, the latter being illegal.

Change for the sake of change is never valid, in my opinion. Change for a reason is different.

The snowman image here is the most infuriating to me. Why can we no longer use the word "man" to describe mankind? Why does our rector have to address us as "sisters and brothers" instead of "brothers and sisters?" Why do some of the Catholics in my church refuse to refer to God as "He," as if to declare the Father of male gender is an insult to us women?

English is the most complete and beautiful language in the world in my estimation. Not the sound of it, but the scope of it. It is more than twice the size of the next largest language and growing. We should delight in the fact that we can describe every nuance of feeling, beauty -- whatever. Properly used, there is no thought or expression that cannot be described with no limitations.

You can't improve on that, and this "politically correct" nonsense only confuses and obliterates the reality being addressed.

I'm sure the devil loves his very identity being forbidden. Always he has managed to make people disbelieve in him - it's his greatest trick. Now, by being also nameless, the job is well and thoroughly accomplished. We can do as we please - take away all boundaries between good and evil - and the devil, nameless now, can giggle all the way to where he stashed his pitchfork.

Tori, I know this is a surprise, but I really hate political correctness. I find it devisive and offensive.

[norman]

A word used very little but one that the framers of our Constitution were concerned with.

ol·i·gar·chy [ ólli grkee ] (plural ol·i·gar·chies)

noun

1. small governing group: a small group of people who together govern a nation or control an organization, often for their own purposes


2. entity ruled by oligarchy: a nation governed or an organization controlled by an oligarchy


3. government by small group: government or control by a small group of people

P C is the prime example of their concern. But way back then common sense prevailed. Protection of individual rights was more the order of the day.

Somehow along the way from then to now common sense has been way layed by the legal system instituting frivilous lawsuits. It is common practice to settle in favor of the person filing because of the cost of litigation & the work load on the courts.

The part that is most distressing is we older people have a comparison. But because of the rulings the younger generations are accepting this nonsense as the way it is.

Reaching children during their formative years with what is in place assures success for future changes that slowly & continously erode the ability to state plainly what is obvious.

Not really much different than the radical islamics recruiting on college campuses. Slow methodical gain of control by the few over the many.

[Ted]

You seem to be saying that frivilous law suits is leading to a government by the few. I certainly am not going to defend frivilous law suits. They add to the cost of living for evryone, lead to defensive medicine and business, over loead our courty system leading to greater cost of government.

However, I believe an oligarchy is more likely to be the reult
of the great influence of special interest groups and multi-national corporations. I list the Zionist bloc and the American Cuban bloc as examplesof two groups that have led to government against the better interest of the majority.

I also believe that what is often called a defense of personal freedom is in reality a defense of self indulgence. I see a large difference. Self indulgence leads to the detrimenet of others whereas personal freedom benefits all legitimate pursuits.

[norman]

Ted

Your interpretation of the word is a much better reflection of the meaning. Placing your opinion as more primary makes sense to me. So my opinion is frivilous lawsuits to a lesser degree play a part in the changes that have taken place.

My thinking was based on gender issues like changing "men working" signs to "work area ahead". Those were issues of law which in my opinion were frivilous. The intent of either sign is to warn motorists of a safety concern and was/is easily understood. The cost of sign conversion let alone the natural resources wasted to convert could easily have fed thousands.

More recently the lawsuit going to the supreme court of the lawyer that wants the pledge of allegiance changed.

To me that is frivilous. No one is forced to audibly say the pledge. The suit is on behalf of his daughter. I know of no place where she couldn't stand in silence & think of whatever entered her mind. Her right to not be audible is not infringed upon. Standing to honor the symbol of our freedom is a show of respect. I believe while she has every right to be silent if she choses there is a point of duty when it comes to respecting ones country.

[Ted]

I was not aware that those came about as a result of law suits.
I thought it was a matter of administrators being politically correct and over reacting. I think that it is much more important that a woman be able to work there if that is what she wants to do and is capable , no matter what the sign said. it is window dressing if the sign is changed and there are no women working there.

I was in a class room last week; at nine o'clock, announcements were made and then students pledged allegiance to the flag. They wee quite loud so I imagine every one participated. I did not participate but stopped what I was doing and stood silent while they did so. I was setting up a mural that I was going to use to address the third grade students. I think you are right; a student could stand there silently while others made the pledtge. But possibly students would notice and start harrassing the student for not joining in. A couple of years ago they might have called the student a communist. Now an pro-terrorist or a moslem or even a traitor?

As far as I am concerned pledging allegiance to the flag is
ostentatious patriotism and in the case of the phrase, under God, ostentatious piety. I would like to ask people just what do they mean when they say: under God. I can bet most would have no idea although they might say something like that means we are a godly nation. And what is a Godly nation?

And what does it mean to pledge allegiance:that you are vowing not to try overthrowing it? I would like to ask those students what they think it means but I was not there for that purpose.
I was there to teach about the environment.

Patriotism to me is taking care of where you live, casting an intelligent vote(as much as possible, sometimes when it comes to initiatives that is very hard to do), taking care of where you live,
obeying the laws--mostly (I have to say I violate traffic laws almost every day, going over the speed limit) and being involved
in the community, informing your representative of your opinion no matter how ineffective that may be and paying your taxes without cheating. I do most of those things; my congressman is so far right in a so far right district that I do not bother.
If there is a bill in congress that is detrimental to the environment, he is for it and most around here seem to agree with him.

[Snowden]

You know, Ted, you and I both probably remember when "under God" was inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance. I tripped over it in school, so I know I was there when the change was made.

If God were not being dis-allowed as someone we could name and discuss, pray to or not, I wouldn't miss those two words. As it is, I will fight as best I can to keep them. Why? Because this nation, as my first post sets forth, was established under His rule and sovreignity. It was set up in accordance with Christian standards, even to the fact that worshipping is not required or limited to Christianity.

So yes; that should remain. It must. If we turn our backs on God, why should we ever expect Him to come to our aid? And we will need him. We do need Him.

The ACLU wants to abolish God from the US - in the Constitution we are allowed to worship - or not. Why should we allow them to take Him away? We know why. It has become "politically incorrect" to mention our Lord and Saviour because we may hurt somebody's feelings. Absurd! If "somebody" doesn't worship he or she is free not to worship. The ACLU is un-American and has managed to chase our Lord from all places that are public - other than churches - because of the asses who have bought into political correctness instead of just speaking English.

And that's another thing; this nation is united because of and by one language. To succeed in any business here whatsoever, it is necessary for the person to speak English. This pc step insisting on a dual language being accepted is for the sole purpose of destroying the unity we have had all these year.

It should be pointed out to those who promote that nonsense that there are a very many more languages coming into this nation than just Spanish. All those are required to learn English to succeed. How will Spanish-speaking Americans cope?

Only by forgetting it is politically incorrect to speak English and to learn it.

[norman]

Ted

Do you really think 3rd. graders have the sophistication or maturity to answer the questions you would have liked to ask them?

I don't consider the pledge to be ostentatious. I look at that more of a way to begin understanding. To begin as being part of something larger than immediate family. National pride has to begin somewhere. 3rd. graders aren't quite to the point of school spirit, rooting for the school team, participating in band or sports. They are at the level of learning that America extends beyond the town they live in. Progressive learning takes place & with that comes questioning. Years later what was basic & part of the learned process can change dramatically. In the beginning I believe the structure has to be equalized. As a child matures & discussion takes place with parents, & peers the basics help the child sort out different thinking.

The PC police are everywhere. I believe removing [ The Pledge] which should be the starting point as a source of pride in America would be destructive. Why not do away with the national anthem, or celebration of national holidays. 75,000 fans rising to cross their hearts when the anthem is played could easily be viewed as ostentatious. The 4th. of July fireworks displays for sure are ostentatious.

As for Under God. I view explaining that phrase as something parents would to be the ones to discuss with that their children. When & if their child questions it.

I don't post to shoot the messeger I post to counter what is written. If you read carefully I referred to the content.

[Script]

I am irritated by some of the more extreme P.C. changes in the language and manner of address made to and about groups here in Canada but I really don't mind most of them. They are changing because resentments have surfaced and I believe it would be churlish to continue using an offending term.


We don't have pledges in our schools, but we seem to have good morale in them and great love for our country.Religions are only mentioned as cultural information in Social Studies classes, no religious advertizing is permitted on school grounds. Some God reference was included in our National anthem sometime in the 80's but that will probably be removed as the population has altered.


I prefer this new world; from where I stand I see more inclusiveness , better education and acknowledgement of others perspectives and rights.I was born and educated in England , now I am a fiercely proud Canadian.

[Ted]

I believe in bi-lingual education at the elementary level. Why? Because I worked with Mexican/American kids when I was a probation officer and much of their delinquent acting out was about school frustration. Most of them came from illiterate parents who are here trying to find a better life. There was no writing at home and the only language spoken was Mexican or in many cases Texican or Tex/Mex. Then they go to school and not only have to learn the English words but also to see words for the first time in print. It puts them at a tremendous disadvantage and has led many including themselves to think they are stupid. At the same time there are many through parental support and good teachers overcome the odds and go on to high academic achievement. But we would do well to fight crime by considering some of the factors that lead to it,

Kids are brighter than you give them credit for. They have a right to be told what they are reciting at a level that they can understand. They surprise me at times with their understanding of things. I know-I am in the class room with them and with them on trips looking at the riparian habitat. But do adults understand? I have no proof that they do. What does the phrase "under God mean to you? The whole world is under God. Is this nation any more special than any other. NO. It is arrogance to think that it is. Is God going to bless this nation any more than he blesses any other? No And just how do we trust in God? To me that is crap; saying to each other and the world that we are such a Godly nation and guess what=we are not a Godly nation unless you want to ignore a whole lot of data indicating otherwise.

[norman]

What does under God mean to me.

It means I have the choice to express my faith in God. That I believe there is a holy spirit that I can turn to & talk to if I so chose. I don't believe that we are "Godly nation" I believe we are a nation that believes in religious freedom.

Kids are brighter than given credit for.

In everything or selected areas?

The right to be told what they are reciting at a level they can understand.

How is that level determined? If a class room has 25 children there is a real potential for 25 different understanding levels. Multiply that by amount of schools & there is one big job ahead of the person telling what the recital means.


Children could easily be assessed as seeming bright when participating in a project they could enjoy. But to make the leap to explaining at a level they understand implies that it would be a simple matter accomplished by anyone.

I still opt for the parents to decide & be involved when the child asks. If they ask. To force an explanation on a child has no value.

[Quentin]

Ted, I agree with your views on bi-lingual education in our public schools, and for the reasons you stated. My son took four years of latin in high school; my daughter took 2 years of latin and 2 years of spanish. It has served them well. The Mexican-American is typically hard-working, fun loving, and family oriented. With Anglos learning spanish it will be much easier to express our brother and sisterhood with and for them.

[Quentin]

Keith.....laughing about your last paragraph. Where my children attended elementary school they were required to say the Pledge of Allegiance on Mondays. Sometime around the 4th grade my son ask me "Dad, don't you think they know by now we are loyal americans."

[Snowden]

Ted and Quentin, I believe very much that more than one language should be taught in school. I studied three languages - English of course, Latin and French. I would have liked to study Spanish and Italian, but happily was able to read both with a not-too-bad level of understanding because of the two other languages.

My youngest son studied Latin or French in the third grade and the other also in elementary school. I have read that they were for a time saying that learning two or more languages would help prevent Alzheimers, but I think they later discovered it's a virus. I'm not sure. In any event, we must all study English - but the second language should be an elective one; not limited to Spanish.

As for the Pledge of Allegiance, it's a good thing - there is no reason to ban it or the "under God" reference. Ted, yes, all the world is under Him - but it's not a bad idea to remind the kids of it. And the word "god" is truly generic. We are not naming Him as being the God of Abraham and we are not mentioning Jesus Christ. We see it that way; those who worship other gods may think of it as referring to whatever god they worship. Why is it apt to offend anyone? Atheists perhaps, but they can giggle about it going home or just say the Pledge without those words. Nobody is apt to notice. I skip the filioqua clause in the Creed at church and nobody notices that.

[Ted]

Why is some bloke in Australian flying an American flag. I do not see any Australian flags or flags of other nations flying here. On second thought, i think I have seen the Mexican flag flying. Mexicans are an interesting immigrant. Mexican political candidates for office come to California to campaign/in fact come here sometimes even before them campaign at home. You get the feeling that home is here. I have no way of knowing but outward appearances suggest they are here but not of us. They continue to vote in Mexico and celebrate Mexican national holidays.

I do not mean that of every Mexican in America but certainly a significant number of them.m

[Tori]

According to the news report on a local TV channel tonight another Politically incorrect term is to be changed. This will result in all the illegal aliens being removed immediatly.

The hispanic community is objecting to the term illegal aliens. They will be replaced by "undocumented workers". Even though they are still illegal and many of them are not working the term is acceptable to the complainers.

Of course this doesn't cover those who are not working and are drawing welfare. They haven't come up with a term for that yet. Let's fill in the blanks and see what we can come up with that will be PC

Undocumented welfare recipients, nah! "Welfare" isn't PC is it? Undocumented economically secure, or maybe undocumented needy, no needy isn't PC. No matter how you word it they are still illegal (outside of the law) and not citizens of the United States (aliens).

And while I'm on the subject of PC, I'd like everyone to take notice; I'm sick of being called white! I'm not white and never have been. My skin tone is light rose beige and from now on I expect every one to refer to me as light rose beige.

No more senior citizen either! The words; senior, older, elderly and others like them offend me; so from now on I'd like to be referred to as an adult and left at that!

Furthermore my ancestry is German-french!

Last but not least my gender is no ones business but mine. I resent being referred to by gender as that creates an automatic stereotype.

As a result of my decision, I insist that when the warrant is issued for my arrest on grounds of political incorrectness, the complete description must be limited to, "an adult German-french person with light rose beige complexion."

Skin tone charts must be distributed to law enforcement agencies immediatly or I will be forced to contact the ACLU.
;)

[OneSG]

Tori. I liked that.
I can never be arrested then as I am beyond description.

[Angelus]

Political correctness is also all over Europe like a rash.

Sexists, Homophobics, racists, ageists, sectarians, etc.

I agree in principle that a person should be respected, as a person, and should not be discriminated against, regardless of colour, creed, religion, politics, gender, etc. I think it is wicked.

However, I do think that democracy, should also be allowed to prevail.

Recently in Italy, a Catholic School was ordered to take down its crucifixes, because the parent of the one Asian (Muslim) child objected. I think in a modern day society, a majority should be able to have preferences. Whether crucixes are put up or not.

What that parent done was to, potentially, have their child discriminated against by the majority catholic school children. I think it would have been better to accommodate the needs of the Muslim child, than to discriminate against the majority.

A question is annoying me, and has me digressing slightly:

1. Is it illegal to fly the Confederate Flag in the USA.

2. If it is, I would equate this to the situation in Italy. Although it is not necessary legal, it would create hell for the kids who's parents asked for it to be taken down in the Southern states.

It may not be a perfect analagy, but i was trying to capture the sense of hostility that could be invoked by one person using the law to defeat the wishes of the majority.

PC Versus Democracy

Angelus

[Snowden]

Angelus, I haven't heard that flying the Confederate flag is illegal - except on the dome of South Carolina's State House. I think private citizens are free to fly it. It may not be wise in some areas, of course, but it isn't against any law.

Half the trucks in the south would be impounded if it were! ;)

[edith]

Originally posted by Snowden:
Ted and Quentin, I believe very much that more than one language should be taught in school. I studied three languages - English of course, Latin and French. I would have liked to study Spanish and Italian, but happily was able to read both with a not-too-bad level of understanding because of the two other languages.
I agree. I went to high school in France and two of my best friends there were Turks. They told me that they studied three languages starting in their equivalent of Kindergarten. They had to study Turkish, English and a third language of their choice. They spoke, and comprehended, excellent English and French.


Latin was the second language I studied and very valuable. I understand it is making it is making a comeback here and there in forward thinking schools.



[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tori:
According to the news report on a local TV channel tonight another Politically incorrect term is to be changed. This will result in all the illegal aliens being removed immediatly.

The hispanic community is objecting to the term illegal aliens. They will be replaced by "undocumented workers". Even though they are still illegal and many of them are not working the term is acceptable to the complainers.
Too bad all the illegal aliens aren't removed immediately and forced to go through all the channels other immigrants go through.

How about calling them "illegal undocumented workers" or "criminals?"



Originally posted by Angelus:
Recently in Italy, a Catholic School was ordered to take down its crucifixes, because the parent of the one Asian (Muslim) child objected. I think in a modern day society, a majority should be able to have preferences. Whether crucixes are put up or not.
Up until the Islamic invasion, Italy was a Catholic country. Just wait until all vestiges of Christianity are removed and see if the Italians will come to their senses. Remember what the Taliban did to the "offensive" statues of Buddha?


Is it illegal to fly the Confederate Flag in the USA.
No, it's not illegal for a private citizen. It is illegal to fly them from a public place though and I support that. It is offensive to many people, especially blacks. To them it represents slavery and repression. To me it represents the attempt to break up the Union.

[Snowden]

Edith, you say, about flying the Confederate flag -

To me it represents the attempt to break up the Union.

To me it represents a time when the US had a war within itself for at least two reasons. The reason most quoted by southerners today is to maintain States' Rights (which I rather doubt was prevalent in the mind of that southerner who fired the first shot in Charleston, SC) and to free the slaves (which, again, I doubt was in the mind of many until it was used by Lincoln to unite the northerners - a "cause").

That's one for each side - but nine'll get you ten the whole shebang had a lot to do with the economy and/or politics.

Which, along with what you have stated, were all in the pot at that time. I am southern by tradition and my family goes each way. We did have some fight for the Union and others for the South. That was really a benefit in the long run, for living in one of the two most notorious "border" states - Maryland and Kentucky, at least one male adult in the family had to remain home if the others fought for the South. Otherwise, the family home was taken by the Union.

Virginia broke into two states - West Virginia wishing to remain in the Union. What a strange map it would have been if the South had won. By now I suppose the two sides would have recognized the need to join as one nation again - but I wonder if they would have.

In the long run, it's no doubt a good thing the North won - but I remain a Southerner. (Somehow this sentence reminds me of The Pirates of Penzance. The Pirates of Penzance. I guess it's just the rhythm of those last few words - and that Patrick has had it playing over and over and over. He loves it.)

[Rojo]

:rolleyes:

When I was a kid, we had to say the Pledge every morning, with our little hands over our hearts.

One day, a classmate looked over at me and said " It's not invisable, It's indivisable!"

In my young state of mind I had rationalized that it probably was that no one could see us.

Go figure.

Then "Under God" was injected into the Pledge.

Immediately my young mind went to the American Indians. I knew they DID NOT have one God.

They have many (Gods - Spirits).

That is just one example of what went through my head.

Kids can be brain washed, and so can adults.

Keith, maybe that homeowner with the American flag is American.

One last thought... English is hard enough to learn well. If one expects to do well in the US, one would probably do themselves a favor learning it, no matter where one comes from.

I'm first generation American, and I thank God or Gods that my parents came to that conclusion.. RJ

[Quentin]

red, good post. In fact to me it is the best post of yours I have ever read.

[Snowden]

Quentin, I'm curious - who is "red?" I looked back saw RoJo - Hi, RJ!!!

Now there's something red! :D

Seriously, did I miss a post back there?

[Joyous]

Snowden, I believe the civil war was fought over state's rights. The south seceded from the union because the north supposedly wanted to abolish slavery. Never mind the fact most northerners wouldn't have a black family living within 40 miles of them! The southern states wanted the right to decide for themselves. The war was lost by the south because of economics. The north had industry and the south had cotton. Not so simple as I have painted it, but near.

As we all know, there is still slavery being practised even in this country. People are brought here and kept in virtually slavery due to ignorance or because they are imprisoned. Women forced into prostitution, household workers for the very rich. A young man who escaped slavery in Sudan has written a book about his own plight.