Thin Gruel

[Mitsuki]

How the Language Police Drain the Life and Content from our Texts...

And I cannot agree more than that. I just had to read a passage for English class and I had to type up a one-page reading response based on "Thin Gruel". I must say that I find some of the things I read quite shocking, although at the same time I am also not that surprised.

Anyway, I'll summarize it by pasting my reading response:


In “Thin Gruel”, Diane Ravitch brings light to the readers some most interesting information regarding the censorship of literature from both the left and right groups. The right-wing focused more on the religious and moral side of things, while the left is based on the political correctness; in summary, both have made a negative impact on the American public education due to the ridiculous censorship and its unreasonable excuse.

Ravitch also included some instances of banned passages by the “bias and sensitivity review” panel for national tests, and although they were approved by education experts, the panel did not approve due to biasness and insensitivity. I was quite shocked when I read this and I thought it was a laughing matter that the right and left wings are so adamant of trying to keep things in order in the American society through censorship. Why limit what children are supposed to be learning in school? Why change the truth and ban words or passages and not let us all see the contents for what they really are? I remember reading “The Even Exchange” when I was in elementary school, and I am quite shocked to see that they banned this passage for national testing. There is nothing wrong with the passage, and this is just going a tad bit overboard because the truth of the matter is, children are already exposed to many contents that their parents may not want them to see, hear, learn, or realize. They go to school everyday, so therefore they pick up everyday words and slangs by other children and in turn, they start to formulate the meanings behind those words, phrases, and its usages. And something that should be noted is that the words banned in text books are not even close to being offensive or considered as foul language, and yet they are trying their best to rid of those words that are used in our everyday lives. I respect Diane Ravitch for the time, research, and criticism she brings to the people to ponder about. It’s a powerful message, and it is quite concerning to know that the children are not getting the best of their education from an early age because of such ludicrous things as political correctness or offending someone based on their beliefs. Whatever happened to free speech and common sense?


Some of the banned words are:

Senior citizen (banned as demeaning to older persons)
Soda and Pop (banned for regional bias, replace with Coke, Pepsi [however, note that brand names are banned by California social content review guidelines])
Hispanic American (use with caution as some groups object to the term's suggestion of a shared European cultural heritage, replace with specific nationality)
Dwarf (banned as offensive, replace with person of short stature)
Sightless (banned as offensive, replace with people who are blind)
Sneaky (banned when referring to Asian Americans)
Songstress (banned as sexist, replace with singer)
Horsemanship (banned as sexist, replace with riding skill)
Heroine (banned as sexist, replace with hero)

Those are just some of the words...

Foods to Avoid in Textbooks
Gravies, Gum, Honey, Jam, Jelly, Preserves, Ketchup, Juice Drinks, Pickles, Pies, Potato chips, Pretzels, Salad dressings, Mayonnaise, Salad oil, Shortening, Salt


My jaw literally dropped when I read those.

There is also another passage that they banned for national testing and that is 'No More Owls'. Ravitch's response really nailed it on the head.

The passage of owls was like a children's encyclopedia entry. It described how their keen eyesight and hearing enabled them to hunt at night for rodents. When I saw that this passage was rejected, I imagined that it was because of the violence associated with hunting (although that's how the owl survives). I was wrong. The passage was rejected because a Native-American member of the bias committee said that owls are taboo for the Navajos. Consequently, the entire committee agreed that the passage should be dropped. The test publisher added a notation that the owl is associated with death in some other cultures and should not be mentioned anymore, neither in texts nor in illustrations.

Here is a classic problem presented by today's bias and sensitivity review process. If any cultural group attributes negative connotations to anything, or considers it taboo or offensive, then that topic will not be referred to, represented, described, or illustrated on tests. But owls exist. They are real birds. They are not creatures of the imagination. Nevertheless, to avoid giving offense, the tests will pretend that owls don't exist. Owls are to be deleted and never again mentioned to the highly vulnerable and sensitive American schoolchild.

Hah, I had to laugh at the last sentence. True, and I can sense a hint of sarcasm there, but then again, is it really the American schoolchildren they are trying not to offend...? Because I betcha anything that the kids could care less if they see the word "owl". I know that F-U-C-K don't mean a thing to kids these days anymore, much less the letters O-W-L. So is it really the children...? Of course not, it's the parents that complain that their kids are reading this or that book for school (believe me, I know plenty in real life), and the people that work behind-the-scenes and try to control the contents in textbooks. I seriously question the educational system that America has to offer...for some time now actually...but this is beyond dumb.

No offense.

 

[CassinoChips]

American History textbooks have been neutered for a long time. They contain fluff, filler, and oftentimes outright lies and obfuscations, and have become so much pro-American propaganda that it's amazing. For example, everybody knows the story of Helen Keller, right? The moral of her story usually falls somewhere along the lines of "anybody can be anything they want if they work hard enough" or "there is always something within everyone that is worth working for" and all the usual tripe. But what exactly did Helen Keller become? The story tends to tail off somewhere around the point of her graduating from college.

So what did she do in the 60-some years of her life after college? Became a radical Socialist, that's what. She became a Wobbly, supported the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, fought for women's suffrage, and despised Woodrow Wilson (not that i blame her there). But god forbid we tell our kids that when they grow up, they too can become a Commie.

Unfortunately we do a great disservice to much of the figures in history by heroifying them and turning them into pious caricatures of human beings, instead of portraying them for what they really are: flawed persons who made significant contributions despite and/or because of those flaws. (Wilson was a white supremacist and imperialist, Columbus was a greedy slaver, the Puritans were kicked out of England and essentially waged biological warfare on the Indians, Ben Franklin had a thing for French prostitutes, and on and on.)

I hope, in due time, that I'll get the opportunity to teach American History in a high school setting. When I get to the that point, I'm strongly considered not using a textbook at all. On the other hand, it would be a great teaching point about the dangers of political correctness and blind patriotism.

"One is astonished in the study of history at the recurrence of the idea that evil must be forgotten, distorted, skimmed over. We must not remember that Daniel Webster got drunk but only remember that he was a splendid constitutional lawyer. We must forget that George Washington was a slave owner ... and simply remember the things we regard as creditable and inspiring. The difficulty, of course, with this philosophy is that history loses its value as an incentive and example; it paints perfect men and noble nations, but it does not tell the truth."
--W.E.B. DuBois

 

[Shu]

No offense.

Offense taken! Nah I'm joking, well let me get some words spit out on this paper right quick..

I am extremely free minded person, who is not restricted by Political Correctness, Sexual Content, nor Religion per se, so my views might be associated with "extreme" often times. These books that we are reading or they are picking up to read themselves are regurgitated hash basically and are set up for the unthinking individual. Granted there are some authors who have earned acclaim and such through great writings, but I think literally most older writers (1700-1900s) were a bit bland. Don't get me wrong, some had an outstanding outlook on life, and reflected it in their lives works. These books will always be treasured, but some are even being revoked due to their content or suggestive natures.

Here's the problem with America (I won't say the world, since I don't exactly know much about the education systems elsewhere), we are looking to challenge our kids and create sharper learning curves, but how are we supposed to do it if we make all of our books sheltered. I mean I understand at some point that books were monitored for Communist material, but these days I would think were were passed that. I mean if you have ever read Fahrenheit 451, this is basically what it is focusing our children into. Let's just burn the books that have racial slurs and such as well. Mark Twain would be rolling in his grave.

I grew up reading books like Mark Twain, and yes he came across as racist, but only because he actually focused on harsh realities. He wasn't implying that he was a racist, but words like "******" were actually used. It was to demonstrate "real" characters. By taking out words like "spook" out of the word "spooked" (He was spooked by the ghost) it literally pisses me off.

My biggest problem is the over needed censorship, and I don't mean just in Books either. People want to hide behind a facade daily in their life. They want to live their life a certain way and stay along that path with any lack of change. If by maintaining that way of life, it means living life blindly or shadowing the facts by censorship, then it means they will have a rough awakening one day. Censorship to me is just another word for "LIE". So in order to maintain this lie they brainwash their children as well with the censorship and the shelteredness. When doing so they are bred to think a certain way and act a certain way, and because of it everything different is perceived as weird. Hince why we have racism, sexism, christian extremist and other things that can be explained. The news is the finest example of this. When will people learn to turn off the Television and go outside and think for themselves. The best quote I can think of is from a dead comedian named Bill Hicks, "Think for yourself, Question authority."


The thing is I didn't even start enjoying reading until I got out of high school. I was reading books like Bruchko and Grapes of Wrath and Jane Austin books in high school. It was pathetic. My mind was not expanding, but rather focused on unrealistic romances and Christian extremists. I would have rather focused on things that would actually challenge my mind.


I mean thanks to good books I've read today, I've also expanded it into the music I've listened to. If you know me even the least bit, I can break a song down in a matter of minutes and translate it back to you, how I perceive it. I don't listen to stuff that has no appeal to the brain. Also Movies I can take more from now a days, than just the Action, Sex, and technology. To be honest, I think movies are moving towards the over censorship as well.

For now I'll keep my head down, and read what I can to broaden my mind as well as listen to music I can. When I raise my kid, I want to be able to have him or her have options, instead of just living life in this misguided life. I also don't want to be perceived as a hypocrite.

Adios.