semantics and censorship...seduction..

Intresting thing happened at work last week.

One of the guys in my crew asked the question. Why is a black person a African American. An Indian a Native American etc etc ..Mexican American etc etc??

Why cannot all these people be just Americans??? For some unknown reason he found this concept disturbing sufficient that he voiced his concern in the midst of all of us.

I considered his concern for awhile and voiced my opinion.

The reason is....... censorship.....also sometimes today deceitefully called "political correctness."


The manner in which this type of censorship works is to identify certain groups and label them for maneuverability in the subsconcious process. By marking you in the gullible media and also the educational/political system you are now identified and fingerprinted mentally..subconsciously, unconciouisly to think in the pattern of a certain group. You identify with this group and thier values...particularly the values of the political party which claims to support this group. By a process of unconcious default you are now a controllable, predictable, gauranteed voter. The political process can pretty much gaurantee how you will spend your money, your vote, your thinking process...and to your children too. Especially if they have reinforced this in public schools on your or your children.

In otherwords this is a rigged show...by censorship...by polarization.
It is a subtle violation ...seduction of your thinking process. Another value system substituted for your own thinking process and value system. A hijacking.

You are not smart enough to think this through on your own merits..you must have this group or that group to substitute your value and thinking system with theirs.

The media is in on it ..the public education system is in on it and the politicians are in on it since they finance public education.

This persons concerns were not without foundation. I do not believe he cared much for my reply but he did not have a answer or response to my statement. Very telling about the thinking process or lack of thinking process.

When you see and identify this process over and over ..on the surface looking different but underneath where it counts all the same...you realize it is the same fingerprint..over and over and over.

But how many people can see this for what it is ...censorship...whoredom.. for political purposes.

Thanks,
Orangetom

You cannot separate the observer from the observed.

Our thoughts, and by extension, our language remain our own.

Sure, you can associate negative connotations to certain labels, but the individual will always have the option to inquire beyond. I feel in the cases such as you outline, it is not the language that enslaves, but the lack of willingness to penetrate beneath the surface of such “politically correct” terms. Whose fault is that? I would say it is the fault of the individual.

When you are trying to sell something, be it a political ideology, or a consumer product, you need to identify your target. In this case, models based on such subdivisions seem to be valid. After all, people seem to stick to their own culture and mindset. Because of this, it is safe to make certain assumptions regarding these groups based on experience. For instance, how they spend their money, how the feel about the way the country is being run.

We run into problems when we take models designed for one purpose, and attempt to use them for another altogether. We become so used to banding large groups of people that we do it without thinking.

With this post, you have illustrated that you have the ability to see beyond this. Why would you think that others don’t? We all have the ability to change the way we think at any time we desire. We cannot blame others for the way we think. To me it smacks of laziness.

Where you have a case of mental enslavement via language, change your language:

E-Prime attempts to remove the verb “to be” in all its forms from English: be, is, am, are, was, were, been and being, plus all the contractions. This has the tactical effect of eliminating the passive voice. According to proponents, it forces the writer (or speaker) to think differently, and often results in language that most people find easier to read.

Source.

Instead of saying “the grass is green”, say “the grass appears green to me” By doing this, you remove all doubt that the sentiment you are expressing is a subjective one. To you it appears thus, to another, it may be completely different.

This is just one simple example of how making a simple change may completely influence the way you think. Of course, you have to want to change.

It comes down to a simple choice. Are you going to allow yourself to be dictated to by The Powers That Be, and hide behind their flawed teachings, or are you going to break out, recognise yourself as an individual, recognise every other living person as an individual, and take responsibility for your own thoughts?

I do not pretend that I know what I am talking about. These are just thoughts that occurred to me after reading the above post. I hate to see a well written post sitting there with no replies, so there you go.

The problem is that many people can not see beyond the words and pharses that have been pounded into them time and time again. Some had political correctness forced and reinforced into them during college years. Some had those thoughts pounded into them during highscool and possibly college. Some had those ideas thrown at them since elementary school.

These politically correct ideas that we are bombarded with in a way become habits. They are seen in every day normal speech, and in what we write. Instead of saying or writing the black person, we say Aferican American whether or not they have any ties back to Africa. We write the people, the person, they, them, he/she. Any one remember what was used before the days of political correctness to refer to a person where the gender was not known or speaking towards a large group of people? In the olden days writers would use the word he.

It was a pain in the but to switch from he to a politically correct prhase as not to "offend women". It became habit, and I now find myself using anything but he when writing. It is as if the word he has become offensive to use in any context except when the individual is identified as a male.

At what point can a person change ideas and thoughts that have become habits through out their years? At what point can these second nature habits viewed as normal be questioned by someone who wouldn't even think of questioning them?

The transitional generation can see and percieve the questions, since we knew a time when it was different? What about a generation that grew up with these habits, and they habits were already instilled in their parents?

Could they see how those words and pharses lock them into a certain way of thinking? Make them associate certain pharses with certain people and expected behaviours? In doing so, their own mind seeminglessly associates associates themselves witht "the right" group of people and seemingly correct behaviours for that group of people.

By associating different behaviours to different groups of people, bigeorty comes about in a seemingless mannor. Whites wonder why the "Aferican Americans" hate whites so much. It was not because of ancerterial slavery. It is because of the political correctness foisted upon us at schools that teach how bad whites were/are towards the blacks. Excuse me, Cucasians and Aferican Americans. Also, the process of how the blacks are grouped together in one unit with the term Aferican American, and the importance of their culture, while the white people are not.

In the political correctness game. It is the groups of people that are given names and preferences that are seen as more important in society than the rest of us.

Also by getting us to identify ourselves with a certain class or group of people, we seem to absent mindedly start to adhere to what is expected with that group of people. Sometimes we think it odd when people step out of their normally catagorized roles for their group such as an Aferican American holding a top CEO position. That person is special and beat all the odds against him.

As you can see, habits are hard to die. Even when I was talking about the male gender, I still used the phrase that person instead of he. It is almost as if the word he has become abhorent somehow. If I didn't remember the switch, I would have never remembered being told that using the old acceptable form he instead of the person was discriminatory against women. Most of what has been previously written, has been written by males, and they saw no problems with using the word he when referincing a person not gender identified. Therefore he should never be used in that way again.

Now, the next generation will more than likely be taught the new politically correct way, and never think another thought towards it. They may never think to question why people are placed in groups, or even realize that by doing so creats walls between the groups that can and more than likely cause anmonisity between those groups. Never to realize that they are being geared to think like their group and "identify" with their groups "culture". If you are not in a "group", then you will be taught that you need to be "tolerant" of others, and to learn about all the "cultures of others".

To them it will be a habit and a normal way of thinking. More than likly they will never think it could be a form of censorship, control, and/or a possible form mind control.

to be honest, its not the PC stuff that bothers me the most

its the hypocrisy.

there is the National association for the advancement of colored people
theres the united negro college fund
theres the rainbow coalition
associations for black journalists, firefighters, broadcasters etc
the mexican americans have various organizations


however...some guys in a college go create a scholarship for whites and get BLASTED for it.

hypocrisy.

what would happen if someone started the national association for the adavncement of white people? we'd get sued.

Imus makes a stupid racial sexist remark and al sharpton starts threatening to boycott and picket if they dont fire him.

sorry al, you may be offended but his job is beteen him and his employer and its not your business.

threatening to boycott and threatening advertisers that you'll boycott them if they dont quit doing business with cbs if they dont fire imus is extortion.

but i digress...the point is that in this age of political correctness all these things are ok, as long as its not whites doing it.

and hypocrisy bugs me almost more than ignorance but they both walk hand in hand to be sure.

sorry this post was kinda all over the place but i kind of feel they are connected.

i agree with tom, why cant we all just be "people"

i spent time in the army and even if i hadnt been raised by a father who woulda beat me senseless for even thinking of using racial slurs, in the army i learned to see people as all being green. your skin color is of no matter to the military and i think tahts the way it should be.

besides. we all bleed red.

My mom is 81 and when she was growing up, persons of the darkest skin pigment were called 'colored' - no doubt you guys have heard that before.

And I, personally, don't see skin color as anything other than the main determining factor when choosing SPF #'s (i need 300+!)

So, when my mom mentions anyone of that hue, she says 'he was a colored man' etc. And so I always say: 'What color was he, mom?'
I'm COLORED, too - more like a pale peach - but color IS color.

NOT to try to change her view (i don't think her words reflect anything other than habit) but I do know that words heard are not always the same as words sent...I think it is an issue, nowadays, of either not paying the 'proper' attention to our words or not paying attention at all.

Words are not everything...yet in a sense they shape our present reality whether we mean what we say or if we don't. Semantics can be unnecessary social bureacracy on one hand but on the other hand, precision in our communications can NEVER harm relations.

just my .02

It has been awhile since I made the first post on this thread. It seemed for awhile that no one was going to post back or rebutt.

It is, however, intresting to see by replys as to how many people have noticed this fingerprint in peoples conduct and thinking. THeir views differ according to thier abilitys but I detect that in their own way they notice this fingerprint.

Speaking for myself I find this conditioning technique repulsive when I spot it. I become immediately cautious of some brainwashing/conditioning tentacle reaching out and attempting to steal my unconscious behaviors. I am offended by it.

THis kind of conditioning occurs quite often in the media,politics, and public education with regularity. As I am often quoting ..public education is paid for or financed by the body politic. They are closely related. The media shills for thier respective partys. They are all related.

I become offended when I detect that someone or some group is attempting by such subtilty to emotionallly jerk me off/masterbate me for political purposes/votes. Pardon the crudity but this is how I view it. It is offensive to me. It is no different than a actual sexual violation because I sense that they or someone is trying to steal/hijack my very soul for thier social/political purposes.

Just an expansion on my previous thoughts,
Orangetom

[edit on 15-4-2007 by orangetom1999]

[edit on 15-4-2007 by orangetom1999]

All this heartburn comes from people trying to pretend the differences between us don't exist. Or trying to pretend the differences don't matter and that we should somehow ignore them.

As if some people weren't black and others white or yellow or brown. As if some people weren't tall and others short. As if some weren't healthy and others sick. As if some weren't crippled and others whole. As if some weren't women and others men. As if some weren't queer and some weren't straight. As if some weren't strong and others weak. As if some weren't clever and others stupid. As if some weren't good people and some weren't bad.

The fact is that such differences exist and even a child can see them. That is because they are important to people; they determine our expectations from and behaviour towards others. Because they are so important we have words for them. If we don't use these words, it is because we're frightened of them. More fool us.

Nobody is the same as anybody else. All humans are unique.

No-one is equal to anyone else, either, that's just a social-engineering fantasy enshrined in the American Constitution.

We are all different, all unequal and, like it or not, we recognize and acknowledge these facts tacitly in the way we interact with others. That's how social pecking orders arise. And it is in our nature to create and sustain them. It is a trait we share with all social animals.

Maybe it would be good for everyone to be equal and for all differences between people to be ignored. But what a dull anthill of a world it would be then.

It is quite clear that your language faculties are more extensive than just a four letter word vocabulary. Well said in your post.

As to semantics..or the use and misuse of words to seduce...I was taught some years ago by some elders that most people anymore in fact have a vocabulary of mostly four letter words. A vocabulary of some 1000 to 1200 words and most of them four letter. Our ability to communicate an idea..a concept from one to another outside of some "feeling" we have is very limited. So when someone uses or misuses a word it is very easy for us to get the wrong impression or message and be put on a string by those trained in this technique.
It is also my clear understanding by having read books over a hundred years back in being published, that these people back then ..those who could read and write...had a very good command of the English language. Also an extensive vocabulary. I envy them this education.
It is my belief in certain instances that this is deliberate and done by the media and our leaders...for some purpose.
I can reacall when we in fact had in our leadership real orators who could use language very well. Not so anymore. It seems to me that anymore they play mostly to our emotions and with very base language skills. I greatly dislike this technique when I spot it. I use the term drama queens to describe this technique.

Thanks for your post,
Orangetom

[edit on 17-4-2007 by orangetom1999]

Years ago I read how the Innuit people had over 70 words for snow and ice conditions and not one single word for "war". War was not in their vocabulary and therefore did not exist. It was not a concept-how could it be? There wasn't even a word to describe the concept.

People's minds can be changed by changing their vocabulary. What exists can be eradicated by eradicating the word for it.

Consider the colloquialism: "that's a BAD..." to describe that which is prized, valued and greatly appreciated. Our view of what is "bad" is slowly being changed to mean "good". Now how will we describe that which is truly bad?

Also, I've noticed a verbal trend toward the use of superlatives to describe the ordinary. Example: I buy a new pair of shoes and show them off to my friend. She says, "those are FANTASTIC". They are only a piece of utilitarian footwear but her appreciation of them is expressed as being footwear that is beyond the viewers believability. How can shoes (or any other mundane items) be beyond believability? Another example: "I'm starved!" when you are only 30 minutes late for lunch. Making everything a superlative detracts from and diminishes the emotional impact of things that truly are superlative. We become immune to the sensational because we're subtly (and continually) bombarded with "the latest, the greatest, the biggest, the amazing", etc.

I saw an advertisement by a car dealership in which they were lowering the prices to an "insane" level. They pronounced themselves "insane" and then invited one and all to come buy a car. I do not care to have any financial dealings with insane people no matter how reasonably priced their merchandise.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that notices these subtle changes in our thinking via language.

Oh, and the last time someone introduced themselves to me as a "Native American", I politely greeted them and introduced myself as a W.A.S.P. American. (I, too, have a Cherokee heritage although I suspect I come from a long line of fence-jumpers). Trying to get people to think outside the cultural indoctrination of pablum with which we've all been spoon-fed our entire lives can be risky business.

Your post, whitewave is thoughtfully written and obviously the result of much observation and consideration. Your conclusions, however, are incorrect.

Originally posted by whitewave
Years ago I read how the Innuit people had over 70 words for snow and ice conditions and not one single word for "war".

This is not true. It is just an urban legend. In fact,

Contrary to popular belief, the Eskimos do not have more words for snow than do speakers of English. Counting generously, experts can come up with about a dozen.

-- Steven Pinker, The Language Instinct

Here is a detailed expert discussion of the issue by Anthony Woodbury of the University of Texas at Austin.

And here is a more entertaining one.

But to get serious, and consider the point of your post:

People's minds can be changed by changing their vocabulary. What exists can be eradicated by eradicating the word for it.

This is known as 'linguistic relativism'. As an idea, it dates back to the German diplomat, philosopher and linguist Wilhelm von Humboldt (not to be confused with his brother, the great explorer and scientist Alexander von Humboldt:

Language is the formative organ of thought. Intellectual activity, entirely mental, entirely internal, and to some extent passing without trace, becomes through sound, externalized in speech and perceptible to the senses. Thought and language are therefore one and inseparable from each other.

-- Wilhelm von Humboldt

The most popular version of linguistic relativism is called the Whorfian Hypothesis, after its originator Benjamin Whorf.

The Whorfian hypothesis can therefore be summarized as follows:

(1) Different languages utilize different semantic representation systems which are informationally non-equivalent (at least in the sense that they employ different lexical concepts);

(2) semantic representations determine aspects of conceptual representations;

therefore

(3) users of different languages utilize different conceptual representations.

Supporting evidence for this is awfully thin, however; most of it is drawn from anthropology, a dubious discipline at the best of times. In fact (again, see Pinker, op. cit.), most evidence from neuroscience mostly points to it not being true.

The author of the 'Cultural Anthropology' link cited above attempts to make the case for the Whorfian hypothesis as well and as honourably as possible, yet its evidential weakness when compared with the hypotheses of Chomsky, Pinker et al. is still rather obvious in the discussion.

I think it's appropriate to leave the last word to a linguist:

It is a dangerous jump from the observation that two languages provide different ways of talking about a given subject matter to the conclusion that the speakers of those languages think of that subject matter in distinct ways.

-- Paul Kay

The source quoted by Woodbury admits that his counting is "arbitrary at best" and the "entertaining" source counts over 90 words and lists them. Inflection of spoken words in some languages (Chinese,etc.) can change the meaning of the word entirely or put the same word in a different context altering the meaning.

At any rate, the point still stands that language affects the way we think. Changes in the meanings of words changes our thinking of those words.
For example: in M.E., the word "hell" meant to cover or bury; such as helling potatoes, helling your roof. Slowly it evolved to include burial of the dead. Religious institutions of the day ran (amok) with this meaning and attached a significance to the word it had never had before: a place of eternal torment for the dead.

How many people today know that the word "hell" simply means "grave" or "burial"? How has our thinking, cultural, and religious practices changed based on the (bastardized) meaning of this one word alone?

Whitewave,

How good to see your post on this topic. Once again you have me chuckling to myself here. You too have obvious possesion of more than a four letter word vocabulary...thank goodness.
It is very easy for those skilled in the trade to use or misuse a word to get others to take on conduct which is not thier own.
Your example here is textbook.

Consider the colloquialism: "that's a BAD..." to describe that which is prized, valued and greatly appreciated. Our view of what is "bad" is slowly being changed to mean "good". Now how will we describe that which is truly bad?

As I understand the vocabulary this is the difference in what is denoted and what is connoted. Something literal as in denoted and in connoted ...something implied which may not be literal but seemingly making good sense. Logical or even reasonable..not necessarily that which is true.

I agree about the use of superlatives. To me this is so overdone..so as to get us on the bandwagon.

I dont want to be bombarded by superlatives in everything so that I am emotionally overdone. Tapped out on this drivel to the point I need the next superlative to keep me through the day. To me they become meaningless after to much of this exposure.

My emotions are a very private and personal thing and only shared with those to whom I choose. I dont want someone making merchandize of me by this emotional technique...for any reason. When I become aware of it..this becomes a type of emotional violation to me. This technique, to me, cheapens so much around us...in a manner and goal for which I dont believe many people are aware. It is seduction.

lol lol ..funny about the W.A.S.P. I shall borrow that and remember to explain the next time I have to suffer that very drivel..and state that I am a Heinz 57.

Thanks and good to see your posts again.

Orangetom




[edit on 22-4-2007 by orangetom1999]

[edit on 22-4-2007 by orangetom1999]