Political Correctness

---

---

"Now the objections center on the language of another time, the context of another era, because the values of today are uncomfortable with the values of yesterday. Well, that isn't enough for me."

Birth of a Notion
Jan. 7, 2011

---

Sometimes I get really frustrated with political correctness.

I mean, I understand the objective — which is to, ultimately, rid the culture and the language of things that are offensive to demographic groups that have faced discrimination in the past (and some continue to face it in the present) — and I applaud those efforts.

Those efforts are sincere and well–meaning, if misguided at times.

One such misguided effort was addressed today in a column by Bill McClellan of the St. Louis Post–Dispatch.

I don't read the Post–Dispatch regularly, but I have read it on the occasions when I have been in the St. Louis area, and I have always been impressed with the quality of its writing.

(Of course, as someone who has not only worked for newspapers but also studied their history in pursuit of my bachelor's and master's degrees, I am also influenced, I suppose, by the knowledge that the paper was founded by Joseph Pulitzer, who established the prestigious Pulitzer Prizes for exceptional journalism.)

It's been awhile since I've been in St. Louis, though, and I have heard that some things have changed. My friends who still live in the area tell me that, in addition to being printed on smaller pages, the newspaper relies much more on advertising and wire copy than it did.

But, in spite of all that, the writers at the Post–Dispatch still practice good, solid journalism, as far as I can see, and a good example of that is McClellan's column.

Apparently, he wrote a column last weekend about American military involvement in Libya. Originally, he had compared American military activity to a "tar baby" and was informed by an editor that the term was considered racist. The editor recommended changing the comparison to "swamp," presumably to prevent the message from being lost in a debate over semantics.

McClellan acknowledged that he understood why his editor felt the change was necessary, and he was glad that his point could be preserved without being lost in a distracting — and, frankly, irrelevant — argument.

Nevertheless, McClellan wrote, "I found the whole thing unsettling and sad."

I understood immediately what he meant. It's the same thing I wrote about earlier this year.

I've always been a writer, and I am against the needless, unjustified intrusion of 21st century sensibilities on 19th century writings (and, in my opinion, it is always unjustified).

McClellan's column ought to be read in full, but still I feel compelled to quote him — because he makes his point so well.

The Tar Baby story, as McClellan observes, "was an African–American folktale, part of a series of such tales collected by Joel Chandler Harris and published in 1881. And when I say African–American, I mean the original African–Americans, the slaves. "

Those slaves, he continues, were storytellers. "Their slavemasters kept them illiterate, so they developed an oral tradition." And there was wisdom in those stories.

McClellan speculates that those slaves would be pleased to know that we still tell their stories.

"Except we don't," he writes. "We're censoring them now, and we're doing so on behalf of the descendants of the storytellers."

McClellan asserts — correctly — that there is nothing racist about the term "tar baby," that it is a much better, much more accurate analogy for what is happening in Libya than "swamp" is.

"It describes a matter in which you thoughtlessly but intentionally involve yourself and from which you cannot extricate yourself," McClellan writes. "There is nothing quite like the term. You can wander into a swamp, or stumble into quicksand, but you don't do so willfully."

There's nothing even remotely racist about it.

The Declining Population

---

"Nearly 10% population growth is slow only in relation to that of Burundi, the African country with the world's lowest per capita gross domestic product. Our population growth rate is comparable to Mexico's, Brazil's and Indonesia's."

Froma Harrop

---

This morning, I have been reading with considerable interest Froma Harrop's column about America's "slow–growing population" for Creators Syndicate.

USA Today reports that, in the decade that has passed since Y2K, the U.S. population has risen 9.7%, Harrop writes. "For Americans concerned with a loss of open space and thickening congestion," she writes, "a 10% growth rate should seem darn high."

Now, they've been talking about a population explosion since I was a child. As I have said before, I am not a mathematician, but it seems to me that Harrop touches on something important there. I mean, to understand what the new population figures mean, isn't necessary to have some old figures to put the new ones in perspective?

As it turns out, USA Today did provide some numbers for the purposes of comparison, but those numbers don't suggest that the population is declining. It is still growing, just not as fast.

Here in Texas, for example, the population grew by more than 20% in the last 10 years. That seems like a high figure — and it is. As a result of that population growth, the Lone Star State will gain four House seats in 2012 (consequently, its representation in the Electoral College for the 2012, 2016 and 2020 presidential elections will go up by four as well).

But that growth rate is actually lower than it was in the 1990s, when Texas' population went up by more than 23%.

Clearly, though, the population of Texas is growing faster than most others — the rate of the increase has not been as great as it was, but it's still pretty impressive by most people's standards — and CBS News' Political Hotsheet observes that is bad news for Barack Obama and the Democrats.

Much of the population growth — and the resulting shifts of 12 House seats from one state to another — appears to be in states Obama didn't win two years ago.

"The new map will put a little more emphasis on southern battlegrounds like Florida at the expense of older battlegrounds like Ohio and Pennsylvania," write Anthony Salvanto and Mark Gersh for CBS News.

There may be more emphasis on Texas, too. Years ago, it overtook New York as the second–largest state. But, unless something radical happens in the next 18 months, I wouldn't expect Texas to be too competitive in 2012. Republican nominees have won Texas in every presidential election for the last 30 years.

That's clearly a concern for those for whom the presidential campaign never ends. I used to mean political activists, pollsters and campaign coordinators when I said things like that. Now, unfortunately, I mean just about everyone.

Well, that's not my primary concern in December 2010 — although Harrop does touch on one of my concerns.

"[G]reater political clout is something any state would welcome, and there's lots of room in Texas," she writes.

"But anyone who drives on Dallas' North Central Expressway at 4 p.m. on a workday knows the meaning of 'crowded.' The Lone Star State's big growth has been in the urban corridors, where there's no shortage of company."

So be warned, if you're planning a trip here for the Super Bowl in February.

At the moment, though, my immediate concern is for a friend of mine, who is purchasing a medical company.

This friend has been out of work for awhile. His wife works for a birthing center, and her employer is retiring. They're buying the business.

My friend tells me his wife has a lot of experience in this field. In her career, he says, she has participated in the delivery of more than 1,500 children.

It seems to me that that is the kind of experience an expectant mother would want to have on her side when her child is about to be born.

And, judging from the Census figures, there won't be a baby shortage around here any time soon.

So the prospects for my friend's acquisition seem pretty bright — even if the U.S. population is not growing as rapidly as it was.

Blow by Blow

Charles Blow writes an interesting column in today's New York Times about the anger of the far right that has been visible for all to see in the aftermath of the passage of the health care reform legislation.

"Whose country is it?" the headline on his column asks, and Blow proceeds to make the case that, in the words of the old Bob Dylan song, the times they are a–changing. And they can't be stopped.

Blow sees this as the general ranting of extremists against the perceived takeover of America by the non–white, non–male, non–straight, non–Christian, non–European elements of the population, resulting in the loss of control of their country.

"It's an extension of a now–familiar theme," Blow writes, "some version of 'take our country back.' "

But they can't have it, Blow says. "The problem is that the country romanticized by the far right hasn't existed for some time, and its ability to deny that fact grows more dim every day. President Obama and what he represents has jolted extremists into the present and forced them to confront the future. And it scares them."

Blow may be right when he refers indirectly to the inevitability of what is happening — the black man in the Oval Office, the woman wielding the gavel in the House, the Jew and the gay man who were the "most visible and vocal proponents" of health care reform.

And change — any change, really, but especially change on that scale — is unsettling. Blow is right when he observes that it frightens many on the right.

When people are frightened, they can be defensive. They can be irrational. They are seldom logical.

But Blow makes the mistake that many on the left make. He tries to apply logic to the situation.

Those on the right are outnumbered, Blow implies. Their numbers are dwindling. He concedes the possibility that the Republican Party may enjoy "a short–term benefit" from not taking a stand against "the radical language, rabid bigotry and rising violence" while profiting politically from expressing concern about legitimate issues of taxation and government's role, "but it's a long–term loser."

It's probably admirable that Blow thinks of things in the long term. But if the right wing really is as concerned about the societal shifts as he suggests — and, to be sure, some of the members of that faction are primarily concerned about that — I doubt that they have analyzed the long–term implications. Blow writes about the wave of the future, but those about whom he writes are thinking about the past and the present. Blow might find them shortsighted and intractable. But, to use the familiar movie line, what we've got here is a failure to communicate. The two sides might as well be speaking languages the other does not understand.

What is really called for, it seems to me, is an understanding of the fear that is at the bottom of all this rage; then, appropriate steps can be taken. We've all been scared at one time or another, right? Think about the last time something really terrified you. Were you inclined to analyze the long–term implications? You may have felt a profound sense of loss or you may have been angry about the fact that something dear to you was being taken from you. You may have said and/or done things that you later regretted, things you wouldn't necessarily have said and/or done if you had allowed a cooler head to prevail. But I would be willing to bet that you never gave any thought to the long–term consequences.

Most people — but not all — feel inclined to lash out at those whom they believe (rightly or wrongly) to be their tormentors when they get backed into a corner. And extremists can be dangerous enough when they act spontaneously. We've all heard about the threats against House Democrats who supported health care reform, threats that don't appear to be coordinated or necessarily planned out. And Blow observes that gun sales have escalated since Obama took office. The ingredients for a tragedy are in place.

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss what extremists might be capable of — especially if they take the time to think about their actions. Don't forget what Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma City.

I grew up in the South, where I learned early that right–wing extremism tends to go hand in hand with a belief that there is a mandate from God to do whatever may be deemed necessary to preserve the way of life that has always been. The fact that a majority of Americans accept abortion rights, for example, did not prevent an anti–abortion activist from killing an abortion provider in church last year. He was not deterred by the fact that the numbers were against him. I suspect that, if anyone asked him, he would say they merely needed to be shown the light.

Granted, that wasn't in a state that is considered part of the Deep South, but hatred isn't confined to one region. And Blow doesn't specify the South in his column — although it is the region that has produced most of the conservative lawmakers in Congress. Even so, the South has earned its reputation for intolerance over the years, and I'm a little surprised that Blow doesn't seem to understand that. I don't know where he was born and raised, but I know he went to school at Grambling in Louisiana so he lived in the South for awhile at least.

Things have changed a lot since the 1960s, but it is still necessary to exercise care when dealing with the South. And, by definition, whenever one is addressing the right wing, one is addressing the South.

Perhaps he has been away too long to remember just how virulent Southern thinking can be. Perhaps he only remembers the history book accounts, which are bad enough but still mostly focus on the headline news — the murders of three civil rights activists in Mississippi in 1964, the shooting of Martin Luther King in 1968, etc. — and not the routine acts of violence that were carried out against mostly nameless, mostly faceless, low–profile victims.

Thankfully, that part is greatly diminished from what it was, but it would not be wise to let the application of logic allow potentially tragic complacency to be in charge.