PC = Political Correctness or Policed Control?
I came across a newspaper article recently which talked about how toddlers at the Sure Start nursery in Oxfordshire are being taught a revised, politically correct version of an old nursery rhyme. Instead of "Baa,Baa, black sheep", the children now ask the "Rainbow Sheep" if the gender non-specific animal, has any wool. I couldn't help roll my eyes in disgust as I though here we go again, yet another classic example of Political Correctness gone mad.
Over the last few months, all we seem to read about has to do with being politically correct. Christmas is now the "Festive Season", Christmas lights are now "Winter Lights", Chairman and Chairwomen are now "Chairpersons", Short is now "vertically challenged", Piggy banks are now to be replaced by "money banks", Black coffee is now "coffee without milk", Mixed race is now "dual heritage", the list is endless. All this, because of the fear that it, may offend certain sections of minority communities.
What surprises me about this perceived offence, in most instances of political correctness, is that very seldom do you hear the minority communities actually come out and say that they are offended. Quite frankly, I think it is always other people like politicians, overly fanatical religious leaders, some sections of the media all with their own personal agendas who blow things out of proportion and dictate that these communities should be offended. The truth is that they usually aren't. I mean, the average Muslim for example, is perfectly content living his life, practising his religion and he really does not give a damn that you ate bacon for breakfast. The average bald man does not want to be called "follically challenged" and I, who am as brown as cocoa, do not object to the song "brown girl in the ring".
The obsession with being politically correct is quite honestly overstretching the elasticity on tolerance, as the background on almost every phrase is being minutely scrutinised to ensure that it is not offensive. What I find quite patronising and unsettling in many ways, is the assumption that a particular minority group is unable to decide for themselves what constitutes offence and what does not. Isn’t this itself, an insult to the intelligence of the very people they are supposedly protecting?
We are meant to be living in a democracy. It does make me wonder, then, whether these self-appointed watchdogs on political correctness, have nothing better to do with their time. Who are these fools anyway? What gives them the right to decide what is offensive to a group of people? And why do they feel it necessary to inhibit personal freedom of speech and replace it with an insidious and rabid ideological creed that we are all supposed to readily embrace? This is not political correctness; it is a blatant attack on the right of free speech, clear thinking and discussion.
What purpose does political correctness achieve? Not a lot really. If the argument, for being politically correct is that it will reduce discrimination and prejudice, then those that advocate it are seriously deluded. Inherent prejudices will always exist no matter what. No amount of "word -disguises" or "wrapping up" will change that. There will always, be jokes for example about “dumb blonds” or “Irishmen” or “big-breasted” women or “Catholics”. If people have a prejudice, they will express it, no matter how much one tries to camouflage it.
If there is anything, that political correctness achieves, it is that, it succeeds in segregating and marginalising people. Quite often it also tends to play host to what I call the “Victim Compensation” bandwagons. These are people who use every given opportunity they can to make the rest of us compensate them for their supposed victim status. It’s a pity no one bothers to teach them that along with their “rights”, they also have wider “responsibilities”. But oh no, this point is all so often discounted. As are the views of majority of people within a minority group who really don’t want a “pity party” and would much rather gain a place of recognition in society, not for being victims but through their sheer hard work and merit.
I am all for equal opportunity, but one has to draw the line at the unnecessary enforcement of compromised and restrictive address just to appease a few bruised egos. Self-examination and tolerance are duties of a responsible society. But when these come at the cost of repression of freedom of speech and though, then it is not political correctness, it is political bigotry.
No one raises so much as an eyebrow when generally offensive, abusive swearwords are used in everyday conversation, on movies screens and television. But mention an innocent phrase like “dark as the night” and we are all supposed to be horrified. Perhaps if we spent less time teaching ourselves and our children about “rainbow sheep” and instead concentrated on reviving good values, morals, manners and respect, then common-sense and decency will prevail and we won’t be subject to being told to “mind our language”.
Over the last few months, all we seem to read about has to do with being politically correct. Christmas is now the "Festive Season", Christmas lights are now "Winter Lights", Chairman and Chairwomen are now "Chairpersons", Short is now "vertically challenged", Piggy banks are now to be replaced by "money banks", Black coffee is now "coffee without milk", Mixed race is now "dual heritage", the list is endless. All this, because of the fear that it, may offend certain sections of minority communities.
What surprises me about this perceived offence, in most instances of political correctness, is that very seldom do you hear the minority communities actually come out and say that they are offended. Quite frankly, I think it is always other people like politicians, overly fanatical religious leaders, some sections of the media all with their own personal agendas who blow things out of proportion and dictate that these communities should be offended. The truth is that they usually aren't. I mean, the average Muslim for example, is perfectly content living his life, practising his religion and he really does not give a damn that you ate bacon for breakfast. The average bald man does not want to be called "follically challenged" and I, who am as brown as cocoa, do not object to the song "brown girl in the ring".
The obsession with being politically correct is quite honestly overstretching the elasticity on tolerance, as the background on almost every phrase is being minutely scrutinised to ensure that it is not offensive. What I find quite patronising and unsettling in many ways, is the assumption that a particular minority group is unable to decide for themselves what constitutes offence and what does not. Isn’t this itself, an insult to the intelligence of the very people they are supposedly protecting?
We are meant to be living in a democracy. It does make me wonder, then, whether these self-appointed watchdogs on political correctness, have nothing better to do with their time. Who are these fools anyway? What gives them the right to decide what is offensive to a group of people? And why do they feel it necessary to inhibit personal freedom of speech and replace it with an insidious and rabid ideological creed that we are all supposed to readily embrace? This is not political correctness; it is a blatant attack on the right of free speech, clear thinking and discussion.
What purpose does political correctness achieve? Not a lot really. If the argument, for being politically correct is that it will reduce discrimination and prejudice, then those that advocate it are seriously deluded. Inherent prejudices will always exist no matter what. No amount of "word -disguises" or "wrapping up" will change that. There will always, be jokes for example about “dumb blonds” or “Irishmen” or “big-breasted” women or “Catholics”. If people have a prejudice, they will express it, no matter how much one tries to camouflage it.
If there is anything, that political correctness achieves, it is that, it succeeds in segregating and marginalising people. Quite often it also tends to play host to what I call the “Victim Compensation” bandwagons. These are people who use every given opportunity they can to make the rest of us compensate them for their supposed victim status. It’s a pity no one bothers to teach them that along with their “rights”, they also have wider “responsibilities”. But oh no, this point is all so often discounted. As are the views of majority of people within a minority group who really don’t want a “pity party” and would much rather gain a place of recognition in society, not for being victims but through their sheer hard work and merit.
I am all for equal opportunity, but one has to draw the line at the unnecessary enforcement of compromised and restrictive address just to appease a few bruised egos. Self-examination and tolerance are duties of a responsible society. But when these come at the cost of repression of freedom of speech and though, then it is not political correctness, it is political bigotry.
No one raises so much as an eyebrow when generally offensive, abusive swearwords are used in everyday conversation, on movies screens and television. But mention an innocent phrase like “dark as the night” and we are all supposed to be horrified. Perhaps if we spent less time teaching ourselves and our children about “rainbow sheep” and instead concentrated on reviving good values, morals, manners and respect, then common-sense and decency will prevail and we won’t be subject to being told to “mind our language”.
Comments