Intro

It's time for a reality check ...

Maybe we’ve reached the point of diminishing astonishment.

But I suspect that much of what we’re hammered with every day really doesn’t make much of an impact on most of us anymore. We’ve heard the same stories too often. We’ve been exposed to the same issues for so long without any meaningful resolution. We recognize that reality is rapidly becoming malleable, primarily in the hands of whoever has the biggest microphone. How else can we explain a society where myth asserts itself as reality, based entirely how many hits it gets online?

We know that many of the “issues” as defined are pure crapola, hyped by politicians on both sides pandering to “the will of the people,” which is still more crapola. Inevitably, it’s not the will of all the people they reflect, but the will of relatively small groups of people with disproportionate political influence.

Nobody wants to face up to the realities of the issues. Nobody wants to say what’s right or wrong – even when it’s obvious and there are numbers to back it up. Most of us are afraid to bring up the realities for fear of being accused of being insensitive or downright mean.

So we say nothing. Until now.

It’s time for a reality check on the fundamentals – much of which is common knowledge to many of us, already. But it might be comforting to know you are not alone …

Friday, August 19, 2016

Calling a spade a spade …

I bet that made you uncomfortable. Admit it.

This is what political correctness has done to us. 

It’s a harmless phrase about calling something exactly what it is.  But since it includes the word “spade” someone might interpret that word as a racist epithet.  

I’ve had Maine Coon cats as pets. “Coon” makes us all wince, too. So does “Negro,” even though that’s the Spanish word for black, and is an accepted anthropological term. 

For years the jingle for the Flintstones’ cartoon series ended with “We’ll have a gay old time!” I’m sure years from now that will be deemed unacceptable. Someone will find a hidden meaning.   

We live in a time when silly old series like Dukes of Hazzard are no longer shown simply because the car had a Confederate flag on the roof and was called the General Lee.  Huckleberry Finn, Dr. Doolittle, and Little House on the Prairie are being pulled from library shelves along with other classics either for being racist or culturally insensitive.

Where does it end?    

People actually search for sexist and racist innuendos in the strangest places – like the ice cubes in a liquor ad, the bubbles in a cold beer, and even Disney cartoons.  TV ads are scrutinized to ensure no one could possibly be offended.

Meanwhile, it’s perfectly okay to broadcast shows on basic cable during prime time – when kids are watching – that offer up murder, promiscuity, and gratuitous violence. These are sandwiched between commercials for products to treat erectile dysfunction, yeast infections, and herpes outbreaks.  Switch over to premium cable and the kids will miss the awkward-to-explain commercials but will be exposed to far more graphic treatments of sex, physical abuse, drug use and more, along with language that would make a sailor blush. 

Don’t get me wrong – I am no puritan; far from it. But I’m an adult. 

How do you explain erectile dysfunction to a 10 year old? Why should you have to? Why is it politically incorrect to allow children to read stories written more than 100 years ago simply because the words used then have now been deemed “harmful” to others?      

To me, it’s far easier to explain “nigger” Jim – one of the most important characters from Huck Finn, or Injun Joe from Tom Sawyer, in a historical context than it is to explain a man’s inability to maintain an erection, or what “if you have an erection that lasts more than four hours” means.

And that is my fundamental problem with political correctness. It’s solely in the eye of the beholder.  The rules constantly change, depending on the whims of a few.

If you read Huck Finn again today you’d probably flinch the first time you encountered the word “nigger” on a page. But then you’d realize the context was more important than the language used – a runaway child who partners with a runaway slave to escape a physically abusive drunken father. In many ways Huck and Jim are in equal straits. Jim and Huck are both treated like property – Jim by his owner, Widow Douglas; Huck by his alcoholic father, Pap. 

It’s a great story, written in the vernacular of a different time. Millions of kids read it without lasting psychological harm. If anything it probably made them more sympathetic to the plight of black slaves and the discrimination blacks faced. 

And it’s just a story, after all.   

What’s next? The Wizard of Oz was rereleased as The Wiz with a black cast. The latest incarnation of Annie features a black Annie.  The Honeymooners movie – a rip from the Jackie Gleason classic TV show – recast Ralph Kramden with Cedric The Entertainer. 

Why? 

I wonder what the reaction would be if someone re-released Porgy and Bess with an all-white cast? Or the classic Cabin in the Sky?  Should we ban Cinderella because it’s sexist?  What about Snow White – she can only be awakened by the kiss from the male prince?               

We’re all so sensitive now. We’re so afraid using a taboo word or phrase.

Except, apparently, Donald Trump. 

I think part of the appeal of Trump is a reaction to overbearing political correctness.  He has no filters and a lot of people find that refreshing.  So when he talks about radical Islamic terrorists or illegal immigrants it’s perfectly clear what he is saying – there’s no weasel wording about “radicalized jihadists” or “undocumented workers.”

In a speech the other night he addressed African Americans directly – something the Republican Establishment should have done for years but hasn’t. He pointed out the very obvious: African Americans have been voting for decades in virtual lockstep for Democrats, and what has it gotten them?  The inner cities run by Democrats are only getting worse.  Black unemployment remains stubbornly high. School choice – which would offer an avenue out of failing schools for black youth – is consistently blocked by Democrats and their allies in the teachers unions.    

Decades of support for Democrats – and even the election of a black President – have done nothing to help blacks. Trump put it succinctly – Democrats don’t really care about blacks; only their votes. He asked, what have Obama and Democrats like Hillary really done for black Americans, except to take their votes for granted?    

Trump added that if black Americans want real change they shouldn’t keep voting for the same people who’ve done nothing for them for years. 

That’s politically incorrect on so many levels – including criticizing our first black President for doing essentially nothing for the black community – but true. 

He also took on political correctness about Islam and respect for “multiculturalism” when he said:

“Anyone who believes Sharia law supplants American law will not be given an immigrant visa. If you want to join our society, then you must embrace our society, our values and our tolerant way of life. Those who believe in oppressing women, gays, Hispanics, African-Americans and people of different faiths are not welcome to join our country.”

Now, a lot of things Trump gets wrong.  He’s loose with facts, and he has a bad tendency to overreact to any criticism with low blows. 

But one thing is absolutely certain: he doesn’t give a damn about political correctness.  I have to admit I like that about him.  

In an era when safe spaces and microaggressions increasingly dominate public discourse, and when books written in a different time and place are suddenly being banned, there are a lot of us that, quite frankly, are fed up with it all. 

Our Constitution and its Amendments grant us many rights. But not the right to be protected from hurt feelings. You can't do that and maintain a free society. When you limit which words or phrases can be used -- or substitute euphemisms for otherwise factual descriptions -- you not only inhibit freedom of speech, but alter what's being expressed.  When you attempt to censor or ban artistic works -- be they books, TV shows, movies or whatever from years ago -- simply because they might offend someone today, where does it stop?  Who decides?       

That’s the real danger of political correctness. 

No comments:

Post a Comment