PC = Polite

Great Debates
201

Wring, I hoped I had made it clear that I hadn’t seen the movie when I used the phrase, “I have been told…” I appreciated Gaudere’s comment, which I understood to be a correction, rather than a challenge. In any event, the comment about the movie was an aside, not a part of my argument.

I’ve been criticized on the thread for faulty logic, but I dunno. Wring wrote:

**You pose your question [of whether adding 200 points to Black SATs constitues “different rules”] as ‘either/or’ and it isn’t. I assume that you’re attempting to draw parallels from college admittence policies. The reason your question isn’t answerable as posed is that the ‘tests’ involved are already weighted instruments. Many, many studies have been done that demonstrate a cultural and racial bias in the test instrument itself, which the college then attempts to correct. **

Wring, aren’t you saying that in this example different rules would apply, but that the different rules would be appropriate, since they would be needed to correct for cultural and racial bias? What holds you you back from speaking clearly about what you believe? Does the intimidation of political correctness prevent you and Kimstu from making straight-forward? Have you been trained to speak in euphemisms?

BTW based on what I’ve read, I think that SAT results aren’t particularly biased. I also believe that race-based adjustment are wildly unfair to individuals. E.g., my cousin and his wife have between them two PhDs and an MD, but their half-black children got the same “bias adjustment” as some kid from the ghetto. There’s a big difference between “attempting” to correct for bias and actually correcting for bias.

Thomas Sowell persuasively argues that this type of adjustment has been devastating to Black students, because it tended to put them in colleges where they were likely to fail. Also, this sort of adjustment helps cover up the real problem – sub-standard education in the inner cities. However, it’s hard to discuss items like fairness and consequences until we can agree on some words to decribe what’s actually happening.

202

december: I would describe your position as: “Political correctness has different rules for different groups, but these differences ar appropriate.”

Oh lordy, lordy, no. (And look, I apologize for the snarling tone of some of my recent posts, and of the future ones that are going to get snarling as soon as I get exasperated again, but I stand by the substance of my comments.) I’m not saying anything prescriptive such as “differences are appropriate.” I’m making the descriptive remark that “people in our culture on average tend to be more shocked by derogatory stereotypes about minorities than by ones about majority-culture groups.” Can you just let go of the idea that because such a difference exists, it must be because some kind of “PC police” is enforcing “rules” about it, for heaven’s sake?

My belief about the source of such differences is that slurs against minorities (or women or gays) became a rallying point for advocates of the civil/women’s/gay rights movements, which have largely succeeded in convincing most of our society that there really has been genuine, harmful discrimination for many years against minorities, women, and gays. What you like to call “preferred” groups seem to be simply the groups that mounted broad-based vocal opposition to serious discrimination and bigotry. Thanks to that opposition, many people saw the connection between stereotypes and oppression, so they grew very wary of those particular stereotypes, which are now widely considered offensive.

There are, as you point out, plenty of negative stereotypes about other groups of people who haven’t experienced anywhere near the same amount of official discrimination. E.g., “blondes are dumb”, “military servicepeople are bloodthirsty fascists”, “Southerners are illiterate rednecks”, etc. etc. etc. These are also nasty and bigoted things to say, and it is not, repeat not, not—do you hear me, december? NOT!!!—acceptably “PC” to say them. However, because they’re not widely associated with deep, systematic prejudice and discrimination, they simply don’t register as high on the outrage-o-meter for most people.

(BTW you provided no evidence of the degree of harm or the amount of emotional loading.

Is it in dispute? Are you seriously going to argue that there is more entrenched bigotry in our society towards soldiers or Republicans, say, than towards Native Americans or blacks? If so, we really don’t have enough common ground for this debate.

I’m trying to understand your position. Maybe you’re saying that a song is censored if it produces a certain fixed level of outrage and resentment.

Well, that’s a rather rigid and unimaginative way of looking at it, I think. (I’m tempted to make an actuary joke here, but that wouldn’t be PC. :)) I really don’t think the concept of a “fixed level” of outrage is going to help you much. Yes, I’ve been using vaguely quantitative notions like “more shocking”, “less offensive”, but I don’t think it’s valid to attempt to calibrate them to some “fixed level”.

Face it, neither one of us is inside the brains of the producers who cut the song (in spite of your efforts to deduce that my suggested reasons for it were “inadequate”), so we don’t know for sure what provoked the decision, and we’re not going to know any more certainly by constructing some artificial scale of outrage and resentment that we think they must have been using. My point was simply that your assertion that the cutting of the song illustrated some kind of “rules of PC censorship” at work is complete BS as far as any real evidence goes. A song from an earlier, more bigoted era can easily be considered offensive or unsuited to the popular taste and therefore expunged from a popular production. If you want to convince people that it’s really an inoffensive expression that’s been sacrificed to the vindictive “PC brigade”, you’re going to have to come up with some actual facts to support that claim, not just your own speculative reconstruction.

Does that help you understand my point? If you’re really trying to understand it, I’m happy to explain it. But I think your claim that you’re just trying to establish our agreement on the facts is either disingenuous or muzzyheaded. We have no disagreement whatsoever on the facts, it seems to me. The facts are these:

  • Annie Get Your Gun contains a song about Indians which uses some rather outdated ethnic stereotypes as well as some expressions of the singer’s enthusiasm for Indians.

  • That song was cut from the recent Broadway revival.

That’s it. As for why the song was cut, we have no facts. You seem to be trying to establish as a fact the idea that no explanation other than that of PC censorship is sufficient to explain the cutting of the song. That isn’t a fact, and never will be. Nor will any other of your imagined notions about the “rules” of “PC”.

203

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
december: I’m making the de-scriptive remark that “people in our culture on average tend to be more shocked by derogatory stereotypes about minorities than by ones about majority-culture groups.” Can you just let go of the idea that because such a difference exists, it must be because some kind of “PC police” is enforcing “rules” about it, for heaven’s sake?

Well, we’re getting closer. I agree that SOME “people in our culture on average tend to be more shocked by derogatory stereotypes* about minorities than by ones about majority-culture groups.” IMHO those people are properly described as “PC.” More precisely, the people who take this idea to extraordinary lengths are the ones I call PC. Even more precisely, it depends on what stereotypes they’re sensitive to. There are people who kill doctors, because they are hyper-sensitive about a powerless minority who they call “unborn children.” I don’t call them PC – I call them insane murderers.

(*Please don’t think I’m a racist. We differ A LOT on what constitutes a “derogatory stereotype.” I don’t see IAIT as one, nor do I see the name Cleveland Indians as one – you probably do.)

My belief about the source of such differences is that slurs against minorities (or women or gays) became a rallying point for advocates of the civil/women’s/gay rights movements, which have largely succeeded in convincing most of our society that there really has been genuine, harmful discrimination for many years against minorities, women, and gays. What you like to call “preferred” groups seem to be simply the groups that mounted broad-based vocal opposition to serious discrimination and bigotry. Thanks to that opposition, many people saw the connection between stereotypes and oppression, so they grew very wary of those particular stereotypes, which are now widely considered offensive.

I have no problem with this paragraph. I pretty much agree with it.
**(BTW you provided no evidence of the degree of harm or the amount of emotional loading.

Is it in dispute? Are you seriously going to argue that there is more entrenched bigotry in our society towards soldiers or Republicans, say, than towards Native Americans or blacks? If so, we really don’t have enough common ground for this debate.**

Yes indeed, we are in serious dispute, not so much with what you said, but with your inappropriate focus. IMHO the “degree of harm” in all these is minimal. Entrenched bigotry is much less important than many other things. E.g., according to the recent NAEP tests, a majority of Black 4th graders are something like three years behind in reading. (I don’t recall the exact stats.) This isn’t because of entrenched bigotry; it’s because their education stinks. It won’t be cured by ending the use of the “N-word.” If you could get Americans to bow down to Blacks and call them “Your Highness,” these 4th grader still wouldn’t be able to read.

To me, it’s a sick joke to make a fetish over “entrenched bigotry” and specific words, but to ignore education reform. (BTW Bush’s very mild education reform proposals are said to be dead in Congress, so there’s little hope for improvement in the near future, unless the states change.)

Other major problems of the inner city, such as crime, illegitimacy, obesity, immorality, etc. have cures, but PC will play little or no role in the cures IMHO.

Face it, neither one of us is inside the brains of the producers who cut the song (in spite of your efforts to deduce that my suggested reasons for it were “inadequate”), so we don’t know for sure what provoked the decision, and we’re not going to know any more certainly by constructing some artificial scale of outrage and resentment that we think they must have been using. My point was simply that your assertion that the cutting of the song illustrated some kind of “rules of PC censorship” at work is complete BS as far as any real evidence goes. A song from an earlier, more bigoted era can easily be considered offensive or unsuited to the popular taste and therefore expunged from a popular production. If you want to convince people that it’s really an inoffensive expression that’s been sacrificed to the vindictive “PC brigade”, you’re going to have to come up with some actual facts to support that claim, not just your own speculative reconstruction.

We’re not in the Producers’ brains, but Kimstu is in Kimstu’s brain. I was a long-time ACLU member. Censorship of great art is a big evil, in my book. I’m shocked and offended by the censorship of this great song. Kimstu isn’t shocked and offended; he seems to approve of it. Wring and C’bury don;t seem to have a problem, either. I assume that the three of you are all politically correct. I deduce that the producers’ decision is in line with PC beliefs.

** Annie Get Your Gun contains a song about Indians which uses some rather outdated ethnic stereotypes as well as some expressions of the singer’s enthusiasm for Indians.

  • That song was cut from the recent Broadway revival.

That’s it. As for why the song was cut, we have no facts. You seem to be trying to establish as a fact the idea that no explanation other than that of PC censorship is sufficient to explain the cutting of the song. That isn’t a fact, and never will be. Nor will any other of your imagined notions about the “rules” of “PC”. **

Kimstu, I guess you and I will have to disagree on this point. I sincerely accept that your statement is made in good faith, although it seems so naive that a part of me wants to believe that you’re in denial. (On the other hand, maybe the explantion is that you’re right and I’m wrong.)

204

How to argue, december style: you posted several posts about the ‘piss Christ’ and other art works as examples of PC gone haywire, that these works were intended to be offensive to Catholics etc. I posted a link to Gaudere’s beautiful explanation of the specific works in question, to counter that position. You ignored the reference, made yet another reference to the artwork, Gaudere steps in and again points out that you aren’t accurate, mentions in passing yet another item that you posted as another ‘example’ (the Dances on Wolves), I mention yet again that you’ve yet to answer the objection to your position the art work, and you counter it with “I said I’d not seen the movie”.

If you don’t know the material, look it up before posting. Once you’ve posted a position, back it up. If some one challenges it, look at their challenge. respond to their challenge. You continually post irrelevant straw men, have them chopped down, ignore that, repost them, then when called on it specifically, attempt to divert attention yet again by answering something else entirely. I am not the only person to have pointed this out to you.

december says

?

I spoke clearly about what I believe. what I refuse to do is to subject my beliefs to your artfully designed terms, hence the reference to the age old question “Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?”

You ask “Would you say that this hypothetical college was using different rules for different groups or would you say they were using the same rules?” and my answer is that what you are doing is setting up a false dichotomy that other options exist, namely that the college is attempting to fairly assess the capabilities of all students, but have to rely on flawed data, so they make realistic attempts to garner the truth out of the flawed data.

fairtest press release

NAACP aims to fix bias

some colleges are ceasing reliance on SAT scores

205

december: I agree that SOME "people in our culture on average tend to be more shocked by derogatory stereotypes about minorities than by ones about majority-culture groups." IMHO those people are properly described as “PC.” More precisely, the people who take this idea to extraordinary lengths are the ones I call PC. Even more precisely, it depends on what stereotypes they’re sensitive to.*

Oh. Well, if that’s the way you want to define “PC”—as “extraordinary” intolerance towards a particular set of stereotypes—you’re free to do so. Never mind the fact that this whole goddamn thread was started in order to argue for a more general and rational interpretation of the concept of “PC”, eh? It seems to me that you’ve pretty much set up a straw man, but I’m willing to accept that that’s the definition you’re using.

IMHO the “degree of harm” in all these is minimal. Entrenched bigotry is much less important than many other things.

I agree that racist bigotry is far from being the only barrier that minorities face. I don’t agree that its effects are “minimal”, or that it’s completely unrelated to the other problems plaguing minorities in poverty.

To me, it’s a sick joke to make a fetish over “entrenched bigotry” and specific words, but to ignore education reform.

Support for better education is certainly extremely important, and my definition of “PC” doesn’t contradict that.

I was a long-time ACLU member. Censorship of great art is a big evil, in my book.

I’m an ACLU member now, and in case you’ve forgotten, we tend to feel that “self-censorship” by commercial producers who are trying to appeal to as broad an audience as possible in order to maximize their profits is not a violation of First Amendment rights to freedom of expression. You are trying to treat a producer’s judgement call about tastefulness and offensiveness in a commercial popular entertainment as though it were an official ban imposed by some kind of Thought Police, and you’re not making a convincing case.

I’m shocked and offended by the censorship of this great song.

Fine; write a letter to the producers. (But while I’m very fond of Irving Berlin myself, I seriously doubt that you’re going to get a whole lot of agreement with your position that “I’m an Indian Too” is a great work of art.) Since you ducked this question the first time I asked it, I’ll ask it once again: do you believe that omission of other items of popular entertainment containing outdated stereotypes which would offend many people nowadays constitutes “shocking and offensive censorship”? For example, Stephen Foster wrote plenty of “darky songs” or “coon songs” which are at least as good from an artistic standpoint as “I’m an Indian Too”, but if you attend a recital of Stephen Foster songs these days you’re very unlikely to hear them. Are you “shocked and offended” by that? If not, then why not? What’s the difference between “obsoleting” a “coon song” from a modern performance because it contains mild and sympathetic stereotypes of black people that most of us nowadays nonetheless don’t like to hear, and “obsoleting” a Broadway ballad from a modern performance because it contains mild and sympathetic stereotypes of Native Americans that most of us nowadays nonetheless don’t like to hear? Answer the question, december!

Frankly, I suspect that the difference for you is simply that you didn’t grow up with “coon songs”, and you did grow up with Broadway musicals. Your readiness to be “shocked and offended” by commercial deference to changing public tastes sounds less like a matter of principle than typical later-life resistance to new cultural styles. You liked “I’m an Indian Too” back when white people were more tolerant of stereotypes about Native Americans, you thought it was a great song, so if anybody these days finds it tedious or insensitive, why, it must be because they’ve been brainwashed by the terrible “PC police”. Phooey. Cultural standards of acceptability in popular entertainment do change over time, december, for many different and complex reasons. These days, we happen to have more nudity and profanity, and less open stereotyping of racial minorities. Get over it.

Kimstu isn’t shocked and offended; he seems to approve of it.

Kimstu is female, btw. No, I really don’t care what choices a Broadway producer makes about his production in order to attract as many, and repel as few, of the ticket-buying public as possible. If we had an official arts censorship body in place—a sort of American Lord Chamberlain’s Regulations decreeing what is or is not acceptable content for the public stage—or if we had people demanding to remove and burn all copies of “I’m an Indian Too” in public libraries, I’d be extremely distressed. But I don’t feel that my free expression is being stifled by the marketing decisions made in order to increase the sales of commercial products. For example, I’m not shocked and offended that they took the “mammy headscarf” off the lady in the Aunt Jemima logo, either. How about you, december, are you upset about that?

Wring and C’bury don;t seem to have a problem, either. I assume that the three of you are all politically correct.

Given that you have stated your definition of “PC” to imply an unreasonable and inconsistent or irrational level of opposition to particular stereotypes, I find your labeling me “politically correct” a serious insult. I take great pride in my commitment to reasonable and nuanced thought about issues of prejudice, identity, and culture, and I most definitely resent your lumping me in with your vilified group of “extremists” whom you like to “mock”. I demand an apology.

See, the only thing that’s holding your feeble argument together at all is your inconsistent use of the meaning of “PC”. You define the concept as being something extremist and irrational, so that you can feel righteous and principled in opposing it; but then you use it in all sorts of milder and more general senses including “dislike for stereotypes in general” and “preference for polite and respectful discourse about identity groups”, so that you can lump them all together as equally morally objectionable. It’s not good logic, and it isn’t working.

*“As for why the song was cut, we have no facts. You seem to be trying to establish as a fact the idea that no explanation other than that of PC censorship is sufficient to explain the cutting of the song. That isn’t a fact, and never will be. Nor will any other of your imagined notions about the “rules” of “PC”.”

Kimstu, I guess you and I will have to disagree on this point. I sincerely accept that your statement is made in good faith, although it seems so naive that a part of me wants to believe that you’re in denial.*

Here again, you’re trying to defend your position by fuzzing up the meaning of “PC”. What I’m saying is that there’s no evidence of “PC Thought Police” imposing censorship on the song—which is your original “hardline” definition of “PC censorship”. You’re reading that as saying that there’s no evidence that the song was voluntarily cut in order to avoid potential offensiveness about racial stereotyping, which is the sort of sensitivity often termed “political correctness” in a milder sense. Naturally I believe that the song was voluntarily cut to avoid potential offensiveness, but I reject your invalid attempts to connect that with the extremist and irrational ideas of PC that you like to poke fun at. Okay? Do you understand now?

206

Different Rules?

Wring – I feel as though I’ve been repeating my thesis over and over ad nauseum, but you and I haven’t made contact. Being an actuary, I will try it by the numbers:

  1. I claim that PC applies different rules to American Indians than to certain other groups.

  2. As evidence or illustration, I allege that whereas Piss Christ is PC, a similar art work about Indians wouldn’t be PC.

  3. Gaudere’s posts are worthwhile and interesting, but IMHO are peripheral to my point. A hypothetical “Piss Geranimo” night be the greatest art work since the Mona Lisa, but it still wouldn’t be PC, in my opinion.

Yes-No Dichotomies

Wring, I’m frustrated, because I can’t see where you have taken a clear position. If you said PC doesn’t apply different rules to American Indians, then we could each bring forward evidence to support our opposing positions. But, you are unwilling to be pinned down, comparing my question to, “Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?” No doubt, I like objective, binary dichotomies more than the average person.

If you’re willing to play, I’d like to find out just how uncomfortable you are with yes-no dichotomies. The game is to answer the following questions:

In your opinion, which of the following following practices could be reasonably described as “Having different rules for different groups.”? (Some of these examples are hypothetical.)

  1. Adding 200 points to Black SAT scores

  2. Deducting 200 points from Black SAT scores.

  3. Excluding Blacks from major league baseball

  4. Giving each Black citizen two votes.

  5. Not permitting Blacks to vote.

  6. A university department limiting its faculty to no more than 10% conservatives.

You’ve already said the #1 cannot be described as, “Different rules for different groups.” What about the others?

SAT and Race

Wring – thank you for your cites regarding criticism of the SATs. I appreciate your bringing more information into the debate. Again, repondimng by the numbers:

  1. IMHO most of the people attacking the SAT are closet racists. They don’t think Blacks can do as well as Whites.

  2. For some, their attack on the SAT is part of their defense of racial preferences for college admission.

  3. The racial preference system they are seeking to maintain has devastated Blacks students for over a generation.

  4. This racial preferences system has also weakened overall education.

  5. Its negative impact on overall higher education has been restrained, because many of these less qualified students have been shunted into Black Studies, leaving the real academic subjects to Whites and Asians.

I guess I feel pretty strongly about this issue.

207

Kimstu – I liked your last post. It clarified some differences in our opinions and made a strong case for your POV.

I have just a few comments. You wrote:

I agree that racist bigotry is far from being the only barrier that minorities face. I don’t agree that its effects are “minimal”, or that it’s completely unrelated to the other problems plaguing minorities in poverty.

This is a good description of a key area of disagreement.

I’m an ACLU member now, and in case you’ve forgotten, we tend to feel that “self-censorship” by commercial producers who are trying to appeal to as broad an audience as possible in order to maximize their profits is not a violation of First Amendment rights to freedom of expression. You are trying to treat a producer’s judgement call about tastefulness and offensiveness in a commercial popular entertainment as though it were an official ban imposed by some kind of Thought Police, and you’re not making a convincing case.

Wring, this is weaseling. Of course censorship by a non-governmental organization doesn’t involve the Constitution. I never said it did. I hate censorship, period – by the Christian right, by the John Birch Society or by the extreme PC-ers. And, you don’t like censorship either. You wrote: or if we had people demanding to remove and burn all copies of “I’m an Indian Too” in public libraries, I’d be extremely distressed. You’d be properly distressed in this hypothetical situaton, although it also wouldn’t involve the 1st Amendment.

**Since you ducked this question the first time I asked it, I’ll ask it once again: do you believe that omission of other items of popular entertainment containing outdated stereotypes which would offend many people nowadays constitutes “shocking and offensive censorship”? For example, Stephen Foster wrote plenty of “darky songs” or “coon songs” which are at least as good from an artistic standpoint as “I’m an Indian Too”, but if you attend a recital of Stephen Foster songs these days you’re very unlikely to hear them. Are you “shocked and offended” by that? If not, then why not? What’s the difference between “obsoleting” a “coon song” from a modern performance because it contains mild and sympathetic stereotypes of black people that most of us nowadays nonetheless don’t like to hear, and “obsoleting” a Broadway ballad from a modern performance because it contains mild and sympathetic stereotypes of Native Americans that most of us nowadays nonetheless don’t like to hear? Answer the question, december! **

I think I implicitly answered this question, but didn’t specifically relate the answer to S. Foster. Maybe your real complaint is that you don’t agree with my answer, which is your priviledge. Here’s an expanded version:

  1. IAIT is a part of AGYG, a great, great work of art – The SF songs are merely interesting to music historians. (As an aside, they were useful pieces for 1st year piano students, because the tunes were so simple.)

  2. IAIT’s degree of stereotyping is very minimal. It’s much less offensive than the SF songs.

  3. IAIT is about racial equality. The SF songs are not. (SF didn’t write, “I’m a Darky, Too.”)

  4. The mildly offensive portion of IAIT is in just a few of the lyrics, which could have been excluded or replaced, rather than mutilate the show. The offensive part of the SF songs is throughout them.

Kimstu is female, btw.
Thanks for the clarification. I was guessing that you might be two people named Kim and Stu writing together.

I reject your invalid attempts to connect that with the extremist and irrational ideas of PC that you like to poke fun at. Okay? Do you understand now?

I do (and did) understand. One clarification. I mean something more serious than just poking fun at the extreme form of Political Correctness. I have been trying to argue that the extreme form of PC constitutes a dangerous attack on civil liberties, on science, and on rational thought.

208

Piss Christ is not “PC”. Nor is it “not-PC”. You still are trying to insist that offense against certain groups is PC. However, “Piss Christ” has no inherent offense against Christians, therefore PC doesn’t even enter into it. Certain people who often have never seen the work automatically assume it must be offensive, likely because of a culturally-instilled loathing of certain bodily fluids. However, a part of art is seeing things in a new way. If no one ever used their art to try to reinterpret the world, all our art would be photorealistic noncomposed works, because that’s how the world really looks. But artists perfectly capable of painting photorealism have chosen Expressionism, Fauvism, Cubism and abstracts, because they hope to make you see “more” by showing things in a way you never thought of them before. And each time an artist stepped forward with a new way to look at things, s/he was met with cries of dismay. “My daughter can paint better than that!” “[he’s] thowing a pot of paint in the public’s face!” “that’s bizarre!” “that’s offensive!” Yet as people minds are opened by this new way to look at things, they begin to see in a different way. Their world and their perceptions become bigger; they can appreciate both the old and the new way of seeing. So Serrano, when he used urine to symbolize something different than how Joe Average usually thinks of it, was rejected by those who could not see urine as anything but offensive. However, those who are willing to expand their perceptions can both appreciate the gorgeous photography and the new meaning that old symbols can have.

Serrano worked with icons, crosses and statues in milk and blood. Then he put a Discus Thrower in urine, yet no lovers of Greek culture protested. He put a image of a supermodel in urine, but no supermodels protested. He put a statue of Satan in urine, but no Satanists protested. And he put a crucifix in urine and cow’s blood, and all hell broke loose.

I see no reason to assume Serrano meant offense. He seems to have borne no ill will towards any of the other objects he places in urine. He used christian religious icons in other ways that cannot even remotely seem offensive. Piss Christ was only one of a series, and if he had meant offense towards Christians, or held ignorant or outdated notions about them, there is not a trace of it in any of his other works. Listen to Serrano himself:

So basically: Serrano meant no offense. He does a lot of work with icons, particularly religious ones. He does a lot of work with bodily fluids, and has used all of them in relation to religious icons. He has gotten a lot of attention for Piss Christ, but it hurt his career, too. Of all his work, only the one that could ignorantly be automatically assumed to be offensive to Christians was the one that caused the most controversy. Now, even if the work was meant to be offensive, if you were right that “PCness” means it’s OK to be offensive towards certain groups, why was everyone so upset? Shouldn’t the PCness have mandated that Piss Christ is OK? Or perhaps the reason why some people aren’t upset about Piss Christ is not becuase it’s PC to be offensive towards Christian, but because some people actually know a little bit about the piece and recognize that it is not insulting Christians!

[Edited by Gaudere on 05-10-2001 at 01:19 PM]

209

december: *And, you don’t like censorship either. You wrote: “or if we had people demanding to remove and burn all copies of ‘I’m an Indian Too’ in public libraries, I’d be extremely distressed.” You’d be properly distressed in this hypothetical situaton, although it also wouldn’t involve the 1st Amendment. *

Right, but it’s not analogous to voluntarily cutting a song from a Broadway musical! One is a case of attempting to officially ban and/or destroy so-called objectionable content so that nobody else may encounter it. The other is a voluntary act of self-censorship to increase the audience appeal of a commercial product—just like the syrup people taking the “mammy headscarf” off the picture of the lady in the Aunt Jemima logo, as I pointed out before. For pity’s sake, december, do you really not see any difference between those two forms of “censorship”? (And if you don’t like my dragging in the First Amendment—and I agree it isn’t particularly relevant here—then why did you bring up the ACLU, who are concerned not about commercial self-censorship but about First Amendment rights? It’s not “weaseling” on my part to point out that the noble ACLU mission of defending the legal right to freedom of speech has no particular bearing on this case. Nor am I wring, btw.)

  • “do you believe that omission of other items of popular entertainment containing outdated stereotypes which would offend many people nowadays constitutes “shocking and offensive censorship”? For example, Stephen Foster wrote plenty of “darky songs” or “coon songs” which are at least as good from an artistic standpoint as “I’m an Indian Too”, but if you attend a recital of Stephen Foster songs these days you’re very unlikely to hear them. Are you “shocked and offended” by that? If not, then why not?”

I think I implicitly answered this question, but didn’t specifically relate the answer to S. Foster. Maybe your real complaint is that you don’t agree with my answer, which is your priviledge. Here’s an expanded version:

  1. IAIT is a part of AGYG, a great, great work of art – The SF songs are merely interesting to music historians. *

snort No accounting for tastes, I guess; I must say, though, if AGYG is a “great, great work of art”, what’s left for Shakespeare? Still, you are entitled to your opinion—which is no more than your opinion—about the comparative artistic quality of the works involved. (You’re kind of
off-base about the “merely historical” interest of Stephen Foster, though; personally, I’ve heard more professional, commercial performances of Stephen Foster songs than I have of “Annie Get Your Gun”.)

2. IAIT’s degree of stereotyping is very minimal. It’s much less offensive than the SF songs.

Again, that’s a matter of opinion; personally, I find the references to “Hatchet Face”, “Falling Pants,” “Running Nose”, etc., more distasteful than “Old Black Joe”, but you’re entitled to your own view.

3. IAIT is about racial equality. The SF songs are not. (SF didn’t write, “I’m a Darky, Too.”)

snort again. It’s kind of a stretch to say that just because the song expresses Annie’s willingness to become an Indian “squaw” (“Looking like a flour sack, With two papooses on my back, And three papooses on the way”—yes, folks, more “positive expressions” about Indians from december’s “great, great work of art”!), it’s “about racial equality.” This ain’t “You’ve Got to Be Carefully Taught” from “South Pacific” that we’re talking about here.

4. The mildly offensive portion of IAIT is in just a few of the lyrics, which could have been excluded or replaced, rather than mutilate the show. The offensive part of the SF songs is throughout them.

So in other words, despite your protestations of hating all forms of censorship, you do condone the self-censorship of works such as Stephen Foster “darky songs”. As long as a song involving racial or ethnic stereotypes is less than “great” artistically (in december’s opinion), or has more than a “minimal degree of stereotyping” (in december’s opinion), or has stereotyping that’s too pervasive (again, always, in december’s opinion), then it’s perfectly reasonable and understandable to drop it from one’s repertoire. But if somebody wants to excise a song that passes december’s own personal criteria of acceptability, that’s despicable and tyrannical PC censorship.

Honestly, december, that’s got to be the most pathetic rationalization of an arbitrary preference that I’ve ever heard. Can’t you understand that questions of taste and artistic merit aren’t easily reducible to uniform quantitative scales, and that your ideas of what’s offensive or not offensive aren’t universal standards? Basically, what your whole argument boils down to is “Anybody who doesn’t agree with my opinions is too PC.” I can’t believe I’ve been wasting my time arguing about this.

*“I reject your invalid attempts to connect that with the extremist and irrational ideas of PC that you like to poke fun at. Okay? Do you understand now?”

I do (and did) understand. One clarification. I mean something more serious than just poking fun at the extreme form of Political Correctness. I have been trying to argue that the extreme form of PC constitutes a dangerous attack on civil liberties, on science, and on rational thought. *

No, that’s not what you’ve been trying to argue; if it were, we’d have been in perfect concord right from the get-go. Because I completely agree that truly exaggerated and extremist “political correctness”—e.g., where it’s acceptable for blacks to insult whites but not vice versa, where people who don’t understand the meaning of the word “niggardly” feel justified in objecting to it as a racial slur, where statues of dead white males are physically destroyed or defaced in the name of resisting oppression—is indeed misguided and dangerous.

What you’ve been trying to argue, however, is something different: namely, that voluntarily cutting a song from a Broadway revival because its fifty-year-old ethnic stereotypes are potentially offensive to modern audiences must be regarded as a comparable instance of that kind of “truly exaggerated and extremist PC”. This claim was and remains complete bullshit, and your efforts to defend it have been illogical and feeble in the extreme. Feel free to go on believing it if that’s what makes you happy, but as far as I’m concerned, this sorry excuse for a debate is ended.

210

Kimstu – It sounds funny for you to claim to know better than I do what I was trying to argue, but I see what you mean. Since you’ve been adtively posting, we have been primarily debating IAIT. However, the intentions I was referring to had been argued earlier in this lengthy thread.

I hadn’t intended the discussion of IAIT to be a crucial part of my position. However, it got out of hand, perhaps because I found our discussion quite interesting.

I’m glad to know that we hold similar views reagrding the extreme form of PC.

211

Nope, what I said was:

and even included a nifty little link to a site that explained the logical falicy for you (and, could have linked you to further logical falicies. I would suggest spending some time there). The list of things you set up there included examples things that once were legal and now aren’t (refusing to let blacks vote). I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Have there been points in time in our country where certain groups were treated unfairly? ummmm, gee that’s a tough one. yep. How is this related to this discussion?

But this

In the first place, waaaay back on page 1 or so, we have agreed that idiotic behavior is idiotic. However, as was pointed out (waaaay back on page 1) that just because an individual may take an extreme position (the person who ** complained ** to the word niggardly despite knowing what it meant for example) doesn’t mean anything more than idiots will do idiotic things. I am suspicious, however of you assessing ‘attacks on civil liberties, science and rational thought’ since you seem uniquely unable to discern the difference between a first amendment issue and a producer self censoring a show so that it won’t negatively impact ticket sales, etc.

december in the face of studies and facts, you’ll rely on 'your humble opinion"? gee, why didn’t you tell me 3 pages ago, so I could have saved some time submitting evidence in support of my views?

I’ve demonstrated and backed my position up point by point. As has **Kimstu, Gaudere & Collounsbury **. Your presumptions and points have fallen each and every single one. Your logic is shown to be faulty, your premises have gone unsupported, your examples are flawed beyond redemption, but ‘in your humble opinion’ you’re right. No sense in continuing, “IMHO”

212

Thought I’d just make a statement about another piece of artwork that clearly has no relevance to things which are PC or non-PC. In this case it’s a piece of artwork created by Ray Stanfield. Here’s a link about it:

http://www.academia.org/killerbarbie.html

IMHO Black Threat Barbie is not “PC”. Nor is it “not-PC”. “Black Threat Barbie” has no inherent offense against African Americans, therefore PC doesn’t even enter into it. Certain people who often have never seen the work automatically assume it must be offensive, likely because of a culturally-instilled hypersensitivity to certain stereotypes. However, a part of art is seeing things in a new way. If no one ever used their art to try to reinterpret the world, all our art would be photorealistic noncomposed works, because that’s how the world really looks. But artists perfectly capable of painting photorealism have chosen Expressionism, Fauvism, Cubism and abstracts, because they hope to make you see “more” by showing things in a way you never thought of them before. And each time an artist stepped forward with a new way to look at things, s/he was met with cries of dismay. “My daughter can paint better than that!” “[he’s] thowing a pot of paint in the public’s face!” “that’s bizarre!” “that’s offensive!” Yet as people minds are opened by this new way to look at things, they begin to see in a different way. Their world and their perceptions become bigger; they can appreciate both the old and the new way of seeing. So Serrano, when he used urine to symbolize something different than how Joe Average usually thinks of it, was rejected by those who could not see urine as anything but offensive. However, those who are willing to expand their perceptions can both appreciate the gorgeous photography and the new meaning that old symbols can have.

I see no reason to assume Stanfield meant offense. He seems to have borne no ill will towards African Americans. Listen to Stanfield himself:

So basically: Stanfield meant no offense. He has gotten a lot of attention for “Black Threat Barbie”, but it hurt him, too. Unlike “Piss Christ” which was not censored Stanfield’s work was removed from display. Of all his work, only the one that could ignorantly be automatically assumed to be offensive to African Americans was the one that caused the most controversy. Perhaps the reason why some people aren’t upset about “Black Threat Barbie” is not because it’s not PC to be offensive towards African Americans, but because some people actually know a little bit about the piece and recognize that it is not insulting African Americans!
Grim

213

Serrano’s work was removed from display at the Melbourne exhibit, after some youths attacked it and defaced it with a hammer (the second physical attack in as many weeks). The Catholic church tried to get an injunction to prevent the piece from even being put on display in the first place, but it was thrown out on a technicality by the Australian Supreme court. I would rather not play the “my artist was more oppressed than your artist” game; both instances were an example of ignorant people seeing offense where there was none intended, and higher-ups deciding it would be more prudent to avoid the trouble of putting a very controversial work on display.

And kindly do not steal my words for your post. I find it creepy and irritating. Seriously.

214

The delicious irony to this is that in fact december’s method of approach, his analysis --in as much such as it can be described with that noun-- is precisely the sort of thinking he decries as “PC”: cleaving to pre-set ideological positions disregarding or otherwise distorting facts to justify pre-concieved criticisms. Except of course since it’s december’s own thinking it can’t possibly be, now can it?

That’s why I pulled out of this. Not since peace have I seen such poor thinking, although december is at least sincere, of that I have no doubt, whereas peace was just trolling. A good review of logical thinking would do him a world of good.