On Political Correctness

There is a war being waged in our schools and in our offices, on television and radio and on the public stage. It is not a war fought with guns and bombs, but rather a war whose weapons are ridicule, humiliation and ostracization. The enemy in this war is not a people or a country or even a criminal activity (at least not yet.) The enemy is the very language we speak, write and read. I speak not of the English langue, but rather language as a more general concept. In fact, the very act of communication is under attack. And the leader of the charge against our words and consequently our ideas is the beast known as Political Correctness.

To be “politically correct” is to abandon simple, common sense words that are both descriptive and efficient in favor of long, convoluted phrases whose meaning is often difficult, if not impossible, to discern. This practice is advanced in the name of “sensitivity” to the feelings of others, who may find that shorter, more direct words result in deep psychological scars to their fragile self-esteem.

Putting aside psychology for a moment, let us examine the impact of such a practice on a society. Throughout history, any society that wished to control the thoughts of its citizens began by controlling their language. Prohibited speech was a prominent feature under Stalin’s regime, as well as in Nazi Germany in the 1930’s. George Orwell documented this phenomenon quite artfully in his landmark anti-fascist novel, 1984. In the novel, Orwell describes a language called Nu-Speak, which attempts to remove any words or phrases that could possibly be used to form anti-government sentiments. Sound like science fiction? Think again.

Wisely acknowledging the tendency for governments to control their citizens through censorship, the framers of the United States Constitution included an amendment for freedom of Speech. However, the amendment only prohibits overt action by the government to curtail speech it finds distasteful, leaving the door open for more subtle means of control.

Although Americans do not yet face the threat of imprisonment for speaking their minds, they have often been fired from their jobs and expelled from public (repeat public!) schools. Most universities, supposedly bastions of free thought and ideas, have enacted speech codes which prohibit “hate speech” on campus. Hate Speech is a hazily defined umbrella term designed to mean “anything that anyone could possibly object to, provided that person is a woman or minority.” Since Hate Speech has no hard and fast definition, policy makers are free to interpret it in any way they choose, and therefore what is free expression today, may well be Hate Speech tomorrow. Any man who attempts to directly control the actions of another is subjecting him to a form of tyranny, and is the enemy of freedom.

Why should my speech be controlled by the whims of others? We used to say someone with a bad leg was crippled. Then we were told that the word “cripple” was insensitive and that “handicapped” was correct. Recently, “disabled” has replaced “handicapped.” Why? What makes one collection of sounds inherently better or worse than another? Obviously nothing, for sounds are just sounds. My opponents will argue that it is not the sounds themselves that offend, but the thoughts behind the sounds. I challenge anyone to define distinct differences between the thoughts associated with the words “crippled,” “handicapped,” and “disabled.” In any case, how can anyone presume to know my thoughts? How do you know that when I say “crippled” I am not thinking the most wonderfully empowering and uplifting thoughts imaginable?

We are told that “black” is an acceptable description for the color of someone’s skin, but for God’s sake don’t use “negro!” Any educated person, of course, knows that negro is simply the Spanish word for “black.” I can only presume, then, that a person living in Spain can use “negro,” but “black” is right out! I hope that by now the absurdity of such rules is becoming apparent.

I was recently informed that the word “backwards” was offensive when used to describe the right-to-left writing system of some cultures, because it implies that there is a right way and wrong way to do things. If this is so, then my question is as follows: when is it appropriate to use the word “backwards?” Can someone walk backwards? Not if there is another person who walks that way all the time. By this logic, if anyone, anywhere does something differently than I do, it must be equally valid and therefore, the word “backwards” should be excised from our vocabularies entirely.

Of course, from the point of view of the moral relativists, there is no such thing as right or wrong. They believe that every course of action is as morally acceptable as every other. I am not attempting to attach a moral value on the direction of writing, but the argument is easily extended to other areas. Not long ago I read an article which stated that illegal aliens should be called “undocumented workers” instead, despite the fact that they are both illegally in this country and aliens. The goal here is to strip from discussion any sort of value judgment. However, it is value judgments that are at the backbone of our civilization. If we do not condemn what is wrong and celebrate what is right, we become no more than savages, acting without regard for either the lives or the property of others. In this way, the stated goal of Political Correctness contradicts itself. By failing to draw distinctions we cause people, rather than to regard each other more highly, to disregard each other altogether.

The very concept underlying politically correct speech is fundamentally flawed. We are allowed to make fun of white people, because they are numerous. We are allowed to make fun of men, because they hold many of the world’s most powerful positions (though it should be pointed out that men are in fact a minority. 51% of the world’s population are women.) And I have never heard of an Irishman being offended when it is asserted that he along with all of his fellow countrymen are hopeless alcoholics.

On the other hand, we are prohibited from discussing openly our differences with people who are quick to take offense. In other words, we coddle the thin skinned and lash out at those who have strong enough egos to handle it. This is all backwards. Those who are secure in themselves to the point where they don’t mind a little criticism should be rewarded for their strength, not punished, while those who cry foul at every innocent joke are only encouraged by our eagerness to defer to them.

A story from my personal life is instructive here. When I was but a wee lad, my sister, a year my junior, had a skin as thin as rice paper. She would burst into tears at every perceived slight. Being an older brother, I felt it my obligation to toughen the girl up to prepare her for the real world, and after a decade of merciless teasing she learned to give as good as she got, and is a stronger person for it. Had I been a good, sensitive, politically correct individual, she would never have learned to cope with criticism and her llife would go much harder. So you see, by attempting to spare the feelings of the emotionally weak, we are in fact doing them a grave disservice. How will they ever grow as people if no one is willing to offend them? Instead, they are like the spoiled prince who has never heard the word “no and who is shallow and unpleasant as a consequence.

I often encounter people who insist that they “don’t believe in labels.” They feel that others using words to describe them is narrow minded and judgmental. How silly! Language is nothing more than a series of labels. When I say “the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog” I am applying labels to the animals as well as to the actions they perform. Is it judgmental of me to label the fox a “fox?” Of course not, that is simply what he is.

Furthermore, labels have meanings. If they had no meanings, they would become quite useless. I would have thought this point too obvious to be worth mentioning except for the fact that I am constantly running into people who dispute it. When I say to my friend: “you are a socialist,” she immediately protests that she is a moderate. However, when I pull out a dictionary and show her the definition of Socialism, she is forced to admit that she agrees with its principles. One is defined by one’s actions, one’s beliefs and the realities of life. A fisherman fishes. A Christian believes that Christ was the son of God. A Jamaican comes from Jamaica. These are facts that cannot be disputed, no matter how hard the moral relativists try.
By using politically correct terms such as “differently abled” and “person of color” you are obfuscating the truth and robbing language of its communicative properties. Why should someone be less insulted when I call him “vertically challenged” than when I say “short?” He knows I mean short, so why not just say it? If we are really so fragile that we are bruised by mere words, than I shudder to think of what might happen if we were ever to encounter something so fearsome as, say, a Whiffle bat.

Grow up, people. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Honesty is and always shall be the best policy. If we succumb to the tyranny of Political Correctness then our speech shall soon become completely paralyzed for fear of causing offense to even the tiniest minority of the population. Unless of course they happen to be Republicans. In that case it’s fine.