posted
Lately I've been a lot more careful about my speech. I flinch whenever I hear somebody say some kind of blanket statement about a certain race, religion, or what have you. And, as I knew would happen eventually, I'm a lot more careful about saying things that don't apply to me (eg: it's a lot easier for me to poke fun or laugh at jokes about Americans or JWs, than, say, the French or Catholics).
But I think it's getting out of hand. Today I almost lectured somebody who said something bad about Pizza Hut (I work at Domino's, for those who don't know). And I got offended at a comment about a High School in another town nearby yesterday.
I practically INVENTED the jokes about that school.
And I have no doubt this is the cause of Hatrack. I never used to be this careful/paranoid.
So has anybody had a similar situation?
Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm offended by your superiority complex. The nerve (and disregard for personal safety) in insulting a lizard-man.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was taught to me at a very young age that it was impolite to refer to certain people in certain terms. Therefore for much of my childhood, I went around referring to Indians as Native Americans and blacks, as African Americans and whites as Caucasian and Mexicans as Hispanics and onward.
One day, while I was doing a writing assignment on a person in London I encountered a roadblock. I realized I didn’t know how to refer to his ethnicity. I couldn’t very well call him an African American because he wasn’t- well, an American. I couldn’t call him an African because technically, he was not from Africa.
Calling him an African-British was just plain ridiculous.
I think political correctness is so engrained in our society, particularly Californian society, that it's gotten to a point where you always have to watch every single word you say, or else risk the possibly of offending someone. I have like this invisible Thought Police behind me, and any time I cross the line beyond the point of Political Correctness, it whacks me with a big stick.
These day's I just try to avoid referring to race altogether if only because I'm starting realize that race is pretty much insignificant in the scheme of things. I no longer see anything wrong with referring to a black person as black anymore. What I think is really what's important is the intent behind the words. As long as their are no bad connotations behind the word, and it's meant as purely a word, then it's okay.
Dang. Now that I see this sudden burst of fluffy postings in the last couple of minutes in this thread, I feel like an uptight nimrod. Thanks a lot, guys. Posts: 181 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe your sensitivity about it comes from the fact that you suspect you might actually be one.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
PC-ness makes people talk too much and too long. All those terms are useless anyway. people are just people and nothing else to me. but obnoxious stereotyping is much worse than Pc-ness. i wonder why so many sitcoms have to be so offensive. Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I sympathize with the sentiment that people can and tend to be too careful of not offending each other, I think the boogieman of PCness is pretty far removed from what actually exists. Of course you'll find the occasional wacko insisting that we refer to each other as mammalian height-challenged hair-intensive sentients, but it's hardly the norm. Where's the terror in politeness? Is calling black people "African-Americans" rather than "Negroes" so painful?
I mean, I have my problems with inoffense-intensive people myself, but I'm tired of hearing people complain about the monstrosities of political correctness without understanding what they're bitching about.
Not that this particular rant's aimed at anyone in this thread -- though I'm interested in hearing some commonplace examples of "political correctness" that hinder your daily living -- but I've been nursing a slow burn since the first time I heard that term. If it was ever once anything real, it's mutated into little more than an obnoxious attempt to paint civil-rights activists or feminists as nitpicking, wishy-washy psychotics.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, for whoever brought it up, I'm rather annoyed with the term "Hispanic" myself. As George Lopez said in a stand-up act, there are no Hispanics because there is no Hispania. It's just a term to lump together everyone from south of the border -- few people (myself not among them) have no difficulty in distinguishing a Puerto Rican from a Costa Rican from a Mexican from a Colombian, and people wanted to spare themselves the trouble and potential offense that can stem from misidentification.
Of course, I understand the attempt to create a term that allows identification of race without delving into potential offense -- Mexicans are likely to be taken aback if you call them Brazilians, for example -- but if it didn't work for Orientals, why would it work for Hispanics? I don't have any personal problems with being labelled Hispanic or not, but I'm rather curious why it's okay to lump Mexicans, Ricans, et. all under a general term when the Japanese, the Chinese, the Vietnamese won't put up with being labelled Orientals. When white people from a small island take great pride in labelling themselves Irish or English, though there's little genetic or geographic or physically identifiable difference between the two.
The term will eventually die out, I expect, probably due to sensitivity to the immense cultural differences between, say, Cubans and Guatamalans. Which is a good thing, but it's just that bugaboo of political correctness in action again. Is it so evil?
That's the only example of commonplace political correctness that I'm particularly unhappy with, really, aside from the exact same problem when applied to black people ("Africans" rather than "Zimbabweans" or "Ghanians") and Arabs ("Arabs" rather than "Iranians" or "Afghanis"). Which others are there?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Azile, in Britain, they are normally referred to as Black people. At least, I've been getting the daily news email from the BBC for a while and thats the term they use. I don't particularly have a beef with the term "African-American" though I personally think it is a misnomer. I mean, the majority of black people in America prefer to be called African-Americans, so thats what I refer to them as. However, since the only Americans I know who are actually from Africa are white, it is kind of ironic.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, I'm disappointed in your lumping of all "Cubans" together, when there is such a clear difference between Cubans from La Habana and those from Camagüey or Cienfuegos. Shame on you. Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
btw, Lalo actually represents my feelings pretty perfectly. While I have certainly heard of extremes (more often in sitcoms than in real life, though) I don't in general see what the big frenzy over Political Correctness is. At least, not in the sense that most people gripe about it. What does it hurt to be sensitive, or to call people by the term they prefer?
I have seen excesses in university campuses, but that is a whole different kind of PC. I have seen classes where you must accept it as axiomatic that white men are to blame for the world's ills. But that is a far cry from frowning upon clearly sexist or racist statements.
If I somebody get offended over being called black by somebody who clearly didn't mean any harm, I would find that a bit extreme. Likewise, I don't take any offense to being called "hispanic" when the PC term, last I heard, was "latino." I don't take offense when people are not trying to belittle me. On the other hand, when people don't realize that I'm Cuban and tell me they would hate to live in Miami (where I used to live) because there are too many Cubans there, well, it's not in the least bit extreme to say that this statement reflects ignorance and prejudice and is hateful. I can't begin to count the number of times I have heard things like that. Or, "I wouldn't want to live in Florida. Too many peach-pickers there."
When somebody makes a statement that is clearly based in ignorance and hate, it is not excessively PC to tell them off. Nor is it too PC for those of us who are frequently the targets of baseless hatred to expect better.
And yes, I try to be as "politically correct" as possible in my speech, writing, and thought, and I'm most certainly not ashamed of it.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, if somebody makes statements that indicate they don't know the difference between Cubans and, say Mexicans, I will respond with mock indignation and attempt to educate them.
And yet, my mother-in-law keeps saying, whenever we bring up the idea of eating Cuban food, that she doesn't want to eat "spicy food."
posted
I don't want to live in Florida because Joe lives there.
*scratches head*
PC used to bug the crap out of me. At work we have to do cultural competency training and it makes you realize a lot. Miscommunication and the like. It wasn't PC training, more of an awareness training.
I think it helps.
...and when I lived in Key West and was taking Spanish in the fourth grade, I had a good accent.
The teacher said, "You have a good accent. Do you have any Hispanic ancestry?"
quote: Is calling black people "African-Americans" rather than "Negroes" so painful?
Not painful at all. However, the term African-American is factually incorrect when referring to a black person that was born in the USA. The term denotes someone who personally came from Africa, who now lives in America. Such persons can be black, white, indian, arabic, etc. Just as I am not a European-American because I was not born in Europe.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While the term "African-American" is of dubious legitimacy--I think the point was simply to come up with something new, that didn't carry the connotations that the word "black" did, and could thus be used without derogatory implocations--I don't quite agree with your definition, Robes. By your definition, I am not Cuban-American, since my parents came from Cuba and I was born here. And yet, I grew up immersed in the Cuban culture and experience. While "African Americans" often do have a shared culture, it is not synonymous with that of African-Americans. So I don't think it's so much about where you were born as it is what cultural heritage you share in.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I attended a 1/2 day class on using the reports the US Census did in 2000 (2 years ago - the class, that is) so my recall may be slightly foggy. But as I understand it, the term "hispanic" refers to an "ethnicity" that is used in computing how tax dollars are spent on special programs.
A man I work with visited Africa and referred to himself as an African-American in conversation with some of the blacks that live there. The African blacks laughed long and hard at him. (Yes, this man is black himself.)
Awareness is a necessary thing - but also necessary are these traits: courtesy, civility, respect, willingness to learn about things and people that are strange, frightening, new.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
To be perfectly honest, I never really had an idea what "Hispanic" actually meant. So my use of the phrase pretty comes out of my ignorance. The word "Latino", is a fairly new word for me. I've only heard it used as of recently. Now reading your post however, I can most definitely see now how it can be wrong.
Brian,
I always try to refer to African-Americans as such whenever I can.
I don’t see any problem with people referring to a person as black because for many, it’s not meant derogatory term. I, myself, always had a bit of difficulty doing it because I don't like to refer to people on the basis of their color. In a way, I don't see how referring to a person as "black", is anymore different than referring to a person as "negro". The same goes with calling a Caucasian person white or me, yellow- even if it's not meant to offend, it still feels wrong.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Latino is extremely incorrect and most of the people getting lumped in there are hardly "Latin" at all.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, to me, the relevant point isn't my evaluation isn't whether or not it's appropriate by my standards - in Chicago, the many communities that make up "Latino" appear to have embraced that as the term they prefer.
Good enough for me. If I go somewhere else, and the associated communities prefer something different, I'll go with that.
Doesn't seem that difficult, really.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem that lots of people have is trying to stay current with the accepted terms. Certain terms used to be perfectly acceptable, but they're not anymore. It seems like "Oriental" is out and "Asian" is in. I seem to remember the term "Chicano" being popular a while back, but I don't hear it anymore. If a group of people prefers to be referred to in a specific way, that's fine with me. I just don't see why they need to keep changing their minds.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
sndrake, it doesn't seem that burdensome, either. Just like I wouldn't call you "Stevie," unless you preferred that to "Stephen." Of course, the next guy I meet might want to be called "Steve." Or "HunkO'ManlyLove." Whatever.
As long as it doesn't bind me in perpetuity, I'll call whomever by whatever they want, just as a matter of common courtesy.
[JonBoy, some Stevies grow up to become Stephens, and some become HunksO'ManlyLove. Sometimes you just don't know why, but there it is.]
posted
Ok, Eddie, here is where 'PC' gets on people's nerves. It becomes a club for those who want to feel superior without doing any actual work. And the list of criteria for the club is arbitrary and often nonsensical.
For example:
It is not PC to drive any vehicle that looks like an SUV. SUV's became the hated car of the PC crowd, for a variety of reasons. They are too big, they use too much gas, they are not environmentally friendly. And when all those conditions are true, yeah, they probably are a bad idea. However, there are quite a few cars that have the same basic functionality and look, for which those things are NOT true. My car, for examle, is exactly the same size as a longbed Nissan truck, and gets better gasmileage than my Stanza used to. And I still have PC buttheads sticking anti SUV propoganda on it. Clearly, they have done no research on which vehicles are actually the problem. They are just going over their PC checklist and going "Oh, SUV bad."
Example the second:
I am squicked out by gay sex. For whatever reason, two men making out makes my stomach turn. I am also squicked out by calamari, and it is loved by millions, so personal quirks can hit you in all sorts of places, not just sexual politics. Anyway, I don't like it. So, I don't like books with graphic descriptions of gay sex, I don't like movies with gay sex, and I am unapologetic about it. Now, in the PC crowd, this makes me a homophobe and a bigot. Despite the fact that I have a number of gay friends, and have never done anything to harm a gay person for their sexual orientation, and in fact am square in the 'just leave them the heck alone' camp.
But that isn't good enough for the PC commandos. You are either 100% with their program, or you might as well be a nazi KKK member.
And yes, I have been told that I was a homophobe and a bigot because I could not see the beauty in gay love. Sorry, I also don't see the beauty in cubism, and some of those paintings sell for millions. It's just a matter of taste I guess.
But with PC extremism, NOTHING is allowed to be a matter of taste if it falls outside the agenda.
And that's what pisses people off. I have zero interest in forcing gay people to see the beauty in hetero love. And I would never yell at Karl and tell him he's a heterophobe if he told me hetero sex was icky. I would just laugh and keep chatting with him, just like he does with me. But Karl isn't a PC commando, just a good guy.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT: I'm one of those people who doesn't have a preference. (This actually seems to throw some people - who feel like I'm somehow setting them up for some weird kind of test - judging them on which form of my name they choose.) I generally use "Stephen" in this particular forum when I use my name at all simply because there are a couple of other "Steve's" floating around. And I doubt they'd want their messages confused with mine.
Taking a deep breath now...
Labeling diverse groups under one term is very common, in this culture, and probably in most others. Historically, the labels were applied by the majority on the minority populations. It even still goes on.
Think about labels like "the retarded" or "autistic." You want to talk diversity? "Autistic" can describe a 20-year-old writer, a designer of slaughterhouses, and a nonverbal kid whose favorite activity is to look at their feet. "Retarded" can describe someone who is employed, pays taxes and is married - it can also describe someone who has never spoken and who has spent their entire life in an institutition.
We don't think about those labels and how little sense they make, because we came up with them. It's not that they necessarily make any sense, but so far the population being labeled hasn't been to vocal about wanting to be called something different.
We used to come up with all-encompassing labels for diverse sections of minority groups - some of them polite, some of them not so polite. The complaining about terminology and keeping up with it only came up when those same groups started taking control of the language being used to describe them.
I guess what I'm saying is that these labeling issues aren't new - what's new is who is in control of the labels.
posted
Alright, this is how I understand the terms Latino/Latin, Hispanic, and Chicano, and how they tend to be used in professional circles, YMMV.
Hispanics are people from Spanish speaking countries, including Spain.
Latinos are people from any country in Latin America or the Caribbean that speaks a Romance language. Brazilians and Haitians are Latinos, Jamaicans and Surinamese are not.
Chicanos are Mexican Americans.
There's a nice discussion of the differences between Hispanic and Latino here at dictionary.com.
Honestly, I can only think of one group that uses Hispanic rather than Latino (Hispanics in Philanthropy) and I couldn't tell you why they do so. Their choice and it doesn't bother me.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a feeling I know what my "Steve" would actually like to be called of the above choices, CT.
In Southern CA, when I was growing up the broad term "Hispanic", was used by the culture itself. Though it appears to have changed somewhat, according to Lalo, since I've been gone. Latino is definitely the more common term in the Chicago area where I am now like sndrake pointed out.
To me, the point is exactly there is no "hispania" while there is an area that can be called "latin" which would be any one from Rome, Italy or the derivative cultures, which Spain isn't entirely part of to begin with though somewhat I guess.
I finally figured out after listening to NPR jazz that what my Steve actually is: "Afro-Cuban" or "Afro-Carribean" since there is some Jamaican thrown in too.
So which box he actually checks on the census is pretty much up to how he feels that day!
posted
(sndrake, isn't it odd how work keeps intruding on life, despite our best intentions? Face it, dude, the activist part of you never sleeps. It's a burden, but a HunkO'ManlyLove is up to the challenge. Or a Stephen, or a Stevie. But never StevieDoo, as that's just too Hanna-Barbera for words.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for that link, Risuena. My problem is that I've always heard "Hispanic" and "Latino" used interchangeably, and I'm vaguely aware that "Latino" is preferred, though I really have no idea why. Maybe it's simply because it's an issue that doesn't really concern me, or because I just don't meet enough Latinos.
quote:btw, what's the rule on capitalizing these names?
From The Chicago Manual of Style 8.41: "Names of ethnic and national groups are capitalized. Adjectives associated with these names are also capitalized." From 8.43: "Designations based loosely on color are usually lowercased, though capitalization may be appropriate if the writer strongly prefers it." So for example, "white" is lowercased, but "Caucasian" is capitalized.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hispanic refers to those who trace their roots to Spanish-speaking nations from Spain to the Philippines. Latino's are a subset of Hispanics who trace their heritage to the Americas.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Indians that were here before Columbus are really Native Americans, right? So what if you have an Indian that was here before Columbus but lives in the Mexican region. Are they also Native Americans (because it's the americas/North America) or are they Native Mexicans?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do we even need labels? To me they are stupid and cumbersome and make absolutely no sense. The darkest black person isn't black. the palest white person isn't really white. Then you get billions of people that are Asian from Indians-Japanese people. Why are labels nessasary? Especially for people who just don't fit into neat little catergories.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
