December 15th, 2004

In 1988 I went to a wedding between two total university wankers. By that, I mean they were fellow university students, but they were also complete social twonks. He wore a brown corduroy vest and little round John Lennon glasses, while she wore flowing white and blue dresses and wore sandals sold on the street corner by some wizened little man claiming to be from Peru or Chile or whatever.

These people were what a former, uh, friend of mine called South American Groupies. And, I mean, that is exactly what they were. The man had three children from another -er- relationship, and he gave them all secondary names that were Spanish-sounding. They lived just off Commercial Drive (well, okay, so did I back then, but I drove a gas-guzzling Ford LTD station wagon and ate meat, sometimes going as far as frying my steaks in butter, and left my empty Coke cans out on the back porch of the apartment I lived in).

They got married and called it a "politically correct" wedding. What that meant to them was Mexican music, refried beans for the wedding feast, and guests sitting on woven mats purportedly from Venezuela. (By the way, he came from a small town in Northern BC, and she came from Washington State ... a rather long way from Central or South America.)

It was the first time I'd heard the term "politically correct", and didn't quite know what to make of it. And then, about six months after that wedding, the term, "politically correct" exploded all over the media outlets and whatever innocence and well-meaning the concept may have had at the start got quickly lost in the ugliness of human nature.

You see, it really is a spectrum. There really are no absolutes when it comes to human behaviour. And I've got to be perfectly honest here: That fact more than anything else could tear me apart and make me die young as a broken man. (But I promise I won't let it.)

Through misunderstanding and sloppiness, people now use the term PC ("politically correct") to demonize almost anything or any behaviour they don't like. If someone complains that the buses driving by their homes are too noisy and stinky, some idiot disparagingly calls that PC. Or if the term "Christmas" receives a complaint or two because it invokes the name of a symbol of a particular religion, then it is called PC. It irritates me that those are lumped into the same category as people who complain when, for example, African Americans are portrayed as big-lipped idiots eating fried chicken and watermelon between tap dances.

Nobody would maintain that that last example I stated is not a legitimate complaint (by the way, that really did come from a cartoon I saw on television about a year ago). And yet it is in the same category as the other two, all because of the sloppiness people have adopted in identifying what is "politically correct" and what isn't. And so the PC term has become an insult, a bad word, a way for most people to raise their eyebrows and sigh a "what-has-the-world-come-to" sigh and generally dismiss them all: the 90% of ridiculous claims, along with the 10% of legitimate ones.

PC has come to mean plain intolerance.

See how (repeating history once again) the attempt to move the marginalised into the mainstream has itself become marginalised? There's got to be a pretty powerful force at work, here, don't you think?

So is this what I am ranting about? Well, actually no. From at least the beginning of history there have been marginalised groups and mainstream groups. And, to be perfectly cynically frank, the only people who have ever worried much about it are the marginalised people themselves, or the mainstream people who want something from them. So if you fret about the plight of the downtrodden or the underprivileged (as I frequently do 1 ) then you will only survive more than a handful of years in this world if you remember that you will always be banging your head against a wall ... so don't bang too hard, eh?

Okay, next point: Because people in a culture are individual elements in a network, studies into network theory are applicable to people as well. Well, duh. But let's be really clear about something: Individual people have the potential to behave reasonably and intelligently. More than a handful and people are as unguided as amoebae. (Or perhaps we are all, ultimately, pleasure-seeking and pain-avoiding ....)

So, there are some interesting developments in the study of networking theory. This research is being conducted by the same people who brought you the "six degrees of separation" phenomenon. The kinds of networks that are deemed "aristocratic" are the strongest and most robust in times of random cataclysm. You see, the human race--and in particular its social order--has evolved into a form where those who have get and those who haven't don't. And it's no coincidence; egalitarian cultures are as vulnerable as glass: strong until they shatter, then subsequently broken beyond repair. 2

And, sadly, attempts to make everyone sit at the same table, and make everyone live on a social par with everyone else, while a beautiful dream for most, is just a pretty-sounding myth. Because even if we were to achieve such a culture, it would be temporary until some cultural revolution (or another culture for that matter) came along and utterly wiped us off the face of the Earth.

So "political correctness" was doomed before it ever got started. The details of how it died (which I mentioned above) are irrelevant in the final estimation. The real reason, the underlying impetus for its self-destruction, is that people are ordered for overall survival. A strong culture is an unfair and unjust culture. If it means that some people are pushed to the margins, just like the occasional character in a Greek comedy (have you noticed how there is always at least one person sent packing at the end, and that nobody really cares about him? 3 ), then few or none will really care. I once read graffiti that said, "Eat the rich." Well, that would be interesting, but the truth of the matter is: "Harvest the poor for body parts."

At least humanity overall will survive. Now ask me if I think that is a good thing or a bad thing.




-=<#>=-=<#>=-=<#>=-


(1) Earlier on, I said that the only people who worry about the marginalised are the marginalised themselves and people who want something from them. Then I said that I do worry about the marginalised. So now you have to figure out for yourself which of the two people I am: A marginalised person, or a person who wants something from marginalised people.

Once you come up with an answer, then ask yourself which of the two types of people you are. Then ask if, just maybe, you are the same as me, and sometimes fall into one of these categories and sometimes fall into the other.

- - -

(2) We tend to marginalise and then destroy cultures by first labeling them "primitive" and then educating them "for their own good." History is full of such ugliness, but here are a few examples off the top of my head: North American Indians, Aztecs, and Maori. If you really want to learn more about this, I suggest Daniel Quinn's books. There is a somewhat official website for him and his writings. It's sadly turning into a bizarre cult, but the information is there, and the books themselves are definitely worth reading.

- - -

(3) Here are some I can think of off the top of my head:


Back to the Rant-o-Rama index.