Posts Tagged ‘Political correctness’

The Harper’s Magazine Letter

July 13, 2020

I am not very impressed with the open letter calling for the end of cancel culture that is appearing in Harper’s Monthly.  This is unexpected. When I first heard that a number of prominent liberals had signed an open letter advocating freedom of speech and thought and calling for an end to the increasing tendency to ostracise people who hold whatever opinions are deemed racist this week, I might have thought it would be something I could get behind. After all, I am a free speech fundamentalist. As far as I am concerned, there is no subject too dangerous to discuss. There are no opinions so repugnant that they should be censored.

So, what is my problem with this open letter? Well, to start with, it begins dishonestly. Look at the first paragraph.

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

What has Donald Trump to do with the intolerant climate that has set in? The most he has done is call out the media on its dishonest and biased reporting. How has the Right been intolerant? Have conservatives been trying to get people fired for disagreeing with them? Most conservatives in the last few decades have been heavily influenced by libertarian ideas. There haven’t really been any prominent conservatives calling for censorship or canceling people. Even if there were, conservatives haven’t been in much of a position to cancel anyone. Leftists control the media, academia, the federal bureaucracy, even many large corporations. The left has won the culture war. They own the culture. If there has been a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity, it is entirely on the left. All right-wing demagogues can do is plead for tolerance.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

All of this is very true, except that it is all being done by the radical and not so radical left. Mainstream conservatives have little enough power to censor. Anyone on the radical right has absolutely no power at all. being isolated from public fora. The writers of this letter are trying to spread the blame around for developments that are entirely the fault of their own ideological allies. Leftists are responsible for the free exchange of ideas and information being more constricted. It is the left that has developed an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. It is dishonest to pretend that this is not the case.

And this leads to the other problem I have with this letter. Let’s look at the final paragraph

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

These are all fine sentiments, but I have to wonder where these people were when all this political correctness madness began? Where are they when conservatives were being canceled and de-platformed? They didn’t seem to be overly concerned about the restriction of debate by an intolerant society then. Some were even cheering the outrage mob on. I didn’t start seeing letters defending the right to free expression until the leftist outrage mobs started turning on their fellow leftists for being insufficiently woke.

While I appreciate the newfound commitment to free expression in at least a few people on the left, I am not going to take it very seriously until I see them defend the free speech rights of conservatives. They can begin by not calling people on the right racists and Nazis. Better still, I’d like to see them defend the free speech rights of actual racists and Nazis. It is easy enough to defend the rights of people you agree with, more difficult to defend the rights of people you disagree with, but only someone who is truly committed to freedom of expression would defend the rights of people who express ideas everyone else finds despicable. I’d like to see the people who signed display that level of commitment. Actually, I’d like to see that level of commitment from everyone. Maybe this letter will be a step in that direction.

Colored Person of Color

October 27, 2019

Something I have been wondering. Why is it that saying colored person is considered offensive and even racist while saying person of color is politically correct? Aren’t the two phases saying the same thing? If colored person is offensive then why isn’t the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) offensive? Shouldn’t they change their name to the National Association for the Advancement of Persons of Color (NAACoP)? I can understand why the word negro might be a problem since it sounds a lot like another, less polite word, but negro is not really the same word. Still, if negro is offensive, then why hasn’t the United Negro College Fund changed its name.

African-American is the current politically correct word for a Black person, but Black and African-American are not synonymous. It is possible to be a White African-American if you are a White immigrant from South Africa or North Africa. There is a tendency to refer to any Black person as an African-American even in science fiction or fantasy. A dark-skinned person in a story set in the distant future need not be an African American. He could just as easily be from Africa, France or Rigel 5. People who refer to all Blacks as African Americans may be trying to be politically correct, but sometimes they are simply being foolish.

The politically correct way to refer to people from places like China, Japan, and so on is to call them Asians. Orientals, the old word is no longer acceptable. Why? Neither word is accurate. Asia is a large continent and the word Asians covers a large and diverse population.  Indians, Iranians, Arabs, Turks and many other people could be described as Asians. Oriental simply means easterner. Anyone could be from the east. To a person living in France or England, a German, Russian or Greek could be an Oriental. Traditionally, Oriental was used to refer to people from what we now call the Middle East. Either way, it seems strange that Oriental is suspect while Asian is politically correct. Why is this?

The people who lived in the Americans when Christopher Columbus arrived used to be called Indians because Columbus thought he had discovered the Indies. This, of course, is more than a little ridiculous since the “Indians” have nothing to do with India or the Indies. More recently the proper term has been Native Americans. The problem with Native Americans is that the Native Americans are not the only people who are native to America. I am a native American. I was born here in America. I did not immigrate here from anywhere else. As far as I can determine, my ancestors have been here for two hundred years. How am I not a native? Lately, the proper term has been swinging back towards Indians or American Indians. Why?

Who decides what names are acceptable and politically correct and what names are wrong and why do the correct terms keep changing? Is there some committee somewhere that decides these things? Do they keep changing the politically correct nomenclature just to mess with the rest of us? Is this a way to get people in trouble by changing the vocabulary so that people who use old words can be condemned as racist when needed?

It seems to me that the people who are the most concerned with using the proper, politically correct jargon are less interested in promoting tolerance and harmony among people than in bullying and pushing people around. They may claim to be trying to eliminate racism and prejudice, political correctness really seems to be more about enlightened and tolerant few asserting power over the benighted and deplorable many. I have observed that these people who are overly concerned that every little group be called by the proper terms, lest they be offended and marginalized, are not really very concerned with treating their fellow human beings with tolerance and consideration.

It seems to me that how we treat people is far more important than the precise words we use to describe them and that If no offense is intended, then no offense should be taken. It is the actions and intent that matter, not the precise words we use. It matters less whether we say Asians rather than Orientals or Person of Color rather than Colored Person than whether we treat people of whatever race and color with justice, charity, and tolerance. Maybe we would all get along better if we worried more about how we act rather than what we say.

What’s the Matter with Britain?

February 24, 2019

I am an Anglophile. I love Great Britain and particularly England. I am a great fan of English literature, English history, English culture, and the English language. Although I am a patriotic American, there are times when I when a certain regret over the misunderstandings of 1776 that led to our separation from the mother country. The world might be a better place if America, Britain, and the other English-speaking countries were all part of a globe spanning Anglo-American Empire.

But then, I read stories like this one in the Telegraph and am grateful that we did separate from Great Britain, and write a constitution that includes the first amendment. England seems to be even more in the grip of political correctness than we are and they have no first amendment to keep the Fascists from throwing thought criminals in jail.

A docker from Humberside has been investigated by police over a limerick he posted on Twitter after an officer claimed it constitutes a ‘hate incident’ against transgender people.

Harry Miller, 53, from Lincoln was contacted on Wednesday by a community cohesion officer following a complaint that had been made about the plant and machinery dealer’s social media posts.

Citing 30 potentially offensive tweets, the PC singled out a limerick Mr Miller had retweeted which  questioned whether transgender women are biological women. It included the lines: “Your breasts are made of silicone, your vagina goes nowhere.”

Even though no crime was committed, sharing the limerick online was recorded as a ‘hate incident’.

PC Mansoor Gul told Mr Miller: “I’ve been on a course and what you need to understand is that you can have a foetus with a female brain that grows male body parts and that’s what a transgender person is.”

After Mr Miller questioned why the complainant was being described as a “victim” if no crime had been committed, the officer told him: “We need to check your thinking”.

“I can’t believe what is happening in the UK in the name of transgenderism and, worse still, we’re not even allowed to think never mind talk about it,” Mr Miller said.

The married father of four was alerted to the investigation by his company directors after they were approached by officers trying to make contact with Mr Miller.

The complainant had managed to identify Mr Miller’s place of work, despite there being no reference to his business or his full identity on his Twitter account. As part of the complaint to police it was alleged the firm was an ‘unsafe environment’ for transgender employees because of Mr Miller’s comments on social media.

Let’s get this straight. Mr. Miller did not commit any crimes. He did not assault or even make any disparaging remarks to anyone in person. He did not even compose the allegedly offending tweet. He simply liked or retweeted tweets that someone found offensive. The only reason the police were involved was because it was a “hate incident” and they needed to check his thinking.

What is the matter with Britain? Why are they putting up with this petty tyranny over there? What has happened to the liberty loving English of the past, the people who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, who chopped off Charles I’s head for being an overbearing tyrant, who fought the good fight against Hitler? When did the British people become a herd of sheep?

What exactly is a “hate incident”? If a hate incident occurs whenever one person says something that another person does not like, than no one is safe saying anything at all. Any comment, no matter how innocent could be taken as offensive. In fact, such rules against “hate” cannot be applied objectively and even-handedly. They are almost always applied in favor of “marginalized” groups against less favored groups. If a White, cisgender, heterosexual, Anglican had complained about a hate incident, I doubt anyone would have cared, no matter how hateful the tweet.

Does anyone really believe that banning hate speech will actually eliminate hate? It seems to me that it would only succeed in driving it underground. The people who are silenced will not change their opinion. They will only have the additional grievance of being silenced, and if the silencing is not objective or even-handed, as in fact it cannot be, the censorship may have the effect of increasing resentment against any favored groups.

There is also the problem of what actually constitutes “hate”. All too often, hate is defined simply as an opinion someone doesn’t like, especially if there happens to be some truth in the silenced opinion. The tweet that Mr. Miller shared may have been crude and not very nice, but it does express a truth. Gender is a biological fact, not a matter of personal choice. It is not possible to change gender, no matter how strongly a person feels as though they are really the opposite gender. A transgender man is not a woman, no matter what hormones he has taken or operations he has had. By punishing such sentiments as hate speech, the authorities in Britain are in the position of punishing a man for speaking a truth anyone can see and coercing people to affirm a lie, they cannot really believe.

If truth or a widely shared opinion becomes “hate”, than this blurs the lines between unpleasant pr inconvenient truths and statements that really are hateful. Punishing hate speech might have the unintended effect of making real hatred more acceptable, not to mention putting both the dissident stating unpleasant truths and the hater in the same position as defenders of free speech and free thought.  In general, I think the best way to deal with hate is to have everything out in the open rather than to let in fester in darkness.

I guess it was just as well we had that disagreement back in 1776. I prefer to live in a country where free speech is protected by the first amendment. Maybe the US should annex Britain as our fifty-first state so the people there can have the benefits of the first amendment.

National Labor Relations Board Rules Damore Firing Legal

March 11, 2018

As far as I am concerned, Google’s firing of James Damore for expressing the politically incorrect memo about the role of biology concerning the gender gap in tech positions belongs in the category of things they had a right to do, but ought not to have done. As a general rule, I believe that companies ought to have a right to hire and fire whoever they please. I find, however, the reasoning used by the National Labor Relations Board in their ruling that Damore’s termination was legal to be somewhat alarming in its implications concerning the future of free speech and free thought in this country.

Before getting into that issue, I have to comment that the article about this that I read in Wired is as a good example of biased and frankly dishonest reporting that you may find anywhere.

GOOGLE DID NOT violate federal labor law when it fired James Damore, a lawyer for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concluded in a lightly-redacted memo made public Thursday. The former senior software engineer was fired from Google in August after internally circulating a ten-page memo arguing in part that women are not as biologically suited for coding jobs as men.

I wonder whether Louise Matsakis, the author of the piece, is too lazy to actually read the memo, lacks fundamental reading comprehension skills, or is simply mendacious. Damore’s memo, which you can read here, does not state that women are not capable or suited for coding jobs. What Damore does argue is that there are real biological differences between men and women. Alongside the obvious physical differences, there are more subtle differences in emotional responses and cognition. Men and women do not necessarily want the same things out of life nor do they necessarily have the precise same skill sets. There may be some truth to the stereotype that boys are better at math while girls are better at language.

This means that the underrepresentation of women in tech fields may not be entirely due to sexism. It is possible, even probable that fewer women than men are interested in a career in STEM fields and that relatively fewer women possess the skills necessarily for success in such fields. This is not to say that women ought not to enter such fields or that girls who are interested shouldn’t be encouraged, but it may help explain why STEM fields continue to be male dominated and why programs to interest girls may not be as successful as one might hope.

Whether James Damore’s assertions are valid remains to be seen. The idea that men and women may have different interests and abilities ought not to be controversial though. It is remarkable that the same people who believe that there are fifty-seven genders cannot accept the idea that there might be real biological differences between the two real genders or that the people who worship at the altar of diversity balk at the notion of real diversity between groups of people.

As I mentioned the legal reasoning behind the National Labor Relations Board’s decision is disturbing.

The NLRB memo released Friday was written by attorney Jayme Sophir in January—less than ten days after Damore filed his lawsuit.

Sophir concluded that Damore’s memo contained both protected statements (like criticizing Google) and not protected statements (perpetuating stereotypes about women), and that Google ultimately fired Damore for things he said that were not protected under federal law. Sophir wrote in her memo that workplaces should have the ability to “‘nip in the bud’ the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a ‘hostile workplace.'”

She also said that Damore’s statements about women in his memo “were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding effort to cloak comments with ‘scientific’ references and analysis, and notwithstanding ‘not all women’ disclaimers. Moreover, those statements were likely to cause serious dissension and disruption in the workplace.” Sophir’s memo also cites two instances in which women withdrew their candidacy for engineering positions at Google after learning about the existence of Damore’s memo.

“We are gratified that the NLRB General Counsel found that Google acted lawfully in not allowing this employee to create a hostile work environment,” Cameron Fox and Al Latham, attorneys from the firm Paul Hastings, which represents Google, said in an emailed statement.

James Damore’s employee conduct was writing a memo which contained opinions that some of his co-workers did not like. He wrote the memo in a dry, scientific tone presenting the evidence for his positions in as unbiased and inoffensive manner as possible. He was not trying to offend anyone or cause dissention and disruption in his workplace. Has it become the obligation of employers to nip in the bud viewpoints that dissent from politically correct orthodoxy?

It is not really possible in this for progressives to use the government to impose censorship by means of hate speech laws as they have in other countries, because of that pesky first amendment. Instead they seem to be trying to impose ideological conformity by taking control of private institutions. They have already succeeded in turning many universities into mini-North Koreas, totalitarian enclaves where dissent is swiftly punished. Now they seem to be turning their efforts to employers and social media. If this trend is not checked, we could find ourselves in a country in which the first amendment has become a dead letter. We will still have a theoretical right to free speech, but persons who challenge the prevailing orthodoxy will be denied a platform and will find themselves unemployed and unemployable. This is actually a far more effective way to control dissent than the gulag. Throw a man in jail who speaking heresy and there is the risk that he may become a martyr, a hero to admire and emulate. Deny a man a job for speaking out and he is just an unemployed loser that no one has ever heard of.

With all the discussion of the hostile work environment caused by James Damore’s memo, one  question seems to be overlooked, are the assertions made in the memo true? It seems that the question of whether someone is offended or upset by Damore’s statements is far more important than whether his statement are actually true. If what Damore has to say is false, than it can be debunked. If it is true, than it calls into question a lot of policies meant to increase diversity in the tech industry. Either way, the fact that people are upset over Damore’s memo proves nothing. I cannot help but feel that it was no great loss to Google that the two women withdrew there applications for engineering positions. If they cannot handle facts and opinions that they disagree with, they have no place in a field as innovative as the tech industry. In fact, they have no place in the adult world at all and would best return to their safe spaces at kindergarten.

Silicon Valley has long been the most innovative center of the most innovative industry in the most innovative country in the world. I find it hard to believe that such innovation can continue in an industry, or country, in which feelings are prized above facts and dissenting opinions are viewed with hostility will continue to be innovative. It is not a good sign that Communist China might be a place more open to presenting controversial ideas than Silicon Valley and it would be unfortunate if repressive China takes the lead in developing new technologies over the formerly free United States. Perhaps, if Silicon Valley continues to be hostile to free speech and free thought, innovative people will decide to go elsewhere. Certainly if the United States becomes hostile to free speech and free thought, we will not continue to be the leader in science and technology.

Going With the Wind

September 23, 2017

It looks like the classic movie Gone With the WInd will be the next victim of the ongoing cultural revolution., as I read in this article from Deadline Hollywood.

One of Hollywood’s iconic films is under some serious scrutiny in Memphis, Tennessee. The city’s historic Orpheum Theatre is pulling showings of Gone with the Wind after the 1939 classic was deemed as “insensitive.”

Victor Fleming’s film was part of their summer series programming. After the first screening on August 11, the Orpheum received numerous comments about the film which prompted them to drop it from their 2018 series. Based on the book by Margaret Mitchell, Gone With the Wind starred Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh and was set in on Southern plantation during the Civil War and Reconstruction periods. Although a landmark in cinema, the film and its subject matter has seen criticism for its portrayal of people of color and its overall perspective of the South during that divisive time in history.

Admittedly, the portrayal of African-Americans in the film is not altogether positive and it does tend to glamorize the Old South, reflecting the Lost Cause or Dunning School of Confederate historiography, but Gone With the Wind is still one of the best movies ever made, from an era in which they actually knew how to  make great movies. If we are to purge the culture of every work of art, literature, or entertainment that could possibly be construed as being offensive, we are not going to have many such works left to enjoy. If every new work of art, literature or entertainment must be produced according to the most exacting standards of political correctness, very few such works will be worthwhile. Certainly none will stand the test of time to become classics.

What is the point of this cultural revolution in which statues of Confederate statues are overturned and anything related to the Old South prohibited? If it is to fight racism, then we ought to declare victory and leave the statues alone. Racism as a political and social force is dead in America. Yes, I know that there are still many prejudiced people out there. That will always be the case, as long as there are human beings. Prejudice against people who don’t look or act like us is, to some extent, hardwired into our programming. Yet, the United States in the twenty-first century is probably one of the least racist countries in history. I doubt if any other nation has done so much to reverse past injustices as we have. We are not perfect, but if perfection is the standard, we will always fall short. The people who claim that contemporary America is an oppressive regime of systemic racism are simply too ignorant of history to know what they are talking about. If you want to see true systemic racism, you only need to hop into the Wayback Machine and travel back about sixty or seventy years.

Liberals often claim that Republican politicians promote racism by speaking in coded “dog whistles” that only liberals can hear. There was a time when Democratic politicians openly supported depriving African-Americans of their civil rights. The record for the longest Senate filibuster was set 1957 when Strom Thurmond spoke for twenty-four hours against the Civil Rights Act. Black Lives Matter claims that police officers routinely shoot unarmed Black youths for other reason than racism. Upon closer examination, these innocent youths invariably turn out to be criminals who attacked the officer in question. Yet, there was a time when police officers could indeed harass and even murder Blacks with impunity. There was a time when mobs of Whites could murder Blacks with impunity. There was a time when proposals for federal laws to prevent lynching were controversial.

Read that last sentence again and let it sink in. There was a time, less than a century ago, when laws designed to stop Americans from murdering their fellow human beings who had the wrong colored skin were so controversial that they could not be passed.

In my own home town, Madison Indiana, Blacks were required to sit up in the balcony at the local theater. If they got ice cream from the local drug store, they had to eat it outside. They were not allowed to swim at the public pool. They could not attend the same schools as the White children.

Speaking of schools, there was a time when President Eisenhower had to deploy federal troops to ensure that teenagers in Little Rock Arkansas could attend a school in compliance with a Supreme Court decision. Take a look at the infamous picture taken at that time and just try to imagine the hatred those young people had to face.

That is what systemic racism is really like. We are no longer that country. Attitudes about race have changed drastically for the better in a little more than a generation, to the extent that a lot of this behavior is incomprehensible to the people who didn’t experience it. I simply cannot imagine refusing to allow someone to use a public facility because of their race. I don’t really understand why normal, decent people behaved in a manner that even a hardcore racist of today might be ashamed of. We worry about microaggressions today. Blacks of a previous generation worried about real aggressions.

Of course, there is still racism and prejudice. There will always be prejudice as long as there are human beings. It seems to me, however, that if we want to continue to make progress against prejudice, or just maintain what progress we have made, conducting a purge of everything in our culture and heritage that might be considered racist might not be a good way to go about it. I would think that if reducing racism is the goal, than we should be trying to make race less important. We ought to be striving for a world in which the color of a person’s skin is just as inconsequential as the color of their hair or eyes. Instead, the people who profess to be the most against racism seem to be trying to inject race into everything. They seem to be trying to deliberately turn people against one another by stirring up racial tensions. I wonder if the goal is not fight racism but to encourage it. Maybe they need to believe that no progress towards racial equality has been made, or that the country they are living in is hateful and evil. Maybe they want Americans to be divided rather than united. Whatever the reason, this business of driving us apart has to go with the wind.

Charles Murray at Middlebury

March 18, 2017

Earlier this month sociologist and writer Charles Murray attempted to give a speech at Middlebury College. He was not successful because some of the students at Middlebury College decided that they didn’t want to hear what he had to say, and they didn’t want anyone else to hear him, so naturally they shouted him down. College is, after all, not the place where one might be expected to be exposed to new insights and experiences that might challenge one’s worldview.

Here is the story from insidehighered.com

Hundreds of students at Middlebury College on Thursday chanted and shouted at Charles Murray, the controversial writer whom many accuse of espousing racist ideas, preventing him from giving a public lecture at the college.

Murray had been invited by Middlebury’s student group affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank at which Murray is a scholar. Many of his writings are controversial, but perhaps none more than The Bell Curve, a book that linked intelligence and race and that has been widely condemned by many social scientists (even as Murray has been supported by others).

Prior to the point when Murray was introduced, several Middlebury officials reminded students that they were allowed to protest but not to disrupt the talk. The students ignored those reminders and faced no visible consequences for doing so.

As soon as Murray took the stage, students stood up, turned their backs to him and started various chants that were loud enough and in unison such that he could not talk over them.

I wonder how much any of these students actually know about Charles Murray and his work. I doubt very much if any of them have read the allegedly racist “The Bell Curve”. For that matter, I wonder if any of the critics of Murray and “The Bell Curve” have actually read the book. As it happens, “The Bell Curve” is not about race but about the relation of intelligence, or at least that portion of intelligence measured by IQ tests, and success in a meritocratic society like the United States. Murray considers the question of how much IQ is determined by heredity and suggests that people of higher IQ will tend to form a new elite separated from the mainstream of American society. I gather Murray considered this to be undesirable. Only towards the end of the book, in an appendix I believe, does he take up the question of race, noting that some races score higher on IQ tests than others and speculating that heredity may play a role. Murray did not, so far as I know, suggest that one race is inherently superior to another or that any individual of any race should be denied their civil rights. I do not believe that Charles Murray is a racist.

Here are some of the things the protesters chanted:

“Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Charles Murray, go away.”

“Your message is hatred. We cannot tolerate it.”

“Charles Murray, go away. Middlebury says no way.”

“Who is the enemy? White supremacy.”

“Hey hey, ho ho. Charles Murray has got to go.”

Obviously, they have no idea about what Charles Murray actually thinks. For that matter, they don’t really know what racism, sexism, fascism, or any of the other epithets they shout actually mean. If questioned, they couldn’t explain why racism or fascism are bad things. They only know that Murray is a thought criminal, a Goldstein to be attacked.

They are like the sheep in Orwell’sAnimal Farm” who are too dull witted to understand the meaning of the revolution or the principles of Animalism. They can only chant, “Four legs good, two legs bad” over and over, as they are taught be the pigs. At the end of the book, when the pigs decide to stand on two legs like humans, the sheep just as mindlessly chant, “Four legs good, two legs better”. Like the sheep, these students mindlessly repeat slogans without any understanding of their meaning or the issues.

I suppose it is not really their fault that they are so ignorant and foolish. They were taught to be that way be a failing educational system. They went to college presumably to learn how to think and were only taught what to think, or not to think at all. Trump University may have been a fraud, but at least the people who paid money got a few investing tips and a photo next to a cutout of Donald Trump. The students at Middlebury and all too many other colleges have ended up being dumber as a result of their supposed education.

Universities were invented to teach students how to think. If, instead they exist to indoctrinate students into left wing ideology and to suppress dissenting views, then what good are they?

Don’t Say Eskimo

May 9, 2016

If you want to understand why people hate what is commonly called political correctness, you don’t have to go much further than to read this article from NPR explaining why we should not use the word “Eskimo”.

Confused about the word Eskimo?

It’s a commonly used term referring to the native peoples of Alaska and other Arctic regions, including Siberia, Canada and Greenland. It comes from a Central Algonquian language called Ojibwe, which people still speak around the Great Lakes region on both sides of the U.S.-Canadian border. But the word has a controversial history. (Editor’s note: And that’s why it’s not used in the stories on Greenland that NPR has posted this week.)

Actually, no, I wasn’t at all confused. Eskimos are those people who live far to the north. I doubt many people are in the habit of asking NPR for advice on what words to use and it seems rather presumptuous for the author of this article to tell the rest of us what is appropriate or offensive. Most people resent being told to use certain politically correct expressions, even when it is well intended.  But to continue.

People in many parts of the Arctic consider Eskimo a derogatory term because it was widely used by racist, non-native colonizers. Many people also thought it meant eater of raw meat, which connoted barbarism and violence. Although the word’s exact etymology is unclear, mid-century anthropologists suggested that the word came from the Latin word excommunicati, meaning the excommunicated ones, because the native people of the Canadian Arctic were not Christian.

But now there’s a new theory. According to the Alaska Native Language Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, linguists believe the word Eskimo actually came from the French word esquimaux, meaning one who nets snowshoes. Netting snowshoes is the highly-precise way that Arctic peoples built winter footwear by tightly weaving, or netting, sinew from caribou or other animals across a wooden frame.

But the correction to the etymological record came too late to rehabilitate the word Eskimo. The word’s racist history means most people in Canada and Greenland still prefer other terms. The most widespread is Inuit, which means simply, “people.” The singular, which means “person,” is Inuk.

Of course, as with so many words sullied by the crimes of colonialism, not everyone agrees on what to do with Eskimo. Many Native Alaskans still refer to themselves as Eskimos, in part because the word Inuit isn’t part of the Yupik languages of Alaska and Siberia.

But unless you’re native to the circumpolar region, the short answer is: You probably shouldn’t use the word Eskimo.

So, “Eskimo” was bad because it was believed to be derogatory, but now it may not be so bad, but we still shouldn’t say it because an Eskimo might be offended.

The fact is that few Native American tribes or nations are widely known by the names they call themselves. Most Indian groups are commonly known by the names others have given them. Some are of obvious European origin, the Black Foot, Nez Perce, Creek, Delaware, Crow, or Beaver. In most cases, these are translations of their original names into English, French, or Spanish. Many are known by names given by their enemies, thus; Sioux (little snakes), Mohawk (man eaters), or Iroquois (real snakes), or their friends like Comanche (they fight with us). Some of the tribal names derive from European attempts to pronounce unfamiliar words, Ute from Nuutsiu, Seneca from Osininka, or Illini from Illiniwek. Of course, there are the names we use for the people as a whole. Indians are only called Indians because Columbus didn’t know where he was, and while the Indians are certainly natives to this continent, they did not call themselves Americans.

It is not just the Native Americans who are not called by the names they call themselves. No one in China knew that they were Chinese until they met the Europeans. The Chinese call themselves the Sons of Han and their country is the Middle Kingdom (Zhong Guo). China seems to be derived from the first Imperial dynasty the Qin. The Indians had many names for themselves, since India is a very diverse country, but India is derived through Persian from the Indus River. The most common Indian word for India is Bharat. The Hindu religion was not called Hinduism until the Muslims started to conquer India. Before that time, the Hindus had no need of a word to distinguish their religion.

Our Western civilization largely began with the Greeks, but the words Greek and Greece come from Latin. The Greeks knew themselves as the Hellenes and their country as Hellas. We call the Deutsche Germans and Deutschland Germany, while the French refer to them as Allemands and Allemagne from the German tribe the Alamanians. This isn’t just an European colonialist custom. The Arabs and Persians refer to Europeans as al-Faranj and Farangi from the Franks.

It seems that almost no one in the world is called by outsiders by the same name they use for themselves. It doesn’t seem practical to go through every language and change every term that might be offensive to someone somewhere in the world  so I think I’ll just go on saying Eskimo.

Eskimos

Eskimos

Treating Others with Respect

August 17, 2015

These days, most people consider the phase political correctness to have very negative connotations. The phrase evokes images of the Fascist Speech Police enforcing speech codes on college campuses and elsewhere and redefining innocent statements as the vilest hate speech, or of some officious bureaucrat insisting on the most evasive phrasings imaginable so as to avoid offending anyone by any words which might have any real meaning. You don’t have to look very far on the Internet to find examples and complaints about political correctness gone mad, such as banning the word blackboard for racism or referring to Christmas trees as Holiday trees, not to mention near parodies as differently abled instead or handicapped or disabled.

Yet the concept that it is actually possible to insist that everyone be able to go through life without offending anyone intentionally or being offended still has all too many defenders and there are even a few willing to defend the term of political correctness itself without using another, more politically correct term. Such a one is Byron Clark from New Zealand who was frustrated enough by all of the misrepresentations surrounding the words political correctness that he created an extension for Google Chrome which changes the words “political correctness” to “treating others with respect” in order to show the real reason that political correctness has become so reviled in many quarters. I found out about Mr. Clark’s efforts in an editorial in the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette that a Facebook friend linked to.

The phrase “political correctness” has always grated because of the implication of the agenda that lies behind it. A newly unveiled Google Chrome extension has laid that agenda bare.

New Zealand resident Byron Clark reconfigured his Web browser so that the phrase “political correctness” automatically was replaced by the phrase “treating others with respect,” according to an article on Fusion.net. Now the extent of the agenda becomes clear.

Consider these reconfigured headlines cited in the Fusion article:

• “NC senator compares treating people with respect to Nazi book burnings”

• “Donald Trump: Treating people with respect is ‘big problem’ in US”

• “The real danger of treating people with respect”

Clark says his extension is free, but he would appreciate if those who download it contribute to a cause such as Black Lives Matter.

Well, that makes it all clear. There are just so many people out there who are opposed to treating others with respect. I suppose that the great majority of these benighted people are conservatives who are all racist, sexist, homophobic bigots who shouldn’t be allowed to state their bigoted opinions in public.

Of course this is just a rhetorical slight of hand by Byron Clark and the writer of this editorial. If political correctness were really matter of simply treating others with respect, the concept would be completely uncontroversial, at least in theory. In fact, if mutual respect were the only thing meant by the words political correctness, than the words political correctness wouldn’t be used in that context, since they imply some measure of coercion. It is the very element of coercion involved that led people to begin to refer to the efforts to impose speech codes and ban hate speech as political correctness. It is this whole idea of some self-righteous authoritarian telling everyone else what they can and cannot say and can and cannot think that is really grating and changing the words to treating others with respect does nothing to change that.

Beyond the matter of the coercion that is inevitably involved in what is called political correctness, another issue is that saying the proper, politically correct words is not the same as treating others with respect. The real core idea behind political correctness is the idea found all too often among people on the left, that virtue is shown not by virtuous acts but by saying the right words and thinking the right thoughts. Saying African-American instead of Black or developmentally disabled instead of retarded is regarded as a sign of superior virtue regardless of how one actually treats Blacks or the retarded. You can be a complete jerk to your employees, sexually harass every woman you meet, treat your Mexican gardener as subhuman, yet still be regarded as a good person provided you have the correct opinions on unions, feminism, or immigration. A murderer who makes the right sort of statements about America’s racist criminal justice statements has to be innocent, or at least his crimes can be forgiven. A terrorist and dictator is a hero, despite his crimes if he happens to be a revolutionary.

Political correctness, then, is not really any sort of real respect for others but a sort of play acting, of muttering the right words to impress others with how respectful you are, instead of really doing respectful actions from the heart. It is a sham, especially if it is something imposed from without. Political correctness is really an offense against truth and real respect and the sooner we can get over the whole thing and really start treating others with respect, and this may include telling them an unpleasant truth, the better.


%d bloggers like this: