The history of political correctness

This is an interesting video, quite old and quite long, but interesting nonetheless. In a nutshell, the premise is that political correctness is something which was developed by the left at time long before most of us were born, with the intent of destroying or destabilizing Western culture and capitalism.

For any who wish to comment on the content of the video, I'll only ask that you watch the entire thing, rather than blurting something out. I'm actually hoping that there are PF members knowledgeable enough to intelligently comment on the content, as it's quite in depth an scholarly beyond common knowledge.

Enjoy.

[video=youtube;EjaBpVzOohs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EjaBpVzOohs[/video]

 

Very informative video.

Political correctness started as "cultural terrorism" designed to destroy Western civilization. I wonder if the libertarians and conservatives on these boards who exhibit high amounts of political correctness are aware that they are carrying out the left's Marxist wishes? I also wonder if the leftists who carry out this agenda are aware of any of this history?

I didn't know Horowitz was a 60's Marxist.

 

There is, of course, some truth to the claims that there were marxists on the left among those struggling to move society away from the old oppressive ideas of enforced social conformation and towards a state where people were actually free not just to say what they liked but to choose to live their lives according to their own ideals and ideas, not just those that were accepted as socially 'normal' and 'acceptable' by the prevailing opinion among the masses. There is also, of course, some truth to the claims that certain elements within that campaign for genuine freedom of conscience tried to go too far in their reaction, and developed an 'anti-everything' stance (and the same is true of any 'movement' - there are always the 'radicals' who want to take things too far).

However, what we see in that particular video also has a strong propagandist element in the way in which it seeks to ignore all other pro-freedom and pro-liberation influences (such as the liberalism of the founding fathers of the USA, for example!), and paint all forms of social tolerance and 'political correctness' (a troublesome and emotive term now, which is probably best avoided altogether these days!) as purely 'marxism' in an attempt to discredit all of its basic ideals in the mind of those with a McCarthyists-influenced fear of 'the enemy within' and 'those evil reds'.

There is an element of a shared agenda between fundemental, radical (often religiously influenced) conservatism and fundemental, radical (sometimes specifically anti-religiously influenced) marxism, in as much as, from completely different angles, both seek to impose their social ideals and agendas on everyone else in society. That's exactly why the more radical elements in both movements should be treated with suspicion. Social tolerance, or tolerance for people who choose other lifestyles and life choices (as long as they don't prevent people from making their own choices), is not something to be feared - it is part of the essential human freedoms of conscience, thought and expression which are such an integral part of the formation of the USA and its constitution (and similar ideas and documents that exist in most modern democracies). Alongside that runs the basic idea that 'all men are born equal', and should therefore have equal opportunity to succeed according to their own talents and efforts, without being held back by the intolerance and discrimination of others - there's nothing 'marxist' about that idea at all (in fact quite the opposite, since genuine marxism really hinges on the idea that people shouldn't be free to succeed by their own efforts, but should be recieving the same reward irrespective of their efforts).

The term 'political correctness' is, as I have pointed out, a troublesome one, because it has become tainted and misunderstood from the worst excesses of the radical 'anti-everything' movements and the worst reactions to those by the 'preservation of the old order'-ites. However, the response to that shouldn't be an ever increasing spiral of reaction and counter-reaction into pitched battles, accusations of nasty 'isms' as soon as someone expresses an opinion, and the development or real nasty 'isms' by those simply reacting against that. Society should really now be able to move on from McCarthyist fear-mongering about a marxist threat that no longer exists (if it ever really did in any serious way), and suggestions that social tolerance of any kind means a breakdown in the fabric of society that must be resisted, and also from notions that we need to destroy everything 'old fashioned' as being somehow 'wrong'. Sadly it seems that for some this isn't possible.

When 'political correctness' gained strength, there was a real need for change - there was a need for society to move on beyond the idea of straight, white (Christian) men being 'the master race' and inherently superior to everyone else, and ideas of keeping anyone else (anyone 'inferior' - gay people, women, people of different colour or religion, and so on) down, separate, poor and/or ignorant to stop them from threatening that 'master race'. Of course, some took the ideas of necessary change too far, and some others resisted change too much, but the simple fact was that that old order was unrealstic and unsustainable (and ultimately the reaction to it could have ended up being alot worse than it was!). Now, thankfully, there is a somewhat more general recognition that people should be taken on their own personal, individual merits (irrespective of background) and allowed the opportunity to succeed accordingly, and be allowed to live their lives in the way that they choose as long as it doesn't stop anyone else from living their lives. That idea is not yet entirely universal, of course, but really the state soceity is now at should allow people to move on somewhat from the arguments of 50 years ago and focus more on the relevant issues that still need to be dealt with.

That applies equally to both 'sides', of course, and the continued campains of radicalism and resistance on both sides are not only now unnecessary, but counter-productive to society as a whole. It isn't social tolerance which should be feared, but it is those dogmatic camaigns of radicalism on both sides, and the social intolerance that both end up preaching one way or another, and the bitter ongoing pitched battles between, them that are now the greatest threat to the future of western society.

 

My ex-wife joined a cult. Her life changed drastically. The cult demanded that she wear strange, in this day, clothing. The cult demanded that she follow bizzare food restrictions. The cult, naturally, controlled every aspect of her behavior. But, most interesting, they altered her speech. She was no longer allowed to say, "Saturday." No, Staurday was Sabbath and saying Saturday was not respectful of the Sabbath. When you control the insignificant details you control the whole.

 

No time right now, but I'll watch later.

 

No offense but I find this premise to be retarded. The Left wants to enforce political correctness because of every other policy that The Left has: they want to enforce "kindness/niceness". For instance, robin hood policies and their hatred for greed and hatred of warfare/aggressive militarism.

I do not agree with the whole "robin hood policy" thing or necessarily even hatred for greed, but this is how I've observed things. The Left wants to forcefully impose their personal idea of "niceness" whereas The Right wants to forcefully impose their personal idea of "survival/success of the strongest/fittest". They both tend to be moronic IMO.

 

Did you even watch the video like the OP requested? He specifically stated that he wanted intelligent, well-informed responses, and I can't help but feel that your response did not match up to that standard.

PC has nothing to do with "enforcing niceness". It was started as a deliberate campaign to undermine and destroy Western society and capitalism. It's been very successful.

 

lol. Only because he didn't say what you wanted him to say.

 

Nice propaganda video, up there with "liberals are fascists" in its wacky historical revisionism. Especially funny was the kook claim that "Critical Theory" led to Women's Studies, environmentalism and sexual liberation. Suuuuuuure. That's right, those issues are entirely based on Marxism. You see, people only boinked -- often in a gay fashion -- because marxist policy ordered them too.

Now, the left did invent PC, but then the right grabbed it, perfected it, and became the masters of it. Examine how the parties work today.

You don't see the Democrats setting any topics as off-limits. Most of the Democrats in my state (Indiana) espouse many conservatives principles. No one on the left is screaming hatred at them, calling them DINOs, or trying to exile them from the party. A Democrat can come out against gay marriage or abortion or the stimulus, and suffer nothing for it.

Now, compare that to the Republicans. Even discussion is not permitted. You accept the entire Party line, or TheParty purges you.

Only the right has set certain topics as entirely off-limits. And the right is now the party that says words mean what they want them to mean, instead of what the accepted definitions are. Just look at how most of the right here has their own special definition for "socialism."

 

Even Jon Huntsman called out the GOP recently for being "like communist China," because he said something outside the party narrative and they blacklisted him for it.

 

The video's a little wrong on WWI. Yes, the bolshevik revoultion only occured in Russia. But here's the problem. Stikers in Germany helped stop the war. In fact after WWI, Great Britian and France were so worried that Germany would become communist, they supported Poland in stopping the USSR. In Great Britian and partially France, women were happy about getting jobs, but rationing did take its part, not enough though for a revoultion. In France, they also employed foreign workers from their colonies, with the promise of indepdence. Austria Hungrary, was just held together by the military. All the ethnic groups, they just wanted to be free.

 

What undermines capitalism is manipulation of free markets so that they become markets operating in favour of certain interests, whether that maniulation comes from direct government interference or from corporate interests, monopolies and cartels.

What undermines Western society and freedom of the individual is enforced authoritarian conformation, whether the enforcement comes from governments or from groups or sections of society seeking to impose their ideals on everybody else, and seeking to declare themselves as 'superior' because they live their lives a certain way (declaring people who have different views to be 'inferior' creatures who should not enjoy the same rights and opportunities as the 'superior' kind of person).

Those who seek to take society to a point where opportunity and freedom only fully exists for a certain kind of person, or for people who are born into already advantageous situations, are as guilty of undermining the fundemental principles of Western society (and the specific stated principles upon which the USA was founded) as those who would seek to create a governmentally managed society where everyone is forced to act according to government orders and gain only the same reward for whatever merits and efforts they exhibit.

That is ALL men, not just those of a certain skin colour, or religion, or sexuality, or opinion about how they should live their own lives. Unfortunately, of course, being 'created equal' does not mean being born into situations of equal opportunity to persue and enjoy their 'unalienable rights', so to refuse to recognise and attempt to address those social inequalities (or worse - to seek to discriminate against certain groups for not conforming to another groups ideals) is effectively to attempt to rob those people who are disadvantaged by birth of their 'unalienable rights', every bit as much as it would be to remove those rights from a population (or part of it) by government dictat. Government dictatorships, enforced social conformation and perpetual inequality of opportunity (both through corporate manipulation of markets and through failure to address social inequality) would equally undermine and destroy both Western society and capitalism.

If so-called 'political correctness' is something being used to seek to address social inequalities, ensure respect and tolerance for all members of society, and create greater equality of opportunity for every member of society, that is a very, very good thing, and specifically a very good thing for upholding the stated ideals of Western soceity and capitalism. If, however, it is being used as a vehicle to attempt to impose a different kind of conformation and uniformity through authoritarian government and government control of society and economy, that would obviously be a very, very bad thing. While there may certainly have been (and may even still be) some who sought to manipulate the ideas 'political correctness' for the latter cause, that certainly shouldn't be confused with those who simply seek to follow the principles of Western society and capitalism and create a situation in society where those 'unalienable rights' can genuinely and freely be enjoyed by everyone in society, with an atmosphere of toleration and respect for all. The latter case is what Western society and capitalism are supposed to be all about.

 

What if white men are the superiors of our domain? What if you loose forward motion in achievement by restricting the natural progression of Darwin's law? Why must the least inventive seek their position? Why must woman have to prove her strength is equal to that of the average male soldier and policeman? Does this help society in the long run? Or does it make a few feel good at the expense of the many?

 

So..we're going to revert to communism because of laws that outlaw public demonizing of race etc.? Is that what you're claining? If not, it looks a lot like that's what you're claiming.

I don't agree with PC-ness in most cases except for when it comes to public defamation/embarassment of individuals (except public figures who know put themselves in that position), but the right wing generally claims that a massive armageddon is gonna happen because of leftist ideology, or that leftist ideology necessarily equates to wanting the Soviet Union to occur again, despite the fact that I see no "leftists" claining that they'd like to live in the Soviet Union or China. It's partisan hackery.

I am more central on the left-right scale btw, not leftist because I know the damgae that much of the public sector is doing to the economy, plus I don't agree with people littering the gene pool with their offspring with impunity via excessive welfarism. But, both the left and right do nothing but spew idiotic conspiracy theories like in the OP and what you're saying, to try and clain that only their "side" is moral and the other "side" is evil.

Really, the main point here is that I doubt most self-identified "left wingers"/"liberals" on this site want to enforce PC laws in order to "destroy Western civilization", that's a ridiculous moronic conspiracy theory which is every bit as absurd as the idea that right wingers/conservatives want the rich to monopolize everything and then force the poor and middle class to fight in gladiator arenas, or else starve to death.

 

What if people are free to succeed (or fail) according to their own merits and efforts on the basis of equal opportunity for everyone in society, with nobody being socially disadvantaged before they've even started? That's much more Darwinian in principle, and much more likely to produce a continued progression and 'forward motion' than holding people back on the basis that perhaps their parents didn't manage to succeed, or that their skin is the wrong colour,or that they are the wrong gender, or that they have feelings towards the wrong gender, or that they worship the wrong god (or the right god but in the wrong way), or that they just don't 'fit' socially somehow.

That's always the flaw with intolerance ideologies and bigotry - the justification is based upon a fundemental fallacy to start off with because they assume 'superiority' of one kind of person on the basis that they were the ones who managed to disadvantage others in the past to the point that those others were unable to compete with them on anything like a level playing field (and in some cases still are). That's the kind of idiocy that not only threatens Western society and capitalism with its own perpetual supremicist distortions and manipulations, but also through encouraging the kind of negative over-reaction that encourages other equally intolerant thinking by its more radicalised opponents who then seek to not just encourage toleration, equal opportunity and equal freedom for everyone in society, but to destroy and disrupt Western society and capitalism to manipulate it directly in the opposite direction any way they can, and as far as they possibly can, to the exclusion of everyone but their own particular group or people who share their particular agenda.

Why shouldn't everyone equally have to prove their 'strength' and will to do well for themselves equally, and in fair, free and open competition with everyone else, regardless of what particular 'group' they happen to belong to or be born into? That is what will help society best in the long run, since that is the only way that all of those with the greatest potential to help mankind along will rise to the top, even though for some the idea that they are not somehow just inherently 'superior' to everyone else simply by virtue of membership of their own particular group clearly isn't something that makes them feel very good (and neither is the idea that they might actually have to compete in the marketplace with on a level playing field with others who, in their minds, shouldn't be there because they are 'inferior' and have no rights to be competing with the 'superior' beings).

Intolerance breeds manipulations and distortions of the capitalist system by assuming that some aren't worthy of having free and equal opportunity to succeed on a level playing field, and according to their own individual merits and efforts. That's the kind of distortion that directly threatens capitalism, Western society and individual liberty for the population, every bit as much as government authoritarianism does.

 

I suspect that Ronald Reagan, either knowingly or unknowingly, helped propagate the the spread of cultural Marxism.

Reagan secretly allowed Marxist doctrine to spread into the public schools.
source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezTIYd5UFRY (skip to 0:26:30 on the video, or go directly to 0:34:00 to hear about Reagan)

Charlotte Thompson Iserbyt served as the head of policy at the Department of Education during the first administration of Ronald Reagan. She was fired for revealing the cultural Marxism taking hold.

 

That statement doesn't ring true for me.
PC is the property of the Left, they're proud to have it, and they CAN have it.

You have to pervert the meaning of it to be able to believe that the Right has any kind of respect for political correctness, and thank goodness.

 

You use the word 'moral'. To use a word and be logical, we must have a definition for it. Please tell me what your definition of 'moral' is. The definition you had in mind when you wrote the above sentence.

 

I agree. Now if we can just get rid of Christianity's child-raping priests and get them to stop forcing the rest of us to worship their 2000 year old Jewish zombie and a book full of desert nomad fap-paper, we'll be set.

 

"For the first time Americans today are not free to say what they think."

Wrong from go.

 

I think it was started by conservatives who didn't like their racism being pionted out when they called blacks "(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s".

 

Not to put words in the mouth of the previous poster, but I think the full sentence:

is fairly self-explanitory. Each 'side' attempts to paint themselves as 'moral' (or 'good') and discredit the other 'side' as 'evil' (or 'immoral'). It's a fairly straightforward observation about how radical partisan politics operates (on both 'sides') - the precise definition of 'moral' in that context obviously depends on which side is speaking!

 

Who is "enforcing political correctness?" I wasn't aware we'd had any laws regarding political correctness since the 50s, when the HUAC and McCarthyism were going crazy.

 

I wonder if these are the same leftists at the ACLU the most prominent legal defenders of politically incorrect speech. Must be some kind of criss cross. Hit western society, and capitalism from both ways.

 

I have a little twist, if I may. The piece lays the target of Cultural Marxism as religion first. Rid a nation of it's belief system and you can inject Marxism or communism in it's place. However, I believe the actual target would have been the family. The typical American 'nuclear' and extended family has been under assault since the early 1950's and to this day it is being assailed on all sides. Gay marriage, ease of divorce, welfare and food stamps as father surrogates..etc.

After all, if you can't turn to your family to assistance...where can can you turn? Why, the government, of course.

An oversimplification I suppose, but apt in my mind.