Many times I have heard growing up, questions such as, “Why do we have to use politically correct language?” or “What is even the effect of me using politically incorrect english?” The use of politically incorrect english is the use of barbaric and intolerant language while describing a particular person or group. There are copious explanations of what politically correct english is and why it is used instead of randomly speaking conservative, out-dated, incorrect language to describe social classifications. In a quote by Charles Osgood, which was mostly likely meant to be bashing politically correct language but the statement actually reinforces appeals to the counter argument, he claims, “Being Politically Correct means always having to say you’re sorry” (Osgood). This is true in the sense that with gaining knowledge of social standards and developing ways of better defining social groups, we are going to have to say “We’re sorry for the spoken mistakes that has kept english and mankind from evolving and this is the new term that does not primitively stampede over you history.” I will try to show my interpretation of what politically correct language is and why is should be used, only to how it relates to the United States of America but possibly to a broader geographical range. The use of politically correct language creates less social conflicts, develops more equality, and needs to be constantly updated in order to define the group or person correctly. As a fact, humans prefer, sometimes without being consciously aware, to group things together in an effort to better explain the world around them. I emphasize “things” because in order to derive order from apparent chaos we must categorize, referencing everything. With dev... ... middle of paper ... ... based on skin color to attribute where the came from geographically. There are many counties that have skin as dark as some Africans but consider themselves part of a different ethnicity. Updating current politically correct terms may be of Descriptivist quality, but it will develop into Prescriptivist quality once the most correct term is traditionally used. The question of why we use politically correct is so inane because it is the same as asking, “Should I speak complete nonsense when I know sensical way of explaining my thought?” There is no point in speaking if you are not going to use the most current correct terms to describe the topic you speaking about. George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” helps convey the point that the use of correct language is more political and economical because that is what influences social behavior the most.
There are many reasons why people use euphemism as mentioned by William Lutz in “The world of Doublespeak” states that “euphemism is an inoffensive or positive word or phrase used to avoid the harsh, unpleasant, or distasteful reality” (390). However as mentioned by Lutz in “The world of doublespeak” when a euphemism is used to mislead or deceive, it becomes doublespeak” (391). For example instead of saying we killed three people they would use the phrase we exterminated three intruders to mislead and confuse people especially the uneducated. Also as stated by William Lutz in “The World of Doublespeak” indicates that “when you use a euphemism because of your sensitivity for someone’s feelings or for a recognized social or cultural taboo, it is not doublespeak” (390). For instance, imagine someone told you I heard your grandpa died that would sound harsh, but if someone said I heard your grandpa passed away that sounds more respectable which is not considered doublespeak. Lutz finds the People who are responsible for euphemism doublespeak tend to be people that try to cover up the unpleasant, which are mainly the government, armies and the news. Next as stated by Lutz “it is a language designed to alter our perception of reality”
Rankin, Aidan. “The repressive openness of political correctness.” Contemporary Review 282.1644 (2003): 33+. Literature resource Center. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
There was no political correctness in this movie, creating an environment that has great impact. The ugliest character, Officer Ryan, is abusive on the beat and is hard to work with, but still his coworkers have his back. At home he cares for his aging father, and in an attempt to secure better healthcare benefits, he verbally abuses an African American social worker, who has him escorted out. At movie’s end it is the social worker we see in a fender bender spouting racial slurs at the Middle Eastern person who hit
... division of humankind that covers many groups of peoples such as Western Asia, Europe, India, North Africa, etc. I accept this because it’s my lineage. It should be noted that like other people, my family and I don’t go around everywhere telling people about our race or ethnicity all the time. We use it when asked what we are, depending on the usefulness of it in a particular situation, or when it’s relevant on specific occasions (situational and symbolic ethnicity).
...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.
Michiko Kakutani's essay “The Word Police” is a refreshing look at a literary world policed by the Politically Correct (P.C.). She pokes fun at the efforts of P.C. policepersons such as Rosalie Maggio, author of The Bias-Free Word Finder, a Dictionary of Nondiscriminatory Language . But in mocking authors like Maggio, Kakutani emphasizes that efforts of the P.C. police are often exaggerated to the point of silliness and can even become a linguistic distraction from the real issues. In fact, such filtering or censorship of words can lead to larger problems within the English language: “getting upset by phrases like ‘bullish on America' or ‘the City of Brotherly Love' tends to distract attention from the real problems of prejudice and injustice that exist in society at large” (686). According to Kakutani, over-exaggerated political correctness just serves in complicating our words and diluting the messages. But really, the problem in P.C. advice on word-choice is the exaggeration of inclusive ness. Kakutani addresses the P.C. police's righteous motive: “a vision of a more just, inclusive society in which racism, sexism, and prejudice of all sorts have been erased” (684). But where does one draw the line between writing inclusively and walking on eggshells? What is politically correct? Must writers assume the worst of their audiences when debating whether to mutate the spelling of “women” to “womyn” in order to avoid sexist language? The truth is, writing purely inclusively is an arduous task; it requires consistent and careful consideration of many exterior elements such as audience, literary content, and societal context. An examination of these elements reveals just how difficult ...
Some people say that political correctness should not be an issue and that it may have run amok. I understand that our First Amendment states our right to speak freely, but there are definitely certain situations where it matters what people say. My belief is that when you have any political following or any influence on a population you should be careful with the words you say. Average Americans who do not have any influence on the mass populous should not be hindered from completing their jobs. Political correctness is one of the largest problems we have in America today and we are not taking it seriously enough.
Americans are afraid that if we become too politically correct, we will loose our right of free speech, and that is absolutely a reasonable fear. America is the land of the free, and it is terrifying to think that something could lead to the censorship of the people. However, there is a difference between being politically correct, and treating people with the respect they deserve as humans. When we degrade people by using slurs, or appropriating their culture it makes them seem less human. People wonder why there has been a controversy over names of Football teams like the “Redskins” but “In 21st century America, to name a sports team after an African American, Asian or any other ethnic group is unthinkable. So why are Native Americans still fair game?” (Shakely). While the word “retard” may not offend you personally, it can have a totally different past with someone else. “I can only tell you what it means to me and people like me when we hear it. It means that the rest of you are excluding us from your group” (Downes). When people use offensive slurs such as “retard” or the n-word, it is almost like dehumanizing
...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.
The beginnings of racial difference can be traced back to the Age of Exploration, during which England was expanding its trading routes and was highly involved with trade in Africa. The English traders noticed distinguishing differences between themselves and the African people, both in physical appearance and cultural primitiveness. It was not until the 18th century when the word race began to enter languages and vocabularies, and this idea of a difference between peoples was prodded further into existence through the work of Carolus Linnaeus. Linnaeus composed a list of subspecies of human beings based on racial differences. There were several other scientists, such Georges Cuvier and Charles Darwin, as who created subspecies of man. Social Darwinism, alluded to the concept that eventually one greater subspecies of man would prevail and be the most elite of all of human kind. These lists often categorized the order of species with the white, European man at the top of the list and the darker skinned, African man at the bottom. An example of a concept of categorization was the Great Chain of Being, through which all things, including man and the subspecies of man, are given ...
When many individuals think of a dangerous word their minds automatically think of the words that they chose to omit when in the presence of children or words that are thought instead of spoken in formal places, but what about the words that sit along the fine line between appropriate and inappropriate? For example, the term redneck has a different meaning to those inside community versus that of those outside. This word is the most dangerous because it is looked down upon and praised at the same time. The term redneck should be socially acceptable in everyday language, because those who it describes take pride using it to describe themselves.
It’s pretty much saying not to use offensive language that could hurt someone or that could mean something to them. Some examples we use words include like Christmas, where people get offended when we say that instead of saying winter festival. The postman we call them mail carriers would be politically incorrect . There are times we say stuff and we don't try to be offensive but they take it offend because they will think we were directly talking about them. At those times we try to watch what we say to people to like jokes or other stuff but that can become insensitive sometimes and we don't try to mean it like that
In the 21st century being “political correct” has not only become a conversation between amongst peers but it is now swaying our political processes and presidential race. Often times people are more concerned about being political correct rather then being truthful. What is and is not appropriate to say to fellow American’s. What may or may not be offensive to those around us. Now while we should take precaution to those around us some things are inevitable to stay the same. In today’s society one of the most talked about subjects is, is it appropriate to call people in our country illegally “aliens”. The illegal alien term should not be changed in order to conserve the feelings of those that
Firstly, political correctness is founded upon the assumption that discrimination and prejudice exists within society. Of course the goal of being politically correct is so that it affects communication in a positive way. It’s to prevent arguments and people from getting offended. What we are not trying to achieve is some sort of polite utopia – it would be a dull and dreary place to live.
In the article, "You Can't Say That," the author Diane Ravitch talks about how certain words are deleted from books or not shown in films because they could offend certain groups. In the article, Ravitch argues that although it may seem like we live in a world where anything goes, the truth is, that's not true. Diane does research and gathers a list of more than five hundred words that regularly get deleted from textbooks and tests. Some of the words include cowboy, brotherhood, yacht, and primitive. Personally I believe that the censoring of words these days is somewhat extreme. I understand that certain groups could be offended by such words but why should everyone else not get the original words the author is trying to write because of that.