We're too politically correct... until of course, the person we hate is in power.
This fits in well with my recent tirade on thinking for yourself. The underlying theme of which was bias. I notice an excruciating number of people starting to identify themselves in SUPER broad terms like "liberal", or "republican" or "democrat". And then, pursuant to that, people start agreeing with whatever opinion seems like it most matches their side.
It leads to that case where we're oddly able to agree with 100% of what another person says.
This article stems from a few different things. But, I want to focus on two new ones and how a new one is tied to an old one. The first new one is a Quebec politician complaining about the pronunciation of French-Canadian athlete names at the Olympics. The second is Trudeau's family wearing traditional Indian clothing contrasted with how people reacted to his "people-kind" comment.
Firstly, the pronunciation of the French-Canadian athlete names. Which is more offensive? Pronouncing them in an anglicized manner, or trying to pull off a bad French accent while pronouncing them? If you listen to the Quebec politician in question, she clearly favors the latter. Personally, I think that is more offensive of the two. But, that is subjective and my personal opinion. And that is the heart of this. To me, complaining about it is more offensive than either of the causes. The athletes themselves didn't care.
This story stick with me because my wife and I were watching various events and listening to the commentators pronounce Japanese names. Since we're both learning Japanese, it was kind of hilarious to note just how bad they got some of them. And I want to be clear. Japanese pronunciation is more or less a no-brainer. If you have the training. French pronunciation? I imagine it is very similar. If you've had the training, it is probably not all that hard. If you haven't though, it isn't exactly clear to a non-native speaker.
I don't doubt that somewhere, there is a Japanese person upset that North American's can't pronounce their names. But, I certainly haven't heard of anyone holding a public office voicing the complaint publicly. After all, even if they tried, most native Japanese speakers couldn't properly pronounce an English name. And while I can't be certain, I'd be willing to wager that the politician in question couldn't pronounce every Olympic athlete's name properly either.
To make matters worse... it is entirely possible that the person reading the names WASN'T EVEN AWARE it was a French name. The Athlete was Canadian after all. And while it is inaccurate, most foreigners consider Canada to be an English speaking country. Secondly, even if they knew it was a French name, there is no guarantee that they even thought that they were pronouncing it wrong.
The second set of controversies was this; A few weeks ago Trudeau "joked" about calling mankind "people kind". I put joke in quotes because I neither watched the incident nor could I likely say with certainty one way or another whether it was or wasn't a joke. The argument; we've taken political correctness too far. Fast forward a few weeks, and now many of the same news outlets are ripping into him for wearing traditional Indian dress clothing during a visit to India. Now, all of a sudden he isn't politically correct enough?
Like I said, it is all bias. If you're against Trudeau, you're much more likely to be offended by the "people kind" comment AND by the Indian garment. If you're pro Trudeau, you're much more likely to take joke in jest and see the clothing as something benign.
My thoughts on the matter. The "people kind" comment was cheesy. Probably tasteless. But, it does align with his image and platform. I'm not offended by it. But I also don't think it needed to be stated as such. However if you choose to be offended by a comment which is clearly aimed at being as inoffensive as possible, I feel like that is taking political correctness even further. In other words, being offended by political correctness is just as elitist, if not more so than what you're offended by.
On the Indian garb story? I don't know the whole story behind it. But, coming from a place of admitted ignorance, what I'll say is it seems largely like a publicity stunt. Otherwise I can't really explain the abundance of clear, well done pictures of this. And, if it was just a publicity stunt, I agree it was bad. If it cost tax payers (IE we paid for the clothes or the photos directly) then I'd be annoyed by it. But, I can also think of legitimate reasons.
When in Rome? If they were attending an event where that sort of dress was expected, it could be insensitive to NOT wear it. And sure, politicians and business people often get a pass, but that doesn't mean it is wrong. If they simply did so because they felt like it... again, as long as it wasn't at the tax payers expense, what is the big deal?
It is common and respectful to adopt the customs and practices of the culture you're visiting. If you're doing explicitly to barter favor, then it is denigrating. As a politician, if you're using public funding I'd consider that an abuse of your position. But anything beyond that is fair game.
Soooo, lets look at my personal responses... given a lack of information on both topics I'm assuming the "people-kind" comment was harmless. And it doesn't bother me regardless of whether it was a joke or not. My default stance on the clothes is that it was probably a publicity stunt, and thus tasteless and I disagree with it.
In both cases, I admit how much I do or don't know about the specifics (pretty much nothing in both cases). Given that I don't know much, I don't give a straight answer, but rather a series of rationale that would guide a better answer from me. And I do supply, for the sake of argument a baseline position. The baseline position aligns with my own values, not that or a particular group or movement. And the line of thinking I've provided should provide the framework (or the beginning of one at least) to help one predict how I might feel on future topics based on rational thought and not based on whether or not the actions are performed by a certain person or group.
As for what counts as being too politically correct? I don't know. As I said, it seems ridiculous to be offended by political correctness. I suspect we'll always find something new to be offended by. So, I believe that the struggle to remove political incorrectness is somewhat in vain. But, it seems more worthwhile to pursue that than the opposite. In other words, even if we can't ever hope to eliminate offense in the world, it doesn't mean that we can't reduce it.
I think there is a counter as well. People need to be understanding. Not everyone had the same life and the same upbringing. Often times people say offensive things without meaning any offense. Taking offense over every trivial word is just as bad as intentionally offending in my opinion. Every person and every circumstance is different.
It leads to that case where we're oddly able to agree with 100% of what another person says.
This article stems from a few different things. But, I want to focus on two new ones and how a new one is tied to an old one. The first new one is a Quebec politician complaining about the pronunciation of French-Canadian athlete names at the Olympics. The second is Trudeau's family wearing traditional Indian clothing contrasted with how people reacted to his "people-kind" comment.
Firstly, the pronunciation of the French-Canadian athlete names. Which is more offensive? Pronouncing them in an anglicized manner, or trying to pull off a bad French accent while pronouncing them? If you listen to the Quebec politician in question, she clearly favors the latter. Personally, I think that is more offensive of the two. But, that is subjective and my personal opinion. And that is the heart of this. To me, complaining about it is more offensive than either of the causes. The athletes themselves didn't care.
This story stick with me because my wife and I were watching various events and listening to the commentators pronounce Japanese names. Since we're both learning Japanese, it was kind of hilarious to note just how bad they got some of them. And I want to be clear. Japanese pronunciation is more or less a no-brainer. If you have the training. French pronunciation? I imagine it is very similar. If you've had the training, it is probably not all that hard. If you haven't though, it isn't exactly clear to a non-native speaker.
I don't doubt that somewhere, there is a Japanese person upset that North American's can't pronounce their names. But, I certainly haven't heard of anyone holding a public office voicing the complaint publicly. After all, even if they tried, most native Japanese speakers couldn't properly pronounce an English name. And while I can't be certain, I'd be willing to wager that the politician in question couldn't pronounce every Olympic athlete's name properly either.
To make matters worse... it is entirely possible that the person reading the names WASN'T EVEN AWARE it was a French name. The Athlete was Canadian after all. And while it is inaccurate, most foreigners consider Canada to be an English speaking country. Secondly, even if they knew it was a French name, there is no guarantee that they even thought that they were pronouncing it wrong.
The second set of controversies was this; A few weeks ago Trudeau "joked" about calling mankind "people kind". I put joke in quotes because I neither watched the incident nor could I likely say with certainty one way or another whether it was or wasn't a joke. The argument; we've taken political correctness too far. Fast forward a few weeks, and now many of the same news outlets are ripping into him for wearing traditional Indian dress clothing during a visit to India. Now, all of a sudden he isn't politically correct enough?
Like I said, it is all bias. If you're against Trudeau, you're much more likely to be offended by the "people kind" comment AND by the Indian garment. If you're pro Trudeau, you're much more likely to take joke in jest and see the clothing as something benign.
My thoughts on the matter. The "people kind" comment was cheesy. Probably tasteless. But, it does align with his image and platform. I'm not offended by it. But I also don't think it needed to be stated as such. However if you choose to be offended by a comment which is clearly aimed at being as inoffensive as possible, I feel like that is taking political correctness even further. In other words, being offended by political correctness is just as elitist, if not more so than what you're offended by.
On the Indian garb story? I don't know the whole story behind it. But, coming from a place of admitted ignorance, what I'll say is it seems largely like a publicity stunt. Otherwise I can't really explain the abundance of clear, well done pictures of this. And, if it was just a publicity stunt, I agree it was bad. If it cost tax payers (IE we paid for the clothes or the photos directly) then I'd be annoyed by it. But, I can also think of legitimate reasons.
When in Rome? If they were attending an event where that sort of dress was expected, it could be insensitive to NOT wear it. And sure, politicians and business people often get a pass, but that doesn't mean it is wrong. If they simply did so because they felt like it... again, as long as it wasn't at the tax payers expense, what is the big deal?
It is common and respectful to adopt the customs and practices of the culture you're visiting. If you're doing explicitly to barter favor, then it is denigrating. As a politician, if you're using public funding I'd consider that an abuse of your position. But anything beyond that is fair game.
Soooo, lets look at my personal responses... given a lack of information on both topics I'm assuming the "people-kind" comment was harmless. And it doesn't bother me regardless of whether it was a joke or not. My default stance on the clothes is that it was probably a publicity stunt, and thus tasteless and I disagree with it.
In both cases, I admit how much I do or don't know about the specifics (pretty much nothing in both cases). Given that I don't know much, I don't give a straight answer, but rather a series of rationale that would guide a better answer from me. And I do supply, for the sake of argument a baseline position. The baseline position aligns with my own values, not that or a particular group or movement. And the line of thinking I've provided should provide the framework (or the beginning of one at least) to help one predict how I might feel on future topics based on rational thought and not based on whether or not the actions are performed by a certain person or group.
As for what counts as being too politically correct? I don't know. As I said, it seems ridiculous to be offended by political correctness. I suspect we'll always find something new to be offended by. So, I believe that the struggle to remove political incorrectness is somewhat in vain. But, it seems more worthwhile to pursue that than the opposite. In other words, even if we can't ever hope to eliminate offense in the world, it doesn't mean that we can't reduce it.
I think there is a counter as well. People need to be understanding. Not everyone had the same life and the same upbringing. Often times people say offensive things without meaning any offense. Taking offense over every trivial word is just as bad as intentionally offending in my opinion. Every person and every circumstance is different.
Comments
Post a Comment