| "The Language Police" |
|
I read this tidbit on Fox News.
The following are some examples of words and phrases banned by major textbook publishers, and their suggested alternatives. They have been compiled into a book called "The Language Police" by Diane Ravitch.
Blind leading the blind, the (banned as handicapism)
Busybody (banned as sexist, demeaning to older women)
Confined to a wheelchair (banned as offensive; replace with "person who is mobility impaired")
East, Eastern (banned as Eurocentric)
Elderly, the (banned as ageist; replace with "older people")
Fairy (banned because it suggests homosexuality; replace with "elf")
Founding Fathers, the (banned as sexist; replace with "the Founders" or "the Framers")
Huts (banned as ethnocentric; replace with "small houses")
Jungle (banned; replace with "rain forest")
Little person (banned as offensive; replace with "person of small stature")
Lumberjack (banned as sexist; replace with "woodcutter")
One-man band (banned as sexist; replace with "one-person performance")
Regatta (banned as elitist)
Mother Russia (banned as sexist; replace with "Russia, vast land of rich harvests")
These kinds of "let's protect our children from such terrors" takes from those same children the right to learn about and decide for themselves regarding that which we protect them from. It also says, in subtle ways, we think you're too weak or dumb to deal with such things. We big and strong adults must decide for you.
Posted by: Robert D. Goeman on April 29, 2003 06:44 PMI'm with you 100% Robert. Adults, these days, don't give children enough credit. But then, those are the same adults who can't teach their children the difference from right/wrong, real/fantasy, etc., and therefore prefer to just "shelter" their children and keep them in the dark.
Posted by: Desiree on May 6, 2003 07:16 AMThis is ridiculous. I have a wonderful idea. Let's rewrite all the history books too, so that they don't offend, of course. That way our children won't learn and WILL be doomed to repeat the mistakes we made because they didn't know we made them.
Posted by: Tammy on May 21, 2003 05:02 PMI am afraid of what is next. It is not enough that kids are fat and lazy, but now we contrive as a nation to make school even more mind numbingly boring than it already is. Who could help being jaded and blase in the light of such stuffy, starchy revision. How can "elderly" be ageist? Additionally I would like the word "van" to be banned as offensive (as it conjurs up images of fuzzy dice, tight jeans and KISS records,) replace with "large boxy car"
Posted by: Tom on May 27, 2003 02:37 PM
These people are:
Multiple Choice (one or more answers maybe correct)
1)Foolish
2)Stupid
3)Idiots
4)Windbags
5)Dumb
6)Half wits
7)Dense
8)Half baked
9)Senseless
10)Pointless
11)Insane
12)Mindless
13)Silly
14)Loony
15)Wacky
16)Screwy
17)Goofy
18)Crazy
19)Ludicrous
20)Invisionaries - who see the need for progressive and inclusive change
Wow. What is the world coming to? I like how we're "dumbing down the books". No wonder American students are ignorant and test scores get progressively worse.
How can you ban the word "sea"?! If a student doesn't know this, they really ought to learn it. Otherwise we are cultivating the seeds of ignorance.
What next? Ban "terrorist" because the name itself could scare somebody?
Ooh, I have one...how about ghetto? What will this become? Economically-deprived neighborhood?
Since we're now banning elitist terms, I guess we need to get rid of "executive", as in Chief Executive, because it would place this person above his/her employees. "President"? - buh bye. "Mayor?" - gone with the wind. Why don't we just get rid of titles period?
Perhaps these textbook publishers ought to be asking themselves what consequences their actions will have for this next generation and reconsider banning any word besides those that are blatantly racist?
Someone who writes a book that stupid probably grew up with a book like that to study when she was young. How else would she have gotten so ignorant? This author needs psychiatic help, and NOW!!!!!!!
My list of Revised Words:
hair-offends people who are bald
any color-offends people who are colorblind; replace with "pigmented"
computer-elitist; aviod images
electricity-offends the Amish
stick-offends skinny people; replace with "long wooden thing."
hip-huggers~sexual images; replace with "pants-that begin-along-the-bone-that-sticks-out-below the waist"
tan-offends people who get freckles instead of getting tan
"Honors" English-assumes that one class has superiority over another
skirt-implies the wearer is female, Scottish, or a cross-dresser
dress-same as above
heels-makes women seem smaller and more frail then men, and trying to be as tall and strong and being so artifically; replace with "fancy height-assisting shoes"
sky-offends people in L.A. who don't get to see it that often
relax-offends people with high-stress problems
snow-confuses people who live in temperate zones and are not familiar with this type of percipitation
There must be a limit to how "politically-correct" a word has to be to be seen by our kids (including me). If we lower all ideas to the lowest possible denominator, then what's left?
Posted by: Cindy on May 28, 2003 10:29 PMTo Cindy. I can tell that you haven't read the book. It's not what you think it is. There's much in it about why history and social studies books and curricula in our schools are so trivial and boring to students. Both avoid controversy, even on the most important topics. It's a wake up call about teaching humanities. I plan to read it. I heard the author interviewed about the book on NPR. She's highly intelligent. You should never trust Fox News (or any similar outlet) to rise above the "entertainment level" of news.
Posted by: Gary on June 9, 2003 11:27 AM