Vice President Joe Biden got into trouble with the political
police recently for referring to the “Orient.” He should have said “Asia,” the
correctors said.
A letter writer told the Washington Post that the paper was wrong
for citing Biden’s remark as insensitive to those who would control his as well
as the speech of others. Orient is a perfectly good word, the writer argued,
giving some good examples, including contrasting it with Occidental. East and
West are the accepted definitions, referring to the areas east of the
Mediterranean and Red Sea, and to the Western Hemisphere and (surprise) Europe.
Other definitions would cover the area from India on to the Philippines for the
Orient. Often, of course, the terms Near East and Far East are used to cover
the great expanse of Asia.
But, hold on! Orient is offensive to some people, so one
dare not use the term.
Who says so?
The true question is: Who arbitrates what constitutes
political correctness?
No person, no one group can be cited. There is no authority
for political correctness. The press in its broadest sense, however, carries
water for the cause, which is espoused by those with pet peeves.
PC is the construct of unidentified persuaders that wish,
ultimately, to control speech --- public and private – and the thoughts behind
it.
People intent upon communicating with each other –
regardless of medium – must not allow such manipulation for their own good.
They must not dodge politically incorrect conclusions expressed fearlessly. That
is the sum and substance of the rejection of political correct speech.
But someone might be offended!
That is the summation of the defense of political
correctness. But is that defense used by, let’s suppose, those without social
agendas? One can hardly have much self-confidence if easily offended. Or, one’s
high regard for self must lord over the pitifulness of less-educated creatures.
Google listed search requests it had received for the
politically correct substitutes for “third world country” “midget” “retarded” “handicapped” “native american”
[sic] “deaf” “homeless” and “poor”. The
list itself indicates the problem. Those words or terms, with the exception of
the PC term for the original American Indian, are descriptive without insinuations
one way or the other, and were for centuries.
But there are long-standing, effective regulators of speech.
Courtesy. Good manners. Etiquette.
Racial slurs have existed forever and are of a different
order. That does not make them right or acceptable. People of “good breeding” –
to use an old cliché – would not use them. If they did, they meant to offend;
they were – and are -- prejudiced. Some are still with us, whether cultured or
“white trash.” (Is that politically or socially incorrect? As an aside, racial
or ethnic jokes once were enjoyed, even on network TV, without rancor.) Real
slurs transcend social acceptance and should be criticized.
Intention is everything. Intention is controlling in
criminal law. Intention is controlling in determination of sin. Intention is
considered by people of good will in their dealings with others.
Good ol’ Joe Biden undoubtedly did not intend to hurt anyone,
but . . .
Intention is completely ignored by those wishing to police
the language of others. Look at the public figures whose futures have been
completely changed by some word or phrase. Use alone doomed these people. Their
apologies went for nil. Their livelihoods were endangered.
No need to prove them guilty of a deliberate wish to offend.
Maybe some did so deliberately, but proof was not required. Some spoke in
private. One who did speak in private is said to suffer dementia. Without
benefit of legal charges, trial, or judgment he lost membership in a sports
league and was forced (the law was involved, but not regarding his speech) to
rid himself of the franchise. Two billion dollars was involved.
Names of those punished for their words could be run off at
this point. The purpose here is not to argue particular cases of political
incorrectness. The purpose is to argue consequences of this growing,
encompassing problem.
Newspeak, according to Wikipedia, is “a controlled language
created by the totalitarian state as a tool to limit freedom of thought.” This
fictional language was the work of George Orwell in his novel, Nineteen Eighty Four. But politically
correct speech is becoming compulsory in the United States and elsewhere in
what had become to be known as the Free World.
Compulsion should be feared and combatted. Especially when
government barks.
E-cigarettes may offer a good example without getting into
the frightening possibility of totalitarianism. Tobacco smoking is now
prohibited by governmental regulation in nearly every place of public
accommodation and sometime in public spaces in and out of doors. The harm of
smoking was perceived long before public opinion developed overwhelming against
it. The phrase “coffin nails” dates back to the 19th century. The
surgeon general’s report in 1964 led to widespread criticism of smoking and to
many smokers quitting. Then arrived advertising limitations and warnings on
packages, outright bans on smoking in public, even threats of prohibiting
puffing in one’s own castle. So, e-cigarettes, which contain nicotine but no
tobacco, are being targeted by people who would control other people’s
behavior.
And by the way, many of those same would-be controllers probably
are perfectly willing to see marijuana legalized, as has been done in Colorado
and Washington. Some 20 other states and the District of Columbia have some
form of medically approved cannabis or other relaxed regulations on its use.
The recognized health dangers of marijuana use bring little concern among its
supporters.
A leader of the campaign against tobacco was behind an
effort to get the Federal Communications Commission to deny broadcast licenses
to stations using the name “Redskins” in referring to the Washington football
team. And outside of government, Facebook surrendered in permitting drag queens
to use their professional names instead of legal names on their sites.
PC regulation is both governmental and private. Enforcement,
in general, is through attempted embarrassment.
Regardless of partisan views, a majority of citizens would –
at least for the time being – oppose governmental imposition of speech
controls. Not everyone realizes constitutional recognition of the rights to freedom
of speech, communication (press), assembly and petition for redress of
grievances are there to protect citizens from their government, not mention
religion. We count on elected officeholders and, in turn, those appointed carry
out policies or to judge acts as protectors of those rights.
Still protection of free speech calls for individual
strength. One must not cower before those who would tell us how to express our
thoughts.
What might happen when standing up for what is right?
Early in his chapter entitled “Take Courage,” Ben Carson in One Nation asks four questions about
standing up to political correctness. What are the best and worst things to
happen from taking action, and from not taking action? He writes:
Let’s
consider these questions with respect to being courageous enough to go against
the flow of political correctness and demand your constitutional rights. What
is the best thing that happens if we refuse to abide by the dictates of
political correctness? I believe that we could return to a nation that truly
cherishes freedom of speech and freedom of expression. A nation where people
are unafraid to express their opinions and beliefs are eager to engage in
intelligent and constructive conversations about their differences. A nation
where we value even those with whom we disagree and work together to accomplish
common goals.
What is the
worst thing that happens if we oppose political correctness? I believe that
every attempt would be made to silence those who oppose political correctness
and to make examples of them to discourage others. World history demonstrates
that it is very difficult to eradicate every single fighter for freedom.
What is the best thing that happens if we
don’t oppose political correctness? I believe we would achieve a very
homogeneous society with little original thought but complete harmony. What is
the worst thing that happens if we don’t oppose political correctness? I
believe we could see a dictatorship with brutal domination of any individual or
group that opposes the leadership. The worst things that can happen if we don’t
take action are considerably worse than the worst things that can happen if we
do take action. Therefore we must take action.
This is one man’s opinion. It is, however, reasonably argued
and worth considering. But Dr. Carson is a controversial man because he has
spoken and written his beliefs. His life’s story of rising from the Detroit
ghetto to that of a famous neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins brought him to public
attention. His attention to public affairs has brought him both praise and
disparagement. His career and reputation are examples of the very thing he
writes about above.
A quick history: Wikipedia says “politically correct”
appears in a 1793 Supreme Court case where it merely means “in line with
prevailing political thought or policy.” In the 1940s and ‘50s Socialists used
the term pejoratively against the Communist “party line.” In 1970 Toni Cade
wrote in The Black Woman, “A man
cannot be politically correct and a chauvinist too.” William Safire cited that
in his Safire’s Political Dictionary.
The Wikipedia entry also cites conservatives criticizing leftists in academia
in the latter part of the 20th century.
The practice of calling for PC usage heated up in the last
quarter century or so; the heat intensifies. More frequently public figures are
being attacked for their lapses. Charges arise from various sources. Adjudication
is practiced in the news media and by pundits rendering decisions. Businesses
and organizations are imposing penalties.
One even may be corrected in ordinary talk by another
guzzler over a beer.
Efforts to control what others say, browbeating them into a
construction perceived acceptable for some real or fancied cause, should not be
tolerated. Such should be opposed with rigor and solid logic. Any elected
official trying to enact political correctness in any form should be opposed at
public hearings and at the polling place.
All opposition should be expressed in reasonable tones
without rancor, but with anchor firmly set in the might of right. Start with
friends and family.
