I think to the extent that PC is what it claims to be - just an attempt to be polite - that it's fine. My problem is that it is - in reality - so much more than what it claims to be. It goes beyond, "I believe that my language causes harm and I will attempt to use other words in other ways," to "I think *YOUR* language causes harm and *YOU* should change it! Failure to do so marks you as homophobic or racist at worst and insensitive at best."

It seems clear to me that many who are anti-pc have misanalyzed the problem and have generically claimed that every idea with which they disagree is somehow pc. But this mistaken analysis doesn't mean that pc is non-existent or that it is entirely innocuous. And I have to say that it is very irritating to me that anti-PCers are always doing this precisely because it does detract from the real flaws (as I perceive them).

Method of PC:
PC as it is practiced is an attempt to associate people with beliefs they do not hold, ideas they have not expressed, and actions they have not performed. The crux is that ignorance is considered the ultimate evil in our society and naivete the ultimate display of mental and moral weakness. If I can show that you don't know some little bit of information, then you, of course, are not so well-informed and are therefore ignorant. What you say is therefore perpetuating ignorance. Since I know more than you (you are obviously ignorant), I am *right* and you are *WRONG* and everything you say can be safely ignored. If I am right (and just), then anything I say is justified and anything you say is not.

The irony of this situation is that PC is a left-wing embodiment of many qualities its adherents claim to despise on the right. (Yes, imo, the right has their own version of PC with all of the essential components.)

Aside:
True story. My wife always talks about "orinentals." "Orinental" this and "orinental" that. I would not presume to correct her on this point, but I did finally say to her, "Honey, I'm not being critical and I'm not asking you to change your speech, but did you know that many people say that applying the word 'oriental' to people is racist or at least insensitive." (A slight diversion to explain the meaning of those terms.) She immediately responds "Who say dat? Dat stupid!" In fact, I know many, many asians and they all but one use the term 'oriental' to describe people. The one fellow, however, who does not is rabidly opposed to this usage. Extremely vocal about it. (OTOH, I know another fellow is equally insistent that he be refered to as an oriental and nothing else. This game is called "Kobayashi Maru.") I think that in the main the guys who are offended by this are the ones who were told that they ought to be offended.

Similar kinda thing with the the terms "African American" vs "black." I know lots of blacks who refer to simply "blacks" or "black americans" or "black women" and then 10 minutes later will make a big show of refering to "African Americans" if it involves correcting the use by someone who is white. "Blacks" is a convenient shortening that blacks themselves use.

My least favorite of these shibboleths is "people of color" to refer to non-whites - as if white were not a color. This is an attempt to define a group of people without reference to the group to which they are defined. "See, we need to think of ourselves in our own right and not as how we are related to that 'other group'." This is an archetype of linguistic dishonestly.

My intent:
I guess my main purpose is the rehabilitation of honest ignorance, and the elimination of the pretense that one is 'merely being polite' or 'merely educating' by correcting the diction and grammar of other people (usually done in the most condescending and nasty way imaginable since it's not 'really' about 'educating' people as they call it, but about scoring points).

I suppose after all of this it is unnecessary for me to state my ignorant and insensitive opinion on the changing of works of art. I don't have a problem with an artist changing his own works for whatever reason she wants to do it. I do not think it is good or wise or even particularly 'sensitive' to go back and scrub the classics so they conform to modern sensibilities. Mark Twain is fine the way he is written. At the very least, those who recast his works should be honest enough to say that their own 'version' is a derivation of the original work. While they're at it, they need to go look up those paintings of little boys by Picasso in the National Gallery and paint some clothes on them. Pederastic bastard shouldn't have done that in the first place and we need to ensure an environment where "our" children feel safe, to boot.

k