Obviously these examples fall on the simplistic side of things, but I think they illustrate the shaky philosophical foundation of today's usage. Underlying every complaint of "PC" is the absurd notion that members of dominant mainstream society have been victimized by an arbitrarily hypersensitive prohibition against linguistic and cultural constructions that are considered historical manifestations of bigotry. It's no coincidence that "PC"-snivelers are for the most part white men who are essentially saying, "Who the hell do these marginalized groups think they are to tell me how I should or shouldn't portray them? I'm not going to say 'mentally challenged' when it's my right to say 'retard', goshdarnit there's only so much abuse I'll take!"
November 09, 2006
Political correctness defined
The Greatest Cliché: The Unexamined Propaganda of "Political Correctness"The phrase "politically correct" can be used in two distinct ways: either with its original literal meaning, or with the mocking sarcasm that's common these days. I'll get to the former in a moment, but I'll begin with the latter. As it's commonly used, "PC" is a deliberately imprecise expression (just try finding or writing a terse, precise definition) because its objective isn't to communicate a substantive idea, but simply to sneer and snivel about the linguistic and cultural burdens of treating all people with the respect and sensitivity with which they wish to be treated. Thus, the Herculean effort required to call me "Asian American" rather than "chink" is seen as a concession to "the PC police", an unsettling infringement on the free-wheeling conversation of, I suppose, "non-chinks". Having to refer to black folks as "African Americans" rather than various historically-prevalent epithets surely strikes some red-blooded blue-balled white-men as a form of cultural oppression. Having to refer to "women" rather than "bitches" lays a violent buzzkill on the bar-room banter of men preoccupied with beating on their chests and off other body parts.
Obviously these examples fall on the simplistic side of things, but I think they illustrate the shaky philosophical foundation of today's usage. Underlying every complaint of "PC" is the absurd notion that members of dominant mainstream society have been victimized by an arbitrarily hypersensitive prohibition against linguistic and cultural constructions that are considered historical manifestations of bigotry. It's no coincidence that "PC"-snivelers are for the most part white men who are essentially saying, "Who the hell do these marginalized groups think they are to tell me how I should or shouldn't portray them? I'm not going to say 'mentally challenged' when it's my right to say 'retard', goshdarnit there's only so much abuse I'll take!"
Obviously these examples fall on the simplistic side of things, but I think they illustrate the shaky philosophical foundation of today's usage. Underlying every complaint of "PC" is the absurd notion that members of dominant mainstream society have been victimized by an arbitrarily hypersensitive prohibition against linguistic and cultural constructions that are considered historical manifestations of bigotry. It's no coincidence that "PC"-snivelers are for the most part white men who are essentially saying, "Who the hell do these marginalized groups think they are to tell me how I should or shouldn't portray them? I'm not going to say 'mentally challenged' when it's my right to say 'retard', goshdarnit there's only so much abuse I'll take!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Not a Sioux, your comment reflects the very liberalism Kai was talking about. Branding discourse "PC" is exactly how white men deflect away critique of white male supremacy. Yes, we live in a system of white male dominance, and it's the very reason American Indians are oppressed to this day.
There are some parts of PC that are indefensible, such as the idea that only whites can be racist.
Who took Indian lands? Who killed millions of Indians and drove their survivors out west? Who broke treaty after treaty with Indian nations, marginalizing an entire people on their own soil? Who continues to exploit stereotypical Indian images in racist iconography? Black women? Asian men? Arab children? Tell me, who committed these atrocites other than white men?
And just for your information, "African American" refers to the descendants of enslaved Africans in the United States, thus it is 100% accurate. Either way, people get to define themselves how they choose, another point Kai made clear in the piece. What's so difficult to understand about that?
Try the link again. The original posting is still there.
I agree that anybody can be racist. I also agree that the racist power structure is much more of a problem than racist individuals. This is part of the point of White Privilege Defined, so see that posting for more on the subject.
Post a Comment