[Peace-discuss] Flag Flub

[C. G. Estabrook]

What remarks, Jenifer?!  I really don't understand the objection.  That I
was sarcastic ?  (I wasn't.) That I violated some speech code -- or that
Dean did, and I defended him after a fashion?  Or is the objection that my
"native American" comment to Sandra was somehow inappropriate?  I am in
fact at a loss.  (And I wonder if , e.g., Bush should follow your rule
about three people, given that they'd be Cheney, Powell and Rice?)

But on the level of free association, not a response (because I don't know
what I'm supposed to be responding to), consider the following from a
recent note I received:

"...a textbook example of left thought policing: When I'm in meetings with
other lefties, they spend half their time 'correcting' incorrect
utterances. You say 'black,' they say 'African-American,' you say 'pet
owner,' they say 'pet guardian,' you say 'handicapped,' they say
'physically challenged.' Everybody leaves feeling great about their verbal
prowess, but nothing has been accomplished."

An American rightist made a good deal of publicity (and a fair amount of
money) a few years ago by naming and describing "political correctness"
amongst American left-liberals.  His book was stupid and offensive, but
there was a germ or truth in it, because the PC reflex is not I think just
an annoying verbal tic: it's an example of the Camel-Gnat Syndrome.
Inappropriate verbal gnats are spat out and smashed vigorously because the
smasher has swallowed the camel of being a privileged member of a society
built on inequality and oppression. Swat the symbol because the reality is
unassailable.

Or by stamping out inappropriate expressions, will the reality be
transformed?  The late Victorians had a bad conscience about the rampant
sexual exploitation (also based on class) in their society.  They
responded by forbidding language about sex.  PC is the new bowdlerization.  
Prudes have only interpreted the world: the task is to change it.

With love and no irony, Carl


On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, jencart wrote:


> Good observations, Matt and Ricky -- totally on the mark re Carl's
> remarks.  There's an old saying that if one person tells you
> something, it might be worth a look, if two people tell you something,
> it's definitely worth a look, and if three people tell you something,
> it's probably true.
> 
> Jenifer, aka #3