What's so wrong about being "politically correct"?

citizenzen

citizenzen

Custom User Title
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Wikipedia: Political correctness is a term applied to language, ideas, policies, or behavior seen by some as seeking to minimize offense to gender, racial, cultural, disabled, aged or other identity groups.

The term PC has been thrown around the forum so much lately that I thought we might as well face it head-on. Some folks seem to think that it's a bad thing, but I'm not so sure.

What is the difference between PC and an enlightened point of view? What is the difference between PC and politeness or civility? It seems like a pretty gray area to me, but some of you might have some other thoughts on the matter.
 
I think when it's best developed, political correctness is civility and politeness. And it also is seeking to uphold equality for all people and dispel prejudice and faulty assumptions about others (stereotypes). How one's ideas are perceived depends a lot on others' assumptions about your motivations.

But then there is when it becomes an end in itself and it can end up reifying the categories and concepts it seeks to dissipate through hushing them from public dialogue... leading to an outwardly polite but inwardly prejudiced point of view.

What comes to mind for me is a smart growth conference I went to a few years ago in LA. I sat in on a session on "disadvantaged" populations and assisting their communities. For the most part, the language was faultless, but the attitude of these "benefactors" who sought to "beautify" and "help" the poor was lousy. It was patronizing, condescending and even worse... poorly grounded in data. It reified that the poor were poor because they are lazy or uncreative and other such stereotypes. For example, people made all sorts of condescending hypotheses as to why the poor weren't using the community gardens they "gave" to the community. This included things like the poor being so uninformed about nutrition as to not want vegetables or that they were lazy and unwilling to spend time exercising in gardening. When I asked if anyone had asked people why they weren't using them, it was like a novel idea. Ask the poor? Maybe even ask what the poor wanted? :rolleyes: Then I suggested other, more practical and logical reasons... maybe people worked too many hours to have the energy or daylight hours to garden. Maybe people had small children and did not know if the garden was a suitable place. Maybe people felt the neighborhood was too dangerous to be outside. Maybe the gardens, because they were a "gift" from richer people were resented as an attempt to change the community from the outside. Maybe people didn't want a garden, but rather a basketball court or a playground. Who knows? The only way is to ask.

So I can see both sides. I think if people decry PC just because it advocates civility, that is just a cop-out for poor behavior. But I can also see that PC is not the same thing as actually caring about people and their needs, and PC language doesn't mean people see others as equals. In fact, it can sometimes mask people's prejudices and stereotypes even from themselves, as they can pat themselves on the back for their liberal-minded views while secretly harboring a patronizing perspective.
 
p_o_o said:
In fact, it can sometimes mask people's prejudices and stereotypes even from themselves, as they can pat themselves on the back for their liberal-minded views while secretly harboring a patronizing perspective.
Click to expand...

I've had that experience. I grew up in a neighborhood with a large black population and most of my friends through middle school were black. I only vaguely recall this interaction, but I remember being in a group of white people at one time. I referred to a particular individual, so as to describe his appearance, as black. I think it may have been a celebrity. This was a big no-no apparently because I shouldn't have used his skin color as a descriptor and that was a period of time when the more lengthy term "african american" was considered pc. I think we're back to being able to say black again now, but I found the whole situation pretty silly. My black friends didn't care if I used the word black. Some white people did. Similarly I got strong reactions from white people when I suggested that two specific black people looked somewhat similar. I don't quite remember the context. If I had said the same thing about two white people nobody would have cared. Certainly I don't think all black people look alike but a bunch of white people inferred such, or at the very least one inferred such and the rest jumped on the bandwagon. I went through a few years where, when around white people, I was very cautious about talking about people of color in any way connected to that physical characteristic. I can remember times where I was attempting to describe an actor and completely avoided reference to skin color because I was afraid I might offend some white person's sensibilities about how to refer to blacks.

More recently I saw on the news, a white man from Africa who now lives in America referred to himself as African and American on a college campus. He got into trouble for it. I'd give more specifics but google's news search is acting up and so I can't link to an article about it.

I do think that being PC can be a good thing and more strongly that not being PC for the sake of not being PC is frequently a bad thing. But I also think PCness for the sake of PCness is pretty stupid and the level of nuance sometimes entailed by PCness is ridiculous. It gets to the point that you have to keep up with the latest trends in language so as to not offend anyone. I don't try so hard to keep up with the nuance anymore and I find that suits me much better.
 
From the free dictionary
politically correct adj. Abbr. PC 1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
2. Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with one and a problem with two, so that might explain the disparity?

Or how about this one from the translation directory?[QUOTE]Politically correct: Treating other people's religion, culture, etc. with sensitivity. Normally used as a term of denigration.[/QUOTE] Therefor it is not politically correct to be politically correct.

I once stood at a train station waiting for a man I was told to pick up. They said he was tall, grey hari and he'd be wearing a grey suit. I looked down the group of folks waiting... a train loaded unloaded, I looked to see if anyone familiar was left during the exchange. I walked up to a few fellows and then finally found the man I was to pick up. I told him it would have been handy if they told me he was black.

PC to me is when we distort facts or leave out principle pieces of the story due to our own concerns.
 
I don't see the problem with describing/identifying someone by colour. "oh you know that guy." "what guy?" "I don't know his name! That black dude!" "Oooooh yeah, what about him?" Something like that would be easy here as there is only one black guy.. I have no idea his name... But I know he's black... So I can quickly Identify him to others, it's not racist... It is what it is... simple a description of his colour.

police are looking for a caucasian male.... 5ft with blue eyes....

Man... I have blue eyes... How dare they use colour to ID this dude.... And I'm white! RACISTS! Wait... I'm male too! Sexists! And they have something agaisnt short people!? Why did they have to mention his height!?..... Cause they are attempting to Identify someone and giving you the simple descriptions which you will pick up on.

*shrugs*

I don't tend to be PC as PC is a Pile of Crap. I use colour sexuality and all sorts to describe people lol.

It isn't my problem if someone is offended when offense isn't meant... The guy who is black... Well you are black are you not? Am I lying? Am I distorting anything? No.. Wheres the problem...
 
Alex, and to other UKers too,

is this race issue much less of an issue in the UK? I wonder if that's largely a US thing.
 
ACK! Too late to edit.... (copies and pastes)


----EDIT----

Just thinking about that last paragraph.. It's true that this happens.. You identify a person as white (I'll do white for the PC's just to show I am not picking on the b**** people.)

So ID'd this guy as white... If he then is offended because I have said he is white, when he is white. And I meant no ill will nor aggression nor anything but to simply describe the person I was refering to.. And this person is offended. Or someone who is in this conversation is offended by my description.... They then, surley have some issue with colour -MEANING- something more? Or have some kind of insecurity? Are you uncertain and not feeling secure with your colour? *shrugs* It's just colour doesn't mean anything.... Honest.

--Dauer--

No..... "certain" areas can focus on the colour of your skin as a very important factor.... You can go some places example.. Birmingham.. Certain areas there... If you're white.... Watch out. I know a few places in Leeds and Sheffield... They don't take too kindly to indians.

You have the "yardies" in london.. A gang of people whom pride themself on the fact they have dark skin... Or Combat 18 who pride themself on being white... You also have the political group BNP... Very anti-anything which isn't white... And they are growing in popularity right now......


There is even an area in the city near me that has a big hate for black people..... There are some areas like that Dauer.. Here where I live there really isn't an issue of race... But we tend to use colours to describe Naughty us.


Also -events- can be places which inspire/fuel racial hate... No idea why search me... But football (soccer *rolls eyes*) is one of the places it is very high.

Regards
Ba Ba b**** sheep.
 
In some ways, I would prefer to reclaim words and change their meaning, thus confronting negative stereotypes head-on and transforming them... than to ignore them or hush it up as sometimes happens.

I grew up poor. No sense in calling it "disadvantaged" or "economically deficient" or whatever. We were poor. I don't mind calling it what it was.

I think it's odd that people get uptight about skin color because I wasn't raised knowing it made any difference. I didn't get to watch TV and was very sheltered, so when I went to public school at about 8 years old, it was a shocker that people thought about race at all. I just saw skin color as one more way people were different from each other- like having blue vs. brown eyes or being tall vs. short.

Ever since, I notice that in liberal circles, we should be talking with the latest fashionable term for this or that person. It was not OK to say someone was black, then it was, then it wasn't, etc. When I was in High School, one of my classmates was an immigrant from Uganda and she was offended at the term "African American." In her mind, Africa wasn't some monolithic place and she had nothing in common with blacks/African Americans in the States. She wanted to be seen as Ugandan-American.

What I've noticed is that prejudice often continues until people are thoroughly comfortable with each other as people, knowing something about one another and working and living together. Then the stereotypes become something to poke at, to laugh at. At that point, people who are still stuck in PC-land out of fashion or fear rather than real understanding, become all offended. But what is tricky is how to determine when stereotypes and jokes are arising from mutual understanding and are actually being released through this laughter, versus when they are arising from actual ignorance and mean-spirited derision.

In the vein of amusement and illustration of the light-hearted and thought provoking aspect of turning un-PC thought in on liberal whiteness... here is:

www.stuffwhitepeoplelike.com

When I first stumbled upon this, I laughed for hours. I could see the tension between my working poor roots and the liberal whiteness I'd learned through going to an "advantaged area" high school and then college. Hee. Fun stuff.
 
citizenzen said:
Wikipedia: Political correctness is a term applied to language, ideas, policies, or behavior seen by some as seeking to minimize offense to gender, racial, cultural, disabled, aged or other identity groups.

The term PC has been thrown around the forum so much lately that I thought we might as well face it head-on. Some folks seem to think that it's a bad thing, but I'm not so sure.

What is the difference between PC and an enlightened point of view? What is the difference between PC and politeness or civility? It seems like a pretty gray area to me, but some of you might have some other thoughts on the matter.
Click to expand...

May I reframe the question?
Perhaps we can ask why one group looks down on an egalitarian posture when the intent is merely to be kind and avoid marginalizing another group or culture/sub-culture.
As usual, Kim articulates this much better than I can.
So far I have seen three members really "throw around" the term PC. One is a crackpot, another is a Scot and the third is a subscriber to what is termed the "green meme"
Let's suppose that the person who was an advocate for being PC was also trained in Zen, and therefore able to trancend to some degree their own POV. So with empathy for all sentient beings this Zen trained person could see how from a conservative perspective being PC isn't just being kind or considerate but an attempt to use these things as an excuse for being self-righteous and arrogant. This isn't to say this perspective is right or even accurate all the time but there is enough element of truth to warrant consideration.
Seeing this, the Zen trained might be aware how "knee-jerk" the PC position appears in the conservative eye and while not compromising on their own values, can have compassion for the opposing view.

Of course this is an incredibly nuanced position. But how can the gap between "memes" ever be bridged except through an acceptance and understanding that all value systems have some real value.
 
It would be jolly helpful if the meaning and the acceptability of words remained constant, in this regard.

Sensivity is good I think, but over-sensitivity can be galling for others. I remember a colleague a few years ago being berated for asking for a "black coffee." He was told he should have asked for one with "no milk". Clearly on this basis, his list of what he did not want in his coffee would have been literally endless. :rolleyes:

s.
 
Snoopy said:
It would be jolly helpful if the meaning and the acceptability of words remained constant, in this regard.

Sensivity is good I think, but over-sensitivity can be galling for others. I remember a colleague a few years ago being berated for asking for a "black coffee." He was told he should have asked for one with "no milk". Clearly on this basis, his list of what he did not want in his coffee would have been literally endless. :rolleyes:

s.
Click to expand...
Yes, flight attendants instead of stewards and stewardesses, wait staff instead of waiters and waitresses... we are gonna change pool so the white ball no longer knocks all the colored balls in and since anytime you knock the black ball in you automatically lose, we'll change that too. So why is it when the black ball goes in, the game is over but when the white ball goes in it gets to come back and start over?

Now the above is a comedy sketch...but it is also PC reality.
 
Being Politically correct is adjusting ones language to appear to the observer to support a preconceived set of ideals. It has become little more than a formalised adoption of political spin that can be learned by rote and is never deviated from. It does not serve the people it proposes to protect, it serves the commentator, and is as readily and easily used to cover and disguise the very prejudices it proposes to defend against. Or, as happened here recently, be used to justify an equally unacceptable set of prejudices. Being PC, however well meaning, means pandering to a set of rigid rules that are nothing less than self-censorship. Again this censorship is more of an aid to the prejudiced than the group that is meant to be being defended in its use, its easy to hide behind the 'soundbites' of PC.

It is a sort of politico-speak that has leaked into broader usage. It was developed for consensus of language in legalese document and policy and there it has some merit. But to fall back on it in general conversation can mean several things, none of them entirely healthy or indicative of real social tolerance. If you know you are not racist you should have the confidence to say so in your own words and not fall back on a PC soundbite that may very well be ambiguous given the nuance of the conversation. Being honest in your own words reveals where you really stand. Which to my mind is far more preferable than the memo's of lawyers.
 
Id give you some rep for this but cant give anymore to you at present haha
 
path_of_one said:
I grew up poor. No sense in calling it "disadvantaged" or "economically deficient" or whatever. We were poor. I don't mind calling it what it was.
Click to expand...

No shame being poor.....
smile.gif


Oy..... If, I were a rich man.... Yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum! All day long I'd; biddy biddy bum! If I were a wealthy man...... I!!!Wouldn't have to work hard!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top