I would like to take this time to talk to you about "Political Correctness". I'm sure most of you would agree with me when I say that this concept is out dated and offensive. There are some of you out there who would disagree with me.
Let's start with "African Americans". Calling a person "African American" is the worst kind of insult. You might be thinking to yourself "Insult!? How so?" Well simply this, the point of being PC is not to offend and the worst offense we can offer our fellow humans is to assume that we know anything about them by looking. Not all black people (yes I said black) are Americans. They might be from this country, but that in know way means that they are citizens. Canada, England, France, all of Europe, Russia and Asia and, surprise surprise, Africa all have significant black (I said it again) populations. And I think it would be safe to say that they are proud of their citizenship in these countries and as such would like to be recognized as such.
So, recognizing this, we now have to, in the interest of not offending any one, remove the "American" portion of the title "African American". This leaves us referring to our dark skinned brethren as "Africans". But can we, in good conscience, do so. I would point out Australia. Australia, as you may or may not know, has strong population of black people known as the Aborigines. So, assuming that we know the genetic heritage of the person we were talking to as well as the citizenry, do we then refer to them as "Australian Americans" or "Aboriginal Americans"? This moral conundrum goes on and on.
Oh, going back, I would also like to point out the the continent of Africa has a strong and influential population of Anglo white people. People who have been living there longer than whites have been in America. So, in the interest of non offensive speech, shouldn't we also refer to them as "African Americans"? To witch you, being a liberal-minded thinker, would reply; "Of course not, you moron. Those people came to that country from Europe.
Which brings me to my next point. The, so called, "Native Americans". You are now thinking; "Whoa whoa whoa! What have you got against the Native Americans"? To witch I reply; "Not a damn thing." The point I'm trying to make here is simply that I can trace my ancestry back to Simon Bolivar Buckner, on my mothers side, who was a General in the Civil War. That was 165 years ago. Should I not be considered a Native of this land? Not to mention that most of the black people (I just can't be stopped) in this country can trace their ancestry back as far as the ban on shipment of new slaves into this country in the early 1800's some even farther back to the original slaves brought to this continent by the original settlers. Are they not Native Americans? At what point does it become permissible to call some one a native? You would probably reply "Not having emigrated to the land that you inhabit."
You might be right with that one. But, do you not know that even the Indians (now I'm using Indian, Whats wrong with me?) came to this continent on the Bering-Strait Crossing during the Ice Age? (known to scientists as the "Glacial Age") The only peoples who are truly "native" to their lands are the tribal Africans and the Asians.
Aristotle is one of my favorite philosophers. Mostly for what is now known as "The Laws of Definition". They are:
1. A thing is what it is
2. A thing can not be what it is not
Or, to put it a more racist way, "Let's call a Spade a Spade"
If you're black be proud, if you're white be proud. But, above all, remember to always be a human first. I am an American and proud.
Oh, I fell I must admit that Simon Bolivar Buckner served for the Confederacy not the Union. It causes me shame, you don't need to rub it in.
No comments:
Post a Comment