Political correctness Mark 2

Orion

Earthman - I hope this is in order after you closed the other thread but it is a topic I'd like to discuss.

I had an argument with my father-in-law about PC last week. He's all in favour of it while I personally think is a load of bunkum and is corrupting the English language. In the other thread Eoghan-psych made the good point that there is bad PC and good PC. I partially agree with him. One of the examples he gave was 'paddy scum'. To me it's the scum part that the offensive term - we call ourselves paddies all the time . OK - using terms like 'paki' or '******' are used as offensive terms but where do we draw the line? (NB - not endorsing either obviously.)

There was a report in the paper a few weeks ago about a blind persons conference in the US. One of the speakers at this conference stated that she hates the term 'visually impaired' - she is BLIND (her words)! So why should the PC-brigade insist on removing a perfectly valid word (in this case blind) from the English language. On http://www.overheardindublin.com/ there's a report of a woman in Dublin who objected to Andy Cole being called black - she said he's African-American . While this really more an example of a muppet than PC-awareness the point remains - why can he not just be black? I'm white after all - not melanin-impoverished

So what should I say to the father-in-law next time this comes up?

bonkey

Macros42 wrote:

In the other thread Eoghan-psych made the good point that there is bad PC and good PC. I partially agree with him.

From the rest of your post, I'm failing to see where you disagree with him.

You're agreeing that some terms are offensive as they have an almost-entirely negative/offensive interpretation, and we shouldn't use them. This is the "Good PC", yes?

You're agreeing that there's no shorteage of evidence of ppl both being stupidly PC (your Andy Cole anecdote) and of people being counter-PC (the call-a-spade-a-spade brigade). So this is "Bad PC".

You raise the valid question that there's the difficult problem of where to drawn the line, but this is inherently true of anything you define as havnig Good and Bad aspects to - there's some grey area in the middle and no-one will ever agree on exactly where the line should be drawn.

So I don't see why you only partially agree, or whats missing from all of this to tell your FiL next time round? I'm sure both of you will agree that there is Good and Bad PC. All you really can argue over where the line should be drawn....and there's no right answer for that.

If you listen to that blind speaker, and decide to call all visually impaired people blind, many of them will be as insulted as that speaker would presumably be if you went with "visually impaired" or "visually challenged" or whatever.

Conclusion - there is no "right" place to draw the line. You just chose who you'll insult

jc

mike65

My fav is the bla-African Amercian who upon hearing the use of the word niggardly though he was being abused.

Mike.

Karl Hungus

I find that often Political Correctness is an excuse to find something offensive in what a person is saying, and to hell with what they actually mean; "Unthinking Racism" for example. Yes, you too can be a card-carrying member of the Nazi party just as long as someone can find something to take offense at. :rolleyes:

Not to mention the blatant double-standards of PC!

Someone explain to me why a film maker in the US has to have a certain quota of black actors in his film, or else it's racism, yet Hollywood can take films with all-asain casts and remake them with a predominantly white cast (Albiet with said black quota), and it's not at all racist?

Or how about the fact that it's sexist not to allow women on golf courses, yet not allowing men in swimming pools is perfectly ok?

I've said it once and I'll say it again, Political Correctness is a joke.

Orion

Karl Hungus wrote:

Or how about the fact that it's sexist not to allow women on golf courses, yet not allowing men in swimming pools is perfectly ok?

I've said it once and I'll say it again, Political Correctness is a joke.

What's this swimming pool thing? I long for the day when men in Ireland have equality with women because it's all in their favour atm. Any women golfers reading this? Go open a women-only golf club and leave Portmarnock alone! You won't find any men protesting about it.

My other half has a preferred expression for the quotas you're talking about ... 'positive discrimination'. That's a phrase I refuse to recognise. Discrimination, by it's very nature, is negative => no such thing a positive negative.

uberwolf

moved to Humanities. Didn't really feel political. - despite the title!

Dinner

Karl Hungus wrote:

Someone explain to me why a film maker in the US has to have a certain quota of black actors in his film, or else it's racism, yet Hollywood can take films with all-asain casts and remake them with a predominantly white cast (Albiet with said black quota), and it's not at all racist?

Arent Brown Sugar and Barbershop all/nearly all black. Wonder what would happen if it was all white people.

PC is a complete joke. Some people take life far to seriously and treat everything as if its a personal attack on them.

Doctor Benway

Arabel wrote:

Arent Brown Sugar and Barbershop all/nearly all black. Wonder what would happen if it was all white people.

What you mean like American Pie? Yes, remember the furore when that film was released, with critics likening it to Triumph of the Will in its blatant racism.

Dinner

Doctor Benway wrote:

What you mean like American Pie? Yes, remember the furore when that film was released, with critics likening it to Triumph of the Will in its blatant racism.

Really!! I never noticed that. I'll have to watch it again so.

Nasty_Girl

I think some people get really offended really easy. Like I don't mind being called a Paddy or whatever but remember when Pat Kenny refferred to Japanese people as "Japs"
Before the public "outrage" that followed I didn't even know it was an offensive term, I thought it was an abbreviation, like the way we call the British the "Brits".

Zombrex

Arabel wrote:

Arent Brown Sugar and Barbershop all/nearly all black. Wonder what would happen if it was all white people.

PC is a complete joke. Some people take life far to seriously and treat everything as if its a personal attack on them.

Barbershop actually does have a few white people in it as far as I can remember. But just because Barbershop is about black people doesn't mean it can't re-enforce racial stereotypes. I know a few black people who are rather sick of hollywoods idea of what black americans are like (if they aren't playing basketball to get out of the 'hood they are gangbanging or they are the wise cracking cool black guy). When was the last time you saw a movie about a black mathematicion.

To me the problem is the way America handles the problem of race in general. They are constantly trying to target specific groups with specific view points to re-address the balance. Positive Descrimination I think someone in a previous post called it. So the response to a show like Friends or Cheers having 1 black person every session (in a city like New York or Boston .. come on!) is to produce a show that has a completely black or hispanic cast. That way they believe they are re-addressing the balance, but in reality only re-enforcing the idea that white and black people don't mix in America which is nonsense.

Dreamcatcher

Wicknight wrote:

To me the problem is the way America handles the problem of race in general. They are constantly trying to target specific groups with specific view points to re-address the balance. Positive Descrimination I think someone in a previous post called it.

Exactly. When it comes down to it, actions speak louder than words. And the intention BEHIND the words is the most important thing imo.

Also WHO is saying the words is important, or the context/tone that is being used.
Simple example: think of George Bush using the words "God", "evil" etc.
And think of what these words mean to a devout, deeply spirital, moral individual.
[Slightly off-topic maybe]

Gurgle

Wicknight wrote:

To me the problem is the way America handles the problem of race in general. They are constantly trying to target specific groups with specific view points to re-address the balance.

Me too.
Take 'african-american' for example.
They are Americans, not Africans!

They're decended from africans, in the same way we're decended from the scandanavian celts, but thats it.

They (generally) have no african heritage, traditions, lifestyles, arts, social structures etc.
So the phrase 'African-American' means nothing more than 'Black-american'.

Ergo, the use of the word 'African' only serves to identify them as blacks, defining how american they are by therir skin colour and perpetuating racial segregation.

If you wanted to identify them by their common heritage rather than their skin colour, they should be called ex-slave-americans.

rubadub

The music of black origin awards is another too.

Orion

Wicknight wrote:

Positive Descrimination I think someone in a previous post called it.

I did. And I also said that I refuse to recognise that term. Discrimination by its very nature is negative => positive discrimination is not possible. You may as well call it what it is - discrimination

Local example=golf club memberships. Women now have the right to become full members of many golf clubs but most women choose to remain as associate members. But can men choose to become associate members? Hell no! (not that any male golfer I know would want it but it's the principle right )

landser

Gurgle wrote:

Me too.
Take 'african-american' for example.
They are Americans, not Africans!

They're decended from africans, in the same way we're decended from the scandanavian celts, but thats it.

They (generally) have no african heritage, traditions, lifestyles, arts, social structures etc.
So the phrase 'African-American' means nothing more than 'Black-american'.

Ergo, the use of the word 'African' only serves to identify them as blacks, defining how american they are by therir skin colour and perpetuating racial segregation.

If you wanted to identify them by their common heritage rather than their skin colour, they should be called ex-slave-americans.

and what if they are mixed race. many an african american could be 1/2 white. what ar ethey called? afro european american? although, it's probaly better than calling them a "goddam mixie" (prounce in arkansas accent)

Zombrex

Macros42 wrote:

Local example=golf club memberships. Women now have the right to become full members of many golf clubs but most women choose to remain as associate members. But can men choose to become associate members? Hell no! (not that any male golfer I know would want it but it's the principle right )

Isn't that like saying why can't white people use the black only wash-room? :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Isn't that like saying why can't white people use the black only wash-room? :rolleyes:

If the black only wash-room cost one third of the white one I'd want to use it too.

Orion

Wicknight wrote:

Isn't that like saying why can't white people use the black only wash-room? :rolleyes:

No - it's like saying there shouldn't be a black only wash-room! :rolleyes:

Karl Hungus

Gurgle wrote:

They (generally) have no african heritage, traditions, lifestyles, arts, social structures etc.
So the phrase 'African-American' means nothing more than 'Black-american'.

Does "African-American" also cover people descended from Northern Africa where it's predominantly populated with a people of a more mediteranian ethnicity, or is the term solely to describe those descended of sub-saharan regions?

Something to ponder?

simu

Karl Hungus wrote:

Does "African-American" also cover people descended from Northern Africa where it's predominantly populated with a people of a more mediteranian ethnicity, or is the term solely to describe those descended of sub-saharan regions?

Something to ponder?

In practise, it means the descendants of black African slaves brought over to the US. It's not precise at all of course but that's the generally accepted meaning. It's like the Irish calling themselves Celts and ignoring the fact that we're descended from non-Celts as well.

I just know some eejits some day will start calling Irish black people Irish-African-Americans although they and their ancestors may have never crossed the Atlantic!

pickarooney

It's a load of bollocks, "African-American". Rather than referring to someone by the colour of their skin, an inescapable fact by looking at them, you use that self-same physical attribute and make a gross assumption about the person's nationality and heritage - the person could be Ghanaian, French or Australian - in order to appear non-prejudicial.

beanyb

Macros42 wrote:

there's a report of a woman in Dublin who objected to Andy Cole being called black - she said he's African-American .

He's clearly not African-American since he's English.....