Several years ago, I came across a famous novel written by an English writer, George Orwell. Four months ago, I studied it thoroughly in class. Same surprise, same feeling, and, same question. What if, just what if, our country is like Oceania? Oceania is a fictional country created by George Orwell in 1984; it is a place where Big Brother is in control, it is where "Newspeak" is about to replace "Oldspeak" which means everyone will have to get rid of their current language because it is too politically incorrect and Big Brother doesn't appreciate it. To eliminate the citizens’ undesirable behaviors, Big Brother formed the Thought Police to arrest people that do not follow their laws.
So what is the boundary of political correctness? Is it about tolerance? Or is it just a prevention of law suit? Over years, we have changed the words we use in order to suit others' tastes better. Well, some for good, and some, in my view, for worse. I often hear people say, “Oh you can’t say that! That will offend people!” Honestly, what is the point of saying that anyways? Words are not the main target that everyone needs to focus on when it comes to offending people, but attitudes. If my mind is set on making you mad, whatever I say will have the affect, even though they are words from the “political correctness” dictionary. Political correctness has taken too far, farther than it was supposed to be. It was meant to change the words people use to describe certain ethnicities. Well, say, I would not want you to call me Ching Chong, but Chinese-American.
Now, so what has happened to our society? Take former (unfortunately!) Miss California Carrie Prejean as an example. During 2009 Miss USA Pageant Contest, she was asked whether she believed every state in the U.S. should legalize same-sex marriage, and she said, “…I do believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.” Very soon, the media attacked Ms. Prejean for her honest answer because it was too politically incorrect. My question is, why in the world does she deserve to be publically criticized if that’s what she truly believes? Is political correctness trying to change people’s thoughts? Frankly, the last thing I want to see in the Land of the Free is media or even general public being Thought Police.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I totally agree with what you are saying about Ms. Prejean having her "right to free speech" taking away from her in a way. We always want to preach free speech, equality, and togetherness, unless it's something against your beliefs is where people get mad. It seems if someone feels they are attacked for something they believe in, they act out. Ms. Prejean was not wrong for saying what she said. She grew up believing marriage should be between a man and a woman. It wasn't like she was verbally attacking a gay person or the gay community. She wasn't physically hurting a homosexual either.
ReplyDeleteI do believe, in a way, political correctness is trying to change people's thoughts. On that note, I believe that political is correctness is sometimes forced because the media, government, etc have to have equality between each type of lifestyle. With the Miss America pageant, in my mindset, the committee must think of funding and how this will effect their business. Think about it, the main audience that watches these pageants are women and the gay committee. The pageant committee was maybe forced into taking Ms. Prejean's crown away from her in fear that women and gay's will stop watching the contests. If they stop watching, that's lower ratings. Lower ratings mean less money. Less money means not enough funding to run these shows, which can lead to cancelling the shows.
In conclusion, I would definitely use women and the gay committee as your target audience. They are the ones who watch it, those are the ones you need to persuade. Maybe talk about the freedom of speech topic and persuade them that way. If your audience doesn't agree, at least you stood up for what you believe in and that's what's important.
Alex Edwards
Edwardslal102@blogspot.com
I was really drawn in by this topic, and i agree with you completely. I really liked the part when you were discussing when people said you cant say that. I know this is something we have all heard multiple times in our lives. something you may be able to incorporate is the idea of all the men and women who died through out our history so that we have this right today and it shouldn't be infringed by a group of people who are too high strung. What you say is your personal opinion they can chose to agree with your ideas or not. Something else you may want to stress is that you need to stand up for what you believe in no matter what the public beliefs are, don't join the band wagon.
ReplyDeleteI think the intent of a word and contextual usage is more relevant to how one should react than it's history. For instance if I'm a foreignor and I'm simply trying to understand the meaning of a word which is considered vulgar, I'm obviously not attempting to start a conflict. In my opinion word usage that is garrish or meant to provoke should be ostracised. In the case of Ms. Prejean she wasn't picking a fight, but maintaining her integrity and telling the truth. However I understand the committee's right to exclude her, and she did miss those events.
ReplyDelete