Should we censor historical language?

I can fully accept that it started as an urban myth, but unfortunately some organisations were not clever enough to recognise that and perhaps took it as an example to be followed.

An Italian friend of ours says coffee should be drunk black. As far as he's concerned, black coffee is the only proper kind. Deficient indeed! How astronomically silly! Whoever dreamt that up must have been just looking for something to be offended at. They must have had a very dull life. I would have laughed in anyone's face who'd tried that nonsense with me.

So Brenda , you did not need to be corrected !!

Nightowl Yes I experienced that as well. Baa Baa Blue sheep does not sound right either. Seriously it shows appalling ignorance of the issues of language use.

At the same time my husband worked in a neighbouring authority and he was also taken to task for using the term 'black coffee'. When he asked how on earth that was offensive he was told that black coffee was deficient in something ie. milk, and therefore the implication was that a black person might also be deficient in something It was a white person who told him that. I would suggest that they might have been deficient in something but that would not be very PC

Censored not sensored

Sadly nanaej the suggestion that the words to 'baa baa black sheep' were sensored is not an urban myth. I remember very clearly when I started work for nottingham city council in the late 80s that this really happened in council day nurseries at the time. Maybe they had read the myth and thought they had to do it. I was also told off for saying that someone drank black coffee There were many things happening at that time and in that place which defied belief and distracted from the use of genuinely offensive terms.

Please I am not sure what a slippery slope argument is (but don't tell me because it has apparently been discussed at great length) but if I am guilty of starting/adding to one I do apologise. There are too many pitfalls within major discussions on here so I think I shall stick to safe subjects in the future.

Brenda don't feel bad..it was widely promoted and a lot of fuss was made but as ever the retraction/apology never made such a big splash in the press as the original story!!

Just what I was thinking thatbags

I'd go for 'showing like it was' because that is the truth, however unpleasant the truth is. Knowing the truth about past attitudes is what helps us develop better attitudes and move on. Pretending things were not bad when they were is dishonest as well as pointless. What does it achieve?

I am presently reading a detective novel written recently but set in the 1950s.

The author has captured the spirit of those times very well. There are non pc attitudes to class/servants, gender and race. The 'n' word crops up quite a bit but the author has contrived to make any character who uses the word unsympathetic.

Should the 'n' word have been left out or is it better to aim for authenticism and 'showing it like it was'.

(Nanaej) I stand corrected.

With it, not to it. I really should check my posts before pressing send.

Using words to attack someone is no different from using anything else, except that the wounds are not so easily seen. You can own a hammer without breaking the law, it is when you hit someone over the head to it that it becomes an offensive weapon. (Yes, I know that threatening someone with it is anti-social too)

bluebell, I don't think the legislation to deal with people who speak words deliberately to incite hatred or violence is censorship. After all, in certain contexts (such as a discussion on this thread, for instance) any particular word may not be being used offensively. It is not the language that is censored, but its intention. We are discussing language, including words like 'nigger' and how that has been and is used, without being offensive to anyone. In fact, I'd say most of us go out of our way not to incite hatred or violence, as any civilised person does. I suppose you could call it self-censorship, but as you see, I haven't censored the word nigger when I am just talking about its historical or offensive use. What I'm not doing is firing it at anyone in a deliberately nasty way. HUGE difference.

Brenda that story was eventually proven to be an urban myth probably made up by a journalist to undermine genuine attempts to reduce real racist language! We sang that all the time in my inner city nursery class and we sang baa baa white sheep too! Poor alliteration but it made the kids laugh!
At that school we changed the words to a lot of rhymes and songs to make them gender neutral. We worked hard (it was the 70/80s) to reduce gender inequality. I have never worked in a school since where boys and girls genuinely chose to play and work together so well.

Do you remember when some 'academic' wanted the words to Ba Baa Black Sheep changed as they thought it racist. Well our local farm deliberately breeds black sheep as the wool gets a good price.

Yes I know there is legislation re racist language etc - that was my point- that it was right to legislate or 'censor'

Bags! You made the slippery slope argument as in 'once you start censoring where do you stop'

Oh yes, nanaej!! As if it could not possible be taken seriously.

Hear ,hear nanaej

Can I also add 'politically correct' used in a perjorative context? It is often used to try to mock or undermine genuine attempts to redress a balance or challenge a prejudice.

Well indeed. Look at the way Social Security has been renamed 'welfare' or the way one person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist, or public servants are labelled bureaucrats. There are endless examples and it behoves us all to aware of when we are being manipulated.

About anything!