Many years ago, when I was still a teenager, my mother gave me one of those funny key chains that featured a picture of a gorilla and the following text: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”
That message seems to encapsulate the rather recent drive to create a Utopian society by imposing a vernacular corralled by the concept of “political correctness.”
Of course, my mother was not always so jovial or light-hearted, especially when it comes to politics. In fact, my mom makes most progressives seem like Bush-appointed circuit court judges. She is an avid reader and a regular subscriber to Mother Jones. She was one of the first people in Maine to carry a Working Assets credit card. She read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee as a bedtime story to me and my sister.
Okay, I’m sort of kidding about that last part, but let’s just say that my mother pretty much defines the word, liberal. May God have mercy on her soul.
It is without question that my political opinions and rantings have caused my poor mother many a sleepless night, wondering exactly where she went wrong.
Here’s where my mom went wrong: She had the temerity to teach her children about critical thinking. She taught us to question authority, and she loves us so much that she allows us to have our own voices, not merely reflections of her own pinko-commie-subversive thought process.
My mother, like most mothers, also had a handful of favorite adages that she never hesitated to repeat;
- “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
- “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” And my favorite:
- “Don’t put that in your mouth!”
Brave New World
My mother also encouraged her children to read; and to read voraciously. Although I caused my mother consistent grief, sorrow and disappointment, I generally exceeded her ingrained expectations about reading. I recall a lengthy conversation we had over Kentucky Fried Chicken about George Orwell’s Animal Farm, a study of the good intentions and the eventual pitfalls associated with the Bolsheviks and the Russian Revolution in 1917.
All of this brings me to my point (finally) and an admission that this post was written as a lengthy response to my eldest niece, Bre Kidman, a law student and Loyola graduate. (Also a card-carrying pinko, feminazi who apparently lives in a world where every little girl receives a pink pony on their eighth birthday.)
Actually, Breanne is one of the smartest people I have stumbled across during my near half-century of wandering this planet. She’s also a gifted writer and has a sharp wit. In essence, I am intimidated about tackling her logic. Bre had a visceral reaction to one of my earlier blog posts: Talking in Your Sleep That post highlighted my contempt and loathing of the politically correct model. You can read the exchange that took place over the next three days by clicking on the comments link at the bottom of that page.
While I find “political correctness” to be a dangerous hybrid of processes envisioned years ago by George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, Breanne bases her rection on the false premise that being “politically correct” and being “polite” are essentially the same.
PC is just another way to be polite?
Breanne and I agree that people should strive to be polite, respectful and courteous. These are laudable goals and foster an ability to absorb differing perspectives and enrich our lives.
Surprisingly, especially considering that Breanne is such a strong “pro-choice” advocate, she fails to acknowledge that political correctness is too often imposed; while being polite is basically voluntary. Although I will concede that a failure to be polite has its consequences, those consequences are typically more severe when one fails to adhere to the dictates of our “newspeak.”
Breanne challenged me to provide tangible examples of when a political correctness failure has “bitten someone in the ass.” (My words, not hers)
Roll up your sleeves, Bre. It’s about to get tense. I will start with the words of a black woman. Note: I did not describe her as an African-American, but please hold your criticism until you finish reading her thoughts on the subject of political correctness and its unintended consequences
Yvette Carnell, a former Capitol Hill staffer and now a blogger, published a piece entitled Why is Pro-Black Being Attacked? The Unintended Consequence of Political Correctness.
Carnell wrote her piece in response to the uproar caused by the hiring of a white editor by the publishers of Essence Magazine, a publication specifically marketed toward black women.
An excerpt: The real cause of cognitive dissonance here is the political correctness which has returned to devour the very little angel faced darlings it was designed to protect. Political correctness was initiated in an effort to soften language and expressions which could be interpreted as offensive to disadvantaged communities.
So instead of ‘black’ or ‘colored’, those of African descent were assigned the glossier, new and improved, Negro 2.0 category of African-American, and so on. A new school of words were employed to shave the jagged edges of the language which had been blamed for causing much of the emotional angst observed in the black community.”
Another woman, BJ Gallagher, writing in the Huffington Post, offers some salient food for thought in her essay: The Problem With Political Correctness
Excerpt: I wonder, do the TV talking heads understand the true definition of the labels they hurl at public figures: “racist,” “sexist,” “bigoted,” or worse — based on nothing more than a comment taken out of context, someone’s clumsy attempt at humor, or a photo or image that’s the artistic expression of a creative person?
How many of us understand these definitions when we call someone a racist or sexist jerk? Jerk, perhaps… but racist or sexist? Perhaps… perhaps not. Do we really understand the seriousness of those labels? Or, are we simply indulging in destructive name-calling based on political correctness?
Damn, I love Google! Let’s keep going for just one more because who doesn’t love a Top-10 list? For example: this list from Jay Carlson and our friends at the ListServe blog ( 10 Ridiculous Cases of Political Correctness,) is chock full of juicy tidbits, such as an office worker who filed a complaint and was deeply offended about the words “master” and “slave” to describe computer files.
You get my point, and I am confident that you can use Google without my biased guidance. But before you blather on about mind-numbing topics like political correctness, please at least acknowledge that its consequences are real, if only to force us into uniform conformity, like cattle headed for the slaughter.
Final note: If you think there are no consequences for living in a world that has gone overboard with a zealous push for political correctness, you may want to have a chat with four former lacrosse players from Duke University or the now-disbarred District Attorney who rushed to prosecute them under the pressure of political correctness.
Be polite, and try to keep your feelings in check because they are not facts and they belong only to you.
LESSONS IN MEDIOCRITY 
This is literally the last time I desert my Property homework for your blog, Randy, but I know of only one little girl who may or may not have acquired a pony around the time she was eight and her grandmother breeds horses. Also, don’t get me started on black vs. African American. Not all “black” people are from Africa. I think it’s a presumptuous term in-and-of-itself. “People of color” is the term I feel is most appropriate if I don’t know how the specific person prefers to self-designate. How’s THAT for next-level PC?
I read your links. The part that rang truest with me in the first article:
Political correctness became the billboard on which white America announced their collective regret for the misdeeds of their ancestors. But although words have power, they are only as powerful as the truth which they broadcast. And politically correct words are frauds, mere counterfeits masquerading as true voice.
This lines up logically, for me, with the idea of labeling someone a bigot or a racist or a sexist based on information taken out of context. Political correctness is worthless without having “true voice” behind it. Similarly, political incorrectness is not as harmful as it might initially seem if, when placed into context, it doesn’t show a larger pattern of bigoted intent. That doesn’t necessarily make an isolated racist or sexist remark okay, but it DOES make further inquiry into the context necessary before further action is taken.
This, too, is a part of critical thought. It’s not enough to say “political correctness is evil” or “political correctness is the answer to all problems.” EVERYTHING must be examined within context and, I grant, hasty actions HAVE been taken with PC intentions… but I still think someone who makes a bigoted or sexist remark should attempt to clarify it, if only by way of apology for being objectively (by a “reasonable man” standard) impolite. Just like I still think anyone taking action over an un-PC remark should look into the intent before snapping up abbreviated content. That’s just a matter of “look before you leap.”
In terms of your “uniform conformity” argument, I’m not buying it. I maintain that everyone has the right to speak how they wish. Everyone else has the right to interpret it as they wish. If many people become offended by the way one person speaks, the rational exploration is not “why are all these people witch-hunting him?” but rather “what has this one person said to affect so many others?” because chances are good that it warrants a further exploration of privilege (and context) if that many people are pissed. Asking people to check their privilege with the language they use is not the same as forcing people to adopt the same ideology. For that matter, if the person DOES have racist or sexist or otherwise bigoted ideology, what term would you suggest we assign to them, so as not to offend them by resorting to “name-calling”?
By suggesting everyone simply stop trying to promote politically correct language and inclusive rhetoric, one basically says “others’ desires to be respected with language do not matter.” This isn’t newspeak. No one is eliminating words or ways of expressing concepts here. Instead, political correctness ADDS to our collective dictionary ways to refer to people that don’t carry the historical baggage of oppression. Whether or not one uses them is a personal choice, but ultimately each person is responsible for the ideology his/her language reflects.
If you feel I’ve been impolite anywhere in this exchange, I apologize. I don’t believe my feelings play any part in this, however. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that wasn’t an “emotional woman” slur. 😉
(PS: Number 5 on that list is woefully politically incorrect in both content AND intent. The transgender person in that instance almost certainly uses female pronouns and to assume it’s a ploy for a boy to get into the girls’ room wholly disregards that person’s gender identity and the struggle she faces to assert it in a gender binary society.)
LikeLike