[digg=http://digg.com/political_opinion/In_Defense_of_Political_Correctness]I cannot pinpoint the exact year when I started hearing about this thing called Political Correctness. I know I was fairly young (pre-teen, I think) and no one ever gave me a firm definition of what “Politically Correct” meant. I knew it had something to do with language and the names people were supposed to use for each other. Native American instead of “Indian”, Homosexual or Gay instead of “Fag” or “Faggot”, and African American instead of “Colored”, “Negro”, and, to some extent, “Black.” (The last one I do not agree with for myself, obviously. That’s another post.)
I remember that even from the beginnings of Political Correctness, people have made light of it, if not outright joked about it. Some of the ways people were expected to refer to others seemed overwrought - “Differently-abled” instead of handicapped (or cripple), “Vertically Challenged” instead of dwarf or midget or some other (admittedly) offensive way of referring to people born shorter than ‘normal’. However, I’ve always felt that a group, especially a minority group, has the right to guide the language concerning themselves, especially in the public square. What people do in their own homes can’t be dictated (nor should it be). If a group of people wants folks to refer to them as Differently-abled, then folks should. Even if folks on the outside don’t like having to do so.
Still, this particular language came under fire early on in Political Correctness. And, as time went on, Political Correctness and accusations of it became somewhat of a pejorative. (PC police, anyone?) Now newsbeings like Lou Dobbs can say on national television that Politically Correct speech is nothing more than a way for ‘people’ to control the speech of others and no one corrects him. There’s not even outrage. He set PC against the First Amendment, demonized it, and squished it under his huge ass.
For many years I allowed the belittling of Political Correctness to sort of roll off my back. It used to be that I would have an immediate negative reaction to people using PC like a curse word. Lately I was surprised to find myself sort of unconsciously agreeing with the “PC is bad!” sentiments I heard. Once I recognized that I yanked hard on the reins - whoa Nelly! Where did this attitude come from?
My guess is that, since I have never been clear on what exactly “Politically Correct” is and have never fought for my particular PC label, I have not properly cemented the concept in my mind. Therefore, my opinion of it is easily, if not sneakily, swayed. I wasn’t paying enough attention. When I sat down and thought about how I really felt about Political Correctness, I decided that it really is a good thing. A thing worth fighting for. It’s not negative, it’s not a curse word, and it’s not about suppressing free speech or policing anyone’s thoughts.
I think it’s time that people started defending Political Correctness. Articulating what it is, what it isn’t, and why it’s still important. Political Correctness is about language and the power language has. I’m a writer. I believe — no, I know — that language is a powerful weapon. Changing language is one of the key ways to change society for the better. Language is one of the key ways in which people in power maintain the status quo. Changing language, by itself, won’t solve the world’s problems. No one thing will. But there are always key factors. Language is one.
To start, let’s explore what Politically Correct is supposed to mean.
Not surprisingly, the article on Political Correctness at Wikipedia is a battleground. (If you’ve never clicked the ‘Discussion’ tab on WP entries, especially ones that have boxes at the top stating that the article may be flawed in some way, you’re missing out on some very interesting - and funny - drama.) Right now, the opening paragraphs of the entry state:
Political correctness (often abbreviated to PC) is a term used to describe language or behavior which is intended, or said to be intended, to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. A text that conforms to the alleged ideals of political correctness is said to be politically correct.
The term “political correctness” is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense. However, terms such as inclusive language and civility are often used to praise language that is seen by critics as “politically correct”. Those who use the term in a critical fashion often express a concern about the dilution of freedom of speech, intolerance of language, and the avoidance of a discussion of social problems.
Reference.com gives us a few more views:
politically correct - marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving esp. race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology.
(Dictionary.com Unabridged)politically correct -
1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
2. Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters.
(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)political correctness - avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.
(WordNet)
I particularly like the definition by WordNet. It parallels the bit about “Civility” mentioned in the Wikipedia entry. For me, Political Correctness boils down to just that: being civil, being polite. I feel that Political Correctness promotes tolerance because it forces people to think about what they say and who they are saying it to.
It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that people who rail against Politically Correct speech are those who do not want to have to be polite or civil to folks different from them. They see nothing wrong with using the language they grew up with or that they’ve come to use. They do not care if the language they use is hurtful to others because, after all, the most important thing is that they get to do what they want when they want. This is the prevailing attitude of people with privilege.
I’m not just talking about White Privilege, either. Any kind of privilege can result in this attitude. Because it’s usually the underprivileged who are asking for new labels and new language. It is one of the great markers of privilege that those who have it can ignore the voices of those who don’t. They can disparage and actively suppress efforts to level the playing field. They can spit PC at anyone who asks for a little civility.
Common decency. How often do we hear people asking where it went?
Politically Correct language is important. Whether we keep calling it PC or we start calling it Civil Speech or Inclusive Talk, we need to fight for it. Changing language, changing society, building a better future, that’s hard work. But here we have an excellent tool for doing so that doesn’t require marching, letter-writing, or even picking up a newspaper. Let’s make sure people use it.
politically correct, political correctness, pc, language, civility, free speech
the reason that political correctness will never work is because it contradicts the very idea that it stands for.
PC is the tolerance of others beliefs, culture as to not discriminate agiainst anyone. Yet being politally correct labels speach as being correct based on what is morally right to say. Who is to say what i believe is more wrong than what you have to say. Who is to say my morals are better than yours. How can you not discriminate against but tolerate somehting like islam that does not treat women fairly when we also believe that it is politally corrrect to treat women equally. PC is a code of what is the rhgt thing to say going agianst our constitutional freedom of speach.
We should not offend people when at all posible but this cannot hold us back from speaking our mind or nothing will be discussed.
PC is a great idea, but through the years it has been morphed into somehting it was never to be. Treat others like you would like to be treated.
Just stopped by as I was having a browse over PC topics and came by this site. Some good points, however it seems very evident that the community is not very open minded.. your way or the high way? As for Angry Black woman…. yes you are very angry, maybe you could also see the bigger picture before you flame someone just because their views differ from yours.
Or maybe you could try to see *why* she’s angry, instead of claiming that she flames people just because her views are different than yours.
Oh and BTW, she can choose who, when, and why to flame because IT’S HER DAMN BLOG!
What the hell is it with people who come up and try to tell you how to run your own damn blog?! Sheesh!!
the problem i have with political correctness is that
1) its censorship , fundamentally. that means it is
fundamentaly undemocratic. For Black people in
this country, when the tide has historically shifted
toward undemocracy, that is usually, ultimately
bad for us.
2) political correctness is very relative to the politics
of the day. which means that there is often no real
morality behind it. it is used as a cover for latent
racists to hide behind while they actively , silently
engage in racism ….
there is too many chances for token representation
of “minorities” rather than the fundamental shift
towards true equality.
3) Here’s an example:
The term “Black” is now disputed by the proponents
of correctness, as a perjorative of persons
descended from or from Africa
The word “Africa” itself like the words “Ethiopia”
and “Sudan”, originated as colonial names by
foriegn explorers and invaders. These words ,
roughly translated into modern English, all mean
“land of the dark-skinned people” or “land of the
blacks” .
So when someone says “I’m not African, I’m
Black” or “I’m not Black , I’m African” , it’s an
argument based on ignorance.
While well-intentioned, I have found that Political Correctness, as most have come to understand, fundamentally breeds division, not unity.
1) its censorship
Actually, it’s not.
2) political correctness is very relative to the politics of the day. which means that there is often no real morality behind it.
Wrong again. It’s never been particularly good form to refer to someone as a cripple, or a nigger, or a chink, or a retard. It’s just that now we have a system i place that explains why these words aren’t desirable.
So when someone says “I’m not African, I’m Black” or “I’m not Black , I’m African” , it’s an argument based on ignorance.
and wrong a third time. The discussion surrounding Black vs. African-American or even just African is so much more nuanced than that.
While well-intentioned, I have found that Political Correctness, as most have come to understand, fundamentally breeds division, not unity.
Only amongst the ignorant.
I have found that Political Correctness, as most have come to understand, fundamentally breeds division, not unity.
Whereas racism, sexism, and homophobia bring us all together. If by “us,” you mean straight white men, of course.
“and wrong a third time. The discussion surrounding Black vs. African-American or even just African is so much more nuanced than that. ”
i enjoy a good debate. especially when the uninformed assume that there are informed…
whatever nuances “Africans” and “African-americans” see as vast differences come from different interpretrations of the same problem : colonialism.
much of the nations in Africa today were literally carved up by the European powers of the 19th century. and those artifical divisions still breed friction today. there are more black people in Brazil than in the u.s., but there still is a perceived distinction between “those” black people and the black people of the u.s… in th brazilian state of bahia, blacks fought for and maintained a esentially seccesionist and autonomous state within brazil for nearly 100 years until slavery was finally overthrown in that country. Slavery ended in Brazil on May 13, 1888. That’s nearly 33 years longer than it took slavery to officialy end in the U.S.
but we both know, as fellow “African-Americans” ,that if you were teleport Afro-Brazilians into Harlem instananeously, there is a likely chance that they would NOT be regarded as fellow Black people by many Black residents in Harlem , just because of the language difference. In terms of their actual historical experience, the African culture in Brazil is very more intact than any group of Blacks in the U.S.
I am very aware of the degrees of racism, and the degrees of the debate about racism between Africans living in the Americas. But I am struck by the commonality that Africans all over the world share by their divisiveness toward each other. I would posit that this divisiveness allowed the slave trade to blossom in Africa to begin with….
Bluntly put, African dscendents living in Brazil are probably more African in culture than African descendents in America.
That is because slavery in the States was so much more complete in its execution upon its slave population. Language and cultural ties to Africa were successfully wiped out for many Blacks , with the notable exceptions of Gullah, Creole, Garifuna, and Seminole communities in South Carolina,Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida,respectively.
In Africa, Belgium and France , among other European conquerors, carved up the Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, and Nigeria according to the their needs as colonizers , very much irrespectively of the tribal boundaries that divide and connect those countries throughout the history of the continent. Even some of the tribal identities like ” Yoruba” was constructed by Westernized exiles living in Sierra Leone. Then this “identity” was introduced retroactively to nearby communities in Lagos,Nigeria.
The “jeje” identity was similarly constructed in Brazil , and then applied to the African identity of Black people already living in Brazil.
Also,there are historical evidences that the term “Gullah” may have derived from the term Gola, which is the name of a people in Sierra Leone, as well as the origin of the national term for Angola.
Africans and Black Americans both have had to construct their cultural identities, in large part from their respective post-colonial realities.
(My source of information is the article , AfroAtlantic Culture: On the Live Dialogue Between Africa and the Americas, by J. Lorand Matory in the historical volume, Africana, compiled by Henry Louis Gates & Kwame Anthony Appiah in 1999.)
That being said, these nuanced differencesbetween Africans and African-Americans are real. They do matter when Black people are dealing with each other. But they are united in their post-colonial reasoning, and frankly, that can be overcome with humility and some research.
But political correctness has an inherent danger in what I would call “over-hyphenating” identities. As Black people living in this country, I believe we simply cannot afford afford even the divisiveness of our language. If we, as Black people, accentuate , rather than simply acknowledge and overcome, the differences between “us” and other Africans, then we only hurt ourselves. Over-hyphenating our identity will result in over-hyphenating our thinking, dividing us from Africans living in Africa, or Africans living in Latin America, or Europe, or Asia, ultimately dividing us from our political , cultural brothers and sisters.
Yes, I think Don Imus should have been fired from his radio show, just as I think he had the right of free speech to say “nappyheaded ho’s”, hatefully racist as the words, and his intentions are.Just as Al Sharpton, and the National Action Network had the right to protest for his dismissal. The Constitution is clear on both sides of the Debate. Nas AND Ice Cube have the right to use the word “nigger” on their albums, and upscale Blacks (and Whites) have the right to protest it.
( I often fantasize about Ice Cube and heavy metal gun activist Ted Nugent both at the same table on Bill Maher’s Real Time. Let the sparks fly.)
The fact are that when people say hateful words or language, in this country, The United States Constitution protects their right to free speech . Period.
That doesn’t mean people have to sit silently and take it. The Constitution also protects our rights to protest.
I have to go to work now, so I can’t keep writing much longer. I am a schoolteacher and a cartoonist. check out my site, http://www.clayharrisillustrations.com. This debate will most likely continue, much to my joy, because i believe firmly that this is kind of dialogue on race that we ALL need.
Well, it’s great that you’ve done your homework on recent Africans-in-the-Americas history. Thanks for showing us your report. Next time, try summarizing more than one article on several thousand years of multiple cultures’ histories before you start assembling your next history lesson, OK? You could even try, I don’t know, talking to people who are from those cultures, rather than just showing off your book-knowledge of them. Might help you grasp that whole “nuance” thing.
That said, you might as well just stop here. It really doesn’t matter how many articles you read and regurgitate, because your credibility is shot the instant you start equating political correctness with racism. Not only is this cliched neocon rhetoric that we’ve heard a billion times before, it shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire concept that you might as well be arguing that up is down. And while that works on, say, the audience of Fox News, it generally doesn’t fly far here.
where is “here” that you’re talking about? im not seeing or hearing from from you any more depth than i would from Mr. O’Reilly and company ( who , by the way, hangs out with Al Sharpton for reasons I can’t fathom) name-calling don’t work on me, which ultimately is THE problem with political correctness. show up with facts, not mere attitude , or post-doc sarcasm.
1 more salvo for ya. Political Correctness goes as about as far as this blog. This doesn’t change much in race-relations on the ground level. You are not out in the streets taking hits like Benazir Bhutto for the Cause, you are sitting at your laptop emailing me back and forth. That is what Political Correctness does. It distracts you from the real Struggle. Like I said, I enjoy the debate.
Calling me a neo-con or a Fox News wannabe doesn’t change the debate. I am saying to you that when Political Correctness draws semantic boundaries between marginalized African peoples around the world , ( and really just people around the world ) when we should be tactically drawing alliances , then that “Correctness” is neither political not correct, just impotent blathering.
PC doesn’t go far enough is my view. This dialectic spending time redefining terms of race, instead assaulting and shattering the genetically invalid concept of race finally for the sake of equality and freedom.
On the African vs. Black issue, African people around the world are still one people because we have been , and are oppressed like we ARE one people. That may never be “Black enough” for you, but I am starting to doubt your idea of “Blackness” anyway.
where is “here” that you’re talking about? im not seeing or hearing from from you any more depth than i would from Mr. O’Reilly and company
Here is the Angry Black Woman blog. You seem to have trouble grasping the concept of “place” on the internet. might want to work on that.
Secondly, we also love to debate based on facts, but so far you haven’t really shown yourself worthy of me or anyone else taking time to engage you. You can here making pronouncements, judgments, and basically looking down your nose at us based on one or two posts. If you’d read more of the posts you’d notice that we already know about the problem of colonialism and how Africa was carved up by Europeans. As Nora pointed out, this book knowledge doesn’t really give you insight into the nuances I mentioned. In order to engage and educate you, I’d really have to care more about enlightening you. As it is, you come off like an asshole, and I have no inclination to do so. It’s not my job to give time and energy to every asshole who comes by here looking to put me down.
i’m not calling you an asshole or a neo-con, or Fox News acolyte, all the things you have said about me. I disagree with you point-blank, and I am clear about it.
But if someone engages me in name-calling, I don’t always turn the other cheek.
It is your own blog. You can do what you want. I came to the blog to discuss , and that’s what I thought I was doing… I think these kind of blogs are healthy and valid.
I will apologize flatly for any hurt feeling in this debate. However, I question the fundamentals of your logic.
You have the name of your blog as “Angry Black Woman”, and yet you don’t want to debate race and politics with a presumably “Angry Black Man.”
The latest news on tribal /political warfare in Kenya, and the persistence of Black-on-Black crime in the U.S. seems to focus even more on the effects of colonialism on the relations between African peoples. I teach in Washington,DC. This is not some remote academic issue for me. It’s good to have a open, frank forum on these subjects.
How I do present facts without your interpretation of them as “pronouncements, judgments,…etc”?
I didn’t write on your blog out of hate or even spite.
And I didn’t start the name-calling.
I want to play by the rules, but if we are going to debate, then let’s debate. Let’s even debate the facts. And then let’s actually arrive at some point of positive action…
Though this may be long dead. I have to agree with Clay. You’ve got a little more solid fact, and no one has really taken on your arguments for face value. Seems like they’ve attacked you and what you say, but not what your saying. I think the problem with PC is in some aspects it’s nice to be polite. Take those Muhammad Cartoon drawings from a few months back. Why should he lose his job, or even be killed (as some members of the Islamic Community wanted) because he drew what he believes? Doesn’t make sense when this nation is based off of free speech.
[...] on the internet: I ran across this good post in defense of “political correctness” which reminded me of the argument I was trying to make a couple of months ago in this post about [...]
[...] While I’m thinking about those mythical feminist brainwashers and thought police that so many privileged dudes seem to be worried about, I’d like to recommend a great post by The Angry Black Woman titled “In Defense of Political Correctness.” [...]
[...] Black Woman has an excellent piece on “political correctness”. In Defense of Political Correctness explores the attitudes behind disparaging PC-ness and why we shouldn’t accept [...]
[...] me towards people who have said this better (I know Angry Black Woman has a great post up about political correctness). My main concern is whether I should go into depth about the history of racism in Australia or [...]
[...] are plenty of arguments for and against out there, of [...]