I have increasingly less patience with political correctness. (By way of Mr Hib Gib.)
A wise man once said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I suppose that this sentiment no longer has any place in intelligent cultures. The mark of a civilized culture is now, apparently, where nobody ever says anything that anyone else can possibly take as offensive. I'm afraid I have come to take this attitude as an indication that the person(s) in question are simply incapable of having an intelligent debate, so they have to fall back on whining about how unfair it is that their oponent disagrees with them.
It would seem to me that only a child, an idiot, or a sheltered academian, could possibly look out at the world and take offense at people that disagree with them. Get over it folks. *Most* of the people in the world disagree with you on at least one major point, and you simply can't spend your life getting offended at this.
People who get offended by words they don't understand ("nigardly", "uvula", and "tar baby" are good examples to start with), are fair game for mocking. Except, of course, when courts and committees support their ignorance. Then the field for mocking is greatly widened.
People that get offended by people who disagree with them on religious views (critical readings of books like "The Bible" and "The Koran" are good examples) are simply burying their heads in the sand. Whoever you are, most of the world disagrees with you about religious views. Get over it.
People who get offended by nationalism are living in a dream world. For millenia, people have loved their nations, and have been willing to die for that love. And, for a very long time, when people have moved to a new nation, to become citizens of that nation, they have, in some sense, been willing to become part of the culture of that nation. I'm not sure when people started thinking that they can become part of a new nation, but not in they slightest measure integrate into the culture of that land. I suspect that this is a very new phenomenon. Now, granted, not all things old are good, but this strikes me as a very odd notion indeed.
People who get offended by being treated differently from citizens, when they are in a nation where they are not a citizen, clearly need to travel more.
People who get offended by satire need to read more. If writers across the ages had been as hung up on political correctness as we are today, some of the great works of literature would never have been penned.
And some people just need to get offended more - by things that really are offensive - so that they can distinguish between real offense and what is just something that they happen to not agree with, or, perhaps, simply don't understand.
Too often those who are carelessly, offensive, or just straight out rude hide behind the announcement that any critique of their behavior is "political correctness."
Politics is the process by which constituencies reach a common decision about what they are going to do collectively. If you want to have that dialog it helps if the parties involved take care not to pain the othersides positions in a gratuatously obnoxious manner. Being diplomatic does not mean being a wimp. In fact the tools of diplomacy, including insisting on a civil discourse can be quite powerful. Which is one reason they can be so frustrating to the otherside.
Unless, of course, you are attempting a revolution over the dominate paradigm. In which case you may well want to take the advice which appears in Mao's little read book that all negotiations should begin by informing you oponent that he is a running dog. Revolutionaries are rarely politically correct.
Posted by: Ben Hyde on April 12, 2004 03:36 PMYes, I agree that being courteous is important. And I will grant that one or two of the news items cited on the referenced page were probably culturally insensitive. Showing up to a party in blackface, for example, probably fits that category, although not necessarily, depending on the theme of the party - I wasn't there.
But being reviled for using the term "tar baby" just shows literary ignorance. The tar baby was a baby made out of tar, in the Brer Rabbit stories. There is no racist connotation in remarks involving tar babies, unless one happens to be a tar person oneself, and finds remarks about tar people to be prejudicial.
I used to think that intelligent people could discern the difference between hate speech and satire, literaly allusion, and simple disagreement. I've learned that this is clearly not the case. And, while I suppose it is reasonable to assume that people get legitimately offended by things that I say and/or do without any intent to offend, I think that our threshold for offence has gotten sufficiently low that actual debate and dialog is on the verge of becoming forbidden.
Posted by: DrBacchus on April 12, 2004 03:54 PMDr. Bacchus . . . LOL!
Love the 'tar baby' comment. Indeed, I've never seen an actual 'tar baby', but I'll definitely keeps my eyes open from now on.
On a similiar note, you do realize that even referencing 'Brer Rabbit' and 'da tar baby' is politically incorrect because it is relationship to 'Uncle Remus' and the stories he told to a white boy.
Ugh! I loved those stories. My mom used to read them to me when I was little. She did the voices and everything. One day, I hope to read them to my children and watch their faces light up like I'm sure mine did.
(Did you know you can't even find 'Song of the South' anymore? Stupid Disney.)
Something else, if you think about it, this discussions is relateable to your post on the modern church as well.
Posted by: Mr. Hibbity Gibbity on April 12, 2004 04:31 PMrbowen allowed:
"Whoever you are, most of the world disagrees with you about religious views. Get over it."
I would count nationalism as a religion. I really don't like it. It has caused as much horror as any religion.
PenGun
Do What Now ???
""Way back yander. In dem times we 'uz all un us black; we 'uz all niggers tergedder, en 'cordin' ter all de 'counts w'at I years
fokes 'uz gittin' 'long 'bout ez well in dem days ez dey is now.
But atter 'w'ile de news come dat dere wuz a pon' er water
some'rs in de naberhood, w'ich ef dey'd git inter dey'd be wash
off nice en w'ite, en den one un um, he fine de place en make er
splunge inter de pon', en come out w'ite ez a town gal. En den,
bless grashus! w'en de fokes seed it, dey make a break fer de
pon', en dem w'at wuz de soopless, dey got in fus' en dey come
out w'ite; en dem w'at wuz de nex' soopless, dey got in nex', en
dey come out merlatters; en dey wuz sech a crowd un um dat dey mighty nigh use de water up, w'ich w'en dem yuthers come long, de morest dey could do wuz ter paddle about wid der foots en dabble in it wid der han's. Dem wuz de niggers, en down ter dis day dey ain't no w'ite 'bout a nigger 'ceppin de pa'ms er der han's en de soles er der foot."
...
I think I'd best be staying out of this briar patch before I start to butt heads with the tar baby.
Posted by: Ben Hyde on April 12, 2004 09:50 PMOk, I'm going to say one more thing, and then I'm done . . . anyone can follow up with anything they want . . . I have a tendency of 'speaking my mind' a little too much on other people's blogs and I don't want to do that here . . . .
Ben, don't know exactly what you're implying here, but if, by the above story, you're attempting to convey that the Brer Rabbit/Uncle Remus stories are some how racist and only for the uneducated, then you're absolutely incorrect . . .
If anything, blacks in this country should value these stories because they were told by blacks to each other and then later written down by white men. I know, I know . . . the argument is always, "Well they were told by slaves and reflect the oppression of slavery. We'd rather remember how our ancestors were kings and queens in Africa". Ok, then if that's the case, don't keep bringing up the fact that white Europeans were your oppressors or that we colonized the western hemisphere . . . if you don't like being reminded of your past, then what makes you think we're any different.
No . . . these stories are culturally relevant. If nothing else, they should almost be looked upon as a type of historical document - reflecting how blacks began to integrate into American society and how they related to this 'new world'. Also, just because they were told by slaves, doesn't mean that they aren't creative or great works of literature. Something else . . . if by the above story, you're attempting to show how these stories stereotype blacks by depicting them as inarticulate, then again, you're incorrect.
If that was the case, then every book and every story, ever written that has any mention of the dialect or diction of a particular person or group of people should be rooted out and burned, because that would mean that they're all reinforcing stereotypes and if that's the case, then to the flames with Dickens, Shakespeare, Stevenson, Bronte, Cervantes and even the works of fantasy writers like Tolkein . . . I mean afterall . . . we shouldn't stereotype against Dwarves and Elves, now should we? And the term 'Hobbit', well now, that's just a derogatory term for the 'vertically challenged' . . . where does it stop?
Posted by: Mr. Hibbity Gibbity on April 12, 2004 10:56 PMBen, I'm rather confused by your lengthy quotation, and what it might have to do with the topic at hand. Just because a given author writes in what might be construed as racist does not mean that every metaphor in his entire works are ipso facto racist. The tar baby was a trick played on the rabbit by the fox (or was it a wolf? I forget.) The tar baby itself is not a racist metaphor.
Shakespeare was certainly racist (remember Shylock?) but that does not mean that someone who quotes "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" is using a racist metaphor.
Posted by: DrBacchus on April 13, 2004 07:55 AMBen, in your first comment in this thread you concluded, "Unless, of course, you are attempting a revolution over the dominate paradigm. In which case you may well want to take the advice which appears in Mao's little read book that all negotiations should begin by informing you oponent that he is a running dog. Revolutionaries are rarely politically correct."
Would you mind explaining the difference between "attempting a revolution over the dominant paradigm", "disagreeing with the majority", and "disagreeing with the minority that calls itself the dominant paradigm"? Insisting on the vocabulary can be a powerful debating tool. The "bolsheviks" were able to label themselves the majority party, even though they were actually in the minority.