DOES POLITICAL CORRECTNESS NEED TO END IN HORROR AS IN PARIS TODAY?

DOES POLITICAL CORRECTNESS NEED TO END IN HORROR AS IN PARIS TODAY?

Political Correctness is nothing more than an attempt to muzzle the free speech of people with views different from those of the LiberalProgressiveDemocrats (LPDs). Verboten to LPDs -- even explicitly through "speech codes" forbidden in many college campuses in the U. S. -- are so-called trigger warning words: "Coarse" content, "insensitive" words or concepts that “trigger” traumatic or "anxious" thoughts of discrimination, or other “violations” including "dishonoring" feminism, gender identity, sexual orientation or activity (including the word "rape"), class, race, religion or national origin or other concerns. Are the American people and especially college students so frail of mind that they would be damaged by hearing...words?  My parents drummed into me: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." (IT OVERWHELMS ME THAT, ON ONE HAND, WOMEN ARE POWERFUL, INDEPENDENT AND AS GOOD AS MEN.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY ARE TOo WEAK TO READ or heAR THE WORDs "VIOLATE" or "rape" SINCE they MIGHT CAUSE DISTRESS. DISTRESS, DISCOMFORT, STRESS, HURT FEELINGS, DISRESPECT, AND ON AND ON ARE EMOTIONS TOO POWERFUL FOR WOMEN TO BE ABLE TO cope with AND SO EVERY WORD THAT MIGHT "TRIGGER" SUCH AN OPPRESSIVE EMOTION NEEDS TO BE BANNED FROM THE VOCABULARY OF EVERY AMERICAN.)

How is political correctness different from the desire of Muslims to suppress free discussion of Islam or even mentioning the word "Muhammad?" Is the difference the violence of a certain relatively few extremists? I would argue that the killers in Paris January 7, 2015, were insane, however it is defined. It seems probable that they were driven by Muslim ideology as interpreted by the likes of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boco Haram,Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and other like-minded and -acting murderous fanatics.

How are the Kouachi Brothers and Hamid Mourad, the Paris killers, different from Ismaaiyl Brinsley, the killer of the two policemen in New York?  He was also surely insane, yet probably driven by
ideology, in this case Progressive ideology, and was explicitly energized by violent demonstrators including the Trayvon Martin Organizing Committee (TMOC) "Dead Cops Chant" -- "What do we want? Dead Cops. When  do we want it? Now!" Unfortunately, these activities were inadvertantly yet implicitly encouraged -- by not being roundly denounced -- by New York mayor del Blasio (his most recent name), Al Sharpton, U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama. But is "I can't breathe" political correctness? Is Islamic radicalism of the very few similar to political correctness of the Progressives? Think about it.

How can it all end?  Human beings rarely give up power voluntarily.  Both Muslim crazies and Progressive Americans have significant and growing power.  Although Republicans won control of both Houses of Congress in the November 2014 election, that didn't seem to diminish the thirst for power of Progressives.  Check President Obama's threats of the veto pen and executive orders. ISIS and Boco Haram continue making military gains and enslaving and demanding ideological compliance with Islam and Shariah Law of their captured peoples. Or they are beheaded. Similar ideological compliance with Progressive dogma is demanded by Progressives but, of course, in America the consequences of failing to do so are not so severe.  Except sometimes. Check the "Dead Cops Chant."

#Je Suis Charlie

"Time to update schools' reading lists"
By John Foley, guest columnist, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, January 6, 2009, Page A 9

"Last updated January 5, 2009 3:35 p.m. PT

Guest Columnist: Time to update schools' reading lists
By JOHN FOLEY
GUEST COLUMNIST

The time has arrived to update the literature we use in high school classrooms. Barack Obama is president-elect of the United States, and novels that use the "N-word" repeatedly need to go.

To a certain extent, this saddens me, because I love "To Kill a Mockingbird," "Of Mice and Men" and "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn." All are American classics, and my students read them as part of approved sophomore and junior units, as do millions of students across the nation.

They all must go.

I hope they go to private and public libraries and remain in high school classrooms. I would keep copies in my own classroom and encourage students to read them. But they don't belong on the curriculum. Not anymore. Those books are old, and we're ready for new.

Even if Huck Finn didn't contain the N-word and demeaning stereotypes, it would remain a tough sell to students accustomed to fast-paced everything. The novel meanders along slower than the Mississippi River and uses a Southern dialect every bit as challenging as Shakespeare's Old English.

Explaining that Twain wasn't a racist -- or at least didn't hate African-Americans (he had a well-documented prejudice against Native Americans) -- is a daunting challenge. I explain that Jim, a black man, is the hero of the book. I tell them Huck eventually sees the error of his ways, apologizes to Jim and commits himself to helping him escape slavery. Yes, I tell them, he does all this while continuing to refer to Jim by the demeaning word, but Twain was merely being realistic.

Many students just hear the N-word. This is particularly true, of course, of African-American students. I have not taught Huck Finn in a predominantly black classroom, and I think it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to do so effectively. With few exceptions, all the black students in my classes over the years have appeared very uncomfortable when I've discussed these matters at the beginning of the unit. And I never want to rationalize Huck Finn to an angry African-American mom again as long as I breathe.

John Steinbeck's "Mice" and Harper Lee's "Mockingbird" don't belong on the curriculum, either. Atticus Finch, the heroic attorney in Lee's novel, tells his daughter not to use the N-word because it's "common." That might've been an enlightened attitude for a Southerner during the Great Depression, but is hopelessly dated now.

What books should replace these classics? The easiest call is for "Mockingbird." David Guterson's fine "Snow Falling on Cedars" has similar themes and many parallels, and since the novel is set in the San Juan Islands, it would hold more interest for Washington students than the Alabama setting of Lee's novel.

I think a good substitute for "Mice" would be Tim O'Brien's Vietnam novel "Going After Cacciato." Like George and Lennie in Steinbeck's novel, Cacciato dreams of peace and a better world. And the Vietnam War is a more recent -- and arguably more painful -- era in American history than the Depression, and one of more interest to teens.

"Huck Finn" is the toughest book to replace; it's so utterly original. The best choice, in my view, would be Larry McMurtry's "Lonesome Dove." Like Huck, "Dove" involves an epic journey of discovery and loss and addresses an important social issue -- the terrible treatment of women in the Old West. That issue does not rank as high as slavery on our national list of shame, but it definitely makes the list.

Some might call this apostasy; I call it common sense. Obama's victory signals that Americans are ready for change. Let's follow his lead and make a change that removes the N-word from the high school curriculum.

John Foley of Vancouver is an English teacher at Ridgefield High School in southern Washington.

My response:

While I respect Mr. Foley's suggestions, I submit that he is dead wrong. First, to replace true literature of the past with something that's new, fast-paced and perhaps trendy is equivalent to not teaching history because it's old-fashioned. Additionally, the problem always becomes who will choose what to replace and with what? Who chooses the chooser? Time and widespread acceptance have proven the value of Huck Finn, Mockingbird and "Of Mice and Men", not the dictate of a single person or entity. But the most disturbing part of Mr. Foley's guest column is that to pretend "The N-Word" doesn't exist or to command that it not be used is to give it a cachet of darkness, which only breeds desire. In our time of change transparency is the watchword. More than banish such words, thoughts and feelings develop a course on Stereotypes and Epithets, and study them. Show students through education that people who use such words are simply ignorant of the world about them. Let such a class be a boarding gate into the acquisition of knowledge. I believe that if that word and others weren't elevated to such importance that, when they were used, the user would be looked down as ridiculous, then they wouldn't even be thought of. And, finally, Mr. Foley, you state that some students "appeared very uncomfortable" in discussing such "matters". Isn't it the job of a teacher to confront such uncomfortableness with education? In fact to celebrate such emotion, explain it and diminish it by discussion, not by making believe it doesn't occur. No, book banning should not be a part of any curriculum, but education about free speech should be.

Theodore M. Wight
2201 Third Avenue
Seattle WA 98121
(206) 956-111