Turning Political Correctness on its head
In the New York Times, Wesley Morris provides an outstanding discussion of the Kaepernick issue: Colin Kaepernick and the Question of Who Gets to Be Called a 'Patriot'. Notice how it is being addressed as an issue of patriotism, but I argue that the negative response could equally be called an issue of political correctness. The same people who complain that they are, in the name of PC-ness, required to be careful not to say something that might offend some (minority) group, will be quick to call foul if someone (particularly a minority person) says or does something that offends them or is disrespectful of one of the patriotic idols—the police force or the military. Kaepernick was being politically incorrect, because he was offending patriotic Americans, the police force, and the military—our heroes.
"Soldiers died for his freedom"
When the oppressed want privilege
Political Correctness Gone Silly
On reading the first in this series on Political Correctness, a friend expressed curiosity about where the discussion was going, because he had recently had a discussion about whether it was okay to say "coloured person". His friend maintained that the "[politically] correct" term is "person of colour," This is an interesting discussion: why is there a "correct term"? Why might one be considered demeaning, when the other isn't?
Have I written before about the issue of blue ink? I can't remember. There was a period when official signatures could not be in blue ink, especially in the UK. Here, we tended to say they had to be in black ink, but in the UK they could be in any colour other than blue. Why? Most of us didn't know; we just knew that we couldn't sign in blue. The actual reason derived from the use of real ink (in fountain pens—not ball-points or, as we called them in England, biros) and could be seen on the label of the ink bottle. Every colour other than blue was labeled permanent: Permanent Black, Permanent Red, even Permanent Blue-Black (my favourite colour). But the only true blue one could buy was Washable Blue. No-one could make a permanent blue ink, it only came in a variety that was water-soluble. And we didn't want official signatures to be lost in the event of accidental wetting. So blue was a forbidden colour. Then, suddenly, there emerged a requirement that all signatures had to be in blue. This time the reason was photocopiers: early photocopiers used a light source that would not copy a pure blue image, so we could tell if an official document had been copied because the signature would not appear. Both reasons are now obsolete: ball-point blue ink is permanent (as anyone whose pen has leaked onto their best dress shirt knows), and almost all photocopiers copy in colour, and will happily copy blue. But we remembered the rule, with no understanding of the reason for the rule.
I bring this up because I think the same thing applies in many of these cases of the "[politically] correct" term. We know the rule, but we have little understanding of the rationale behind the rule. Why is person of colour preferable to coloured person? I'll tell you. The term "person of colour" puts the person first: we concentrated on the person-hood, and the skin tone (colour) is merely a characteristic. But the term "coloured person" seems to diminish or alter the person-hood: this is not a "real" person, it is a "coloured" (and therefore lesser) person. But in the end, why do we have to mention the skin-tone of the person whom we are discussing anyway? More on this issue next time. Let's look at some other terms that have become Politically Incorrect for, in my not-so-humble opinion, silly reasons.
Handicapped and Retarded
Recently, a colleague in the office where I used to work was bemoaning various ammunition-handling regulations, repeatedly asserting that the regulations were "retarded". Meanwhile, in her recent book In Trump We Trust, Ann Coulter (2016) writes that Trump was not making fun of a disabled reporter during one of his stump speeches: actually he "was doing a standard retard, waving his arms and sounding stupid." She has since gone on to say that she can prove that the press lied when they accused Trump of the mockery. There's no fun in, or skill needed for, rebutting Ann Coulter; what interested me was that she felt it less problematic that a presidential candidate was "doing a standard retard".
The term retarded, or mentally retarded, is actually a very good term. In the literal sense it means to "make slow or late, delay progress or development or arrival or accomplishment" (Sykes, 1976, p. 960). So a person who is (mentally) retarded has delayed progress in mental development, an apt and appropriate term. The problem is when we fail to show compassion for those who are mentally retarded, and regard them as stupid and worthy of mockery (as, apparently, does Ann Coulter).Then we start using the word as a term of rebuke: to call someone or something "retarded" is to say that he or it is worthy of contempt. Now we can no longer use the term mentally retarded, because we can't tell whether it is being used in its technical, and appropriate, sense, or as an expression of contempt. The term has become Politically Incorrect, so we have to say mentally handicapped instead. But it was never the term that was inappropriate: it was our misuse of the word that brought it into ill repute.
And then there's the word handicapped. This word has a fascinating etymology starting with the game hand-in-cap (not cap-in-hand as social media likes to report). The game involved an exchange of items, with the difference in value of the items being made up by a cash addition. (Interestingly, cap-in-hand appears to be a form of the Prisoner's Dilemma.) As time progressed, the word contracted to handicap while it expanded in meaning to include races and other sporting events where the chances of the competitors are evened in some way, such as allowing a head start (foot race), adding weight (horse race), or conceding a number of strokes (golf). From here it came to mean any "hindrance, thing that prevents one from doing something" (Sykes, 1976, p. 487). Finally, it was applied to people who had a natural hindrance, such as a physical abnormality. Again, it strikes me as being an entirely appropriate term. A person in a wheel-chair, for example, is able to do almost anything a fully mobile person can do, but he is hindered—he carries "extra weight". Once again, however, through lack of compassion the term came to be used as one of abuse. In England when I was growing up, the term spastic was similarly misused to accuse people of being uncoordinated. So rather than referring to people who have a hindrance to physical activity as being handicapped, we now say disabled. In its literal sense, this is a worse word, because it implies that a disabled person is unable to accomplish, rather than hindered in accomplishing, which resulted in a brief flirtation with the ridiculous phrase "differently abled".
Here is Political Correctness gone silly. Just like we should prosecute criminals who abuse guns rather than removing guns (a position with which I do not fully agree), we should correct people who abuse terms like retarded and handicapped rather than removing these perfectly appropriate words.
The term retarded, or mentally retarded, is actually a very good term. In the literal sense it means to "make slow or late, delay progress or development or arrival or accomplishment" (Sykes, 1976, p. 960). So a person who is (mentally) retarded has delayed progress in mental development, an apt and appropriate term. The problem is when we fail to show compassion for those who are mentally retarded, and regard them as stupid and worthy of mockery (as, apparently, does Ann Coulter).Then we start using the word as a term of rebuke: to call someone or something "retarded" is to say that he or it is worthy of contempt. Now we can no longer use the term mentally retarded, because we can't tell whether it is being used in its technical, and appropriate, sense, or as an expression of contempt. The term has become Politically Incorrect, so we have to say mentally handicapped instead. But it was never the term that was inappropriate: it was our misuse of the word that brought it into ill repute.
And then there's the word handicapped. This word has a fascinating etymology starting with the game hand-in-cap (not cap-in-hand as social media likes to report). The game involved an exchange of items, with the difference in value of the items being made up by a cash addition. (Interestingly, cap-in-hand appears to be a form of the Prisoner's Dilemma.) As time progressed, the word contracted to handicap while it expanded in meaning to include races and other sporting events where the chances of the competitors are evened in some way, such as allowing a head start (foot race), adding weight (horse race), or conceding a number of strokes (golf). From here it came to mean any "hindrance, thing that prevents one from doing something" (Sykes, 1976, p. 487). Finally, it was applied to people who had a natural hindrance, such as a physical abnormality. Again, it strikes me as being an entirely appropriate term. A person in a wheel-chair, for example, is able to do almost anything a fully mobile person can do, but he is hindered—he carries "extra weight". Once again, however, through lack of compassion the term came to be used as one of abuse. In England when I was growing up, the term spastic was similarly misused to accuse people of being uncoordinated. So rather than referring to people who have a hindrance to physical activity as being handicapped, we now say disabled. In its literal sense, this is a worse word, because it implies that a disabled person is unable to accomplish, rather than hindered in accomplishing, which resulted in a brief flirtation with the ridiculous phrase "differently abled".
Here is Political Correctness gone silly. Just like we should prosecute criminals who abuse guns rather than removing guns (a position with which I do not fully agree), we should correct people who abuse terms like retarded and handicapped rather than removing these perfectly appropriate words.
Words change meaning
Words, like retarded and handicapped, change meaning and acquire different nuances over time. My favourite example is the words clown and fool. When Shakespeare writes about a fool, he means a type of clown—a jester, whose job is to entertain, often by making politically incorrect comments. (This kind of edgy humour is still used by many stand-up comedians.) But when Shakespeare has a character call someone a clown, he is using the word as an insult, accusing the person of muddle-headedness. So the words clown and fool have, since the 17th century, swapped meanings.
During a recent discussion at church, one long-time member expressed dismay at the criticism of evangelical Christians, saying that the term evangelical was being misapplied. This word, which should be an easy term, has in recent years gained new meaning because it represents an important voting block in elections, thanks to Jerry Falwell (Banwarth, 2013). The meaning should be easy: an evangelical is a "(member) of the Protestant school maintaining that the essence of the gospel consists in doctrine of salvation by faith in Atonement" (Sykes, 1976, p. 358). The National Association of Evangelicals provides a four-point test of belief to define an evangelical. And yet, the term has become confused over the years, often confounded with political and racial divisions. The topic has often been debated recently, for example in The Atlantic, in Christianity Today, and on National Public Radio. "It has been said the most segregated hour in America is from eleven to twelve o'clock on sunday mornings" writes Lisa Sharon Harper (2008). Race divides us in religion, and in political affiliation, and as a result many pollsters include only white evangelicals in their response group "evangelical Christians" to make a cleaner political distinction. To a liberal, therefore, the term evangelical has become abhorrent, representing conservative white paternalism, despite the fact that one of the most prominent American evangelical Christians was Jimmy Carter!
Even the term Politically Incorrect has changed meaning over time, as we've been discussing here.
During a recent discussion at church, one long-time member expressed dismay at the criticism of evangelical Christians, saying that the term evangelical was being misapplied. This word, which should be an easy term, has in recent years gained new meaning because it represents an important voting block in elections, thanks to Jerry Falwell (Banwarth, 2013). The meaning should be easy: an evangelical is a "(member) of the Protestant school maintaining that the essence of the gospel consists in doctrine of salvation by faith in Atonement" (Sykes, 1976, p. 358). The National Association of Evangelicals provides a four-point test of belief to define an evangelical. And yet, the term has become confused over the years, often confounded with political and racial divisions. The topic has often been debated recently, for example in The Atlantic, in Christianity Today, and on National Public Radio. "It has been said the most segregated hour in America is from eleven to twelve o'clock on sunday mornings" writes Lisa Sharon Harper (2008). Race divides us in religion, and in political affiliation, and as a result many pollsters include only white evangelicals in their response group "evangelical Christians" to make a cleaner political distinction. To a liberal, therefore, the term evangelical has become abhorrent, representing conservative white paternalism, despite the fact that one of the most prominent American evangelical Christians was Jimmy Carter!
Even the term Politically Incorrect has changed meaning over time, as we've been discussing here.
Christmas is Coming, and Outrage Is in the Air
This time of year, it is politically correct to say "happy holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" to prevent offending atheists and non-Christians. In my parallel blog Reflecture, I mentioned that I had heard people saying that, now that Trump had won the election, they would be able to say "Merry Christmas" and not care who was offended. The war on Christmas, lovingly reported on Fox News, is a popular instantiation of the conservative Christian persecution complex. And so we see stories of countries banning Christmas lights, or that notoriously"anti-Christian" President Obama banning Christmas cards to servicemen overseas, or that the Post Office won't issue new religious Christmas-themed stamps because they are politically incorrect, and the famous crisis last year of the plain red Starbucks cups for the holiday season, representing the liberal company's attempt at "Christian cleansing". Political correctness is seen as attempting to annihilate Christmas, or at least remove Christ from the holiday, despite the fact that commercialism accomplished that many years ago, and we might just have to accept the fact. Sometimes, however, it just gets silly: in a small town recently, the ACLU filed suit on behalf of a single person in the town charging that the cross on the top of the Christmas tree on town property violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. While the complainant has a valid point, it does seem to be an extreme measure to handle something that should really be a matter for a town-hall meeting.
More Dangers of Political Correctness
Last time we examined whether zeal for political correctness ever caused the truth to be suppressed. This time, we look at cases where political correctness, specifically the desire not to interfere in communities of an immigrant (especially Muslim) culture, allowed crimes against people to go undetected.
However, there actually were several towns in the north of England where Pakistani men were exploiting under-age white girls in prostitution rings. It is likely that one of the reasons the police were hesitant to look more deeply into the matter was that they were concerned about being seen to be stigmatising a group based on race: they wanted to be Politically Correct.
Under-age Prostitution in the North
For many years, there have been large concentrations of South Asian Muslim populations in the north of England. Last year there were reports of police "no-go" areas in this region, although these reports only appeared in papers that carry sensationalist headlines and are prone to right-wing conspiracy theories (the British equivalent of the Washington Times), and fact-checking repeatedly reveals the reports to be false.However, there actually were several towns in the north of England where Pakistani men were exploiting under-age white girls in prostitution rings. It is likely that one of the reasons the police were hesitant to look more deeply into the matter was that they were concerned about being seen to be stigmatising a group based on race: they wanted to be Politically Correct.
Muslim Misogyny in The Netherlands
I recently finished reading the book Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali (2007). In this autobiography, she documents her young life in Somalia and Saudi Arabia, where in her teens she became a devout Muslim through the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood. But then she was forced into a marriage against her will. While travelling to Canada to be with her new husband, she escaped and sought (and was granted) refugee status in Holland. As she experienced freedom, she abandoned her religion. She became a translator for the local authorities, and in that capacity saw many examples of abuse of Somali women. The government were hesitant to interfere, because there is a strong streak of liberty of the individual in Dutch culture, and there was no desire to rob the Somali immigrants of their individual culture by forcing Western practices on them. Three passages help to summarize Hirsi Ali's thesis:"The Dutch adopted these policies because they wanted to be good people. Their country had behaved unspeakably in Indonesia, and didn't (much) resist Hitler; in Holland, a greater percentage of Jews were deported during the Second World War than in any other country in Western Europe. Dutch people felt guilty about this recent past. When massive immigration began in Holland, which wasn't until the 1980s, there was a sense among the Dutch that society should behave with decency and understanding toward these people and accept their differences and beliefs." (Hirsi Ali, 2007, pp. 245-246.)
"This compassion for immigrants and their stuggles in a new country resulted in attitudes and policies that perpetuated cruelty. Thousands of Muslim women and children in Holland were being systematically abused, and there was no escaping this fact. Little children were excised [that is female genital mutilation] on kitchen tables—I knew this from Somalis for whom I translated. [...] And while the Dutch were generoously contributing money to international aid organizations, they were also ignoring the silent suffering of Muslim women and children in their own backyard." (ibid. p. 246.)
"People accuse me of having interiorized a felling of racial inferiority, so that I attack my own culture out of self-hatred, because I want to be white. This is a tiresome argument. Tell me, is freedom then only for white people? Is it self-love to adhere to my ancestors' traditions and mutilate by daughters? To agree to be humiliated and powerless? To watch passively as my countrymen abuse women and slaughter each other in pointless disputes? When I came to a new culture, where I saw for the first time that human relations could be different, would it have been self-love to see that as a foreign cult, which Muslims are forbidden to practice?" (ibid., p. 348.)It's a delicate balance between showing appropriate cultural sensitivity (i.e. being politically correct), and failing to uphold the fundamentals of our own society regardless of culture. Many European countries are struggling with this currently, especially regarding the attire of Muslim women. Four things can help:
- Be aware of our inherent racism. By admitting that we will are prone to judge and act out of racism, we can carefully assess our reactions to determine whether we are being racist or not. We must ask ourselves "would I be reacting the same way if the person in front of me was white? Christian?" This applies equally to sexism, by the way.
- Be very clear in our minds on the fundamental rights and requirements of society, always ensuring that they are based on human dignity, rather than racial dignity. This can be troublesome. For example, why is it acceptable for a Jew to practice male genital mutilation (aka. circumcision) on religious grounds, but not for a Muslim to practice female genital mutilation on religious grounds?
- Base our judgment on facts (such as under-age prostitution rings run exclusively by men of Pakistani origin) rather than on rumour, innuendo, and conspiracy theories (such as Sharia law being implemented in Dearborn, Michigan).
- Ask ourselves whether we are we acting out of compassion, or out of a misplaced sense of superiority.
References:
- Banworth, Doug. Jerry Falwell, the Rise of the Moral Majority, and the 1980 Election.Western Illinois Historical Review 5, Spring 2013.
- Coulter, Ann H. In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome! New York: Sentinel, 2016.
- Harper, Lisa Sharon. Evangelical does not equal Republican ... or Democrat. New York: New Press, 2008.
- Hirsi Ali, Ayaan. Infidel. New York: Free Press, 2007.
- Kahneman, Daniel, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky (eds.). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
- Sykes, J. B. (ed.). The Concise Oxford dictionary of current English: based on the Oxford English dictionary and its supplements (6th ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976.
