Political Correctness has Gone Too Far
The “Politically Correct” movement’s purpose is to bring historically condescending terms, offensive music and art, and controversial educational content to an end and replace them with more positive and less-offending references. Offensive and demoralizing efforts are wrong, but the censorship and deletion of words and phrases that do not contain the intention to demoralize are taking political correctness too far. Politically correct (or “PC”) antics have created a social decline that is growing worse with each generation, specifically regarding areas of art, education, language, and our right to freedom of speech; the degradation they have brought to the American psyche has even led to name-changing.
The PC mindset has also discouraged artistic expression. Imagine being to be so sensitive about offending people that we let the art we create be determined by the offended. New art would be restricted and old art would be censored. The creative ability would be limited to what is considered acceptable by everyone. We would be like the fool who tries to please everyone. How would music and art exist if the free reign of creativity ended? If art and music continue to face influential restrictions on content, then the quality of art will fall into artistic mediocrity.
PC policies have also compromised the accuracy of educational content in textbooks. Material close to being offensive is removed or adjusted to satisfy the super-sensitive or to avoid any unforeseen complaints. For example, American Indians can't be depicted with long braids, in rural settings, or on reservations, even though many American Indians do have long braids and live in rural settings or on reservations. If the depictions of our historical figures are incorrect, then the new PC textbooks should ensure their historical accuracy and footnote each change appropriately. In addition, if the information is correct but is being altered to satisfy sensitive groups, it should be changed back, regardless of the offending potential. How far could this evolve? Will we continue to erase provocative and controversial details of our history? It “dumbs down” our textbooks, leaving them bland and far less interesting. This effort to cleanse our history is wrong and it is killing our education efforts/system today.
We are becoming more aware of the sen...
... middle of paper ...
...n the January 1993 Library Journal, makes a similar suggestion: "Ultimately, however, we hope we use language that is more sensitive without enforcing strident political correctness or orthodoxy." We, as a society, are so concerned about avoiding confrontations that we are going overboard changing non-offensive names. The attempt to avoid possible protests of sensitive pressure groups by sanitizing our language is, in my opinion, censorship.
Changing a man’s career name from trashman to custodial engineer is an example that is justifiable and is why political correctness was brought about. It is the oversensitive effort to numb out historical content, which is neither offensive nor demeaning, which leads me to believe that political correctness has gone too far and needs to be stopped.
Bibliography
Fialkoff, Francine. "The Word Police." Library Journal 118 (1993):25.
S.I. Hayakawa and Alan R Hayakawa, Words with Built-in Judgments. Language Awareness, Readings for College Writers. Ed. Paul Escholz, Alfred Rosa, Virginia Clark. Bedfort/St. Martin’s: Boston, New York, 2004. 229-234
Wikipedia the Free Online Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowman 2004
In the modern society, millions of people realize that several offensive words with insulting taboo meanings heavily disturb their daily lives and break some special groups of people’s respect to push them to feel like outsiders of the whole society. As a result, more and more people join some underway movements to eliminate the use of these offensive words in people’s everyday speech and writing. However, these offensive words themselves are not the culprit, the bad meanings people attach are the problems and some other functions of the words are useful in the society. Christopher M. Fairman the author of “ Saying It Is Hurtful, Banning It Is Worse” also argues that although
Every one hundred years dialects change and what is considered “politically correct”, or socially acceptable, changes. “David Bradley argues that ‘if we'd eradicated the problem of racism in our society, Huckleberry Finn would be the easiest book in the world to teach’” (Zwick, Jim. “Should Huckleberry Finn Be Banned?”). If we, as a nation, make it a point to rule out all books that could possibly offend students, then every hundred years or so our library of American Literature will be completely different. Even today, modern day authors use vulgar language, lurid sexual content, and racial slurs to get their point across. If The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is taken off of required reading lists across the country, then that could create a never-ending cycle of books being taken off of school shelves every time words and ideas become unacceptable. If this is the way that American society is turning then something must be done, and the Superintendents, Deans, and Principals of every High School around the country must take it upon themselves to do it because the students will not.
If we started all over before any names were made and altered these names towards other races how would people react? Lets take the Cleveland Indians for example. What would happen if we had used the Jews, Blacks or Chinese as this political cartoon suggests. Every race involved would have been in an uproar when the caricature came out. They would feel that their constitutional rights were being ignored. But, when "Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians, runs about drunkenly at baseball games"1 they feel that it is ok to disregards the Indian name, heritage, and ritual. Taking in the psychological considerations for the Native Americans "dehumanization, as the word implies, is a psychological process that reduces a person or group to a sub-human level. One...
In 1978 a radio station owned by Pacifica Foundation Broadcasting out of New York City was doing a program on contemporary attitudes toward the use of language. This broadcast took place on a mid-afternoon weekday. Immediately before the broadcast the station announced a disclaimer telling listeners that the program would include "sensitive language which might be regarded as offensive to some."(Gunther, 1991) Pacifica believed that this was enough warning to give people who would be offended, but placing a warning in front of something is like placing chocolate cake in front of a fat guy. Humans thirst for the unknown, and at this time, sexual perversion was a big unknown.
...s restricting author’s freedom of expression. By practicing tolerance and self-censorship we can help lower the amount of censored books in the upcoming decade.
Rankin, Aidan. “The repressive openness of political correctness.” Contemporary Review 282.1644 (2003): 33+. Literature resource Center. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
For instance, in the show Freaks and Geeks, we find individuals, calling themselves freaks, because they do not belong in the ‘status quo,’ and live or desire to live alternative lifestyles. Would this be disrespectful to individuals who according to 19th and 20th century lingo, were called freaks? I think it is highly disrespectful indeed, because in the show, we find these kids who are not disabled, and are all white using a term which has caused so much pain to others,used it in such a free way, to be different and alternate. It goes back to what he was saying about how individuals who identify with the pink triangle and the term freak, need to also be a witness to the pain that other individuals suffered, like the gay POC and non-disabled POC. And it is worse because these kids in no way bear any semblance with either of the categories mentioned. It’s becoming some sort of norm, in which white people of years passed create words which are meant to relegate different individuals to the outside, and then after this relegation is done, choose to use it as freely as they want. For instance the use of the word ‘nigger’, white people want to include this word in their vocabulary so bad, because slavery happened more than 300 years ago. But they forget the pain that comes with this word, but you cannot truly forget what
Is it shocking to know that many pieces of classic literature are banned from classrooms even public school classrooms and libraries? The books Animal Farm by George Orwell and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain each have a recorded history of banishment due to (respectively) "political theories" and “racist aspects”. (Karolides, Bald, and Sova, 15, 336). I read Animal Farm as a school assignment many years ago. I learned so much about due respect and equality among humans that I cannot imagine a school forbidding it in student curriculum. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn provides illustration of a friendship during a period in history to a child given the ...
Neuleib, Janice, Kathleen Shine Cain, and Stephen Ruffus, eds. Mercury Reader for English 101. Boston: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2013 Print.
...2009) political correctness build an inclusive society in which people from diverse backgrounds are offered equal opportunities. Another article that defend political correctness talk about the people who are against this movement don’t want to be polite or civil to the people different from them, the important thing to this people is to do what they want when they want even though they used hurtful word they don’t care(angry black woman 2007). This article end by saying political correctness is very important to the language and we need to fight for it so let’s make sure people use it. Allan Goldstein has the same opinion as the two authors before he said that ” political correctness is a small price to pay for keeping the peace between large groups of outraged people” he means people don’t like political correctness but we need it so the people can live peacely.
Growing up as a child, parent’s shelter their children as much as they cannot allowing them to take in negativity and vulgarity in the world, but what happens when they go to school and talking amongst other children? Some parents do not always shelter their children as much, letting them know what is happening in the world at a much younger age than others. Teachers, but mainly government, try to correct what they think is wrong by censoring what content children can and cannot read. Censoring books should not be allowed today because children are maturing at a younger age; they are exposed to more vulgar content now with cellphones than when reading a book such as The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger, or a modern title like the Harry Potter series (American Library Association). Censoring books should not be allowed since children are maturing at a younger age; that is, children and teenagers should be able to choose whether or not they if they think books are too vulgar for their own preference.
Benjamin Franklin once said, “If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.” Censorship is the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts. Therefor, someone decides what is offensive and what is not. Nevertheless, what is offensive? Offensive to whom? When are lines drawn on what is deemed “dirty”? The history of musical censorship dates back to Plato’s vision of an ideal society in the Republic.
The most debatable and controversial form of censorship today is the banning of books in school libraries. Banning books that educate students is wrong and selfish. Censorship of books in school libraries is neither uncommon nor an issue of the past. Books with artistic and cultural worth are still challenged constantly by those who want to control what others read. The roots of bigotry and illiteracy that fuel efforts to censor books and free expression are unacceptable and unconditional. Censoring school books in libraries can often lead to censorship of our basic freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment. In some cases, a minority ends up dictating the majority in censorship cases. To be told what is permissible reading material and what is not is a direct violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Companies are afraid. Very afraid. They are not offending anyone, catering to all ethnicities, cultures, and backgrounds, and being “politically correct” in every sense of the word. In fear of offending any potential customers they might have, companies adopt an “all-inclusive” approach to their image. Advertisements depicting groups of people of identical race have become an endangered species; all walks of life are being crammed into any group of people representing a logo. This practice may seem insignificant, but it has infiltrated everything, everywhere, and has reached an unrealistic level.
Hence, censorship is essential in society to eliminate discrimination on basis of race and gender, protect children, maintain stability and restore what censor sees as lost moral values. Censorship occurs when expressive materials like books, magazines, movies, videos, music or works of art are restricted to particular audiences based on their age or other characteristics. http://www.ala.org/oif/intellectualfreedeomandcensorship.html) Censorship is not a recent development. It wasn’t imposed properly or there weren’t strict regulations before.