This post, or rather the ideas expressed here have been a long time coming. There are many things that really bug me about our society, to put it mildly, but occupying a very high rank on that list would be our obsession with Political Correctness.
I don’t know for sure when it started. I’m sure that it has been an insidious process that has eroded away at our dignity for at least a couple of decades. What I am certain of, what I hope many more Americans wake up and realize, is that, IT HAS TO END! Why did this disease rear its ugly head? Who knows? Perhaps it was a misguided attempt to assuage deep seeded guilt or a deranged application of the “Golden Rule”. It could be that some of us are so very insecure that we take comfort at the end of the day knowing we haven’t offended anyone with our big, bad, ugly language. Maybe George Orwell had it right. He used the tern “Newspeak” in his novel 1984. Newspeak was language designed to avoid dissenting thoughts; sort of state imposed mandates for using euphemisms to maintain social order. To me, Newspeak is frighteningly close to political correctness. Whenever it started and whatever the reason, it is evil and does the exact opposite of what PC-ers say it is doing.
PC language does more to isolate people, point out differences, and mask reality; all things PC proponents state it is designed to fight. In an effort to not offend anyone our beloved mother tongue has been assaulted. No longer is it widely acceptable to use words that may offend feminists like fireman, or newsman, or even mankind. These have been replaced by perversions of language. Fire person, news person, and person kind do not exactly roll off the tongue; but they are used in an effort as to not hurt any feelings. Please! This is not limited to gender but other categories of PC as well. When I was growing up I lived next door to a retarded boy, around the corner from a handicapped[1] woman, and mostly our entire neighborhood was poor. I must have been on a different planet however because today I would be forced to say: “mentally challenged boy and physically challenged woman (or my favorite: differently-ableld). My neighbors and I would graduate from poor to 'financially underprivileged' or 'monetarily challenged'. While this flowery language may seemingly make you feel better to say, it is insulting to those it claims to protect. The physically challenged person is just as afflicted as the handicapped or the crippled.
Our language has evolved over hundreds of years borrowing words and phrases from just about every other language. The words we use all evoke a mental picture and some are more vibrant than others. It is supposed to be that way. It gives our language beauty and diversity. When we attempt to euphemize and sanitize our speech it clouds that picture leaving in its place a cold, dull, gray one. I imagine that is the goal in some cases. For instance we see on the news coverage of the war and we hear terms like ‘collateral damage’ or “civilian casualties”. It is easier to hear than “innocent people we killed”. Saying grandma is ‘eternally resting’, ‘passed on’, ‘with the angels now’, or even ‘extremely metabolically challenged” doesn’t make her less dead. Let’s all grow up a little.
My other problem with PC was illustrated 2 months ago with the Don Imus debacle. Those 5 silly syllables[2] he uttered got more media coverage (for over a week) than did the war in Iraq or any one of a thousand more pressing problems plaguing this society. We are absolutely obsessed with language when it comes to race. What he said was, in my opinion, lowbrow, tacky, crude, or even vulgar. Was it a “racist” comment? Well, if racist means that it is language used by a particular race, yes. His particular choice of words is mild compared to what is uttered, grunted, and rapped about in pop culture. This argument has been beaten to death and is beside the point. More to the point is this: What he said were words, just words. Arguably you may make a case for his being a racist. SO WHAT! In our country our fist amendment guarantees us the right to be an idiot. Did advertisers have the right to pull their ads? Yes. Did CBS have the right to fire Don Imus? Yes. But what upsets me is the maelstrom of opinions that bordered on a near frenzy for censorship that is based on a flawed principle.
While the premise of not calling someone names or hurting their feelings is sound advice if you want to be the most popular kid in your kindergarten class, somewhere along the way we got it horribly confused with an unalienable right that needs protection. We all need to step back and heed the other piece of equally sound advice proffered in kindergarten, sticks and stones may break our bones but words can never hurt us… unless of course, they are Politically Correct ones.
