A commenter on a social media page noted that proposed remakes of old TV shows might not survive because of the “political correctness” we have today. I read the comment, struggled for a moment, but failed to restrain myself from responding. I have not been able to find the thread to confirm the exact exchange, but my comment was along the lines of perhaps being “politically correct” is being accepting of new information and acting appropriately. The commenter responded, but I chose to bow out of the discussion, feeling that more antipathy than understanding was to be the likely result. On that same neighborhood page, there is a constant resurgence of attention to themes that have been examined many times in the past. When those topics resurface, I chuckle when I see a graphic response that pictures a cartoonish person beating a dead horse.
On May 18th, 2012 in this publication, I gave my opinion of the term and application of so-called “political correctness.” The column was repeated (at my request) on January 24th, 2019. When I read fellow columnist Steve Nicewanger’s notation that POTUS had weighed in on the results of the recent running of the Kentucky Derby by claiming that political correctness had prevailed, I crumpled my paper in anger. I’ve not seen one definition of the term that would conclude that a strict application of a specific rule is being “politically correct.” The definitions cite “the avoidance … of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.” And, “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.”
An associate, knowing that I enjoy reading murder-mystery, cops and robbers-types of books, once introduced me to a writer whose casual and extensive use of a racial slur finally put me off his work. I told my friend, who had every book in the series, that I wanted to read no more of them: “I don’t want to return to the thirties.” In 1982, a literature professor at Indiana University Southeast carefully explained to the class that the Flannery O’Connor short story we were about to explore had a title that was an historically accurate reflection of the expressions of the time but was rejected by a civilized and inclusive society. I don’t think that political correctness was a driver in his introduction, but I can’t remember if the term was even active in the public’s discourse.
My three children have all been subjected to having expressions of contempt hurled at them, with my two youngest, whose mother is white and whose father is – me, (and who lived in a small, white town) being assaulted with it on a regular basis. I do not want to revisit those halcyon days when we were free to denigrate whomever we wanted, to marginalize and suppress the views and behaviors of whomever we decided that we did not like; the times when I was not considered to be a human being whose mere existence – absent aberrant behavior – was worthy of respect, women were objects to be used and discarded and sexual orientation was anatomical.
If there is a stone in your shoe that you’ve named “political correctness,” I would ask you to consider whether it is a stone of your own creation. If you express to me that you believe that observing a policy of common decency is bowing to political correctness, I plan to mount and spur on, my live steed of disagreement.
cjon3acd@att.net