‘Inclusive’ Is the New ‘Exclusive’
BY DONALD DEMARCO
August 27-September 2, 2006 Issue | Posted 8/28/06 at 9:00 AM
Language is no longer intelligible anywhere and, as a direct result, people throughout the globe no longer think. In our bizarro world, contradictions abound: Good means bad, morality means slavery and inclusive means exclusive.
A new “educational” program in
It is the brainchild of homosexual activists, and its purpose, ostensibly, is to broaden the minds of teachers and their young students by instructing them on how to be more “inclusive.”
The manual strenuously urges the adoption of “inclusive language” both in its spoken as well as in its written forms. Thus, the terms “mother” and “father,” for example, that are allegedly “narrow” and “exclusive,” should be replaced by broader and more inclusive terms such as “parent.”
It is important to point out here that logic and politics are not the same. Furthermore, indoctrinating impressionable young children into believing otherwise is an insidious form of child abuse. The authors of the “Learn to Include” program are political activists who are smuggling in their agenda under the guise that they are merely teaching logic.
Logic teaches that the classification “genus” contains all the various subgroups that belong to it. For instance, the genus “animal” contains the species “dog” and “cat.” Likewise, the term “parent” logically contains the terms “mother” and “father.” But by no means does logic teach that the genus obliterates or in any way denigrates the terms that it includes. In other words, “mother” and “father” remain included within the broader category of “parent” and are not banished to oblivion.
“Mother” and “father” continue to be distinctive and meaningful terms; and they persist in excluding each other. Because two terms can be included in a higher category does not mean that they are excluded from each other.
But the purpose of the program is not to teach logic, but to impose politics. Its authors want the “inclusive” term “parent” to eliminate “mother” and “father.” In this way, the alleged “heterosexism” of the mother-father dynamic would be abolished. As a result, all sexual relationships would then be regarded as equal.
The process of “inclusion” is really a process of “exclusion” since specific terms such as “mother” and “father” are annihilated as they are absorbed into the more “inclusive” term. The purpose of the program is to exclude all terms that would imply that heterosexuality is normative and that homosexuality is not. This is a moral/political revolution of stupendous magnitude.
Similarly, the program urges the exclusion of the word, “normal,” but only when it refers to heterosexuality. In this case, it advises the use of the words “widespread” or “dominant.” In essence, this maneuver outlaws moral philosophy, which is concerned with norms of human conduct, and replaces it with arithmetic. It is a way of substituting counting for comprehending.
At the same time, the program wants children to accept homosexuality as a normal lifestyle, thus magically revitalizing moral philosophy and reintegrating it with education. It also wants to label even a reasonable objection to the homosexual lifestyle as “homophobic,” thereby reducing philosophy to a pathology, and immunizing homosexual activists against any form of criticism.
Contradictions, inconsistencies, dishonesties, and manipulating the minds of unsuspecting children are hardly the ingredients of a good education. Yet, this travesty, in many parts of the world, is what is currently being put forward as a good education, being illicitly imported under the pretense of being more “inclusive” than the old education.
We should not be bamboozled, however, by verbal sleight of tongue. “Inclusive,” as it is now commonly used, is actually “exclusive,” because it abolishes critical moral terms such as “marriage,” “family,” “wife,” “husband,” “mother” and “father,” whose meanings we need to know in order to understand who we are and what is expected of us. Such “inclusivity” is actually depleting our language of its vocabulary, as well as of its moral force. George Orwell was right.
He made it dramatically clear in his novel 1984 that as our vocabulary diminishes, our capacity to think diminishes along with it.
A real education makes students more aware of the specifics of things. It does not attempt to vaporize meaningful terms into broader and larger categories until they are completely purged of all meaning. Education should sharpen the mind, not blunt it.
Donald DeMarco is adjunct professor
Copyright © 2013 EWTN News, Inc. All rights reserved.