Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: The PC Issue
From: mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:40:52 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
> Ironically enough (although to be expected) all the people that responded
> to the "What is PC?" posting earlier in a negative fashion were,
> assuming from their names, white 
> male ( & probably straight)!  Political Correctness is meant for the benefit 
> of the "oppressed", not insecure white males who feel threatened in their 
> quest for absolute power!

   Well.  Where to begin?  For starters, let's examine the above implication
that only heterosexual white males disagree with the PC philosophy.  This, as
almost anyone can attest to, is patent nonsense.  I personally know a whole
horde of people, representing a variety of skin tones and sexes, that think the
PC philosophy is both unrigorous and inherently wrong.  Public life is filled
with these people as well.  Elizabeth Dole, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sewell,
these are names everyone should recognize, and they represent a number of
different viewpoints, most un-PC.  To think that only straight white males can
disagree with the PC doctrine is a thoroughly prejuicided assumption -- an
assumption that has damaged more young lives than I care to count.
   I speak not of white boys, mind you, but of _minorities_.  Since so many
people who are quite vocal in their beliefs espouse Political Correctness, and
so many of the most prominent a members of minorities, it is often assumed by
that community of minorities that all members of their minority must think that
way, too;  indeed, thinking in that manner becomes a prerequisite for belonging
to that community.  When someone comes along who challenges that philosophy,
such as a black friend of mine who hates rap music, thinks "African-American
identity" is a silly concept for fourth-generation Americans, and doesn't even
own any clothes from the latest African dress fad, he is ostracized by most
other blacks.  That has caused him great pain, but, much to his credit, not
enough to capitualte to their philosophy.  It is statements like yours,
Sheheryar, that perpetuate his suffering and that of other people.

   It is quite appropriate, I think, that you placed the word "oppressed" in
quotation marks, as the execution of PC doctrine cahnges the "classically
oppressed" into the oppressors.  I might not get into a class, might not get a
job, becuase the person making the decision would feel better about themselves
if they picked a minority over me, regardless of whether or not I was the best
qualified competitor.  
   I can be segregated against, but not segregated for.  If someone wanted to
start an all-black fraternity on my campus, they would be lauded (indeed,
there is one, and its existance is routinely praised).  So what if it excludes
women, so long as it only admits blacks?  Should a fraternity be started that
was to be specifically all-white, a furor would be raised and its originators
kicked out of school.
   Perhaps these comments are generated by a feeling of insecurity, but it is
a justifiable emotion.  I am not allowed to say certain things, tell certain
jokes, support certain politicians, or dislike certain music without facing
social isolation at the very best, or scholastic expulsion and/or loss of my
job at the worst.  These are very real concerns, very real insecurities, and
very real problems.  This world should be safe for all opinions, all
philosophies, and all viewpoints, even the ones that nobody likes.  This is not
a feeling shared by anyone supporting the PC ideals.

Max Zener
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct