As far as I can see, it’s simply a term designed to ease the uncomfortable edge of social change. Most people fear change to some degree and laughing at things seems to be a popular way to deal with matters that we're unsure about.
But why should people be so resistant to such changes? Probably for two main reasons:
1) Nobody likes being told what to do or think, particularly by the government, and especially if it suggests that our own thinking could do with improving, and
2) Most people don’t like change, especially if somebody else is driving the pace of it. Mostly we prefer the comfortable ‘old ways’ even if they are a bit tatty and smelly on close inspection.
I was born in the first half of last century, and the Western world was very different then, compared to today. Every social attitude that has changed since then was to some degree laughed at, resisted, and subjected to some form of “Politically Correct” label. Here are a few examples:
Race:
People of other races and colours were routinely referred to by the most deliberately insulting of names. In Australia, the indigenous people were also denied common rights of land ownership, voting, etc. When Australia was settled (or invaded, depending on your perspective) it had been declared legally “Terra Nullius” i.e uninhabited. The very existence of Aborigines as human beings was denied.
Although many of their legal rights have subsequently been restored (some quite recently) the effects of this attitude flow right up to the modern day. And I’m sure that we all know of many similar stories, in South Africa and elsewhere. There has been a strong push in Australia over the past decade to go a little further than just grudgingly and belatedly restoring basic rights to Aborigines. Aboriginal leaders, and many white supporters, have lobbied for an official apology – to just say “Sorry” for the undeniable abuses of the past. The government has flatly refused to endorse such an apology, and the request for an official “Sorry” has been derided in many quarters as being over the top “Political Correctness”.
Being "Politically Correct" about other races seems like basic humanity to me.
Sexuality:
When I was young, same sex relationships were illegal. You could be jailed for being homosexual, as indeed you still can be in many parts of the world.
When the laws were changed there were howls of derision from the "anti-Political Correctness" brigade. A common joke at the time (which most of us cheerfully laughed at) was "I’m going to leave the country before the buggers make it compulsory…"
We have some friends who have been together as a couple for as long as my wife and I have (nearly a quarter of a century). The idea of sneering at them, or legislating against them because they're lesbians seems quite bizarre to me. Am I just being "Politically Correct"?
Children:
When I was grew up, beating children was the prevailing form of punishment and discipline enforcement – both in schools and in the home. Suggesting that this should be stopped was widely seen as madly "Politically Correct". In fact many people still think that way.
I don't think that beating children is a good idea - am I just being "Politically Correct"?
Gender:
When the official push to stop treating women as second class citizens gathered momentum, the same anti-change attitudes were wheeled out. This went into overdrive when governments attempted to bring in language changes. We all chuckled away at cracks about “Personhole covers” for “manhole covers” etc. and angry letters were written about the change from “Chairman” to “chairperson”. But now my wife has a senior position in a government department and is frequently the chairperson of meetings. To us at least, the term has become familiar, has stopped seeming slightly odd, and now seems perfectly reasonable.
We all like to snigger, and reassure ourselves with jokes about “Land Rights for Black Lesbian Whales – Now!!” but sooner or later we get used to the changes. Of course there’s always some local council who tries to bring in something that’s just a bit too over the top for the times (or else someone invents such a regulation and we all gleefully believe that someone has just ruled that 10% of council members must be single parent blind lesbian muslim amputees with a speech impediment. But on the whole the direction does seem to me to be positive.
And if you bunch of poofter, woggy, girly retards disagree with me then I’m just going to have to give you all a damn good flogging with me cat-o-nine-tails. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ohh.gif" alt="" />
