People who WEREN’T being oppressed speaking on behalf of people who didn’t asked to be spoken for.

I remember the birth of politically correct, at least the university one. It started in the US military as a way to be respectful towards people by calling them by their preferred designations. They’d been trained to do it, at least in some circles for decades.

In 1988, Mt Holyoke (or Smith, I forgot now) issued a guideline for politically correct writing. They based it on the US military model and elaborated on it. They distributed it.

I went to Hampshire College, also in Amherst, MA, in 1990. These were guidelines. We had all the familiar things of today: safe spaces, tolerant speech etc. To me it made sense as _civility_.

I didn’t mind it.

Yet, even then, I could see a problem. It’s one thing if you choose to be respectful of others. It’s a good thing. You can even demand respect if you like. But there was also a patronizing air among some: People who WEREN’T being oppressed speaking on behalf of people who didn’t asked to be spoken for.

It was tolerable but annoying.

Flash forward 25 years, and well, the original purpose *is* still in place in government facilities and political speeches (except Trump) and most newspaper etiquette guidelines, but it seems the original purpose was lost everywhere else.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− four = 3

Leave a Reply