Perhaps, Matt, you might return to Frank's original posts and the
discussion related to it, and reread it in it's entirety. I
suspect you may have misapprehended my meaning.
My post addressed the suitability of the inclusion of
unpleasantly gruesome and graphic DETAILS of violence and sexual
mutilation in advancing one's argument. If one's argument can be
promoted effectively without resorting to such unpleasantness,
then I suggest it is merely gratuitous to include those details.
Consider this: Delete the graphic details in Frank's argument. Is
his argument just as effective? I contend it is. I thought I made
my focus very narrow and specific. I did NOT address whether it
may EVER be appropriate to employ graphic detail. I focused
specifically on FRANK'S argument, in the CONTEXT of THAT
conversation, and in THIS forum, the Educator echo.
I agree that graphic, even shocking, materials have their
usefulness and can be exceptionally effective when skillfully
employed. But I suggest such extreme measures are better employed
infrequently and with discrimination and discretion. In this
instance the inclusion of the gruesome details was unnecessary;
it was gratuitous, serving no constructive purpose. This is the
EDUCATOR echo, not shock radio, not some trash forum pandering to
the sleazier impulses of human nature.
I did not raise an issue of CENSORSHIP, but rather one of
RESTRAINT. And in deference to Sheila, the moderator, I'll
respect her wishes and refrain from any further discussion of the
post I originally responded to.
BM> Nice piece of descriptive writing, Frank. It conjured up
BM> powerful and compelling images.
BM> But it was uncalled for. It would have been quite
BM> sufficient for your argument to note that atrocities
BM> occur.
MS> I disagree.
MS> Many American students go to schools where
MS> "multiculturalism" is so important that the _fact_ that
MS> the Third World is routinely far worse than the worst of its
MS> "colonialist oppressors" is pushed under the rug. Kids need
MS> to learn the truth.
You seem to be taking issue with something I wrote. Did you read
something in my post asserting opposition to "Kids need to learn
the truth?" You'll have to show me, PRECISELY, what I wrote that
warrants such a CONCLUSION. I cannot find it anywhere. (You might
WONDER whether I believe "kids need to learn the truth," but
that's a far cry from CONCLUDING I don't believe it. And if you
wonder, then I suggest you ask. Making unwarranted assumptions
usually leads to misunderstandings. Don't you agree? )
BM> Had you thought it absolutely necessary to elaborate, I
BM> suggest it would have sufficed to note that beheadings and
BM> mutilations took place. You went out of your way to
BM> startle your readers with a disturbingly graphic
BM> description of these atrocities.
MS> I wouldn't say so. He just woke them up. American kids
MS> today graduate from HS with little or no understanding of
MS> just how brutal the Third World is (out of fear of offending
MS> anyone), and then policy questions come up for them to relate
MS> to.
I'm trying to understand what you've written. I suspect you mean
to take a backhanded swipe at someone here, but just WHO is
unclear. The graduates? Or (as I suspect) do you mean to attack
the teachers and/or administrators of the public schools? In
which case, why didn't you say so? What does the clause "(out of
fear of offending anyone)" modify? Who, PRECISELY, is fearful of
offending whom? And what is the significance of this?
BTW, did I write something advocating intellectual blinkers for
students?
I don't wish to put words in your mouth. And I would appreciate
the same consideration in return. Anything less makes useful,
meaningful, and constructive dialog exceedingly difficult.
I, too, would advocate a realistic appraisal of the world. I
believe that a blinkered approach is unsound. Students need to be
better educated. The question, however, and it's an interesting
one, is how much should schools and teachers be responsible for?
-Bruce
---------------
|