Scrubbing Roald Dahl’s Words Epitomizes the Imbecility of Wokeness
Published in Bouncin’ and Behavin’ Blogs
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?
Scrubbing Roald Dahl’s Words Epitomizes the Imbecility of Wokeness
“If thoughts can corrupt language, language can also corrupt thoughts.” George Orwell
Did you really believe the “thought police” and the “word police” were mere concepts in Orwell’s dystopian fiction, or that Huxley’s Brave New World was distant? I have read history and taught nearly every banned book.
However, when Salman Rushdie referred to the censorship of Dahl’s books as “absurd,” I reacted. Sir Rushdie is one of the greatest living writers, who has been the subject of assassination attempts, including a fatwa calling for his death.
The “thought police” and “word police” are simply disguised as diversity-aware, well-informed, socially responsible speakers, and politically correct people. They have decided what should be read and written, and further… how the rest of us must speak and think.
And don’t argue! Lest you’ll be accused of being: racist, bigoted, homophobic, anti-transgender, a religious fanatic, a narrow-minded person of privilege, or a capitalist! It’s a judgmental group out there, far from the definition of liberal.
In 1984, “Newspeak” was a language developed by Big Brother (aka: the government) designed to manipulate how people thought so that the Party could control people’s minds. The government-controlled news could easily keep people in line with the use of mass media, constant distraction with rooms containing giant TV screens covering four walls, plus the erasure of history.
In Fahrenheit 451, little shells placed in people’s ears playing constant music/propaganda and burning books worked well; in Brave New World keeping the population high on soma was equally effective. See any parallels?
I do not care if you’re a true blue or blazing red in your political beliefs. That is NOT the point. What I’m asking is to look at what happened to Dahl’s books yesterday in the UK and the USA: hundreds of words were “scrubbed” and whole sentences rewritten by “sensitivity” experts so as to not offend anyone. If someone took offense at a painting by Salvador Dali then demanded it be repainted. Hypothetically, what’s the difference? Ask yourself: how much is enough?
