Electronic Writer

Health Textbooks in Texas to Change Wording About Marriage

Published: November 6, 2004 (NYTimes Online)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/national/06texts.html?th

There is a door in Texas, and it has been slightly ajar. There has traditionally been the tiniest space for free thinking–even in Texas. The reddest of the red states. But, that door has been slammed shut, and locked from the outside.

The language in the textbooks of Middle and High Schools have had to use something to describe marriages. And, now, thanks to the close-minded adults running that state (and spineless book editors), two major book publishers have replaced the open-ended language with closed terms. Specifically, the text books must replace any slippery language with specific terms like “man and a a woman,” and “marriage.” It is as if the lawmakers believe that they have the right to control how we think–whether they understand it that way or not.

My real issue here returns to language. We think within the constructs of our language. So, right now there is this construct called “civil unions.” Just the very concept of civil unions allow some discussion of same-sex marriages in the classroom, or an internal dialogue about difference. But, that construct is being eradicated from the minds of Texan children. I thought that the institution had banned the same-sex relationships–not give law-makers the authority to ban the right to talk about same sex marriages, or acknowledge that 39 states (at last count) recognize or might possibly recognize the institution, or that there is an entire segment of the American population that wants to be in a civil union.

In their defense, the editors that made the decision to alter their textbooks did not lose their contracts with the State of Texas.

Texas has been a sore spot for this country for quite some time–a bastion of self-determnation, racism, and close-minded-ness. There is a photo from the early 1900’s that shows a Texas ranger sitting proudly on a horse posing before a whole slew of dead Mexicans. It was part of the Texas Ranger’s infamous purging of Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and newly naturalized Americans that was the agreement in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. It is a sickening photograph that rekindles my own memories of the pics as a kid where I would hold up a stringer of fish after a long day in the boat. The problem is that these are PEOPLE! And, an even bigger problem is that this was on ONE such photograph.

Then, we have the lovely tale of the three Texans who tied the African-American man up to the bumper of their truck and drug him down the road to his death. All of the people who sat on their front porch and watched a HUMAN-BEING tied to the bumper of a truck and drug down the street to his death should be held accountable for crimes against civilization. How do you keep sipping your lemonade and rocking in your chair after you witness something like that?

But, perhaps I have answered my own problem. How is that people can continue a terrible string of abuse, not value even basic freedoms, and openly practice racism? The answer very well could lie in language. By controlling the langauge of young thinkers, you can shape or control the very ideas of the future generations. You can control how the next wave of thinkers will behave. Hitler used a lot of language control, and his youth organization was extremely pro-active. In one swoop, the lawmakers that “encouraged” this to happen, and the spineless editors (who earned their Christmas bonuses for saving the contract) have allowed future generations of Texan children to go on believing that civil unions may actually be “crimes against nature,” “unnatural,” or “just, plain wrong”– three very appropriate terms for controlling the language and the thoughts of children.

In a fervor, I knew NOT what I was doing. I lashed and whipped at the red swatch of color down the center of my country, and I said some un-savory things. Well, perhaps they were unsavory, but a better word would be “unfair,” or “derogatory.” My first post was, in short, problematic.

To those grandmas and farmers, I apologize for my overgeneralizations. Perhaps, it is fair to overgeneralize in the face of overgeneralizations. You know, the sort of “eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth” kinda thinking that spurned the Beowulf poet to bemoan the loss of generations of people.

Perhaps, I was tired of getting poked in the eye as “spending too much time worrying about things.” Well, SOMEONE has to keep their brain engaged about daily life. And, I am sorry, but connecting the dots has been easy for me. It is just in my nature.

Well, whatever the reason, I am sorry. I should not have overgeneralized and been hasty about my thoughts and words. Instead, I am going to try listening for awhile. It makes for a terrible blog–a blog about listening almost seems narcisistic. So, I will track what I hear on the blog. But, I am going to try listening to the conservatives for awhile. There are too many Liberals struggling with post-election blues. We had the leader, and heard the promises, and finally mobilized. We heard “We’re gonna win,” and “We cannot fail,” from our leader, and from the inner circle of my political world, and in a couple hours, we heard a different ending.

I concede.

It just feels kinda hollow after all that work.

This is a really nice article. I love the Chicken-Killing Dog analogy at the beginning . . . .

Molly Ivins: The Vioxx model of a corporate soul

By Molly Ivins

Published 11:24 am PST Friday, November 5, 2004

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/ivins/story/11326181p-12240892c.html

A friend just sent me this link. I guess we are not alone with our thoughts.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2004/11/05/notes110504.DTL

Great writing, too!

How is it that two people can look at the same idea and see such opposite things?

There have always been huge discrepencies in perception. There is no way around it, actually. We think within the constructs of our language. Our truths are based in perception-based details (or, the phenomenon of our own, unique experience), and our language assumes those perceptions/shades of reality. In fact, our actual vocabulary is characterized by our history, memories, and perceptions. We are only agreeing that the a word (composed of letters–symbols) represents some external object.

Okay, an example. Say, for example, that when I was a little kid, there was a car accident and a bright yellow-green fire truck responded, and took my Dad to the hospital. And, let’s say that when you were a kid that you got to sit on top of the antique bright red fire truck during the 4th of July parade. Our perceptions–the image that is conjured in our heads when we think of the word “firetruck” are going to be different. It may not make a difference in everyday conversation, but if the word were something more important like “morality” or “liberal,” it could make a terrible difference.

Barack Obama said it on the news–that somehow, the Democratic party has shifted in the perception of Americans to NOT represent religious or centrist ideas (or, even morality apparently–it was a SIN for Catholics to vote for John Kerry–a Catholic. I am going to take the Bishops to task for that one.). Obama called for us to spend the next four years getting the Democrats back to that central value–away from the edges. Arianna Huffington just two days ago argued that we (the Democratic Party) needed a clearer message–not a centrist one. I think we need to dig a little deeper than both of their arguments imply. We need to tinker with the very language that we use, and no longer rely upon perception-based chasms to convey our meaning. We need more concrete language. We need better, more precise vocabulary.

I just lost a really big post–it was my error, and there is no way to recover. Will update later.

So sad. Lesson learned.

Arianna Huffington just published a well-written article about the Democrat defeat. I haven’t weighed in on the remarks yet, but they are well worth the read.

Here’s the link:

Anatomy Of A Crushing Political Defeat

by Arianna Huffington

www.ariannaonline.com/blog

I have spoken to quite a few people today, and there are certainly a wide range of emotions going around. Apocalyptism (new word?), morose, anger, emptiness. Although I have swung through each of those emotions myself, I have come to rest on a different set of ideals–on an idea of hope.

The core facts are that we now know how many people are like-minded, progressive thinkers who value freedom and community-related well being. We also know who does not. What we don’t know–or, have any clue about, actually–is the diversity of reasons that Americans used in voting for President Bush. In the next couple of years, we need to vigorously pursue those reasons. This is a priority. We need to be listening and asking questions so we can determine why people voted for him, and more importantly, how the information–the tangible facts, and the not-so-tangible speculation–missed the mark.

More speculation on this later . . . .

Anybody notice how I put the %-sign before the numbers kinda like the $-sign in that last post. If that ain’t a Freudian slip, I don’t know what is . . . .

After thinking about this during the first half of my work day, I had a few new ideas about this whole election.

I have always said that a racist who says that they are a racist is better than a racist who pretends to be something else. At least they are telling a truth. (Racism just plain sucks, if you ask me, but it does exist in this country and elsewhere.) I touched on this in my last post (or my first–I guess it depends if your glass is half-full or half-empty).

The message that the United States has sent on a global scale is very clear: we are happy to have our position of world bully, we are happy to suppress minorities and dissonance within our own country. Logically, it follows that we treat our own BETTER than we are going to treat another coutry. So, if we are willing to suppress this in our own country–the dissonant voices around the globe better be quiet for awhile. There are going to be conditional strings on everything from here-on-out. At least we are out-of-the-closet with our skeletons. America is struggling as it loses status of “land of the free.” We may be the home of the brave, but we also house a good deal of closed minds (and more of them voted that Liberals–captiol “L”).

The really fantastic and accidental consequence is that we have mobilized the largest force of Free-thinking, progressive people in the history of the United States. If you were to count out exactly %49.99999 percent of the total number of votes–you will know the full scale of our army! We must keep mobilized. Keep the thinkers thinking. Keep the activists activating. And, keep the conservatives on-the-run.

I, for one, am going to maintain the thumb-screws on all of the closed-minded drones quoting Rush Limbaugh as a “humorous–you don’t really listen to him for news” guy, but who tune their radios in at the appropriate times every day regardless.