Alright ** Milo** knock it off. You’ll get me kicked out of the union (
) (seriously, well said - but please, don’t quote me on it! )
So for the PC pundits, what’s the solution? Do away with all attempts to seek to lessen offense, and just let everyone have at it, and damn the consequences?
I think at the very least, public and governmental institutions should maintain a PC atmosphere; I will agree that the litigation revolving around perceived offense is near rampant, but the effort, IMHO, remains a worthy one. Anything can be made bad by taking it to an extreme.
Esprix
Wring:
Actually, as far as B. goes, I don’t think it’s a slur without an intent to harm.
It’s a misinterpretation, or at worst an accident.
Have you ever seen a toddler go “Daddy look! that man’s black!” real loud, or “Look! that man has only one leg!”
There’s no insult or slur implied. Kids aren’t aware of the the PC formalities of such encounters. They are innocent of such worthless bullshit.
When I was a little kid, I knew words like “Nigger, cunt, and faggot” were bad words before I knew what they meant. I learned the associations later.
When little kids use these words without awareness of the meaning, because they want to look cool, they are not throwing slurs at each other. They’re trying to act cool.
The words aren’t slurs. The interpretations and the meanings are.
Words are tools, and their meaning should not be automatically defined by the onew who hears them. Listening is an interactive experience, and if you want to understand what somebody is saying you will need to release the emotional baggage you place on terminology, and strive to understand what the speaker is actually saying, not place snap, blanket judgements based on word choice, and not crucify one over what may well-be a faux-pas, misunderstanding, or a product of environment.
Concern over word-choice is like judging someone on their tie. It’s usually the least meaningful part of a conversation.
More importantly the social activism that mandates PC speech is insidious as it infiltrates free-thought. Not only are we not supposed to say certain things. These things have been replaced with others that have baggage of their own.
All too often, both on this board and in real life there are those who contribute little, but who lie in wait for someone to make a faux-pas, or mistep so they can pounce on them, and make them feel bad without fear of consequences. For such a person, it is their excuse to act hateful. Even on those occasions when they are correct it is still an ugly thing to see. In many cases more ugly than the incident that inspired such behavior. This is the other danger of PC thought.
In general, people of good will, don’t worry about such things.
It’s subtle, but PC is an attempt at thought control, it is a form of repression.
To me, PC is a very different thing than common courtesy.
missing my point/question Scylla. If you were person B, and you used a term that you were unaware had negative connotations, wouldn’t you want to know so that you could refrain from causing harm?
yes, absolutely, all of us agree that there will be people who are offended at absolutely everything and anything. and for those folks, they should remain encased in a bubble so as not to get their sensabilities sullied. But for the rest of us trying to communicate with others, I’d rather know and be forwarned that folks see this term or that term in a derogatory manner.
(and another aside to Milo my personal favorite was the woperdaughter Wo-man, strike ‘man’ becomes woperson, strike ‘son’ becomes wo-per-daughter. )
Wring:
I don’t think I’m missing the point. A word does not have negative connotations if the speaker didn’t place them there.
If they are misconstrued after the fact, it is simply a mistake. The problem with PC is the adding in of meaning that goes in after the words are spoken, or the automatic assumption of meaning that may not be intended.
Huck Finn does nothing wrong in addressing his friend as “Nigger Jim.”
Today, people read the book and say, “Oh no. That’s bad.”
PC tells you that there is a correct POV. There isn’t. There is only the current point of view.
To answer your question:
If I used a word, and was unaware of the negative connotations, then there really aren’t any negative connotations in my usage, are there?
Politely correcting my usage to comply with current social convention may be warranted in such a case. Construing offense is not.
I’d still prefer to know ahead of time ya know? Growing up with a bigot, I heard a whole buncha terms for folks. Didn’t really know/understand the depth of hurt they could cause until I was older.
And I’m still not clear. Are you saying that as long as the speaker intends no specific insult, that any word is fine, even when common usage sees it as highly inflammatory?, and even after the speaker is made aware of the common usage of the word?
If what you’re saying is that, for example, you would choose not to use terms such as kike, wop, gook etc. because you are aware of their connotations currently and you generally choose to not knowingly offend people on a generalized basis (naturally in any given circumstance all bets are off if the situation is one in which you intend to insult). If the above is true, I’m not sure where we’re differing on a practical level -
I don’t think the kid example you listed is a big deal. Neither is the Huck Finn to me. But, should an adult in polite society refuse to alter their speaking patterns cause they mean no insult when they use the term ‘nigger’, even after being told that it’s considered to be highly insulting, I think they should rethink their position.
Sounds good to me. The sooner people learn that others have different opinions and simply voicing that opinion is not wrong, the better. Even if the opinion is deemed racist, or sexist, or offensive by someone, or even if it is just generally impolite. That’s kinda the point of free speech, isn’t it?
Wring:
We agree. I generally don’t use terms that I know will offend.
I don’t think of this as PC at all. It’s common courtesy, and it’s been around for a long time.
PC comes from deconstructing language and deciding that the origins of certain terms and their associations are unsavory and therefore shouldn’t be used, period.
People who use the terms are wrong thinkers.
PC goes beyond common courtesy and politicizes language mores, and penalizes those that don’t follow its tenants, flawed though they may be.
It is every bit as repressionary and anti-egalitarianism as what it claims to be fighting.
Because it has a generally accepted moral imperative, it is a formidable weapon, just as the blessing of the Pope was a rationalization of the atrocities of the crusades and the inquisition.
By claiming to fight for equality, and rectifying past injustices, its pundits get to villify and condemn whosoever they choose to attack without fear of reprisal.
How can you win an argument if your opponent can change the meaning of what you said after you said it according to rules only he/she is allowed to make?
So far, of all the comments posted, I’d have to say that I agree with Scylla the most. Here’s a question I’ve often asked, but never gotten an answer for: If a person is from Egypt (and is a member of the ethnic group most commonly associated with modern Egypt) and moves to the US (or his/her ancestors did) he/she is referred to as an Arab-American, yet, one could equally refer to this person as an African-American or an Egyptian-American, yet this is never done. Why?
If a person is from Egypt (Which was in Africa the last time I checked. Maybe they’ve moved it since I last looked at a map.:eek: ), he/she is African, yet we only refer to Africans when the person(s)in question have a certain skin pigmentation and other superficial physical characteristics. If one of the goals of PC is eliminate language which carries the baggage of racial stereotypes, then Egyptians should be referred to as Africans. Same with the Afrikaaners in South Africa.
PC is a nice idea, but what has been into practice so far is severly lacking IMHO.
I don’t have a problem with different opinions - you are free to express them. I have a problem when those opinions are expressed using inflammatory words.
Although I consider myself a feminist, if your opinion is “women shouldn’t make as much money as men for the same job because …” fine (misguided and wrong, but your opinion, you are entitled to it). If its “C**** like you are taking money out of my pocket” I have a problem with that. I’ve known and had very cordial relationships with the first kind of person (usually the work/relative kind of relationship), the second I refuse to knowingly be in a room with.
I don’t think it should be illegal or anything. But I think using certain words or certain inflammatory statements should get you shunned by decent society. Which is about all PC has the power to do. Sometimes, a part of society takes it too far (Antioch college - although I know a women who went to Antioch during this time, and it is a very liberal, PC kind of place. You wouldn’t be comfortable there if you didn’t think a woman (or man) shouldn’t explicitly agree to sexual contact. Maybe it was appropriate for that time and that place, since the students voted to put it in place, they seemed to think so, and it was their code of ethics, after all - wow, what a parenthetical inclusion), but I think the bullshit light goes off for most of us on those cases immediately.
I also think banning Huck Finn is misguided. But I think that of lot of the books school libraries choose not to shelve or books they don’t teach because they might “offend” someone. And its not all (and probably not even most) the “not deemed PC stuff” that gets banned.
I agree with Scylla. When a person makes a statement using language that could be viewed as offensive, they should be informed about that. I don’t think that anybody will argue with that. However, many people are taking the concept of political correctness to extremes, and the problem is quite widespread, more than some people on this board seem to think. Just about everyone I know has had an experience with the idea of political correctness carried to extremes, so I refuse to view it as just a few isolated incidents. The biggest problem, as I see it, is that many people are getting punished for things that they didn’t know would be offensive.
We need to find a way of deciding what constitutes a legitamite complaint. We’ve provided several cases in this thread where the accusations being made are completly groundless and border on the absurd. Who gets to decide where the limits are?
Then there’s also the problem of selective application of the rules. Recently, the director of the Office of Institutional Diversity at our college gave a speech to the freshman class. She was very accusative, and basically stated that none of us understood the importance of diversity or any respect for the concept at all. She stated that the overall mood at the college was racist (not true at all) and that most of the students held strong prejudices regarding race, sexual orientation, and other qualities (also untrue). My college happens to be mostly White and Asian American and also mostly middle class, so it seemed to us that this woman was unfairly stereotyping us. Namely, that she was assuming that because we were White or Asian American and had decided to attend a college with few Blacks and Hispanics, we must automatically be racists. The reaction to this speech was, of course, overwhelmingly negative, with many students feeling very offended, and the administration was well aware of this. however, the speaker has never apologized for offending people. Clearly, if somebody employed unfair stereotypes about Blacks or Hispanics, they would be expected to apologize.
We’ve seen the examples of what folks consider to be over the top, but all so far seem to have been in the national eye (as in the flack the guy got for using the word ‘niggardly’).
My thought is that the members of the affected group should hold the reigns. For example, a couple of years ago, a local radio station got some serious flack from Hispanic groups when they ran a joke contest with the ‘prize’ of an “unwashed Mexican illegal immigrant”. (ya think?) One of my co-workers thought they were over reacting, that everyone knew it was a joke etc. My point to him (and again here) is that: as some one not a member of the specified group, it really isn’t up to him to decide that the folks involved ‘shouldn’t’ have found it offensive. Evidence was there that they did. (naturally, not all found it offensive, but enough to launch a series of protests).
It really wasn’t that long ago that ‘seperate but equal’ was the law of the land. People who have obviously mixed marriages still find themselves the object of scorn. it ain’t over.
Wring:
I don’t like to put the responsibility for my behavior, or what is acceptable in anybody else’s hands but my own.
For the same reason that I don’t think victims of the crime should sit on the jury against their accused. It seems basic common sense to me.
I think PC is an entirely bad concept that has little to do with polite behavior.
For myself, I try to go with an informal “reasonable person” standard.
Many of the demands of PC are actually quite reasonable. The problem is the malleability of the rules, who has the power in creating them, and what checks exist to stop them from becoming onerous and unreasonable.
If one group gets to decide what is offensive or unreasonable behavior for another group that is discriminatory behavior no matter how it’s couched.
Separate but equal was the practice in most of the southern states, not the “law of the land.”
One aspect of PC that offends me is the ego gratification it provides. During the civil rights movement, I went to Washington DC to demonstrate with Martin Luthor King. Some of my friends took a year off to work for civil rights in the South. Mickey Schwerner, the son of a teacher in my high school, was murdered in the struggle.
But, PC says that you can be morally superior just by using the word “Black” instead of “Negro.” If only it were than simple!
BTW one of my cousins has been married to a Black woman for 35 years and another recently married the son of immigrants from India. They’re accepted without any difficulty, here in the NYC area. I’ve not heard objections to Republican Senators Mitch McConnell and Phil Graham for having married women of another race.
The last time I heard a mixed marriage attacked, it was by some Black spokespersons, who objected to Clarence Thomas having married a Caucasian. (Is it PC to say that?)
but Scylla as we’ve seen even here, there’s problems with that. Witness the folks who saw nothing wrong with referring to others as “Orientals”, despite the recipients telling them that it was offensive to them.
I understand that what you want is a ‘reasonable’ consensus, but remember, Jim Crow laws were a ‘reasonable’ consensus. What does it matter that 80% of non blacks see nothing wrong with the word “nigger” if 80% of blacks do?
and that’s my point. Non members of the group should not determine what the members should or should not find offensive. It’s ok if I call the guy a ‘wetback’ as long as I meant it in the nicest possible way? pshaw.
Oh, absolutely. Personally, I do not like the man, and am appalled that his claims of growing up in the refugee camps have been exposed for what they really are. I also had the pleasure of watching him humiliated by a Holocaust victim when he gave a talk at my university. Where he also teaches.
That was the implication I drew from your post. Since it is apparently incorrect, I apologize.
Well, a postcolonial scholar would probably argue that the word Oriental has only gone out of style relatively recently, and that while the word persisted, the discourse of Orientalism persisted as well. To be honest, I don’t think it’s such a bad argument. However, I also do not believe that the persistence of the so-called and mislabeled discourse is a prerogative for extreme PC.
I’m only 23, but I actually remember finding out when I was a kid that “Oriental” was no longer the preferred nomenclature. This happened, I would guess, no later than 1990.
Exactly my point. The “proper” word perpetuated a particular mode of thinking and even a mode of being that individuals and groups found extremely pernicious.
MR
** ok, it was legal and accepted practice in a great quantity of the land (wasn’t the Brown v. Board of Education in Kansas?, but I digress). Seperate facilities were common in the south, unnecessary in certain areas of the North - where, for example, it is still common practice for minority parents to caution their kids from going to certain rural areas (my former boss wouldn’t let his sons go 10 miles north of us to DeWitt/St Johns, just north of the capitol of Lansing, due to concerns for their safety). So, let’s not kid ourselves, please that ‘all is well’.
Interesting that you made sure that you included your own participation. Listen, I’m not accusing you of being a racist. I’m sure that you make real attempts in your day to day world to not oppress others. But, the “PC” movement is not simply about using the term ‘black’ vs. “negro” despite your assertion (or do you have proof of that?). For one, it’s about raising the level of awareness of the issues.
RE:
You must not get out much. I have in-laws that are a mixed couple. When they lived in a Virginian suburb of DC, (very white area), their house was burglarized, every single thing in it was stolen, and racial epitaphs were written on the inside. It still happens.
Maybe I misspoke. I’m not interested in a “Reasonable consensus” as a standard. I’m using a “reasonable person” standard.
If everybody around me thinks that calling black people “niggers” is Ok as long as there are none around to be offended, that may be the consensus. It may even be reasonable (though I don’t think so.)
I would still choose not to do it.
My friends prefer the term Asian to Oriental as well. My response isn’t PC, it’s polite. I comply, just as I prefer being called Al rather than Aloysious.
The way they get their point across is positive as well. They do not take offense if they are called Oriental, or even acknowledge the faux-pas. They merely reply using the term “Asian.” Most people catch on and follow suit without drama, acrimony, or hard-feelings.
This is not PC behavior, this polite behavior.
It becomes PC behavior when the terminology is used as a weapon.
Wring:
Which is exactly the problem.
Most people treat other people like human beings. They neither need nor want their awareness raised. Remember that movement at Yale where “Women” was supposed to be spelled “Womyn” to protest male repression of women, and raise awareness of the plight of females?
That is not raising my awareness. It’s just pissing me off, and making things unreasonably difficult.
It’s attempting to change my thought processes so that every time I type “Womyn” I’m reminded that males repress females.
I treat women well. I don’t need to be reminded of this. It doesn’t raise my awareness. It lowers it. I’m being taught not to think of women as equals but beings that have been unfairly repressed.
It’s like Peta raising awareness by throwing blood on people, or raising awareness about abortions by showing fetuses to people or bombing a clinic. It’s evil behavior clothed in a righteous cause. It’s insidious and it actually hurts those causes it’s supposed to help. It’s just picking at scabs, and it’s small and mean.
Fuck that bullshit.
** Exactly. However, as you see in this thread, we have a few here who seem to think that some one being offended at being called “Oriental” is the problem, and they blame the ‘PC’ movement.
And that’s what I am concerned about. I agree that the best way to get that message across is to politely say “I prefer this to that” and await the response. Doesn’t always happen that way, and frankly, I’m not willing to ‘order’ the folks who have been offended to react politely, either. For me, personally, I generally correct the person once, politely.
But again, I’m not the one being subjected to the barrage of correcting people on a regular basis.
In any event, you and I don’t seem to be much apart on the reality of the issue, although you refuse to admit that you’re being “PC”
example please?
I understand your points about the ‘womyn’ (see my previous post about woperdaughter), and PETA. However, in contrast, I again point out the folks in this very thread who seem to believe that since they personally don’t find “Oriental” to be offensive, and that they don’t mean offense, therefore and ergo, those folks who state that they find it offensive are being unreasonable.