Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Is PC the way to be?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion; a phrase that's so often heard but followed through much less. It seems like it's impossible to say anything without it being considered offensive, derrogatory, or "politically incorrect". Does the thought occur to no one that it's not the sensativity of some, but the ignorance of others, that keep everyone questioning whether what they're saying is "PC" enough for the setting they're in?

A person many would consider to be respectable once told me something: to be politically correct is to lack in character. I was insulted, for I had never been told by a caucasion, heterosexual male living in the good ol' US of A that I should, in essence, hurt people with my words to have a laugh or prove something to other people. Though he may be "respectable", I certainly didn't respect his at that moment. It would be accurate to say that I took little if what I heard him later say seriously.

Under our government (in which all men are created equal), everyone is given the freedom to say and publish what they want. I think the rights permitted by our government are essential, and people should be able to say what they want. Does that mean it's approprite to harrass somone based on the color of their skin, cultural background, religion, sexual orientation, or gender? Morally, no. Legally, sure! As long as you be sure to commit no crimes, it is okay to attack people with the power of words. Someone has to be harmed or property has to be damaged before someone will call it a "hate crime".

Parents today are either so intent on going against politically correctness or don't care enough to teach kids that just because something is not the F-word doesn't mean it isn't as bad, or worse, to say. Kids grow up thinking it's okay to call something 'gay', 'jewish', or 'girly' and because they aren't the four letter words that good kids don't say, it's accepted or even encouraged. You don't have to be a female, Jewish homosexual to be offended by that sort of talk. The only thing is that you have to think about someone other than yourself.

With this comes the dispute about what to call Native American peoples. It's more than offensve to call them Indian tribes for two reasons. One: Indians live in India. The man who brought troops to a land that didn't belong to his people to kill millions named them that. I don't want a race of people named by the people who slaughtered them in unfair fights. Two: A tribe is savage. You separate animals into tribes. You separate primitigve caveman people into tribes. You don't separate civilized human beings into tribes.

An issue that hits close to home is the number of people upset with the representation of Nokomis being changed from an angry Native American to that of an ancient Trojan warrior. Trojan warriors do not exist anymore. All literature and history books describe them as being belligerent. The Iliad was based on a war the trojans fought Trojans are depicted as big and scary. On the other hand, Native Americans are not big and scary. The are still alive, and I'm sure don't want to be remembered by their children as a people who did nothing but fight. I don't care if the Native American costume was cooler looking. It was morally wrong.

What I'm saying is that it isn't always hippie, tree-hugging fools who are politically correct. The term in itself is wrong, since it's your moral standing rather than your political standing that will determine what you say and how. Forget about sensative people being offended and think about whether you'd want to be remembered as less and or about negatively because of things you can't help or have the right to believe. Then think about whether it would make much of a difference whether the person through "I was just kidding" or "don't be so sensative" after it. You learned as a kid to treat others as you want to be treated. Maybe it's time for another lesson.

3 comments:

Autumn said...

hey, Angela, I read part of your blog...
Dont the indians call orginize themselves into tribes? Thats not something that the US has thought of (idont thing).. Secondly.. I dont know if that was college formal but I liked it. It felt like you were saying it in real life, your personallity and your words were "alive" lol if you get my drift. Umm...In the book we are readin for history.. chapt two it says that the indians called themselves "the first people and the real people" does that mean that we should call them that.. not neccesariy cause the first person can be analzyed as more signifigant, or special. Calling some one the first person can be offensive to someone else.. Plus indians come from "Indios" which columbus named. He thought he was in india so he gave them that name. Your rite they did not give them their own name but by making "politically correct" you are elimiating part of history. In a thousand years people are not goin to no that indioes was the name given from columbus and that he made a mistake in his navigation. The name proved or is good evidence that that really happened. Also, people want to take God out of pledge if they do that they are getting rid of what the founding fathers based our country on.. you would be changing history.. Ummm yep idn how much of a help that was if it was.. but like i said earlier i like your voice in the paper (smart stuff) lol. In the second paragraph I got confused mabe there is a misspelling..i think its the 2nd paragraph i cant see the site while i am typeing this so im not sure.. Umm hope it helped.. Autumn

Kaylee said...

"Kids grow up thinking it's okay to call something 'gay', 'jewish', or 'girly' and because they aren't the four letter words that good kids don't say, it's accepted or even encouraged."

Totally agree. You're also totally correct in saying that the Native American is not an epic figure that fought to its downfall or something - Native Americans are still around today and should not be made into some tragic icon to be mimicked. ALthough I am not a hardcore advocate of political corectness, I do agree that it is not always the extreme liberals making peace signs who want to extirpate the image of the war-whooping "Indian" as a brutish mascot. Native American people are still ALIVE today, it's not the same as using the Trojan. So overall, I agree.

Kaylee!

Autumn said...

Why do you want to take God out of the pledge.. our country was founded with christian beliefs by christians if we remove God we are erasing him from our everyday lives and excluding the fact that history wrote it... what about the people that are christians if you remove God from teh pledge you are offending millions of US citizens around the world. Should we change history for certain people when it offends others? what makes those peoples ideas of removing God from the pledge more imporant from leaving it in and not messing with history?