POLITICALLY CORRECT?

I begin the first posting with the issue of Political Correctness in order to frame the approach I am going take in my "rational inquiry", a.k.a. my challenge, of various issues, ideas, and beliefs discussed in this blog. My challenge of these ideas is in effect a challenge of tradition, stagnation, institutionalized error, and ultimately our society as it stands. I challenge because I am an American, I am a MAN, I am free, and I am proud (Incidentally, I see no difference among those designations of myself). I challenge the world.

Political Correctness is a social phenomena embodied in language and policies meant to acquiesce to the sensitivities of “others”…be it with regard to race, culture, sexual orientation, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah…with the express goal of being intolerant of intolerance or seeking not to offend.

I won’t discuss the alleged origins or the philosophy behind the phenomenon, but instead take a look at common examples and provide a rational critique of these.

My critique is simply to view the examples in the context of “literal” and “normative” definitions of the concepts upon which they rest. First, by “normative” I mean that definition which is expected based on traditional or accepted usage in social context or the commonly used subjective definition. By “literal” I mean simply that definition which would be understood in the strictest sense of the concept represented by the term in question; the objective definition.

As a consequence of my stand, that of a challenger, I will be challenging the normative understandings of many ideas while taking the side of the literal. All are welcome to voice opinions and make comments, but take note; to challenge me you must be able to discredit the literal definitions of concepts as I present them thereby challenging my objectivity, such as it is.

Let’s proceed:

The most common examples of PC usage are in reference to descent –based racial/national classifications such as African-American, Asian-American, or Native-American instead of color-based descriptions of individuals or groups like Black, Yellow, or Red.

What’s interesting in these examples is 1) the attempt to disassociate the classifications with racism and avoid incurring the wrath of the sensibilities of those who may be offended and 2) how the first point is undermined by the political incorrectness of the classifications themselves. To wit; African-of or pertaining to Africa and American-of or pertaining to America, denote two classifications. With respect to people, these classifications would further denote national origin. National origin can be applied as a classification to any person regardless of race, i.e. a “White” person born in Africa is African or a Black person born in China is Chinese.

Let’s take African American in the normative and literal definitions. Normative: African-American means any American citizen who is of African descent. It is in this normative definition I find concern: if American citizens of African descent are African-Americans, what are Africans who become American citizens? African-Ameri-oh wait, that’s taken…what about American-Africans? No such concept of African nationals who become American citizens exists in a normative sense.

In the literal sense, African-American would describe someone of African national origin who is an American citizen. That means that said individual would have at one point had African citizenry, in an African nation, and then subsequently obtained citizenship in America. Note that this is not the same as the normative of being of African descent and being an American citizen. The difference here is one of national origin, not descent. One should ask, then, what are American citizens (citizens whose national origin is in America) of African descent? There is a concept in the literal sense to describe these people: American.

As such the literal sense of the concept of PC is more PC than the normative sense or the sense in which PC now exists as a social phenomenon. An American is someone who is a citizen of America. So if a person was born in America they are American. Remember that I stated that National Classification can be applied to a person regardless of race? Exactly…it would seem more politically correct to refer to Blacks born in America as Americans and Africans who gain American citizenship as African Americans. This same logic would go for everyone else…however…

Native-Americans are a particularly curious example for me…Those peoples who exist as Native-Americans today were born here with ancestry spanning centuries and on the whole pre-dating the arrival of Amerigo Vespucci and the founding of America. So they are pre-American, but “native” to this land (excluding previous mass migrations right now for the sake of argument, of course).

In the normative sense, they are native to America, thus Native-American. But if these people, on the whole in a historical context, predate America, they should not be regarded as American in any sense, normative or literal. This is absurd, of course, as the same line of thought could be applied to many racial populations whose existence and/or arrival on this land predate America. Thus, I state this absurdity only to make the point that PC classifications of people are, again, for National classifications.

In the literal sense, Native-American would mean any person born in America, the concept being that they are…American. But you say; "Wait, in that sense, anyone born in America would be American..." to which I reply; "exactly…" which brings me to why PC is not PC or is a misnomer and thus is a term that is Politically Incorrect as a framework for racial/national classification.

The Failure of PCness in racial/national classifications is that it attempted to avoid the sensitivity of race, to ignore the very issue that produced it, by making it an exclusive and primary component of its formulation and expression in order to identify race in the context of nationality; rather than allowing race to be included as a secondary identification separate from nationality. This would lead a Black person who is a citizen of America to be called American in terms of nationality and of african descent in terms of race. In other words, in the identification of persons, race and nationality should not be tied together as they are separate ways to describe someone in separate contexts. Race and nationality are different categorizations of an individual or group, just as race and culture are different (to be disussed further in my blog piece Ethnicity, Race, and Culture). As implied earlier one does not presuppose the other in the literal sense, only in the normative.

However, a problem also exist with the normative condition in which racial descent is understood. Specifically, racial descent is understood as a derivative of national origin. The problem is that there is no fundamental link between race and nationality; more precisely, there is no causal link between the two. If there were such a link than all Blacks would be born in Africa (yes, extreme, I know) or (and this is less extreme) everyone of a particular race would have an intrinsic affinity with nations of racial descent i.e. My family is from Russia or Haiti or Laos; I was born in America, but I (normatively) identify as Russian or Haitian or Laotian, despite never having been to those countries as opposed to identifying as American, which I (literally) am. There are people who indeed feel like this, but that does not negate the fact that by being born in America they are American. The affinity felt for the identification with their families' national origin is one that is learned (as all things are) and not one that exists as a biological connection to the land or a specific region of the earth. Note that affinity for any identification, even that of one's own national origin is learned and only reflects the individual's feeling regarding qualifications associated with that identification, not the identification itself*. If an intrinsic affinity did exist then everyone would feel identity with their nation of racial descent regardless of place of birth. This does not happen and for a reason; there are no nations of racial descent. White people do not descend from one particular and specific nation, neither do Blacks or anyone else**.

Ultimately, the racial/national classification code of PCness seems to be misaligned. As stated earlier, it would seem more “PC” to call citizens of America simply Americans, especially in the light of policies that admonish us about discriminating with regard to race, among other classifications. Again this is not to say that race should be ignored and certainly not to make it an exclusive element as part of policy, but quite the opposite-to address the issue in an inclusive manner where it is enveloped within the framework of policy. I should note that this is also the major sticking point with Affirmative Action (not to be discussed here).

Finally, another example that has stirred controversy is the Happy Holidays vs Merry Christmas battle. What the hell is Happy Holidays?

I understand the “war on Christmas” mentality that seeks to address the increasingly diversifying religious background of western nations that typically hold Christian majority populations and make bank off all the associated commercial hoopla. I even agree with the movement to remove displays of Christmas oriented material from government/public spaces as such displays are unconstitutional (albeit in an abstract sense) and I view upholding the American constitution of prime importance. However, I also feel the need for those specific holidays celebrated by people to be recognized as such. So, for those who celebrate them I have one thing to say…Merry Christmas! Happy Hanukah, Happy Kwanzaa, and enjoy Ramadan.

So to end this with my own judgment of PC. It is not PC. PCness is an invalid concept, including the political implications of the use of the term as a policy or tool of the rightwing conservatives or leftwing liberals or the everyday use of the term which is non-existent in my view.

A Stupid Idea.

*This is an expression of the fundamental axiom of existence known as the Law of Identity, in that identification itself is expressed as an irreducible primary of existence in all senses. As an irreducible primary identity in any sense cannot be defined in terms other than itself, it can only be referred to in relation to its particular qualities. This means that you can't define identity without using the concept of identification or existence, because identity defines existence and existence, in turn, is necessarily defined by identification. You know that something exist once you have identified it; and you know that you can identify something that exists. However, when you refer to something that exists referring to its existence is redundant, so one necessarily refers to its qualities and/or associated experience. Emotional valuation of an identity can only be expressed in terms of the qualities or experiences associated with the identity not the identity itself. For example, the black experience in America often includes facing racism from whites; however, facing racism from whites does not define being black. What defines being black? The only way to define it is by being black (identity as irreducible primary of existence). If you asked a black person they would either reference qualities or experiences associated with being black, but not actually being black. With regards to racial identification one cannot feel a certain way, white or black; one can only feel a certain way toward one's qualities and experiences as an individual in the context of race.

**While human beings all originate from one part of the earth, racial features can only loosely be tied to region or climate in evolutionary theory, making "race" (a concept without a substantive biological basis on the genotypical level) a matter of conditional or situational settings over time. This hardly establishes a causal relationship between environment in a specific sense and phenotypical expressions of genotypes in a general sense; which is not to say that this does not happen, just that it does not happen necessarily and that when it does happen it is over extended periods of time in a broad sense. Effectively, evolutionary theory is predicated on the concept that environment in general influences life in particular over time.