BlackNotBlack.com

The Anti-Anti-Politically Correct

The flap in Britain over the possible racist treatment of Indian movie star Shilpa Shetty on the television show Big Brother shows no signs of abating. Tony Blair himself felt compelled to weigh in last week, offering assurances that England condemns racism in all its varied forms. In so doing he confidently invoked the royal “we” for a nation of millions who don’t seem to agree with him on much, yet presumably are in lockstep with him on this one.

Meanwhile in India there was both support for and criticism of Shetty. While nearly all felt she had been racially insulted, some blamed her for exposing herself to the racists. Indian filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt said in Mumbai's newspaper DNA: “I believe no one can insult you without your permission. Shilpa Shetty has paid the price for trying to desperately seek the approval of the West.” He went on to add: “It is pathetic how we can go on bended knees and lick the boots of Westerners in an effort to be part of their world.”

Is it just me, or does it seem obvious that what Shetty’s roommate/
tormentors—Jane Goody, Danielle Lloyd and Jackiey Budden—hate about her is her beauty? Surely this is a conflict the producers of Big Brother counted upon, though they may not have expected a racial confrontation per-se. Nevertheless, in the world of gonzo television the incident can only be termed a success. There’s reality, and the reality behind the reality. And back there, in the offices and boardrooms where hyperstressed men in suits reside, ratings are up, profits are up, and jobs are safe for another quarter.

But this post isn’t about Shilpa Shetty or Big Brother—it’s about the anti-politically correct crowd who have once again reared their ugly heads like a hydra, hissing that they are weary of being told what they can and cannot say. Once this dubious decree is parsed to its root sentiment, what is left is a vaguely nationalist defense of the right to insult other ethnic groups—invariably those who possess darker skins. Implicit is the assertion that if the positions were reversed, they would not be so fragile: “If I were Indian (or black, or Hispanic, or Jewish)” they say, “I wouldn’t give a good goddamn what anyone said about me.”

An effective response to such a statement might be to reframe the issue around something the person actually cares about. If they are short, attack their height. If they’re overweight, suggest they get off their ass and exercise. On Big Brother the contestants who bullied Shilpa Shetty often deliberately perverted the pronunciation of her name or simply referred to her as “the Indian.” How long would it be before an obese man cracked if those around him referred to him as “lard-ass,” or constantly called him “jowl” instead of “John?” Not long, I wager. If you say you’re too solid to fold under such pressure, I have my doubts. Everyone has a trigger. Did your father leave when you were ten? Did your sister die of cancer? It’s all fair game, in the anti-politically correct jungle.

Whereas many bristle that political correctness is an attempt to stifle free expression, I see it as a simple suggestion that people be polite. 100% free expression doesn’t exist in any society. It is frowned upon to use obscenities in most circumstances, and if you violate this rule people disapprove. Only when race is involved does the issue of polite behavior suddenly boil over like a pot on a stove and become a question of free speech. What does this tell us about the anti-politically correct crowd? That their refusal to be constricted by notions of politeness in the area of racial speech may be indicative of underlying racial resentment? I think it’s a reasonable deduction, since if they were truly concerned about free speech as a broad issue they would address hundreds of forms of censorship, rather than just those few relating to whether they can hurl ethnic slurs.

Those who find it a constant irritant that racial insults are frowned upon expose themselves as shallow, at the very least. I’ve seen surveys in which a substantial percentage of Americans, to raise an example, believe this is one of the major problems facing their society. In a world of environmental disaster, corporate enslavement, government corruption, and rampant terrorism, their major gripe is that they can’t insult people. To make this a core issue of one’s politics is evidence of a joyless and unfulfilled life, in my opinion, and is astonishingly sub-mental. Behind the complaints you can envision the precise moment when they became fed up. It was the day someone chastised them for using the word nigger. Or the day they were reprimanded at work for telling the old joke explaining why God gave women legs. Anti-political correctness seems to be a movement fueled by people who have been burned. It appears nobody likes being singled out for negative attention, even them.

In my life political correctness doesn’t apply because I have quality friends. They are diverse, interesting, kind, and worldly—all while being epic level hellraisers. They have disliked people, argued with them, and even left some bleeding on the floor, but the concept of equal standing in our group is tacit, as is the understanding that there is polite and impolite behavior. When my friends behave impolitely, they do so in moments of weakness or drunkenness, understand this is the reason, always apologize for their behavior, and do not generally blame those who were offended. In short, they are secure enough to accept being corrected and criticized. It’s part of being a worthwhile person.

So while the anti-politically correct crowd fight tooth and nail for the right to insult people of other races, I guess the rest of us, those of us I am now calling the anti-anti-politically correct, will concentrate on the small issues—our government, our environment, our future.

Labels: big brother, political correctness, shilpa shetty

posted by Egan Ehlers @ 9:47 PM