Many times I have heard growing up, questions such as, “Why do we have to use politically correct language?” or “What is even the effect of me using politically incorrect english?” The use of politically incorrect english is the use of barbaric and intolerant language while describing a particular person or group. There are copious explanations of what politically correct english is and why it is used instead of randomly speaking conservative, out-dated, incorrect language to describe social classifications. In a quote by Charles Osgood, which was mostly likely meant to be bashing politically correct language but the statement actually reinforces appeals to the counter argument, he claims, “Being Politically Correct means always having to say you’re sorry” (Osgood). This is true in the sense that with gaining knowledge of social standards and developing ways of better defining social groups, we are going to have to say “We’re sorry for the spoken mistakes that has kept english and mankind from evolving and this is the new term that does not primitively stampede over you history.” I will try to show my interpretation of what politically correct language is and why is should be used, only to how it relates to the United States of America but possibly to a broader geographical range. The use of politically correct language creates less social conflicts, develops more equality, and needs to be constantly updated in order to define the group or person correctly. As a fact, humans prefer, sometimes without being consciously aware, to group things together in an effort to better explain the world around them. I emphasize “things” because in order to derive order from apparent chaos we must categorize, referencing everything. With dev... ... middle of paper ... ... based on skin color to attribute where the came from geographically. There are many counties that have skin as dark as some Africans but consider themselves part of a different ethnicity. Updating current politically correct terms may be of Descriptivist quality, but it will develop into Prescriptivist quality once the most correct term is traditionally used. The question of why we use politically correct is so inane because it is the same as asking, “Should I speak complete nonsense when I know sensical way of explaining my thought?” There is no point in speaking if you are not going to use the most current correct terms to describe the topic you speaking about. George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” helps convey the point that the use of correct language is more political and economical because that is what influences social behavior the most.
Hughes overemphasizes America’s infatuation with political correctness, but fails to understand the real issue. It is undeniably true that “no sifting of words is going to reduce the amount of bigotry in this or any other society” (21). However, racist labels are prevalent in American society which remind minority groups of their inferior status. The professional football team in our nation’s capital is called the ‘Redskins.’ This moniker is the result of a politically incorrect past that has not been rectified. Political correctness intends to change the way we label things so that minority groups are not excluded or demeaned. Certainly Hughes would object to calling a rugby team in Australia the ‘Sydney Blackies.’ Hughes was right in understanding that political correctness will not cause dramatic changes, but racism in any form, no matter how small, is bad for society. Regardless, he spends too much time discussing this issue. Political correctness warranted more attention for Hughes than it does in the national media today. It is quite telling that only five years after its publication this material is already outdated.
When many individuals think of a dangerous word their minds automatically think of the words that they chose to omit when in the presence of children or words that are thought instead of spoken in formal places, but what about the words that sit along the fine line between appropriate and inappropriate? For example, the term redneck has a different meaning to those inside community versus that of those outside. This word is the most dangerous because it is looked down upon and praised at the same time. The term redneck should be socially acceptable in everyday language, because those who it describes take pride using it to describe themselves.
In the essay “blaxicans and other reinvented americans” author richard rodriguez demonstrates how skin color should not define you, but instead your cultural roots should define you. For example rodriguez states “in the latin american, one sees every race of the world. One sees white Hispanics, one sees black Hispanics, One sees brown Hispanics who are Indians, many of whom do not speak Spanish”(line 94-96). This reveals that the government puts the people in a category without their consent. For example people from mexico are hispanic also people from Salvador are consider hispanics but they are two complete different cultures and traditions. Rodriguez uses colors “brown,” “black,” and “white” to emphasize that people say brown people are
Political correctness may be a coined term that the general population does not necessarily know the definition of, but is relevant in every single person’s life. In today’s society one must be very careful when verbalizing opinions in order to prevent offending others around, or from disturbing the Politically Correct Puritans: those who strongly support censorship of politically incorrect labels (Suedfeld et al 1994). There are many different theories as to what makes political correctness important and why college campuses seem to be so heavily surrounded by political correcting activists, but oddly enough there has not been an extensive amount of research done on the topic.
Rankin, Aidan. “The repressive openness of political correctness.” Contemporary Review 282.1644 (2003): 33+. Literature resource Center. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
When it comes to my opinion when regrading how cultures affects communication, I think culture can affect how communication is received. Someone may come off as being offensive, depending on how you communicate with a particular culture. For example, in the National Football League (NFL), one team in particular, Washington Redskins, some cultures within the Native American's deem the term Redskins to be offensive. Most football fans, not all, view said offensive team named, not offensive. However, what right does someone have to tell another culture what should, or shouldn't be offensive? Personally, I think if said name offends a portion of the population, what harm is it to just change the bigotry name? As a result, some of the reports
In the past, race could be so narrow a definition as to indicate what country a person was from. It could also be an indication of class in many ways, as anyone not of certain European descent was often considered of lower social standing, particularly during the times before slavery was outlawed. In modern times, this definition has fallen by the wayside and instead we use nationality to indicate a country of origin while race is considered a broader term. Race is defined by Dictionary.com as “an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups” (dictionary.com, race). This c...
It says on page 51 that Syme, has a job of perfecting the dictionary called Newspeak. They wanted to cut the English language down to the bone. People should not use Oldspeak only Newspeak The aim of Newspeak is too narrow your range of thought. They think that if people don’t know how to think they won’t be able to rebel. In the Unites States, The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and therefore we cannot be limited in our thought or words. On the other hand we have our own version of Newspeak that limits what we think, by limiting what we say. It is called Political Correctness. As Americans we have the right to express what we are thinking, but PC sort of dictates what we are allowed to say. If something is offensive people can’t say it. Some people feel that PC is a censorship as well as a danger to our freedom of speech. For example a University in Illinois forbade the students from chanting “USA USA USA” at a football game because if there were any Muslims attending the game it would offend
Michiko Kakutani's essay “The Word Police” is a refreshing look at a literary world policed by the Politically Correct (P.C.). She pokes fun at the efforts of P.C. policepersons such as Rosalie Maggio, author of The Bias-Free Word Finder, a Dictionary of Nondiscriminatory Language . But in mocking authors like Maggio, Kakutani emphasizes that efforts of the P.C. police are often exaggerated to the point of silliness and can even become a linguistic distraction from the real issues. In fact, such filtering or censorship of words can lead to larger problems within the English language: “getting upset by phrases like ‘bullish on America' or ‘the City of Brotherly Love' tends to distract attention from the real problems of prejudice and injustice that exist in society at large” (686). According to Kakutani, over-exaggerated political correctness just serves in complicating our words and diluting the messages. But really, the problem in P.C. advice on word-choice is the exaggeration of inclusive ness. Kakutani addresses the P.C. police's righteous motive: “a vision of a more just, inclusive society in which racism, sexism, and prejudice of all sorts have been erased” (684). But where does one draw the line between writing inclusively and walking on eggshells? What is politically correct? Must writers assume the worst of their audiences when debating whether to mutate the spelling of “women” to “womyn” in order to avoid sexist language? The truth is, writing purely inclusively is an arduous task; it requires consistent and careful consideration of many exterior elements such as audience, literary content, and societal context. An examination of these elements reveals just how difficult ...
According to the text, race is defined as “a socially constructed category of people who share biologically transmitted traits that members of society consider important.” (pg 340,para 5) This includes basically any physically biological trait on the body. I identify as a black or African American woman because I believe both can be used to one’s liking in a way. Identifying as black, in my opinion, includes that even as a descendent from Africa, I also acknowledge that I am a descendent from others. The same goes for identifying as an African American, I have roots from Africa but this term kind of contradicts itself because if someone from Africa receives a US citizenship then they would be considered African American. I, myself, have never seen or set foot on African soil so the term is used very loosely in my case but still somewhat identifiable. All of this is understandable due to race being “socially constructed” and continues to lump people into whatever category they see fit. (pg 340,para 8)
Battery is harmful contact, or the imminent threat of harmful or offensive contact, of one person against another, and the direct or indirect results of the affected person from this harmful or offensive contact. The defendant, Grem, arrived at Logan’s around 12:30am. Grem was intoxicated while at Logan’s. The plaintiff, Agnes, arrived at Logan’s around 12:15am to 12:30am and awaited the arrival of his girlfriend, Scelza, who arrived at 1:00am. Upon her arrival, Grem made a profane and defamatory statement about Scelza, followed with laughter at her. Agnes asked Grem to apologize to Scelza but Grem did not apologize. Shortly after, Agnes decided to leave Logan’s with Scelza to avoid a confrontation with Grem, because he felt that Grem was highly
In “Tense Present: Democracy, English and the Wars over Usage,” David Foster Wallace argues that it would be ridiculous to assume “that American ceases to be elitist or unfair because Americans stop using certain vocabulary that is historically associated with elitism.” Just because society uses words that are less offensive does not mean that society has adopted attitudes that are less offensive. To clarify why such a fallacy is often heard, Wallace defines two functions for politically correct language “On the one hand they can be a reflection of political change, and on the other they can be an instrument of political change.” Usage conventions can be the result of change, or they can result in change. However, when one function occurs, the other does not, and vice versa. Care must be taken when determining the efficacy of politically correct terminology; it could either signal great strides being made in social justice, or it could be a superficial impersonation of human
...n the January 1993 Library Journal, makes a similar suggestion: "Ultimately, however, we hope we use language that is more sensitive without enforcing strident political correctness or orthodoxy." We, as a society, are so concerned about avoiding confrontations that we are going overboard changing non-offensive names. The attempt to avoid possible protests of sensitive pressure groups by sanitizing our language is, in my opinion, censorship.
Firstly, political correctness is founded upon the assumption that discrimination and prejudice exists within society. Of course the goal of being politically correct is so that it affects communication in a positive way. It’s to prevent arguments and people from getting offended. What we are not trying to achieve is some sort of polite utopia – it would be a dull and dreary place to live.
In the article, "You Can't Say That," the author Diane Ravitch talks about how certain words are deleted from books or not shown in films because they could offend certain groups. In the article, Ravitch argues that although it may seem like we live in a world where anything goes, the truth is, that's not true. Diane does research and gathers a list of more than five hundred words that regularly get deleted from textbooks and tests. Some of the words include cowboy, brotherhood, yacht, and primitive. Personally I believe that the censoring of words these days is somewhat extreme. I understand that certain groups could be offended by such words but why should everyone else not get the original words the author is trying to write because of that.