Non-politically correct thinking

[weed]

It was PC before JL spewed coffee all over it...

I always knew, coffeine was really dangerous

So is you're humor

We'll call that Rexeine.

Kind a sounds like a chickee doesn't it?

 

[Rex1960]

lmao

that would be Regina in Latin

or Roxanne in Police

 

[Jimi]

Re: Re: Anarchic academe?

Politically correct weenie!

My weenie is NOT, emphatically, politically correct.

If it was, I would deem it, in the Vulgate, of course... Medius Phallus!

 

[A Desert Rose]

Roxanne in Police

Some one mentioning me?

 

[Don K Dyck]

Mangoes . . .

Was that a blatant 'class' attack? Of course it was. When one can no longer sustain their argument it is always helpful to be able to fall back on the ole' "They're all like that you know?" declaration. Feel better now? Ishmael

Yep . . . that seems to be the standard American answer when faced with a cogent argument . . .

Hi Crysede . . . had a mango for you this morning . . . delicious!! Manna from heaven!! YUM!! YUM!!

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by SINthysist
...If you go to Dr. Williams website (I don't know what it is, but I heard him say there was a link at Rush's website) you can get, if you are white, full parden and amnesty from Doctor Williams for the crimes of slavery (and you don't owe anyone any reperations money).

Doctor Williams who's like 80 REPEATEDLY challenges Sir Charles Barkley to a game of one-on-one, insitant that he can take him to school...

Actually, Dr. Williams is a spry young man of a mere 66.

His web page is here:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/index.html

and the gift is available here:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/gift.html

Originally posted by Jimi6996
... I despise political correctness and rudeness equally...

I guess it will be no surprise that I take minor exception to this particular idea. PC is a movement whose thrust is to monitor, control and suppress the expression of some people on the pretext of being sensitive to others' feelings. That is the essence of it which is a precursor to censorship.

Rudeness on the other hand is simply boorish behavior which can be dealt with by social ostracism, etc., on a case by case basis.

The Left has become quite adept at the use of political correctness. For example, it is now a vicious personal attack or hate speech to tell the truth about a politician of the Left. Yet that same politician can tell outright lies about his opponent and that is merely astute political gamesmanship.

There is no rational reason to redefine terms which are perfectly suited to describe the condition, situation, person, thing, etc. For example, crippled or handicapped is equally descriptive as is disabled or mobility challenged. Yet the previous terms, perfectly legitimate words, are somehow insensitive. Somehow truth is becoming unfashionable. it seems, unless it is expressed in the most courteously and sensitively defined terms.

To me, this need to alter the language may well be the outgrowth of the Liberal/liberal yearning for a collectivist society. The major problem they face in this pursuit is that rational people will not buy into collectivism when it is truthfully and accurately defined.

Thus, since it is necessary to misdefine or misname one's pursuits and goals to garner political support, the need and practice carries over into their everyday dealings with that with which the collectivist does not deal well, i. e., reality.

 

[zipman]

Language, is by it's nature, constantly changing and evolving. That new words are used to describe disabilities isn't the biggest issue with political correctness.

The danger of PC, as Uncle Bill and others have noted, is when it is used to censor ideas and discussion. Political Correctness was most embraced by liberal academia in the US. The very concept that thoughts should be suppressed due to the fact that someone, somewhere may find them offensive goes against many of the core beliefs of our society.

Just look at the mini uproar over Dantetier's thread on "Ghetto Booties and Big tits." All he did was voice a preference but apparently, he wasn't as considerate as others wanted him to be. The Lit PC crowd jumped on him pretty hard. The interesting question is why did they get offended?

DCL had the same experience on a thread tonight where he voiced the opinion that getting fucked in the ass by your wife was gay. People labeled him a homophobe even though he didn't say anything was wrong with that, just that he considered it gay.

Interesting topic indeed.

 

[Ishmael]

UB and Zip have made precisely the points regarding PC and the attempt to control thought.

That is the level of censorship that PC represents. At some of the universities it's gone to extreme ends. What I can't figure out is why the alumni tolerated it?

Ishmael

 

[zipman]

UB and Zip have made precisely the points regarding PC and the attempt to control thought.

That is the level of censorship that PC represents. At some of the universities it's gone to extreme ends. What I can't figure out is why the alumni tolerated it?

Ishmael

I think the reason is that it gives them a level of control over the theories that students are exposed to. Take deconstructionsim in Literature for example, which is extremely popular in universities, or was about 10 years ago. Deconstruction involves breaking down a story into the parts that comprise. Then breaking those parts up again and again so as to completely chnage the meaning or render the work meaningless.

Now the nature of language is that it is contextual, and words have an affect on the other words that surround it, and are in the same sentence as it. To deconstruct language in literature is to remove the essence of an author's decision of which words belong with each other, and tell his message.

I read an essay on deconstructionism in Shakespeare which asserted that King Lear was about vertical and horizontal nothingness.

The world is getting crazier and crazier.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

I'm still here....just working too much.

WW is great...good illustration.

 

[sigh]

I think you're all seeing way too many conspiracies crawling out of the woodwork. C'mon boys, relax a little. Thought control? Are you serious? Just what nefarious group do you suspect is behind this carefully woven tapestry? Something this insidious must have someone (or at least some specific group) guiding it. I mean, it would take a Nazi Germany-type propaganda machine to pull it off. Where's the evidence of that?

For my own part, I'm not an overtly PC girl. Like Bill, I don't see much difference between "crippled" and "disabled" as long as the words are used respectfully, but then again, he picked some pretty gray examples. Let's get a bit more black and white. What about "gimp"? Is that okay too? And if I'm disabled and you call me a gimp and I get offended, will you accuse me of being politically correct?

For another example, I personally don't see much difference between "black Americans" and "African Americans" but when you toss "nigger" into the mix you've crossed the line from a difference in preference of terms to offensive. Furthermore, for this particular example, if black Americans prefer to be called African Americans, that's cool. Who better to decide what a group should be called than members of that group? Why should that bother anyone?

To me it's all a matter of intent. It's not so much the words, but how the words are used. Referring to someone as retarded may be a simple statement of fact, but calling someone a "retard" is offensive in our current vernacular. What I really dislike is someone being blatantly offensive in the use of a word and then being called on it only to retaliate by accusing the accuser of being politically correct. What I see there is a rationale in defense of the right to be offensive. But hey, if you want to be offensive, that's fine with me. It's certainly your right. But don't get surprised when you discover that when you do that, someone actually gets offended.

And Bill, I'm sorry, but heaven forbid that we should try to be sensitive to another person's feelings. When did that become so evil?

Now you're all going to call me politically correct. I just know it.

 

[Laurel]

There're lots of terms used in ways that have great emotional worth but little analytical value. Take the term "politically correct."

No one who stigmatizes "political correctness" ever defines the term, preferring instead to argue with doublespeak and gobbledygook. Why is that? Because if they ever defined the term, they would discover that their own thinking is also "guilty" of political correctness--the only difference being that their own politics happens to differ from those whom they stigmatize.

Damn you're smart.

 

[Don K Dyck]

Suppressing Free Speech??

I think you're all seeing way too many conspiracies crawling out of the woodwork. C'mon boys, relax a little. Thought control? Are you serious? Just what nefarious group do you suspect is behind this carefully woven tapestry? Something this insidious must have someone (or at least some specific group) guiding it. I mean, it would take a Nazi Germany-type propaganda machine to pull it off. Where's the evidence of that?

<SNIP>

To me it's all a matter of intent. It's not so much the words, but how the words are used. Referring to someone as retarded may be a simple statement of fact, but calling someone a "retard" is offensive in our current vernacular. What I really dislike is someone being blatantly offensive in the use of a word and then being called on it only to retaliate by accusing the accuser of being politically correct. What I see there is a rationale in defense of the right to be offensive. But hey, if you want to be offensive, that's fine with me. It's certainly your right. But don't get surprised when you discover that when you do that, someone actually gets offended.

<AND SNIP AGAIN>

Hi Sigh,

I guess the most obvious current example of "political correctness" in the U$ media is the name of the alleged Al Quaida (?) leader . . . spelt correctly it is Usama bin Laden . . . however, some bureaucrat was so "offended" by the "USA" part of "Usama" that it was corrupted to "Osama" to protect the perceived sensitivities of Americans . . . perhaps a rose by any other name, is still a rose?

Similarly, the interchanging of the word "freedom fighter" when the CIA is funding and supplying a foreign "rebel" group objecting to their established government, which becomes "terrorist" when the CIA stops funding, or the group is no longer useful to the CIA . . .

Then in Afghanistan . . . "liberation" meant bombing the begeez out of the little infra-structure they had, all in the name of emptying the U$ arsenal to generate a market for NE military-industril complex to re-supply . . . shooting up a family wedding because some nutter got trigger happy with the missiles (at over $US 1 million each) . . . and leaving the country as piles of rubble with empty promises about "post-war re-development" which has yet to happen . . . don't hold your breath . . .

Could it be that political correctness, whatever its origin, is simply another name for the suppression of free speech?

 

[Lost Cause]

Preachin' to the choir..

Walt's office...http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/

 

[Don K Dyck]

In Oz Too . . .

I think the reason is that it gives them a level of control over the theories that students are exposed to. Take deconstructionsim in Literature for example, which is extremely popular in universities, or was about 10 years ago. Deconstruction involves breaking down a story into the parts that comprise. Then breaking those parts up again and again so as to completely chnage the meaning or render the work meaningless.

Now the nature of language is that it is contextual, and words have an affect on the other words that surround it, and are in the same sentence as it. To deconstruct language in literature is to remove the essence of an author's decision of which words belong with each other, and tell his message.

I read an essay on deconstructionism in Shakespeare which asserted that King Lear was about vertical and horizontal nothingness.

The world is getting crazier and crazier.

Hi Zip, sadly the same applies in some Oz university departments, such as Sociology locally . . . since Communism has died in the real world, some academics have lost their little piece of knowledge . . . but most unwillingly . . . a mature age student friend of mine, an assertive, proud establishment person, tried to argue with Tutor about Marxism and Weber, only to be told to shut up like the school kids and listen to what the faculty wants in thier exam answers . . . only course where they got less than a Distinction (>75%, probably B-A in American system)

Like I say . . . the problem in the U$ is all to do with the price of donut holes . . .

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by sigh
I think you're all seeing way too many conspiracies crawling out of the woodwork. C'mon boys, relax a little. Thought control? Are you serious?...

Not thought control; that's virtually impossible to affect. But suppression of one's willingness to express themselves out of fear of being penalized or ridiculed is intimidation, a matter of coercion. And the PC movement seems less concerned with the way a word or phrase is perceived by the subject of said sppech than by their own tender sensibilities. If they don't like it, it's not permissible. If they like it, then no one should be offended. It is a means of achieving and enforcing conformity.

Originally posted by sigh
For my own part, I'm not an overtly PC girl. Like Bill, I don't see much difference between "crippled" and "disabled" as long as the words are used respectfully, but then again, he picked some pretty gray examples. Let's get a bit more black and white. What about "gimp"? Is that okay too? And if I'm disabled and you call me a gimp and I get offended, will you accuse me of being politically correct?

Gimp means to walk with a limp. It precisely describes a specific trait. In that context, it is perfectly legitimate. It, like many words, can have derisive connotations. And the connotations are in many cases signified by vocal intonation as Ishmael indicated.

For example, identifying someone as a retard in a matter of fact tone I would not consider derisive, particularly considering today's propensity for acronyms and abbreviations, unless the person were known to be of significantly greater intellect. But by use a tonal inflection of the voice, it could well be cast as dergatory. Much of the interpretation is only identifiable when taken in context which many of the PC-ites are loathe to do.

Originally posted by sigh
For another example, I personally don't see much difference between "black Americans" and "African Americans" but when you toss "nigger" into the mix you've crossed the line from a difference in preference of terms to offensive. Furthermore, for this particular example, if black Americans prefer to be called African Americans, that's cool. Who better to decide what a group should be called than members of that group? Why should that bother anyone?

This is an interesting case in particular from my own history. I learned the word as simply referring to a Negro. It was never in my mind derisive or derogatory. I was never taught that Negros were other than people with darker skin.

As I grew into my teens and high school, in my Latin class I learned the correct word was Negro and attributed what I had learned to a corruption of the correct pronounciation of the word.

It is a word I no longer use. And speaking of this word brings to mind the recent idiocies arising from the proper and correct contextual use of niggardly.

Originally posted by sigh
...And Bill, I'm sorry, but heaven forbid that we should try to be sensitive to another person's feelings. When did that become so evil?

Now you're all going to call me politically correct. I just know it.

Who ever insinuated it was evil or even undesirable? I am for the most part courteous and respectful of others until they demonstrate they are not deserving of basic courtesy. At that point, I endeavor to disassociate as much as possible rather than be offensive.

I try to live by the Golden Rule; treat others as I'd like to be treated.

And it is not the sensitivity to the feeling of the person to or of whom I speak that I refer in the case of the PC advocates. It is their (the PC-ites) whims of what they deem sensitive or correct and openly attempt to intimidate others into compliance that I decry.

 

[SINthysist]

Thanks UncleBill - A spry 66 - lol


Here's my contribution since the thread has gotten to the point where I am once again the dumbest poster and just lack the proper words to describe the type of filth that is being spread and perpetrated on our campi (I graduated less than a decade ago, so I doubt if much has changed)...


Censored Arizona Student Challenges Campus Thought Police
Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2002

WASHINGTON – A student at Arizona State University says he will fight back in the courts against leftist efforts to blackball him and threaten his future. The case, if pursued vigorously through whatever appeals may ensue, could force a showdown on the issue of campus “speech police.”

“That’s just what they’ve done is wrecked my life,” the student Oubay Shahbandar told NewsMax.com.

He says he will take legal action against the university and/or officials there because of harassment he has endured for his conservative political beliefs.

Tainted

A lawsuit is contemplated not so much to retaliate for the bullying (publicized last week by NewsMax.com), but to erase what he sees as an unjust blot on his record, one that could hinder his efforts to get into top law schools, in preparation for a political career to which he aspires. The leftist establishment does not go out of its way to help bright young conservatives who might be future senators or governors. Expect them to attempt to block that career path before it gets off the ground.

On the day before Thanksgiving, Shahbandar, who had been instrumental in bringing conservative speakers to the campus to balance a long parade of left-wingers, appeared before Deborah Sullivan, dean of Student Judicial Affairs, to respond to trumped-up charges that he had sent a threatening e-mail to a liberal activist and that he had “assaulted” another student who had confronted him.

Dean Sullivan acknowledged that she could not prove the claim of a threatening e-mail, so she would impose sanctions on the Arab-American student for the “assault” complaint.

Background: The so-called threatening e-mail was the result of someone who had hacked his way into Shahbandar’s e-mail. Six affidavits plus a videotape conclusively showed that at the time the e-mail was sent, the conservative student was on the air with a radio interview. The charge would have been laughed out of any court of law as baseless, but in the star chambers of the campus, it is simply a case of, “Well, we couldn’t prove it.”

The “assault” charge resulted from an incident where a student confronted Shahbandar in his office. As the conservative activist was shutting the door, the in-your-face student stuck his foot in the door to prevent it from closing. That is all it took for him to lodge what amounted to a “stop hitting my fist with your face” complaint.

Banned

As a result of the Nov. 27 meeting, Shahbandar is barred from attending any student government gatherings, even though they are open meetings at a public university.

He has been forcibly removed from his position of chief of staff to the activities vice president, Shanna Bowman. As reported here last week, Bowman has also been harassed for her part in bringing conservative speakers to the campus. She had to fight to beat back a leftist impeachment effort.

Dean Sullivan, who Shahbandar says had already strongly indicated she had made up her mind before her own inquiry went forward, informed the conservative activist that he is barred from any student government position for the remainder of his stay at ASU. He is scheduled to graduate in December 2003.


Most unfair of all, Shahbandar believes, is the decision to put him on “disciplinary probation.” That is no small matter, he said, because it “means they’re going to put this on my record.”

That permanent record would be available to any top-ranked graduate school or law school and would, of course, make it difficult for him to be accepted there. That amounts to a direct hit against his future.

He had intended to apply to law schools such as Stanford, Yale, Chicago and others. But with this “permanent blot” on his record, it will “hamper my ability to get education further than my B.A. degree at Arizona State,” he noted.

Time for Justice

“I am definitely going to take legal action,” Shahbandar told NewsMax.com. “I think there was gross injustice. My civil rights have been violated: Freedom of speech and my ability to attend open meetings” have been “stepped upon.”

Exactly what he will seek in any future lawsuit has not been determined. Removing the blot from his permanent record? At the very least. Beyond that, some form of compensation? That move is in play, but not definite.

Silence

An effort by NewsMax to get the university’s side of the story was met by a tight-lipped response from ASU Media Relations spokesman Keith Jennings. He said the law would not allow him to tell us anything.

“A disciplinary meeting in the dean’s office is private,” he said.

“Under federal law, we cannot comment publicly on disciplinary action taken by our Office of Student Life,” Jennings said. “He is free to say what he wants, but I’m restricted in what I can say.” He cited the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act, passed in the 1960s, he believed, “and modified several times since then.”

“Basically [to the left] the ends justify the means,” Shahbandar told NewsMax. “If that means destroying someone’s life, well so be it, as long as the closed political environment the university currently maintains is not [disturbed].”

Daniel J. Flynn, executive director of Accuracy in Academia, told NewsMax he was unaware of any legal action taken by bullied conservative students that has reached the Supreme Court for a final ruling. This could be that ground-breaking case, though of course any college student going up against the deep pockets and sheer influence of Big Academia has to consider how his legal moves will be funded. That is a matter to which Shahbandar is giving considerable attention.

Flynn, in his recently released book, “Why the Left Hates America,” noted that after the terrorist attacks last year, “the vitriol against America was particularly harsh on campus. One confused undergraduate reacted to 9-11 by maintaining, ‘sometimes it is our fault,’ while another opined that ‘we had it coming.’ A professor in New Mexico told his students, ‘Anyone who can blow up the Pentagon would get my vote.’”

Although these are some of the most extreme examples, they serve to demonstrate the anti-American climate that prevails in many influential quarters of campus life, coupled with intolerance for those who dissent from leftist orthodoxy.

The speakers that Bowman and Shahbandar sought for appearances at ASU included David Horowitz, the former radical leftist turned conservative author of “Uncivil Wars: The Controversy over Reparations for Slavery” and other works; Reginald Jones, the black entertainer/entrepreneur; Ann Coulter, author of “Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right”; and Dinesh D’Souza, author of “Letters to a Young Conservative” and “What’s So Great About America,” among others.

Not the Right Kind of Minority

Shahbandar detects “a hint of racism” in the campaign against him. As an American of Arab descent, he says “the liberals just hate it when any minority stands up for the conservative cause, whether it’s an African-American or an Hispanic-American. They think of them as Uncle Toms, traitors.” It threatens their grip on the stereotype of conservatives as “racists” or “angry white males.”

“That makes them an even added threat" to the leftist establishment, the student said.

 

[Ishmael]

Well SIN, that's oinly one example of what's going on at our universities from coast to coast. I'll add some more examples later.

Suffice it to say, these tactics are being used as a means to censor speech that a small, but vociferous and wholely petty and vindictive group have decided is 'innappropriate'.

Sigh: Your post was answered by myself and Uncle Bill anb others before you ever posted it. What may be rude is nothing more than boorish behavior. It is NOT an offense that requires any official sanctions whatsoever. If you don't like it as an individual, speak up as an individual. Hiding behind a group to impose your will on others is as un-American as it is frightening in it's consequences.

Ishmael

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Damn you're smart.

At last! Another intelligent comment on this thread!

How ya doing Laurel?

[Edited to add: I think my original statement has been borne out by the subsequent posts on this thread.]

 

[zipman]

Uncle Bill,

That was truly a great post. I think you addressed the issues in wonderfully concise and effective way.

Here are two more, very different examples of political correctness to ponder.

Common decency dictates that we are tolerant of other religions and that is a good thing. However, Political Correctness and the fear of being labeled as a racist or being anti-Islamic have minimized much of the legitimate criticism of the actions of Muslim religious leaders and countries. Saudi Arabia has thousands of schools which teach hatred and intolerance of Western religion and culture, which should be strongly denounced. But Political Correctness has softenend this voice to the point where it is barely heard.

On the other hand, many professors in American universities who are Muslims are being given free reign to preach against US foriegn policy in their classes even though they are not professors of Political Science or even sociology. These professors are allowed to do this as it is politically correct to blame America for everything wrong in the world.


As an interesting side note, when my grandmother was young, the correct term to use was colored when referring to people of African American descent. Here is the progression over the years:
1) Colored
2) Negro
3) Black
4) African American
5) Person of Color

The poor woman gets so mad at me when I try and correct her when she is dealing with her nurses.

And by the way Don K Dyck, it's good to see that you still don't have a clue! Using this conversation to bash the US must have been a stretch even for you.

 

[busybody..]

PC and the danger to society.

There have been many interesting points made on this thread.....

However almost all posts have dealt with "words" and how they are used.......and altered so as to avoid......."OFFENDING".......someone or some group........

However the PC police have caused great harm and caused even death to our country.......and must be recognized as a clear and present danger.......

(Zipman, mad a great point when he wrote:Saudi Arabia has thousands of schools which teach hatred and intolerance of Western religion and culture, which should be strongly denounced. But Political Correctness has softenend this voice to the point where it is barely heard. )

Because of PC, we were subjected to the 9/11 terror attacks......because of PC we may not protect ourselves from further such attacks.......

Throughout 2000, the FBI was informed that dozens of Middle Easter men were taking flight classes.......and acting in a suspicious manner......But the FBI did not investigate......WHY?.....They didnt have the manpower to investigate all the students......

And were afraid to investigate just the Middle Eastern men, lest they be accused of RACIAL PROFILING!

As we pass thru security at the airport......we are all subject to search, rather then those that have SHOWN THEY ARE IN THE SUSPECT GROUP!!!!!!!!!

There are many such examples throught our society.......and we pay for it everyday.......

 

[busybody..]

If you are a female you must be oppressed......OR ELSE!

Admit oppression or else
On NoIndoctrination.org, a University of Michigan student posts an account of the mandatory diversity training she underwent as preparation for her job as a residential advisor:



All students who wish to be in the University of Michigan's ResStaff program (those who wish to be Residence Hall Assistants) need to take a class which is worth about half as many credits as a normal class. The class is Psychology 405, Social Psychology in Community Settings. ResStaff's website states that the course's purpose is to "enhance each student's ability to analyze... differences and commonalties among cultural groups and group foundations of justice and injustice..." (http://www.housing.umich.edu/resed/app/information/staff_class.html). The class instructors made sure to encourage that we voice our opinion on the discussion topics, but it soon became clear to me that this was not their preference. I spent the first half of the class avoiding trouble by keeping my mouth shut. We read many articles on victimization, oppression, etc. of minorities. But I had no choice when an activity called for full participation; we had to go around and talk about at least one way in which we have been/are oppressed. When my turn came up, and I answered that I have never been oppressed, the instructor corrected me, saying that I must have been, as I'm female. I persisted, saying that being female has never been anything short of a blessing for me. The instructor was relentless, insisting that I was necessarily oppressed at one point in my life. The instructor asked to speak with me after class. He was visibly shaken and angry. He told me that my classroom behavior was disruptive in the least (although I was never voluntarily disagreeing), and that I would be kicked out of class and would thereby lose my job and my housing for the next year unless I learned to be more cooperative. An article exposing the class' leftist agenda was published in the University of Michigan's conservative newspaper, The Michigan Review, but there is no link available to the article online.


Points to note: 1) serving as an R.A. at UM means signing on to a particular politics; 2) official ideology trumps personal experience; 3) departure from the normative politics equals false consciousness, deliberate disruption, or both; 4) the scenario of "teaching tolerance" is inherently intolerant; 5) as such, it replicates the very patterns of oppression it claims to resist and repudiate: it is no small irony here that in threatening a newly hired R.A. with termination and eviction because she committed the sin of disagreeing with him, this male instructor may be said to have oppressed his female student. Certainly, within the logic of gender discrimination, it is discriminatory for a man to try to coerce a woman into accepting his understanding of her own experience.

 

[Ishmael]

An interesting audio presentatiion on Political Correctness.

http://www.academia.org/audio/b_lind.html

Ishmael

 

[Don K Dyck]

Times they are a'changing . . .

Uncle Bill,

That was truly a great post. I think you addressed the issues in wonderfully concise and effective way.

Here are two more, very different examples of political correctness to ponder.

Common decency dictates that we are tolerant of other religions and that is a good thing. However, Political Correctness and the fear of being labeled as a racist or being anti-Islamic have minimized much of the legitimate criticism of the actions of Muslim religious leaders and countries. Saudi Arabia has thousands of schools which teach hatred and intolerance of Western religion and culture, which should be strongly denounced. But Political Correctness has softenend this voice to the point where it is barely heard.

On the other hand, many professors in American universities who are Muslims are being given free reign to preach against US foriegn policy in their classes even though they are not professors of Political Science or even sociology. These professors are allowed to do this as it is politically correct to blame America for everything wrong in the world.


As an interesting side note, when my grandmother was young, the correct term to use was colored when referring to people of African American descent. Here is the progression over the years:
1) Colored
2) Negro
3) Black
4) African American
5) Person of Color

The poor woman gets so mad at me when I try and correct her when she is dealing with her nurses.

And by the way Don K Dyck, it's good to see that you still don't have a clue! Using this conversation to bash the US must have been a stretch even for you.

Another good post, Zip . . . the change of language in America over the last 50 years has paralleled the "liberation" of the major racial under-class . . . the many media students would easily recognise the differences between American movies of the 50s giving "Blacks" a role as domestic servants and "Uncle Joes" to the television programmes of the late 90s when African Americans are portrayed in leadership and mamagement roles like police inspectors and even financial tycoons, directing the work allocation of WASP roles . . .

Noooo mate . . . I tell you the donut hole market is booming . . . all opportunity!!

 

[roxanne69]

Re: Times they are a'changing . . .

Another good post, Zip . . . the change of language in America over the last 50 years has paralleled the "liberation" of the major racial under-class . . . the many media students would easily recognise the differences between American movies of the 50s giving "Blacks" a role as domestic servants and "Uncle Joes" to the television programmes of the late 90s when African Americans are portrayed in leadership and mamagement roles like police inspectors and even financial tycoons, directing the work allocation of WASP roles . . .

Noooo mate . . . I tell you the donut hole market is booming . . . all opportunity!!

The term Negro was given to African Americans by racist whites. Yes, I am well aware of the origin of the word Negro and being Caucasian it does not offend me. With the fall of segragation in the US , the "Negro" obviously decided to use a term they collectively identified with. Coloured was another racist Jim Crow name. It just makes sense that they would choose their own "label" and it marks a break with the past.

Don, Uncle Joe is Uncle Tom