Blacks and women celebrate Condi Rice.

If you don't mind me interrupting, I think this is the point Lash is trying to make. That is, how do the politically correct square the circle of exempting these particular transgressions, while lambasting republicans for similar offenses. The charge is not primarily one of racism, but one of double standards. I think he/she just has some problems getting his/her point across.

Apologies in advance if I have misrepresented your opinion Lash.

I don't think so, nimh, but I am very interested in a thread about PC, unPC and racism... There are questions I'd like answered and opinions I'd like to hear. We may all be too jazzed to pick it up now--but soon, I hope.

I have always fought against Political Correctness. To me, it is fake morality--forced groupthink--external control. But, there IS such a thing as racism. You'll never see me defend that. Some 'questionable' speech is just unPC--some is blatant racism/sexism...

We've ALWAYS been on the same side against REAL discrimination.

I think we just parted ways sometimes on what actually constituted real racism--and what (liberal) society deems as politically incorrect.

And, nimh-- Bruce's point--and mine-- is that bland and benign words or phrases that could possibly be misassigned racism or sexism or gayism are vociferously attacked and the 'offenders' are fired.

This (Aunt Jemima) is actual, unadultered, open racism. There's no wiggle room, no other possible meaning. You really don't see that? (I hate for you to think because I'm anti-PC means I have to be pro-racism.)

<The fact that I like Condi Rice is not what made me see that Aunt Jemima caricature as I did--but it is probably why I have been so vocal about it.>

I don't think goatf*ckers is specifically Muslim. Heard it said of other groups (Southerners, for one). That's sort of general. If you'd referred to Rice as a goatf*cker, it wouldn't be racism--just ...bad taste.

Do you see a difference?

No! Thanks, einherjar!!! You are correct. Glad at least you could decipher my intentions.

Now if I can just get you to follow me around, translating!!

<einherjar--I am a goil>

<smiles>

Thanks again!

Nimh has aptly explained why Bush-cabinet minorities are not applauded by liberals. It's because in todays political climate Bush-cabinet takes precedence over minority. Liberals just do not have a high opinion of these people, based on policy differences, and so do not feel inclined to celebrate their achievements even though they grudgingly agree that they objectively are quite impressive.

But can you really accuse the politically correct of double standards? For the politically correct to aplaud anybody that anybody must be aplaudible in their eyes, and implementing theocon policy is not considered aplaudible by them no matter the proficiency with which it is done? It seems to me the worst you can charge them with is a standard for evaluatng the aplaudibility of politicians biased in favor of politicians who share their possition on the issues. Esteem is subjective, and I for one would not expect this judgement to be made by 'objective' criteria. If this is your only charge I do not consider it a very serious one.

You have further acused democrats of either sponsoring racist slurs, or by their silence tolerating them. You have not shown evidence to back an assertion that a significant number of democrats have made racist utterances, and you have not presented significant racist utterancec which the dems have not quickly distanced themselves from. The dems may not have trmpeted the charges like they usually do when republicans step over the line, but that is politics. The dems won't score any political points over this, rather the opposite, better to deal with it in silence. If you expected anthing else from an organisation political in nature you are more naive than I would have thought.

So I'm basically with nimh on this one.

I would be happy to consider any evidence of Democrats--speaking of national figureheads now; the same ones who condemn the GOP for any un-PC comments--who have quickly distanced themselves. The NAACP has finally said something almost a week late and after receiving much criticism for not doing so, but I believe they criticized the remarks only, not the people who made them. As for the others, there is only stony silence.

But I will accept that silence is not sufficient evidence of racism to some despite that the same people are loud and public when they denounce far less hateful speech from the other side. But I'll let it drop at this point, at least until there is a link to post.

ehBeth

That is a hilarious cartoon & says it all in a nutshell!


If a person is a warmonger why the hell we should celebrate the fact that they're a woman, or the fact that they're black? A warmonger is a warmonger, no matter which gender or colour.

The difference I see is that any kind of use of words and phrases (or images in this case) that can be construed as racist and are targeted at your politician are vociferously exposed as real and blatant racism, while when people attack the use of such words about others, they're just being PC.

I mean, seriously. As Einherjar already kind of points out, we haven't actually seen ANY example of ANY Democrat uttering racial slurs except for the Uncle Tom / Aunt Jemima one - and that by, I believe, one Haitian woman and a talk radio host who is not actually a Democrat or a liberal.

The Uncle Tom thing is, to me, silly/nonsense, but yes, the mutual accusation of politically involved blacks of each other not being "black" enough goes way back and has to do with their standards of what one black should be able to expect from another (should one be able to expect solidarity as common members of a minority?). Again, the solidarity notion implies a sort of ethnic group membership-overriding-individual opinion thing which I find troubling. Group think among a minority group, that I see. But evidence of massively present racism among "the Democrats"? Seriously?

So here we are. A thread of X pages in which even the most nuanced of leftist posters have been branded as promoting racism, because of one black calling another Uncle Tom, a liberTARIAN radio host being stupid, some photoshoppped webtoons and a cartoonist drawing Condi with thick lips. I really can not see how you can have whipped that all up and yet still present yourself as the brave fighter against PC.

"Some 'questionable' speech is just unPC", you write, and "some is blatant racism/sexism". Probably. But everyone in the game thinks that the particular example of speech they're "exposing" is truly racist. The PC thing is based on sincere enough perceptions of racism too. Exactly the kind Fox, of all people, was pointing out earlier, for example - the subtle ways in which word choice changes when talk is of a woman or a black person. Who gets to decide what is real "blatant racism" and what is just "questionable speech"? The standard of conservatives - and the two of you in particular - seems to be that any liberal accusation of racism must be unfounded, hysterical even, but that in this case, now that it's Rice who's the butt of being drawn with thick lips and being called "not up to the job" instead of "unqualified", now it's clearly "blatant racism".

What I see are blatant double standards.

The example in your post is striking enough. Your anger here has focused on something like Rice being drawn with thick lips. But someone here goes on TV and calls Muslims - that's Muslims, specifically - goatf*ckers. Oh, you say, that's not specifically racist, that could be anything, I've heard it said of other folks too. Well, yeah, and I've seen Mick Jagger drawn with thick lips too. And? Man, in America someone who'd go on TV and call Muslims goatf*ckers would have his ass fired, instantly. (Yes, Islam is not a race but a religion, but I dont really see how that makes it any different).

I can not understand how you can sincerely look at that and go, oh well, thats just poetic licence, its not really racist or anything, it could be anything, one shouldnt be too difficult about it - just brush it off the table like that, like it would just be PC if someone complains about it - but you can accuse Democrats collectively of shared responsiblity for "blatant racism" for something like a cartoon in which Rice is drawn with thick lips? No, "if I'd referred to Rice as a goatf*cker, it wouldn't be racism--just ...bad taste." Ok, here goes - Van Gogh called Muslims, plural, goatf*ckers, so I can do so about blacks, right?

Condoleezza Rice is a monkeyf*cker. Those blacks are, you know.

Not racist? Would be PC to say something about it?

I don't think you do it deliberately, but I do think you are applying selective perception up to the incredulous. As pointed out, you can look at a news article that has a libertarian radio host saying something stupid and the Democrat Senator condemning him and the Democrat mayor condemning him, and not a single Democrat defending him, and come out seeing it as proof of how racist "the Democrats" are. Thats where dlowan's observation keeps applying.

The reaction to this is of course going to be: "no, but that is different. That is just plain wrong." See where my problem with the anti-PC police comes in? It's all too easy to reject someone else's feeling of being racially (or ethnically or etc.) insulted as just PC stuff. At the same time it won't ever stop noone from insisting that the example they got angered about is "different" and "real". Noone is ever being politically correct - one's own indignation is always sincere and justified. Its the others who are just being PC when all you were doing is having some innocent fun or being a little provocative as one should be allowed to be. Thats apparently how it works.


Who should they be condemning? Where are the examples of this outburst of racism in their party that the national figurehead Democrats should be falling over themselves exposing? You have still not made any case on what exactly we are talking about here. Those toons PDiddie brought, they're stupid. Some of them were racist. The whole Uncle Tom thing is highly problematic. But proportionally speaking, who should be speaking out about what? Doonesbury draws a series of cartoons in which GWB calls people by demeaning nicknames and one of them has Rice being called brown sugar, so the Democrat national figureheads should rally and collectively denounce the blatant racism of it? That just seems silly to me.

If you have any actual better examples of things they should be rallying about, then bring them already for Gods sake, for this discussion is getting eerily virtual. Thus far I have to say it has really looked like you're just looking for a stick to hit the dog with.

All I needed to know about America I learned last night, watching the American Idol Christmas special. There was something about seeing Ruben Stutter, Fantasia (a real talent, IMO) and white Texan Kelly Clarkson singing gospel together in a sanitized, staged enviornment that really freaked me out.

Cav-- I could have sworn you had a couple of interesting posts here about your views on PC. I was going to respond--and they're gone.

------

I've tried with no success to describe what I see as the difference in unPC and demographically-specific slurs. I can understan that you and others hink its merely a biased personal view of the beholder--but I disagree.

I think, nimh, you are incorrect in your statement that no one is ever being politically correct. Its sort of mind-boggling that you say that. Certainly, many people are reacting out of honest anger--as I am--but there is a HUGE contingent of people who use PC as a weapon against their opponents, or as mind control (The Thought Police).

(And, nimh, I was so focused on the term 'goatf*ckers' that I paid no attention to "Muslims are..." Yes, of course, that's the same as Aunt Jemima. Its specific.)

And. I don't consider myself a "brave fighter against PC." I instinctively hated it since I first became aware of it in the mid-80's. The concept of the media and the liberal community rewriting the dictionary--and suddenly giving my language different meanings is unacceptable to me. It is the MEANING that is important, isn't it? Statements that can be taken more than one way--and may not be racist or sexist-----> are unPC.

Statements that cannot be taken any other way, and are racist, sexist or something-ist every way you look at it-----> should be condemned by people who hate racism, sexism, and other-isms. IMHO.

---------
I think everyone has pretty much established their opinions. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I would like it if people understood my view--but it's not necessary.

I understand the opinions represented here.

This issue is becoming more interesting for me. But, it is quite complicated.

Cav-- I could have sworn you had a couple of interesting posts here about your views on PC. I was going to respond--and they're gone.

Meh, so it goes, Lash. What's my view on PC? Anything used as a political weapon is inherently wrong without just cause, plain and simple. That in itself covers a whole lot of stuff.

Lots of great posts from nimh since I last checked in. This one is particularly good, one of those be-alls and end-alls that deserve to end a discussion:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1036222#1036222

(We've had the PC symposium before, not that I'm against having it again, have already been fighting the impulse to get anti-PC quotes from the previous go-round(s). :-))

Well if the discussion re Condi Rice and racism is 'ended', why not have the PC discussion here since it all seems to sort of be related? I'm not at all opposed to importing comments from other threads when they are pertinent. Sure saves a lot of time not having to think up a way to say something in a different way.

Here's one, itself an offshoot:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18833

Well I read through some of that thread and Bear's baby oil and chicken grease seems to have killed it. Nothing like a little un-PC we can ALL agree with it to settle things.

But since we're in a different forum and maybe can attract some different points of view, I'm with Lash that this would be an interesting discussion.

I certainly have done my share of untentionally offending people on A2K and will no doubt cotninue to do that as my point of view and opinions are definitely offensive to some. At the same time, I wholeheartedly approve the policy of enforcing the 'no personal attacks' rule.

And now, the question is always what is a personal attack? Dlowan saw some of Lash's (and probably my) observations as personally directed. I didn't see it that way, nor did Lash. Nimh did. What makes the difference do you think? Can we simply not express opinions in generalities or use any form of exaggeratin for effect without being un-PC or offending somebody?

Speaking for myself: saying that I was "encouraging racism" by the opinions that I had posted here was both rudely offensive and wildly irrational. However, political correctness had nothing whatsoever to do with it. I have also not appealed to or claimed any argument of political correctness in protesting it. Neither has dlowan. It was not "un-PC" - it was simply way out.

I also never claimed that Lash shouldn't have the right to say it, or should have been censored, or whatever. She's totally free to express such opinions no matter how stupid - and we'll then angrily react in equal freedom. What is PC or un-PC about any of that I wouldnt know.

If you "use exaggeration for effect" when blaming someone or putting him down he's gonna be "offended", yes - ever since the Stone Age, probably. PC was something a little more specific, I thought. Like about (rightfully or wrongfully) exposing/denouncing/checking/etc language/behaviour/etc vis-a-vis population groups (women, minorities) or their characteristics and trying to apply some kind of punishment/censorship to it.

(Of course, I know that "PC" for some has become a shorthand dismissal of any kind of admonishment concerning anything one has said or done, whatsoever - as in, "oh I'm not allowed to call BPB an ass*hole on this board, is this place so PC?" - but then the term loses all meaning).

Now when it comes to the original topic of the thread, the question of PC does become interestingly relevant again. The request to laud an African-American Cabinet member, even though you deeply resent her politics, just because, you know, she's an African-American who managed to become a Cabinet member. I'm for that, myself, but it's definitely a PC sort of request, and I also understand why resentful Dems dont feel like it right now. Or a cartoon that draws Rice with thick lips - caricatures have to exaggerate some physical feature, thats what they do, but in this case it was a feature thats related to her race - can one use such a form of exaggeration for effect without being un-PC?

When somebody says all Republicans and/or Conservatives are selfish idiots and/or racist, is that person referring to me personally? When somebody says a policy or practice is stupid or racist and I don't see it that way or I even support the policy, should I interpret that to mean that I am being called racist?

Well I don't see it that way, for if we cannot challenge principles, policies, practices etc. lest we offend those who hold or support them, we might as well close up shop here on A2K as we won't be able to discuss anything at all. Having said that, I suppose it is probably helpful to the discussion when some manner of diplomacy is applied.

(When somebody says Foxfyre is an idiot or racist or whatever, then yeah, I take that personally and personally resent it. And I'm petty enough that it takes me awhile to regain respect or affection for anybody who says it. Not so, however, if a position I hold is challenged.)

So how does this relate to political correctness? It is those very observations and generalities that are used to condemn the opposition and further an ideology or agenda. I used the example of Trent Lott's comment at Strom Thurmond's birthday party. For something that innocent and unintentional, Lott's opponents used it as a weapon to tar Lott with the racist brush--he was accused of condoning racial segregation by virtue of an innocent referral to an election that occurred a half century before. However ludicrous the charges, the comment itself was sufficently un-PC to cost Lott his position as Senate Majority Leader.

I am saying this only as illustration of where I am coming from here. I do not hold that an un-PC comment is sufficient to draw absolute conclusions about a person's attitude about anything, and that includes those 'exaggerations for effect' previously mentioned. But I digress.....on to the next post.

Nimh writes:


Peggy Noonan's essay, posted earlier in this thread, gently illustrated both the un-PC and the realistic truths here.

"She isn't very feminine.

My first thought was, neither was Colin."

So what is political correctness anyway? I define it as anything that can be interpreted as racist or sexist or any other '-ist' currently considered to be inappropriate.

In other words, even though Peggy observed how remarkable it was that a young black woman would now be one of the nation's most powerful people and how that made us 'some kind of country', the fact that she is a woman or whether she is attractive or feminine or 'gives off sexual sparks' should not be criteria for judging her qualifcations or abilities to be Secretary of State. The same principle should apply to her race.

It has ocurred to me, however, that the propensity for the media and others (even Peggy) to focus on the fact that she is the 'first black' or "first black woman' to be appointed Secretary of State and, in fact, to make that the focus, is in itself un-PC. While I am not a particularly PC person and don't much importance on it, I would prefer they focus on her experience and qualifications.

So what is 'allowable' in the national portrayal and discussion re Condi Rice? Well, a cartoon drawn showing her with thick lips I see as borderline. While caricature by nature emphazes prominent physical features, Condi's lips are full but no more than most Caucasians. So if Negroid features are emphasized in order to overtly or subtlely enhance a "house nig....." image, then yes that is decidedly un-PC as well as racist.

So far as criticizing her ideology, policies, behavior, or proposals, all is fair game so long as she is treated no differently than any person would be treated. I think to defer criticism by virtue of her being a woman or black would in itself be sexist or racist. It's only when it is suggested that she obtained her position or because she is a woman or because she is black that crosses the line I think. I also personally deeply resent the suggestion that she is the President's lackey or subservient 'yes man' too, but that is somewhat a different thing. That is insulting to her and her accomplishments and ability more than her gender or race......UNLESS it is implied that her being black or female contributes to it.

In other words, it is PC to treat her the same as Cheney or Rumsfield or Powell would be treated.