Amazing how many critics who say “political correctness” is limiting free speech on campuses, but then want to restrict what is taught, like climate change. To quote somebody who we really hear too much, “Sad!"
See http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/opinion/whos-really-placing-limits-on-free-speech.html.
Showing posts with label political correctness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political correctness. Show all posts
Monday, January 16, 2017
Friday, December 18, 2015
Merry Christmas and other seasonal thoughts
Originally published in Reader Weekly, December 22, 2005
For yet another year, Christmas is controversial. If there isn’t a ruckus about the commercialization of Christmas, there is a ruckus about Christmas not being “inclusive”. Some big box stores have told their “associates” to not wish “guests” “Merry Christmas”; instead the associates are to wish “Happy Holidays”. Some think that this is great because we are a “diverse” nation, others think it is terrible because we are a “Christian” nation, and yet others, possibly the majority, don’t care.
As a freethinker and sentimentalist, I think both sides are expecting too much of other people. I personally don’t believe the Christian overlay to the winter solstice. On the other hand, I love the traditions that have derived from that Christian overlay. It doesn’t bother me to sing “Joy the world, the Lord has come” and other carols because the music is great and it brings back memories of many Christmas celebrations over the years.
Those who want “inclusivity” seem to think that a dominant culture is a dominating culture. Because a larger portion of a society believes one way and acts on it in any fashion, then that portion is dominating all those who don’t believe that way. That is, by saying “Merry Christmas” to everyone, you are making them believe in Christmas.
Some of those who don’t want others to practice such “inclusivity” seem to think that a dominant culture has a right to be a dominating culture. That is, you will say “Merry Christmas” whether you believe it or not.
I think both sides could take a lesson from Irving Berlin, the son of a cantor who fled the anti-Semitic pogroms in Russia. Irving Berlin wrote both “White Christmas” and “Easter Parade”. He didn’t believe in either holiday, but he helped those who did celebrate them with joy.
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, you can please all of the people some of the time, and you can please some of the people all of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.
Rigidity in viewpoint came up recently in another context. A letter writer to the Star Tribune called Garrison Keillor anti-Christian as well as all of MPR or NPR. That was a surprise to me. Garrison Keillor may pillory hypocrites or gently chide those who have feet of clay, but all the evidence I’ve seen indicates he has the deepest respect for those who are sincere in their beliefs. For as long as I can remember, he has often included hymns and religious singers in his shows. Many MPR programs include religious music, including the annual “Festival of nine lessons and carols” from King’s College in Oxford.
Rigidity is found all across the political spectrum. Many think that Kevin Thompson is hard-nosed and uncharitable. So what do they do; they write hard-nosed and uncharitable letters about Kevin. Hey, he stopped writing for the Reader Weekly; be charitable and let him be.
Speaking of Garrison Keillor, he recently gave an interesting view of Herod’s slaughter of the innocents – it was anti-terrorism. In Herod’s viewpoint, Jesus was a threat to his power; therefore he had to take steps to reduce that threat. Keillor went on to say the message of Christmas is that the weak shall prevail over the powerful.
Holiday spirits of another kind abound at this time of the year both in and out of the news. Before I left for an employee party I decided I would have two beers while there. When I left for the party it was snowing heavily; I decided I would have only one beer. As I drove up Thompson Hill I saw either an accident or a disabled truck on the downhill side that had brought traffic to a crawl in one lane; I decided I would have no beers. When I drove down the hill two hours later, the road was in somewhat better shape, but I was glad I held myself to my promise.
Holiday spirits are not the only thing to be wary of at this time of the year. I often approach curves in the winter with the thought, “Somebody coming the other way could skid over the center line.” As expected, my thoughts are usually not realized. Except for twice in recent memory. The second was this past week at Miller Hill Mall. I approached a sharp turn to my left by Northstar Ford. There was a huge pile of snow on the inside of the corner. Would somebody be crossing the center line? Sure enough, a car coming too fast for the conditions started coming into my lane. I was going rather slowly and stopped without a problem. The other driver managed to recover from her error, but she drove by me like I wasn’t even there. I wonder if she even knew how close she came to spoiling both of our evenings, and holidays.
For yet another year, Christmas is controversial. If there isn’t a ruckus about the commercialization of Christmas, there is a ruckus about Christmas not being “inclusive”. Some big box stores have told their “associates” to not wish “guests” “Merry Christmas”; instead the associates are to wish “Happy Holidays”. Some think that this is great because we are a “diverse” nation, others think it is terrible because we are a “Christian” nation, and yet others, possibly the majority, don’t care.
As a freethinker and sentimentalist, I think both sides are expecting too much of other people. I personally don’t believe the Christian overlay to the winter solstice. On the other hand, I love the traditions that have derived from that Christian overlay. It doesn’t bother me to sing “Joy the world, the Lord has come” and other carols because the music is great and it brings back memories of many Christmas celebrations over the years.
Those who want “inclusivity” seem to think that a dominant culture is a dominating culture. Because a larger portion of a society believes one way and acts on it in any fashion, then that portion is dominating all those who don’t believe that way. That is, by saying “Merry Christmas” to everyone, you are making them believe in Christmas.
Some of those who don’t want others to practice such “inclusivity” seem to think that a dominant culture has a right to be a dominating culture. That is, you will say “Merry Christmas” whether you believe it or not.
I think both sides could take a lesson from Irving Berlin, the son of a cantor who fled the anti-Semitic pogroms in Russia. Irving Berlin wrote both “White Christmas” and “Easter Parade”. He didn’t believe in either holiday, but he helped those who did celebrate them with joy.
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, you can please all of the people some of the time, and you can please some of the people all of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.
Rigidity in viewpoint came up recently in another context. A letter writer to the Star Tribune called Garrison Keillor anti-Christian as well as all of MPR or NPR. That was a surprise to me. Garrison Keillor may pillory hypocrites or gently chide those who have feet of clay, but all the evidence I’ve seen indicates he has the deepest respect for those who are sincere in their beliefs. For as long as I can remember, he has often included hymns and religious singers in his shows. Many MPR programs include religious music, including the annual “Festival of nine lessons and carols” from King’s College in Oxford.
Rigidity is found all across the political spectrum. Many think that Kevin Thompson is hard-nosed and uncharitable. So what do they do; they write hard-nosed and uncharitable letters about Kevin. Hey, he stopped writing for the Reader Weekly; be charitable and let him be.
Speaking of Garrison Keillor, he recently gave an interesting view of Herod’s slaughter of the innocents – it was anti-terrorism. In Herod’s viewpoint, Jesus was a threat to his power; therefore he had to take steps to reduce that threat. Keillor went on to say the message of Christmas is that the weak shall prevail over the powerful.
Holiday spirits of another kind abound at this time of the year both in and out of the news. Before I left for an employee party I decided I would have two beers while there. When I left for the party it was snowing heavily; I decided I would have only one beer. As I drove up Thompson Hill I saw either an accident or a disabled truck on the downhill side that had brought traffic to a crawl in one lane; I decided I would have no beers. When I drove down the hill two hours later, the road was in somewhat better shape, but I was glad I held myself to my promise.
Holiday spirits are not the only thing to be wary of at this time of the year. I often approach curves in the winter with the thought, “Somebody coming the other way could skid over the center line.” As expected, my thoughts are usually not realized. Except for twice in recent memory. The second was this past week at Miller Hill Mall. I approached a sharp turn to my left by Northstar Ford. There was a huge pile of snow on the inside of the corner. Would somebody be crossing the center line? Sure enough, a car coming too fast for the conditions started coming into my lane. I was going rather slowly and stopped without a problem. The other driver managed to recover from her error, but she drove by me like I wasn’t even there. I wonder if she even knew how close she came to spoiling both of our evenings, and holidays.
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Christmas! Ah Funbug!
Originally published in Reader Weekly, December 23, 2004
During the holiday season I often ponder the complaints of the “commercialization of Christmas”. In my usual contrarian fashion I take them with a grain of salt. First of all, some seem to think that this commercialization is a new phenomenon and yearn for another time, a simpler time. If that time existed, it was long, long ago. Over fifty years ago one of my Christmas joys was to look at all the toy catalogs. I knew I wouldn’t get anywhere near my heart’s desires, but it was just a delight to read Lionel’s latest catalog, to see what science kits the department stores had, what whiz-bang airplanes, cars, and trucks were coming out, and on and on and on.
“Commercialization” of holidays goes way beyond the last century; it goes back millennia. The most well known in Western culture are the sellers of sacrificial animals and the moneychangers at the temple in Jerusalem. Our lore has them as the lowest of the low. But they were only providing services to meet the needs of the worshipers. Not every city dweller had a dove in the cote and a lamb out back to sacrifice at the temple. If a worshiper felt he had to make a sacrifice, he had to buy it from somebody else. Similarly, donations of money could not be made in Roman coin; they had to be made in Judaic money, not sisterces but mites and shekels. Somebody had to exchange the money, and those changers were not going to sit at the temple all day for free. The animal sellers and the moneychangers didn’t create the situation that required their services; they only took advantage of it to make a living.
Similarly, in our time, the merchants who offer so many goods and services with such lavish ads didn’t create the idea of gift giving at Christmas, but they are taking advantage of the desire of many people to give gifts. Shall the hardware store ignore the season and let the bookstore get all the Christmas business? The hardware store has to take out ads and say, “Here we are! We have some things you could give as gifts.” Just like all the ads throughout the year, we have to pick and choose which to respond to according to our budget and wants. My gosh, I’d be a blimp if I responded to all the candy ads.
And gift giving at this time of year is not confined to Western culture. Dewali is the Hindu feast of light; Indian newspapers are filled with ads for Dewali gifts and Indian electronics stores have their peak season. The Japanese give New Year’s gifts. Other cultures have other lavish celebrations of an important time of year – the return of light after the long darkness. And this goes back beyond the moneychangers at the Temple.
People celebrated this time with huge bonfires and feasts. With the return of light, they had a better idea of how long their food would last. If there seemed to be a surplus, they could indulge themselves. As agriculture became more productive, this wealth became more predictable. As people had more wealth (that is surplus), they could share with friends and relatives. Somewhere along the way, giving gifts at the winter solstice became tradition, and like all traditions it became quite complicated. So complicated that we now call it “commercialization”.
But you can make it simpler for yourself by how you approach gift giving. If you have a skill, you can give gifts that you make yourself. I give fruitcake to some of my relatives because I inherited a good recipe from my mother. They look forward to it, really! Now it does cost a bit of money for the ingredients, but what I am really giving is my time. Time my relatives wouldn’t have to spend to make this treat.
Even if you don’t make the gifts yourself, you still are giving your time. You are giving your time to think of what the recipients would like, the time to find where it is available, and the time to actually purchase it. Admit it, you are really delighted to get a CD of a group you hadn’t heard of but you listen to it again and again. Or you love that tool or kitchen gadget that you really wanted but never took the time to buy. Deep down, we feel good when someone appreciates what we have done for them, and we appreciate the things that others do for us. And that is called the Christmas spirit.
During the holiday season I often ponder the complaints of the “commercialization of Christmas”. In my usual contrarian fashion I take them with a grain of salt. First of all, some seem to think that this commercialization is a new phenomenon and yearn for another time, a simpler time. If that time existed, it was long, long ago. Over fifty years ago one of my Christmas joys was to look at all the toy catalogs. I knew I wouldn’t get anywhere near my heart’s desires, but it was just a delight to read Lionel’s latest catalog, to see what science kits the department stores had, what whiz-bang airplanes, cars, and trucks were coming out, and on and on and on.
“Commercialization” of holidays goes way beyond the last century; it goes back millennia. The most well known in Western culture are the sellers of sacrificial animals and the moneychangers at the temple in Jerusalem. Our lore has them as the lowest of the low. But they were only providing services to meet the needs of the worshipers. Not every city dweller had a dove in the cote and a lamb out back to sacrifice at the temple. If a worshiper felt he had to make a sacrifice, he had to buy it from somebody else. Similarly, donations of money could not be made in Roman coin; they had to be made in Judaic money, not sisterces but mites and shekels. Somebody had to exchange the money, and those changers were not going to sit at the temple all day for free. The animal sellers and the moneychangers didn’t create the situation that required their services; they only took advantage of it to make a living.
Similarly, in our time, the merchants who offer so many goods and services with such lavish ads didn’t create the idea of gift giving at Christmas, but they are taking advantage of the desire of many people to give gifts. Shall the hardware store ignore the season and let the bookstore get all the Christmas business? The hardware store has to take out ads and say, “Here we are! We have some things you could give as gifts.” Just like all the ads throughout the year, we have to pick and choose which to respond to according to our budget and wants. My gosh, I’d be a blimp if I responded to all the candy ads.
And gift giving at this time of year is not confined to Western culture. Dewali is the Hindu feast of light; Indian newspapers are filled with ads for Dewali gifts and Indian electronics stores have their peak season. The Japanese give New Year’s gifts. Other cultures have other lavish celebrations of an important time of year – the return of light after the long darkness. And this goes back beyond the moneychangers at the Temple.
People celebrated this time with huge bonfires and feasts. With the return of light, they had a better idea of how long their food would last. If there seemed to be a surplus, they could indulge themselves. As agriculture became more productive, this wealth became more predictable. As people had more wealth (that is surplus), they could share with friends and relatives. Somewhere along the way, giving gifts at the winter solstice became tradition, and like all traditions it became quite complicated. So complicated that we now call it “commercialization”.
But you can make it simpler for yourself by how you approach gift giving. If you have a skill, you can give gifts that you make yourself. I give fruitcake to some of my relatives because I inherited a good recipe from my mother. They look forward to it, really! Now it does cost a bit of money for the ingredients, but what I am really giving is my time. Time my relatives wouldn’t have to spend to make this treat.
Even if you don’t make the gifts yourself, you still are giving your time. You are giving your time to think of what the recipients would like, the time to find where it is available, and the time to actually purchase it. Admit it, you are really delighted to get a CD of a group you hadn’t heard of but you listen to it again and again. Or you love that tool or kitchen gadget that you really wanted but never took the time to buy. Deep down, we feel good when someone appreciates what we have done for them, and we appreciate the things that others do for us. And that is called the Christmas spirit.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Political correctness and multiculturalism
From an undated note on my desk:
Tolerance and consideration have been thrown out in favor of assertive support and of prohibition of any words or actions that can be perceived as the slightest insult.
Tolerance and consideration have been thrown out in favor of assertive support and of prohibition of any words or actions that can be perceived as the slightest insult.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
If we change Lake Calhoun's name, then…
we have to change the names of thousands of other places.
Once again someone is calling for changing the name of Lake Calhoun in Minneapolis because John C. Calhoun, for whom it was named, was proslavery.
If we do this then we must change the names of everything named for George Washington and Thomas Jefferson; after all, they both owned hundreds of slaves.
Even the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, waffled on the issue. He said slavery should be abolished in the District of Columbia, but only if the people wanted it. He would say in an election speech in northern Illinois that "all men are created equal" and say later in southern Illinois that "… I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of of bringing about the social and political equality of the white and black races". See "A People's History of the United States", Howard Zinn, page 188. Honest Abe?
Once again someone is calling for changing the name of Lake Calhoun in Minneapolis because John C. Calhoun, for whom it was named, was proslavery.
If we do this then we must change the names of everything named for George Washington and Thomas Jefferson; after all, they both owned hundreds of slaves.
Even the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, waffled on the issue. He said slavery should be abolished in the District of Columbia, but only if the people wanted it. He would say in an election speech in northern Illinois that "all men are created equal" and say later in southern Illinois that "… I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of of bringing about the social and political equality of the white and black races". See "A People's History of the United States", Howard Zinn, page 188. Honest Abe?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
More about being a psychiatrist than a Muslim?
I don't normally read Gary Kohls' column in the Weekly Reader, but the headline for his column this week caught my attention - "The Fort Hood Murders/Suicide and the Taboo Question", Reader Weekly, 2009-11-12.
Kohls proposition is that modern psychiatrists rather than talk with their patients in depth prescribe too many psychotropic drugs. These drugs can often lead to delusional, self-destructive behavior. Worse yet, some psychiatrists use these drugs themselves. Dr. Nidal Malik Hasan's behavior prior to and on the day of the killings reflects many of the symptoms of psychotropic drug use. Kohls claims that many of the shootings over the past decade have been related to psychotropic medications.
Kohls cites "Drug-Induced Dementia: A Perfect Crime" by Dr. Grace E. Jackson and "The Fort Hood Shooter: A Different Psychiatric Perspective" by Dr. Peter Breggin, Huffington Post, 2009-11-08.
Kohls doesn't write it but Dr. Breggin does, "… Major Nidal Malik Hasan was driven by religious ideology."
Which came first, the ideology or the drug-induced delusions? Was the delusional behavior overlooked because of "political correctness" in the Army?
BTW, I've noticed "political correctness" in news reports, "the alleged shooter". For crying out loud, if two cops are shooting at a guy running loose with a gun, how can he be an "alleged shooter"?
Dr. Breggin writes that too many Army psychiatrists are nothing but pill-pushers who are letting soldiers into combat by suppressing their symptoms and creating greater problems for them in the field.
Then Dr. Breggin reduces his own credibility by touting his book on "How to Live Like Our Heroic Founders". Not that some of them didn't live exemplary lives some of the time, but…
Whatever the biases and credentials of those commenting on the Fort Hood case, it should get more attention than some media coverage and a military or civil trial. Organizations and professions need to look long and hard at their practices.
This case should get more attention than some media coverage and a military or civil trial. Organizations and professions need to look long and hard at their practices.
Kohls proposition is that modern psychiatrists rather than talk with their patients in depth prescribe too many psychotropic drugs. These drugs can often lead to delusional, self-destructive behavior. Worse yet, some psychiatrists use these drugs themselves. Dr. Nidal Malik Hasan's behavior prior to and on the day of the killings reflects many of the symptoms of psychotropic drug use. Kohls claims that many of the shootings over the past decade have been related to psychotropic medications.
Kohls cites "Drug-Induced Dementia: A Perfect Crime" by Dr. Grace E. Jackson and "The Fort Hood Shooter: A Different Psychiatric Perspective" by Dr. Peter Breggin, Huffington Post, 2009-11-08.
Kohls doesn't write it but Dr. Breggin does, "… Major Nidal Malik Hasan was driven by religious ideology."
Which came first, the ideology or the drug-induced delusions? Was the delusional behavior overlooked because of "political correctness" in the Army?
BTW, I've noticed "political correctness" in news reports, "the alleged shooter". For crying out loud, if two cops are shooting at a guy running loose with a gun, how can he be an "alleged shooter"?
Dr. Breggin writes that too many Army psychiatrists are nothing but pill-pushers who are letting soldiers into combat by suppressing their symptoms and creating greater problems for them in the field.
Then Dr. Breggin reduces his own credibility by touting his book on "How to Live Like Our Heroic Founders". Not that some of them didn't live exemplary lives some of the time, but…
Whatever the biases and credentials of those commenting on the Fort Hood case, it should get more attention than some media coverage and a military or civil trial. Organizations and professions need to look long and hard at their practices.
This case should get more attention than some media coverage and a military or civil trial. Organizations and professions need to look long and hard at their practices.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
The most egregious political correctness
Many of us laugh at the attempts at political or patriotic correctness. One must not disparage any ethnic group, religious group, women, people with illnesses, and on and on through a laundry list of "marginalized" groups. One must not insult the flag or question a war and must show certain outward signs of "patriotism".
These misdirected efforts pale in comparison with the demands of certain governments and segments of several religions. Government after government shuts a newspaper down for insulting the nation of the government, often because they dared to print the truth. Many individuals want papers shut down or reporters and editors killed because the paper has "insulted" their religion with blasphemy. In both cases, such calls demonstrate weakness rather than strength.
In the case of "blasphemy", cannot an omniscient, omnipotent God protect himself? He sort of did in 1 Kings 18. After nothing happened to the sacrifice to Baal by the priests of Baal, God sent fire onto Elijah's water-soaked sacrifice and it was consumed. Interestingly, God did not send fire onto the priests of Baal; Elijah cut their throats.
In the case of "insults" of government, U.S. history is filled with some really mean-spirited campaign blasts. In 1796, John Adams "called his opponent Thomas Jefferson cowardly, weak and a person who did not share Americans' values." ("Character Attacks Heat Up Presidential Campaign", America.gov, 2007-12-04.
In 1828, Andrew Jackson's supporters called John Quincy Adams a "pimp". Adams' supporters retorted that Jackson's wife was a "prostitute". They also called Jackson a "jackass" and used a picture of a donkey. That last backfired because Jackson liked it and adopted the donkey as his party's "mascot". (ibid.)
And so it continues today, "fathering a black baby", "taking bribes", "not being heroic enough", and on and on. Somehow, although we wonder that our democracy will survive, it still does.
See also "Pledge of Allegiance or Sledge of Allegiance".
These misdirected efforts pale in comparison with the demands of certain governments and segments of several religions. Government after government shuts a newspaper down for insulting the nation of the government, often because they dared to print the truth. Many individuals want papers shut down or reporters and editors killed because the paper has "insulted" their religion with blasphemy. In both cases, such calls demonstrate weakness rather than strength.
In the case of "blasphemy", cannot an omniscient, omnipotent God protect himself? He sort of did in 1 Kings 18. After nothing happened to the sacrifice to Baal by the priests of Baal, God sent fire onto Elijah's water-soaked sacrifice and it was consumed. Interestingly, God did not send fire onto the priests of Baal; Elijah cut their throats.
In the case of "insults" of government, U.S. history is filled with some really mean-spirited campaign blasts. In 1796, John Adams "called his opponent Thomas Jefferson cowardly, weak and a person who did not share Americans' values." ("Character Attacks Heat Up Presidential Campaign", America.gov, 2007-12-04.
In 1828, Andrew Jackson's supporters called John Quincy Adams a "pimp". Adams' supporters retorted that Jackson's wife was a "prostitute". They also called Jackson a "jackass" and used a picture of a donkey. That last backfired because Jackson liked it and adopted the donkey as his party's "mascot". (ibid.)
And so it continues today, "fathering a black baby", "taking bribes", "not being heroic enough", and on and on. Somehow, although we wonder that our democracy will survive, it still does.
See also "Pledge of Allegiance or Sledge of Allegiance".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)