Political Correctness differs from politeness in its basic relationship to reality.
When one is polite, one refrains from saying or doing anything that is harmful to another person. There is no problem assessing the reality of the situation but there is also the appreciation that calling attention to the issue is unnecessary and can be painful to the person involved. Everyone can agree that rudeness makes daily life more difficult and can lead to unfortunate outcomes. Since it is cost-free to be polite, I highly recommend it in all interpersonal interactions.
Political Correctness, on the other hand, requires a denial and disavowal of unpleasant aspects of reality. When it becomes the accepted norm, it actively distorts the perception of reality and prevents people from recognizing problems and taking appropriate actions.
Today, in a brief sally through the blogosphere, I found a host of articles which directly or indirectly exhibit their genesis in a politically correct world view. The distortion and unreality involved is apparent. My brief summary of a small portion of the blogosphere is in service to my interest in furthering an understanding of the roots of political correctness and the necessity of confronting it at every turn.
Joe Katzman at Winds of War gives us Terror Spotlight: Thailand:
In a previous Winds of War report, we noted that Thailand has one of the world's worst terrorism problems: over 600 deaths in less than two years as a result of Islamofascist terrorism. Focus by the media? Hard to find, except for scattered articles in places like TIME Asia (Nov. 29/04: Buddhists Under Siege).
He then links to the AP report which can not bring itself to call the murderers "terrorists" but, as in Iraq, insists that Muslim murderers of innocents are "insurgents." The debasement of the language, and the willful blindness to Islamic terror by the MSM, continue apace.
Silent Running has an interesting and, as per his usual style, entertainingly sarcastic, post on:
the "state of Victoria's taxi reform working party... considering a plan to stop taxi drivers discussing politics and religion with passengers."
Apparently, though no mention is made of the religious or cultural make up of the taxi drivers,
"the ban is the result from complaints by passengers who have been subjected to abuse by taxi drivers (since 9/11) on Australia's support for the War on Terror; anti-American slogans, and support for Bin Laden."
The PC inability to call a thing by its name curdles thought.
Wretchard brings attention to the story behind the Italian Judge's indictment of American CIA personnel for their involvement in a "rendition" from Italy of a terror suspect. He comments at the end of a very worthwhile piece on the way in which PC distorts our discourse:
Yet acquiescence to this cynical game of political correctness represents the greatest debasement of all. Not only is it cowardly and irresponsible, it allows polite society to evade, for however long it wishes, substantive debate on moral choices which should concern us all. A society which wants to wage war without seeming to shed blood is one which has no intention of confronting the ethical issues. Then we are blind in heart as we are in sight. Nothing to see here, just Move On.
Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch describes an encounter with a pair of liberal New Yorkers who seem to be unable to recognize intolerance when they see it and see it where it does not exist.
Tolerance is a keystone of modern Western societies. But if it is an absolute value, it is a one-way-ticket to cultural suicide. As I spoke with my accusers that evening, the policemen all around us made it vividly clear where the real intolerance was coming from. Should the policemen have been more tolerant of the jihadists who issued the threats against me, and the young man who refused to let his backpack be searched? Should the British and Americans have tolerated Hitler? Should the Cold Warriors have tolerated the Gulag? “Toleration of the unacceptable,” as Bob Dylan once said, “leads to the last round-up.” I am trying to head that off. Intolerant? Sue me.
Finally, the indispensable Michelle Malkin reports on Mexican racism, which "PC-thought" does not allow to identify as racism. As she puts it:
It seems racism against black Americans is unacceptable, except when it's endorsed by the untouchable Mexican government.
Polipundit writes of EUropean “Justice”, in which mass murderers of Rwandans are given jail sentences of 12 and 10 years. Apparently, when genocide's victims are black Africans, their lives are cheap. The unspoken racism is appalling, as is the comfort of the European left with genocidal slaughterers, as long as they speak the language of the victim and the left.
Sarcasm and ridicule are powerful weapons against political correctness, but they are not enough. PC-thought has been damaging our national discourse and ability to assess dangers for many years now. We are raising a generation with a large cohort who have no understanding of how to separate their own opinions and fantasies from reality. The wish for a peaceful, loving world, where everyone loves each other and gets along, if only the Americans would lay down their arms, is a world where Americans die in large numbers. Howard Schwartz has done some valuable work on the psychological roots of political correctness. I hope to continue looking at the hidden suicidal wish and disavowed and projected hatred and rage that lie within PC-thought, in the near future.
Recent Comments