Skip to content

Too PC or Not Too PC

May 4, 2010

Groups like the Klu Klux Klan and Al Qaeda promote racial and religious superiority and righteousness.  In Eugene Oregon, the Pacifica Forum has been rooted in recent controversy by using a public forum to denounce the existence of the Holocaust.  These types of extremist groups want to demean and belittle people who differ from themselves simply because they exhibit physical and cultural differences.  These types of groups are transparently racist.

If you read the definition of racism on dictionary.com, you’ll notice that each of the previously mentioned groups has little trouble fitting into the ‘racist’ mold.  However, there is another definition of racism that is creeping into our current cultural conscience.  People like Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh, and Spike Lee are being clumped together with radical extremists.  It’s hard to deny that these individuals have previously used race in controversial ways, but I doubt any of them would align their ideologies along side that of your average klan member or religious fanatic.  If you use the definition provided in the link above, I think it’s fair to classify people like Spike and Rush as agitators, not racists.  If we broaden the definition of racism to fit the musings of Mr. Imus, then the word begins to lose its condemnatory power.

Sometimes our culture has a tendency to assume racism even though it lacks evidence to back up such a bold claim.  During a recent class discussion on the topic of race, my classmates brought an issue that is closely associated with the tea party.  Many believe that racism is the motivating factor behind the idea that our current President isn’t actually a citizen of the United States.  I can empathize with the notion that this type of politically charged accusation is misguided or unfounded, BUT I think it’s unfair to assume that it’s blatantly racist.  Sour grapes over losing the Presidential election seems like a more reasonable and logically founded explanation as to why such an idea exits.

Tolerance HAS to be a two way street.  We owe it to ourselves to listen to opposing viewpoints, no matter how obnoxious and annoying the speaker of those ideas might be.  Listening is the best way to understand the psychology of people we disagree with.  By dismissing thought-provoking opinion under the guise of stereotype and controversy, you could be ignoring partial truth (I mean, white people really DO like coffee right?).  Thoughts and ideas can’t be discarded because they lack the prerequisite political correctness.  Rush Limbaugh may well be a big fat idiot.  But millions of Americans listen to what he has to say and I think it’s important to understand why.

One Comment leave one →
  1. drew rothenberger permalink
    May 15, 2010 6:57 pm

    I’m wondering where the Westboro Baptist Church fits into you scheme of things. I think they would have to be put in the category of instigators, but where does the line get drawn. Freedom of speech is probably the loudest founding principal, but at what point is it simply problematic? Is dancing on the graves of those who died so you could have the opportunity to dance, curse, spit, and sing praises of their death acceptable and “owed to ourselves to listen to their point of view”? Since laws around the country are being passed to limit this groups ability to speak about whatever they feel like whenever they feel like it, I’m thinking the state has decided to draw a line in the sand. There have been necessary forms and requests for public protests for some time now, but these guys are getting laws passed just because of what they do.
    I think that there should be more consequences than rewards for those who try to make a life out of trying to piss people off. Monetary rewards and national attention seem to miss that mark to me.

Leave a comment