BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 04:55 PM

Further to the above, I recently came across an issue of Tom Sawyer (a new edition) at the bookstore, and leafed through it for some old memories. Lo and behold, it was identical to the original (I think...) except that they had completely edited out the chapter (or the scenes) where Tom gets in a fight with another boy, a new kid who has arrived in town.

Apparently, someone decided that a scene like that was unacceptable in today's officially nonviolent world.

It's unbelievable and pathetic that someone would do that.

After all, you can buy any number of shooting games at the computer store in which you can assasinate hundreds of hapless opponents with a variety of weapons ranging from small pistols to lasers to bazookas.

And meanwhile they edit out a scuffle between 2 school kids from a classic book written in the 1800's...

I also note that the occasional and utterly hilarious physical scuffles between Dagwood Bumstead and his neighbour Herb, or his boss Mr. Dithers, or the postman...have been scrupulously removed from the comic Blondie, no doubt due to lobbying by some other group of misguided assholes who want to protect us all from some imagined threat to our collective state of mind...

I believe that's the kind of nonsense that started this thread off in the first place.

I would bloody well like to see Dagwood and Herb go rolling all over the yard one more time, over a borrowed rake or some such nonsense. It's just a comic, for Christ's sake!

ARRRGGGG! My rant for today. It's no wonder we have a lot of road rage out there these days, considering the level of denial that a lot of people are in.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Kim C
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 02:37 PM

Pseudolus that is exactly what I meant. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 02:35 PM

Pseudolus, you have some very wise and wonderful friends.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 02:00 PM

Is it kind?
Is it true?
Is it necessary?

I think your mother summed it up exactly right, mousethief. Apply that two-out-of-three rule, and you'll never go wrong. It takes full account of the fact that "harmless" words can be used hurtfully, and "harmful" words can be used without causing hurt. What you've got to worry about isn't whether some word belongs in some list or other, but what it's actually saying and doing at the time you use it.

I am still pretty certain in myself that the term "political correct" was invented intentionally as a way of discouraging people from applying those kind of rules, and encouraging them to feel good about breaking them. It's a long time since I've heard anyone use the term except to say they don't trust it.

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 01:31 PM

Sure: Wish them a good whatever-it-is-that-means-something to them.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Pseudolus
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 01:03 PM

Every year, my wife and I get a Christmas card from friends of ours who are both Jewish. I asked them once why they send Christmas cards and they told me that they send Christmas cards to those who celebrate Christmas, Kwaanza cards to those who celebrate Kwaanza, etc. etc. The woman said, "If you are celebrating a birthday in June, and I am celebrating my wedding anniversary on the same day, should I send you an Anniversary card or a Birthday card??? Makes sense to me now....They get a Channukah card every year now....

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 12:45 PM

What kills me is when people will actually COMPLAIN if you send them a Christmas card or wish them a Merry Christmas. I don't complain when I get a "happy solstice!" message from pagan friends, or a "Happy Chanukkah" (sp?) card from Jesish friends. I know they're sharing their happiness and joy with me, and that's the way they do it.

People are very thin-skinned about all this cultural sensitivity stuff, aren't they?

I don't know about every day being white male day. That seems patently absurd. Then again I don't believe in "the Patriarchy" either -- or black helicopters or the sinister motives of the Trilateral Commission and the World Zionist Underground and whatever other conspiracy theory comes down the nutcase line.

To me, "Illuminati" is just the Italian plural of Flashlight.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 12:40 PM

Oh. Well, that's different then. Never mind.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Pseudolus
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 12:22 PM

I think her point alex was not that only white folks celebrate Christmas but it seems (please tell me if I'm wrong Kim!!) that we can celebrate black history month, women's history month, gay pride month, or holidays like Kwaanza, but try to celebrate being white, male, heterosexual, or celebrate Christmas and someone will tell you to be sensitive to those not celebrating. I've actually been told, "Every day is white male day!" I actively participate in all celebrations here at work and have met some of my best friends in doing so. But had I not, my opportunity to tell THEM what I feel about MY celebrations would most likely have never happened.

In any case, to point out that some black and brown folks celebrate Christmas, is to miss the point.....jmho...

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 11:58 AM

I've been told there are some black and brown folk that celebrate Christmas, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Kim C
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 11:54 AM

Christmas is Christmas. Why do we who celebrate Christmas have to exhibit "sensitivity" toward other holidays, but those who celebrate other holidays are under no obligation to extend such "sensitivity" to those of us who celebrate Christmas? Don't I get equal time too? That's one thing I have never understood. If we are moving toward a multi-cultural, diverse society in the US, doesn't that include us white folks that celebrate Christmas too?

Don, I am all for manners. If people could gain the skill of knowing when to keep their mouths shut, maybe we could ditch this PC nonsense forever.

Women were a great help to the war effort in the 40s. If it hadn't been for women taking over th factory jobs, we'd have been in a world of hurt. 'Course, women had to give up those jobs when the men came back. But the fact is, we was the ones makin the world go round while they were gone. Personally I think we're the ones who make the world go round all the time even if we don't get credit for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 10:55 AM

Joe. That "Christmas" thing runs wild around here. Look, I come down on the "conservative" position when people start "banning" Christmas trees because of "religious sensitivity. I did a concert recently (actually around Christmas) and some people phoned the promoter asking whether I would be doing any "Christmas Music". They were Jehova's Witnesses, and apparently even hearing a Christmas tune would be so offensive to them that they wouldn't be able to sit through it! Good Grief!

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: gnu
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 05:50 AM

George MacClanahan... When I listen to my uncle, and when I listened to my father talk of those times, I felt the pain behind the good and the bad tales they told.

I thank you with all my heart and soul for your brave sacrifice.

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Brendy
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 05:04 AM

What I find hilarious, sometimes, is the way advertising companies market sanitary towels.

You know, where they pour blue water all over it, and the camera cuts to some couple running along a beach at sunset.

When I was at home, recently, I happened to be in a supermarket getting a few bits and pieces, and a young girl came up to a man who was stocking the shelves, and nonchalantly asked him if he had any 'fanny pads' (vernacular for sanitary towels)

Yer man went three colours of red, and pointed to a nearby shelf, where the young girl went to inspect them.

I was finished doing what I was doing, and as I started to walk away towards the cash register, I could hear her quizzing him about 'absorbency', and such things.

My heart went out to the poor guy.

Some subjects, no matter how 'politically correct' they are packaged up, still seem taboo.

B.

Subject: Euphemisms - bah!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Apr 01 - 03:48 AM

Well, I think there is some sense in trying to avoid doing things that offend people.
I think what irritates people is not that sort of common-sense correctness - it's an attempt to euphemize our society, to change all the names to get rid of any bad connotations the old words may have had.

My friend Jim died last night, bless him. I love his wife dearly and I'm glad she called and told me, but what she said that it was "time for a celebration" because Jim was "with the angels." Well, Jim's been having some interesting experiences the last two weeks, so I had to ask her if she meant that he died. Yep, he did. A couple of years ago, she said that she and Jim "exchanged vows," and then I had to ask if that meant that they got married. Yep, they did.

When I was employed, part of my job was to review previous employers' personnel records on people who had applied for sensitive government jobs. I used to take delight in going into office buildings and asking for directions to the "personnel office." Often, people would quite haughtily correct me and inform me that the "Human Resources Management Office" was down the hall, across from the "Men's Lounge" or some other euphemistic site.

Here in California, it is not politically correct to use words that come from Christian roots. You can talk about Hanukkah and Kwanzaa and Ramadan, but December 25 is "The Winter Holiday."

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 11:01 PM

Hear ya Cat. My mother would have read them the riot act but she came from a time where you were s'posed to listen to your elders. She used to go up to gum wrapper droppers, and hand it back to them...Shit you could get KILLED for that today! Taught me to be polite and NEVER use nasty words for groups of people. Most of the time I don't.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 10:10 PM

As you say, Rick, and well said, too. Given the situation of the bluegrass band, I would have done much the same, although I may not have had the guts to say anything; would have just left and told them I wouldn't be back.

It is worth the trouble, to me, though to try to educate people, to encourage them to be open to diversity, through cultural presentations etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 09:37 PM

Dave-O...

Thanks for the info. I had forgotten that many of the USO entertainers performed for free.

As for women serving in combat...the only place where that was fairly common was in the Soviet forces, where there were whole female fighter squadrons and other combat units. That's communism for you. Everyone gets an equal chance to work...or to die.

You could argue up and down all day about whether that is liberation or not. (If you wanted to...I don't).

The country least inclined to have its women serve in either combat or the war industry was Germany...mainly because Hitler was an arch-traditionalist, and wanted to keep German women safe at home raising their kids. It was a decision that hurt Germany's war effort notably, although they tried to fill the industrial work force gap with slave labour, to make up for not fully mobilizing their own female workforce. Bizarre, isn't it?

The slave labour workers, not surprisingly, did routinely shoddy work, and frequently sabotaged the product...resulting in shells that would not detonate and such things. A couple of those very shells punched their way through the superstructure of the British battleship Prince of Wales, courtesy of the German battleship Bismark, and did not explode...which may well have saved the Prince of Wales from complete destruction that day.

So, Hitler's notions of ethical correctness caused trouble not only for his opponents, but for his own people as well...and how!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 05:53 PM

Remember kat, my phrase was "PERSONAL ethically conscious". Sort of the same as Don's "manners". Obviously MY take on many things is gonna be different than yours or Clinton's or Alex's or anyone else's.

A few PERSONAL examples. I smoke. If someone asked me nicely "not to"...I'd gladly put it out, or go somewhere else. If they were rude...well, I have another side that I don't choose to show on Mudcat...and trust me, it would come out (assuming I was LEGALLY allowed to puff)

Played in a bluegrass band once where over the course of ONE rehearsal, I heard the words "queers, niggers, and cunts". Some of my friends would have been outraged and attempted to 're-educate' the guys. To me that would have been preposterous and a complete waste of time. I simply packed up and said "I don't talk or think like you..we wouldn't get along". Which was the truth.

I don't think ANYBODY really changes the way they think of other people or issues these days...no matter how good the opposing arguement is. It's much easier just to get hostile and not listen to the other point of view. Goodness knows there have been threads here asking if anyone has ever changed their mind about an issue because of what other Mudcatters have written....and the answer has been a resounding NO! And personally I think we have some damn articulate people around here. (for the record, I'VE changed my attitude somewhat on gun control because of Mudcatters who used (what I thought was) common sense, rather than "ideology")

I guess I feel that my morals work for me perfectly, and if they don't for someone else, fine. It ain't that difficult to meet new people that you DO get along with. I would never PERSONALLY lecture someone, and don't react terribly well when it's done to me.....strictly from an IDEALOGICAL point of view.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 05:08 PM

My wife brought her kids up with a simple rule for determining whether to say (or, I imagine, type) something.

Is it kind?
Is it true?
Is it necessary?

If it doesn't meet at least TWO of these three criteria, then you probably should just keep it under your hat. If it's kind and true, you can say it. If it's true and necessary, you can say it, even if it's not particularly kind. Or if it's kind and necessary but not true, you still can say it (e.g. "I'm so sorry to hear your mother died").

Works for me.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 05:07 PM

Someone said above:

"If you want to discuss political correctness, there's plenty of room for debate there. I'm sure the various entertainers all felt that they were doing it for the most laudable of reasons (plus to earn a living), no matter which side they were on."

Most of the headliners, like Bob Hope, served USO for nothing--nada! zip! If the support musicians, singers, dancers were paid, I'm pretty sure it wasn't at any huge scale.

Where and when the USO troupes performed was determined not by the artists, nor yet by the USO organization, but by the military services.

It is not meaningful to find fault because women were "allowed" to dance and/or sing for the troops, but were not "allowed" to serve in combat, that's bushwah! USA was and is a civilian organization. The military services had their criteria dictated to them by US society, through congress, and the thought of women serving in combat was ABSOLUTELY shocking in those days. Still is, by me.

Un-PC DAve Oesterreich, and so what?

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 04:13 PM

Good points, Pseud, and I wasn't really responding to you as much as some of the others. Good for you with your daughters!

Don, once again you've summed it up beautifully. If only everyone would take that advice.

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 04:10 PM

They may well think that we were out of our minds.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Pseudolus
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 04:00 PM

I agree Kat, I tell my girls all the time that when I was in school my sister's only choice was cheerleading, a fine activity, but I'm sure it's much more enjoyable as a "choice" as opposed to "the only game in town". Both my kids are really into sports....and they're both pretty good I must say! *BG* I was never a jock by any means, but I'm really enjoying their successes so far. They live in a different world and sometimes that is good.

I didn't start the thread to judge, or discuss political correctness at all (Note to self, Be careful when naming threads), I just wanted to know peoples ideas on why we overlay our views of today on a group of people that lived 50-60 years ago. What is accepted now and what was accepted then is more often than not different. Times change, people change.....I liked what Petr said when he wondered what future generations will think of us and our values.....I wonder the same thing myself.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 03:50 PM

Okay, then. Ethical correctness. Also a very tricky subject, subject to a vast range of opinions, depending on which culture and time period you're in, and which values you have learned from your parents and peers.

I guess a good rule of thumb would be...think twice before totally judging the actions of people in another time and place in the terms of this time and place.

Then think thrice before equating the innate value of any human being with the value of their specific acts on certain occasions...while ignoring any number of other things they may have done on other occasions.

Which brings to mind the oft-quoted Native American phrase about not judging someone else until you've walked a mile in his mocassins...

Or hers...

I find that being inspired by splendid actions undertaken by various people seems to be better for my outlook than (like our "news" media) ranting on endlessly about horrible actions undertaken by various other people here and there. You've always got plenty of examples of both to fixate on, that's for sure. So pick your poison or pick your ambrosia...

Not that I'm saying I haven't ranted from time to time. I certainly have. I'm not so sure it did much good, though.

What the heck...life is confusing, ain't it?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: GUEST,Don Meixner
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 03:31 PM

A long time ago I quit worrying about political correctness. I found it easier and infinately superior to worry about good manners. And whether or not I was measuring up to my own standards.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 02:51 PM

Even though it's been overdone and I, too, have moved on to Rick's "ethically correct" or "ethically conscious", I am damn glad I can go just about anywhere and know that women will be included in the rhetoric, thanks to the PC and feminists' movements. I am also damn glad my grandsons will not have to expect to be called "niggers" and work in subservient jobs.

I remember watching USO shows during Vietnam, on tv, and I thought they were great variety shows, Bob Hope did tons of them. I don't think it would be great to do blackface at the party, though.

I would imagine, during WWII, the USO offered independent women a way out of the societal pressure to get married and have babies, at least in some small measure. Seems like it would have offered them a lot more freedom than staying home.

The language could not stay the same if we were to gain any semblance of equality for women and minorities. It has also been so recent that we've even seen such changes as mankind to humankind, s/he instead of always he, etc. It is still very important for little girls and boys to hear this change in language, to know that girls are not the second-class citizens of the world.

katreallytiredofpcbashingwishingpeoplewouldgettheethicalcorrectnesspoint

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 02:46 PM

The dramatization of many an ordinary decent thought has filled the annals of insanity over our history. This is a case in point. It is one thing to be courteous to sensitivities of others. It is a reasonable, human, civilized thing not to bruise others needlessly.

It is an entirely different thing to use such an ordinary courtesy as a moral club to go around beating others up with. Compassion is a free choice. What you get when you dictate it is a very different and much uglier animal altogether. Compassion is also an individual trait, just like conscience. You could no more institutionalize it than you could establish Federal Awareness. It is an INDIVIDUAL freedom to exercise.

"Acting out" an intelligent or noble concept doesn't make you smart or noble -- it just makes you act really weird.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 02:01 PM

"...When we asked for the Army at Guam and Tulagi
Douglas MacArthur said "No!"
He gave as his reason
"It's just not the season
Besides, there is no USO

Bless 'Em all! etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 01:55 PM

Feck Political Correctness!!!

It is the language of COWARDICE!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 01:54 PM

Rick, petr, Skeptic...........The posts are all great. You may all speak for me with my thanks. Well done.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 01:50 PM

My own idea of political correctness is that when a person is and behaves as a product of his/her own time, that is unremarkable. It is what most of us are and do.

The person who is ahead of her/his own time is the person who will bring us as a society up to that level in due time. It is the only way that progress is made, imo.

The people who cling to the previous time are the ones who cause pain and disgust. On the other hand, they can also be the ones who bring a society back to its roots.

I think the primary thing that is required of us is 'awareness'. We need to think, to stay involved, to question and to promote.

Just my own thoughts...

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Skeptic
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 01:27 PM

Political Correctness has always struck me as a form of genteel hypocracy. Going hand in hand with the genteel racism that is far more prevalent than the overt kind these days. At best, patronizing and demeaning.

Or maybe basic dishonesty, to others if not to self. The goal seems noble. To use words that don't have negative connotations. Kim C mentioned that history wasn't "PC". Neither is life. Trying to make it so seems like a basic dishonesty. To self and others.

One goal is to eliminate "loaded" language, which seems based, in part, on semantics. Last I read (Wolfgang any thoughts?) The whole idea of the efficacy of semantics (a la Korsibski and the General Semantics crowd) on modifying behavior had been regulated to the realm of psychobabble.

Which is better. The honesty of not offending (unintentionally) or being who/what you are and if that bothers someone, dealing with it one-on-one (utopian perhaps). And suffering the social consequences from peers or carefully guarding what you say and think because it might offend. I prefer the honesty.

In academia, take a look at this site and read The Shadow University, Kors and Silvergate to get an idea of how far it can go. (And has).

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 01:22 PM

applying current values to a previous time in history is interesting but generally pointless intellectual exercise. I wonder what later generations will think about us and our values - with respect to our relationship to nature. the fact that we are concerned about the environment but we still want our suv's as well as our materialism to the point of affluenza. The fact that we are eliminating other species through the destruction of the rainforest etc. The fact that many people and children in the world starve while sports stars get 100s of millions to play a boys game etc. the fact that we live in overcrowded cities and yet many of us dont know our next door neighbour (what was life like centuries ago when we lived in tribes and clans).

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 12:59 PM

Gawd I'm sick of the term "politically correct". Times change, attitudes change, situations sure as hell change, but some phrases just keep hangin' on.

When I was growin' up (in the fifties) I thought all Germans must be bad (Japanese too), or else why would my Dad have given up five years of his life to fight them? From MY school history books I KNEW that England was ALWAYS right and noble..Hell, when I read about King Richard the Lionheart boldly leading those Crusades against "unbelievers" I practically had tears in my eyes.

By the time I was about 13, I'd stopped reading school books and was doing my OWN research (never stopped actually) and what an eye opener it was. My own British ancestors had practised every form of cruelty and repression that I'd only associated with other "less civilized" races and nations. My conclusion was that whoever has the power at the time fucks the ones without the power. Happens with Nations, races, individuals. Always has, always will.

I can't feel guilt for what people did "then". Hard enough keeping my own slate reasonably clean. I've always preferred the term "ethically correct...as I see it!" Ha Ha!

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 12:53 PM

The Germans had a similar outfit to the USO, but I can't recall what it was called. It served precisely the same purpose in entertaining the troops with singers, musicians, comedians, etc....and plenty of rah-rah-rah-we're-gonna-win propaganda...just like the USO. God was on their side too, apparently. Just go back in a time machine and ask them...

Needless to say, the German outfit is not eulogized today...

The Russians also had such an outfit, and the Brits did as well.

They all did pretty much the same thing in pretty much the same way.

I'm not sure what the Japanese did along this line, but probably something. I know they did have groups of female "entertainers" (read: prostitutes) to keep the troops happy, but that's a different form of entertainment...

If you want to discuss political correctness, there's plenty of room for debate there. I'm sure the various entertainers all felt that they were doing it for the most laudable of reasons (plus to earn a living), no matter which side they were on.

War is hell...but when you lose, it's really hell. You can't even get to say you "saved the world" afterward. Guess why Vietnam vets got so depressed, while their opponents raised the NVA flag over Saigon...oops...Ho Chi Minh City.

The world survives in spite of our endeavours, not because of them...and I'd say that humanity survives in spite of our wars, not because of them.

Political correctness is like clothing styles...it has its season, it has its moment, and then it's gone.

- LH

p.s. Lest anyone misunderstand me here, I am glad that the Nazis lost WWII. They deserved to lose it.

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 12:33 PM

Now I understand

Murray

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Pseudolus
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 12:29 PM

Spud, I was not trying to bestowe forgiveness for the simple reason that I have no right to judge, nor do I know you well enough to have accused you. you apparently think that I did. I have no guilt to justify and I've presumed none with you. I would hope that we could agree that opportunities for women and African-Americans were quite limited at that time. It can't be that far fetched to find out that the USO went the route of having shows like the ones described by Mrrzy above with the blackface and the women entertainers. I am not trying to denounce nor support those activities, I am simply stating that they went on. In today's "politically correct" world, those things wouldn't be generally accepted and would stir outcry from a lot of folks. they didn't have that affect in the forties. Does this make the USO a bad organization? Of course not, that's my entire point!! The USO did a WORLD of good at a time it was sorely needed for people that truely needed it. My complaint is that organizations like the one I work for almost had to change their celebration's theme of the USO in the forties because some folks around here decided that they had the right to judge an era for what was allowed to go on. I argued that they were judging people they had no right to judge, people who fought for them to be able to live in the country we live in today. I suggested that we should put the emphasis on the positives and try to take the negatives and turn them around....a win/win. I did not however tell them they were wet behind the ears, that they were justifying their own guilt, or that they had no understanding of the word compassion. Because of that, we will continue to have the celebration that was intended, with input from everybody.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 12:03 PM

Murray,
You are correct . The Uso is the spacecraft on which women arrived from Venus. THANK GOD FOR THE USO.

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 12:03 PM

I *think* that the PI perception of the USO stems from a perception (note that I'm not claiming to be describing reality here) that they had lots of women whose only role was to be an entertainment model, keep up the troops' morale - but actually fight in the war? (Gasp, faint!)... and there is a perception that they did things in blackface, as did other entertainers of the time, and so on. At least, that's what I think Pseudolus meant. Pseudo, care to join in?

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Brendy
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 11:47 AM

I know absolutely nothing about this, Murray, but this is the USO Homepage, a fact that you probably know by now, since you have discovered a whole new world of opportunity!!

Glad you liked it!! ;)

B.

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 11:37 AM

Is it me? Or is there some piece of information missing here? Why is the USO perceived to be politically incorrect? Somebody please elucidate. ( I have tried all the search engines, not one iota of enlightenment )

Murray

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: JudeL
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 11:31 AM

Ever see "it ain't half hot Mum" - probably not very pc - but still funny

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: chip a
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 11:31 AM

Thank you Spud. "Stop trying to justify your own guilt by forgiving your own presumption of mine" wonderful!

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Kim C
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 11:29 AM

The problem is that history is not politically correct. It never has been. It never will be. This is something all living history people have had to deal with for years. Do you represent History as it was, or do you clean it up and make it sweet because someone might get their feelings hurt?

Soldiers have a hard way to go. Even in peacetime, they still die in the line of duty thanks to training accidents. They work hard every day so they can be ready when the time comes, and likewise hope it never does.

Well, I have a lot of things in my brain today and I don't really know what I'm trying to say here. If someone else can figure it out I'd really appreciate it...

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 11:26 AM

Let me say this about that, while not (I sincerely hope!) denigrating anybody's wartime experiences, for which I am also grateful, despite being at heart a pacifist.

About the PC business being "mis"applied to the past: there was a case recently where somebody was convicted before the Miranda case (which forces cops to inform those they arrest of their rights). Some lawyer got the conviction overturned because the somebody hadn't been advised of their rights -- when the law that said they had to be hadn't been passed yet. I think that is an example of retroactive MISapplication; the conviction should stand because AT THE TIME nothing wrong was done.

But then take my old lecherous "uncle" of sorts; when we were kids, he was just a dirty old man that we watched out for. Years later it turns out he's a child molester. In this case I think that retroactively applying today's standards would have been a GOOD thing. At the time he WAS doing wrong, it was just not seen to be so at the time. But it was.

So I guess, to answer the original question, yes, a lot of the time it's out of hand. Remember that poor guy who lost his job for using, correctly I might add, the word Niggardly, which then upset some people who didn't know the word. The boss should have said to the upset folks, You guys need to improve your vocabulary, rather than to the correct speaker, You should pick your phonemes more carefully (not even MORPHEMES!), you're outa here.

On another front: I've heard people talk about the old Space Babes Star Trek outfits the women wore, short skirts, etc., as being demeaning of women. BUT talk to the women involved, like Nichelle Nichols, and they talk about how liberating it was to be ALLOWED to wear short skirts etc, instead of having to cover up in fear that some man would be driven to rape by the mere sight of female flesh. They saw it as a sign of the times, just as the It's Exploitation people did, BUT they saw it as positive, and the Exploitation people saw it as negative.

Go figure.

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: mkebenn
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 11:25 AM

George, I add my heartfelt thanks to Mousethief's. It is only thanks to men(and women) like you and my father that we have a world we can enjoy to the limit of our efforts. And I could care less about your attitudes and make no appologies for them, though I doubt any would be needed. Dad has his own oppinion of "PC weenies" and I agree with him much more than disagree. God Speed, Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 11:19 AM

Nice one Brendy ! ROTFL

Murray

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Brendy
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 11:14 AM

All about brouhaha!!

B.

Subject: RE: BS: Politically correct: To be or not to be!
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 03 Apr 01 - 11:09 AM

Thank you for the information Alex, delivered with your usual unfailing graciousness.

Now what search engine do I use to find out what the hell all this brouhaha is about?

Murray