A Canadian tribunal in British Columbia has now made it a crime to apply the wrong pronoun to a person. And the little piece that reports the news is an LGBTQ news rag.
It's about tyranny of course. Growing up in the post-war (that's WWII) era, we were told freedom of speech is the capstone of all democracy and liberty. Feminism is what did it in. Back in the 1970s, even as St. George Carlin was lobbying for a nation of unbridled freedom of speech, feminists were demanding an end to the male pronoun.
Policeman you say? You chauvinist pig! It's police person! You're my relief man? That's relief person. Remember that? Shortly afterwards, Happy Holidays and Seasons Greetings ceased being alternatives used to describe Christmas and the December holidays, and became the mandated terms used to describe that holiday on December 25th. Indians became Native Americans. Blacks either became black or African American or both or neither, I was never sure.
But you get the point. The left, while screaming unchecked tolerance for all speech and expression, was simultaneously walking back the same. The point was the destruction of the Christian West and its replacement with a new secular global gospel. Changing our words and speech was simply a major step forward toward that goal.
After all, punishing people legally for saying truth is even better than using social pressure to shame entire people groups (men, Americans, Christians, whites). To actually say if you indicate squares are not round, you'll be legally punished is as close as you get to tyranny without the gulags and killing fields.
Black becoming African American?
ReplyDeleteIndian becoming Native American?
Those are old hat.
Now it's Person of Color (whatever that means) and Indigenous people.
Or the infamous BIPOC.
I still wonder why saying colored person is considered racist, but saying person of color is considered appropriate. Though I'll say indigenous people is better than Native American since at least it's accurate. Native American meant nothing and said less.
DeleteJudean People's Front / People's Front of Judea
DeleteWhat do you call a Cherokee if he visits London, then? He's certainly not indigenous to London. (You COULD call him an American, but who wants to be called that? Or a Cherokee, but apparently no one wants to bother calling them what they called themselves. No, we'll impose a white man's category on them, and tell them that as far as the IMPORTANT people care, there is no difference between the Apache and the Iroquois.)
DeleteI agree. And I know those who are American Indians who reject the lot of the titles, preferring to identify as descendants of their particular nation of Indians. Though like many people nowadays, when the TV cameras are rolling, they go with the flow.
DeleteIt's the same with Africa. Africa is home to Heaven knows how many nations, and I really do mean that in the sense that many African nations were not similar enough to England and France to fit European models of nationhood, so it is practically impossible to count them. There were and are deep cultural differences between Zulus and Ethiopians, but we lump 'em all together. That's like lumping Syria together with China because they are both in Asia.
DeleteYou're right there. And lumping together doesn't seem to be going anywhere any time soon. Heck, Italians and Poles used to be ethnic minorities in America. Now they're just White. But in Africa, that period of European Colonialism completely upturned African culture, but not necessarily making it any worse than it was. Simply a new set of problems since Africa, like the rest of the world, has had its share in the Vale of Tears as much as any other place in the world.
DeleteIn LORD OF THE WORLD, everyone who is not a Christian speaks Esperanto, but Catholics -- the only Christians left -- have gone back to speaking Latin. I don't agree that the book is "prophetic", but it does appear we will soon be speaking different languages.
ReplyDeleteI think we already are.
Delete"I still wonder why saying colored person is considered racist, but saying person of color is considered appropriate"
ReplyDeleteSince colored person was probably first used by whites then it cannot be appropriate to use. Person of color was probably first used by a person who was NOT white which makes it okay to use. Though both mean the same thing it comes down to who originated each term.
In a way, that's likely the point. My son who is still in college said that's increasingly the unspoken principle; If it's white, it's bad. Hence the growing number of youngsters that assuming anything done by whites was bad including, but not limited to, concepts like freedom of speech, due process, and sanctity of life. If it was peddled by those people, it must be bad. Using that principle with things like words and phrases would simply be a step along those lines.
Delete