BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

When a Red Indian is not a Red Indian and other un-PC terminology.

  
  

Page: 1(2)345

 
 
Spatula Clarke
22:29 / 28.10.03
If someone says 'don't call me *****' than that's fair but if they say 'don't call any white middle class person *****' than they're speaking for everyone who can be labelled as a white middle class person.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here, Anna.

N- is used between a lot of black people as an affectionate term but when a white person utters it without permission they're being offensive.

Surely this is basic stuff? White usage of the word is always going to be associated with racism because that's how white people have always used it. You don't get to reclaim a word on behalf of someone else.

my point there was really that a word doesn't become offensive because someone uses it in an offensive way.

No, but a word does become offensive if it has a running history of being used in an offensive way.
 
 
at the scarwash
00:43 / 29.10.03
I got into a sticky semantic hole yesterday. I, W.H.T.B.W*, was talking to my girlfriend, W.H.T.B.B~ about the Wu Tang Clan, and discussing the merits of Nigga Please by the Old Dirty Bastard. She called me out for saying the title of the album. In my opinion, it is disrespectful to censor an artist's work, even something as minor as the title. I'm not sitting around quoting Geto Boys lyrics, tying to act cool for my black girlfriend here. I'm just calling something by the name that its creator gave it. Of course, she ultimately makes the call as to how I'm allowed to use That Word. However, I was wondering, in light of the current of this thread, what you all think about semantic situations like this.






* Who happens to be white.
~ Who happens to be black.

How all this happened to be, nobody knows.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
08:43 / 29.10.03
I don't think it is enough because there's an immediate assumption that an individual can speak on behalf of a culture and that's never good enough.

I was actually going to add a little to that last post pondering where one draws the line with this. If 99 per cent of a group consider a particular term for that group offensive, I think it's pretty fair to say that using it would be frowned upon with good reason. Fifty per cent? I think you'd be on very dodgy grounds just using the term in question all over the place. Ten per cent? One per cent? I think you'd find enough people who'd object to the use of such words as "man", "woman" etc... should one abandon such words altogether (mmm, sounds good to me, it must be said), or use the terms, but find out what individuals wish to be called when one meets them, or...?

But anyway: the part of my reason for not deciding to write any of that which wasn't, "Oh, dear, I'd better get a little w*rk done," was that I thought it had already been established that Native Americans as a group tend to consider the term "Red Indian" offensive, and therefore it wasn't necessarily relevant.

You don't get to reclaim a word on behalf of someone else.

Now there's a topic in itself. Can a word be reclaimed by non-offensive use? Or ironic/parodical use? I can't say I feel any guilt for laughing at emails saying, "I've broken me fist from mashing up dem queers." Or, for a more extreme example, a song sung by an acquaintance/friend at a party, which went along the lines of: "Jessica was happy - she had a happy life - everything was perfect - and then she was raped! - by a black man! - Howcoulditbeworsetheyareallaroundyou..." (etc). The understanding, of course, was that everyone at the party was so far removed from any hint of racism that no offence could be caused by ironic racism... parody of ridiculous far right attitudes. Back to intention again, then? If the same song were sung by a BNP member I'd be incensed.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
08:55 / 29.10.03
... And I'm now going to be flamed. A quick note to add to the above, more relevant perhaps to the initial point of this thread: I'd also certainly say it's context-dependant. In order to be, as I'd view it, acceptable, the song mentioned could only have been sung in front of people who would actually understand the intent and irony. If it were to be sung in front of, say, three-year-old children, who have no way of making such distinctions, I'd consider it to be Very Stupid. Perhaps not racist, but contributing towards (future) racist attitudes.
 
 
Papess
17:53 / 29.10.03
I would just like to make a few points.

First, in Canada, the government's terminology for "Native North American" is "First Nations People", or just plain "First Nations". I might note that the governing bodies for First Nation peoples also call themselves this. It can be used in as both an adjective and a noun.

Secondly, I think it would be a bit slack of a parent nowadays to let their children play "Cowboys and Indians", even if it were to be called "Cowboys and Native Americans". It just seems wrong to me. If I want my child to develop biases and stereotypes, I would rather they are about Romulans. I don't think that is what was happening necessarily in Olulabelle's case either, but to be fair...First Nation's People do not normally wear feathers in their hair. If they do however, it is usually for something sacred.

Just something to think about - the significance of the feather to First Nations.

[ot - sort of]
Olulabelle: You know, you are allowed to be less than a perfect parent. It is okay, don't be so hard on yourself. Parenting is demanding and there is no way you are going to do everything correct, nevermind politically correct. I want to mention what I find appalling is that someone would choose to speak to you in such a way in front of your son, but that is just my opinion.

Tom: I also would love to see more threads on parenting here, especially parenting with "alternative lifestyles" (hating that catch-all phrase) I have a lot of questions myself that I think this forum would do great justice to. I would like to start a thread on some of these things, but I am not really a Headshoppy.[/ot]


Thank you. Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion...
 
 
FinderWolf
20:17 / 29.10.03
>> I got into a sticky semantic hole yesterday. I, W.H.T.B.W*, was talking to my girlfriend, W.H.T.B.B~ about the Wu Tang Clan, and discussing the merits of Nigga Please by the Old Dirty Bastard. She called me out for saying the title of the album. In my opinion, it is disrespectful to censor an artist's work, even something as minor as the title. I'm not sitting around quoting Geto Boys lyrics, tying to act cool for my black girlfriend here. I'm just calling something by the name that its creator gave it. Of course, she ultimately makes the call as to how I'm allowed to use That Word.

You just were discussing the song -- uttering the title aloud doesn't make you racist at all. I honestly believe she's wrong here, pretty much unilaterally, and she doesn't have the right to 'ultimately make the call' in this instance. To me, common sense dictates that it's fine to use the word when discussing the title of a song that happens to be "Nigga Please."

Even if you wanted to quote lyrics - you're quoting lyrics. Written a black person. It would seem to me lyrics and song titles are obviously fair game as long as not used to espouse a racist perspective or be obnoxious about.
 
 
FinderWolf
20:18 / 29.10.03
>> If I want my child to develop biases and stereotypes, I would rather they are about Romulans.

LOL! This really made me *truly* laugh out loud.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:19 / 29.10.03
This is a very vague thread, so far... may tighten up as we go on....

The understanding, of course, was that everyone at the party was so far removed from any hint of racism that no offence could be caused by ironic racism...

Hmmmm....lucky you were all so far removed from any hint of racism. There is a thread about, among other things, how lucky it is that we are so utterly non-racist here, which links out to various other posts in which the nature of not being a smidgeon racist is also discussed. The short version is probably "it's a bit more complicated than that".

Meanwhile, something I posted about but was eaten by Barbelith yesterday was covering some of the same ground as:

Parenting is demanding and there is no way you are going to do everything correct, nevermind politically correct.

This rather neatly contains two concepts that seem to be jiggling around in a rather vague way.

Looking at the original report of the conversation, we find that the sister's fiancée describes "red Indian" as not "correct". However, the adjective used everywhere else in olulabelle's post is "politically correct". Is the idea that the word "correct" meant "politically correct" here, and fiancée was therefore colliding the two terms? Or is there a taxonomical concept of correctness which is positionable at odds with "political" correctness.

So, for example, one could say that "spheniscidae" was a taxonomically correct term, whereas "penguins" was not necessarily taxonomically correct, but was correct. What a politically correct term for penguins might be I'm struggling to conceive. "Flight-impaired", maybe.

So, "red Indian" would therefore by the same token be politically incorrect but in some other way correct. Anna's position is that it is correct because it refers to a confection of the "red Indian" unrelated to any specific currently living member of the First People, but rather to a cultural product of the cinema of an earlier part of this century depicting the previous century - that is that it is *taxonomically* correct. I find this idea questionable for the same reason that I would find the use of a phrase like “picaninnie” or “n- minstrel” in the same context questionable, and because, as that cultural product was in many ways a backdated legitimising of genocidal activity, but it is certainly a position. Olulabelle's original point was that it was, simply, correct - that is that fdb's intended had it wrong - because they were Indians and they were red (either of which I think is open to debate, and which has subsequently been debated), and also that it was taxonomically correct because identifying something distinct from “Native American” (the cultural product again, I think), but was not *politically* correct.

Now, we’ve got a bit of a problem here. I have come across this term before, but remain utterly uncertain of what it means. Repeated requests for people to explain who the founder of political correctness was, its central tenets and any handy guidebooks for the young man wishing to become more correct in every fashion have been largely unprofitable.

However, it seems that there is a general degree of confusion. Olulabelle, for example, says:

And black? Isn't black the accepted politically correct term to use?

Which is a bit tricky. Is it? The Guardian style guide suggests that one should say “black people” rather than “blacks”, that is use “black” as an adjective, not a noun. However, the Economist uses “blacks” to describe black people. Is one of these politically correct and one politically incorrect? And does that affect the correctness or otherwise?

Either way, should one be more or less careful with children on this sort of issue? When one says “well, s/he’s only x”, does that require more or less attention to language?

And finally, cowboys and Indians – does anyone still play it? Is it a popular game? It strikes me that those westerns that are produced these days tend to be a) revisionist or deconstructive and b) aimed at an older audience. Is the culture changing on this one? Is it passé as a structure?
 
 
Pingle!Pop
11:03 / 30.10.03
Hmmmm....lucky you were all so far removed from any hint of racism. There is a thread about, among other things, how lucky it is that we are so utterly non-racist here, which links out to various other posts in which the nature of not being a smidgeon racist is also discussed. The short version is probably "it's a bit more complicated than that".

Am I allowed to say, "Well, that response was rather predictable..."?

Your manner of speaking, though, is a little ambiguous with regards to whether you mean, "Oh, don't be so ****ing stupid, you really think you can laugh at that and not be racist?" or whether you mean to leave the question of the acceptability of such behaviour open, simply offering a possible alternative perspective.

If it's the former, and therefore you've already fixed judgement on the matter, then my pursuing the matter would presumably be pointless. However, I'd like to think it's the latter, so:

Yes, I think that to laugh at the song is fine. I consider it a perfectly legitimate way to mock racism, parodying simple racist views (and yes, of course there's much more to racism, and perhaps a more subtle version of the song could have included lines such as, "Well, I do believe there's something in black people's genes which make them more likely to commit crimes," but I don't see why the breadth of the song's scope should affect its validity) in order to expose their ludicrousness.

If, say, Chris Morris were to produce an episode of Brass Eye in which he parodically expresses subtle, insipid racist comments (I'm sure he'd be happy to be able to encourage some idiotic celebrity desperate to show their face on the show to say something stupendously stupid about asylum seekers or suchlike), would you consider him to be racist/giving weight to racist views?

Sorry if any of the above has been covered in the thread to which you linked, but methinks taking time off at my desk to read four whole pages of Barbelith may show in my w*rk. But, from what little I have read, a quick comment on, "... Is "prejudice" or more precisely the identification of prejudice a class-based privilege?", in case you intended to imply that: no, of course I don't consider it to be connected to class. My assertion that everyone was so far removed from racism as to be able to understand the irony was based on judgement of liberalness. Is that unreasonable? (And no, I'm not mistaking "middle class" for liberal, etc. etc. etc...)

Either way, should one be more or less careful with children on this sort of issue? When one says “well, s/he’s only x”, does that require more or less attention to language?

More, surely. Not necessarily keeping them unaware of course, but certainly ensuring that they understand the meaning and implications of any words they may pick up.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:06 / 30.10.03
I find this idea questionable for the same reason that I would find the use of a phrase like “picaninnie” or “n- minstrel” in the same context questionable, and because, as that cultural product was in many ways a backdated legitimising of genocidal activity, but it is certainly a position.

Certainly the term when used to refer to Native Americans can be seen in this light and indeed to their history and assuming that it is I have to agree. However I don't think that simply stopping your children from playing these games or telling them these things is going to do much. In fact I think it does less to allow them to play the game and tell them to say Native American because they're still making them out to be the baddies.

It then follows that you have to stop them playing altogether and you have to condemn the films that the term emerges from. There is consistent cultural work on black cinema and the role of black actors in film and that work condemns the racism inherent but I haven't seen any on films that include aggressive and primitive Red Indians (there probably is some but I suspect it simply isn't as global). If we're going to reject the game because of the term then it is necessary to reject the source of those games as well. You can't have it both ways. If your kids can't play Cowboys and Indians than your kids can't watch films that present Red Indians to them because they are just as likely to produce the prejudice.

Politically correct is a term that I think emerged from the media. That doesn't make it any less viable in the sense of language use. It basically means as it reads... that you should use the term that is correct politically. Not that hard to understand, so much a part of our language that it's gone beyond the soundbite stage. If a politician was to use the word n- in public than they would be beaten with a metaphorical club. Thus it is not politcally correct. Let's not fall to the Daily Mail and go on about 'political correctness gone mad' or even think of the term in that way, let's just take it as it is?
 
 
Quantum
13:00 / 30.10.03
Repeated requests for people to explain who the founder of political correctness was, its central tenets and any handy guidebooks for the young man wishing to become more correct in every fashion have been largely unprofitable.
First, "handy guidebooks for the young man wishing to become more correct in every fashion" there's a gap in the market right there, especially in light of the rise of chappish self help books- write one and make your fortune! Hell, you could make it a series!
Second, how drily patronising . Of course there aren't guidebooks as we all know because PC is not a school, philosophy or dogma, as AnnadeL says it does exactly what it says on the tin- it's what you can say as a politician that is deemed 'correct' in the sense of etiquette. That definition should suffice, in the same way 'manners' is a vague term but no problem to use.

The term 'Red Indians' is historical accident by Columbus and has no inherent racist undertones, only the (extremely) racist westerns of the 40s/50s/60s cast the term in an unfavourable light. When we played cowboys and indians as kids I was always an Indian because I thought they were cooler (which I still think). The term isn't necessarily perjorative. I'm with those above in thinking the red indian concept is equivalent to the cowboy concept, and refers more to fictionalised historical characters than actual people. I would only ever use the term when talking about Western films and childhood games, or maybe Halloween costumes, not about a native american person.
Confusing the kid seems a waste of time, let him play. It's more important he knows not to be prejudiced (in general) than how to use specifically correct language which, let's face it, will be out of date by the time he's an adult.
 
 
FinderWolf
14:13 / 30.10.03
>> It then follows that you have to stop them playing altogether and you have to condemn the films that the term emerges from.

You don't have to condemn the films altogether. I wrote a lot about my reasoning for this above, I guess you either didn't read it or you disagree with it.

>> I'm with those above in thinking the red indian concept is equivalent to the cowboy concept, and refers more to fictionalised historical characters than actual people.

I also disagree strongly with you on this, for all the reasons I listed above.

>> The term 'Red Indians' is historical accident by Columbus and has no inherent racist undertones

I also disagree strongly with you on this, for all the reasons I listed at length above.

But ah well. I guess I agree to disagree here.

>> Confusing the kid seems a waste of time, let him play. It's more important he knows not to be prejudiced (in general) than how to use specifically correct language which, let's face it, will be out of date by the time he's an adult.

Your glibness and self-assuredness that these things will be "out of date" doesn't apply to 'nigger,' the 'yellow peril', 'spics, 'micks' or 'wops', so why should it apply to the term 'Red Indian'? I say you're on a slippery slope and just plain wrong here as well.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:56 / 30.10.03
Hunterwolf you said watch those movies, show them to your kids, just explain afterwards that Indians aren't that way in real life.

I don't agree that you can explain the problem to a six year old and get them to understand without some kind of active response to it. So you have to stop them playing the games and watching the films if you really want them to know it. Having said that I don't think it's necessarily wrong to stop kids doing things that you think are morally bad as long as you tell them why... and know they probably won't understand.
 
 
Quantum
15:57 / 30.10.03
Hunterwolf, I take your point- not only because you've a lot more (and more direct) experience of the people at the sharp end of the racism, but because I hadn't read your posts on the 'Red' part properly. Now I have, I still have some differences (although I agree with most of what you say). I don't think the 'Red' is used as a perjorative, although the phrase 'Red Indian' has been, because it's not used alone- if it is it usually refers to commies, right?
What may appear glibness is my eternal optimism, I assume that these old racist terms will fall out of favour. Not to say that new abusive terms won't be invented, but not many people use words like 'picaninnie' and the 'Yellow Peril' anymore, so they lose their impact IMHO.
To be frank I am much less aware of my unconsciously racist attitudes and language toward Native Americans than others because I live in a place I am unlikely ever to meet any (England) and so concentrate more on the racism that is likely to offend people I interact with. I'm scrupulous when it comes to language that may offend Asians, disabled people or women for example, but was not so worried about using the term 'Red Indian'. I certainly will be more aware now though.

I'm interested to note you say;
Vikings are more in the same world of King Arthur and his knights or something very historically far away like that.
How far away? I'm assuming you mean so far there aren't any around to offend, would that be right?
 
 
FinderWolf
17:49 / 30.10.03
I specifically suggested showing kids different movies so they get the different perspectives. Show them one of John Ford's great cowboy movies (i.e. The Searchers, not sure if there are Indians in that one, though) and then show them Dances With Wolves and Disney's Pochahontas. I only suggested this to try to show that you don't have to eliminate all the old stuff and eliminate an entire genre of film, as you said.

And I also suggested specifying to a kid (and I think 6 year olds are pretty smart, I even suggested some ways to explain it above, I think) that Indians are not 'the bad guys', though some people who were mean used to see them as 'bad guys.' Then I'd launch into my 'don't judge people by how they look' sentence or two. Pretty simple, I'd say - but I admit I am not a parent and this is where I defer to any and all parents. However, I feel like armed with the few sentences above, I'd do okay and have done okay when discussing things with kids.

But I don't mean to say I have the answers to this parenting issue and you or someone else doesn't. Just that this is how I would handle it, how I see it as being best handled.

And Vikings are not only not around to offend, but they haven't been for many, many, many generations. So that was my point there. There also aren't negative stereotypes associated with Vikings (most people don't think 'raping and pillaging' when they think of Vikings, they just think old warriors in boats who come from Norway and look & dress like Thor). But I see your point too - what if you named a sports team the New Mexico Aztecs? Might offend some people even though there's no negative associations with Aztecs. It's complicated stuff, as I've said before in this thread.

People don't use the term 'yellow' anymore to describe Asians because it was horrible and racist. I don't see how it follows that it's ever OK to use 'red' in the present because most people don't use it anymore - it was racist just like 'yellow' was racist and that's why it's disappeared, for the most part.
 
 
FinderWolf
17:52 / 30.10.03
>> So you have to stop them playing the games and watching the films if you really want them to know it. Having said that I don't think it's necessarily wrong to stop kids doing things that you think are morally bad as long as you tell them why... and know they probably won't understand.

And Anna, I agree with you here - I just was trying to suggest other ways to not eliminate the stuff wholesale. But the approach you suggest above certainly works as well, I think.
 
 
Olulabelle
20:52 / 30.10.03
Half the problem in dealing with this subject for me is that it's not a culture or a people than my son and I come across very often, living as we do, in the wilds of the south west of England. I guess if it were a culture specific to this country that we had been discussing, I would have been much more able to talk things through with him, referring him to people he saw in the street, or programmes on television, or the like.

I don't generally have a problem in dealing with 'serious subjects', for example, last week we talked about doing things just with our feet and how difficult that might be, and then spent an hour trying to pick stuff up with our toes. We did this because he saw a child on television with no arms and was asking 'how can they eat, write' etc. It's a silly example I guess, but I cite it as a way of explaining that I do generally address things in a sensible fashion.

I guess I think that if subjects are talked through when they come up it's the best way to cover any kind of sensitive issue, rather than the big 'today we're going to talk about' approach. Kids mostly do accept it if they are told they can't do something, as long as you give then a valid reason, as Hunterwolf says. You just have to couch it in their language. Like, 'Don't throw your toys at the dog because dogs can feel pain just as you and I can. So if you throw something at him, it hurts him just like it would hurt you.'

The only thing that tends not to wash is 'because I said so,' and quite frankly I agree with that!
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:33 / 30.10.03

Sorry if any of the above has been covered in the thread to which you linked, but methinks taking time off at my desk to read four whole pages of Barbelith may show in my w*rk.

Actually, there are some other threads referenced in the third page of the thread which are also of interest. I recommend them heartily.

Now, Anna and Quantum both appear to have taxonomised political correctness, and have both taxonomised it as what politicians might be able to say. This is interesting, as it assumes that what is often identified as a doctrine by the right is in fact a sort of social self-policing. Seems rather a dodgy contention, however. George Bush’s description of the war on terror as a crusade was arguably politically incorrect, but he seemed to get away with it. Likewise Blunkett on swamping by asylum seekers. And this is before we look at less civilised climes, such as France or the Conservative party.

So, you’;ll forgive me if thisd taxonomy seems to me to be ill-thought out, not least because neither I nor they nor Olulabelle nor Olulabelle Jr are politicians, and as such should presumably not be able to say anything politically correct or incorrect except possibly in a metaphorical sense.

Contrariwise, I have found that the term “politically correct” is more generally used to refer to things that I think I should be able to say but feel that I cannot. This is expressed very well in the opening post of this thread. Olulabelle felt that she should be able to say “red Indian”, and, since she was subsequently made to feel that others felt that she should not, identified this as “political correctness”. Subsequently, it seems that the invalidity that is associated with the term (political correctness is rarely described as having gone sane) has been rendered open to question in this case, and Olulabelle has resolved to consider whether this was political correctness or merely correctness. Quantum’s example of manners is in some ways relevant (although there are in fact many books describing how good manners should function, whereas I remain in the dark as to the existence of a single book by a doyenne of political correctness on how one should be politically correct, and shall I fear remain unenlightened). I find myself often pondering whether what others feel they are prevented from saying or doing as a result of political correctness might in a less oppressed state of mind be seen as best avoided out of a personal desire for politeness. Decision rather than victimology.

Oddly, there’s an interesting precedent on the unlikelihood of offending any First People while resident in England; a lively discussion about whether it is offensive for inhabitants of the US or Australia to use a particular informal term for Pakistanis.
 
 
Olulabelle
08:30 / 31.10.03
In the UK we don't shorten the word Pakistani, because we have been taught that the short form is offensive. But the reason that the short form is offensive is simply because it has been used offensively. If you consider the word, it's not rude, doesn't have implications of another word, it's not a skin colour reference in itself. But it has 'become' offensive because people used it as a derogatory term and said it with violence.

So now it is not acceptable for anyone to say, but I think you might have to explain that to someone who wasn't from this country. (Having said that, I can't really picture the scenario in my head; where someone who had no idea about the connotations of the word or the cultural history of Britain might actually say it, because to me it sounds so offensive, I can't imagine anyone saying it. But that's maybe because I am British, and I know not to.)

And I guess that's what I feel about the red indian thing. I didn't know it was considered derogatory; because I don't live in America I am much less aware of the culture. And I'm not sure that I thought I 'should be allowed' to say 'red indian', just that I didn't realise I shouldn't.
 
 
Quantum
09:34 / 31.10.03
"I didn't realise I shouldn't. "
That's certainly where most of my unconscious racism (& other isms) come from, it had just never occurred to me that what I did was offensive- once I realised it was I changed my behaviour.
The conclusion I came to in the linked thread ('why clever people can't be racist') was that the best we can do to mitigate the prejudices we all have is to try and be aware of them and change our behaviour when we become aware. Just another reason to tell everyone what people find unacceptable, so they can stop.

On political correctness, I think the definition Anna & I espouse is certainly simplistic, but not ill thought out- it's not meant to be a complete description, just a descriptive pointer, and it's based on the historical origins of PC (politicians trying not to offend people) rather than attempting to capture a complex, recent and mutable phenomenon completely, which is a rather harder task.

what is often identified as a doctrine by the right is in fact a sort of social self-policing. Seems rather a dodgy contention
Maybe because I'm coming from the left? Is it less dodgy to refer to PC as a doctrine, implemented by bleeding heart liberals to weaken our proud nation? Are you asserting it is in fact one or the other? Because it strikes me PC is something with a hefty subjective element.

the term “politically correct” is more generally used to refer to things that I think I should be able to say but feel that I cannot
It is used in that way, but not more generally IMO. I use it (as do many) to refer to things I would say out of habit but feel I should not.

I find myself often pondering whether what others feel they are prevented from saying or doing as a result of political correctness might in a less oppressed state of mind be seen as best avoided out of a personal desire for politeness.
That's an excellent description, and one I wholeheartedly endorse- those who say PC's gone maaad would never say they were irked by not being able to spit on people ('Politeness gone maad') but are happy to express exasperation at not being able to use good old expressions and 'plain talking'.
I tend to find those with the most anti-PC stance are the most -ist, and generally right wing. Is political correctness the tool to root out prejudice, or a weapon of the left against the right?

Could there be an Emily Post style handbook for the politically correct, or would it be out of date by the time it hit the shelves? I've seen books on PC taking the piss out of it (describing albinos as pigmentally challenged and such) but never anything genuine, and I think it's because the etiquette changes so quickly- in under a decade the accepted expression for a group can change, more than once, and any expression you use will offend somebody. As someone said above, how do you judge what's offensive to a population?
The best way would be to list all the expressions you can't use and suggested alternatives, but then you'd just have a big book of bigoted abuse. No wonder there isn't one.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
09:57 / 31.10.03
George Bush’s description of the war on terror as a crusade was arguably politically incorrect, but he seemed to get away with it. Likewise Blunkett on swamping by asylum seekers.

Quantum has pointed out that those things that are PC are always changing. The very definition unfortunately lies within the realm of what is appropriate and thus is difficult to explain. The examples you give above are quite inaccurate though- it is perfectly appropriate to outline a war, even an illegal one as a crusade if you do so in the right climate but it would not be PC to use racist language while doing so. The same goes for any talk of asylum seekers. That is because PC applies to phrases and not ideas. A blatantly racist text might not be politically correct but that would be dependent on the semantics because PC is above all else a commentary on societal use of language (whether that lang. is in the form of words or ribbons...).
 
 
Papess
12:43 / 31.10.03
It has come to my attention that "Red Indian" is an actual recognized Native American language, from what I can tell. Am I reading this correctly? If so Olulabelle, IMO, has little to worry about.

Personally though, I would still feel uncomfortable using that term, but I have grown up going to school with and hanging out with First Nations people, I think that does change one's perspective a bit.
 
 
Cat Chant
15:57 / 31.10.03
"I didn't realise I shouldn't. "
That's certainly where most of my unconscious racism (& other isms) come from, it had just never occurred to me that what I did was offensive- once I realised it was I changed my behaviour.

Nice. And another (possibly slightly irrelevant) contribution to this strand of the debate: there's a marvellous moment in a Marge Piercy novel where one character tells another: "You react to being called racist as if you were being told you had syphilis. It's more like being told you have snot hanging out of your nose: wipe it off, carry on."

There's something I wish I'd been taught as a child.

Olulabelle: re offensive short form of 'Pakistani' and where/how someone might try to justify it - the highlight of my week temping in a criminal law department recently was photocopying a judge's decision on whether the term counted as "offensive racial chanting" at a football match. The defendants were claiming that it was analagous to "Aussie" or "Brit", that is, an affectionate (or at least not hatred-ridden) shortening of an adjective relating to national origin. (The judge gave them short shrift, for obvious reasons.)

That has nothing to do with anything, I just thought it was interesting.
 
 
FinderWolf
19:30 / 31.10.03
>> It has come to my attention that "Red Indian" is an actual recognized Native American language, from what I can tell.

Even if it is a recognized Native American language, I'd still steer clear of using the term to describe Native American people. Plus, it must be a pretty obscure language - far more people are aware that calling Indian people 'red' is offensive than are aware of this language, from my experience. I've never heard of it in 2 years of living and working with Indian people and various other scattered months of some study about that culture.

If an obscure Chinese language was discovered that was called the "Yellow Chinese language", I bet "yellow" would still not come back in style as an acceptable and non-offensive term to describe Asian individuals, despite the sometimes-fluxing nature of P.C. terms.

Anyway, Happy Halloween and peace to all!
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:44 / 31.10.03
The defendants were claiming that it was analagous to "Aussie" or "Brit", that is, an affectionate (or at least not hatred-ridden) shortening of an adjective relating to national origin. (The judge gave them short shrift, for obvious reasons.)

Not entirely obvious, apparently.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
23:05 / 31.10.03
Just a side note here. American Indians refer to themselves as "Indians" because they know that the popular attribution of the name, that Christopher Colombus named them Indians because he thought he was in India, is incorrect. "Indian" here comes from the Spanish "indigeno". Indian=Native. It's entirely correct.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:21 / 01.11.03
Well, no. It's another terminology, applied by a Renaissance European, which may or may not be usable. "Correct" is, as I mentioned earlier, a rather more complex concept.

So now it is not acceptable for anyone to say, but I think you might have to explain that to someone who wasn't from this country. (Having said that, I can't really picture the scenario in my head; where someone who had no idea about the connotations of the word or the cultural history of Britain might actually say it, because to me it sounds so offensive, I can't imagine anyone saying it. But that's maybe because I am British, and I know not to.)

Well, George Bush is the most famous example. However, since he was not British, and the people he was talking about were also not British, no offence should have been caused. That's not how it played out - the assumption that the term is only offensive in Britain has been examined on Barbelith before, and it is notable that the South Asia Press does not use it as a matter of policy, despite not being British. There was a degree of discussion about both America and Australia also - I will dig out the link at some point.

Is political correctness the tool to root out prejudice, or a weapon of the left against the right?

This is certainly how the right would want you to see it. However, it seems to me that "political correctness" is used almost exclusively as a weapon of the right against the left. Which is why I have to take the idea that there is no official definition of politically correct language "because it is always changing" with a pinch of salt. Neurology is always changing, but people find the time to write it down. Socialism is always changing, but there is a corpus of writing about it. Manners for that matter, are always changing, and yet the time was taken to create Emily Post, Prudie and others. The fact that the only books defining politically correct language that Quantum can find to cite are books written by people mocking a form of hypercircumlocution that does not actually exist, on sale under "comedy", seems to me significant. There's the dictionary of non-sexist language, but I'm struggling to think of anything like "Political Correctness: a Primer".

Which, by the way, is also why I must question Quantum's history of political correctness. When you say:

and it's based on the historical origins of PC (politicians trying not to offend people) rather than attempting to capture a complex, recent and mutable phenomenon completely, which is a rather harder task

You mean like cultural/literary theory? It's complex, it's recent, it's mutable, and oddly enough an absolute shitload of books have been written about it, defining it, explaining it, studying it, amending it. And the punch is, many of those books were written by people who identified as cultural theorists.

Your history appears to be that, since it is called political correctness, it must have been started by politicians. Could you tell me which politicians? When did one of them describe what they were doing as an attempt to be politically correct, and when they did so to which advisor or reference text were they looking? Simply, can you substantiate this aetiology of PC? Because I've been doing this for a while, and the historical origins of the term remain for me obscure.

Possibly I am being too suggestive here. I would suggest that PC is a right-wing fiction used to describe an irritation people sometimes feel about good manners having passed them by, and used to beat people whose use of language is guided by a desire not to cause offence into following their line by accusing them of being members of some doctrinaire conspiracy. What is described as "PC" seems often simply to be "polite", "considerate" or "well-mannered", rather than a sign of allegiance to the linguistic equivalent of Cobra (the enemy).

Olulabelle's example seems a good one. She was told that her use of the term "red Indian" was, if not strictly offensive in that context (there being no First People kicking around) potentially a source of offence when used (and the question of how that information was communicated and whether that was itself politically correct, that is to say polite, is another question, but one fo etiquette). She asked around, found out that it seems more controversial than she thought, and is now working out how to adjust to that. Which all seems very sensible, rather than a sign of having been pod-peopled by the invisible Left.
 
 
Quantum
10:13 / 03.11.03
"Indian" here comes from the Spanish "indigeno". Qalyn
I didn't know that. But most people wouldn't, as the Columbus attribution is well known (wrong or right) so I'll keep using 'Native American' to be sure.

"political correctness" is used almost exclusively as a weapon of the right against the left. Haus
Do you think the phrase/concept was coined by the right wing press then? It's definitely from the papers, but I'd be interested to find it's first occurrence- shouldn't be impossible with a bit of web fu, how hard have you already looked?

Simply, can you substantiate this aetiology of PC? Because I've been doing this for a while, and the historical origins of the term remain for me obscure.
No I can't, because as you say the origins remain obscure, and I haven't looked into it too hard- I happily defer to a better etymology or aetiology (aetiology- the philosophical study of causation or the cause of a disease, take your pick dear reader)

What is descirbed as "PC" seems often simply to be "polite", "considerate" or "well-mannered", rather than a sign of allegiance to the linguistic equivalent of Cobra (the enemy).
So you're pro-PC-the-idea but anti-PC-the-phrase? Those right wingers must hate you. I think most people here would agree that Olulabelle's behaviour was eminently sensible, but to refrain from calling it PC because that's an expression used by bigots against the left seems, well, PC gone mad :-)
To be serious though, should we be trying to create a society where everyone avoids offensive -ist language out of politeness, so the expression 'PC' will wither naturally? or should we be trying to reclaim it from it's right wing corrupters so it means 'correct etiquette' rather than 'irritating bleeding heart constraints on my linguistic freeedom?'
Is it more PC of me (in the 'polite' sense) to refrain from using the expression, to use it in the context of the preferred meaning (which is what I do) or to use it in the context of Haus' definition and rail against it?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:36 / 03.11.03
The origins of the term "Political Correctness" are variously attributed to the Right, the Left, the Communists, the Nazis, the Frankfurt School and, if I recall correctly, the Red (oo-er) Chinese. The idea that its exact point of origin can be found by a bit of web searching is touching but misguided; could you tell me with confidence what colour Enkidu's eyelashes were?

I tend to think of the term "PC" as like one of those doomsday weapons that have a tiresome habit of succeeding far beyond their proponent's plans, released in the hope of putting an end to the Culture Wars forever. Certainly, it is *usually* represented as an efflorescence of ivory-tower academia, under the influence of Marxism, in America. And now I'm afraid I am probably going to sound a little rude for a bit. I apologise in advance for this.

or should we be trying to reclaim it from it's right wing corrupters so it means 'correct etiquette' rather than 'irritating bleeding heart constraints on my linguistic freeedom?'

Right. You do not know how or when the term "political correctness" was coined, when it was capitalised, or who has ever in history stood up, declared themselves Politically Correct and set out a policy raft. And yet you state, or construct me as stating, that it has been "corrupted" into its present meaning.

Why do you believe that? Because it is true and it has always been true that the phrase is an invention of the left and therefore must have been corrupted somehow? And by extension that a bit of curiosity is well and good, but there are certain basic precepts that should not be tinkered with?

I repeat. Find me the minutes of one meeting of the Politically Correct Society. Point out to me the fathers of the Politically Correct movement. HTML has been identifiable as an entity for about as long as PC, as has Extropianism, Discordianism, and the Cult of the Subgenius, and all of those have managed to throw up a startling amount of literature written by people who have identified themselves as participants therein. Is there a comparable corpus of literature for, by and of the Politically Correct? If there were, it would perhaps be easier to establish what different people think of the term's meaning, rather than having a conveniently indistinct range from a state-induced compulsion to refrain from calling a spade a spade to affirmative action programmes to state funding for art projects run by gay men to anything else that the user of the term wishes immediately to identify as bad.

Quantum, by contrast, appears to have misunderstood me, and finds himself using the term at the end of his post in a manner I have never encountered before, meaning roughly "polite".

I do not believe I argued for the use of the term to mean "polite". I don't need a term for "polite". I have "polite". Likewise, I have "correct". I can be polite. I can be correct, in all sorts of different ways, as can I be incorrect. At times, my actions can be politic, or impolitic. At other times, I can act politically, or apolitically, or non-politically. Is "politically correct" filling a need for me here? Not really. I don't find myself thinking "Gosh, better not insult that man on the grounds of his race. That wouldn't be very 'Politically Correct'". It would not be polite, it would very probably not be correct in a number of ways, it would almost certainly not be politic unless perhaps I was surrounded by others who would attack me or him if I did not, and would in the general tone of my life be politically unwise. But politically incorrect? Why do I need that?

So, I am also not seeing myself as straining desperately to avoid describing Olulabelle's behaviour as "politically correct". What exactly is political about her course of action? She discovers through discussion that a particular term, used unwisely, is likely to cause offence. She resolves to think more carefully about her use of language. Sensible, yes. Correct, possibly. But is there a political judgement being made there? Or a decision to try to be more politically correct? Why does the term apply at all?

Answer, because it is a handy antagonist for people to use to give gravitas to a feeling that they should be allowed to do something without criticism for which they have been criticised, and subsequently because well-meaning but intellectually incurious people have taken for granted that there is indeed a shadowy doctrine of the Politically Correct (capital "p", capital "c"), which has managed, despite having not one champion and not one handbook, to infect every act of discourse on the planet. And, as we have seen so far, because it is terribly *useful*. It is, for example, terribly useful to decry the apparent censorship of books involved in renaming "Ten Little Nigger Boys" as "Ten Little Indians", and yet strangely not useful for describing the apparent censorship of books involved in not discussing evolution in biology textbooks. Which action strikes me as just as "politically correct", inasmuch as the decision is a political one, it aims to avoid causing offence to a certain group of people, it is politic to do so as this group has an impact on funding, and it is undoubtedly a political act. In what sense, exactly, is it not politically wise, politically astute, Politically Correct?

So, if somebody can explain Political Correctness to me with reference to something other than truism, I'd be delighted. Otherwise, I'm not sure the term has any real value or likelihood of clarifying anything.
 
 
grant
19:30 / 04.11.03
Just so y'all know, the term shows up in the American Heritage Dictionary (2000), as well as the Columbia Guide to Standard American English (1993), so there's a standard meaning out there.

Linguists are still debating the origins of the current usage, although there are only a few likely sources:

(0) Compositional semantics usage: "PC" = "politically" + "correct"
(at least since 1793)
(1) Marxist-Leninist usage: "PC" means to conform to official policy
(ca. 1930s?)
(2) Maoist usage: the same
(ca. 1950s?)
(3) North American Maoist usage: the same
(ca. 196x?)
(4) later NA leftist usage: "PC" means to behave in an appropriate
fashion, even if there is no official policy at stake
(examples of this usage found as late as mid-80s)
(5) leftist/centrist sarcastic usage: "PC" means to be too
dictatorial about appropriate behavior in others
(earliest anecdotes go back to 70s, perhaps dominant usage by 1985
-- still may be used this way on occasion, even in mainstream press)
(6) current usages: see your local media


I first became aware of the term as in #5, but as I think about the elements of this list, it seems clear that the various "original" meanings all work together, rather than being a straight linear progression from one to the other. I know I read a lengthy essay on some language page about it -- maybe a reprint from Atlantic Monthly or one of the similar wankfests for the hypereducated -- but I can't remember where it was. Doesn't really matter.

In its current form, the phrase is closely associated with the same cultural movement that I've tried to bring up in the Switchboard's Progressive Politics and the Tabloid Soul thread... something that happened in the Reagan years where "liberal" was reconstructed as "elitist," and even the media spreading that message was criticized as being liberally biased (when in fact it was largely owned by billionaire conservatives and multinational conglomerates).

Rush Limbaugh's career would be a symptom or illustration of this general cultural trend.

Anyway, the most useful definition would be at the second link above, which begins:

Politically correct, or PC, is an epithet applied by those who disagree with attitudes expressed by a number of isms to programs their supporters insist represent the only desirable treatment of these issues.

Notice that the indivual components "politics" or "policy" and "correctness" are only marginally related to the combined phrase, which is at its base a term used ironically (since correctness of the political kind automatically assumes incorrectness of the factual kind.)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:43 / 04.11.03
Could you offer any of those examples, Grant? The person you are quoting begins their entry in a rather familiar way:

I am not able to check this myself right now, but apparently it promotes the Maoist origin theory, which seems to be well-supported by the personal anecdotes I was sent.

I was not able to check. Seems to be well-supported. Personal anecdotes. Do you see the thread emerging?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:50 / 04.11.03
More generally, the Guide to Standard American English entry captures, or rather exhibits, the dichotomy quite usefully. It begins by saying that PC is an epithet applied by those who disagree with something - that is that it is an imposed terminology, but then goes on, as per, as if one could take that imposed terminology and think "well, that's that perfectly and correctly defined", subsequently treating anything so described as part of cohesive and identifiable movement - the very next sentence starts to talk about "politically correct terms". It's a rather odd approach, when you think about it. Somewhere in the middle there is a gap of meaning.
 
 
grant
20:53 / 04.11.03
Could you offer any of those examples, Grant?

Not without more effort than I'm willing to put in right now. I'll just take the fact that the linguists ain't sure and leave it at that.

As a note, though, the fellow does start by saying that about personal anecdotes, but then refers to finding earlier references in research material, locating the phrase in Nabokov and other writers who are definitely pre-Mao.

Personally, I think that kinda sums it up -- it's one of those weird zeitgeisty things, where a few different threads got invisibly sewn together in one paradoxical phrase.

Here's another page from the Linguist List, which points to a couple more citations (you might have to run a search):

A few years ago when reading Krushchev's secret speech in which he denounced Stalin for the first time (at the 1956 Communist Party Congress) , I noticed the use of a term in Russian that could be translated as "politically correct." While denouncing Stalin, Krushchev maintained a belief in the "politically correct"--which Stalin obviously wasn't.

================================

Re: Mark Mandel's inquiry about the origins of "politically correct":
Ric Dolphin's Not Politically Correct (1992) confirms Mark's belief that the term originated in the Thoughts of Mao Tse Tung. Dolphin states that its first use in the U.S. was by Angela Davis in 1971 when she argued that there could be no "opposing argument to an issue which has only one correct side." Then in 1975, the then-president of the National Organization of Women said that organization was moving in "the intellectually and politically correct direction." The 1971 quotation seems to confirm Mark's view that only those who accept political authority over the quest for truth could use the term with no ironic intent.

=========================

"Some organizations used to be pretty bad and are forbidden today, but
nevertheless it is better for a man to have belonged to a politically
incorrect organization than not to have belonged to any organization at
all." [Vladimir Nabokov, Bend Sinister, 1947, p. 168]
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:35 / 06.11.03
Except that none of those citations have much of a connection to the idea of "political correctness" as defined by the Merriam Webster, or in this thread. In most cases, it simply means "holding political views not at odds with the prevailing political orthodoxy". The only point of contact is the Angela Davis citation, where the phrase is not actually quoted. In which terms, the idea that "only those who accept political authority over the quest for truth could use the term with no ironic intent" seems questionable, but I suspect that this is because the source does not entirely understand the concept of irony.
 
 
rakehell
02:21 / 07.11.03
It's interesting to think how the practice of discarding something as being "Political Correctness gone mad" would have affected such events as the emancipation of the slaves in the US, or women getting the right to vote worldwide.
 
  

Page: 1(2)345

 
  
Add Your Reply