This is totally gobsmacking! Just read it. But I have to post few to comment about
>Women portrayed as teachers, mothers, nurses, and/or secretaries.< Got that, Dub-Dub? If you say you're a teacher and you're a woman, you're demeaning yourself!
Got that ladies? If you say you're a
mother and you're a
woman you're demeaning yourself. I guess you gotta be a guy to be a mother, now, or sumptin? Huh? Whaaaaaaat!
>Mexicans grinding corn< You gotta love this one, consuelo!
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/02/Columns/Language_police_use_e.shtml
well this will take two lines or two hundred, but this list is not about kids in school(or anyone else for that matter) using any of these examples, but rather portraying these stereotypical views when it comes to writing textbooks and standardized tests. it's all about trying to get past the stereotypes. which I think is a good thing. he's really taking this pretty far out of context.
>he's really taking this prety far out of context<
No he's not, eta. he even points this out himself:
Some of the entries are sensible, but others challenge common sense.Eve and Adam instead of
Adam and Eve?
Busybody?
Snowman?
Bookworm? C'mon!
well, I can testify to all those examples. I will say Eve and Adam, and if I was taking a test or reading a textbook, busybody and bookworm would sound like insults to whomever they were describing. not the sort of thing we try to teach in school. and I always say snowperson.
Adam and Eve (replace with "Eve and Adam," to demonstrate that males do not take priority over females)
So then you're saying it's okay to demonstrate just the opposite then? That women take priority over men? Operating under this premise, wouldn't one have to say "Adam and Eve" sometimes and "Eve and Adam" sometimes, in equal balance, to make it right? This is a Biblical literary allusion. So then are you going to say "Juliet and Romeo"? Change, I venture to say censor, Shakespeare, too? It's the way they've come to be known as created by their authors. Sampson and Delilah. Heck, Burns and Allen (they chose to be billed that way). What about history, then, does William and Mary become Mary and William? When we say Antony and Cleopatra, as is accustomed, I think we all know that Cleopatra had the power and authority in that relationship, that Antony was her "putty" as it were. At least I always have.
Oh, and do you sing, "Frosty the Snowperson"?
yes, I would try to alternate. (frankly, talking about Adam and Eve at anytime makes me cringe-but I'm getting very close to bringing up religion
)
however, look at the rest of those examples: they all list the man first. and you said yourself that Cleopatra was the more powerful. doesn't that say something to you about how we have tended to think, in the past? ceertainly, in some cases, it's done for poetic/rhythmic reasons. but I would rather be the one to make the words(and the world) change than to force the next generation to keep dealing with our old stereotypical habits. we can do better, and those of us that are so aware of the power of words should be the first to make those changes.
<many big smiles-said with a light heart>
Interesting discussion above--and it's good to keep it light.
Et', I honestly don't think there's anything insulting about being a bookworm. I certainly lived in books as a kid and was proud of being a bookworm. Now egghead? That sounds insulting to me because it gets directly into physique. I suppose you could argue the same for bookworm, but I've cozied myself down too often between the covers of a book, so I have a softer, more comfortable feeling for living there like a contented bookworm.
I don't like "snow person"--but this is taste. I just don't like the sounds there.
How 'bout this from the list:
"Hispanics as migrant workers "
Out here in Dinwiddie County we have many migrant workers who come here in the spring and summer to work with the crops. I know their labor is well appreciated and they are happy to come so far to profit their families back home. It's a way of life. I know from one of our big farmers out here that he respects their work, hires them regularly because they're reliable, and it appears to be a win-win situation. So, it would be off-limits to tell school children about their existence? (I haven't ever mentioned them since the subject has never come up in school, but am I to assume that their existence would be off-limits for discussion, reference, or inclusion in anything the kids read or sang about?) Weird.
And what about that most remarkable Bradbury short story about the boy who loved his teacher--who met with her to explore the biology of the area--and he returns to his hometown years later to learn she had died years ago? That story shouldn't be taught? And I suppose, being female, I shouldn't refer to myself as being a teacher? I guess I could wear a bag over my head so no unsuspecting child would be influenced by my stereotypical sex. I can see it now! Spring Run Elementary: The placed where all teachers, except the good Mr. Baldwin, wear bags over their heads. Ha!
And here's a good one from the site--note the last entry: eyeglasses:
Older people in nursing homes or with canes, walkers, wheelchairs, orthopedic shoes or eyeglasses
Eyeglasses! Man, that's an insult!! Don't you dare stage a musical and put a granny in that play with spectacles on her face! All our elderly characters in the play will have perfect vision! We ain't doin' no stereotypes in our stereotype-free play!
I better shut up. This material on your link, Juan, is good to take a look at. Grist for the mill.
Speaking of, I'm gonna go grind some corn now. And that's ok. I'm Irish, thrice-removed. Drat! But I'm a woman. Guess I shouldn't refer to grinding corn, huh? Well, then, I'll go play with the channel changer. I guess that's a safe reference till somebody tells me different.
Most of us don’t like being offensive; don’t want to offend with speech that might potentially hurt and are therefore careful with what we say. This is not being politically correct, there is nothing ‘political’ about it. As I see it, it is just a more refined and humane way of living and that is what we all try to constantly educate ourselves for.
The words in the list are for the large part, not banned words. They are draconian fatwas.
I have a special rant reserved for the ones on women. By constantly focusing on women as creatures that should be treated with the right politically treated kid gloves, we caricaturise and denigrate them more.
Men and boys larger and heavier than women and girls: Well,…. they ARE. And thank God for that. And if we supposedly feel demeaned by these comparisons with men and if we feel slighted by their heaviness and largeness, pray tell, why don’t we make more efforts to look more like them. Why don’t we stop shaving our legs, for one. And wear shirts and pants and ties and big brogue shoes. Flowing skirts, scarves, lipstick, trash them all…they are stereotypical. Why doesn’t the silly brigade that banned all these words now call for the ban on all forms of clothing or dress that differentiate between the sexes? Why only words that darkly hint at improper suggestions?
Women portrayed as teachers, mothers, nurses, and/or secretaries
Women as more nurturing than men
This makes me so mad I could burst a vessel. How ridiculous is this, I ask. What’s WRONG with nurturing? It is a wonderful thing. And women as mothers…. I don’t even know if I should dignify this. It is downright abominable. I am a woman, hard-nosed about my career, non-white, occasional spectacle wearer, bookworm, and after years and years of professional training, my biggest ambition today, is to be a mother. It is my personal belief that no achievement in life is bigger than parenting a child, nurturing it and guiding it on its way to being a sensitive, hard working, responsible and humane citizen of the earth. Finally, we will all be bones and dust; we are eternal only through our children. My heartiest appreciation and respect to all the mothers and fathers on this board and may your tribe ever increase.
And all the stuff about older people: I think it is disrespectful and an utter disgrace.
Courageous (banned as patronizing when referring to a person with disabilities)
Have these people heard of Eric Weihenmayer? If that is not courage, what is? Sometimes I think I am courageous for getting through a day that was incredibly tough by my standards. What do we say of people like him then?
Huts, yachts…..[shaking head in disbelief]. These people seem to have a lot of free time on their hands. And maybe I should get on with my day too instead of dignifying them with a rant.
I'll just reply to a couple of things, and then let this go,
, and pick it up again at another time,
...
there
is nothing wrong with being a bookworm, I take pride in it as well, but I think that it is, generally, a negative term. that is, it gets used most often, negatively. if that is changing(and perhaps it is, with schools encouraging kids to read 25 books a year, and placing lists of kids who do on a big list to be admired), terrific, then more kids can take pride in it.
the other things on the list are there so that we take care in
not thinking about them in
only those terms. they are stereotypes, probably for good reason, but they represent a limited view of the world. remember we are talking about teaching children; about affecting their world view by the images that they are given on a daily basis, and if we continue to perpetuate the stereotypes, then that is the way that they will grow up thinking. I'm thinking of villians with black moustaches, or perhaps turbans?
We need to be
aware.
Many of these aren't sterotypes, they are cultural differences is all. For instance (and I'll let Connie elaborate on this more if she likes), the Mexican tradition of grinding corn for flour is a time-honored custom and ritual, especially for making tamales at holiday time, that is undertaken with much love and pride to produce just the right consistency, it's like an art. Should we deprive the children from learning that aspect of cultural diversity by negating it into a "stereotype"? In one breath it seems some folks want to stress cultural diversity, and then in the same breath they want to strip all character and individuation from people and cultures, it just doesn't make sense. I've always held Amerindians in esteem for their living in spiritual harmony with and their respect for the earth, with nature. I viewed it as a superior aspect of their culture. To mention this is now forbidden and demeaning? Is it better to say that many are now the greedy, ruthless, corporate casino moguls they've become?
And "hut"...for crying out loud. Huts are NOT "enthnocentric." It is a specific type of living quarters that many peoples and cultures throughout history, especially archeologoically speaking, have constructed with the best materials and technologies available to their indigenous areas and times...grass huts on the steppes, adobe huts in the US Southwest, thatch huts in tropical areas. (I know history is largely untaught these days, but to call these period structures small houses is just inaccurate and ridiculous). And what if a child asks about ice-fishing? Those are traditionally ice-fishing huts, not small houses. And, by omitting and banning so many paranoically deemed "negative" references, we're actually eliminating more positive influences in the childrens' realm of knowledge and development. For instance, as far as nursing/nannies/nurturing...then we can't teach them about Florence Nightengale or Clara Barton? Children shouldn't be "subjected" to Mary Poppins or The Sound of Music?
And why not just teach the truth instead of maiming the language and editing/censoring classic literary allusions? Tell them that for a large a part of history the world was a very patriarchal society where men were considered more important than woman...this was an unfair attitude...and it has changed...we now view men and women as equally important...but that's why many historic couplings, such as Adam and Eve, mention the man first. Isn't honesty always the best policy, especially with children?
And just an addendum about woman as teachers. Does this then elimnate Laura Ingalls' biographical writings, Little House on the Prarie, and, in fact, the whole history of the one-room schoolhouse and the "schoolmarms', most of whom were very young ladies, as young as 15?
I think it builds esteem and confidence for young girls to learn there were such young women willing to take on so huge a responsibility. And then there was the heroic 15 year old schoolmarm in Nebraska during the Blizzard of 1888, when hundreds of one-room schoolchildren and teachers were trapped and perished, who saved her entire class by tying them together as the schoolhouse blew apart and led them all to safety through the blinding storm (I have this info, but I'd have to LIU). A wonderful story which should be more widely known.
I'm amazed that there seem to be two sides to this discussion! To me, it's like banning books. Books shouldn't be banned, they should be read and discussed and ripped and shredded metaphorically. Same thing with words; unless we talk about why negative icons exist we'll never break the molds.
The trouble with the language police is that they try too hard to demonstrate their purity
and superiority.
To me, it's like banning books. Books shouldn't be banned, they should be read and discussed and ripped and shredded metaphorically. Same thing with words; unless we talk about why negative icons exist we'll never break the molds.you're absolutely right. perhaps when images and phrases are used in a textbook, the teacher would have time to have that discussion. I know I try when we(my choruses) come across a stereotypical use in a song. however, in a standardized test, there is not the chance to have that discussion, and the problem of perpetuating those stereotypes still exists.
again, I will say that, for me, the PC discussion is centered around the way we use words and phrases and images, and being aware of the way those can be interpreted. if we can change the way we use words, to affect how someone views something, to expand their perception of the world around them, isn't that a good thing? Stereotypical interpretations exist, I know, I grew up with a lot of them, even in an open, tolerant, loving family.
<ok roger, deep breath, relax, this is a friendly, open discussion
>
WON:
Basically, these are people with:
a. WAY too much time on their hands.
b. WAY too little sense.
c. WAY too many delusions of their self-appointed authority.
I am a sterotypical middle-aged white guy. Balding on top, overweight, not the greatest eyesight, etc. And you know what? I don't give a rat's patoot that people perceive me the way I am because, dammit, that's the way I am.
I'm sure when I eventually see a picture of the author of that book I will NOT think, "What a pair of boobs." I will be thinking in the singular.
The one that offended me themost was about the Indians' living on a reservation. Most middle-class whites have not been to a reservation other than to gamble at a casino. Many of the people inhabiting some of these reservations, Navajo, Hopi, Rosebud all coming quickly to my SW mind, live in conditions worse than your dog's. What does this idiot author want us to do, close our eyes and forget they exist? I make substantial donations to the Rosebud Reservation because I want to in some small way share what I have been fortunate enough to earn over the years. And I only found out about these places when a friend of mine showed me pictures of Rosebud some years back. Tin-roofed shacks with no windows, no insulation, no running water, nothing but a one-holer out back. Wind, dust, snakes, tumbleweeds for neighbors. And if we don;t share these images nothing will ever change.
[/rant]
TEd
Agreed, TEd. And eta, just another point which struck me about the hypocrisy of the person who "developed" this list of criteria. They evidently have no problem lumping together about 25 diverse nationalities and cultures into the generic Spanish-speaking sterotypical term, Hispanic; and, yet, they have a problem with saying that some Hispanics are migrant workers? The US farming industry could not survive without the migrant workers, so then it's taboo to teach anything about farming here? And , as TEd says, if you deprive the teaching of sociology, and the stratums of class and the conditions the poorer classes labor under, how will these children ever develop compassion for the plight of others? I know from my own experince in a nice neighborhood in a good public school, when I was in grammar school, how insulated within their easy middle-class existence a lot of these young students can be.
And that part about not mentioning men playing sports, or using tools? Not even Jesse Owens' Gold Medal triumph at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, a black man defeating Hitler's "ideal", not even that? That's crazy.
etaoin: >there is nothing wrong with being a bookworm, I take pride in it as well, but I think that it is, generally, a negative term. that is, it gets used most often, negatively. if that is changing (and perhaps it is, with schools encouraging kids to read 25 books a year, and placing lists of kids who do on a big list to be admired), terrific, then more kids can take pride in it.<
Good point, etaoin......that it is because the word is *used* negatively that it has that connotation.
The schools trying to change that connotation is admirable. Unfortunately, it will never work.......it is still not "cool" to be one of the bookworms. The only way that will ever happen is if children reading books becomes as mainstream as, say.......being a computer aficionado is now. Most of us remember when only the geekiest of the geeky were into computers. The Commodore 64 comes to mind.
Having one child who consistently exceeded the 25 list by 10 every year and graduated early, at the top of her class, and one child who is a sports enthusiast, an average student who has read only a handful of books in his whole life.......I have to say the sports son is waaaayyy more popular than the bookworm daughter ever was. And sad to say, she stopped reading as much when she realized it wasn't gaining her any popularity. (and guess who the daughter takes after, and who the son takes after?!)
<looking around for my point....I know it is here somewhere.....> I guess I didn't have one, other than the mainstream comment. Even then, I don't know if bookreading will ever become "mainstream, given that bookreading is a singular activity and sports is usually a group activity.
Whitman: >In one breath it seems some folks want to stress cultural diversity, and then in the same breath they want to strip all character and individuation from people and cultures...<
Have to agree, Whitman.......
Having one child who consistently exceeded the 25 list by 10 every year and graduated early, at the top of her class, and one child who is a sports enthusiast, an average student who has read only a handful of books in his whole life.......I have to say the sports son is waaaayyy more popular than the bookworm daughter ever was. And sad to say, she stopped reading as much when she realized it wasn't gaining her any popularity.
I read in great quantities and I'm relatively popular. Granted, most of the other kids don't read outside of homework.
Ah, yes, Canis, I see your point. Don't mistake me, my daughter had plenty of friends.....just not the "popular" friends. My son, on the other hand, is in "The" popular clique because he plays for the basketball team, which is held in high esteem by classmates and adults alike. My daughter was in a bookclub, but the bookclub was not held in such esteem as the basketball team is, lol! Nobody cheered her from the sidelines "Go! Turn that page! Read those words! Finish that chapter!" People come up to me all the time and tell me how wonderful my son is.......just because he can dribble a ball and hit the net. No one ever came up to me and admired my daughter for her brains and reading ability.
(this sounds like a bitter diatribe on my part.......not so! Both kids are well adjusted people, I am merely pointing out how reading is not such a popular activity for kids, hence one of the original points of this thread: that our perceptions of words and their meanings is indicative of how people are perceived.)
<And she smoothly unjacks the thread>
And then there was the heroic 15 year old schoolmarm in Nebraska during the Blizzard of 1888, when hundreds of one-room schoolchildren and teachers were trapped and perished, who saved her entire class by tying them together as the schoolhouse blew apart and led them all to safety through the blinding storm (I have this info, but I'd have to LIU). A wonderful story which should be more widely known.Here's a capsule look at the story. The one-room school teacher was Minnie Freeman, she was just 15 at the time, and she led all her students to safety by tying them together with a rope made from her cloak when their sod schoolhouse blew apart. To explore the story more you can Google "Minnie Freeman Nebraska 1888", all the major hits are there. I'll be back with some more good links, momentarily, to the story and the horrific intensity of the fabled storm so check back here for them. I don't know how inspiring stories like this one get lost, but. I stumbled across this story when I was researching one-room schoolhouses for my schoolmaster character/presentation.
MYRA VALLEY, NEB - A blizzard here on January 12, 1888, trapped teacher Minnie Freeman and her students in their little sod schoolhouse. When the storm blew in the school's windows and tore off the roof, Minnie decided to make a run for safety. She tied here thirteen young students to one another and led them into the howling 45-mile-an-hour wind and snow to a house about a mile away. Minnie became famous across the nation as the heroine of what became known as the "School children's Storm." Grade schoolers as far away as Boston wrote essays in her honor, and because of the newspaper stories of her exploit, she received over 80 marriage proposals. The song "Thirteen Were Saved," was inspired by Minnie' account of the ordeal.(scroll three-quarters the way down to the paragraph which begins
"The third and last great storm came January 12, 1888", and read thru the end:
http://www.ku.edu/~kansite/hvn/books/nbstory/story38.html(scroll down to "The Blizzard of 1888" and read to the end):
http://www.rootsweb.com/~neresour/OLLibrary/pionrem/nepr0190.htmlhttp://www.elkhornvalleymuseum.org/newsletter02-1k.htmI finally found the link I was looking for. Here's an excellent account of the Blizzard of 1888 (it started as a mild January that day, the children wore just light jackets to school...but the storm came up so suddenly over the plains that the pressure dropped and the temperatures fell to 30-40 below zero in minutes!!) and Minnie Freeman's entrapment and rescue. Scroll down to
Several years may now have passed over and we come to 1888 and the Historic Blizzard of 1888. (here's an excerpt):
While many other instances of snowbound people could be told we will not now weary the reader with them. However it seems that the story of the January blizzard is never considered complete without the story of Minnie Freeman, the Midvale heroine. We therefore reiterate it here, and add our personal views on the matter. The Ord Quiz of January 20 contains the following:
"The manner in which this modest and unaspiring school teacher saved the lives of all her pupils during the great storm of Jan. 12, 1888, has won for her wide renown. The forenoon of that day was mild and damp, with a warm breeze from the south. But just at noon, without a minute warning, a hurricane blast came from the north. In an instant the temperature fell several degrees below zero, and the flying snow made it impossible to see but a few feet away. The first blast broke in the door of Miss Freeman's school house. With the aid of her larger pupils she closed and nailed it. A moment later the door gave way again and was irreparable; and to add to the dilemma, a portion of the roof was torn away also. Something must be done at once. There was no alternative. Her sixteen pupils must be taken to the nearest house, a half-mile against the storm. At the peril of her own life, and with calm presence of mind and forethought she hastily but carefully covered the faces of her younger pupils and to prevent them from being lost-for in the terrible storm to wander away (195) a few feet was to be certainly lost--she tied them together. The older pupils she placed in the lead, and to see that none faltered, she brought up the rear. Thus was the heroic march begun and successfully accomplished."http://www.livgenmi.com/1906loup~chapter~sixteen.htm(and, Dub-Dub, the first two links have some local poetry about this which you might find intriguing)
[edit: I worked almost an hour on putting this post together, and when I came back to the window with the final link I got a "page has expired' message!!! [shudder, shudder] But I managed to get it back somehow with the
refresh and and clicking the menu it put up.
Thump goes the heart!
]
I would say that whoever drew up these guidelines has repeatedly missed out one little word: only. They should read Don't only show women as, don't only show men as, don't only show Amerindians as etc.
Bingley
And if we supposedly feel demeaned by these comparisons with men and if we feel slighted by their heaviness and largeness, pray tell, why don’t we make more efforts to look more like them. Why don’t we stop shaving our legs, for one. And wear shirts and pants and ties and big brogue shoes. Flowing skirts, scarves, lipstick, trash them all…they are stereotypical. Why doesn’t the silly brigade that banned all these words now call for the ban on all forms of clothing or dress that differentiate between the sexes?
Why should I give up my flowing skirt? If a man is, heaven forbid, bigger and heavier, it's a sure sign he needs some soft touches to balance out his , um, manliness, and is in certain need of a flowing skirt.
Several years ago, my youngest daughter comes home from school and starts bawling, "Daddy, they said I was a little, chinese girl." I look at her and say, "Baby, you *are* a little, chinese girl."
"Doh! I forgot!"
This list isn't about what most people really are offended by, it's about what some group of 'intellectuals' thinks people ought to be offended by.
There cure is worse than than the illness. Have many of you perused the modern textbook? I tutored physics, algebra, and mostly geometry a number of years. The organization of geometry books is intensely irritating. There are distracting colors and different sections - including the obligatory sections showing that women and non-whites have made presumably equal contributions to the subject. All kinds of things to draw your attention away from the gist of things.
The first thing I tell the students is this, "I know this stuff looks like a great jumble of nonsense. That's largely because it is. Don't waste your time trying to make sense of every sentence you read. If you're pressed for time, go straight for these little yellow sections. They tell you exactly what you need to know. If you have time and inclination, you can wade through the other stuff at your leisure."
No kidding. I look at these textbooks and get a headache - every time.
k
Assuming that someone is Hispanic because that person is a migrant worker, if not entirely accurate, is, in some parts of the country, a safe bet. Assuming that someone is a migrant worker because that person is Hispanic is prejudice, pure and simple, and as wrong in California as it is in Maine.
Who said anything about assuming all Hispanics are migrant workers? Your assertion is preposterous notion, Faldage, really. Where does it say that, if you speak Spanish, people think you're a migrant worker? Are you saying you believe there are people in the world who think every Spanish speaking person is a migrant worker? That's not even possible. Who could harbor such a ludicrous notion? Maybe you're just trying to stir the pot for debate here, or sumptin', but this is just a ridiculous statement, sorry. And did you ever hear of Dezi Arnaz, Gloria Estefan, Tito Fuentes, Jennifer Lopez, Selma Hayek, Fidel Castro, Gen. Santa Anna, hell, the Kings and Queens of Spain?...do you watch baseball? Any Hispanic players there? Juan Marichal, Roberto Clemente? Gimme a break.
Who said anything about assuming all Hispanics are migrant workers?
Either the over-extended Language Police or the African-American author of the article linked to above:
Hispanic-American people: images to avoid:
Hispanics as migrant workers
Hispanic-American people: images to avoid:
Hispanics as migrant workers
Faldage, the author of the text is saying that you can't ever depict Hispanics as migrant workers.
Nobody ever said that anybody thinks all Hispanics are migrant workers...where'd you get that?
I was just pointing out that there's a difference between depicting Hispanics as migrant workers and depicting migrant workers as Hispanics.
- playing ron o to my musick
I was just pointing out that... - playing ron o to my musickIt seemed fairly obvious to me!
------------------
Junk bonds (banned as elitist)Then why not:
Politically correct (banned as elitist)
?
ps. ladymoon - please don't give up your flowing skirts
I'm nor sure why the animosity regarding Faldage's statement about migrant workers?......I understood he was merely pointing out the difference between 'percentage assumption' vs 'prejudice'.
There was an 'answer' on Jeapoardy a couple of weeks ago, that loosely touched on this very theory. The 'answer' was: "The only language that 'how to nail' salon manuals are written in." (forgive my memory and don't hold me to task for the exact wording of the 'answer') None of the contestants got the answer correct, although all three attempted to answer it. I knew immediately that the answer was Vietnamese......not because I am smart, but because of *Percentages":
I have had my nails done in salons in nearly two dozen cities in three states....and 100% of the workers, as well as the owners/managers of the salons, were of Oriental descent. I am certainly not familiar enough with the Oriental peoples, to know the
differences between the various lines....however, my favorite nail technician in my home town, told me some time ago that he is from Viet Nam, as are most of the people in the nail salon business. Therefore, when I see an Oriental person working in a nail salon, I assume they are Vietnamese.....and the 'answer' on Jeopardy would seem to support that.
So, back to what Faldage was saying........when I see an Oriental person, I do not automatically think they are nail technicians. However, when I walk into a nail salon, I am now conditioned to expect to see Oriental people......I would be Very surprised to see a non-Oriental person!
So, technically, I am twice "guilty" of assumptions: first to assume all or most nail technicians are Oriental; second to assume all or most Oriental nail techinicians are Vietnamese. These assumptions are correct by default, however.......which is all I think Faldage was saying. :)
I'm not sure why the animosity regarding Faldage's statement about migrant workers?......I understood he was merely pointing out the difference between 'percentage assumption' vs 'prejudice'.
No animosity, there, Ruby. I was just reacting in surprise to the leap to analogy that someone might think all Hispanics are migrant workers. To call Hispanics "migrant workers" in a derisive fashion is, of course racist and hostile, as is calling a black person a "cotton picker." But my confusion with Faldage's initial analogy would lead, using your nail salon story, to the assertion that there are people who assume all Asians are nail manicurists. ("Oriental" is considered offensive and no longer acceptable to many people, BTW )To assume someone is a migrant worker just because they're Hispanic is prejudicial...but to assume there are people who assume that all Hispanics are migrant workers is an untenable notion, and not, I now know, what Faldage was intending to say.
"Oriental" is considered offensive and no longer acceptable to many people, BTW We've been down this road before. In order to truly clear up this contention, juan, you'll have to stop using the term "Hispanic".
None of the Orientals I know mind being called 'Oriental'... it's because they *are what I'm calling them (ie they call themselves that). The *issue occurs when the term is incorrectly placed out of ignorance or assumption... this also *goes for assuming someone is misusing or ignorant of the applicability of the term.
I don't like being called a white guy, either, but if you'd call me a "whiter guy", I can relate. Anyone like to tell me why 'Caucasian' or "white" is still supplied on forms and surveys?
..why 'Caucasian' or "white" is still supplied on forms and surveys?
Demographics?
why 'Caucasian' or "white" is still supplied on forms and surveys
If a group is culturally assumed to be inferior for whatever reason eventually the term used to refer to that group will be taken as a slur. It will be replaced by some other term by people who don't want to be perceived as considering that group as inferior. Eventually the new term will be considered a slur and another new term will be coined to replace the old. What is needed is to stop considering the group inferior. Since Caucasians or whites are the culture that's doing the considering there is no need to replace the term referring to them.
We've been down this road before. In order to truly clear up this contention, juan, you'll have to stop using the term "Hispanic". Moose, as you now from previous threads, i don't like the term
Hispanic, and I'm only using it here because we're citing the use of it in the article we're discussing. And I only mentioned the Oriental thing to RubyRed as a counterpoint, because I know she wasn't here when we discussed it.
Why am I suddenly under attack for "contention" and "animosity" here?...
I didn't see any animosity (from anyone) and I figured you'd be able to 'read into' the "
" I stuck out... not like I haven't done that before...
In reply to:
Since Caucasians or whites are the culture that's doing the considering there is no need to replace the term referring to them
Hmm... I thought the whole point was that the culture was made up of everyone. Actually this confirms my belief that all this language prescription by others is primarily directed at white people and especially white males. As much as I dislike the idea of someone calling me an egghead, I resent even more so somebody telling me exactly what I should and should not say. My parents raised me to behave and speak a certain way, and I think it is presumptious of others to try to push their weird belief that my children shouldn't ever read a book containing the word yacht, for example. Honestly, is the idea that we should shield children from the notion that there are wealthy people out there that own yachts? There are, you know, so this approach amounts to lying. Men shouldn't be portrayed as problem solvers? Boys as intelligent, logical, or mechanical? Why not? Why not portray both sexes as problem solvers, etc? I can see why you should avoid stereotyping groups into pigeon holes, but I don't see why you should be actively avoiding positive images of certain groups unless you have ulterior motives.
Furthermore, I can specifically recall being interested and intellectually stimulated when textbooks in school featured stuff that was different from my life. I grew up in Kentucky, where we get some ice and snow in winter but not enough to go ice skating regularly. But it was neat to read about Hans brinker and the Silver Skates. It was one more thing to open my mind to the idea that the world was a big place and that people did different things for fun in different parts of the world. Is this is the sort of experience these idiots are trying to avoid? home schooling is starting to look better and better. How else will children ever get to read real literature, learn about the world and basically develop intelligence?
Since Caucasians or whites are the culture that's doing the considering there is no need to replace the term referring to them
Am in complete agreeement with this sentiment, Faldage. Perhaps, in our efforts to iron out the multiple and varied imperfections of life, we sometimes attempt energetic hyper-correction. These publishers probably typify this effort. No need to fix what 'ain't' broke.
But it was neat to read about Hans brinker and the Silver Skates.
Alex, you validated Faldage's statement with this comment. Most probably, none of us will recall folklore from China, India, Ethiopia, Turkey, Iraq, etc., that was taught to us in school. Maybe, because it wasn't, eh? On the flip, almost every child in a once colonised country knows of Hans Brinker and his efforts with the dyke. It is just yet another irrefutable process of history. I learnt that as Hans Brinker or the silver skates. And always wondered why that book was so titled. Can't remember much of it now though apart from some snippets from the stories about the dyke and the skates. On second thoughts, the child who put his hand in the dyke was nameless, wasn't he? I am thoroughly confused now....
A query on Caucasian..... Is it generally accepted today that whenever the term Caucasian is used, it is only in the restricted sense of applying to the 'white, of European descent' population?
Oh No! Mr O'Neill, sir, I assure you I was not attacking you for having animosity! I try not to attack people for stating their own beliefs. :) When I wrote the post, I did not even pay attention to *who* was taking Faldage to task...if I had had a problem with you specifically, I would have addressed you directly :) One thing I try to never do is Indirectly attack someone with generic comments that are obviously meant for that person alone . I'm sorry my post appeared as such!
I think my error was in using such a strong word as "animosity" What I was really trying to say is that I understood Faldage's statement one way, and I didn't understand why *that* particular way was offensive. Now, I see that you understood it another way, and you thought that way was offensive.....as would I, had I originally understood it that way, too!
Now, Who's on first, and What's on second.............. :D
(please forgive my fake smilies.....I seem unable to make use of the smilies on this board :(
Oh, and btw, thanks for pointing out the term Oriental is now considered offensive. It was in the back of my mind that there was another, perhaps better word (Asian) but I could not think of it!
First of all Hans Brinker and the Silver Skates is a story about a poor kid who wins an ice skating contest on cheap skates, and his prize is a pair of silver skates. The story of the little Dutch boy who saved Holland by sticking his finger in the dyke is a different story altogether.
The fact that it is a European story is not the point. I am not arguing that only European stories should be told. My point was about the banning of the term stickball, which is a variant of baseball typically played in northeastern cities. IIRC you can see a game of stickball being played in one of the Godfather movies, for example. As a Kentuckian, stickball is pretty far from my daily life, but it never bothered me to learn about is existence. After all, nobody was shoving the idea down my throat that I was inferior because I wasn't a cracker jack stickball player. Just because something is regional doesn't mean that it is offensive.
The story of the little Dutch boy who saved Holland by sticking his finger in the dyke is a different story altogether.
BTW, back in 1984 I adapted "The Little Dutch Boy and the Dyke" as a children's puppet-play for the Dutch-themed Spring Tulip Festival in Cape May, NJ. And I had to change the title to "The Little Dutch Boy Who Saved the Day" because "dyke" was considered offensive, from both a PC and Religious Right standpoint (sigh).
No problem, Ruby!
And I really was "just pointing out" the Oriental thing to you, the jury seems to be out on whether it's actually offensive or not, and a lot of Asian/Orientals don't have a problem with it at all and actually prefer it...but there's a long discussion on this here, I'll try to find the link (unless somebody beats me to it).
Here's one:
http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=miscellany&Number=91731And the other:
http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=miscellany&Number=91941
Thanks Alex! I knew I had little Hans all mixed up! Was that book titled, 'Hans Brinker or the silver skates'? Why the 'or'? Or, have I scrambled the title too?
WO'N, I cannot imagine what could possibly be wrong with dyke?
WO'N, I cannot imagine what could possibly be wrong with dyke?
Dyke is slang and/or a disparagement for lesbian. You really never heard that, maahey?
You're right, it is Hans Brinker OR the Silver Skates.
re: dykes...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0932379176/ref=nosim/fantasycoloriaen Funny stuff
You're right, it is Hans Brinker OR the Silver Skates.
Prescriptivists of the world,unite!
I too learned it as "Hans Brinker AND the Silver Skates."
If you google you find all varieties!
HB and the SS
HB or the SS
HB, or the SS
HB/SS
barnesandnoble.com sells books by same author, both titles (and/or), take your pick.
Now I don't know whom to believe any more! I think I'll stick with what I know I know is so.
Before I started reading this thread I don't think I had ever heard of Hans Brinker, but I had certainly heard of Scherazade, Sinbad, etc.
But generally speaking I'm a lot more familiar with stories from my own culture and the cultures it derives from than am I with those from other cultures. What's wrong with that? I don't expect Indonesians who've never travelled to necessarily be familiar with the stories I remember from my childhood, why expect people from back home who've never travelled to be familiar with stories from places where they've never been?
Bingley
All this is that Alex's fault! He brought up Hans Brinker, he did!!
I extrapolated that to Faldage's thought and look where we are now!
I think it has more to do with education, Bingley; I don't know that travelling has much to do with it. Unless one has travelled a lot as a child and has therefore been exposed to different educational systems.
Folklore, mythology, short stories from here and there, are mandatory reading for all school going children. The question was, do children read enough about cultures from other lands? Faldage said something about some races doing the considering for others (not wrt scholastic learnings). That is true and only because in recent history, these same races have colonised more lands and have therefore spread their stories and culture far and wide.
I agreed largely with everything Alex said too. Hans Brinker as an example, however provoked a smile and a very tongue in cheek comment, because I personally don't believe that there is a lot of difference between these two groups. Certainly, comparatively, it is somewhat on the lower rungs of the scale of cultural difference. The Dutch were colonisers too and automatically fell into the group that was doing the considering.
I have a strong cross cultural experience. I used to say that I am a Brit by every standard except race (Indian). I dont know that I can say that anymore. But obviously, there is nothing wrong with reading about one's own culture and folklore. There is certainly nothing wrong with knowing more about it either. I was saying quite the opposite.
It is one of my beliefs that, it will help us to understand one another more, if, as children, we were exposed to other cultures and traditions in a broader sense. There is a tremendous exposure to the culture, ideology, folklore, mythologies of other civilizations in Indian schools. It never fails to amaze me, how much those children are exposed to. Certainly, this is yet another Raj hangover. How many (and I do so hope that there are many)on this board know about the Mahabharatha or the Panchatantra, or the Arabian nights? That, was what I was refering to. Currently, the cultural exchange is rather unidirectional (W-E). But this is all history in the making and the wheel constantly spins and turns. And, so, while it is important to make reparations for some of the gross errors of history, it is practically impossible to iron all the wrinkles out. Rather than language police (who will and should inevitably fail) it might be more prudent to have policy police, eh?
I heartily agree too, with your earlier comment on the mising word 'only', wrt the article.
>Certainly, this is yet another Raj hangover. How many (and I do so hope that there are many)on this board know about the Mahabharatha or the Panchatantra, or the Arabian nights?
More than you might think, I suspect.
http://snurl.com/y6rhttp://snurl.com/y6s
I've always understood dike to be an earthern mound which holds back water (always an issue growing up on the flood plain of the Red River, and therefore a common word), and dyke to be the disparaging slang word for "lesbian". Atomica lists dyke as an alternative to dike but I'd never seen the "earthen mound" version spelled that way before.
I reckon it's us Brits at fault again here. According to OED either spelling can be applied to either meaning. MW says differently - it has been listening to Bean.
I think the usual UK spelling for both meanings would be with the 'Y'. Certainly that looks ryte to me.
I think Bingley deftly hit the nail on the head with his Occam's razor when he said:
I would say that whoever drew up these guidelines has repeatedly missed out one little word: only. They should read Don't only show women as, don't only show men as, don't only show Amerindians as etc.(I would insert "only" after the object but that's a whole nother topic
)
Yes! And if he were MY old Dutch, he might have hit that nail Delftly on the head...
I, too, like Bingley's only point.
But now to open a can of worms:
A couple of summers ago I took a group of high school students, who'd failed senior English during the regular term, through a very abbreviated course in world lit.
The book. Oh, heaven, save us, the book! There were some fine examples of literature, but the short stories from other nations? Thin. Very. Infantile language. Too obvious moral points being made. Please do not misunderstand me here. The problem wasn't with the cultures represented, but with the literary choices offered. I asked several teachers in the county about many of the stories that had been included in the anthology, and each agreed that the choices had been poor. I wondered whether a great deal had been lost in translation. I suspect that the compilers of the anthology had played hit and miss with wanting to represent a wide range of cultures, but not holding up consistent literary standards for each chosen work.
Studying Oedipus was the high point of the summer--especially once the kids had a good understanding of the story and the irony in the dialogue. We followed up their papers and talks about the play with a terrific parody of it in which Jack Nicholson read the part of Oedipus...Edith Bunker may have played Jocasta...and Mr. Rogers played some role? NPR parody. I think it was called "The Six-Minute Oedipus" and was most likely one of Garrison Keillor's skits.
"A Doll's House" went fairly well...
But as we moved forward into contemporary literature from other cultures, that's where things fell apart and didn't offer challenging material. I must believe that much was lost in translation, which means, I suppose, that the translations were not artistically sensitive.
If I ever taught that course again, I'd chuck most of the book and supplement it with other material.
speaking of Prairie Home Companion, check your schedules this weekend for the re-broadcast of the 2001 Talent from Towns Under Two-Thousand broadcast. I was singing with a group called "Celestial Sirens". we didn't win(never compete against children-especially very talented children!), but we had a blast!
Ah, thanks, Faldage! I didn't know there was a script available. We listened to a tape I had of the show--very comical to hear those voices. The kids in the class had already pegged Oedipus (in their way of thinking he was dense for missing the obvious) as a comic character, so they were well-primed for a parody.
eta, I heard on the ads for the upcoming PHC that an early-music ensemble from Vermont would be one of the contestants, and I idly wondered if it might be y'all. I don't remember if I heard the program in 2001, but it doesn't matter because I can hear it again knowing that I know (sort of) one of the singers!
"The book. Oh, heaven, save us, the book! There were some fine examples of literature, but the short stories from other nations? Thin. Very. Infantile language. Too obvious moral points being made."
I'm a strong relativist, but one observation I've made is the tendency among the more shallow relativists to insist that somehow all cultures are equal or have made or are capable of making equal contributions. So any inane drivel is just as artistic as Shakespeare, any ignorant diatribe is just as important as Plato, any loose fancy is as important as Newton or Archimedes.
What a condescending bunch of yahoos it is who serves up a splatter of thin gruel and calls it dinner. I think some of these people through religious conviction that all cultures are equivalent assert that anything anyone has to say in those cultures is somehow equivalent - completely oblivious (even if one buys in to the current slogans that all are equal) that they don't share all of the same strengths. Discernment is equated with bigotry and ethnocentrism, judgement with prejudice.
k
For the record, I have learned that our county is culling out the anthology in question, thank goodness. The course built around that anthology is not being taught in all high schools, according to one English teacher with whom I spoke about the course.
That's good.
Here's an idea, though, and it may be a lot more work than it's worth. I guess I thought you were mainly a music teacher, so maybe the teaching language business is a sideline and this is a little much to do for a sideline, but it's an idea.
When I was teaching advanced fortran in college, the book was really, really bad. In the advanced class one learned a lot of stuff, algorithms, methodologies, but also a lot of machine and compiler dependent stuff. Unfortunately, the textbook they were using was out of date - even on the old computer they had just ditched. The text was $80 (really a lot in those days when the average book was $20 to $30). I told the students they shouldn't buy it (this is an abbreviated version of this story). Instead I taught from my own notes that I culled from 1) my own texts and 2) my own coding experiences.
So if you have an interest in this sort of thing, you might consider going beyond the textbook, trying to find things that you personally enjoy. The web will surely make this a lot easier to look into. If you get sucked into doing that thing again, you'll have some broader base to draw upon. Anyway, that's what you could do if you had a lot of extra time on your hands and didn't have a different career in music to keep you occupied.
k