 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: mousethief Date: 11 Apr 01 - 12:26 PM Obviously this conversation is far from over, but the thread is getting unwieldy, so I have created a NEW THREAD to continue the discussion. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: mousethief Date: 11 Apr 01 - 12:23 PM There's a huge bias in the media. Toward whatever's splashy and sensational. There's a slight bias toward stories favoring the sponsors. This is actually an unseen bias, because stories attacking or exposing big sponsors just don't get run, so you never even find out that they were investigating some big company, then squashed the story for fear of losing advertising revenue. Ever notice that every paper has a "business" section, but no paper has a "labor" section? Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Pseudolus Date: 11 Apr 01 - 12:20 PM Alex, Are you implying that there is no bias of any kind in the media? I would have to disagree. I believe that there is an incredible amount of bias, especially racial, in the media. Take most big stories in the media involving black/white confrontations and reverse the color of the attacker and the attackee and the story (in the media's eyes) loses it's luster. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: RichM Date: 11 Apr 01 - 11:59 AM Interesting article. This "injustice" is typical of any society trying to decide whether to accept previously forbidden practices. I don't know what the import is: should we insist that there be no prejudices for/against homosexuals? Or that "something" should be done to equalize perceptions in reporting? And how to do this? Or should we just accept this as part of the continuing process of societies adjusting to changing perceptions? Rich McCarthy
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: mousethief Date: 11 Apr 01 - 11:58 AM This is so old. Matthew Shepard was killed because of his sexual orientation, so it was a relevant part of the story. Jesse Dirkhising was killed because a couple of sickos wanted to get their jollies with him and throw him away. The fact that they were homosexual only matters inasmuch as their prey was male instead of female. Sexual predators are ubiquitous, and so they don't hit the news with any great force. Hate crimes against homosexuals are fairly rare, so they're more newsworthy. Making it an issue of media bias is just more hate mongering. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Pseudolus Date: 11 Apr 01 - 11:49 AM Troll, that is a very disturbing article. I had long been wary of forming opinions strictly based on the media because of the tendency towards sensationalism. the article seems to imply "selective" sensationalism. wow... Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Troll Date: 11 Apr 01 - 01:09 AM TRY 1920. TROLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: DougR Date: 11 Apr 01 - 12:41 AM Does anyone know where I could buy a good 5 cent cigar? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Troll Date: 10 Apr 01 - 11:41 PM Once again, quote without comment. April 7, 2001 Revealing news tilt
Linda Bowles Conservatives have made a target of the liberal biases of the "mainstream" media. It has become a tired attack, wrung out of its freshness and meaning by constant repetition. So why not leave it alone? The reason is simple: It´s too important to leave alone. The liberal media´s ideological prejudices are growing ever more blatant, outrageous, and dangerous. Most of the dominant news institutions in America, particularly but not exclusively those in television, may accurately be described as special interest groups with partisan, left-wing political and social agendas. Let´s be clear; I am not talking about opinion pieces, editorials, or commentary; I am talking about partisan propaganda cross-dressed as news. In the fall of 1998, Matthew Shepard, a homosexual college student, was robbed, hung on a fence, and brutally murdered by two white heterosexuals. In the fall of 1999, Jesse Dirkhising, a 13-year-old Arkansas boy, was brutally raped, tortured, and murdered by two white homosexuals. According to Andrew Sullivan, columnist for the New Republic, in the month following the Shepard story, an Internet search engine called Nexus found 3,007 stories about his death. In the month following the Dirkhising story, there were only 46 stories about his death. In all of last year, only one story appeared in a major newspaper about the murder of Jesse Dirkhising, while the New York Times published 45 stories about Shepard and The Washington Post published 28. While the Dirkhising murder trial has received almost no national coverage, the Shepard murder trial was all over the broadcast news, received front-page coverage in all major newspapers, and was featured on the cover of Time magazine. Mr. Sullivan, himself a homosexual, said: "This discrepancy isn´t just real. It´s staggering." His explanation was straightforward: "The answer is politics. The Shepard case was hyped for political reasons: to build support for inclusion of homosexuals in a federal hate-crimes law." While the murder of Shepard was touted as evidence that conservative homophobes have created a widespread "climate of hate," which leads to violence against homosexuals, Mr. Sullivan made the point that hate-crime murders are extremely rare. The FBI reports there were only eight of them in 1997, a typical year, and most of these did not involve homosexual victims. In a recent column, Robert Stacy McCain, a reporter for The Washington Times, described how the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is an influential organization that lobbies from the outside to influence how the media portray homosexuality. GLAAD is aided and abetted by the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, which works from the inside to accomplish the same thing. In an address to these gay journalists last year, Richard Berke, New York Times national political correspondent, boasted that "literally three-quarters of the people deciding what is on the front page are not-so-closeted homosexuals." Essentially the same news mind-set as governs homosexual issues operates where racial issues are involved. In June 1998, a black man named James Byrd was assaulted by two white men and dragged behind a truck until his body was torn into pieces. The story made front-page headlines and was trumpeted on all major national TV and radio news shows as a hate-crime — courtesy of the inside presence of the National Association of Black Journalists and the outside lobbying of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In December 2000, two young black brothers first robbed, then abducted five young white adults at gunpoint. They ripped the clothes off the two women and took turns raping them while the three men were forced to watch. After forcing their victims to perform humiliating sexual acts, the black men shot all of them execution-style in the back of the head. One girl survived. The story received local coverage and little else. It was not considered a hate-crime, despite the evident sadism and cruelty. The way the news is selected and reported exposes liberal media biases not only about race and homosexuality, but about politics, religion, immigration, abortion, education, the environment and gun ownership. Many liberal decision-makers in the media are clearly in the business of censoring out news they do not want the people to see or hear, while amplifying news that advances their undisclosed agendas. Many Americans are mystified, alarmed, and saddened by the many ways in which our nation has drifted "off course." They ask, "How did it happen? What went wrong?" Basic answers may be found by examining the liberal news media´s scandalous role in illuminating wrong paths and manipulating public opinion. Linda Bowles is a nationally syndicated columnist. troll
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Apr 01 - 07:05 PM How's the quote go - "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it"
There's no use in feeling entitled to lay down self-righteous judgements against people in the past who didn't stand out against things we can now see as wrong. There is a great value in identifying and respecting those people who did stand out against the accepted values when these were wrong. Doing that can maybe help us spot the injustices that we still drift along with accepting every day of our lives, because they are fashionable kinds of injustices.
But what we should never do is sanitise the past, and pretend it was different from what it was. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: GUEST,Songster Bob Date: 10 Apr 01 - 12:05 AM No one has pointed out that the USO also ran canteens, sort of "safe" clubs (no alcohol, I think) where the soldiers could dance with, talk with and otherwise socialize with the opposite sex. And, unless I'm way wrong, when the Army was segregated, so were the USO canteens. There'd be a black one and a white one. I do wonder which one the Navajo code talkers were allowed into, though. Or the Neissi battalians. But I think this is the divisiveness which the original poster was referring to. And, of course, it's the same thing. How can we, in this day, expect the USO to have gone against US Army policy? Now, I do think that in Europe, the tendency was toward integration. The USO policy mentioned here was for home consumption. Bob C. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: wysiwyg Date: 09 Apr 01 - 11:18 PM LH, there is much I like and respect about you, and much I have found delightful even though we have met only briefly and discussed electronically only sporadically. I think the thing I have most appreciated is your willingness to continue communicating through a thorny matter without disrespecting yourself or the other person involved. You know what I am remembering. Someone who will talk through a hurt is someone worth listening to on anything on their mind, even when disagreement is in the air. And you have shown yourself to be willing to do this even when not feeling your best. If someone else has been giving you a hard time without allowing you to reach closure with them over an issue... *G*G* Lemme at 'em! I dunno about PC. Screw PC, if-- in the process of applying it-- it does harm to my friend LittleHawk Deepheart. Because if it's done that... no matter how high the ideal, it isn't the kind of PC that has yet reached a level worth my respect. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Apr 01 - 10:55 PM Well, that is well said, Ebbie, and I appreciate it. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Ebbie Date: 09 Apr 01 - 10:04 PM The fact is, if any of these upset people actually knew me in person, they would find me moderate, reasonable, law-abiding, and probably pretty likeable...although not perfect. Little Hawk, I am not someone who has demonized you in any sense- I enjoy your take on things and respect your ability to open yourself to criticism. My notion is that fear itself is the great destroyer- and that there is not that much that is cause for fear. The person who attacks reveals more about himself/herself than about oneself. So I am trying to reveal my own peculiarities more and more in the firm belief that there are a lot of us out there. We are human, for God's sake, which means that we share more than we differ. We are all alike - and we are all unique.I hope you will keep on speaking your piece from your own unique perspective. Above, I copied what you said- and I have no doubt but that it's a true statement. But have you noticed that it's a one-size-fits-all statement? We all believe that about ourselves, I think- maybe we need to believe that or maybe it is true that it is essentially who each of us is. Pontifically yours, :) Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: wysiwyg Date: 09 Apr 01 - 09:19 PM Come sing it with me LH. Would you? ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Apr 01 - 08:23 PM Yeah, that's a classic song. |
|
Subject: Lyr Add: GOOD OLE BOYS LIKE ME (Don Williams) From: wysiwyg Date: 09 Apr 01 - 08:07 PM Here is a song from the late 70's when people were trying to think about these things well... but before the PC machine had gotten so entrenched that it's mostly rigid risk management now (IMHO). To me, this song is a good description of someone who does not quite fit the culture of his upbringing, but loves it... leaves it... but not quite ever, fully. I love the sense in the refrain that we can never escape who we essentially are... and that being ourselves can make life a little, well, complicated.
~S~
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: DougR Date: 09 Apr 01 - 01:05 AM Yep, LH, remember it well. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Apr 01 - 06:47 PM Yeah, I miss them too, although the comic got a little weird toward the end, and the art got a little wobbly looking. I loved the heyday of Opus, Bill the Cat, and Steve Dallas, the Anxeity Closet, Tess Turbo, and all that. Steve Dallas was everything a young lawyer should be, don't you think? Remember his Julio Iglesias singing in the shower routine? Ha! Ha! Ha! - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: DougR Date: 08 Apr 01 - 06:35 PM I don't know, LH, if he did, but if ever there was a astute cat, it surely was Bill. I still miss all those guys. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Apr 01 - 06:08 PM ...from this forum, I meant. Silence is indeed golden on the Mudcat. Or to put it another way, "Even a fool is thought wise when he remains silent." So, as one fool to a host of others...my summation of this entire political correctness thread and a number of other contentious threads for today is: "-----------" I think Bill the Cat said that once, didn't he? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Apr 01 - 02:15 PM Actually, that very concern has made me a good deal more circumspect on Mudcat lately. I am becoming less willing to be forthright and open about a lot of things, for fear of being branded with all kinds of nasty labels. This, mostly because people are so caught up in their own fear and loathing of whatever aspect of life that they seem little inclined to actually inquire as to what someone else meant by saying something, but rather just to consign that someone to one of their personal hit lists for demonic bad guys. It's sad. The fact is, if any of these upset people actually knew me in person, they would find me moderate, reasonable, law-abiding, and probably pretty likeable...although not perfect. Matter of fact, I am sure they would. I quite honestly do not know what to do about it, and I doubt that there is much I can do about it, so I am being a little more careful all the time. Which means, in effect, I am withdrawing bit by bit. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: sledge Date: 08 Apr 01 - 12:56 PM Scary isn't it, soon folks will be too wary of saying anything that might offend anyone that we'll end up saying nothing. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Skeptic Date: 08 Apr 01 - 12:11 PM LH, Would I need to destroy, or just stop listening? Would it be accceptable to post a warning on my apartment door (and a bumper sticker on my car) "WARNING: Politically Incorrect Folk Songs being played". Joining some sort monastary with a vow of silence might be an answer, but would the vow of silence give offense to mimes? And Would purging my collection injure the sensitivities of folk singers (Clearly a much discriminated against minority) whose sensitivities must be protected? Surely there's a help group out their somewhere to answer these and other meaningless questions. Even us semi professional skeptics are in the minority. (I was recently blasted on another forum for "asking to many questions"). I see possibilities here. Know any good lawyers? Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Little Hawk Date: 07 Apr 01 - 12:35 PM Yes, John, you better ruthlessly purge that old folksong collection right now, by golly! There are smart lawyers out there just waiting to hit you with a lawsuit over something written 300 years ago that might hurt someone's feelings if sung in public today. Either speak Newspeak, or keep your mouth shut! Big Brother is watching YOU. :-) - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Skeptic Date: 07 Apr 01 - 11:16 AM Joe, Everything you say is true and I'm conflicted too. Is the possibility that expression of opinion might offend, cause fear or whatever, sufficient cause to proscribe behavior before it occurs? If the presumption of innocence is a valid ethical and moral value, I think we need to act that why. Developing draconian Napoleonic codes (which is what 'official' efforts at PC-ness seem to mandate) seems wrong, patronizing and all the rest. But then, I was brought up to believe the two of three rule, too. Peg, While their are people that beat up and murder gays, bi, blacks, native Americans and so on, the vast majority don't and aren't. Again (and not implying you fit this category) the strident voices for PC speech and action seem to have a fairly low opinion of their fellow human beings on both sides of the fence: That the "expressor" is too morally bankrupt to act civilly (as in the two of three rule above) and that the "receiver" is too weak-willed or whatever to handle the issue. Once we demand that the expressor only say what is "correct" do we also mandate that the "receiver" react according to the PC model? We need, as individuals, to accept responsibility. The guy (usually) who tells homophobic jokes to his friends at the sports bar needs to be stopped. By his friends. Sadly this doesn't happen. Their failure is no reason for bureaucratic intervention. IMO anyway.
The "two out of three' rule brings up a musically related question: It seems to me that folk music doesn't always follow the rule (especially some protest songs). Should it? Is there a possibility that folk music might not be politically correct? Is this a good thing? Should I ruthlessly purge my collection? Is there a master list of incorrect words or ideas I could use as a guide? :-) Regards John
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Roughyed Date: 07 Apr 01 - 04:50 AM McGrath of Harlow (and Mousethief's mum)hits it dead on. 'Political correctness' is a useless term because it confuses words which are harmless and just a natural part of the growth of language with terms that are intended to degrade and insult. There is always going to be an argument around the periphery about what is insulting, particularly as it varies from time to time and with different groups. The litmus test here has to be intention and awareness and those three rules are a really good test of that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: CRANKY YANKEE Date: 07 Apr 01 - 02:57 AM Politically corred?.............thinking...... ,BR. NAAAAH. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Peg Date: 06 Apr 01 - 10:24 PM Last time I checked, straight people did not get beat up, tortured and murdered by gay people...quite the opposite. Wearing a symbol or declaration of gay pride is therefore an act of courage and defiance. Declaring one's "straight pride" on the other hand would seem to be a declaration of homophobia. Just my knee-jerk liberal opinion. Peg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Apr 01 - 09:44 PM Skjeptic, if it's just hurt feelings, that's one thing. Fear is another matter. I'd say that there are aspects of "Straight Pride" and "White Power" slogans that are downright threatening. I don't find that same connotation in "Gay Pride," although I do admit that there have been times when "Black Power" was expressed in a threatening way. I suppose that if I were a school principal, I'd ban all slogans, so I wouldn't have to spend my life splitting hairs. Generally, I object to controlling and cleansing our language and culture - but I also object to people who insist on their right to flaunt their hatred. There has to be a reasonable middle ground. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Apr 01 - 07:09 PM I still think that if we stick with mousethief's mum's rules,it's really pretty simple to work out what's the right way to deal with the puzzlements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: DougR Date: 06 Apr 01 - 03:39 PM Frank, as the "King" in the "King and I," was won't to say, "It's a puzzelment," isn't it? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Skeptic Date: 06 Apr 01 - 01:14 PM The key word is "Maybe". Making a prospective assumption of intent is coercive and would seem to create the monster it is trying to fight. All to often, the desire "not to offend" seems to make a prospective assumption that (1) The identified group will be offended (2) that if they are offended, they are too....weak, emotionally/socially/intellectually immature, to..... something.....to deal with the offense and the offender. Which says a lot about how much respect the people making up the rules have for their fellow humans. Underlying this is the assumption that hurting someone's feeling (or the belief that someone's feelings might be hurt) is something more than a matter of civility and common politeness; that it needs to be codified and enshrined as law. (Above and beyond the current slander/libel laws). Which strikes me as ominous at best because it's a bottomless pit.
John
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Pseudolus Date: 06 Apr 01 - 12:14 PM Maybe the difference is that our society created an atmosphere that kept folks who were gay from admitting it because they were made to feel ashamed or at least that seemed like the intent. So a gay pride t-shirt was to say I'm not ashamed, in fact I'm proud of who I am. Heterosexuals have never been made to feel ashamed by their sexual orientation so perhaps a straight pride t-shirt would come across as an attack on homosexuals.....just thinking out loud here. In any case I do find it difficult at times, being white, male, heterosexual, and if all that isn't bad enough I'm a Christmas Celebrating Catholic!!! I've been told that I'm infringing on other people's right when I openly celebrate Christmas, or talk about my beliefs etc. Mostly this happens at work but even at work, why am I infringing by celebrating Christmas but if a co-worker celebrates Kwaanza, he/she is just celebrating his/her culture?? I have to be politically correct by not forcing my traditions on others and then AGAIN I have to be politically correct by allowing other cultures to celebrate theirs!
Frank
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Kim C Date: 06 Apr 01 - 10:47 AM I agree with Little Hawk. Everybody is who they is and that's the way it is and why obsess about things that don't need obsessing. It's just divisive. To quote one of my favorite songwriters:
Bewildered, Bewildered |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Skeptic Date: 05 Apr 01 - 10:57 PM Joe, Based on the arguement and logic of the negative connotations of symbols of oppression, I can make a very good case for banning display of the American flag. (Or most national flags, I suspect) and probably a better one than those made against a "Pride" tee shirt, whether straight, gay or bi. In another thread, I quoted Justice Edwards. In my not so humble opinion it bears repeating: Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. When Troll told me the "Straight Pride" story, my first question was: Are Gay Pride or WWJD or similar tee-shirts also banned? if so, its a dress policy issue that's supposed to reduce disruptive behavior. I may think such a policy is silly and repressive and doomed to failure but it has the minimal benefit of being oppressive to the entire school population equally. If not, it is coercive and it's ultimate effect is to teach conformity and hypocracy as appropriate character traits. Not knowing anything about the boy or parents, I can't judge their beliefs. The principals' characterization of them as "homophobic",if true, has a disturbing hint of Cotton Mather about it. So to protect teen gays and bi's we label another child as a bigot, or at least the product of a bigoted family. Does wonders for his self concept, no doubt. Especially if the tee shirt was meant not as some kind of anti-gay statement but more of "ain't I cute and in your face" sort of thing. The message sent to children is that they aren't competent or mature enough to handle any disturbing influences in their environment and any such must be ruthlessly eliminated. That the answer to such is not to learn ways to handle dissenting opinions, but to mandate that they never be expressed. Sweeping issues under the rug strikes me as inherently dangerous and an admission of failure of self proclaimed adults as it relates to the need and duty to teach concepts such as self reeliance and moral and ethical autonomy to children. Regards John
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Apr 01 - 07:13 PM McGrath - I'm not sure about the "Gay Pride" T-shirt thing or the "Straight Pride" T-shirt thing. What's the point, really, of wearing either? Isn't it somewhat confrontational or self-conscious in either case? Why not just be proud of being a unique human being, and stop obsessing about race, sexual orientation, nationality, gender, and so on. Focusing on one aspect of people over all others tends to lead one astray, and it divides people against each other. It's like the bumper stickers you see out there (or used to). Most of them were divisive, confrontational and nasty. They assumed the worst about other people. I think wearing those T-shirts is a bit like that too. Still, I do get your point. I just don't see why people have to separate themselves over such issues and then make a public statement about it. I think that usually indicates not that they are proud, but that they are insecure. Why should I care if anyone is gay or not, unless I myself am contemplating having a sexual relationship (or not) with them? Why should they need to be proud about it (or not)? It's not something to be proud of or not to be proud of...it just is, that's all...like being male or female...or American or Chinese. Why should anyone care? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Ebbie Date: 05 Apr 01 - 04:55 PM Joe Offer, my guess is that you are dearly loved. If not, you should be! Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Apr 01 - 04:41 PM Once again I quote mousethief's mum, and apply it to the example troll came up with.
Is it kind? And you need two out of three.
I'd give that "Straight Pride" T-shirt one out of three. If I'm wrong, and in the circumstances of the school two out of three would be justified, fair enough to wear it. Otherwise not.
"Gay Pride" on the other hand would probably be at least two out of three. Circumstances alter cases. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Apr 01 - 04:20 PM Troll, I suppose if you're very literal and legalistic, your defense of "Straight Pride" T-Shirts makes sense. If we were to follow that logic I suppose we should also defend "White Power" T-shirts. The trouble is, the "Straight Pride" and "White Power" slogans have connotations and history behind them. In the United States, whites and straights have never been a persecuted minority - but they certainly have persecuted gays and nonwhites. So yeah, I'd say that "Straight Pride" and "White Power" slogans have connotations that make them inappropriate. The pink triangles are especially powerful symbols that give the reason for the need for "Gay Pride" programs. Those pink triangles were first used by the Nazis to identify homosexuals, just like they used yellow, six-pointed stars to identify Jews. Are you suggesting that perhaps we should use a lightning "SS" symbol to identify straight whites? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: DougR Date: 05 Apr 01 - 04:01 PM No, L.H., you're right. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Pseudolus Date: 05 Apr 01 - 03:46 PM What can I say troll, when you're right, you're right. that's an interesting story about the t-shirt. Any updates?
Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Apr 01 - 03:23 PM That's right, Doug. We can't change the past, we can only learn from it. And we can't LEARN from it if all examples of past behaviour that make some people uncomfortable are censored out of the record, now can we? Accordingly, what is the point of censoring swastika tail markings out of the decal sheets of model airplane kits of German WWII airplanes? And what is the point of making cowboy movies that present a sanitized and unreal version of what was then a routinely racist society? Do you eliminate evil by pretending it has never happened? Nope. You eliminate it by not presently practicing it... and by not submitting to it when it is practised on you. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: DougR Date: 05 Apr 01 - 01:37 AM First, I admit that I didn't read every single posting in this thread. There's lots of words there, and so little time to read them. Anyway, the USO performed a great service during WW2 to troops fighting a terrible war. Their services were not limited to music alone. Bob Hope and his troop spent every Christmas, as far as I know, for many, many years, entertaining troops abroad under USO sponsorship. Many other Hollywood personalities did also. I do not know if African-American troops were banned from attending performances. I do know that they were limited, primarily, to performing non-combat roles for most of the war. I refer only to American troops, and I have no knowledge of how other countries delt with their racial minorities. Did we do it right? No. Other than a few Armored Divisions, and one or two air groups composed entirely of African-Americans, they had no opportunity to show their willingness to fight for their country until the Battle of the Bulge. At that crucial battle, when no other reserves were available, they were given the opportunity to serve in combat roles and they served with distinction. The U. S. armed forces were segregated as late as 1948, when I was in the Army. They shouldn't have been, but they were. The idea of trying to apply PC to an era that is long past is a bit futile, I think. What's past is past and can't be changed. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Chip2447 Date: 05 Apr 01 - 12:51 AM To George MacClanahan and everyone else who has worn or ever will wear the uniform in peacetime and in war, I offer my heartfelt thanks. Hurrah for the USO, hurrah for humanity (hupersonity) for coming as far as we've come. Let our actions speak for themselves and not hide behind the mask of PC words. An Irish/English/Welsh/Scottish/French/Norwegian/Native American (*2 at least) American... I.E. A Cultural and Ethical diverse american mutt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: Troll Date: 04 Apr 01 - 11:59 PM I heard on the radio this morning about a high school student who was told he could not wear a sweatshirt with the words " Straight Pride" on it. It might offend homosexual students was the reason given. The same school has "safe rooms" where gay students can go to talk with specially trained counselors when they have problems. The rooms are identified by a large inverted pink triangle on the door. Apparently, "Gay Pride T-shirts are ok too. When the students parents complained to the school administrators about the disparate policy and its unfairness, they were told that they were "homophobic." As I said, I heard it on the radio and I didn't hear where it happened. I'll try and find out. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Apr 01 - 07:07 PM Balancing up the injustice of the past piecemeal can't work. Shrugging it off and letting the wealth stay with the people and they communities whose wealth is founded on the loot of thieves and slavers who invested the proceeds in the Industrial Revolution doesn't make sense either.
The fair way to deal with this kind of thing is the biblical idea of Jubilee. Every now and then, wipe the slate clean of all debt, and share out everything evenly between everyone.
But this is a bit of a drift from talking about the language we use about each other and so forth. The strangest thing to me is that people often seem to think that sanitising the past, about something like racism etc, is a way of avoiding hurt to people who are up against racism etc in the present.
In fact it adds insult to injury. It's robbing people of the history they are entitled to know about, which can help make sense of the present. I'm thinking for example of all those TV westerns they put on now, where everyone's getting along so fine together, without a whisper of racism. If it had been like that it would have been great - but if it had been like that, the present would be a very different and better present. Lies about the past don't mend the past or help heal the present and set the future on the right track. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: gnu Date: 04 Apr 01 - 07:03 PM My apologies for killing the thread. My motives were innocent and sincere, but I realize that in this age of PC, I should not have asked such a question, even though it was in an attempt to understand the situation addressed more clearly. Moreover, my sincerest apologies to anyone who might have been offended, racists included. gnu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: gnu Date: 04 Apr 01 - 05:33 PM The only thing that bothers me is when I am treated unfairly because a minority was wronged in the past. As for that crap that, for the scales of justice to balance, they must first tilt a bit to the other side before being allowed to settle at an even level, it just keeps the fight going between the poor while the rich get richer. On a related topic, I have seen on various TV shows lately that some African Americans want reparations from the US Federal Givernment for the wrongs of slavery. Guess I'm not up on your history because I thought that your federal government was the primary mover in removing slavery from the US in the first place.... fought a war which held this ideal as a causal factor. People died, black and white. No ? Please enlighten me. Anyway, I don't want to create a big discussion about the wrongs of slavery. Nothing could be as disgusting as slavery and biggotry.... but my second choice might be the use of old wounds for division and conquer of the poor by the rich. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be! From: mousethief Date: 04 Apr 01 - 05:03 PM Little Hawk, you sound like you're really dealing with a lot of repressed anger there. Have you considered Primal Scream Therapy? Alex (with a smile) |