Is ‘political correctness’ a left-wing conspiracy which impinges on free speech?

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
 
That remark won the 2007 annual contest at Texas A&M University for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term. Political correctness is the attitude or policy of being extremely careful not to offend or upset any group of people in society who have a disadvantage, or who have been treated differently because of their sex, race, or disability. However, as the Texas contest winner shows, it’s not a concept which is acceptable to those of a rabid right persuasion, many of whom call it ‘cultural Marxism’ and see it as a left-wing conspiracy to undermine Western values.
 
The term ‘politically correct’ first appeared in a lawsuit dealt with by the US Supreme Court in 1793, and then it was used in the early 20th century by communists and socialists when discussing the ‘correct’ party line on issues. But it was in the late 1980s that the term ‘political correctness’ started to be used in a derogatory way in the USA with regard to attempts at making language more culturally inclusive and gender neutral. In 2001 the political economist Will Hutton wrote: “Political correctness is one of the brilliant tools that the American right developed as part of its demolition of American liberalism.... What the sharpest thinkers on the American right saw quickly was that by declaring war on the cultural manifestations of liberalism – by levelling the charge of ‘political correctness’ against its exponents – they could discredit the whole political project.”
 
Right-wing and reactionary groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, and other politically contentious scientific matters, have claimed that the politically correct liberal orthodoxy of academia is the reason why their perspectives of those matters fail to receive a fair public hearing. In the USA, ‘left forces of political correctness’ have been blamed for actions largely carried out by right-wing groups, with the magazine ‘Time’ blaming campaigns against violence on network television on “the watchful eye of the PC police". However, it was largely Christian right groups which campaigned against violence (and sex, and depictions of homosexuality) on television.
 
Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman has written that “the big threat to our discourse is right-wing political correctness, which – unlike the liberal version – has lots of power and money behind it. And the goal is very much the kind of thing Orwell tried to convey with his notion of Newspeak: to make it impossible to talk, and possibly even think, about ideas that challenge the established order”. That was illustrated when a country music group called ‘Dixie Chicks’ criticised Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003; their remarks were labelled "treasonous" by right-wing commentators such as Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. The newspaper columnist Don Williams said "the ugliest form of political correctness occurs whenever there’s a war on. Then you’d better watch what you say".
 
In the course of the 1990s, the term began to be used frequently in the UK, with the expression "political correctness gone mad" becoming a catchphrase, usually associated with ‘The Daily Mail’. In 1999, in his book ‘The Abolition of Britain’, the journalist Peter Hitchens wrote: "What Americans describe with the casual phrase ‘political correctness’ is the most intolerant system of thought to dominate the British Isles since the Reformation." However, liberal commentators have argued that the conservatives and reactionaries who used the term did so in an attempt to divert political discussion away from the substantive matters of resolving societal discrimination – such as racial, social class, gender, and legal inequality – against people whom the right-wing do not consider part of the social mainstream.
 
British comedian Stewart Lee satirised that phrase "political correctness gone mad". He criticised people for overusing it without understanding the concept of political correctness, including many people's confusion of it with health and safety laws. In particular, he ridiculed ‘Daily Mail’ columnist Richard Littlejohn for his endless use of the phrase. We were even told by some newspapers that a school had altered the nursery rhyme ‘Baa Baa Black Sheep’ to read ‘Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep’. Then there was the council which had allegedly banned the expression ‘'brainstorming' and replaced it with 'thought showers', in case epileptics were offended. However, the magazine ‘Private Eye’ reported that the stories were baseless, as were many similar ones emanating from tabloid newspapers, especially from ‘The Sun’.
 
I like political correctness. Isn’t it better to say that someone is visually impaired rather than blind, or hearing impaired rather than deaf? Isn’t it more sensitive to call someone intellectually disabled rather than mentally retarded? Isn’t African American preferable to calling someone black or negro? Do we need to know the gender of a firefighter, a police officer or a head teacher? Writing in 2010, the columnist Polly Toynbee said “the phrase ‘political correctness’ was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say Paki, spastic, or queer”. In November 1994, the UK disability charity ‘The Spastics Society’ changed its name to ‘Scope’ because it had become politically incorrect to refer to people with cerebral palsy as ‘spastics’. Though correct in a medical sense, in everyday use the word ‘spastic’ had become a misused, unpleasant, offensive word and was frequently used as a term of abuse not only in the playground, but more seriously by adults.
 
The right-wing government elected in Australia in September 2013 is opposed to the politically correct law which makes it illegal to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" people on the grounds of race or ethnicity. The Australian writer and diplomat Bruce Grant has waded into the debate by reminding everyone that the fundamental reality of racial prejudice is that its victims have no choice. Grant writes: “You can change your religion and your politics, your language, job and even your country. You can marry socially up or down or ethnically sideways. You can go to jail rather than go to war. In each case, you can accept responsibility and use free speech to defend and explain your choice. But you cannot do anything about your parents. Your entry into the world was none of your doing. That is why racial prejudice is the most cruel and inhuman of all prejudices. It is also self-justifying and unproductive, making adversaries - even enemies - of people who may wish to be friendly. Free speech, like free trade and free enterprise, is not absolute, even in liberal democracies. We protect individuals against libel and slander and the state against breaches of national security.”
 
There is the justification for political correctness. We should never attack people for things over which they have no control. When you allow political incorrectness you get so-called comedians such as Bernard Manning (1930-2007), whose jokes were usually in bad taste and frequently racist. Many of them would be illegal if uttered in public nowadays. And then we have Jeremy Clarkson. During a press conference in Australia in February 2009, he called Gordon Brown "a one-eyed Scottish idiot". In a 2011 episode of ‘Top Gear’, Richard Hammond branded Mexicans “lazy, feckless and flatulent”, while Clarkson said the country’s UK ambassador would not complain because he would be snoring in front of his TV. Now the actress (should that be actor?) Somi Guha is threatening legal action against the BBC after Clarkson used the word ‘slope’ - a derogatory term for people of Asian descent - in an episode of ‘Top Gear’ which was filmed in Burma.
 
Is that taking things too far? Clarkson’s comment was ambiguous. He was looking at a bridge he had helped to build, just as a Burmese man was walking across it, when he said: “There’s a slope on the bridge”. Because there is room for doubt, I don’t think that would result in successful litigation, but I’m no lawyer. Is it also going over the top to rename Christmas ‘the holiday season’ or ‘Winterval’, just in case it offends anyone? I’ve never seen any evidence that minority groups are concerned by people celebrating Christmas, though many in the majority are irritated by the way Christmas is rammed down our throats by retailers from September onwards. But that’s another subject.
 
So, do you think political correctness is a left-wing conspiracy which impinges on free speech, or is it a good thing in moderation?
 
Sources used:-
 
http://www.politicallyincorrect.me.uk/
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
 
http://hereisthecity.com/en-gb/2011/10/07/11-cases-of-political-correctness-gone-mad/
 
http://www.scope.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdfs/History/Scope_name_change.pdf
 
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/sneers-of-political-correctness-hamper-race-debate-20140319-352nt.html
 
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/467438/Actress-launches-1m-lawsuit-over-racist-slope-comment-by-Top-Gear-s-Clarkson

Really good piece, Ivan - sets out the issue clearly and with appropriate references.

Speaking personally, I think the language we use pre-ordains the thoughts we will have - if we SPEAK of people in insulting or dismissive terms we will THINK of them the same way, and eventually we will ACT as though our thoughts were true. I'm all for thinking very carefully about what we say and what we allow to be said around us.

Confirmation, if it were needed, is this Republican rant on the same theme: http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/political-correctness-is-totalitarian-mind-control/

"PC" is a modern development of control-freak mind games which are as old as the human race. After the simple brute force of a caveman, religion came first as the means by which a few people sought to control many others. The relationship between men and women is also full of examples of control games, whilst the assumption of Leadership by Royalty or Politicians has always depended upon well-tried psychological tricks and strategies. Modern social networking takes full advantage of the power conferred or withheld by peer approval, whilst simultaneously generating wealth for the biggest manipulators of them all - Advertisers.

What are actually health and safety issues are sometimes dismissed as ‘political correctness’, and here is an example.
 
One of the first things that Tony Pulis did when he became manager of Gillingham Football Club in 1995 was to buy a 16st 6lb (104kg) goalkeeper who was known to the fans as ‘Big Fat’ Jim Stannard. (There’s some political incorrectness straight away!) A large number of Gillingham fans started taking celery to home games and throwing it at their own goalkeeper. The local greengrocers (they still had them in those days) did a roaring trade, but the club became concerned and instigated searches of fans who were turning up to matches with celery hidden in their trousers. Life bans were threatened for repeat offenders. The programme editor said that Gillingham was “the only club to have a connection with a vegetable”.
 
This concern for health and safety, in which celery was effectively deemed to be an offensive weapon, was a gift to both stand-up comedians and to lovers of the phrase “political correctness gone mad”.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/salad-days-return-to-gillingham-fc-but-not-in-the-way-you-might-think-1314130.html
 
http://hereisthecity.com/en-gb/2011/10/07/11-cases-of-political-correctness-gone-mad/

Bobby - you will find, if you google the word blackboard, as I just have, that it remains in regular and respectable use - your impression that the term blackboard became offensive is just that, an impression, possibly gained from newspaper reading.

As to the use of the term 'n----r' - this is a genuinely offensive term, historically applied to slaves by their masters - whether or not it is enshrined in a nursery rhyme, it remains a term which gives offence to a portiion of the population and its deliberate use by an adult in a public place cannot be interpreted any other way than as a deliberate attempt to give offence.

As I have said before on this very thread, the way we speak does have some influence on the way we think, which in its turn impacts the way we will be inclined to act. These influences are subtle, but nevertheless real, and it's my belief that it is worth the effort of thinking before we speak about whether we will give offence.

As to Jeremy whatsisface - I don't know how a boring talentless idiot like him could ever have gained a career in entertainment - but that's just my opinion ( Interestingly enough 'idiot' was until comparatively recently a technical medical term for learning difficulties)

boatlady wrote:-
your impression that the term blackboard became offensive is just that, an impression, possibly gained from newspaper reading.

That, and many similar stories, were shown by ‘Private Eye’ on 15 March 2006 to be just myths. (Anyway, I doubt whether many schools have such boards these days.)
 
In that same edition, ‘Private Eye’ tackled the allegation that a nursery rhyme had been changed to ‘Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep’ for the sake of ‘political correctness’. Apparently, ‘The Daily Star’ and ‘The Sun’ both ran that story back in February 1986, followed by ‘The Daily Mail’ in October of the same year. In 1987, Islington council took the SDP to court to stop them alleging in a party political broadcast that they had removed the word 'black' from the nursery rhyme, when they had done no such thing. According to ‘Private Eye’, the story came round again in 2000, this time in Birmingham, and then in 2005, when ‘The Mail on Sunday’ alleged it had happened in Aberdeen. Not a single one of those reports was based on any facts. 
 
http://www.septicisle.info/2006/03/baa-baa-rainbow-bollocks.html
 

bobby wrote:-
Jeremy Clarkson may or may not be a racist

Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race. Clarkson is most definitely a racist, as shown by his remarks about Gordon Brown (“one-eyed Scottish idiot”), Mexicans, his recent use of the ‘n’-word and maybe even the ‘slope’ remark.
 
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t207p40-should-jeremy-clarkson-be-taken-outside-and-shot-in-front-of-his-family
 
I do agree that political correctness can go too far. I doubt if many people of other faiths are offended by the celebration of Christmas, as long as they get to enjoy their various festivals. Clarkson is one thing – he knows exactly what he’s doing – but it’s a pity when people get into trouble for using expressions like “let’s get down to the nitty-gritty” (what the slave traders called the debris left at the bottom of a ship) without realising that they’re saying something highly offensive.
 
However, I don’t see why a female PC needed to be called a WPC when a male officer wasn’t called an MPC. They're all police officers, their gender is irrelevant. More importantly, I don’t think we should be rude to people for things they can’t change. By all means criticise others for their politics (as we do all the time), their religious views or their behaviour, but not for their race, their skin colour, their sex, age, height or any disability. That’s why, on balance, I think political correctness is a good thing.

Jeremy Clarkson and UKIP are not mavericks, but the bullying face of the establishment
 
Extracts from an article by Suzanne Moore:-
 
"What a relief that an overwhelmingly white institution – the BBC – has decided that Clarkson isn't racist, and that he mustn't be again. Now at long last we can all go around insulting women, disabled people, gay people, greens, as is our birthright. That's a lesson learned. Political correctness gone mad. That old conker. Except conkers have been banned by lesbians. Or something. Clarkson once again flaunts his crusade – the poor silenced lamb – with columns in ‘The Sun’ and ‘The Sunday Times’, making his usual jokes about how he must now eat lentils and not goose Mary Beard in the lift. Laugh? I almost spat in the face of the pathetic BBC who won't let go of a cash cow, so will tolerate language that no state school in the land does.

Clarkson is not stupid. Nor is he a maverick. He is a central part of the establishment. He parties with Cameron. Just as UKIP is not a maverick party, but made up of disgruntled Tories; just as Boris Johnson is not a maverick but a born-to-rule chancer. This section of the right deludes itself that it is somehow ‘outside’ the establishment rather than its pumping heart.

We have not been conned by Europe, feminism, political correctness or even bloody wind farms. The biggest con of all is that this coalition of ‘mavericks’ is not seen for what it is. This is the rich and powerful deriding the powerless while pretending to be heroic victims. Let them slap each other's back into oblivion. Decent blokes do not monetise their ability to pick on those weaker than them, never mind make entire careers out if it."
 
For the whole article:-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/07/jeremy-clarkson-ukip-maverick-establishment-racist

The British version of Democracy has been honed and polished by the Establishment in its own image for the past seven hundred years or so, since that beacon of impartiality known as the De Montfort Parliament.  The Masses hardly ever query the  processes by which we are gently led from pasture to milking-shed. Most  people think we have elections to vote for a delegate/representative who will be our personal proxy at Westminster.  But selection can only be made from a short-list chosen by Party National HQ with a nod in the direction of the constituency party.  We certainly never get to choose the British Prime Minister.  Or indeed any of the other great offices of State, which now include Boris Whittington and the chap who drives fast cars on't telly.

The first time I even heard of "political correctness" was back when blacks wanted to be called "African-Americans." I just shrugged and figured - okay.

But that was all it took to lift Pandora's Box just a little bit and now we're swamped with PC garbage. Suddenly Christmas stopped being Christmas and decorations have now gone "seasonal" - in other words, snowflakes, snowmen, icicles, and stuff like that is okay, but angels, bells, Nativity scenes, bows, presents, reindeer, and even Santa is a no-go. In fact, Christmas is kind of blah these days with everyone and their white Christmas lights. As if there isn't enough white and gray during the winter months anyway.

Anyhow, Christmas was the first victim, then every ethnic group wanted their own descriptor, Native Americans (not Indians, mind you) started appealing to US sports teams to change their names and logos (Cleveland Indians, Washington Redskins, Kansas City Chiefs, etc. etc.) because they were "offensive." Then came the push to make the stupidest things into something postive like - people aren't disabled, they're physically challenged (and speaking as someone who IS disabled, I'm effing disabled. Period). People were no longer retarded but mentally challenged. I really hate that "challenged" crap because it makes it sound like it's something that can be overcome when most of the time it isn't. The FemiNazis mixed in their agenda with PC so that girls became grrrls, women became wimmin or womyn ... and every word that had "man," "his," "him," or "men" in it had to be changed. Congressperson, policeperson, mailperson ... and they hated the word "history" because it sounded like "his story" (when in fact it's "his tory" - so maybe some men owned some right-leaning people in Britain).

One FemiNazi I knew (regrettably) had the name Samantha, so I went around calling her Sapersontha. She got so sick of it that she finally relented and admitted she had taken it too far.

I have frequently defined "political correctness" as a verb - to find new and exciting ways to take offense to something that was not meant as an insult. I think the whole PC mentality has made it so people just don't want to deal with people of different ethnicities and nationalities - and why bother when you have no idea what might offend someone and set them off? It's just easier to keep to your own ethnicity where you don't have to worry about offending someone accidentally.

Is it a violation of free speech? Well ... no. At least not here in the States. What a lot of people don't understand is that the US Constitution only applies to how the government treats the citizenry. It does NOT apply to private businesses, religious institutions, homes, or individuals. Nope, it doesn't even apply to internet forums. The Constitution only protects you from the government - and so far the government has not made any laws requiring a person to be PC that I'm aware of. If a privately owned corporation wants to terminate you for using racial slurs, sorry, but the Constitution cannot protect you.

The only Power which other people have over us is the power which we allow them to have.

Is this ‘political correctness gone mad’ or just an example of rank hypocrisy from the BBC?   
 
David Lowe, a BBC Radio Devon DJ who has been a broadcaster for 32 years, played the 1932 version of ‘The Sun Has Got His Hat On’ on his programme. He was unaware that the song contains the n-word until a listener complained. BBC bosses declined his idea of an on-air apology, and his offer to "fall on my sword" was accepted. He was eventually offered his job back, but he refused to accept it.
 
Can a DJ reasonably be held responsible for every word in every song that he plays? I don’t think so. By contrast, Jeremy Clarkson has been in trouble on umpteen occasions for personally using language which could be deemed racist. Most recently he muttered the n-word, but he wasn’t sacked or even suspended and continues to work for the BBC.
 
Sources:-
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-27360884
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10822256/Broadcaster-forced-to-quit-by-BBC-after-accidentally-playing-a-song-with-the-N-word.html

A lot of the "suits" at the BBC have evidently allowed themselves to be insulated against the words of some "Gangsta-rap" songs which are routinely played.

(No link - even the words in the link are unprintable)

Ivan wrote:Is this ‘political correctness gone mad’ or just an example of rank hypocrisy from the BBC?   
 
Can a DJ reasonably be held responsible for every word in every song that he plays? I don’t think so. By contrast, Jeremy Clarkson has been in trouble on umpteen occasions for personally using language which could be deemed racist. Most recently he muttered the n-word, but he wasn’t sacked or even suspended and continues to work for the BBC.

It's hypocrisy, plain and simple. Clarkson makes the Beeb (via the execrable, in my view, Top Gear) so he gets away with it.

The comedian and writer Stewart Lee on political correctness:-


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DH_-WAGVwAATpmA.jpg

Nowadays, people are more careful how they describe race, colour, religion, sexual orientation and gender-assignment. Discrimination carries severe legal penalties.

But I'm not convinced that personal, privately-held beliefs have changed very much at all in the last fifty years. A referendum 14 months ago uncovered some very old-fashioned prejudice in certain quarters.

I do think, if everyone gets in the way of referring to others in a respectful way, that eventually attitudes may change - but it takes more than 60 or so years I suppose

boatlady wrote:I do think, if everyone gets in the way of referring to others in a respectful way, that eventually attitudes may change - but it takes more than 60 or so years I suppose

Exactly. I may not like someone, but treating them respectfully as a human being costs nothing.
But how far does this 'PC' go? Feminists complain when a T shirt slogan meant for a little girl shows female 'tendencies' - and for the boy, male 'tendencies'. Why can't we treat our children as girls and boys? Are these people going to expect boys to wear bikinis on the beach, and girls swimming trunks. Children will find their own niche in life in their own time.
It will be a happy day when men realise that women actually rule the world. What did Paul say 'No man comes into the world but by a woman' - or words to that effect.
Oh. I have practised the method of fertilisation, by the way. So I do know the man's brief part in the process as witnessed by a further 3 generations.

Many of my friends (gay, straight and transgendered) would prefer that we stop referring to sexuality in a binary male\female way as it does not reflect the lived reality for a large portion of the world and can lead to bullying.

Terms like 'man up', for example, tend to deny men the opportunity to experience and express strong feelings in an inappropriate way - and I can't even begin to summarise the ways that the pressure to be 'feminine' has distorted the female experience - from instruments of torture like bras and high heels, to the necessity to always seem a bit more stupid than the nearest powerful man.

The reality is that people's sexuality, like so many other attributes, is on a continuum and tying children too early into a stereotyped gender role can be harmful - hence the concern from people whose lives have maybe been affected by having a gendered identity imposed at an early age. Personally, I think it makes sense for the first 10 or so years of life for children to be treated as gender neutral - because, actually, until puberty, that's what they are

A "Guardian" article recently, included the experience of a very masculine young man who found enjoyment in weight-lifting sessions with his uncle. What put an end to this pursuit was the young man's realisation that, in "perfecting" his physical appearance he was copying the instinctive goal of many women, which is to be found attractive by men.

Oh bugger! Start again.