When is PC too PC?

[Alatar]

Ah, but Anthy, at what stage do you say "Come on, enoughs enough. There's nothing offensive here and you need to back down". Perfect example, the word Niggardly. It's not offensive and anyone who takes it that way is plain wrong. Should we pander to the ignorant also?

[Impenitent]

When I no longer understand what's being said because a term has been blanded beyond all reason = that's the line I draw in the sand.

[nerdanel]

OK, I have a question for you all regarding political correctness. My original opinion when I first heard this, two years ago, is that it was overly PC. However, I currently can see both sides, and I'm just not sure. What do you think?

Harvard University undergraduate upperclass students live in a system of twelve residential Houses. Each House is headed by a Master, who is a tenured, senior faculty member (professor or administrator) in charge of overseeing the social and practical well-being of the House, as well as handling significant administrative tasks.

More than two years ago, some African-American students registered strong objections to the term "Master" due to its independent, slavery-related connotations. See here for an example of one such student and her arguments.
'
I looked at the time, but I could find no evidence that Harvard's use of the word "Master" had slavery-related origins, and indeed, the African-American students made no such claim. The House system in its current form originated in the 1930s, decades after American slavery ended.

So, on one side we have: a University tradition with putatively neutral origins reaching back several decades. We have a term, Master, which is usually used neutrally, but perhaps not always (see example given by link, "Masters' Watermelon Liberation.") We have a word that means something positive (as much as any traditional aspect of one's school means something positive) to thousands upon thousands of Harvard students, of various races and generations, most of whom see nothing offensive in the term, including many African-American students.

On the other side, we have: an immensely loaded word, with undeniably heavy usage from the slavery era. We have a word which makes some African-American students think to a very painful time in their forebearers' history, every time they hear a would-be neutral phrase like, "Who's your Master?" or "What did your Master tell you to do?" around campus. We have a word that describes a mere ceremonial and/or administrative role (AFAIK - I was not a Harvard undergrad), a word that could easily be modulated slightly - for example, to "House Master," as the Crimson opinion piece I linked to said. "House Master" would retain all of the historical meaning of "Master" for future generations of Harvard undergrads, but apparently would make some African-American students feel more comfortable.

To change it even slightly - political correctness or well-reasoned sensitivity?

I honestly don't know.

Let's test Anthy's definition:

(1) Do you personally find the use of the word "Master" above offensive?

(2) If Harvard officially changed the word "Master" (to "House Master" or something even further removed) in response to complaints from African-American students, would you believe this was an instance of political correctness or appropriately shown sensitivity?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I absolutely think that it should be changed.

[anthriel]

'Elp! 'Elp! I'm being suppressed!



TP, in your example, I wouldn't have a problem at all with the compromise of calling the position "head master". Edit: Oops! That should be "house" master... Language changes all the time, and the word "master" is so rarely used anymore for positions of authority, that the lingering meaning of the word during slaving days has more of an impact than, perhaps, it once did.

Although I do wonder, in my cynical little heart, how much Hollywood has contributed to this word becoming "loaded". We do live in a Hollywood-influenced world, of course, and I accept that fact. Bugs me, though.

Alatar, you bring up a great point. I like the word "niggardly", actually, and until this conversation I would never have been concerned about using it at all. Unfortunately, now that I have had its homophonic association with a racist word pointed out to me, I would probably subconsiously choose a different word to use, from now on, when I would want to choose that one. But that's just me.

"Niggardly" is not a word I use too often, and replacing it with another word would not cost me that much. I think that the resistance to it is based on ignorance, that is true, and so the flinching of others upon its use would annoy me, to a certain extent. Part of me would be going .

But I still wouldn't use it.

(As an aside: I have been researching my little horse's ancestory, in order to chose a registered name for him. I noticed in 1920, there was a black horse registered as "Big racist-term", who is in Chester's bloodlines. Don't think that one would fly anymore...)


Whoops! The word filter caught the word in the horse's name, and changed it for me. Guess that REALLY points out how it wouldn't fly anymore...

But I must hasten to add here that there ARE things I feel are examples of people being too sensitive, and perhaps LOOKING for ways to find offense. I feel as you do, Alatar, on occasion.

(I actually had to draw something for this conversation, scan it, load it into my photoshop software, crop it, and use the paint function. Also photobucket. Do I get points for effort, here? )

Around the top of outward facing walls of the building housing one of our terminals at our local airport, there is a decorative stone frieze. It has been there since the 1950's, when the facility was built. Here is my rough sketch of the pattern:



About ten years ago, an African-American advocacy group objected to this pattern, and demanded that the city rebuild the walls, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. They felt the pattern was racist, and offensive to their community.



Don't get it? Neither did I.

Look at it again, and tell me what you see...





Still don't see it?



Here is what the advocacy group saw, when they looked at it, and found to be offensive...




Yes, they felt it was a hidden endorsement of the Ku Klux Klan.



They felt that since the a significant proportion of the airport's employees ARE African-American, the frieze was a way of subtly "harassing" them. Even when it was pointed out to the group that the frieze was built before the relatively high proportion of minorities was hired, the group stood their ground. In fairness to the minority employees, the freize should go.



THAT, I felt, was reaching for offense where none was meant.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, I agree. (But then, I always agree with Anthy.)

[Primula Baggins]

Who doesn't? Except when she needs to be suppressed.

[Whistler]

Well, TP! Of course you know that I find your example a glaring case of the dog-chasing-its-tail thinking that political correctness has become, and probably has always been.

In your example, no offense was intended. Nor could any reasonable person take offense, given the facts. No matter: Offense can be contrived, and that’s the key. The point is not to encourage sensitivity or diversity, but to twist the knife into whatever poor fool is judged to deserve it on the basis of past crimes, real or imagined.

Once such offense is accommodated, what happens next? More is contrived, of course. I’ll get the ball rolling by suggesting some further areas of offense in academia:

The term “master’s degree.” Also unrelated to slavery, but let’s be consistent.

The term “bachelor’s degree.” Grossly sexist, of course! Also rooted in the Judeo/Christian concept of marriage, with one man being “married” and another being a “bachelor” based upon whether the man has submitted to an archaic ceremony that is flatly rejected by all progressive thinkers.

The term “professor.” Its original meaning was “one who professes a faith in Christ.” If anything has to go, it’s this!

See? This game is easy, and everyone can play. But only certain people can win, and that’s the outrage.

[Sassafras]

What Whistler said.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

To a great extent, I also agree with Whistler. I just don't draw the line in quite the same place.

[Whistler]

Nor do I draw it where I used to. But I have long experienced, first-hand, the futility of seeking a comfortable middle ground with people of a certain mentality.

And now I simply to not seek it.

[vison]

"the general sat,
And the lines on the map
Moved from side to side......."

Not really exactly apropos, but close enough.

I guess my view is, I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

But I am fed up, too, with self-righteous smarmy gits who rampage through the world looking for offense. The frieze mentioned above is a classic example of stupidity on such a scale, of such an order, that there isn't much you can say about it but: to you!

A friend of mine grew up in Nottingham during the 40's and 50's. There was one black family in the neighbourhood, very unusual in the days before the massive influx of former colonials into England. One of the children was her especial friend and playmate and she called him "Midnight" and he called her "Sunshine", because of their respective colours. I guess nowadays she would be dragged into court and smacked around. Or they wouldn't be allowed to play together at all.......

[Alatar]

Personally I think tp's case study is a perfect example of PC gone mad. I would strongly object to changing the term "Master". It's meaning far predates slavery.

Another case study that someone (I think SF) brought up. A new movie is being made of "The Dambusters" story. In real life, Guy Gibsons black labrador was named "N*gger". We consistently complain about historical accuracy in movies. Should the dog be renamed to cater to modern sensibilities? Is it a true portrait of the 40's if it does not show that casual racism that was part of life in England in the 40's?

[vison]

Your point is well taken, Alatar, but for the sake of peace in the family I daresay the dog might be called Blackie? Sable? Ebony? Soten? The name of a dog isn't that important, one way or the other, as far as I can see. Race relations in England of the 1940's ISN'T the issue in the story, after all.

Neville Shute wrote "In the Wet", one of his more interesting books. One of the main characters was nicknamed "N*gger", and he was an entirely sympathetic character but the issue of race WAS involved, but you'd have to read the book to see what I mean. It's hardly Great Literature, so maybe not worth much trouble. And for the life of me I don't know why I put that asterisk in there. See?

As for the word "Master". Well, ya know what? It's still a creepy word to me, too. A friend of mine once hired a maid from the Phillipines. This woman asked my friend what she and her husband wanted to be called. My friend said, "Call us Bob and Margaret, what else?" The maid had recently worked for another couple in Vancouver where she was required to call the man "Master" and no, I'm not making this up and it happened in about 2000 A. D.

What's with "master bedroom"? I hate that term. I'm not a descendant of slaves, either. At least not North American slaves, although ancestors of mine were sent down mines with iron collars around their necks to keep them from running away. My husband and I sleep in "the back bedroom" since it's the biggest and away from the road. It is also "the main bedroom". In our house we don't say "master bedroom", there is no master in our house.

"Master" is an old word, true enough. And in the university context it has carried that specific meaning for centuries. It had the meaning of "boss" or "expert" when one spoke of apprentices. But it also carried the meaning of "owner of slaves" for centuries. What, in the end, does it matter? Another, equally suitable, word will no doubt be found.

English is a constantly changing language. Words come and words go. Usage changes. People use expressions that make my teeth ache: they "graduate school" instead of "graduate from school" and that one alone is almost guaranteed to make me go on a ten minute rant. They "flaunt" the law when what they are really "flaunting" is their utter ignorance of the word "flout" which is the word they should use in the first place.

However. That's another story.

[Frelga]

Ah, but Anthy, at what stage do you say "Come on, enoughs enough. There's nothing offensive here and you need to back down".

Are you saying that the offender should decide what is or isn't offensive to another person?

Personally, I see no harm in exercising my sarcasm at the expense of RPG addicts, but I suspect you would not appreciate it if I did, and appreciate it even less if I told you to back off and lighten up.

In case of the word Master, I can see why descendants of slaves would cringe at having to refer to someone else as Master.

Niggardly was never a very common word, and while the homophonic coincidence is unfortunate it is also undeniable. Besides, I don't like adverbs. People who use adverbs should not lecture anybody else on their style, and anyone who takes offense at that should lighten up.

Now the case Anthriel quoted, where some group objected to the Russian letter "ZHE" on the building, would clearly be over the line for me. Although I feel it's more about reaching for money than reaching for offense.

Certainly, there are some individual and groups who paint themselves as representatives of the "oppressed", be that of a racial minority or religious majority, in sole order of reaping personal benefits or promoting their own agenda. But that's not a PC issue per se, IMO.

Anthy, your story reminded me about a white woman I used to work with, who spotted a K on the Snapple label and was about to write a scathing letter to the company for their support of KKK. However, once I explained to her that K simply means that the company claims the lemonade is kosher, without going to the trouble of getting a certification, she desisted and did not pursue the matter of "subtle harassment".

[Impenitent]

With regard to Tolkienpurist's Harvard story and the title Master: this is so very specifically an American sensitivity that to me it sounds like nonsense.

The title Master in academic circles goes back far in history and it exasperates me that the only connotation that bears weight is the negative one associated the one aspect of the American experience.

Would (some) African American students feel similarly oppressed at coming into contact with that title when studying abroad? And if so - should Oxford and Cambridge also change their academic titles?

It seems to me that some perfectly legitimate words are being squeezed out of existence because at some period of their history they have brushed with a negative connotation. How about an alternative to avoidance and extinction: Why not reclaim those words in all their richness and history? Eventually this positive use will overwhelm the negative use and no one will feel oppressed by them.

Another example: in Australia, indigenous peoples are variously called blacks, aborigines, kooris as well as indigenous people (depending on the political correctness stand of the speaker). All these terms are considered matter-of-fact and inoffensive in Australia by most people, including Australian indigenous people. A small minority across the board are offended by one or some or all of these names. So when the term 'black' is avoided by Americans as being perjorative, it confuses me. I know and understand why n*gger is offensive (when used by whites or people in power, but apparently it's quite okay in some social groups used by one African-American to another?) but as a purely descriptive term negro is also offensive? And white is offensive? Caucasian is offensive? Persons of Middle Eastern appearance?

It also baffles me somewhat that African-American is the currently acceptable term when many of the people being so described are many generations removed from Africa. My mother is Greek, but I'd consider it very odd if I was described as a Greek-Australian. Same with Chinese-Australian, or Indian-Australian or whatever other ethnic combination. I'm not trying to be provocative, just stating here that for a non-American (ie, the rest of this big world) some of this is like walking through quicksand. I just don't understand the nuances and sensitivities and political proclivities involved.

I admit I have a rebellious impulse in me that causes me to flagrantly ignore some of these sensitivities. For example, unlike Anthy, I will use the word niggardly at any time I feel it is the right and appropriate choice; I will not fish around for an alternative word just in case someone chooses to make a homophonic association (thanks Anthy! perfect terminology! ).

It annoys, irritates and saddens me that word usage is played with in this way (as illustrated perfectly by Whistler). Sometimes, when I'm feeling mellow, I let it slip past me when a person plays this game, seeking the most offensive definition and root, but mostly it pushes the button on my forehead labelled "defiance".

[anthriel]

I've always thought that "African-American" will die out from pure clumsiness. Plus, as Imp points out, it is rather limiting... if a person who had never been American were to visit here, and happened to be of a darker skin color, certainly our current "correct" term wouldn't apply.

I still will refer to someone as "black"; again, until I read this thread (and another, somewhere, on one of the boards) I didn't know that that particular term was losing favor. My dad still uses the word "colored". My grandmother said "nigras". I am certain that none of us uses, or used, such words in hate.

However, I will try to choose the word that the group itself most feels comfortable with. I mean no offense, and hope to give none, on a day-to-day basis.

vison, you have to put the asterisk in the word "n*gger". I tried to type in the word itself, in my story of the 1920's-era racehorse's name, and it was filtered out.


Impy, I'm not sure that "homophonic" is actually a word. I sort of made it up. But I liked it, it fit exactly what I was trying to say, and it does function as an adjective, dodging, thankfully, that adverb issue that Frelga has .

It does start with "homo", though. I worried about that, a bit.


Frelga, I had no idea that was a Russian letter! And that building was created in the 1950's, no less. It's amazing that McCarthy missed out on an opportunity to rip down that frieze. Pinko building.

[Jnyusa]

Hmm ... regarding tp's example ... considering the position I've taken on a similar issue in the past, which I'll relate in a moment, I guess I would say that every reasonable attempt should be made to understand and accomodate what another person or group of persons feels when they hear a particular word spoken.

If I were a black student at Harvard and were continuously asked, "What did your Master say? What did your Master tell you to do?" I believe I would find it unbearable.

Yes, it is a uniquely American association for this word, but Harvard is in America. It would not be any great trouble, I think, to change the title to House Master in recognition of the fact that the original word simply does not have the intended connation for the current student body.

The other example I thought of while reading this was the debate in Israel some years ago ... some decades ago actually ... whether the Israeli Symphony should perform the music of Wagner. There was at that time a small population of Death Camp survivors still alive. They were never a large percentage of the population because so few people survived the Death Camps, and by now most of them have passed away, but at that time those who lived in Israel found the music of Wagner repulsive and were offended that in their country of refuge this music that had accompanied the 'selection' and death of their family and friends would be performed by the national orchestra.

The counter-argument was that Wagner was the greatest musician who had ever lived and to deny the musicians of the national orchestra the opportunity to ever play his music was asking too much. The national debate was intense, and the musicians had their way.

I disagreed with this decision. I thought that there should be a moratorium on Wagner's music until a suitable amount of time had passed so that most of those who found it intolerable had died. Ten years? Twenty years? I did not think that too much to ask. Musicians have explained to me that Wagner is the be-all, end-all for a professional musician and there would be no top-flight musicians at all willing to play in the Israeli Symphony if Wagner was never to be performed. But I felt that in this case it would be preferable to have an inferior symphony and an empathetic country. No one could really appreciate the effect of Wagner's music on those people who had to hear it daily in the Death Camps. Israel should be the one place where they would never have to hear it again.

It did not seem to me that this was a question of minority versus majority rights, which is how the debate was cast in the newspapers. The connotation for the minority was so awful that it outweighed every other consideration. In my thinking, at least.

I believe the same would be true of the situation at Harvard. For that particular population, no matter how small, the connotation is sufficiently awful that they should not be subjected to it.

Whisterl: But I have long experienced, first-hand, the futility of seeking a comfortable middle ground with people of a certain mentality.

Whistler, I agree with you that this mentality exists and that leftists are no stranger to it. I am thoroughly disenchanted with the underlying philosophies of most who share my superficial political opinions. But I don't think that there is much we can do about this sort of wrongheadedness. It is a symptom of the impotent seeking power that they are too undisciplined to manage well. Those who are willing to address the substance of issues and decide each case on its own merits should continue to do so, disregarding the blather from both the right and the left.

Jn

[Primula Baggins]

Well, as long as we're being correct and everything, my editorial impulse forces me to point out that "niggardly" is an adjective, not an adverb.

However, hatred of adverbs can certainly be applied with equal reasonableness to adjectives.

I would not hesitate to use "niggardly" if that was the word that fit. The objection to it was a single incident and the reason was plain wrong. "Master" is a different matter; I can't tell someone how they should feel about a word that did indeed have a bad meaning at one time. But "niggardly" never did mean anything offensive, and ceasing to use it in case someone with a small vocabulary mistakes it for a bad word is just one too many hoops for me.

[vison]

Very excellent post, jnyusa. Well said.