My View: Cultural War         
Copyright (c) 1994, L. Shawn Aiken
All rights reserved


[Each month, a reader/writer is offered the opportunity to give his or  
 her viewpoint on a particular topic dear to them. If you'd like the
 chance to air *Your* views in this forum, please contact Joe DeRouen
 via one of the many ways listed in CONTACT POINTS elsewhere in this
 issue]




        Back in grade school we were assigned reports on different countries.  
The teacher told us to write the embassies of our assigned countries to get 
information and pamphlets for our reports.  That night, while struggling over 
my letter to the Luxembourg embassy, I came upon a quandary.  Who would 
receive my letter?  A man or a woman?  Should I write Dear Sir, or Dear 
Madam, or Dear Sir or Madam?  It was a big deal for me then.  I didn't 
want to insult somebody or seem stupid and have my letter trashed and not 
receive the things I needed for my assignment.
        So I asked my teacher what I should do the next day.  She told me, 
"Just write 'Sir', it's accepted by anybody."  I had my answer, but didn't 
feel comfortable with it.  I got the data, anyway.
        Then in junior high my English class received a start.  It was a 
writing manual handed down by the school board.  It horrified me.  The manual 
told us what words we COULD NOT USE.  We would actually have points deducted 
from our papers if they contained words such as "stewardess" or "mailman."  
They gave us proper word for such terms, saying that the old term where 
discriminatory against women.
        Our English teacher was delighted.  She enforced the rules harshly.  
But I was severely worried.  Being polite was one thing, but being 
totalitarian was another.  A woman handing out drinks on a plane was a 
"stewardess."  A man handing out drinks on a plane is a "steward."  Check it 
out in the dictionary.  Two completely appropriate words.  Why invent a new 
term for the same thing?
        I understand the politeness aspect.  If that's what they wanted to be 
called, by all means, I would call them that.  But to enforce such a thing in 
school and punish those who do not obey?  It had nothing to do with educating 
children with writing skills.  It was teaching - and enforcing - a political 
philosophy.  But at the time I didn't understand the ramification.  It just 
upset me.
        Later that year I picked up George Orwell's novel 1984.  It introduce 
to me concepts I had never really thought about.  How a totalitarian state 
works.  How it would be like to live in such a place.  To have people 
watching you through your television set.  To be forbidden to say and think 
certain things.  I thought it was a wonderful exercise in speculation.  
Perhaps it even described what it would be like to live behind the iron 
curtain (remember that old term?)  But in no way did it even vaguely 
resemble life in America, did it?  There was nothing to worry about.
        And so finally I got to college.  Sure, it was a dinky two year 
college, but it was college - a place where I could relax and get down to 
actually learning something.  A place where filled with highly educated 
teachers that could teach me what I wanted to learn - how to express myself 
freely and concisely in the written word.
        But there, first day in English class, I was confronted with 
virtually the same writing manual that I saw in grade school.  But it had 
been upgraded to not only include neuter terms for women, but also correct 
terms for just about every group in the universe.  And yet again, these 
rules would be enforced by the school board.  
        This time I looked carefully over it and discovered where it had 
come from.  It originated from a feminist professor somewhere in a New 
England university.  Nothing wrong with a feminist.  It's a perfectly 
appropriate philosophy considering our society.  But what in the heck was 
she doing?  She was doing the same thing that the people she was fighting 
against had done for thousands of years - trying to control people in a 
nefarious way.
        Now control is not a bad thing.  Without some control, you get 
anarchy.  If stop signs didn't exist on roads, lots more people would end up 
really flat.  Politics is the game of 'who gets control'.  Politics in this 
country, at least in theory, is supposed to be decided by legally elected 
representatives of certain regional blocks of people.
        So here was a political philosophy being taught in schools and 
colleges.  Nothing wrong with that.  We were learned about communism and 
slavery in school.  It's just knowledge.  But the tests didn't ask questions 
like "Is communism wrong?", then flunk you for answering "no".  The theory 
of there being proper words for things would have been a perfectly 
appropriate thing to teach.  But to enforce it by punishing those who used 
words dreamed "inappropriate" is ALL wrong.  It cuts at the heart of free 
speech.
        Latter, after dropping out of college and entering the 'real' world, 
I was introduced to the lovely 'fake' world of computer networks.  Such a 
marvelous place, I thought upon taking my first step in.  Ideas and thoughts 
zipping about at the speed of light.  You could talk to someone in Waukegan 
about soap manufacturing, then turn around and talk to someone in Miami 
about the abortion debate.  The network I was on spanned all of the United 
States, and I heard about other networks where you could talk to people in 
Finland about ice fishing if you wanted to.  Such a marvelous new technology.
        Then I began to learn what was really going on with the network.  A 
covert censorship was taking place.  Each note that you uploaded to the 
system was screened by a computer, looking for various Anglo-Saxon words.  
I understand the philosophy of keeping certain words away from the general 
public.  Little kids get armed with such words and cause all kind of havoc 
in their kindergarten classes, causing their teachers to have all kind of 
irregular heart palpitations and faint and such.  And, horror of horrors, 
parents might actually have to explain sex to their children if confronted 
with such words.  So I understand it - I don't agree with it - but if people 
want to keep their own children in the dark, well, it's their right as a 
parent.
        But this was the tip of the elephant tusk to what was really going 
on.  The computer network employed a god-awful amount of people to read the 
notes before they ended up being displayed on the system.  They were looking 
for words and concepts and phrases that seemed offensive.  I'm not sure to 
who, but they were looking for hem all right.  And if they found one, they 
would send the note back to you and give you a stiff warning.
        This wasn't about calling someone something dirty.  It was deeper.  
More intrinsically evil.  For instance, I am one sixty-fourth Cherokee, 
mixed in with some other tribes, so I told someone this, stating "I got some 
of that there injun blood in me."  Woosh.  The note was back to me in a 
jiffy saying that I was using inappropriate and offensive language and I 
better not do it again or I would be kicked off the system.
        As a person of Native American heritage, shouldn't I have the right 
to call myself whatever I damn well please?  I am also mostly of white
Anglo-Saxon heritage.  I can scream "honkey" until my throat is sore, and no 
one takes any notice.
        Actually, if anyone had taken any notice, the phrase, "I got some of 
that there injun blood in me," says nothing derogatory about Native 
Americans.  Rather, I was making fun of my white ancestors by using improper 
English grammar, in a way that they themselves actually used.  What ever 
happen to good-natured ribbing?  Are the concepts of satire and parody 
completely forgotten?
        This incident, of which there were many other run-ins with the 
computer service's "thought police", got me thinking back to Orwell's 1984.  
In it was described one of the ways that the totalitarian state was 
controlling people.  It was called NEWSPEAK.  This was a restructuring of 
the language to conform with what the government though it should be.  
Words that the government did not like were taken out.  It was a crime to 
say or use such words.  The government slowly whittled away at the language 
until the dictionary was reduced to a thin pamphlet.
        It struck me that this was exactly what was going on in society 
right now.  The language was being whittled away.  Perhaps the government 
wasn't behind it, but someone was.  I don't know who it may be.  I'm sure 
the John Birch Society has a pretty good idea, though, but I haven't called 
them to check it out.  Day in and day out there are words and concepts that 
are being labeled as 'verboten' in our society.  You can't even wear a 
T-shirt with a picture of a man of Hispanic persuasion holding a bottle of 
tequila.  Not that I would ever think to do such a strange thing, but such 
stories have hit the headlines all the same.
        English is a rich and vital language.  It's history is multicultural.  
By it's nature, it has the ability to take on new words and phrases and 
concepts.  With it you can express just about anything you want, in any way 
that you want.  It is a marvelous language.
        In it's formation, it has had some strange things happen.  Before 
1066 AD there were some Anglo-Saxons running around the British Isles 
speaking a proto form of English.  Then the Norman French invaded, taking 
their language and customs with them.  The two parts blended their languages, 
forming the basis for the English language. This is one of the reasons why 
we have so many synonyms for words.
        But this transition was not smooth.  The Norman's were the ruling 
class.  They wanted to stamp out the Anglo-Saxon influences on the Isles.  
So they made it a bad thing to be Anglo-Saxon.  It was not appropriate to be 
of that culture.  So they made their language a dirty thing.  To use the 
language was considered barbaric.  It was against the laws to say some of 
these words.  Only the Norman French words could be used.  Fornicate, 
defecate, urinate - these were the good words - the appropriate words.  The 
Anglo-Saxon words were bad.
        So, you see, it was not God-on-high who stamped those rather 
harmless looking four-letter words with the mark of "profanity".  It was a 
tool in a cultural war that was waged against the inhabitants of Britain.
        The war being waged right now in this country is of the same nature.  
It may be a bit more sophisticated, but it is the same thing.  One culture 
is trying to destroy another.  To make that culture dirty.  To make the 
concepts of that culture forbidden to say.
        This war is very sophisticated.  It's hard to say it is bad.  It 
waves the banner of the poor, mistreated peoples of the world.  But who 
really benefits?  The liberals say it's the conservatives.  The 
conservatives say it's the liberals.  When you have two groups fighting, 
you usually have a third, hidden party stirring up the trouble.  Whoever 
this group is, they are reaping the benefits.  Who are the losers?  Anyone 
who wants to use the English language to it's fullest extent possible.  
Those people who revel in the joys of the written and spoken word are the 
real losers.

