If you think PC is a computer, please log off now
I’ve been participating in a short debate about ‘political correctness’ over at Grandad’s and Nick’s. It’s left me wanting to make some points at greater length than is possible in a comments box, both about political correctness and about blogging.
First, ‘political correctness’, a term nowadays used only by people who are against it. I remember the English right-wing media hysteria of the mid-1980s about baa baa black sheep, black coffee and personhole covers, none of which were true. So I had a sense of déjà vu when I read Grandad’s post. What strikes me is how each side of the debate talks about tolerance. Those who think political correctness is the work of the devil just want to go on calling people what they feel like calling them. Those for whom political correctness is about respect for others ask that we should try not to hurt their feelings.
These arguments were covered in more detail during the debate and I won’t repeat them here. But there’s another angle, as far as I’m concerned. The way we address people is linked to the way we think about them, and that’s about power. In order to justify slavery, the inferiority of the black person over whites had to be socially constructed, or how could you justify owning another human being? Equally, the stereotype of the stupid Irish person justified colonialism, including leaving them to starve during the Famine. I could go on. If we think people are inferior, it’s easier to deprive them of their rights. Ireland is rapidly becoming a more liberal and multicultural society, and we have those issues to come. I’m sure that’s why the debate is less familiar here and why many people still think that words do no harm.
I want to end with a few comments about blogging. I have no objection to a well-argued, serious post against political correctness, and I would disagree in the same vein. However, Grandad’s post was a tirade ending with: ‘And if you are offended by any of the above, then fuck off. You snivelling little cry baby’.
Of course it’s up to him what he puts on his blog, and he was nowhere near inciting the kind of violent hatred which would justify a ban; nor were any of the comments in this category. But notice the little blue splash on the right-hand side. Yes, he was one of this year’s winners in the Irish Blog Awards. If you are a well-known and, presumably, often-visited blogger, I would suggest that you do not bring Irish blogging into disrepute through such intemperate posts.
See also Wise Webwomen's great post on the same subject
25 comments:
Thanks Jenny.
I did a separate post on this as well. We can dress up intolerance and name-calling anyway we like it but it is still hateful and demeaning to all.
I also found the battle lines of male/female very clear as well. Males (apart from Nick, bless him) clearly supportive of Grandad.
XO
WWW
‘And if you are offended by any of the above, then fuck off. You snivelling little cry baby’.
I read that as nothing more than a joke. It's a classic start to many a comedian's act... "if you don't like swearing then f off!" etc
www - thanks for the support, and I've linked your post as it's really good, and also I think it's important that people read comments on posts like these. The battle lines weren't entirely male/ female though, there was English mum very anti-PC. And John Self on Nick's blog was very supportive of Nick's points.
John b - read again all the things he thought we shouldn't find offensive. And 'he was only joking' is the oldest excuse in the book. Women know this.
I read Grandad's post and the comments that it generated. It was all a bit clichéd; a bit like a Peter Hitchens article minus the eloquence. The thing I find with people who proclaim an opposition to 'political correctness' is that very few of them are able to articulate what it actually is they are against and what they propose to be in favour of. When that happens you usually get the very thing we got from Grandad and his colleagues: an incoherent bravado-filled tirade that amounts to little more than a desire to return to a time when 'nigger' was considered fair game. My favourite line in the post though had to be the one about bringing back the golliwogs. Talk about a blast from the past! Oh, well. Some people have Tibet or Darfur as their burning issue, others have the golliwogs.
If you've any spare time on your hands (you're a lecturer, of course you do!) you might want to regain some of the brain cells lost by visiting Grandad's site and listen to a fantastic debate I stumbled across a few weeks ago in the Guardian archives between Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. Its one of the best debates I've heard on free speech for quite a while. Have a peek: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/culturevulture/archives/2006/05/08/listen_to_steph.html
wisewebwoman, I noticed the gender imbalance in the 'debate' myself. I hope my post has went some way to redressing this and I can now join Nick in the vanguard of the male struggle against the wicked reactionaries over at Grandads.
In solidarity,
Johnny
Yup, I agree with you. Reading Grandad's post made me cringe a little too and the whole language having a power thing makes sense to me. I've taken Bock and others to task for it in the past but hell, that's probably why there are so many bloggers on the island.
Johnny - Well said, you hit the nail on the head. Good to know I'm in the vanguard of the male struggle against the reactionaries! But then, I wasn't a trade union rep for four years for nothing. And yes, I'm following the pro-Tibet protests against the pointless globe-trotting Olympic torch with great interest!
BTW, Johnny's link should end 2006/05/08/listen_to_steph.html
I'm somewhat bemused by all this interest in my post last Thursday. I am certainly amused by all the things that people have read into it that simply weren't there.
Can someone please tell me where I advocated name-calling? Where did I express a "desire to return to a time when 'nigger' was considered fair game"?
I have expanded a little further today. I think most of you completely misread my original post and you certainly accuse me of things that were never said.
Frankly, I think you are jumping onto your own prejudices, not mine.
JG - thanks for this link and welcome to the vanguard! I do think this debate is newer to Ireland than to the UK or USA, to be fair. It'll be itneresting to see if the Irish media ends up playing the same disgraceful role as in the UK, but currently I would be hopeful that this won't happen. It's also interesting that there's no Irish equivalent of the BNP as yet, and again I don't detect much appetite for it.
73man and Nick - thanks also, the gender balance is being redressed!
Grandad - I don't like having to take issue with another blogger like this but I feel very strongly about it. As I've said above, though, I think Ireland may well deal with the PC issue in a more mature way than the UK has. It's interesting that we don't get many people moaning about it in the North.
well done for taking Grandad to task. We don't see enough taking-to-task these days.
That'll really put him in his place, and I should know: I was truly terrified when 73man took me to task for not writing things politically correctly.
Anyway, that's the past and I've learned my lesson, so I've decided to kill Grandad for being a moany, cursing old bastard, who should be in a nursing home instead of offending us young people with his miserable welfare-sponging drivel.
I want it known that I refused to shake Bock's hand at the recent blog awards ;-)
Congratulations 73man you made a principled stand that being rude is acceptable... as long as you are PC about the whole thing
He shook his fist at me instead, but I took it as a compliment.
Jenny,
Isn't it intolerant of you to say I can't wish people a Merry Christmas. My Hindu and Muslim friends were not offended by this. They wished me Merry Christmas and I sent Diwali cards and respected Ramadan. In my job we try to recognise all of the major festivals and make a point of wishing people an enjoyable whatever festival it is being celebrated. I do not have a problem with chairman for a man nor chairwoman for a woman. We should celebrate difference and allow people to use whatever words they wish to describe the festivals. I do not propose a return to the use of the 'N' word. I find it so offensive I can't even write it but denying difference is cultural death. I am not posting this anonymously deliberately but don't know how to work the posting thing.
Paula.
I'm not going to reply to all the comments as some of them speak for themselves. But:
Paula: Yes it would have been if I had, but I didn't. Glad to hear your employer recognises difference.
Jenny:
I came over to tell you I had posted your link on my post on words and was delighted to see my award.
thank you so very very much.
I am thrilled to bits!
XO
WWW
www - you deserve it!
Although I confess that I (a female, by the way, wisewebwoman) am a great fan of Grandad and his tongue-in-cheek, irrevent humour, I have no wish to get into the debate one way or the other.
I would, however, simply like to correct what appears to be your misconception of the abomination that was (and still is) slavery: you seem to be implying that slavery is about race.
Slavery is not ipso facto the owning of black people by white people - that is a very Anglocentric view. Through the years, people of all colours have owned people of all colours. Most commonly, people have owned others of their own colour. In some cultures, people "sold" themselves or their family members into slavery for a fixed period to work off a debt. If I'm not mistaken, this practice continues in some parts of the world today.
The English slave trade was largely provisioned by Black slavers operating on the African continent.
This does not, of course, make it right, and I wouldn't like to give the impression that I am trying to excuse any of it, but I felt the need to clarify that point.
Karyn - I was actually saying slavery is about power. The power of words to construct the idea that a particular group is inferior and therefore to justify subsequent actions to take away their rights. In the historical example I quoted, the power relationship was white/ black. I take your point that this power relationship is not fixed, nor indeed is it restricted to race. I was going to use a 3rd example of the Married Women's Property Act but thought I had got my point across adequately. Another example woudl be the use of ECT on people with mental health problems in the 1950s.
Equally I agree that slavery still goes on today, although the details of the connections between power and economics in this area might be for another post.
I would just like to say that AS A WOMAN I was not at all offended by grandad's post. I did not respond as there were so many comments. I would also like to point out that people generally complain when they feel aggreived and are not quick to compliment or give praise, so perhaps mny of us women felt no desire to put in our 2 cents worth. I also noted that there were certainly more than one woman of the same opinion as English Mum! I find the way you have handled this very distasteful, and my advice to you is: if you don't like it, don't read it! A mountain out of a mole hill was made...
Well you are entitled to your opinion, although it's inconsistent to suggest that I don't read blogs I don't like and then for you to comment on mine!
I DON'T read yours, I followed the link from Grandads, I had never heard of you or this blog until all this craziness began, and of course then my curiosity was peeked as I wanted to ehre both sides of the sotry! Was interested to see if there was a reply to my comment, hence the return.
“I find the way you have handled this very distasteful, and my advice to you is: if you don't like it, don't read it!”
Mrs Rule, forgive me for interjecting in your exchange with Ms Muir but the obvious difficulty with this statement is that if you don’t read something then you’ll never know if you like it or not. Wouldn’t it be better to read something and then make an informed judgement on it? Of course it would. If only Ayatollah Khomeini had taken my advice. And one more thing: why was the response to Grandad’s article on this site “distasteful”? I can’t find anything “distasteful” in it. By the way, I’m of the opinion that we should all read things we don’t agree with. It is far more useful in the long term than buying a newspaper everyday that merely reconfirms what you already think. That’s unhealthy and leads to people actually believing such nonexistent rubbish as Saint Patrick’s Day being renamed ‘green day’.
I’m writing no more about this. I think we’ve all wasted quite enough time commenting on what was frankly a poorly written blog posting which has only served to prove that old age does not equate to wisdom.
Johnny, well said. Indeed, what is the point of only reading what echoes your own entrenched views and never reading anything you might actually disagree with? How do you ever learn anything?
Nothing to add to JG and Nick's comments in my absence, I must go away more often!
Post a Comment