Same amount as if you give a shit about the issue: zero. Nobody’s going to force you to do anything, but if you keep shooting off your mouth from a position of ignorance, you’re only embarrassing yourself and wasting everyone else’s time.
Five parsecs.
It was a joke, so I saw no need to be precise. I mis-read the tone of the thread. It honestly never occurred to me that anybody was serious about questioning my feelings about race. I thought I had been clear about that earlier.
Apparently not.
I know this was a while ago, but I only partially agree with this. I think you’re going a bit too far here, LHOD. You can fairly evaluate that someone told you something is wrong or hurtful, and still disagree.
Now, in meatspace this rarely comes up. I’m not talking about mainstream trans-people, gay people, the mentally disabled, or anything else. I’m sympathetic to their worries about derogatory terms.
But on the internet, there is a certain degree of what one might call “identity politics”. This is the sort of thing that causes rifts between marginalized groups. There’s always someone “more enlightened than you” that claims that some term hurts their group. Saying “person” marginalizes otherkin, mentioning “men and women” enforces gender binarism and marginalizes agender, androgynous, or intersex people.
It’s a treadmill that just won’t stop, and being the internet, people will flame for this, and gang up on people. It’s only really a problem if you venture into those corners, but real trans people have started blogs on Tumblr only to be harrassed about how, for some reason, calling themselves a transman even though they were medically diagnosed is wrong because they’re not hypermasculine, and thus must really be agender and by calling themselves trans they’re participating in agender erasure.
There’s also the great debate about “transmedicalists” or “truscum”, which are people who believe that transsexuality is a medical condition and one must meet clearly defined medical criteria to be one (I think Una fits this definition). While there are certainly asshole transmedicalists, like there are asshole anythings (I have to admit that whether or not they have a point “transtrender” is probably not the most sensitive way to frame your argument against self-diagnosed people), they can get bullied very hard by non gender-binary people who believe they’re “not being transinclusionary” and claim that this hurts them.
And of course the trans-exclusionary radical feminists who claim that transwomen (even post-op) is actually an attempt by men to rape women, which claims as part of its platform that a transwoman using the term “woman” is not politically correct and harms women.
Of course, it’s hard to tell exactly how many of these people are trolls, and certainly some of them are making posts for “points” in their social justice community. But there is a bit of an internet-specific hatesphere that goes so far into political correctness that they tend to get close to hategroups.
It’s entirely possible that I misunderstood you, but I feel like your posts have been giving the general impression, to me, that people asking you to stop using a word or term, or say something different are right. And as a decent human, you should always challenge your preconception and come out on their side. While I’ll agree this is usually the case – I stopped using “retarded” and “gay”, as well as the colloquial gamer use of “rape” due to consideration after being challenged on it – and it’s almost always true in real life, depending on where you lurk and who you come in contact with, it may not always be so. You should always be prepared to consider the other party is right and you should revise your vocabulary, but I don’t think it’s fair to imply that that should always be the case (which again, you didn’t outright say, but that’s the gist I got from your posts).
As a matter of fact I don’t give a shit about reparations, but I very much think the issue of sensitivity is driving us apart rather than uniting us. If I can’t even say “I’m not a racist” without giving people the vapors, however, then this is indeed a waste of time.
I’ve read the above three times and don’t understand it. Are you saying you think that I fit the definition of “truscum?” If so, how is that not an insult?
Clearly–and clearly you don’t care enough about race relations to figure out whether it’s even a worthwhile topic. Some folks like to revel in their ignorance, and I can’t make the horse drink, and I’m at peace with that.
There’s a great quote in that article: “Indeed, in America there is a strange and powerful belief that if you stab a black person 10 times, the bleeding stops and the healing begins the moment the assailant drops the knife.” Your thinking that sensitivity is driving us apart is like thinking EMTs cause deaths by stabbing. It is, however, powerfully healing thinking for privileged white folks, and it’s no wonder that so many of them take refuge is such a silly idea.
If by “the vapors” you mean we just don’t believe you, sure. If you mean that’s tremendously upsetting to us, not really; there are plenty of racist people out there who are blithely unaware of their bigotry, and while as a whole this class of people is pretty irritating, it’s not surprising in the least to encounter someone in this class.
You fit the definition of “transmedicalist” I believe – you make a point in saying that transexuality has specific medical criteria and people should not self-diagnose. “Truscum” is the name the mean people who disparage transmedicalists use. I mentioned it because it’s (sadly) easier to search for the term “truscum”, though there appears to be a certain amount of label reclaiming going on because I’ve seen people self-identify as truscum. (I did say as an aside that some Tumblr/Twitter/etc transmedicalists aren’t the nicest people to the opposition either, but you weren’t included in that)
My point was that, in terms of political correctness, certain people claim that anyone who advocates that transexuality is something that should be medically diagnosed is being trans-exclusionary and offensive – which is a case of potentially taking PCness too far in an attempt to be overly-inclusionary. Going so far as to call anyone who supports medical diagnosis of transexuality “truscum” and even (somehow) “transphobic” – which I consider a real example of over-PCness even if they’re legitimately hurt by the assertion that transexuality is medical.
I’m really sorry if I misrepresented your position at all, but I recall several posts by you explicitly mentioning that questioning people should get diagnosis from a trans-friendly therapist before doing anything; it probably would have been best to not mention you at all, but I figured your position was familiar here to people and (if I’m not misrepresenting you) would be a good illustration of what a smart, rational transmedicalist would believe as a counterpoint to the other position. Even if you don’t fit this position, I’m not tossing you in with the mean people either way, you were meant to be an example of a good position people were railing against in an incredibly belligerent manner in the name of “tolerence”.
I hardly get the vapors when I encounter someone claiming that he or she is not a racist. On the other hand, I have never in my life found an occasion to declare “I am not a racist” and I find such a need to be odd, at best. As I and others have noted, the declaration “I am not a somethingist” nearly always precedes or follows a statement that any reasonable person would recognize as somethingist. It is a pointless declaration that either means nothing or is false.
The notion that a person engaged in such behavior should be taken at their word, by default, when the overwhelming usage is otherwise is amusing.
I’m not racist, but planes can fly in the sky!
Hence “nearly always” rather than “always.”
Point being, nobody says that unless they’re a contrary curmudgeon ( 
). “I’m not a racist” is virtually always used in an attempt to convince someone that the racist thing they just heard, or are about to hear, doesn’t mean the speaker is racist. It has to be one of the least effective rhetorical devices ever invented.
Can you support this with solid research, last sentence mainly? Note, I’m not claiming that the opposite is a proven fact either (as the person you responded to said, and is often said). I would actually guess it’s one of those things that’s quite hard to prove either way. Instinctive, what does that mean exactly in human beings?
On PC, it is exactly about power. That doesn’t mean everything ever classified as PC is wrong or misguided. But it’s about ‘I can tell you what terms to use’. I don’t see how that can be denied and has certainly not been effectively denied on the posts I’ve read trying to deny it. When it’s stated ‘PC is about power’, the comeback is ‘oh well but Oriental (for example) is very not nice due to its prior connotations’. But that’s a reason to justify this exercise of power, not to argue that it’s not an exercise of power. Also that exchange showed the other typical power aspect, by people who’ve spent time studying the history of group oppression (or a certain version of that history anyway) and people who’ve done other things with their lives and are too busy for such study. Hence, 'it doesn’t matter if you don’t know how offensive Oriental is, because you never heard ‘Oriental despot’ etc. The power of radical left college profs (and their wannabees) over everyone else. That’s how PC began, and still a lot of what it’s about .
Same with the game where you virtually call somebody a racist because of non-PC views, never quite come out and say so, then if the person spontaneously denies they are a racist, ah-ha! proof that they are, only racists need to deny they’re racists, after they’ve been just about directly called racists. Does anyone really find this very clever anymore?
So I haven’t tracked who is saying what too well, this is a long thread when you just come in to it… but I wanted to play a little devil’s advocate and look at the discussion about what PC means and the idea that it can go too far, the whole discussion about Oriental…
I’m not a linguist so forgive my broad brushstrokes with time, I know this is a slow and broad process…
100 years ago, US natives of African descent were referred to as Negroes.
60 years ago, US natives of African descent found that term offensive, too close to a slur which was based initially on the term which is of course Spanish for the color black. So the appropriate term was Colored.
50 years ago, the term Colored was decided that it was offensive, because it suggested that a dark-skinned person was somehow changed from the implied native state of being uncolored, since colored implies action taken upon the subject. So the new term was black.
25 years ago, black was deemed by a large segment of the US population to be offensive as well, and the ‘PC’ term was decided to be “African American”.
10 years ago I read an article in which a man was described in a paper as “African American”. That man was Nelson Mandela.
Similar comparisons can be made to Red, Indian, Native American terms. Homo and Gay are words that are descriptive and depending on the environment may just be descriptive or may be meant to be hurtful.
If we keep deciding the current term is offensive, eventually we start to get confused. If an American paper decides the correct term is “African American” and that “Black” is inappropriate, and then has to write an article about Apartheid in South Africa and describe the racial characteristics of the two groups, we end up with utter silliness in our articles like calling Nelson Mandela American.
If terms like Black, Indian, and Oriental can be decided that the very use of the term which describes a given group of people is itself racist, don’t we hit an unending cycle of constantly changing language in which those not following the political climate feel uncomfortable even describing someone from another racial (or cultural or whatever) group because they’re not sure what the appropriate term this month is?
This is a VERY different situation than using descriptive names as pejorative. I can’t stand hearing someone use the term ‘gay’ to refer to something happening that they don’t like, which seems to have been common with young males not too long ago. The terms ‘indian giver’ and ‘gyp’ or ‘jewed’ (as in ‘he gyp’d me’ or ‘he jewed me’) are horribly offensive because they’re not describing anything accurately, they’re using an insulting (and usually inaccurate) stereotype to denigrate someone by comparing them to that group. And I still hear those terms used, often by people who have no idea of the etymology of the words and are horrified to find out what they’ve been saying afterwards.
But if Mark Twain could say the following in his day without any offense being perceived, why can’t I use the terms the same way today? IE:
“The handsome gentleman who walked in the door in a striking silk suit was a tall negro with short-cropped hair and a perfectly-trimmed goatee.”
Only because we’ve since equated the term with offense, could that description be offensive. It’s a cultural and social and etymological quirk. If we do the same with the term black, while replacing it with African American, we end up with this screwy realization that we don’t know what to call an African man to distinguish him from an African man of European descent. Not to mention that a dark-skinned man or woman with African heritage in the US often may have as much or more European heritage as he or she does African, but we’re now equating their appearance not just with a skin tone and certain physical features, but tying them directly to that side of their heritage.
When does it all end? Only when we end all racism? That’s going to take a while, just look at the term Arab, with the hard A - AY-rab. When I hear that pronounced that way, it’s usually used as a pejorative. Muslim has become a pejorative among the far right these days, often used completely irrationally as in “Barack Obama? That Muslim Ay-rab?” So should we stop using the term Muslim? How do we decide what’s acceptable or not? If my grandmother doesn’t follow the news and is somewhat isolated and continues to use the term ‘colored’ though she uses it only as a neutral descriptor, it makes her non-PC for sure, but is it in any way racist?
And what’s the problem with that?
Terms that will never be offensive are things like “Afghan” or “French” or “Chinese”. Those are perfectly descriptive without any further implications…
The words people use to deliberately denigrate others constantly change, so it’s totally fair to constantly develop other terms that don’t carry that baggage.
“It’s hard, so why should we have to keep trying?” Weak argument.
I said nothing like “it’s hard so why try”. My point is that means we’re constantly altering the language, and what language is acceptable. That doesn’t make for clear and effective communication, and clarity of language is a benefit to understanding in general, which ideally should lead to LESS racism, as we all understand one another more.
I don’t know that there’s a better route, but it doesn’t mean we can’t look for one and discuss the problems that PC language evolution creates.
Your theory that “Chinese” or “French” will never be offensive I take as unimaginative. What makes you say that? Why would Negro, Spanish for ‘Black’ which is descriptive become offensive and yet French could never be offensive? Negro was once purely descriptive. Nazi used to describe a political party but it’s a pretty offensive term today. What if the French government suddenly launched a bunch of nuclear bombs and everyone decided that the French were warmongers out for blood? Perhaps in time the term French would be derisive.
For that matter, I’ve spoken with natives of the Republic of China from the island of Taiwan who take offense at being described as Chinese despite it being the name of their country - they prefer Taiwanese.
A good friend of mine used to say “Rugs are Oriental. I’m Asian, or American. Or Japanese.” I could forsee a future in which someone says “Dogs are Afghans. I’m Hindu Kushian.”
I guarantee you it never would have occurred to the very forward-thinking Mark Twain that Huck Finn’s terminology towards his friend would be cause for it to be banned in the 1980s due to language - he would have more expected it to be banned immediately for the portrayal of interracial friendship.
Edit: Also, I thought I was describing exactly “what the problem with that” was - the PC term of African American has problems in logical usage. That was the reason my post was so long, was trying to describe the problem with that. We’re trying to come up with new ‘better’ terms and have frequently come up with less accurate terms which are fraught with their own baggage.
You have your history wrong and your odd example has more to do with people not thinking than “Political Correctness.”
Colored preceded Negro as the polite term for people whose ancestors were sub-Saharan African. It was not dropped because it was considered insulting and actually co-existed with Negro until both were replaced by black.
Negro became the preferred term, not because colored was derogatory, but because there was a hope that using a “scientific” term would elevate the way that people were treated.
When neither Negro nor colored had the desired effect, black was proposed, argued, and adopted based (primarily) on two considerations: people of European ancestry were called “white” in media reports and it was felt that the capitalized “Negro” wound up separating people at a time that integration was a widely desired goal; using “black” was seen as reclaiming an older word that had too many negative connotations.
Just as “black” was chosen to look more like “white” in media reports, in late 1989 a group of black leaders from “Rust Belt” communities, (where terms such as Irish American, Italian American, Polish, American, and similar phrases are common), proposed African American to have a term more similar to that of their white neighbors. Black was not considered disparaging and is still in use, today.
As to calling Mr. Mandela an “African American,” it was certainly a silly error, but it was not proposed or enforced by any “Politically Correct” committee or organization. It was used by someone who was simply not paying attention.
Fair enough. My knowledge about the terms colored and negro mostly comes from those who were called them and their own layperson understandings of why the terms changed. I’ve not studied the history really, which is why I clarified that I was painting with broad strokes.
You can tell me that Black is not considered disparaging but we’ve talked at length that in keeping with political correctness it is the people being called the names who get to decide what is disparaging and what isn’t. I’ve known quite a few people who are dark skinned Americans of African descent who readily object to the term black and get very upset if you don’t use African American.
In the late 90’s there was a strong movement in journalism that insisted black was NOT appropriate description, which is why the silly error came into being. I’ve actually witnessed the use of the term “African American” to describe people of African descent and non-American nationality MANY times by television news and print media; the Nelson Mandela was just the silliest and most distinct so it’s stuck in my memory. By many, I would say I’ve noticed it and pointed it out to nearby friends or family at least 8-12 times in the last 15 years.
I attended a journalism conference in 1995 in which a panel discussed at length the appropriate term and it was decided at that time that ‘black’ was definitely NOT PC and NOT acceptable to use in journalism. As such I definitely have experienced the possibility that it was PC pressure that generated the silly error. That said, I think in the last few years, the idea that ‘black’ is inappropriate seems to have faded away.
Tomndeb, I’m particularly interested if you have any thoughts on the greater question I brought up with these examples? If the offended person gets to decide what’s acceptable, and frequently the relation of what’s acceptable changes as oppressed people associate their nomenclature with the oppression, how do we ever know what’s appropriate when?
Also, a common one I’ve run into is Indian vs. American Indian vs. Native American. Different tribes or individuals prefer one to the other, and can get quite offended if the wrong one is used.
When possible it’s always preferable to use the peoples’ name such as Puyallup or Snohomish or Cherokee if you can, but of course when lumping multiple tribes together for genetic or historical discussion, that’s not possible.
But the fact that you can’t be sure of what’s appropriate is what pisses people off about PC and why it’s become a disparaging remark on the right wing. If I am trying to use the right term from my knowledge and experience from the last person I spoke to, and the term they insisted upon is now the same one that has offended the next person I talk to, what am I supposed to do? It’s overwhelming.
I certainly don’t agree that PC is cowardice as the thread title suggests, and I do think PC is typically and mostly about compassion and polite behaviour, but I can see the perspective of people who get angry about it. PC attitudes CAN and do, on occasion, go overboard. And as with any philosophy, those who behave ridiculously tar those who behave appropriately within the same philosophy with the same brush.
ie:
I’m a very strong feminist. I take a lot of issue with a lot of misogynistic culture in the US. I once, in college, held the door for a woman with a pile of books coming in behind me. She flipped out and called me a misogynist for holding the door for her. In all honesty, I would have held the door regardless of her gender, I learned it was the polite thing to do. But she assumed I did it for her gender only, and took offense at an attempt to be polite. Someone passing by overheard and commented “Don’t you hate feminists?”
The same kind of thing happens with Political Correctness. People take it to ridiculous extremes and get offended by people doing their best to behave appropriately who don’t always know what’s right in a new situation. Thus, people decide that all PC stuff is BS because of experiences like that.
From seven years ago, from Gallup: Black or African American? 24% preferred African American, 13% preferred black, but 61% said it did not matter.
From 2012, Some blacks insist: ‘I’m not African-American’ (which simply indicates that the matter is not settled, not that one term or another is better. However, it is unlikely that African American will become a universal term unless we are, indeed, to begin calling Nelson Mandela and Archbp. Desmond Tutu “African American.”)
As to what we should call any given person in any specific situation: I simply go with the best effort I have to meet my audience. When I err (in their minds), I hope to be corrected civilly and if they cannot be civil or if they choose to be offended by honest errors, I simply pity them and move on. When I am corrected, I will make the effort to conform to their request.
We have already seen, in this thread, that I was unaware that Negro had become offensive to some. No one I encounter ever makes it an issue, so the most recent examples in my life were of people thinking that it was old-fashioned, without bothering to be offended. Similarly, as I noted, I actually know more people of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese ancestry who refer to themselves as Oriental than who use Asian. On the other hand, none of them have ever “corrected” me when I have used Asian.
Contrary to an opinion expressed, above, I think that it is possible to choose to be offended. Not in every case. I think that the offense taken by a person who is slurred with “nigger,” “slope,” “rag head,” and similar epithets is a natural one that requires no deliberate effort. However, a person of African ancestry who takes offense at the word black when 13% of people in the same group prefer it and 61% in the same group don’t care, (and there are a very large number of people in Africa, Brazil, the Caribbean, and elsewhere for whom African American is not appropriate), has chosen to be offended.