Welcome to 1984

[lucimay]

oh

well nevermind then.

[Avatar]

See how easy it is to mistake generalisation?

Everybody go back to the previous page and read the last couple of posts.

--A

[Prebe]

I particularly liked this one:

Don't forget that the much-maligned PC is one reason why we don't refer to blacks as "darkies" anymore, to take an obvious example.

[Cail]

Euphemisms have been around waaay longer than political correctness, contrary to popular belief. John Milton referred to sex in Paradise Lost as "playing," for example. Don't forget that the much-maligned PC is one reason why we don't refer to blacks as "darkies" anymore, to take an obvious example.

Not even close.

PC is about doublespeak. When I was growing up, the people the Pilgrims found in the Americas were called "American Indians". Everyone understood what that meant, and no one took any offense to it. Then, somewhere around 1990, you couldn't say "American Indian" any more, because they weren't Indians (even though Columbus's mistake had been acceptable for a long, long time). Then we got (and still have) "Native Americans". Is that accurate? No. All it does is cause confusion. I was born here, I'm a native American. If we want to be completely accurate, we should call the indigenous people "Aboriginal Americans" or something like that.

PC has nothing to do with being polite or not using slurs like "darkies". It has to do with changing words to mean something different.

[The Laughing Man]

did it ever occur to you that it was the "Indians" who were objecting to be called that?

[Zarathustra]

I think the main point is getting lost amid arguments over labels and the PC movement: a public university (i.e. state sponsored) is forcing its students to adopt and proclaim specific, political and social views. I don't care which side of the aisle you're on, that's got to bother you. Yet, there seems to be more complaints about the words we use to describe this, than the act itself. That is troubling.

I do think that such action flows out of liberalism as an ideology. Yet, I don't think the desire to control thought is inherent to liberals themselves. I do, however, believe it's a personal quirk of college professors. Their daily role in society is to stand as an authority in the realm of ideas to those who have paid their tuition on the premise that they know less than these state-funded "experts." The fact that many are indeed liberal probably isn't connected to any tendency to control thought. It's just something that develops out of the role itself. Kind of like Stanley Milgrim's experiments on authority figures. The role itself can reinforce a certain type of controlling behavior. That's why it is especially important that we safeguard the freedom of speech at such places, and that we keep in mind the political ideology of our professors.

But remaining vigilant about the actual practices going on in our college campuses is only a small part of a larger ideological battle. There is a distinct difference between liberalism and conservatism. My own personal characterization of that difference is that liberalism tends to focus on the power of the state applied to people as groups, instead of the conservative tendency to stress the freedom of the individual. According to conservatism, the state is there to protect this individual freedom, rather than impose collective regulation. In this view, the actions of the university--ignoring the particular ideology espoused by this "treatment"--more closely follow the liberal paradigm of group conformity as opposed to individualism. So regardless of the actual doctrines being enforced, the actions of the university itself seem to flow out of liberalism as a tendency to stamp out individualism.

Granted, there plenty of conservative groups which try to tell you how to think. Churches, for instance. But churches are explicitly distinct from the State. State universities, obviously, are not.

In the end, I think liberals themselves--the actual people who hold liberal beliefs--don't want to control thought. That's why you see people here getting defensive about the charge that this action is liberal in its origins. But given the fact that actual, individual liberals don't want to control thought, I'm surprised why we don't see more agreement on this particular issue in this thread, instead of the usual bickering.

[Zarathustra]

did it ever occur to you that it was the "Indians" who were objecting to be called that?

All of them? Each and every one down to the last man, woman, and child? That's an amazing consensus! The idea that an entire people can object to a specific English word is, again, collectivist type of thinking. I can't believe this kind of consensus actually exists. Why should I alter my language to honor your hypothetical consensus? And if you'll admit that it's possible that not every single Indian loses sleep at night over this word (rather, than the more substantive gripe that our ancestors stole their ancestors' continent), then why do I have to use the word that only some of them like? Why can't I use a word that the rest of them don't have a problem with?

Who cares if they like it? Did anyone ever ask me if I like being called, "white?" No. Do I get pissed off even though my skin looks nothing like white? No. This is too silly to worry about. (Unlike like the actual topic of this thread.)

[The Laughing Man]

this is the actual topic of this thread Malik. The "Indians" deserve, innately, the right to ask to be called what they wish, and we have the "moral obligation" to respect that. Like Luci said, "it's about manners".

[Zarathustra]

this is the actual topic of this thread Malik. The "Indians" deserve, innately, the right to ask to be called what they wish, and we have the "moral obligation" to respect that. Like Luci said, "it's about manners".

Until the entire Indian population asks me personally to call them a particular word, I'll not be swayed one inch by any multitude of liberals. White liberals are the only ones I ever hear mention this stuff. Not Indians.

And considering I'm 1/16 Cherokee, don't I have any say in the matter?

[The Laughing Man]

you have 1/16th say in the matter. And everyone has a right to request to be referred to in a certain manner or term, don't they? I think of the Cleveland Indians and the Washington Redskins, and the Native American (which they requested to be called) spokespersons who raised the issue. "Liberals", if you will, have defended that request. It is good manners to respect that request.

[Trapper]

Gosh, I always thought you were of Pakistani-American heritage, Malik.

If only because of all the truly great Pakistani cricketers that have shared your moniker...

[Zarathustra]

Gosh, always thought you were of Pakistani-American heritage, Malik.

If only because of all the truly great Pakistani cricketers that have shared your moniker...

I'm sure I've explained this elsewhere . . . but at 17 I thought "Malik" was a name I made up entirely by myself for a character whom I've been writing about ever since, the main character in my novel. (I really wish now that I never called myself this as my online avatar, especially since I'd like to participate in the writers' workshop. Now people are going to associate me with my character. Oh well, poor judgment.)

you have 1/16th say in the matter. Wink And everyone has a right to request to be referred to in a certain manner or term, don't they? I think of the Cleveland Indians and the Washington Redskins, and the Native American (which they requested to be called) spokespersons who raised the issue. "Liberals", if you will, have defended that request. It is good manners to respect that request.

I'm not sure if people have a right to request their own labels. But if they do ask, then I agree it's good manners to comply.

However, I've never heard them ask. Was there some formal request? In what forum are such label requests made? Do these requests have a time limit, or are they good for all times? It sure seems like blacks (or negroes, or African Americans, depending on which decade you ask them) have had a hard time "deciding" which label they want, and have certainly changed it over the years.

But I do agree that the tendency to control the speech and concepts of others in indeed the topic of this thread. I stand corrected.

[wayfriend]

But given the fact that actual, individual liberals don't want to control thought, I'm surprised why we don't see more agreement on this particular issue in this thread, instead of the usual bickering.

One, that's what I said, thought control is not a liberal movement, and two, the argument got side tracked by a very early "there go the liberals" post.

PC is about doublespeak.

PC is about nothing at all - its a label you use when you want to be disparaging about something. In other words, it's relative - one person's PC is another person's good idea.

WARNING: sweeping generalization

PC doesn't happen until a idea reaches the point where people consider it better to abide by it then ignore it.

In other words, it's plain old "market forces", if you will. At some point, people decide it is more advantageous to go with the movement than against the movement.

Then, everyone who doesn't agree calls it "political correctness", and uses words like "bow" and "kowtow" and "doublespeak". But that's just expressing opposition.

When something becomes so common everyone has basically adopted it, no one calls it PC any more. Because it's a relative term, and relatively, there is no opposition any more.

In other words, PC is what you call it when "the market has spoken", but you don't like what it said. Until you get over it.

[emotional leper]

PC is Orwellien Doublespeak. If you can't realise that, then you've fallen for it.

[Cail]

PC is Orwellien Doublespeak. If you can't realise that, then you've fallen for it.

Absolutely correct.

Calling all people who appear black "African American" is a tremendous slap in the face to people from Trinidad, not to mention actual Africans.

And just what are we supposed to call them in Iceland?

PC is a way of controlling what people say and subtly subverting the meaning of words. But moreover, it's simply not accurate. If I call a black man "black", and he asks to be called something else, I'll comply because that's polite. Assuming that all blacks are African (or American) is stereotyping.

[stormrider]

As someone who falls into the liberal camp more often than not, I think it’s pretty clear that the crisis at the University of Delaware was created by some fascist lunatics who took liberal ideas and perverted them.

As for political correctness… For me personally, it is about politeness. For example, even if you don’t mean it in a bigoted way, you shouldn’t call a homosexual a “faggot” in a public forum. That’s just common sense – it sounds rude, and the negative connotations surrounding that word make it inappropriate for use in public discourse, simply because it inevitably arouses an antagonistic response, which hinders meaningful communication. And in general, I support the use of some PC terminology. (Personally, I like to be referred to as a British/Irish “mother of pearl”-hued American, but no one listens to me.)

But I also think that, to some extent, the “politically correct agenda” is about fear. A lot of people are terrified to come across as racist, sexist, or bigoted, so instead of voicing opinions which might be construed as offensive, they say nothing at all. This restricts public discourse. (Then again, people who are so dreadfully afraid of offending people that they won’t even speak probably aren’t worth listening to, anyway.)

People who are willing to voice dissenting opinions but fail to use politically correct terminology are disparaged by many (though not all) of those who espouse to it; consequentially, the actual import of what those “non-PC” people are saying is often overshadowed by the reaction to the way they say it. It’s easy to dismiss controversial or conservative lines of thought by claiming that they’re bigoted or close-minded. That argument is a cop-out, and the PC mindset makes it easier to use.

The problem with some liberals (notice I say some – if it doesn’t apply to you, it isn’t directed at you) is that we’ve become so tolerant that we’re… intolerant. When I was in college, I liked to defend myself against my conservative father, who called me intolerant of other people’s beliefs, by saying, “I’m only intolerant of intolerance,” as if that made it all okay. But it’s still intolerance. It still discourages the free expression of thought.

As I said, I do prefer some PC terminology. But much of it is absurd and designed to indoctrinate the masses. It’s one thing to call black people “African Americans” because it’s what they prefer, but when their cause is taken up by far-left yahoos who then decide that every other group of people on the face of the planet deserves a special, euphemistic nickname (*coughundocumentedworkerscough*), things get out of hand. The excessive use of ridiculous PC terms makes the liberal party look like a joke, which is unfair to those of us who would like to be taken seriously.

[finn]

I think you're making a fair call here Cail, the social engineering we see and know as PC or AA is largely following a far left agenda; simply stating that is in no way making a value judgement of PC or AA, but true to form many run for the blue and red cormers at the mere hint of political polarity.

Equally as someone pointed out it doesn't mean that all on the left subscribe any more than all on the right would agree with some folk riding in the back of the bus.

The problem with PC and AA is the extent to which its used; a surgeons scalpel can do a lot of good until it starts cutting where there is no need to cut. I have seen good changes in attitude in areas of race and sexuality in particular, but there seems to be this need to push the view that a little is good, a lot must be better and we end up abiding with complete nonsense like chairperson and garbologist.

Legislating (either actual law or just social leity) against common sense ends up just damaging the good that is done.....like the scalpel.


An observations tho'.....

The Right OTOH, doesn't concern itself on whether you think correctly or not, as long as you act correctly

Perhaps, that should be rephrased to not get caught acting incorrectly?

[finn]

Agreed stormrider, whatever value your argument may have is lost as soon as someone who has nothing good to add, but wants to be seen as intellectually or morally superior, throws out a label ending in ist.

[finn]

And considering I'm 1/16 Cherokee, don't I have any say in the matter?

How?

[Alynna Lis Eachann]

I'm not sure if people have a right to request their own labels.

What do you base this on, particularly in light of your assertion that conservatives mean to protect individual rights, and you yourself are rather conservative? Isn't it my individual right to not be labeled and lumped into a group? Why shouldn't a group have the right to demand a label that is not derogatory or offensive? Isn't labeling people against their will exactly what you propose thhat liberals are doing?

As for what the University of Delaware is doing: I'm pretty damned liberal, and I agree that people should respect human diversity, support underpriviledged groups, lower their ecological footprint and change their consumer habits, but try shoving that down my throat and you're gonna have another thing coming. I believe in all of that, but I will still resent it when someone forces me to practice it.

This is the liberal version of 1984, and all the people who put it in place or went along with it without protest should be kicked out the door and blacklisted from teaching anything other than survey course in community colleges. I can't believe this will be allowed to continue.

Oh, wait, it won't:

A Message to the University of Delaware Community

Nov. 1, 2007

The University of Delaware strives for an environment in which all people feel welcome to learn, and which supports intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, free inquiry and respect for the views and values of an increasingly diverse population. The University is committed to the education of students as citizens, scholars and professionals and their preparation to contribute creatively and with integrity to a global society. The purpose of the residence life educational program is to support these commitments.

While I believe that recent press accounts misrepresent the purpose of the residential life program at the University of Delaware, there are questions about its practices that must be addressed and there are reasons for concern that the actual purpose is not being fulfilled. It is not feasible to evaluate these issues without a full and broad-based review.

Upon the recommendation of Vice President for Student Life Michael Gilbert and Director of Residence Life Kathleen Kerr, I have directed that the program be stopped immediately. No further activities under the current framework will be conducted.

Vice President Gilbert will work with the University Faculty Senate and others to determine the proper means by which residence life programs may support the intellectual, cultural and ethical development of our students.


Patrick Harker
President