I just read the thread about changing “coffee” to “cider” in “Sleigh Ride” at the MoTabs Christmas concert:

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2457286

Anyway, it reminded me of something that happened years ago when my youngest was still in middle school, and that thread is closed, so I thought I’d start a new one for this.


Both of my daughters sang in the girls chorus all through middle school (6th - 8th grades). Each year they sang a song called “Hot Chocolate,” that came from Polar Express (if I’m not mistaken). Anyway, it’s upbeat and easy to learn. Lots of schools do it, and it’s very common to include some light choreography, which makes it all the more fun for the kids. (Search for it on YouTube and you’ll get many hits).

Anyway, fast forward to my youngest’s last year of middle school (8th grade), and the school gets a new principal (who happens to be mormon). While the girls were rehearsing the song, the new principal came bolting into the room, interrupted and asked to speak to the teacher privately. When she returned, they moved on to the next song.

So, the girls were disappointed to learn that the song was being dropped from the program. Some curious parents inquired about it and learned that the principle claimed that a number of parents were concerned that the song would “encourage promiscuity” and “interracial dating!” The choir director asked if she could speak to the parents and was told that it was a “delicate matter” and that he didn’t want to embarrass anyone. Most folks believed that the principal simply heard the rehearsal while passing the room, and overreacted

Principal had a secret fetish?

Perhaps, or simply been programmed to see "immodesty" and "sexuality" anywhere and everywhere (and feel smuggly virtuous or heroic for putting a stop to it). Or, if he truly did receive complaints, then the same could be said about those people.

"Hot! Hot!
Ooh, we got it!
Hot! Hot!
Hey, we got it!
Hot! Hot!
Say, we got it!
Hot chocolate!"

Dangerous stuff, that. One has to wonder if the principal is playing with a full deck.

There's a bit more to the lyrics, but they're basically just fun.

I recall a Friends episode (I think) in which Joey and someone else point out that you can make anything sound "sexy" by the tone of your voice. Conversely, I think people can see almost anything they want in what others say and do, but it says more about the perceiver in my opinion, especially when it's so far off base.

To see a sexuality in children that simply isn't there is pretty twisted (IMO).

Speaking of the lyrics, I watched the original clip from Polar Express on YouTube, and now the catchy tune has been stuck in my head for a couple days.

Wow. That is ridiculous. And dumb.

It's people like that principal who are out there acting like Church Lady, worried about everything anyone does. Somehow they see the worst they can into everything.

I recently saw edited copies of a cleaned up movie Red Panda for sale at Albertsons. Apparently even children's movies are too suggestive. I'm guessing the reason the Church Ladies had their garmies in a bunch was because the the girl in the movie was going through a defiant stage and references to menses onset. Oh the horror!

This is leading to bizarre censoring of books and everything else they don't like. Too bad all the parents of your daughter's school weren't like you. Too bad there wasn't push back on that principal and a big public stink to reveal the motive and reason for removing the song.

It's not just the Mormons, but the evangelicals and fundie Christians have lost their minds as well. I hear from teachers in the red states that many school systems have clamped down on books that they can teach with, and have in their classroom libraries. One high school ELA teacher stated that she was forbidden from teaching *any* novels in her class -- she could only teach grammar. It's sheer lunacy, and a race to the bottom.

That's very disturbing, summer.

But interestingly enough, they allow the kids to spend hours on social media.

The last time I was in a mall, I walked behind a group of teens who were all texting one another. Neither looking up and around, or actually talking.

I'm seeing the same thing. I've seen couples at restaurants (probably on a date) and both are on their phones. I've seen people run into things and trip off a curb because they are looking at their phone while walking. Never mind car accidents.

Phones with social media are wonderful and horrible at the same time. Social interaction has changed entirely.

The local light rail takes out several phone-lookers a year.

I predict that teaching nothing but grammar for five hours a week will become so excruciating that kids will start to believe they hate "English," because they have not been properly introduced to it.

America is semi-literate as it is. Leaving out novels is definitely the wrong answer.

The main reasons I loved English class in school was because of novels and creative writing exercises. They taught me that words can be beautiful and powerful.

I'd agree that leaving out novels is the wrong answer, but the folks banning books and restricting what can be taught seem to think stupidity is a virtue.

ookami Wrote:
--------------------------
>
> The main reasons I loved
> English class in school
> was because of novels and
> creative writing exercises.
> They taught me that words
> can be beautiful & powerful.
>

I got into a lot of trouble doing the creative writing exercises.

...A lot of trouble...

Was it at least well written trouble?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/02/2023 12:42AM by ookami.

Conservatives canceling things?

Who would have thought?

I don’t mind school, it’s the principal of the thing.

Half a Lindt milk chocolate bar dissolved in hot milk. That’s how you do it. Put some whipped cream and nutmeg on top if you want to be fancy.

Speaking of Chocolate, which MUST be some kind of stand-in for anything that is taboo, some parents in our school district tried to ban the book, ‘The Chocolate War’, for some crazy reason. What that did was make me want to read it to find out what all the fuss was about!
Banning things without debate as to the actual harmful content, can have the effect of negatively fetishising certain things. Of course, I am not one for giving children unlimited access to things that may be harmful, but I think that the adults in the room should have a reasonable debate and offer options to those parents whose sensibilities might be offended….
For the chapter in question in the above book, a synopsis was provided for those classmates whose parents wanted the ban, and we didn’t read the chapter aloud in class. I suppose in a way that was like changing ‘coffee to cider’ lyrics, but it’s been
done through history (God Save the King/My country tis of thee, US National Anthem/some crazy Welsh drinking song) with few people realising that the lyrics were even changed…

PART TWO:

While out walking our dog the other day I bumped into a neighbor who had a daughter in the same choir (in fact, we were in the same carpool group for after school pickups).

I mentioned the episode to him and he reminded me that in addition to the above rationales, that the choreography had been "too provocative!"

For example, near the very end of the song, on one beat the girls all turned to one side, on the next beat they turned their heads towards the audience and put a hand on their hip, and then sprechstimme-ed that last snappy "hot choc'lit".

I would call it a confident pose, but apparently this and some other bits were deemed "too provocative" by somebody.

My neighbor didn't blame it all on the principal, but thought that he was in sync with a handful of uptight parents, and perhaps showed up to hear and see the rehearsal in response to their "concern." *eyeroll*

Chocolate would like to be appreciated for its intellect, and not just for being hot.

For instance, it hung out regularly with James Boswell.

Oh, no. No, you didn't!

"Boswell? Wasn't that the guy on Charlie's Angels?"

Good heavens, no!

Your assigning the very modern insistence on not being objectified to chocolate was itself pretty funny. But then implying that such sentiment was shared by Boswell and his 18th century friend, Dr. Johnson, the greatest humanist in England and author of the eponymous dictionary, was hilarious. . .

What is the greater elementary school sin: unwittingly cracking an erudite joke or gullibly seeing an erudite joke where none was intended?

I think I'll go back to my corner now.

I actually looked up Boswell's first name so it wouldn't be confused with the guy from Charlie's Angels. And I checked that Boswell did indeed drink chocolate. It was a thing in Britain at the time.

And the Charlie's Angels guy was Bosley. so I misremembered that one.

All more information than anyone wanted to know.

Well, at least this bespectacled bookworm was right about the Boswell allusion. You DID do it intentionally!