Decking the Halls censored

[Zalis]

I think I've had to sing both versions at some point in my life, whether in school choir or later. I would say the teacher is at fault for not controlling her kids, but it's pretty hard to ask young boys to not snicker at something like that. At some point, though, kids need to learn to be quiet and obey their teacher.

It's just news being news, overall, and people like to run with this stuff.

[Alaris]

This thread delivers.

[RD]

I love Christmas time,

You can throw another fåggot on the fire, get lots of stuffing, roast your nuts, sing gáy songs, pull each others crackers and all the while Santa, who only comes once a year, empties his sacks into your mother's stocking.

Bone Noël!

-Art

Work of art. And I just realized that's punny, but that was not intended.

[Akirai Annuvil]

Sounds like a practical solution to a practical problem.
They're young boys and girls. The word is sexually laden. They can't seriously be asked to treat it with care or respect by seeing it in view of the times. The teacher can't be expected to get them quiet. So changing the word is the best solution.

[Lady Rhonwyn]

I love Christmas time,

You can throw another fåggot on the fire, get lots of stuffing, roast your nuts, sing gáy songs, pull each others crackers and all the while Santa, who only comes once a year, empties his sacks into your mother's stocking.

Bone Noël!

-Art

Nicely done!

Sounds like a practical solution to a practical problem.
They're young boys and girls. The word is sexually laden. They can't seriously be asked to treat it with care or respect by seeing it in view of the times. The teacher can't be expected to get them quiet. So changing the word is the best solution.

Wrong, The best solution is to teach the kids. You'll go into a downward cycle if you simply ban words like that. In the end, people won't even know what the word originally was.

(I do wonder how it turned from a happy word to the sexually laden one, though... Are people who like people from the same sex always happy?)

[RD]

I just looked up the etymology of it and kind of wish I hadn't.

[MixedVariety]

Sounds like a practical solution to a practical problem.
They're young boys and girls. The word is sexually laden. They can't seriously be asked to treat it with care or respect by seeing it in view of the times. The teacher can't be expected to get them quiet. So changing the word is the best solution.

I suspect you're right, at least from the sheer practicality point of view. Those against censoring of any type, though, will disagree merely on the grounds that it's censoring, period, and censoring is a bad word.

Personally, I think the song should have been left alone. At the least, it can serve as a history lesson to the children--words distorted to have new meanings, once had other meanings. This reminds me too much of the re-written version of Mark Twain's 'Huckleberry Finn', where they felt compelled to change the N-word to something else; censoring to rewrite history is never a good idea.

IMO, of course.

[Akirai Annuvil]

I suspect you're right, at least from the sheer practicality point of view. Those against censoring of any type, though, will disagree merely on the grounds that it's censoring, period, and censoring is a bad word.

Personally, I think the song should have been left alone. At the least, it can serve as a history lesson to the children--words distorted to have new meanings, once had other meanings. This reminds me too much of the re-written version of Mark Twain's 'Huckleberry Finn', where they felt compelled to change the N-word to something else; censoring to rewrite history is never a good idea.

Well firstly: is it censoring? The word *** isn't being banned, it's being avoided in the context of a children's christmas song. I presume the teacher would use the word when talking about families or sex (though the latter sounds a bit premature as a subject for 1st and 2nd graders). To me the story doesn't reek of censorship so much as updating. *** nowadays just doesn't mean bright anymore; might as well update the song with a contemporary term.
Secondly, the Huckleberry Finn example is different because there the meaning of the word hasn't changed - only public opinion of the word. Changing the word is bending the text to lose its value (showing the zeitgeist towards blacks) while changing the word *** to bright simply doesn't change any part of the meaning of the song.

Really, what it comes down to is that I don't see any malevolence behind the change; not regarding gays nor regarding freedom of speech. It's doesn't seem to want ill nor does it seem to cause ill. At that point I'm inclined to say we're not dealing with censorship as much as poetical freedom.

[RD]

I don't see any malevolence behind it, either. It seems like the teacher was just like "Okay, these kids won't shut up, let me just change the word." I don't think there's anything to it beyond that. Still, if we follow the logic of "the meaning of the word is different these days," then we'd have to rewrite all kinds of great literature.

And, anyway, to be nitpicky "bright" isn't even the most appropriate synonym to have used.

[Art]

Plus hasn't the singular of the plural gays moved on to mean something altogether different these days.

When I say it these days it is neither in a 'footloose and fancy-free' or 'homosexual' way.

-Art