Political Correctness: Make a Judgment

Snood - do you think Romney's use of the term "tar baby" was a veiled racial slur or merely used to describe what a boondoggle the Big Dig has turned into? Do you think an apology was owed by him for using the term in the context he did?

Dang, do you have a job, lash? How do you have so much time to do this? anyway, no - I didn't read through your last colorful and neatly organized reply, but I'm sure it was full of more of your sexy wit.

right on girl - you don't let them crazy ole PC police hold you back, now.

Well I grew up with Uncle Remus and Brer Rabbit, including the tarbaby, and also Little Black Sambo and other works that have been removed from children's libraries because they are now politically incorrect. Personally as the Uncle Remus stories humanized and endeared a previously poorly understood culture to millions of children, and as Sambo was definitely a smart and enterprising hero, I think it is unfortunate that children these days are not encouraged to experience that literature.

But then anybody who has paid any attention at all to me knows that I am not real big on political correctness, period.

I think it is pitiful to get your shorts in a wad or your panties in a bunch just because somebody uses a word you dislike. I think its also fine to say that you dislike the word and why you dislike it.

I don't intentionally try to offend people and that does and can affect my choice of words. I think most people are that way. Nevertheless, I still seem to find plenty of ways to offend people. And I have accepted that as the way it is.

I do think, however, that it is criminal to negate a person's entire life and/or wreck a person's reputation or career or opportunities just because he uses a politically incorrect word. And I think liberals are much more likely to do that to a conservative than is a conservative likely to do that to anybody.

And I probably offended a lot of you just by saying that.

Top Politically (in)Correct Words for 2005:  Misguided Criminals, Intrinsic appitude, and Thought Shower Top List 


San Diego, California (Updated November 29, 2005)  Misguided Criminals, Intrinsic Aptitude, and Thought Shower  top the list of the most egregious examples of politically correct language found in 2005 by the Global Language Monitor  in its annual global survey.   This year's list includes words from the US, UK, France and Australia.

"2005 was the year we saw the Political Correctness movement become a truly global phenomenon," said Paul JJ Payack, President of The Global Language Monitor (GLM).  "The list is but one more example of the insertion of politics into every facet of modern life."

The year has been rife with examples that have been nominated by the GLM's Language Police, volunteer language observers from the world over. 


The Top Politically inCorrect Words and Phrases for 2005:

1.      Misguided criminals for terrorist.

2.      Intrinsic Aptitude (or lack thereof) was a suggestion by Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard, on why women might be underrepresented in engineering and science.  He was nearly fired for his speculation.

3.      Thought Shower or Word Shower substituting for brainstorm so as not to offend those with brain disorders such as epilepsy.

4.      Scum or "la racaille" for French citizens of Moslem and North African descent inhabiting the projects ringing French Cities.  France's Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, used this most Politically inCorrect  (and reprehensible) label to describe the young rioters (and by extension all the inhabitants of the Cites). 

5.      Out of the Mainstream when used to describe the ideology of any political opponent:  At one time slavery was in the mainstream, thinking the sun orbited the earth was in the mainstream, having your blood sucked out by leeches was in the mainstream.  What's so great about being in the mainstream?

6.      Deferred Success as a euphemism for the word fail.  The Professional Association of Teachers in the UK considered a proposal to replace any notion of failure with deferred success in order to bolster students self-esteem.

7.      Womyn for Women to distance the word from man.  This in spite of the fact that the term man in the original Indo-European is gender neutral (as have been its successors for some 5,000 years). 

8.      C.E. for A.D.:  Is the current year A.D. 2005 or 2005 C.E.?   There is a movement to strip A.D. (Latin for "In the Year of the Lord") from the year designation used in the West since the 5th century and replace it with the supposedly more neutral Common Era  (though the zero reference year for the beginning of the Common Era remains the year of Christ's birth).

9.      "God Rest Ye Merry Persons" for "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen":  A Christmas, eh, Holiday, carol with 500 years of history is not enough to sway the Anglican Church at Cardiff Cathedral (Wales) from changing the original lyrics.    There are those who suggest going one step further:  "Higher Power Rest Ye Merry Persons".

10.    Banning the word Mate:  the Department of Parliamentary Services in Canberra issued a general warning to its security staff banning the use of the word 'mate' in dealings t with both members of Parliament and the public. What next? banning 'no worries' so as not to offend the worried, or banning 'Down Under' So as not to offend those of us who live in the "Up Over".

Holiday Bonus:  Happy Holidays or Season's Greetings for Christmas (which in some UK schools now label Wintervale).  However, the word holiday is derived directly from Holy Day, and in the word X-Mas, the Greek letter 'chi' represented by the Roman X actually stands for the first two letters of the name Christ.)  Now there are published reports of organization banning the traditional Christmas Colours of red and green.

Last year the Top Politically Incorrect words were:  Los Angeles Countys insistence of covering over with labels any computer networking protocols that mention master/slave jargon.  Following closely were same-sex marriage for marriage and waitron for waiter of waitress.

http://www.languagemonitor.com/wst_page20.html

Avoidance and sexual harassment. Snood's new MO.

You are not welcomed to speak to me in a sexually provocative manner.

Further such comments will be recognised as sexual harassment.

C'mere ya big dickens, and give us a hug.

Brain shower.

Unreal.

Deferred success was pretty good.

Sure you don't need a hug? Aw, c'mon, Lashie - I was thinking we could let gonebys be bygones and bury the hatchet and smoke the peace pipe and all that. Don't be a big growch.

This is a better example of schizo than the one you tried to use earlier.

Schizo? Oh yeah? Well, yer an old maid, and your grandmama wears bloomers! So there!

Now come give us a big hug. You know you need it.

To say one is familiar with Joel Chandler Harris's Uncle Remus stories, of more than a hundred years ago, therefore, there is nothing wrong with saying "tar baby" in a speach, is fallacious. Because language changes, what was meant then and what is percieved today are different animals. There is no connection between old literature and today's politics. Any honest person knows on reflection that the term is hurtful to a sizeable segment of the population. For a politician with national aspirations to make that mistake is beyond comprehension. He knew the speach would be heeded nationwide, which is the main reason to be careful with the language. Honest mistake or not, he betrays a non sensitivity that puts him at odds with the spirit of a nation inclusive of all its citizens.

Dang it edgar! There you go making sense again! Stop it!!

I didn't even comment on using the term in a speech, but that peripherally does apply to the notion that a given word has power to hurt us only if we assign it such power.

Using the term 'tar baby' as an example, must a negative connotation be forever assigned to it? Or would it be better to return it to its original meaning and context and educate the public on that?

Are we forever doomed to have language, literature, and certain imagery damned because of a symbolism that some wish to attach to it? Who should have the right to hijack certain words and make them into something they were not before?

And then condemn somebody who uses such word appropriately according to its original meaning? Anything and everything else a person says and does and is can be negated because he used one politically incorrect word in a context not intended to be offensive?

This is what I object to: the supersenstivity of some people who would make a huge deal out of one word in an otherwise non offensive speech and would condemn that person on the nation's front pages and on message boards because s/he used that word. How in the world do we ever get past prejudice, racism, etc. etc. etc. if that is going to be the way it is?

Tell the person you don't like the word and why and hope s/he understands. But my gosh, are we so fragile and insecure that we are unable to tolerate anything that might ruffle our psyche and sensibilities?
Let's get past all this political correctness crap that only creates and emphasizes and perpetuates racial, ethnic, gender, etc. differences.

The speech is what started the thread. It's not peripheral to the discussion. It is the focal point. And, whether anyone likes it or not, certain hard heads insist on making it negative concerning a sizeable segment of the population, which is why it creates such a negative impact when politicians use it.

Guys, this is simply an unresolveable matter, as is the case wherever ideals or principles conflict. We desire to forward liberty through unfettered speech and we desire to forward equality through preventing the marginalization/derogation of less powerful members of our society AND (particularly important) allowing speech that criticizes/satirizes those who are in power.



The problem here is whose psyche? A dirty word or disgusting image to one citizen might not be to another citizen. If I draw and publish a cartoon of the Pope being sodomized by a donkey, is it merely fragility and insecurity which will bring about criticism? Same with use of "kike"? Pretty obviously, in America use of "nigger" is more problematic than use of "gyp", but that same equation wouldn't hold true in Croatia.

It is perfectly okay to use the word in question in a private context. A nationally noted speech is another matter.

I think it is important to make distinctions between intentional insults, obscenity, vulgarity, crudeness/coarseness, and political correctness. Any idiot can tell the difference between two black guys affectionately calling each other 'nigger' and some skinhead using it as an intentional slur. But as there is no good connotation to be applied to that term, there is no way for most people to use it in a speech without coming across as either a racist or a cultural ignoramus.

While I don't recall ever using the term myself, I personally had never thought of 'tarbaby' in a negative sense until this whole flap came up. I didn't associate it with black people at all other than it was one of Uncle Remus's words who, in my mind's eye, was a kind and wise old man with a safe lap for children. But that was my cultural conditioning. Certainly a reference to a tarbaby, within the context of its original meaning, is less offensive than referencing people as Nazis or Facists or 'morons in chief' etc. that people sling around with impunity.

But we either accept people as equals or we don't. In my opinion, political correctness assigns differences to people instead of recognition of equality.

In my most frequented church denomination, there has been a trend to remove as many gender specific words as possible from hymns, teaching materials, even scripture. So what was formerly "God the Father" is now "God the Creator". 'Mankind' is 'humankind'. "Son" is "child", etc. "Rise Up Oh Sons of God" is "Rise up Oh Saints of God". Sometimes such does not disturb the flow or meaning. Sometimes it does. A few women took offense to masculine pronouns declaring that it assigned them to second class status

I personally resent this every time it is done. Why? Because the reason was to 'include women' in the liturgy of the Church. I personally highly resent this whole thing because I am not some weak, insecure woman who is unworthy to be included unless men say that I can be. I am perfectly capable of understanding 'mankind' to mean all of humanity and making that translation in my head. And I have no problem appreciating an ancient Patriarchal culture that in no way dictates the culture in which I live in today and resent highly that I am seen as a fragile female who is so intimidated and frustrated by masculine pronouns that the language and history must be changed so that I won't be traumatized.

And if I reject the victim status that some attempt to assign to me, I think many black people also reject the victim status that some attempt to assign to them.

All people everywhere should be offended when language is used that is intended to be offensive. But to get all apolytic and exorcised over one word that was not intended to be offensive only underscored the image of people who are insecure, harbor feelings of inferiority or victimization. I think strong people refuse to accept that characterization.

Even children know what is socially acceptable and what is not. Abiding by it is another thing.