Political Correctness Debate - contd

Great Debates
1

Continued from the earlier debate, with respect to people’s intellectual property:

Anyway:

I posted:

I agree with political correctness because I believe races do not exist outside of a social context. We are all human, society invented race and its related connotations for the most part, for teh past 50+ years we’ve (society) has attempted to make a more egalitarian society, why allow these false ideas of race to continue? Why should we try to divide the world between ‘black’ ‘white’ ‘red’ ‘yellow’ and whatever? Let people be what they want, ethnically, culturally, whatever, and lets stop with this false classification. Similarly I agree with encouraging any and all forms of racial mixing, socially and sexually. Eliminating (or modifying) language with racial connotations would (does) prove useful to these ends.
I do not believe I contradict myself. If deracializing language (and hence society) is the goal, how does pc reinforce race?

Defining Races, BTW, has been attempted the last 150 years in this country. I refer you to “White by Law” by Haney-Lopez and “Racism” by Frederickson.

2

With respect to defining race, gender, ability, and so on, Political Correctness is an attempt to do in a way that people will find less offensive:
Black -> African American
Disabled -> Differently abled
Midget -> Vertically challenged
And so on. So PC language isn’t about eliminating categories at all, just giving them a more pleasant sounding name.

3

I have no objection to politically correct language. I frequently use it, depending on my audience. It’s the implied, and sometimes explicit (usually on college campuses), enforcement of it that disturbs me.

4

If political correctness were merely a matter of “deracializing language,” as you say, I would have no problem with it. But that’s not it. As I see it, political correctness seeks to elevate group identity over individual identity, which doesn’t seem to be the way to go about “deracializing” society, which would be a noble goal.

PC thinking also butchers the language unnecessarily, and introduces some very strange ideas into the national consciousness. If disabled people are to be called “differently abled,” well, don’t we all have different abilities? I was born in the USA, am I not a “Native American?” And, OK sure, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but does that totally invalidate everything else he did for this country?

Of course, making the bigots take their hate speech underground was a good thing, but when people start using charges of “racism” like a truncheon against anyone who disagrees with them (and you know this happens), it ceases to have any meaning.

5

I personally think that the bad of political correctness outweighs the good, and that it’s often times silly and ridiculous. I was just saying that PC language doesn’t get rid of any divisive or offensive terms, it just seeks to sanitize them.
Of course political correctness goes beyond language. We have the rediculous zero policies at schools where a kid can get suspended for pointing his finger at another student and saying “Bang”. But stuff like that is a discussion for another topic.

6

Doesn’t it strike you that in almost all of the above posts the term “political correctness” has no stable meaning?

When people say “I think ‘political correctness’ does more harm than good’” what they really mean is “I think that things I don’t like are not likeable.” As is well known, the term PC originated on the left, where it was used within the left to criticize people on the left for what was deemed a reflexive orthodoxy about certain political positions.

It entered the popular parlance c. the 1980s in the form suggested by joel’s first post: that is, it was discussed as a (regrettable) trend towards euphemistic language. Yet there has never been any concerted political effort on the left or anywhere else to insist on terms such as “vertically challenged.” In other words, almost from the moment of its inception, “pc,” in this sense, referred to a kind of parody or critique of something that never really existed to any great degree (and exists even less now that people are so aware of it). The pretense that was being criticized by “PC” at that time was how foolish it might be to try to use language to take the sting out of social difference.

There is no PC party, or codified PC philosophy; there is not Society for the Promotion of PC; there is no famous book that argues in favor of PC as a progressive position. As a result, PC could easily become, and has become, just a name for a strongly held (or allegedly strongly held) political position one doesn’t like. And it has almost become a kind of invitation to be politically incorrect: a way of putting a special premium on language or positions that “dare” to offend some other group or set of beliefs.

Yet at bottom it is just as logical (though much less common) to make charges of “PC” against the right, and some of its strongly held political positions, as to make them against the left. For example, when some argue that children should mandatorily cite the pledge of allegiance, they are arguing for what they believe is “politically correct.” They are assuming that to be a patriotic American one must assume certain “correct” behaviors: e.g., cite pledge, wave flag, support President unwaveringly, don’t ask questions about policy, don’t criticize administration about anything.

This is a form of right-leaning political correctness that happens to run very strongly in our national culture at the present moment.

By contrast, I would argue that the idea that you should not use offensive language about certain people in a public setting is not so much political as it is commensense.

For example, if person “A,” a white man goes into a restaurant to order food from person “B,” another white man, A is not likely to address B (whatever A may actually think about B’s appearance or social status) in this fashion: “Hey you big ugly fucker, come over here.” Or, “I need some food, you low-life creep.” Were A to address B in such a fashion most reasonable people would conclude that, in the absence of specific provocation, A was rude and uncivil. Few would defend A’s conduct.

By the same token, if B were a black man, most would not expect A to address B as “boy,” or “nigger”; if B were a woman, most would not expect A to address her by whistling and commenting on the size of her “hooters”; if B were Chinese or an orthodox Jew, most would not expect A to refer to B as a “slant” or “kike”; if B had Down’s syndrome, most would not expect A to refer to B as “retard”; if B were apparently gay, most would not expect A to refer to B as “faggot.”

Yet some people will insist on making a distinction here. That is, some will insist that when people feel that A should not call his server a “big ugly fucker” that they are simply urging commonsense civility; yet the same people will insist that to reprobate the other kind of language is a form of political correctness. In a sense they are right: that is, there has never been any period in American history when it was considered appropriate to insult people’s looks in a neutral context; whereas there have been, and for a long time were, periods when it was deemed appropriate for, say, a white man to call a black man by a derogatory name such as “boy”; or for a man to make remarks to woman that he might consider innocent or even complimentary, but she might consider embarrassing or patronizing or demeaning.

Most of us reading the Straight Dope live in “liberal democracies” of some kind. (I mean liberal in the political theory sense–not as a left position of some form.)

In liberal democracies formal equality–that idea that the black waiter or the Chinese waitress is equal to the white customer–is enshrined in the law and, to a very large degree, in the culture. In theory we are all the same: our rights are universal. Most Americans are proud of this heritage.

In practice, of course there are many difference between us. There are differences of sex; there are (perceived) racial differences; there are differences in socio-economic status; in religion; in ethnicity, etc. etc. There always has been and always will be a certain tension between equality of rights/opportunity–an entrenched feature of a liberal democracy–and actual material difference. These differences are far too insistent to be compensated for or covered up simply by the use of certain language. So, for example, a lawyer may believe very sincerely that it’s inappropriate to treat a janitor or daycare worker as an underling to be openly looked down upon: but that will not change the fact that the lawyer is probably the beneficiary of all kinds of socio-economic advantages to which the janitor is not.

For that reason, there is really no one on the left who strongly feels that it’s important to force people to call a midget “vertically challenged.” (They may strongly feel that it’s important to respect physical difference or physical disability, and to create equal opportunity to the extent possible, but the mere adoption of a much-ridiculed term is not what they’re after.)

At the same time I suspect that there are very many people on the left and the right both who feel it’s highly inappropriate to call a black person “nigger” or “boy.” That this should be true is not a sign of some wishy-washy political correctness imposed on us by doctrinaire lefties. It is a sign that we, as a culture, have moved towards believing that the equality we all hold dear in a formal and abstract sense holds up in the real world–or should.

It’s a sign that we have begun to realize that if we can’t respect difference then we can’t really be a democratic people because a disdain for difference is inimical to a democratic polity.

7

BTW, Mr. Wrong, who exactly is preventing you from calling yourself a “Native American” if you wish to? And who is arguing that Jefferson’s having owned slaves invalidates everything he ever said? I’ve never seen anyone making a case for either of these positions. So if this is what “political correctness” is for you, it must be a very isolated problem indeed.

8

Excellent post. I wish I had more of value to add, but that was excellent, Mandelstam.

9

Thanks, crusoe; most kind of you. :slight_smile:

10

Quite agreed with much of what Mandelstam said, especially the bit about there being right-wing PC. And your point about liberals using the term to criticize orthodoxy in their midst reinforces my contention the PC is not “liberal” but a new kind of left-wing conservatism.

But one thing you did not emphasize was the tendancy for PC-based objections to be invoked in situations where no prejudice is present and associations with racial etc. issues unfairly drawn. Examples abound, such as the protests against the children’s book “Nappy Hair” and the tabootifiction (great word, eh?) of the term “niggardly”.

I think the real issue with regards to political correctness is whether it goes too far in any given situation.

11

Much obliged to you as well, **sqweels **

[Y]our point about liberals using the term to criticize orthodoxy in their midst reinforces my contention the PC is not “liberal” but a new kind of left-wing conservatism."

Given a specific instance of an objectionable left-wing position, I might well agree with you that the position amounted to left-wing conservatism. The problem is that I don’t think “PC” is coherent enough to be defined in those terms (or any other).

“But one thing you did not emphasize was the tendancy for PC-based objections to be invoked in situations where no prejudice is present and associations with racial etc. issues unfairly drawn. Examples abound, such as the protests against the children’s book “Nappy Hair” and the tabootifiction (great word, eh?) of the term “niggardly”.”

I’m not familiar with the specifics of either of these examples, but I’m fairly certain that in niether case nothing is gained from the application of the “PC” (especially if “PC” is then to be further linked to left-wing conservatism.

I assume the book “Nappy Hair” was a good book–perhaps even a book that sought to confront the issue of racism. And I further assume that some people objected to the title either b/c they hadn’t read the book, or had but
missed the point of it.

Here’s my question: Why are such people “politically correct”?

If the book confronts the issue of racism, and the people who oppose it are concerned about racism, then their action in opposing the book is politically inept. They are perhaps irresponsible (b/c they criticize books they haven’t read); or they’re oversensitive (b/c they object to a term regardless of its context); or they’re just plain old silly.

By why “politically correct”? Why use a termp that lumps these people together with a bunch of people saying other things–which may or may not be silly and which may or may not bear on racism–as though there were some sort of coherent problem out there.

I think the real issue with regards to political correctness is whether it goes too far in any given situation."

Again, I’m willing to bet that you and I might agree a lot of the time about where in a given situation something went to far; but I disagree that there is a comprehensible “it” in political correctness.

Here’s an example. Huckleberry Finn is an American classic and one can learn a lot about race relations in America in the nineteenth-century by reading it. But it contains pasages that, were they written today, would be deemed offensive. Similarly, Oliver Twist is a great novel and gives you a sense of social conditions in England in the 1830s. But the character of Fagin is undeniably anti-Semitic and was intended to be so.

Now if a parent said at a PTA meeting that neither novel should be taught in high school because both books are racist, I would say that parent had gone too far. Yet I would not see that parent as being “politically correct.” On the contrary, I would see that parent as well-meaning but wrong-headed and I would hope that other parents and teachers persuaded that person that racism could be combated more effectively by teaching such books.

In what sense, when you think about it, could such a parent be “politically correct.” Where is the political position which argues that Dickens is too anti-semitic to be taught in schools for that person to “correctly” follow?

It’s interesting too that if a different parent objected to a book b/c, say, the main character was a Marxist, no one would be callling that parent “politically correct.” Yet this parent would be be holding to a “correct” political line much more clearly than the parent who held the rather unusual position that reading Dickens and Twain exacerbates racism.

I’ve seen controversies in which both sides were convinced that the other party was being “PC.” This is a term that has outworn its usefulness–it hinders rather than enhances understanding.

12

Sorry for confusing typo above: that should be in “either case nothing is gained…”

13

I agree that the term “Politically Correct” has been stripped of any significant meaning beyond becoming a punching bag for a lot of people who are incpable of making a coherent argument.

What always gets me hung up about, shall we say, “speaking carefully,” is that to a certain extent these people have a point (though not nearly as strong a point as they might think). It seems obvious to most people that calling a black person by any number of offensive words or referring to certain parts of a woman’s body in polite conversation is not socially acceptable. But what about words and expressions that fall into a gray area? Some would insist on “African American” as the only acceptable term for blacks in the United States. Similarly, due to the fact that the word “retard” has become an insult used to refer to non-mentally retarded people, it has also become increasingly unacceptable as a way to refer to people who actually are mentally retarded.

I think of myself as a pretty liberal guy, and when other people bitch and moan about “political correctness,” I like to think that I see through them. But lately I worry about what happens when words that I refuse to see as unacceptable get me labeled as insensetive.

14

Well, Kyomara, you sound quite sincere here so I doubt there’s anything to debate. I will say though that I haven’t experienced this kind of worry, nor sensed that kind of climate. I see that you are in Tokyo so perhaps we are talking about different contexts?

Here in the States, it seems to me that these days one is made to feel much more careful about what one says about the Bush administration (or religion perhaps) than any other thing. If you compare movies made in the late 1980s/early 90s to recent movies, I think you’ll find that there’s been a resurgence of attention to (more like fixation with) women’s physical appearance–though certainly that is a generalization and varies from example to example.

In my first post I purposely used the word “black” to characterize the apperance of my hypothetical person “B.” I have never felt that black was seen as a term of offense: any more than white is. I have always assumed that the idea of the “hyphen” approach to designating personal characteristics, was to deemphasize race (which places some people in a minority position) and to emphasize ethnic background (which every American has in some form). But that has never made me feel that black was out of the question and I often use it where the context seems right.

I also have no personal experience of feeling that the term “mentally retarded” is inappropriate (as opposed to the clearly derogatory ‘retard’), so I can’t be of much help there.

I will say, though, that language changes; it is a living thing. When I was a little girl it was typical to use the term “Oriental.” Somewhere along the line I learned that the term Asian was preferred and now it’s second nature to me.

In my own life I’m often struck by how many people will call me “Mrs.” Some of these people know fully well that there are professional titles that they could use instead, but they just reflexively choose “Mrs.” for reasons I can’t fathom. I am indeed married but my husband and I have different last names, so the “Mrs.” doesn’t really work for me (though, to be sure, many of these people don’t know that).

I really appreciate it when a stranger calls me “Ms.”, or when a person who knows me professionally calls me an appropriate professional title (after which I almost always invite the person to call me by my first name!). But I don’t freak out, or assume the worst, about someone who calls me “Mrs.” This is a very personal feeling, of course, but it strikes me that this is perhaps how some native Americans might feel upon being called Indians, etc. etc.

My point: I think it’s a mistake to place too great an emphasis on a single word. Plenty of jerks use the “right” word; and many extremely nice, considerate people stumble or don’t know and use the “wrong” word. It would be awful if people felt so awkward about their words, that they couldn’t communicate with others who aren’t exactly like them.

On the other hand, once it’s common knowledge that a particular term is, in general, deemed the most courteous, why not (I think) be courteous? (If even one person felt more comfortable because I said Asian instead of Oriental–or whatever–then I’m glad of it. It hardly cost me any effort at all to learn something new about language and humanity.)

I’m not sure how helpful this is, Kyomara, but I guess I’m trying to explain how we can think alike on the matter of political correctness and still have you worrying and me not. :slight_smile:

The more I think about it the more I think that what we’re talking about here isn’t well-characterized as “political correctness” at all. It seems to be about civility in a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-cultural society. Is it surprising that civility in such a context takes a little work sometimes?

15

And I continue to be a member of the Mandelstam fan club.

I see PC as being polite. If my name were Elizabeth and I liked to be called Elizabeth, its polite to call me that. If you call me Lizzie and I say “please don’t, I don’t like that name,” yet you continued to call me that, it would be rude.

PC is a group concensus on what is rude. Not all Asians mind being called Oriental, but more prefer Asian - some drastically so. The consensus of the group is that they want to be called Asian. So calling them anything else is not polite.

I’m sure someplace out there I can find a black man who doesn’t mind being referred to by the “n word.” (Never underestimate the variation in humans). Some women have claimed the “c word” as a badge of honor. Same can be said of gays and many of the reclaimed words for gay. (Note that Oriental hasn’t taken on such connotations that make me feel the need to call it the “o word” so, at least in my mind, there is a definate scale. I’m not sure where the words for gay fit on that scale). But those reclaimed words have yet to be associated by consensus as positive, so they are still (and, in my mind, are likely to remain) on the politically incorrect list.)

16

But the question is, why? Are there any underlying facts which justify regarding a word or gesture as rude? Or are incorrect associations being drawn? If the term “oriental” was introduced by white males then it must be a racial slur, but in fact it’s virtually synonymous with “Asian”. So the emphasis on “political” correctness is that it stands in contrast with actual correctness.

17

Manners (ie what’s rude and polite) tend to be more cooperative and subjective, hard to define the rules, trends come and go

like the time on seinfeld that they were all eating snickers bars with knife and fork

so if asian people say they are offended by being called oriental, those of us who are not asian have to say “ok”

in fact, any time anyone says they are offended by anything, the only appropriate response is “ok” (and then an apology if applicable)

now, political correctness usually doesn’t stand in contrast with actual correctness. The practice seeks (ugh, this gets messy here) to help us to speak and thus think in ways that bias us toward politeness, fairness, etc

for instance, “a person with bipolar disorder” is the new way of describing “a lunatic”

  1. the person’s illness isn’t generated by the moon, so the term is more actually correct
  2. the person is a referred to as a person first, then the disorder is tacked on, this biases us toward seeing things that way and not just seeing the person as, well, a lunatic.
18

I agree that Mandelstam is one articulate and reasoned writer and it is a pleasure to read her posts. Political correctness does indeed mean many things to many people, the following are my specific objections to the PC movement:

  1. Pretending Christianity does not exist. We don’t have Christmas trees at school, we have “holiday trees” We don’t have Christmas break, we have “winter break.” We certainly don’t want to coerce school children away from the faiths of their families and toward Christianity, but on the other hand it seems downright silly to be so afraid of offending minority religions that we pretend the majority religion does not exist. The children aren’t dummies, they know Christmas as a great secular holiday if not a religious one, why do we pretend to shield them from knowledge we know they already have?

  2. Viewing historical figures using contemporary standards. The Jefferson example was used earlier, and I have indeed heard the argument that Jefferson was not a great man because he owned slaves. Columbus is I believe a better example: because of his treatment of the natives, it is no longer politically correct to honor his navigational achievement. Indeed, the 500th anniversary of his voyage was virtually ignored. Lincoln is sometimes vilified because of his statement that if he could save the union by freeing all the slaves, some of the slaves, or none of the slaves, he would do so. I have read many books on Lincoln and do not believe that he ever thought the black man equal to the white. However, it would be unfair to castigate him (or Jefferson or Columbus) for not living up to 21st century standards. To be fair, you need to judge people according to the culture and mores of the times in which they lived. There are some schools and colleges that do not teach Shakespeare because of his “racism”, which although it may have been quite real, why would we demand 21st century thinking for a writer from Elizabethan times?

  3. Artificial diversification in education. I’m all for teaching about the contributions of minorities in history and literature, but let’s not pretend that some obscure African poet is the equivalent of Shakespeare and let’s not give more space in a history textbook to Sacajawea than we do to Washington. On the other hand, Martin Luther King is one that should be covered to the same extent as Washington or Lincoln. It’s all in the greatness of the individual, not color of the skin. Our textbook writers are getting to be like bean counters, making sure that the total column inches for the races work out just so.

  4. Rewriting history in movies and television. Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman is the best example. Here this woman lived in the 1860s, yet on every single subject her viewpoints were politically correct in 2000. In Titanic, all the people in first class (except for the heroine) were insensitive, rich pigs while every person in steerage was noble and gallant. In Pearl Harbor, while there were certainly African-American servicemen, the Cuba Gooding role was obviously and rather clumsily inserted into the script to pander to special interest groups. Also in Pearl Harbor, since it is now politically incorrect to smoke, not a single person in a military base in 1941 is shown smoking. These blatant attempts to sugar coat history do nothing more than insult our intelligence.

  5. Giving education a lobotomy. See this site: http://www.gofast.org/argos-spring-1998/article2.htm Life isn’t Lake Wobegon and all the children are not above average. But we keep telling children that all their work is equally good when it is not, this teaches them that nothing they do matters.
    The issues raised previously are fairly benign. Of course civilized people address each other by the names they prefer. I would never use the dreaded “N word” when addressing a black person, and for those for whom it matters, I’m happy to use “African-American”. Personally I find that term clumsy, being 7 syllables rather than 1 to speak and 16 characters rather than 5 to type. But if it makes you happy, fine. If most women prefer to be called Ms., I don’t mind a bit. But to be fair, I ask some slack. If I forget one time and call you black and not Africa-American, it doen’t make me a racist. Likewise, if you prefer Elizabeth and I call you Lizzie, just tell me “I prefer Elizabeth, thank you.” and I will apologize and try not to repeat. If I keep doing it, then I would be quite rude. And to be fair, please don’t call me a “Xian”. Jesus did not call me to join the “X-Men”.

19

I’d like to respond to some earlier posts as well, but I only have time for a quick lunchtime break. Let me say first that I really appreciate how responsive people have been to the idea that, incoherent as it is, the term “PC” inhibits understanding. :slight_smile:

That said, it’s surprising how reluctant many posters are to let go of the term. I’m going to respond to yanx4ever only b/c that post is freshest in my mind (and I’m a longstanding Yankees fan :wink: ).

“Political correctness does indeed mean many things to many people, the following are my specific objections to the PC movement”

Perhaps you can see for yourself, yanx, just how contradictory if the above statement is. If PC means many different things then in what meaningful sense can it be a “movement”?

“1) Pretending Christianity does not exist. We don’t have Christmas trees at school, we have “holiday trees” We don’t have Christmas break, we have “winter break.” We certainly don’t want to coerce school children away from the faiths of their families and toward Christianity, but on the other hand it seems downright silly to be so afraid of offending minority religions that we pretend the majority religion does not exist. The children aren’t dummies, they know Christmas as a great secular holiday if not a religious one, why do we pretend to shield them from knowledge we know they already have?”

Speaking as someone who is Jewish, and whose child is half-Jewish, I appreciate the fact that schools have “winter breaks.” However, the rest of what you describe is unfamiliar to me. Every school I’ve ever had contact with has had a Christmas tree (known as such) in addition to a menorah (known as such) and most recently, in my son’s time, additional inclusion of other seasonal traditions, esp. Kwanzaa. I suspect that if you inquire into your local public school you’ll find that this is pretty much the norm these days: i.e., no denial of the existence of Christianity, but an openness to other traditions.

If you live anywhere near the Yankees then you live in or near an extraordinarily diverse city, about 60% of which (if memory serves) is non-white and with more Jews than currently live in Israel. As you seem to be a very polite person, I can’t imagine that you wouldn’t see the legitimacy of having public institutions celebrate the holiday season in this inclusive way.

More to the point: in what meaningful sense is this “PC”? Menorahs stood side-by-side with Christmas trees in my New York City public school when I was a kid in the early 70s. Separation of church and state is an old (if evolved) doctrine.

There has been a longstanding and entirely reasonable practice of recognizing that not all American children are Christians. By perceiving it as a “shielding” PC gesture, rather that a reasonable approach to religious diversity in a liberal democracy, you are coming at the issue in an anachronistic and, I suspect, inaccurate way.

“2) Viewing historical figures using contemporary standards. The Jefferson example was used earlier…[etc.]”

The Jefferson example was mentioned, but never defended. As my example of Dickens/Twain was meant to suggest, this kind of thinking is, IMO, foolish and also not very widespread. I believe I would know if it were, because I am a historian.

I doubt very much that there is any school where Shakespeare isn’t taught “because of his ‘racism’” (If you have a cite for one I will stand corrected.) To be sure there has been an effort to expand the curriculum outside of the Western canon: but this has never, to my knowledge, amounted to an argument that because Shakespeare is racist, he should not be taught. Quite the contrary.

I can also assure you that a primary reason for Shakespeare being taught less at universities is that there is less money for hiring in earlier fields (in history and literature both), and more student interest in contemporary stuff. Students find the bard tought to read, alas. Nothing at all to do with racism, or PC.

Once again, as with the Twain argument, I would argue that, to the extent that such an attitude exists–an attitude that says, say, Lincoln should be vilified or shouldn’t be taught b/c he said some objectionable things by today’s standards-- it isn’t “PC” for the simple reason that there is no political program promoting that attitude for one to “correctly” follow. It is just a misguided idea, pure and simple.

There are, to be sure, interesting debates about how Lincoln or Jefferson should be taught. As one who teaches history–indeed, as one who believes that without knowledge of history a human life is incomplete ;)–I can assure you that historical figures can be taught in an enriching way warts and all.

Would you want Americans to be taught a sanitized view of Jefferson or Lincoln? Indeed, wouldn’t such a sanitized view be a kind of “PC”?

“To be fair, you need to judge people according to the culture and mores of the times in which they lived.”

Yes indeed! And that is exacatly what historians aim to do. Let me assure you no PC cadre haunts us trying to shut us down for fear of racism.

Rather, our biggest problem is convincing students to be interested; and convincing the wider public that the humanities, which have no obvious monetary value, are worthwhile.

Indeed, the idea that “if it doesn’t add to the bottom line it can be dispensed with” is another prevalent form of “correctness” that I find much more ubiquitous and troublesome than that “Lincoln was a racist”!

“3) Artificial diversification in education. I’m all for teaching about the contributions of minorities in history and literature, but let’s not pretend that some obscure African poet is the equivalent of Shakespeare and let’s not give more space in a history textbook to Sacajawea than we do to Washington.”

A very complex issue. Let me recommend a book to you: Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. It features a very influential essay by the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor and a series of responses to him. There have been many more responses since its publication in the early 90s.

It’s interesting that multiculturalism doesn’t come up much on the SDMB.

Or rather, when it does come up it’s typically in a simplistic way. I don’t mean to offend you but I think you are assuming a kind of false antithesis: as though, on the one hand, it’s somehow ultra-common to see African poets held up as the “equivalent” of Shakespeare (can you provide a single example of anyone making that argument?); and as though, to go to the other extreme, there no value whatsoever in American students’ learning about other cultures. What is actually going on in education is somewhere in between. And the debates about what should go on are, by and large, also somewhere in between. (I’m fairly certain though that there are more conservatives who see no value in non-Western culture than there are multiculturalists arguing for “equivalence.” Then again, “equivalence” is not what most multiculturalists are really trying to say.)

“Our textbook writers are getting to be like bean counters, making sure that the total column inches for the races work out just so.”

I must disagree. Although I have nothing to do with the production of K-12 textbooks, and don’t have vast knowledge of them, the ones I do know about aren’t written in this fashion.

“4) Rewriting history in movies and television. Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman is the best example. Here this woman lived in the 1860s, yet on every single subject her viewpoints were politically correct in 2000. In Titanic, all the people in first class (except for the heroine) were insensitive, rich pigs while every person in steerage was noble and gallant.”

Way to go yanks! You’ll get no argument from me here. I hate the Titanic for this reason and urged people to read a book in the lobby until the iceberg hit.

But why is this PC?

This is to do with our culture’s “presentism.”. Our culture does not care about history, except perhaps to know that the lace on Kate’s dress is authentic.

This unfortunate aspect of our culture, though, has nothing to do with PC in any form. Indeed, I think if you look back at movies made in the 1950s you’ll find that it is in many respects even worse–and the 50s were hardly a “PC” time (except of course in the sense that being pro-Communist or “anti-American” was extremely politically incorrect at that time!).

"5) But we keep telling children that all their work is equally good when it is not, this teaches them that nothing they do matters. "

I have no time to check out your cite, yanks, as I’ve used up my breaktime and run. But let me assure you that ther are many teachers who feel it is very important to make clear distinctions between excellent and poor work. And there are ways to do this without demoralizing the student who has submitted poor work. Personally speaking I try very hard to hold to high standards.

But to the extent that this problem exists in K-12 and in higher ed, it’s hardly an issue of political correctness. It’s partly to do with teaching philosophy and also very much to do with resources.

It’s actually very easy to tell people they’ve done a good job and send them on their merry way. It takes much more work to tell a student the work hasn’t been up to snuff and work with him or her towards a better effort. The more students one has, the less one is able to this.

“If most women prefer to be called Ms., I don’t mind a bit. But to be fair, I ask some slack. If I forget one time and call you black and not Africa-American, it doen’t make me a racist.”

Indeed not!

"And to be fair, please don’t call me a “Xian”. Jesus did not call me to join the “X-Men”

Fair enough, yanks, though this is the first time I’ve heard that the use of “X” as an abbreviation for the “Christ” in Christmas had anything to do with PC.

20

sqweels,

(I’m possibly five miles away from you right now in Bloomington)…

For me, I don’t need a rational explaination of why Asians prefer Asain any more than I need a rational explaination for why Elizabeth doesn’t want to be called Lizzie. Its simply polite to refer to someone as they wish (unless they wish to be referred to as “Supreme Princess of Walla Walla” in wish case it would probably still be polite, I just couldn’t bring myself to do it with a straight face).

However, there are several threads you can search up on Asian and Oriental. Lots of reasons. Some make sense to me. Some don’t to me. Language evolves and the connotations of words changes. About 30 years ago, the connotations of Oriental began to sound negative to a lot of Asians and they began to decide they preferred to be called Asian. Its been a long slow process that is far from complete - evolution, not a quick change where one day someone woke up and said “hey, I don’t like Oriental” and that was that.