Correct to a Fault

I understand - and wholly agree - that we should not discriminate against anyone (unless they deserve it personally). I understand, too, that certain words or phrases are have discriminatory connotations even if they are not intended. There are words that simply should not be used.

But let's be reasonable, people! Let's draw a line somewhere! At this very moment, there are millions of people out there who think that anyone with a certain skin colour should be called "African American," whether or not they're American, and whether or not they're of African descent! (Of my three closest _____ friends, none are American, and only one is of anything that could be called African descent.) Where's the logic in this? Evidently, there are words that will cause offense. But what's wrong with the word "black"? How is that racist? Not only does it do away with a lot of guesswork and pussyfooting, but it also serves as a handy description. Okay, so it's not 100% accurate: I know that everyone has their own particular skin colour. It's a simplification, that gets rid of ambiguity. I call myself "white," but I'm certainly not albino. It seems that "political correctness" means that not only do we need to assume that everyone has the same potential regardless of race, colour, creed, etc. (which I wholeheartedly agree with) but we also have to try to draw attention away from the fact that such superficial differences exist.

If you find the term "black" racist, it's probably because you're bringing connotations of your own to the word. The same goes for a lot of the taboos imposed by our ultra-sensitive, getting-offended-on-someone-else's-behalf society.

To give anyone reading this a bit of background on where I'm coming from, I used to be the most politically correct person you could find. If you asked me to describe someone, I'd start with hair colour, length, glasses, etc. - but I would stay away from skin colour or race, because that constituted treading dangerous waters. But I've learned that I was just being very, very silly. Maybe it's the engineer in me talking, but doesn't it make sense to be practical about all of this? Can't we simply see things for what they are, and call them as such?

Okay, here's another one. This was initially going to be the entire subject of this rant, but I decided to make it a bit more of a general protest against blind, thoughtless political rectitude. He or she. All too often, when someone talks about an unknown person (the user of software, or an unknown criminal, etc.), you find "he or she," "him or her," or "s/he" littered throughout the document. Not only is it ugly to read, painful to try to read out loud, but if people still learned their grammar, they would realize that it's completely unnecessary.

Stealing a bit from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: 1he 
Pronunciation: 'hE, E
Function: pronoun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hE; akin to Old English
hEo she, hit it, Old High German hE he, Latin cis, citra on this side,
Greek ekeinos that person
Date: before 12th century
1 : that male one who is neither speaker nor hearer <he is my father> --
compare HIM, HIS, IT, SHE, THEY
2 -- used in a generic sense or when the sex of the person is unspecified
<he that hath ears to hear, let him hear -- Matthew 11:15 (Authorized
Version)> <one should do the best he can>

(Boldface added to the second definition for the sake of emphasis)

Suddenly those rantings of the Politically Enlightened who complain about the oppression of women through their exclusion in (yadda yadda yadda...) seem more like confessions of ignorance.

I know, I know... I'm more of a stickler for grammar than most people. But it seems very foolish to assume that we're dealing with issues now that had gone completely unnoticed and untreated for centuries. People had thought of how to refer to an unknown person. And the solution they created was much simpler and more elegant than what we propose today.

So what?, I hear some of you scream. I want to see the word "she" there, otherwise you're still putting down women, making them subservient to men because of this patriarchically motivated, oppressive rule of grammar. Once more, I would argue that you bring to this the meaning that you attach. If you see discrimination here, it's not because of the rule itself, but rather because you're reading into it that which you wish to see. Using the male form as the catch-all is certainly not uncommon. In all of the Romance languages, for instance, adjectives (which take the gender and number of the nouns to which they apply) being applied to both males and females take the male form. Yes, it's arbitrary. And Yes, it's probably because of the male-dominated culture of the time that it was the male, rather than female, form. But if you're going to nitpick about this, you'd better start creating new languages. After all, so many of the female forms are based on the male ones, with letters added on or endings changed. (In French, you add "e" most of the time; in Spanish, "a." In any case, you're taking the male form and modifying it.)

Why do we have grammar? I would argue that we have a structured, formal grammar in any language in order to enable us to communicate with a minimum of ambiguity and confusion. True, language shapes thought. But there are limits, when it is no longer language directing thought and it becomes a case of reading between lines where no message exists.

But of course, such is at the heart of political rectitude. We are now always on the lookout for things that might conceivably insult someone. And as soon as we have a suspicion that someone might conceivably take offence to a word, or phrase, or joke, it becomes bad. Never mind that the person we're trying to "protect" can probably take care of himself. Never mind that there's often a good chance that he has a thicker skin, or a better sense of humour, than the champion of Political Rectitude.

If people want to get offended on their own behalf, then let them. I know that what I write here would probably annoy and offend some people if they read it. (Then again, I highly doubt that any of those people would read this.) I have a proposal to make. If you, gentle reader, disagree with, or offended by what I write, then please take the time to email me with a cogent argument as to why you feel I'm wrong. I'll gladly take the time to answer, whether it be to convince you, or to acknowledge that I had overlooked something. In the mean time, I remain firmly convinced that we're all being much too sensitive on someone else's behalf.