My Semester in Review

My call to change has to do with the idea of political correctness. I believe that political correctness started out with good intentions as a means to ensure equality for all people, but now is used by political parties as a crutch and restricts people's rights of speech and expression.

This topic is talked about in my family often and is something I have found myself thinking about a lot when it comes to our country's society and politics. Fairly recently, TV star and chef Paula Deen, was forced to apologize for saying the "N" word years ago when she was younger. This control was all done in the name of political correctness and I thought it was so ridiculous! Back then in Paula Deen's younger years in the South, the "N" word was not a bad word. Why then were TV and news officials forcing her to apologize now? Like they have never said a bad word before? This story of how political correctness was used as a means to restrict really bothered me and has been in the back of my mind since then. It sparked my call to change project.

Over the course of the semester I wrote two blog posts about how I felt political correctness had become a problem and why it needed to change:

An Irrational, Incurable Disease

Intolerant of Intolerance

To recap, I feel that when used correctly, political correctness can protect minorities and other groups. But in our society today, it restricts people from speaking truth about morality and expressing their beliefs and opinions. It has become largely about dancing around a subject in order to not hurt anybody else's feelings. It is the biggest irony in our society. It is essentially intolerant of intolerance.

During my Call to Change presentation, I point to three main historical periods where we see a focus on equality: the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and the Gilded Age. After touching on those periods, I focus on our period today and how that focus of equality has turned to political gain and restriction.

When discussing this topic with other classmates and peers, many agreed that political correctness had gone out of control. A few disagreed and felt that it still served its original purpose. But most believed that something needed to change. A few gave their opinion that the way to change this dogma in our society is to focus on speaking truth but tactfully.

In my presentation, I focus on the idea that political correctness in itself largely affects the way we communicate in our society. I also acknowledge that my communication in my presentation might come across as politically incorrect, but I need to be able to speak my ideas and call for action.

UPDATE:

Thank you for the comments! In response to these, I would like to echo the comment that political correctness does come with its own set of unspoken "rules." This is what makes it unfair and irrational. It can be used differently, even as a weapon, by certain groups who feel they have something to prove. To expand further on my call to change, in the future, I think something that could be done in schools is to have group demonstrations or talks where the children learn more about each other's differences and be comfortable with talking about them. Classroom exercises where the children are highlighted because of their differences, and are proud of them, could be useful as well.

A Rough Rough Draft

·      Political Correctness

o   History

§  How it started

§  How it has evolved                            

o   Why it is a problem now

o   Call for change

·      Enlightenment

o   Push for equality

·      Industrial Revolution/Romantic Era

o   Ideologies

§  Liberalism

·      Universal human rights

·      Gilded Age

o   WWI

§  Advances in equality for women/blacks

§  Suffrage

·      Mid 20^th century

o   Used as a term to describe those of the Communist and Socialist party

o   Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas vs. Communists who would defend their party’s position regardless or morality

·      1990s

o   Politics promoting multiculturalism

o   Feminism, sexism, racism

·      2000s

o   Typically used for left-wing terms and actions

·      2010s

o   Now as we see an increasing shift in morality in our country (ex. Gay rights, gay marriage) PC has taken a turn for the worst

·      Go into call to change

o   PC started as a means to ensure equality as we see this general trend in history pushing for equal rights

o   But now PC has become about dancing around a subject so we don’t step on people’s toes

o   Now it encroaches on freedoms of speech and expression, personal rights

o   We need to speak what is truth but with tact, not be restricted from sharing our beliefs just because it might offend the beliefs of another

The Fate of the Red Man

Chief Seattle's speech in 1854 uses some of the best rhetorical strategies in calling for justice towards his Native American people. He immediately poses himself as a very authoritative and wise figure through his use of his cautionary tone towards the Americans.  The purpose of his speech is to call for his people to be treated justly and fairly, and to describe the fate of the Native American people if they are not treated in the same manner. He uses a lot of pathetic appeal, appealing to emotion. His tone is very ominous as he describes the sad fate of the Indians. He also uses a lot of rhetorical tools to drawn attention to this idea of his people being a poor, and forgotten civilization. This places even more emphasis on his pathetic appeal. In terms of his rhetorical strategy and the tools he uses to accomplish this, the Chief's speech is full of figurative language and imagery. In the very first sentence out of his mouth, he personifies the "yonder sky" which "has wept tears of compassion."

He uses a lot of comparisons and simlies. He says, "My words are like the stars the never set." He is establishing that you can rely on him as a leader and a speaker, just as one relies on the stars for direction. But his stars never set. He relates the white men "to grass on the vast prairies," while the red men are few, "resembling the scattering trees of a windswept plain." He also uses a lot of parallel structure to prove his point and show the truth of his words: "every moon, every valley," "a few more moons, a few more winters." I think it is interesting how all of his figurative language is related to nature. The Native Americans are known for having a culture that is deeply and religiously connected to Mother Earth and nature around us. I thought the imagery he chose to put in his speech was very indicative of this spiritual connection the Indians have with nature - that they relate their own people to it.

Tolerance of All

Why I believe we as a society are becoming increasingly intolerant all in the name of political correctness, and how I feel we need to change to prevent this intolerance from further spreading.

Intolerant of Intolerance

As I continued to think about my topic of political correctness and the way it affects our society, I discussed with some acquaintances about what they think the main cause of or problem with being politically correct is. Based on my last blog post, I believe that political correctness is being taken to an extreme and is encroaching on personal freedoms of speech and expression, and can be used as a crutch by certain groups or political parties.

The feedback I received from people varied. Several had my same viewpoints. Two people felt that political correctness is useful in society to prevent minorities from feeling isolated, and that the pros of what political correctness is trying to accomplish outweigh the cons that we see today. However, I feel that the idea of being politically correct is being hugely abused.

After discussing this over with the people I chose, it seems that politically correctness comes from this feeling of entitlement that our generation seems to have. This leads to pride which causes people to feel very offended by something if you say it in "the wrong way." Our society is trying to prevent intolerance but is thereby being intolerant of others for their ideas that may seem intolerant. It's one big irony. One of my acquaintances expressed how political correctness is an "insidious form of censorship which only serves to push the limits of societal norms further away from that which we know to be right because we might be perceived as being mean."

So how do we change this? How do we make sure that people aren't saying harmful things or creating stereotypes, but not get our panties all up in a wad when someone has a difference of opinion, or a political party is pushing for a certain standard. And the truth is, I'm still working on that. As of right now, I don't know if there is a tangible way to cool the fire everyone is stirring up that is political correctness. It is an ideal our society needs to reach as a whole. But we could start by drawing a line. Don't make Paula Dean grovel for forgiveness because she said the "N-word" 20 years ago when it wasn't considered a bad word. That was 20 years ago. Let the past be the past. We need to look to the future. We need to teach at young age the idea of truth mixed with tact. Speak the truth in a tactful way. As my friend stated, "My conclusion is that people should strive to be straightforward yet tactful in all instances. That is how Jesus Christ taught and we should inevitably follow his example."

An Irrational, Incurable Disease

“This political correctness just continues to spread. It’s like a disease. It’s like an incurable disease. It’s just spreading and it’s irrational.”

Rush Limbaugh’s quote rings true as we look at our government, our schools, our society, and realize how the idea of being politically correct permeates our civilization and the way we communicate with others. In 2013, a college student in California was asked to take off a cross she was wearing at school because it might offend other people. Students are not allowed to pray at public schools because it could be deemed insulting. The Obama administration has banned government agencies from referring or linking terrorism to Islam – for fear that it might offend someone.

Being politically correct is all about dancing around a subject so we don’t step on someone’s toes. Our society has taken on this idea that we can never hurt anyone’s feelings, even if something is the truth. We even see this ideology infiltrating all the way down to children in our school systems. In Massachusetts, a school principal cancelled Honor Night in order to avoid hurting the student’s feelings who weren’t getting an award. He was creating an idea that there are no winners or losers.

As Limbaugh put it, political correctness is spreading and is irrational. It encroaches on personal freedoms of rights, such as freedom of speech and expression. Praying in schools may offend non-Christians. But what about the Christian’s right to wear a cross necklace, pray, or worship as he pleases, and share that belief with others? Not only does the dogma of needing to be politically correct all the time encroach on personal rights, it also eliminates the drive and motivation necessary for healthy competition in schools and in the work place.

We need to change our frame of mind. We should not have to always worry that we will lose a job if we mention our religion. I am entitled to my religion just as much as someone is entitled to not claim a religion. We need to not have to apologize for saying the word “thug” because it might offend people of the non-Caucasian race. By constantly worrying about being politically correct, we are letting government, and general authorities in our society control how we think. We need to stand for our rights, our beliefs, our hard work, and what is true. Not just say whatever sounds “politically correct.”

The Snowpocalypse

I am from Georgia. About as South as you can get in the United States, before hitting Florida (which we don't count as the South, anyways.) As you can imagine, it rarely snows where I'm from. (You can imagine my shock when I first moved to Utah.) And when it does snow, due to the lack of of snowplows, salt machines, and any other gadget that would help clear up the roads, the entire city, nay, the entire state, shuts down - even for just a small flake or two. Georgia has still had its experiences with a few bad snow storms - the city shuts down, grocery stores are ravaged, and the greater Atlanta area looks mostly like a ghost town. In these instances, Southerners, who don't know what to do about snow that actually sticks to the ground, tend to freak out about where their next meal is going to come from. If the roads are blocked and the stores are empty, how are they going to get food? (Shameless plug for food storage.)

Last year in 2014, Georgia experienced one of the worst snow storms in the state's history. "Tuesday's storm, the beginning of mass hysteria," "Ordinary commutes turned into chaos and confusion," were only a few of the headlines that graced the papers that week, and the storm quickly gained the name of the "Snowpocalypse." Atlanta's few major highways were all closed due to dangerous and icy conditions, and after being stuck on the roads for more than 24 hours, people abandoned their cars and literally started walking along the side of the highway to seek shelter. The city was compared to a scene from the hit TV show, "Walking Dead."

I was at home visiting and happened to be with my mother in a local grocery store, where we saw two women start to catfight over what was left of the milk in the dairy isle. When the first slap was thrown, my own fearful mother quickly grabbed my hand and we left. A store worker ended up breaking the two women up, but no one else said anything because everyone was in the same boat. They were all desperate for milk.

Though the weather conditions in Georgia were bad at that time and everyone had to stay in due to the major traffic jam on the roads, I knew eventually it would clear up. It scared me to think how crazy some people could get over minor things when they thought the world was going to end, or more specifically, their world. This mob mentality seems to be prevalent even in some of the nicest, hospitable, small Southern towns like Dacula, Georgia.

A Life Worth Living

Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living,” a quote shared with me by Spencer in our class. I’m not sure whether or not Socrates realized the foundation he himself was creating through his philosophies to allow human kind to look back on history – life – and examine and learn from it, but he was doing just that. This idea of looking to the past and returning to previous sources is what allowed for the blossoming of the Renaissance period. We always talk about the Renaissance as a time period of new ideas, new thoughts, new inventions, new art, new literature. But these new and great thinkers had to look back and acknowledge all of the hundreds and thousands of years of work that had been done before that to give a foundation for this change and reformation. Erasmus did this as he wrote his “Discourse on Free Will.” He referred to the Bible several times when talking about the nature of man and salvation. He also quoted Ciseraux, demonstrating his “ad fontes” – returning to sources – in a spiritual, as well as academic sense.

So, we look to the past to gather information. But then what to we do with it? Do we keep it the same? Do we keep it to ourselves? Or do we share it? Do we collaborate with it and then expand it and make it better? The explorers of the High Renaissance period (Columbus, Decartes) recognized that in order to share information and continue collaborating and learning, they had to brave the waters of the many oceans to explore new worlds. We learn from Montaigne in his “Of Cannibals” essay that his travels to Brazil caused him to broaden his perspective of a cannibalistic people. It also caused him to re-examine his European way of life.

Through our “Salon” discussion, Jesse Bunton suggested that no one understood better than the Protestant Reformationists that information needed to be spread to everyone, especially the common people. Information was held in the hands of the clergy as they read their Bibles in Latin and then dictated to the public how religion worked. But when Martin Luther posted his 95 Thesis, in direct opposition to the Catholic Church, he was demanding that more be done with the information that was available. Johann Gutenberg made this possible with his invention of the printing press in the 15^th century. Suddenly, Bibles were being printed in a language that the majority could understand. This continued to spark new ideas as people learned more through reading and the newfound widespread accessibility of information. They began to re-examine the ways the Catholic Church was running their lives and decided to make a change, which evolved into Protestantism.

These ideas spread through new forms of communication, which we see has also changed over time. In the days of Socrates, the people relied on oral rhetoric – the spoken word. Through the creation of the printing press, ideas were spread through the written word. The use of written communication was beneficial for fast and broader access to ideas and literature, but it lacks the ability to better express tone and other rhetorical tools that come through oral communication. But the written forms of communication have provided the information that new generations are able to study and look back on.

Upon finishing this unit. I started to think about how in my own life to apply these principles of “ad fontes.” Do I look back at past sources? I am here at a university with unlimited access to archives of information – work that has been created, research that has been done – in my field. Am I going to just go through the motions of my schooling and let those opportunities to learn and grow wash over me? Or am I going to dive into the waters, explore new worlds, past and present, and determine if my life is worth living?

A Frightful Tone

As a girl who has a strong faith and belief in God, I never pictured our Heavenly Father as angry or someone we should be afraid of. I liked to think of him more as my friend, and well, my Father.

However, this is not how the famous Jonathan Edwards depicted God. In his well-known sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” Edwards compares a sinner being dangled over the gaping jaws of hell, to a spider being dangled over a fire. Edwards point was to bring the people of his day out of sin and unto Christ to be saved. He does this by inflicting fear. His tone in his sermon seems scary. I couldn’t imagine hearing this in person and hearing how God was about to drop me into hell. I think hearing this given orally would be even more frightening, but even Edwards’ written words were definitely impactful.

Edwards was a preacher at the time of the Great Awakening, when there was much religious fervor to be had throughout the nation and throughout the world. I think Edwards, who was one of the most prominent preachers at that time, was caught up in the fervor and intensity of this religious movement, and his sermons reflect this.

Edwards uses analogies and certain repetitions and pronouns to make his sermon feel more personal to the people, his direct audience, thereby making his fear tactic more intense, hopefully bringing more people to Christ. He uses the analogy of the sinners being dangled by God over the gates of hell, like a spider would be dangled over the fire. This puts a much clearer and more tangible image in his audience’s head, increasing their awareness of the severity of this matter he is preaching against – sin and damnation. He also repeats things several times in a row to add greater stress his points: “you have no interest in any mediator, and nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you have ever done, nothing that you can do to induce God to spare you one moment.” His repeating of the words “you” and “yourself” seem as if he is almost very harshly pointing a finger in his audience’s face, accusing them of being sinners at the hand of this angry God who will not spare them.

To finish his sermon off, Edwards uses a Biblical analogy and compares New England with the wicked city of Sodom. Leaving this very unsettling thought in this audience’s mind, he uses this fear and severity to then invite them to come to Christ and be saved from the torments of hell.