BetaONE will rise again! - School censorship

BetaONE will rise again! (http:\\b1.hcanet.com\forum/index.php)

- Chit Chat (http:\\b1.hcanet.com\forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)

- - School censorship (http:\\b1.hcanet.com\forum/showthread.php?t=7839)

This has to be one of the stupiest things I have ever read in my life.

Quote:

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The review process, which is routinely done in many states, is meant to eliminate or replace outdated words or phrases.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."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85594,00.html

IMO, history is history. It shouldn't be censored. Who cares if it offends somebody? It happened, live with it. What next, are they going the rip the entire holocaust out of textbooks because it offends 99% of the Jewish population of the world?

Sephiroth,

I agree with everything you have said. I would like to add that I think these changes to our history are being made with a sinister purpose. Even more than just political correctness, I think this is a deliberate and considered effort by liberals to purge all vestiges of our country's true beginnings from our history. When a generation is raised that knows nothing about the strong influence of Christianity and personal morals on the founding of our government, it is easier to perpetuate the lies they have been passing as the truth for the last 50 years. For example, the notion of "separation of church and state". Many uninformed people think this phrase is in our constitution or bill of rights....WRONG! This lie was created by activist judges on the supreme court and DOES NOT reflect the relationship religion and government had for the first 150 years of our existance. If anyone cares for the true origin (with references to the original documents) of the "separation of church and state, I would be glad to add it in a later post.

In conclusion, this is just another step towards creating a nation full of dumb, passive and easy to manipulate 9-5 workers. They will be heavily taxed and dependent on government benefits to survive, but will be happy in their domesticated state.

Tomboy

===========

Edit:

The link below does a pretty good job of addressing the "separation of church and state" myth:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=32361

Tomboy

Hmmmmmm, not so much censorship as outright stupidity. WTF were\are they thinking?

I dont know how far the situation has progressed in the US, but in the UK its completly ridicoulous. Every single textbook has to pass through censorship before it is printed to ensure there is the correct proportion of ethnic minorities, yada yada.

It is now "pollitically incorrect" to have a question which begins "john and jane are attempting to measure...". It needs to be replaced with "Sanjeep and Mohammed Singh Baldginder are attempting to measure...".

For fucks sake, do people not have anything better to do than dumben down the average person. Language only becomes offensive if it is treated as such. Anyone with an IQ over 2 can deduce that when I say "I think we should have a quick brainstorm to decide the course of action", I am reffering to a so called 'mind-map', and not saying "I think you should just lapse into an epileptic fit, shrivel up and die.".

It may be a difficult concept for the equal rights beurocrats to grasp, but ill try and explain it simply. Snowmen are white, because *SNOW* is white. Unless you add some urine to darken the skin tones, precipritation is not inherintly racist. Get over it.

If I wish to drink some "white coffee" as opposed to "coffee with added milk", I am merely stating my prefference of additives to a drink. The term "black cofee" does not in fact imply "faq off you nigger, I only want to deal with white homos" as some people might mistakenly think.

The people who are making excuses about how their jobs censoring textbooks and replacing names are vital for "social acceptance of ethnic minorities" perhaps need to rethink their outlook on life - im sure I get out more, and im a geek. If people treat snowmen as offensive and racist symbols, thats what they will become.

What these people do not realise is noone takes them seriously. I have made a habbit - each time I see a question about "Abul Madeek-Aught" (thanks gus for the name), I neatly cross it out and write "John". Why complicate matters?

I have seen this stuff start to creep into the systems here in the US and am totally disgusted by it. Even the classic fairy tales are being distorted and twisted, a subtle form of propaganda and mind control that really makes the case for home schooling :(

It's funny how stories like this are not broadcast on the mainstream media channels (read liberal). IMHO the liberals here in the US are just pushing a very sneaky form of socialism; what Tomboy said about being sheep of the state.

I am gonna go have a hotdog and contemplate moving my family to a mountaintop where the major data pipes of the US pass through, so at least I'll have a fast connection ;)

/JD

Quote:

Originally posted by DoG@May 1 2003, 03:36 PM
Hmmmmmm, not so much censorship as outright stupidity.

my thoughts exactly. i haven't noticed it yet here, but then again i don't read the books much.

Yea just saw this yesterday on fox news. So stupid!!!!!!

This crap has been in Canada for years and has progressively gotten worse. In my last job (Government Job) we had to take a course on what we could and could not say.

The funniest one that still stands out is in regards to people that cannot hear. For years we were taught to say "hearing impaired." The last memo I saw was to refer to them as "deaf" as they didnt like to be referred to as impaired. Quite a 360 as calling someone "deaf" was considered rude until just recently.

Ya, I saw something on the news a few months back about these Indians. Turns out, researchers found the remains of what they thought was older then an Indian. However, it was on the Indian Reservation Property, so they could not investigate it. During the process of trying to find out more, the Indian's covered the whole thing up with rocks that they dropped from helicopters.

It's kind of off topic, but hey, it has to do with history.

This has been going round quite a while, a little parody making fun of political corectness.

Dirty Old Man: Sexually focused chronologically gifted individual.
Perverted: Sexually dysfunctional.
Panhandler: Unaffiliated applicant for private-sector funding.
Serial-Killer: Person with difficult-to-meet needs.
Lazy: Motivationally deficient.
Fat: Horizontally challenged.
Fail: Acheive a deficiency.
Dishonest: Ethically disoriented.
Bald: Follicularly challenged
Clumsy: Uniquely coordinated.
Body Odor: Nondiscretionary fragrance.
Alive: Temporarily metabolically abled.
Worst: Least best.
Wrong: Differently logical.
Ugly: Cosmetically different.
Unemployed: Involuntarily leisured.
Short: Vertically challanged.
Dead: Living impaired.
Vagrant: Nonspecifically destinationed individual.
Spendthrift: Negative saver.
Stoned: Chemically inconvenienced.
Pregnant: Parasitically opressed.
Ignorant: Knowledge-based nonpossessor.
Sephiroth: Analy Gifted

LMAO Zone :D

And there are some fairy tales here:

http://www.betaone.net/forums/index....T&f=67&t=23068

Be back in a while, I have a Nondiscretionary fragrance to go deal with :D :D :D

/JD

Here in norway things dont get censored just like that, luckily, but its coming here also, because the norwegian word for negro for instance (which has no racist meaning in norway) is also being taken away. Besides, people who get offended by history have IMO serious problems facing reality.

Lets re-write physics too ;)

Quote:

Traditional Eurocentric physics must be excised if students are to achieve higher consciousness. The restrictive ideology of Newton, with its emphasis on action and reaction, is exposed as reactionary propaganda, used for centuries to oppress indigenous peoples and institutionalize fear and hate. The prohibitive, traditional "laws" of physics must be rejected in favor of new models that foster tolerance, empowerment, and social justice. Under the old order, radical conservative forces have imposed "conservative" laws restricting the use of energy, mass, momentum, and electrical charge. Rather than conserving such forces and powers, they must be increased and made available to all people, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/PCPhysics.shtml

Quote:

A more progressive feminine cosmology, the Gentle Nurturing, is offered to replaced the male Big Bang theory.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

:blink:

:ph34r:

EDIT- Found this to be good reading, sorry for the length :)

Quote:

http://www.gofast.org/argos-spring-1998/article2.htm

Why 'Political Correctness' Cannot Be Correct

By Marc Berley

What is 'Political Correctness'? It is the inane but dangerous thought and speech code that threatens the free speech and intellectual curiosity of so many students and their teachers at colleges across the country -- closing rather than opening minds.
Who started 'Political Correctness'? Oddly enough, professors motivated by the credo that "all things are relative."

The original and current purveyors of 'Political Correctness' not only say there is no Truth (with a capital T). They go as far as saying there are no truths. There are, they argue, no "correct" answers, just different ones. They celebrate difference rather than individual pursuits of excellence.

We see this aspect of 'Political Correctness' in classrooms all over America -- from elementary school classes to seminars at the country's elite colleges. We see it when little Julia's teacher tells Julia's mother that she doesn't correct spelling because she doesn't want to 'hurt her students' feelings' and because she is 'celebrating all the different ways the children choose to spell.' (It's not really choice, of course, but that's another important matter for another time.)

Students are increasingly taught that there is no correct answer to any question. They are taught, rather, that there are only different answers, and where difference is to be celebrated, any notion of correctness is to be avoided.

Now, this is the heart of 'Political Correctness' -- and of the educational movement of which it is part. It forbids students to assert the correctness of certain answers, or the greatness of certain poets. As Kurt Andersen recently observed in The New Yorker, in an article entitled "Kids Are Us," we are not teaching children to grow up. We are refusing to teach them to deal with the burden, consequences, and rewards of discernment, judgment, and competition. As Andersen writes, "What do we tell nice children about their ugly scribbles and cockamamie ideas and pointless stories? That they're all just great, no better or worse than any other child's -- which carried full-strength into the adult world, becomes an undiscriminating hyperempathy, where Maya Angelou is a great poet and Marianne Williamson a philosopher."

Anderson's observation is, unfortunately, accurate.  Moreover, the people who administer the codes of 'Political Correctness' at schools across the country take the principal of 'hyperempathy' one step further: to be 'hyperempathetic' in one respect requires being selectively unempathetic in others. It is fine to tell very young children that all their finger-paintings are great for their feeling and energy. But children do need to grow up, and telling children ten years later that one essay is as good as another is to consign them to a world in which, in the last analysis, nothing really matters because nothing really makes a difference.

On the one hand, the purveyors of 'Political Correctness' "celebrate differences"; on the other hand, they obliterate a whole host of important differences. As they see it, some people ought not to be judged for their skills because they will be harmed by competition. They outlaw the statement that Shakespeare is a better poet than Maya Angelou. The statement, they say, is "politically incorrect." It is 'unfair,' or 'irrelevant,' they say, to compare them. What they compare instead is social relevance. We have, they claim, been trained -- 'indoctrinated' and 'constructed' are their words -- to think that Shakespeare is better.  To claim that Shakespeare is better than Maya Angelou, they conclude, is "politically incorrect." They go even further. Shakespeare's plays, they say, are not instances of great literary art. They are products of an oppressive culture, and therefore "politically incorrect."

There is a problem here, of course. You might think to call it a logical inconsistency, but it is actually a case of intellectual dishonesty. For how can the very people who assert that there are no facts and that no answer is correct assert also that there is a code of opinions and answers that are, politically speaking, correct?

The purveyors of the code known as 'Political Correctness' try to have it both ways. Indeed, they try to have it every way.

Hypocrisy is built into the very notion of 'Political Correctness.' What the purveyors of 'Political Correctness' deem correct is correct.  Anything that goes against their bias they deem "politically incorrect." Theirs is a childish response to the world. They are, as Andersen writes in "Kids are Us," teaching children to remain children in a world that will -- nevertheless -- be peopled by a large proportion of adults. Adults, furthermore, will go around trying to know things, and making judgments about quality -- whether it is a comparison of two automobiles or a comparison of two job applicants. Where job applicants are concerned, the first questions will be: 'who knows more, and who is likely to learn more, and more quickly?'

The purveyors of 'Political Correctness' close their eyes to these facts. They are rampant relativists who hold that no one can know anything and that the only thing more foolish than believing that facts exist is making the effort to pursue them. At the most extreme level, they hold that reality does not exist; we have, rather, they say, only our subjective impressions of what exists, a collection of cultural and political preferences and biases. All systems of aesthetic judgment, like all systems of morality, they say, are merely different. And one can either prefer one (exhibiting bias) or celebrate differences (as in so-called 'multiculturalism').

When it comes to their political interests, the purveyors of 'Political Correctness' assert their ability to know what is correct and what is not.   But they cannot really establish any criterion for correctness -- their allegiance to relativism will not allow it. All finger-paintings are, after all, equal -- except in the eyes of the beholder, who happens to be the child's mother. All they are doing, in the end, is asserting what, politically, they think -- what, politically, they will.

The question is: how do the keepers of 'Political Correctness' get away with such duplicity?

The answer is that they never assert or defend with reason the 'correctness' of their claims. They only excoriate the 'incorrectness' of others -- especially good-hearted people who strive to make accurate aesthetic judgments: that Shakespeare is a better poet than Maya Angelou, for example.

Shakespeare is, we must remember, the best of all poets ever to write in English. There is no shame in losing out to him. But the purveyors of 'Political Correctness' do not like to let him stand at the top of the hill. They call him just another dead, white, European male. (You've heard the phrase. And you've likely heard the acronym: DWEM). It is as if deadness is something the purveyors of 'Political Correctness' hold against him. Yet, in truth, his deadness reminds us of the dreary fact -- mortality -- that unites all humanity. We are all the same where death is concerned.

Of course, the purveyors of 'Political Correctness' are in the business of seeing differences only where they want to see them.  And in pursuing their bias they make trouble in our lives. Pointing out differences, they create divisions between students who could otherwise get along, lining up students of different ethnic backgrounds and making them fight battles they did not wish to fight -- telling students that Shakespeare's poetry is oppressive, rather than encouraging students to enjoy and learn from it.

At schools where Shakespeare is still taught, the purveyors of 'Political Correctness' do what they can to denigrate his importance within the history of the English language and human thought. They see those who praise Shakespeare rather than bury him as 'politically incorrect'.  In classes around the country, they call good-hearted students politically-charged names. And in a community dominated by a code of 'Political Correctness' these names mainly stick.

To say that Shakespeare is a better poet than T. S. Eliot is, of course, to render an aesthetic judgment, and an accurate one. Eliot himself would have to admit the truth. To answer differently would be ludicrous. The purveyors of 'Political Correctness," however, consider the judgment that Shakespeare is a better poet than Maya Angelou as a racist statement, rather than a realistic aesthetic judgment. Yet one may, of course, according to the dictates of 'Political Correctness' celebrate Maya Angelou and assert her superiority. One is permitted -- nay, encouraged -- to say that she is more worth reading today -- more relevant -- than Shakespeare.

Here the hypocrisy of 'Political Correctness' takes its most extreme form. Purveyors of 'Political Correctness'  will, in the final analysis, not even allow others their judgments. When their justification of their right to judge is shown for the hypocrisy it is, they get mean. They celebrate 'difference,' but they will not allow people truly to be different -- to think differently, and to say what they think. They will not even allow those who celebrate Shakespeare to celebrate him in peace.

'Political Correctness' nowadays sees everything 'in terms of race, class, and gender.' And anyone who refuses to see the world through these subjective, and often hateful, lenses is branded with a hateful name. Shakespeare is a misogynist, they say. He does not render women with respect, they say -- ignoring the many examples of fine women from Rosalind to Cordelia. Because it suits their broader political purpose, they ignore the clear cases in which Shakespeare's female characters are morally and intellectually superior to their male counterparts.

The keepers of 'Political Correctness' demand that people see only certain things in certain ways. They are as dogmatic as religious zealots, often more fierce and less edifying.

'Political Correctness' is a powerful form of censorship, a pervasive form of anti-intellectual thought-control, an ugly form of racism, a hypocritical form of absolutism.

It's about time we all see 'Political Correctness' for what it is.

And it is about time we all see the harm it does -- and to whom. It hurts those very people -- children -- who are encouraged well past an appropriate age to encounter the world as if it were a kindergarten class in finger-painting, where everyone gets heaps of praise for whatever he or she does. It is not, of course. The world is a place in which some people do some things better than others, almost always because they work harder at it than anyone else. Michael Jordan is a great example here. He knows that innate talent is not enough. Desire, practice, daily effort, and only these, win the day.

'Political Correctness' is not a laughable fad that will soon disappear from America's classrooms. It is, for the moment, here to stay. Teachers with tenure and administrators with power are behind it. Although the general mood of the American public might suggest that it is, of late, something we are beginning to take lightly, 'Political Correctness'  is a powerful consequence of years of planning by its purveyors.

'Political Correctness' will be around for a good long while. So best to know it for what it is.

While celebrated by purveyors as a list of objectively offensive things one may not say, 'Political Correctness' is really a subjective list put together by the few to rule the many -- a list of things one must think, say, and do. It affronts the right of an individual student to establish his or her own beliefs. It enforces a dangerous way of looking at the world -- in black and white, say, rather than in liberal swathes of multifarious gray.

maybe we should change the member group "banned" to "betaone challenged." <_<

Quote:

Originally posted by trminatr@May 2 2003, 09:14 PM
maybe we should change the member group "banned" to "betaone challenged."  <_<

LMFAO!

or "Admissionally impoverished" ;)

On another note, the government beurocrats may be taking this seriously, but is the staff in your school?

My teachers just laugh at the idiocy and joke about it. All students in my school joke about the "political correctness" obsession and the staff unofficially agree.

"If you look at the whiteboard... wait, I dont think Im allowed to say that anymore, I mean if you look at the melanine defficient regular plane...."

Quote:

On another note, the government beurocrats may be taking this seriously, but is the staff in your school?

Well I have a Native Canadian as a student in my class. When I was teaching the differences between native and mixed mode, he spoke up and asked if native in 2k was full blooded :P

I think that politically correct only applies when you are surrounded by people so tight in the ass that if you stuck a lump of coal up there in a week you would have a diamond. ;)

The question I think all of us have to ask is WHY are they doing these things and who will gain by it? I know I may sound like I don't trust any of them and you're right.:D Our system is all we have they say but it is being constantly tested and changed all without us the citizens vote on it but by the ones we put in office so al-tho it may be our own fault what is the gain that these politicians are getting from this?

Quote:

Originally posted by BigDadday@May 3 2003, 03:29 AM
The question I think all of us have to ask is WHY are they doing these things and who will gain by it? I know I may sound like I don't trust any of them and you're right.:D Our system is all we have they say but it is being constantly tested and changed all without us the citizens vote on it but by the ones we put in office so al-tho it may be our own fault what is the gain that these politicians are getting from this?

They have the ideal job :D they get paid for making stupid descisions and passing un-realistic laws. Damn, i could do that job for half the money :P

LOL yeah I think we all would make fantastic politicians!

This is Orwells Newspeak already. There is another ungood report here: http://www.gooff.com/NM/templates/Br...=1007&zoneid=2

The fight for censorship will always continue. The majority of people are peons to political and emotional shift. Only a few, I believe have the courage to argue and flatly disagree with what media/schools protray.

I'm Jewish and I would be offended if they took OUT the holocaust from musuems, cause it offends us. No f*cking way, most of our family died in that event, a rememberance will only bring out the passions yet again.

Being political correct is NOT good. I'm a scrony, pale white, Jewish Canadian and I have it anyother way. I think we are going to far with censorsh*p. Ev*ntua**y m*s* of *h* Let*ers w*ll be *******. See what this does. Its distorts communications between people.

Yes.. saying "f (had to use letter cause I really don't want to use the word) ya, I had a awesome time with that shit, it was great."

but I belive..

It could also be said.. "Yes, last night was a blast, where did you get that chinese food last night?"

I hope that I make a tad bit of sence.