politically correct Robert Sheridan FawCawnahs email@example.com
The song is from Rodgers and Hammerstein's "South Pacific," and I believe is called "You Have to be Taught (to Hate)." When S.P. opened out of town in Boston or New Haven or some such, some audience members didn't like the anti-prejudice theme and there was pressure to remove it. Author James Michener and R&H succeeded in resisting the move. S.P. struck an early postwar blow for civil rights.
Before the War, civil rights wasn't a popular concept. It was politically incorrect. FDR didn't volunteer any major civil rights advances; too busy keeping the ship from going under, as I understand it.
HST ordered the military integrated and it's become the model institution, despite the incompleteness of the effort.
Certain civil rights are now mandated by the Act of 1964, pushed thru by LBJ after the death of JFK.
This leads up to the point by the previous respected poster, Ammone (?). True, you don't effect fundamental change by getting people merely to watch their language if their attitudes remain bad. You just drive the ignorance and prejudice underground. Concealed enemies are more dangerous than the ones you can keep an eye on.
I don't like it at all when people are discriminated against on the basis of a whole list of things including race, creed, color, etc., things they basically can't do anything about. That's my "politically correct" stance. Those who violate these are mostly politically incorrect. Seems okay to me to call them that. Hell, it's the law when dealing on public matters.
What people do in private is something different. Private choices on private issues, up to you, no problem from me.
I'll give you an example I find fascinating where PC/NON-PC gets a working out. (Former?) U.C. (Univ. of Calif., Berkeley) Regent Ward Connerly, Black, a successful businessman, and friend of former Gov. Pete Wilson, argued that affirmative action in student admissions was reverse racism and unfair. It didn't correct past mistakes/racism and it put current beneficiaries under a double stigma: they were regarded as affirmative action babies, less qualified but boosted because of race, and it lost them self-confidence. Huge controversy, but the initiative he sponsored passed in California and has been introduced in other states.
The argument in opposition is that it doesn't punish the wrongdoers, and doesn't benefit the victims.
Connerly has been vilified by Blacks for being hugely PIC.
Clarence Thomas, of Anita Hill fame and the U.S. Supreme Court, is more conservative than Scalia or Rehnquist, than whom you can't get more conservative. This is hugely unpopular, vastly PIC, among Blacks, according to news reports I've noted from time to time. When Thomas gets invited to a Black gathering, there's sometimes a boycott.
So the debate has real meaning, which is why I characterized it as a hand grenade thrown into da circus.
I'm not sure you can avoid dealing with the issue. Yesterday's PC becomes outlawed, like slavery. Today's PC becomes law, like the Civil Rights Act, like affirmative action.
But you can overdo it and reverse the discrimination, such as happens to cops and firemen who get screwed out of jobs and promotions on the basis of unfair racial considerations.
I have a problem with that.
Staten Island WebŪ Forums Index.