Political Correctness: Make a Judgment

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Finn and I are on the same side of an argument more often than we are not, but this time I tend to go more with Snood's take except I don't see that Finn's comment reflects anything other than his sense of the situation.

In our culture, it is natural and costs nothing to apologize if somebody is offended whether or not one intended offense or whether the other person should have been offended. That doesn't seem to carry over to message boards much, but in the real world, an "I'm sorry; I didn't intend to offend" will sometimes diffuse an awkward situation unless the other person is a jerk or wants to take advantage of being offended.

On the other hand, I would think Romney would be prudent to explain his definition of the term and that's how he intended it. And, it would demonstrate intellectual honesty and civility for the P.C. police to accept that explanation and then drop it.

And someone might apologize to someone who was on the verge of violence simply to avoid getting thumped, but that doesn't mean the person deserved an apology.

The people who were offended by Romney's use of the terms did not deserve an apology, and apologizing to people who are looking to be offended only encourages them and/or suggests that such thin-skinned attitudes in public life are rational.

Contrast Romney's comment with those of Senator Allen or Rev Jackson.

Whether macacaa was meant to suggest a monkey or has some obscure Algerian meaning; or even if it was a stumbling attempt to say mahatma, it's pretty clear Allen used it to ridicule the individual and and it's pretty tough to imagine it was was not linked in some way to the man's ethnicity or skin color. He could have just as easily used a term like "Pal," or "Buddy," and still singled the guy as someone with less than benign or neutral intent.

Allen owed the man an apology, and his use of the term, at least, reflected poorly on him.

When Jesse Jackson used the phrase Hymie Town, he owed jews an apology and the term reflected poorly on him.

Not the case with Romney.

It is not an issue upon which the fate of the nation is balanced, but then how many issued discussed in this forum are?

Rationally, you are absolutely right.

Practically, it doesn't hurt to apologize for any unintended offense. I don't think such apology has to include agreement that word was offensive.

I certainly agree with the sentiment that we should neither accommodate nor afford legitimacy to the P.C. police who try to make something racist that isn't. But how does a serious candidate keep from completely derailing his meesage unless he accommodates the P.C. police these days?

0 Replies

I enjoyed "Everything is Illuminated" last night, and had to bring one of the interesting related exchanges from the movie. The Russian grandson of the driver was asking questions about homosexuals and Negroes--and the American character said "You're not supposed to say that word."

The Russian said "Why not? I think the Negroes are premium, especially Micheal Jackson..." LOL

It just seems so weird. "We're not supposed to say that"....no matter the intent or the sentiment behind it.

Also remember the Dire Straits song "I Want My MTV"....that little faggot, he's a millionaire.... I never felt guilty saying that--or singing it. (Because it was satire?)

Just throwing stuff out.

BTW--wonderful movie.

0 Replies

While it wasn't always the case, the word negroes is now a pejorative in the US.

It would be like saying, I think the Niggers are premium, especially Michael Jackson..."

The sense in which the word faggot is used in the Dire Straits song is also a pejorative used against males who aren't necessarily homosexual. The word implies a negative attitude towards homosexuality, and as applied against heterosexuals, it is meant to emasculate.

-----------------

The movie Everything Is Illuminated features music by the band Gogol Bordello, which is fronted by Eugene Hutz, the actor who played Alex, the naive character who uttered that line from the movie.

He's a great actor, and his band plays a really premium gypsy punk.

0 Replies

Thanks for the response, Infra. I appreciated the info about the actor/band.

{I guess the thought police haven't informed you that we aren't allowed to say "gypsy."} Laughing

Seriously, when, why and how did Negro become unacceptable?

race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.

I see that it is no longer in technical use-- you know I was taught these divisions/words in school. Is it only "Negro" that isn't used? Is it all three? I don't hear "Mongoloid" much either. When did "Negro" get added to the verboten pile? What about "Caucasian"? Do you really think "Negro" is equal to "nigger"?

I was listening to PBS and there is a push to remove the term "mentally retarded" from use. The interviewer asked a mentally retarded girl which term she preferred--he offered a list--and she disliked all of them. One of the mentally retarded men interviewed said he hated "retarded" because people had teased him using that word. I can understand him hating it--but won't the word chosen to ameliorate bad feelings then become the one used by abusive people and added to the heap of words no one can say?

0 Replies

Meanwhile, Isaiah Washington seems forced into counseling for saying "faggot"...

Bizarre...

Maybe the government can set up Reindoctrinization Facilities for us all when we say the wrong words.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Thanks for the response, Infra. I appreciated the info about the actor/band.

{I guess the thought police haven't informed you that we aren't allowed to say "gypsy."}

Seriously, when, why and how did Negro become unacceptable?

race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.

I see that it is no longer in technical use-- you know I was taught these divisions/words in school. Is it only "Negro" that isn't used? Is it all three? I don't hear "Mongoloid" much either. When did "Negro" get added to the verboten pile? What about "Caucasian"? Do you really think "Negro" is equal to "nigger"?

I was listening to PBS and there is a push to remove the term "mentally retarded" from use. The interviewer asked a mentally retarded girl which term she preferred--he offered a list--and she disliked all of them. One of the mentally retarded men interviewed said he hated "retarded" because people had teased him using that word. I can understand him hating it--but won't the word chosen to ameliorate bad feelings then become the one used by abusive people and added to the heap of words no one can say?

Come, Lash - are you actually trying to say you didn't know "Negro" was not nice to call a black person?

0 Replies

I remember learning that Negro was frowned upon, in the neighborhood of 20 years ago. Having grown up in Small Town Wisconsin, I had only ever laid eyes on a handful of Black people. This guy was a bit militant and after bugging at the use of Negro; he jumped in someone's face asking "Do I look Black to you?" I remember wondering; if I can't say Negro, and I can't say Black; what the hell am I supposed to say if the subject ever comes up? Anyway, to this man; only African American was acceptable. But how would I have ever known that?

My Grandma used to tell a story about her very old Aunt. At some point a concerned employee at some facility or other asked "what about the invalid?" Reportedly; she cried and cried and when pressed for why answered, "That isn't nice... just because I'm a cripple is no reason to call me invalid."

For as long as it remains fun to make fun of differences; I don't think the vocabulary can be fixed. SNL is world famous for writing off-color jokes and skits and I honestly believe this helps to decrease some of the stigma of being different... rather than increase it.

People will always use Gay, Female, Mentally retarded to some degree as insults for people who are not. Does anyone really want Saturday Night Live to Cease and Desist? Too often, I think, the degree of offense can only be measured by individual reaction... so I don't really see any solution.

Some of my all time favorite jokes "off-color", and I don't think they need to be forbidden:
Ask the Don Juan wannabe braggart;
"Do you even remember your first blowjob? How did it taste?"
After a false accusation about a guy's homosexuality;
"John's not gay Rolling Eyes

" (matter of factly->) "he just likes the taste of cum."
While some homosexuals may be offended by such banter; my empirical experience has been very positive when I cast the homophobe as homosexual in satire. Sometimes what may seem insensitive, actually works more towards a solidarity. And few things are more fun that pigeon-holing a homophobe. Idea

0 Replies

Who can keep track of what is acceptable?

Colored begat Negro begat Black begat Afro-American begat African American

Indian begat Native American begat Indian begat Indigenous American

Chinaman begat Oriental begat Asian

Spanish begat Chicano begat Hispanic begat Latino

I can understand why a black person might feel offended by the use of "negro." When it's use was prevalent, it was benign and intended as an alternative to the more demeaning terms in common usage, but it still harkens back to a day when there was a societally acceptable demarcation between the races (is that an acceptable term?), and it was a name whites chose for blacks.

In the 60's blacks chose to be called "Black." From a descriptive standpoint it has its flaws, but it was their choice, and they were all for it and so, so was I.

After "Black" became common usage, the rest, in my opinion, became fashion and self-indulgence.

What the heck is the meaningful difference between "Afro-American" and "African-American?"

I recall someone with whom I worked named Robert who was downright rude when correcting anyone who called him Bob. I've also met similar Josephs, Phillips, and Andrews.

It seems to me that the bottom line is that if we assume positive intent in people we will usually be closer to the mark and lead less restive lives.

Sometimes easier said than done but still a good rule of thumb.

Thin skins not only bleed more easily, they annoy the heck out of the rest of us.

0 Replies

Yeah, yeah, whatever. No white person with an iota of common sense would think it okay to call a black person a negro (to his or her face) in 2007.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I don't hear "Mongoloid" much either.

In which context? For people with Dow-syndrome or for the race?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Yeah, yeah, whatever. No white person with an iota of common sense would think it okay to call a black person a negro (to his or her face) in 2007.

Snood your often professed disdain for me, and your exceedingly thin skin, seems to have hampered your ability to read.

I've offered no excuse for the use of "negro."

It is either a reflection of ill intent or, as you suggest, a lack of common sense.

The former warrants an angry reaction, but does the latter?

By the way, "Yeah, yeah, whatever" is so withering a rhetorical device. How long did it take you to perfect it?

0 Replies

It's as much "device" as I warrant any exchange with you is worth.

Your petty pseudo-intellectual apologies for racist attitudes have just barely enough entertainment value to keep you a millimeter or two from the ignore zone.

...and you won't be missed.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

It's as much "device" as I warrant any exchange with you is worth.

Your petty pseudo-intellectual apologies for racist attitudes have just barely enough entertainment value to keep you a millimeter or two from the ignore zone.

...and you won't be missed.

Oh no Bre'r Fox, don't throw me in the Ignore Zone!

0 Replies

The reason Snood seems so thin skinned is that this forum has subjected him and other blacks to all sorts of name calling, then had the posters in question smugly come back with some version of "Oh dear, yet another word that I'm not allowed to say. Honestly, how is ANYONE supposed to keep up with them all?"

Fact is, forty years ago it was understood that white males ran things, and others were ranked beneath them in some sort of order. The language reflected this.

As group after group emerged to demand their rights and expected to be treated as equals, the language considered appropriate to refer to them changed as well. For instance, it once was considered acceptable to refer to female colleagues as "girls". That has largely, though not completely, disappeared-certainly few would be surprised if a female employee spoke up against it.

Much of the white population goes with the flow on this. However, a certain percentage choose instead to dwell on how their rights to speak the language are supposedly being violated by those who benefit from the change in terminology.

There might be few old timers who never got wind of the change, and a few foreigners whose major exposure to America is 1960's TV reruns, who inadvertantly use the old phrases. But the vast majority of complainants are people who had a great deal of fun using the old terms, and really resent having those whom they were brought up to consider inferior insisting on a change in how they are to be addressed.

Unfortunately for these people, as time moves on and both government and business expect people to understand these changes-after all, businesses advertise to bring people in, not to have their employees drive people away-their position becomes less and less believable and they are forced to turn to talk radio and message boards to bleat, "Another word I can't call people? How is poor me supposed to keep up with it all?"

0 Replies

For those who wonder why all the fuss over terms, allow me to give a non racial or non ethnic example.

True story.

A major US automaker called the department where the outside body of the car was drawn up the Styling Department.

As the department was staffed by engineers, many with advanced degrees, this word chafed. It denoted something added as quickie afterthought to the car, for marketing purposes, instead of an integral part of the automobile. So the head of the Syling Department lobbied the higherups for years to get the department name changed to Design Department, all to no avail.

Finally, the head received a memo late one afternoon. His prayers had been answered, the company had finally agreed to change the name from the Styling Department to Design. Picking up the phone immediately, the department head dialed the head of the maintenance department.

"I want the name "Design Department" on the front door of this office tomorrow morning!!!!" he said, using no uncertain terms.

The point? Terms do matter, they matter a great deal, especially if the person whose term is being changed felt belittled by the old one.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

The reason Snood seems so thin skinned is that this forum has subjected him and other blacks to all sorts of name calling, then had the posters in question smugly come back with some version of "Oh dear, yet another word that I'm not allowed to say. Honestly, how is ANYONE supposed to keep up with them all?"

Fact is, forty years ago it was understood that white males ran things, and others were ranked beneath them in some sort of order. The language reflected this.

As group after group emerged to demand their rights and expected to be treated as equals, the language considered appropriate to refer to them changed as well. For instance, it once was considered acceptable to refer to female colleagues as "girls". That has largely, though not completely, disappeared-certainly few would be surprised if a female employee spoke up against it.

Much of the white population goes with the flow on this. However, a certain percentage choose instead to dwell on how their rights to speak the language are supposedly being violated by those who benefit from the change in terminology.

There might be few old timers who never got wind of the change, and a few foreigners whose major exposure to America is 1960's TV reruns, who inadvertantly use the old phrases. But the vast majority of complainants are people who had a great deal of fun using the old terms, and really resent having those whom they were brought up to consider inferior insisting on a change in how they are to be addressed.

Unfortunately for these people, as time moves on and both government and business expect people to understand these changes-after all, businesses advertise to bring people in, not to have their employees drive people away-their position becomes less and less believable and they are forced to turn to talk radio and message boards to bleat, "Another word I can't call people? How is poor me supposed to keep up with it all?"

This is the worst sort of calumny and you're called on it you SOB. Either offer evidence that I (a poster in question) have subjected Snood or any other black on A2K to any sort of name calling associated with their race or crawl back in your sanctimonious hole.

If you ever had a modicum of reading comprehension then, clearly, it has been as diminished by your politics as Snood's has by his hyper-sensitivity. How typical that you see what you want to rather than what is written.

0 Replies

See Keltic - he's really not a clueless racist SOB. It's just that yew and me kant reed gud.

0 Replies

Congratulations to Keltic on his two posts, both the first and the second, which throw into sharp relief the issue at hand. When we had another thread on the use of the term "tarbaby," i was frankly mystified, and said as much, because i had always associated the term with its figurative meaning, as exemplified in the Song of the South tale of "Uncle Remus." But i recognize that it is offensive, and having thought about it since that time, i would not use it.

I often refer to people here sarcastically as "boy." There is no racial overtone in my use of the term, although it is certainly intended to be belittling. However, Snood once objected because when i used it to refer to another member, he thought i was referring to him, and resented the usage. I had not, as it happened, referred to him--but i recognize that its use is offensive, and not just to Snood on a racial basis. So, i try to remember not to use it.

None of this is difficult to understand; none of it is rocket science.

0 Replies

Thanks, Setanta.

There may be hope for you yet!

<ducks>

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Lash wrote:
Thanks for the response, Infra. I appreciated the info about the actor/band.

{I guess the thought police haven't informed you that we aren't allowed to say "gypsy."}

Seriously, when, why and how did Negro become unacceptable?

race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.

I see that it is no longer in technical use-- you know I was taught these divisions/words in school. Is it only "Negro" that isn't used? Is it all three? I don't hear "Mongoloid" much either. When did "Negro" get added to the verboten pile? What about "Caucasian"? Do you really think "Negro" is equal to "nigger"?

I was listening to PBS and there is a push to remove the term "mentally retarded" from use. The interviewer asked a mentally retarded girl which term she preferred--he offered a list--and she disliked all of them. One of the mentally retarded men interviewed said he hated "retarded" because people had teased him using that word. I can understand him hating it--but won't the word chosen to ameliorate bad feelings then become the one used by abusive people and added to the heap of words no one can say?

Come, Lash - are you actually trying to say you didn't know "Negro" was not nice to call a black person?

snood--

You seem to be forever stuck on "calling" someone a name. I don't "call" anyone anything. What about referring to the word? What about a Russian guy who is complimenting a person of color-- why should he be told he can't use that word?

It's not about hurling insults.

It's about speaking a word without being made to feel you've done something wrong. I'm not talking about me. I'm following general word usage.

It's the design v styling--retarded v whatever the new word will be --kind of thing I'm interested in. Keltic zoned in on it. And Set's sort of bewildered response to 'tarbaby' is apropos. It's not really a racial issue (to me) as it is how words come and go. I didn't realize Negro had gone (when not intended as a pejorative).

I appreciate all the related comments. OBill, yours as well.

0 Replies

Political Correctness: Make a Judgment

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know