Some thoughts on censorship.

the Baron wrote:

but anytime there are two conflicting views of the world, and there is any kind of mutual exclusivity, one has to win, and one has to lose. Sorry for the somber tone!

I think if you take a look at the political motivation and historic roots of the so-called 'PC' movement, you will find that, at its core, it is all about INCLUSIVENESS.  So, based on your comment above, you actually only have one view point that is exclusive, while the other one is inclusive... again if we look to our human history, we find that the idea of 'exclusiveness' (or perhaps the idea of "I am a part of THIS group and you are a part of that one, so MINE is better...") has been at the root of many (most?) conflicts since the rise of civilization. 

mucker:

Just cruisin' through the posts here and find out that BOOM, I'm banned!!! Just like that!!! Very timely, post though, wit George Carlin passing away recently and all. Truth be told "mucker" is a hockey term. And to our firends in the U.K. I've learned it's actually slang for "friend" (Thanks, Guy!)

Sorry to give you such a surprise, there. No offense was intended, to you or to anyone else. Just think of it this way, now you're officially one of the cool kids.

bbrowniii wrote:

the Baron wrote: but anytime there are two conflicting views of the world, and there is any kind of mutual exclusivity, one has to win, and one has to lose. Sorry for the somber tone! I think if you take a look at the political motivation and historic roots of the so-called 'PC' movement, you will find that, at its core, it is all about INCLUSIVENESS.  So, based on your comment above, you actually only have one view point that is exclusive, while the other one is inclusive... again if we look to our human history, we find that the idea of 'exclusiveness' (or perhaps the idea of "I am a part of THIS group and you are a part of that one, so MINE is better...") has been at the root of many (most?) conflicts since the rise of civilization.

Thank you for such a well put post. I agree the whole concept of PC was essentially respectfulness, the concept our mothers tought us when they told us not to call people names. Certain conservative pundits grabbed onto some of the extremes and any idea of formalizing and encouraging people to be a bit more sensitive to those around them is somehow bad. If in Atlanta, the work crews in fact include women, what's so wrong wiht saying something like "workers ahead?"

ajlafleche wrote:

Thank you for such a well put post. I agree the whole concept of PC was essentially respectfulness, the concept our mothers tought us when they told us not to call people names. Certain conservative pundits grabbed onto some of the extremes and any idea of formalizing and encouraging people to be a bit more sensitive to those around them is somehow bad. If in Atlanta, the work crews in fact include women, what's so wrong wiht saying something like "workers ahead?"

Thanks AJ

I think what some people fail to recognize (or refuse to) is that language has power - the words we use shape the way we see the world (google "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis" if you want to see a real discussion on that topic).  I remember in college doing research on a study done in the late 80's or early 90's, when there was a growing movement to become more 'gender neutral' in our language (no longer were we 'freshmen' in college, we were 'first year students').  The study took a couple groups of young kids (1st and 2d grade, I think) and divided them into two groups.  Both groups were asked to draw pictures.  One group was asked to draw pictures of 'policemen' and 'firemen'.  The other group was asked to draw pictures of a 'police officer' and a 'firefighter'.  In the first group, every kid drew a picture of a man.  In the second group, a significant number of kids (don't know the exact stats, but I think it was about 30%) had pictures that depicted women.  Now that might seem like a foolish study, but the point the researchers were making was that the labels we put on things impacts the way we see them.  Hypothetically, kids in that first group were getting the message that only men should be in law enforcement and firefighting, and the pictures they drew reflected that attitude.  The second group, by simply changing the labels they used, enabled kids to consider the posibility that women could fit in these roles as well. 

There are plenty of other examples of studies that illustrate this point - probably some that do it better than this one...

roadkill_275 wrote:

stikpusher wrote: Roadkill. Without starting a flame war here, I suggest you research some numbers regarding  documented Japanese vs German WWII atrocities. While both countries certainly did horrid things, I do believe the Nazis, with their actions of trying to wipe out whole specified types of populations killed more people intenionally. I dont beleive Japan ever targeted any ethnic groups for extemination- simply stated they wanted to kick the wetern powers out of Asia and replace them as the dominant overlord. Under a very strict regime. Most Japanese atrocities stemmed from the Japanese mindset towards prisoners and subjugated peoples. I honestly dont think any country more than 10-20 years old does not have some historical slight against some ethnic group within their own borders, the U.S. included. That is the nature of majority groups in power. Just some thoughts.  I can understand your stand regarding the stars and bars. Especially concerning your heritage.  I am banned already just for my name anyways...  I wasn't trying to say that the Nazis were innocent or weren't as bad. They're about equal. It's sad that the Nazi atrocities are depicted everywhere yet nobody remembers Nanking or the Korean Peninsula. The Japanese Government to this day denies any wrong doing in SE Asia or Korea. The Germans were bad, but at least they didn't release plagues in the countries they had subjugated. It will never be known how many SE Asians died at the hands of the Japanese military machine. But then, as was pointed out to me recently, EVERY SIDE commited atrocities. It's just that the victors can better hide theirs. I wasn't trying to start a flame war and I'm not trying to continue one. I'm just expressing my opinion. In the end it doesn't matter. The guilty still have to stand in front of God for judgement and face His justice. BTW, I have to replace my stars and bars about once every month or so. After they get 5 or 6 bullet holes in them, they start disintegrating. My cousin flies a Nazi flag, but only on the Germans version of Memorial Day. His wifes father flew recon planes over England for the Luftwaffe in WWII. I talked to him before he died in '88 and he was proud of his service but didn't care much for the military heirarchy.

take this not a flame, but an addition to previous comments:

     I never really new much about events in the South Pacific arenas except for what I saw on the tube. A few years back I was in Fon Du Lac WS. going thru a training seminar at Giddings & Lewis. One of the fellows I went there with (cannot remember where he was from) was married to a Manchurian lady, and she came along with him. She survived WWII in China, and it was pretty scarey! The Japanese went into cities and virtually killed everyone alive there. There are no real records as to the total cost in lives of civilians alone, but the numbers would be huge.

    We've also forgotten about the horrors that the Vietnamese did to the "Hill People" after we left. Then they also killed another two million of their own race.

    Also we seem to have forgotten about all the Ukranians that Stalin killed (several million). And lets not forget Great Britian, and what they did to the Irish people.

So what I'm trying say is this thread could go on forever and a day!!

gary

bbrowniii wrote:

ajlafleche wrote: Thank you for such a well put post. I agree the whole concept of PC was essentially respectfulness, the concept our mothers tought us when they told us not to call people names. Certain conservative pundits grabbed onto some of the extremes and any idea of formalizing and encouraging people to be a bit more sensitive to those around them is somehow bad. If in Atlanta, the work crews in fact include women, what's so wrong wiht saying something like "workers ahead?"   Thanks AJ I think what some people fail to recognize (or refuse to) is that language has power - the words we use shape the way we see the world (google "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis" if you want to see a real discussion on that topic).  I remember in college doing research on a study done in the late 80's or early 90's, when there was a growing movement to become more 'gender neutral' in our language (no longer were we 'freshmen' in college, we were 'first year students').  The study took a couple groups of young kids (1st and 2d grade, I think) and divided them into two groups.  Both groups were asked to draw pictures.  One group was asked to draw pictures of 'policemen' and 'firemen'.  The other group was asked to draw pictures of a 'police officer' and a 'firefighter'.  In the first group, every kid drew a picture of a man.  In the second group, a significant number of kids (don't know the exact stats, but I think it was about 30%) had pictures that depicted women.  Now that might seem like a foolish study, but the point the researchers were making was that the labels we put on things impacts the way we see them.  Hypothetically, kids in that first group were getting the message that only men should be in law enforcement and firefighting, and the pictures they drew reflected that attitude.  The second group, by simply changing the labels they used, enabled kids to consider the posibility that women could fit in these roles as well.  There are plenty of other examples of studies that illustrate this point - probably some that do it better than this one...

 On the term Political Correctness. This term is evil by it's very nature. Do not mistake manners or a mother's teachings to what dark purpose that is served by PC.  Legislators and politions are not your mother and not your friend. It is all about power and control and nothing that is good. The change in GA. sign is pointless as I am sure women workers are not excluded by it's saftey meaning and none would be offended as long as there is equal pay for equal work. This is just a blotch of make up covering a cole sore. A distraction to shadow a more worthy subject as usual.  I am all about being polite but not ready to have someone else be my mother.

 Any study or research will only be deemed accurate when it supports said view. It is a trap to hide the evil by seemingly justifing it to a point where most people will not care to make the effort to disagree. Those that do can then be ridiculed as a heritic. Fine example would be women in the military. While most are capable there still is the problem of nature. As a former 1SG I can say very few women made it through the 1st term of service without becoming pregnant and leaving. There of course is no research or studies to substantiate this claim but I know what I saw while I was in service. The result is poorly manned units with no one getting the experience to do the job. I don't put much faith in research.

I was in graduate school in the '90's in the Northeast one cold winter and someone mentioned that there might be "black ice" on the roads when lecture was over so we should be careful driving, as it is hard to see...an African Amercian woman took extreme offense at the term and made a fairly large scene over the innocent remark...she reasoned that it was a negative use of the word "black"...that's what always comes to mind when I hear the term, "PC"...

Hmmm, this post is turning into a white elephant...wait, I'm offended at myself...No wait again, I'm not allowed to be offended because I'm white...nevermind...

Actually Manny, if you think about it, you should see that the study did, in fact, NOT show that.  The make up of the police force did not change from one study group to the next.  The study is used to illustrate the point about how our language, and the words we use, become a prizm through which we view the world.  The only thing that changed between one group and the other was the label applied to what they were supposed to draw, but by changing that label, the results were significantly different.  By taking away the gender specific term (policeman), the kids were able to see possibilities that they might not have considered had the specific term been used.  And, while it is a pretty simplified example, it does shed light on that important topic of language shaping reality.  Imagine these groups of 1st and 2d graders brought up to hear the gender neutral 'police officer'.  When some of those young girls start dreaming of what they want to be when they grow up, maybe they won't see a stigma of wanting to go into law enforcement.  Hearing 'first year student' instead of 'freshman' takes away the implied message that college (or high school for that matter) is really for men only (which it once was, when the original term was en vogue).

Like you said, the potential debates over the place of women in the workplace, the gender disparities in various professions, the unbalanced pay... we could go on and on.  The only point I am trying to make is that all too often people throw around labels like 'PC' and 'censorship' without taking the time to consider that there may be a point or a reason for asking (expecting) people to consider what they are saying and the impact their words may be having, intentional or not.

bbrowniii wrote:

Actually Manny, if you think about it, you should see that the study did, in fact, NOT show that.  The make up of the police force did not change from one study group to the next.  The study is used to illustrate the point about how our language, and the words we use, become a prizm through which we view the world.  The only thing that changed between one group and the other was the label applied to what they were supposed to draw, but by changing that label, the results were significantly different.  By taking away the gender specific term (policeman), the kids were able to see possibilities that they might not have considered had the specific term been used.  And, while it is a pretty simplified example, it does shed light on that important topic of language shaping reality.  Imagine these groups of 1st and 2d graders brought up to hear the gender neutral 'police officer'.  When some of those young girls start dreaming of what they want to be when they grow up, maybe they won't see a stigma of wanting to go into law enforcement.  Hearing 'first year student' instead of 'freshman' takes away the implied message that college (or high school for that matter) is really for men only (which it once was, when the original term was en vogue). Like you said, the potential debates over the place of women in the workplace, the gender disparities in various professions, the unbalanced pay... we could go on and on.  The only point I am trying to make is that all too often people throw around labels like 'PC' and 'censorship' without taking the time to consider that there may be a point or a reason for asking (expecting) people to consider what they are saying and the impact their words may be having, intentional or not.

Mansteins revenge wrote:

bbrowniii wrote: Actually Manny, if you think about it, you should see that the study did, in fact, NOT show that.  The make up of the police force did not change from one study group to the next.  The study is used to illustrate the point about how our language, and the words we use, become a prizm through which we view the world.  The only thing that changed between one group and the other was the label applied to what they were supposed to draw, but by changing that label, the results were significantly different.  By taking away the gender specific term (policeman), the kids were able to see possibilities that they might not have considered had the specific term been used.  And, while it is a pretty simplified example, it does shed light on that important topic of language shaping reality.  Imagine these groups of 1st and 2d graders brought up to hear the gender neutral 'police officer'.  When some of those young girls start dreaming of what they want to be when they grow up, maybe they won't see a stigma of wanting to go into law enforcement.  Hearing 'first year student' instead of 'freshman' takes away the implied message that college (or high school for that matter) is really for men only (which it once was, when the original term was en vogue). Like you said, the potential debates over the place of women in the workplace, the gender disparities in various professions, the unbalanced pay... we could go on and on.  The only point I am trying to make is that all too often people throw around labels like 'PC' and 'censorship' without taking the time to consider that there may be a point or a reason for asking (expecting) people to consider what they are saying and the impact their words may be having, intentional or not. You make your points...I don't have a real problem w/ what you wrote and don't mind the non-specific titles in regards to gender (as long as we can also throw out the term "mid-wife"), but I think I made my point as well with the example of the "black ice" remark...there is a point where language is so restricted that it loses its diversity (how's that for using a liberal buzz-word against itself)...

Manny,

Absolutely.  I had meant to add something regarding your post about the 'black-ice'.  There is obviously just as much a problem with people taking the inclusiveness/PC thing a little (WAAAYY) too far.  I have an article that I read to my students to spark a discussion about people being reprimanded (even fired) for using the word 'niggardly' - the word has no etymological link, nor does it have a similar meaning, to the racial slur it sounds similar to, but that does not matter to some people - talk about going a overboard on the whole issue...

Ah well, as I recall this thread originally began to discuss perceived censorship within FSM?  I think we can agree we have taken it a little far afield, eh??   No harm, no foul, as they say.

P.S. It is all your fault though... you and those nekid chicks!!!

roadkill_275 wrote:

stikpusher wrote: Roadkill. Without starting a flame war here, I suggest you research some numbers regarding  documented Japanese vs German WWII atrocities. While both countries certainly did horrid things, I do believe the Nazis, with their actions of trying to wipe out whole specified types of populations killed more people intenionally. I dont beleive Japan ever targeted any ethnic groups for extemination- simply stated they wanted to kick the wetern powers out of Asia and replace them as the dominant overlord. Under a very strict regime. Most Japanese atrocities stemmed from the Japanese mindset towards prisoners and subjugated peoples. I honestly dont think any country more than 10-20 years old does not have some historical slight against some ethnic group within their own borders, the U.S. included. That is the nature of majority groups in power. Just some thoughts.  I can understand your stand regarding the stars and bars. Especially concerning your heritage.  I am banned already just for my name anyways...  I wasn't trying to say that the Nazis were innocent or weren't as bad. They're about equal. It's sad that the Nazi atrocities are depicted everywhere yet nobody remembers Nanking or the Korean Peninsula. The Japanese Government to this day denies any wrong doing in SE Asia or Korea. The Germans were bad, but at least they didn't release plagues in the countries they had subjugated. It will never be known how many SE Asians died at the hands of the Japanese military machine. But then, as was pointed out to me recently, EVERY SIDE commited atrocities. It's just that the victors can better hide theirs. I wasn't trying to start a flame war and I'm not trying to continue one. I'm just expressing my opinion. In the end it doesn't matter. The guilty still have to stand in front of God for judgement and face His justice. BTW, I have to replace my stars and bars about once every month or so. After they get 5 or 6 bullet holes in them, they start disintegrating. My cousin flies a Nazi flag, but only on the Germans version of Memorial Day. His wifes father flew recon planes over England for the Luftwaffe in WWII. I talked to him before he died in '88 and he was proud of his service but didn't care much for the military heirarchy.

Does it really matter whose atrocities were the 'worst'?  I mean, really does it?  My problem with this type of a discussion is there seems to be an underlying subtext/implication that says something like:

'Well, it's OK for you to fly the Stars and Bars because everyone knows that what the Nazis did to the Jews was much worse...

And, it's OK for you to fly the Nazi flag because everyone knows that what the Japanese did to the Koreans and Chinese was much worse...

And, it's OK for you to fly the Imperial Japanese Flag because everyone knows that what Stalin did in the Terror Famine and Dekulakization program in the Ukraine was much worse...'

And on and on it goes. 

Symbols are powerful things and flags are among the most powerful of symbols.  Despite what the individual significance that one may attach to a flag, society as a whole tends to impart a meaning or significance to it that may differ - flags represent collectives - typically governments or states, so the Nazi flag, for example, symbolizes the political system and the policies of the Nazi party, and to most people, those were/are not 'good' things.  So to fly one, regardless of the personal justification, can easily be seen as a show of support for that political system by other members of the society. 

But hey, go ahead and fly whatever flag you want.  At least in the US you have that right.  You can even burn whatever flag you want.  But don't be surprised when other members of the society, who don't share or accept whatever individual significance you impart to your flag, take exception to it... And when they do take exception to it, don't complain about how you are a victim of censorship or people are just too PC.  Society has to set boundaries for what is acceptable and what is not - that is how groups function.  If you decide to live outside those boundaries, understand that there may be criticism. 

Cosmic J wrote:

mucker: Just cruisin' through the posts here and find out that BOOM, I'm banned!!! Just like that!!! Very timely, post though, wit George Carlin passing away recently and all. Truth be told "mucker" is a hockey term. And to our firends in the U.K. I've learned it's actually slang for "friend" (Thanks, Guy!) Sorry to give you such a surprise, there. No offense was intended, to you or to anyone else. Just think of it this way, now you're officially one of the cool kids.

And none taken. I'm just glad to be in the gang! It's actually a very "professionally" discussed topic here in your post.

bbrowniii wrote:

'Well, it's OK for you to fly the Stars and Bars because everyone knows that what the Nazis did to the Jews was much worse... And, it's OK for you to fly the Nazi flag because everyone knows that what the Japanese did to the Koreans and Chinese was much worse... And, it's OK for you to fly the Imperial Japanese Flag because everyone knows that what Stalin did in the Terror Famine and Dekulakization program in the Ukraine was much worse...'

This question is posed out of genuine, if somewhat off-topic, curiosity, and nothing else.  It seems that many/most Americans consider what the Nazis did to be "worse" than any of the other genocides, or countless other attrocities commited throughout history that have been listed in this thread.  Why is this?  Do we only hear so much about Nazi attrocities compared to other events, because the US became involved in World War II?  Is the only reason that we hear nothing about, say, the Rwandan Genocide simply because US involvement was so limited?  The Swastika has become nearly synonomous with evil in American culture, while many Americans have heard little, if anything, about the some of the other things listed above; Japanese WWII attrocities, Stalin's murders, etc...Whenever I hear/read about similar events for the first time, I'm always amazed that I've made it this far through my life without learning about so many of the things that happen(ed) outside of my country.

Most likely because the atrocities commited by the Nazis affected the most Americans, directly or indirectly. American soldiers witnessed firsthand the discovery and liberation of death camps and concentration camps in large numbers. As opposed to Japan, where a smaller number of US troops either saw or were victims of Japanese atrocities. Most US citizens were (and still are) of European descent and many had family members who fled Europe or perished as a result of Nazi policies. The number of US citizens of Asian descent were far smaller and the comparable impact of Japanese atrocities on the US reflects this.  And lastly, there were very racial overtones to the Pacific War by both sides. Each side looked upon the other as "inferior and subhuman" therefor such actions were expected. But the Germans were, in the words I have read in many veterans acocunts, "just like us" in many ways. The cold scientific calculating method to many Nazi atrocities stunned the consciousness. How could the people who gave the world Beethoven and other gifts of culture been so coldly evil?

Look into recent or not too recent history and you will find many bloodbaths. But the particular qualities of the Nazi atrocities have peculiar qualities that make them stand out in history. Not for their numbers, but for their method.

Stikpusher,

You explained that very well!

For my part, I grew up hearing stories from my mother's father, who fought with the U.S. 80th Infantry Division (317th Regiment, M Company -- for those who are curious). He and my grandmother loved traveling to Europe after the war all the way until the late '80s and held Germans in very high regard.

They're both still alive, thankfully. They pretty much viewed the Germans, even the ones who fought against my grandfather, as regular people caught up in very bad circumstances. The people responsible for the atrocities were punished for their crimes and the whole country suffered as well. Coming from what is now Slovakia, they had/have far more distrust and anger toward the Soviets/Russians.

My father's father was in the Navy in the Pacific. He passed away in '96, and I'm still working on getting more information about the units he served in. He was in two administrative positions: one on Guam, and then on Tinnian. He was near the airfields with the B-29s that dropped the atomic bombs, but didn't know anything about it at the time.

To the day he died, he held an extreme, negative prejudice against the Japanese. Being straffed and shot at by snipers (and shooting back on occasion) helped form his attitude, but I suspect the racism at the time and the very different cultures between our two nations played a large part.

I believe that the Japanese atrocities deserve a lot more attention, especially from the Japanese government. Germany, as a nation, has done a lot to come to terms with its actions during WWII, while Japan has been largely silent. There are strong cultural reasons for the ways the two nations have dealt with the war, but I think the Japanese actions are "flying under the radar" of most people in my generation because Germany's actions are far better publicized.

I studied German in high school and college, and now study a Japanese martial art. I'm a student of both cultures and admire a lot about both. 

Just some thoughts, 

Manners are one thing.  Political correctness is actually a suppression of free speech.  It is cloaked in the language of tolerance, but its proponents are usually anything but tolerant of any viewpoint but their own.

Regards,

Brad

IanIsBored2000 wrote:

bbrowniii wrote: 'Well, it's OK for you to fly the Stars and Bars because everyone knows that what the Nazis did to the Jews was much worse... And, it's OK for you to fly the Nazi flag because everyone knows that what the Japanese did to the Koreans and Chinese was much worse... And, it's OK for you to fly the Imperial Japanese Flag because everyone knows that what Stalin did in the Terror Famine and Dekulakization program in the Ukraine was much worse...' This question is posed out of genuine, if somewhat off-topic, curiosity, and nothing else.  It seems that many/most Americans consider what the Nazis did to be "worse" than any of the other genocides, or countless other attrocities commited throughout history that have been listed in this thread.  Why is this?  Do we only hear so much about Nazi attrocities compared to other events, because the US became involved in World War II?  Is the only reason that we hear nothing about, say, the Rwandan Genocide simply because US involvement was so limited?  The Swastika has become nearly synonomous with evil in American culture, while many Americans have heard little, if anything, about the some of the other things listed above; Japanese WWII attrocities, Stalin's murders, etc...Whenever I hear/read about similar events for the first time, I'm always amazed that I've made it this far through my life without learning about so many of the things that happen(ed) outside of my country.

Mansteins revenge wrote:

IanIsBored2000 wrote:  bbrowniii wrote: 'Well, it's OK for you to fly the Stars and Bars because everyone knows that what the Nazis did to the Jews was much worse... And, it's OK for you to fly the Nazi flag because everyone knows that what the Japanese did to the Koreans and Chinese was much worse... And, it's OK for you to fly the Imperial Japanese Flag because everyone knows that what Stalin did in the Terror Famine and Dekulakization program in the Ukraine was much worse...' This question is posed out of genuine, if somewhat off-topic, curiosity, and nothing else.  It seems that many/most Americans consider what the Nazis did to be "worse" than any of the other genocides, or countless other attrocities commited throughout history that have been listed in this thread.  Why is this?  Do we only hear so much about Nazi attrocities compared to other events, because the US became involved in World War II?  Is the only reason that we hear nothing about, say, the Rwandan Genocide simply because US involvement was so limited?  The Swastika has become nearly synonomous with evil in American culture, while many Americans have heard little, if anything, about the some of the other things listed above; Japanese WWII attrocities, Stalin's murders, etc...Whenever I hear/read about similar events for the first time, I'm always amazed that I've made it this far through my life without learning about so many of the things that happen(ed) outside of my country.   One of the reasons may be because of the "systematic" approach the Germans used in their genocide; they kept meticulous records and became very oganized and effecient at it...it was state-sponsored to the extreme of it being a beaurocratic entity...it was not just a decision, it was a policy...also because it was purpotrated by one of the West's "civilized" societies...

Manny

I think you have hit the nail on the head - a combination of the meticulous record keeping and the brutal efficiency of the whole process make the Holocaust stand out.  Perhaps the only 'unfortunate' part about that is people tend to focus (for good reason) on the 6 million Jews who died, but are not aware of the nearly 5 million others (from a variety of groups) who also were sent to their deaths in the extermination camps.