Are we allowed to Romanticize anything anymore?

[Reiper]

I don't know how to put this without sounding like a right-wing nutjub shouting "Liberal hate America!", but yeah, the PC crowd do have a negative of opinion of America. As such, they lash out of any positive, or even non-critical, portrayal of America, American history, or American figures.

Yeah, sorry, this is just flat-out wrong. In several ways.

First, that there is no such thing as a "PC crowd". Political Correctness is an accusation used to silence critics, a tool used by the right-wing to pretend that they can use their freedom of speech to say anything they want about anyone they want, but if anyone ever uses their freedom of speech to criticize, they're "the PC crowd", a bunch of bullies running roughshod over the world to prevent people from saying ... things. And the fact that all of these media properties romanticizing the past got made by Hollywood[/i], you know, that place that's always being accused of being the Basion of Liberal Thought, shows that this accusation of political correctness is false.

But your greater error is in claiming that a class of people hate America. While there may be a lot of people around the world who do dislike the American government's policy decisions and find American cultural trends towards guns and 64 oz. Big Gulps as quaintly amusing, again and again people around the world report in every poll I've seen that they like Americans. As for Americans themselves, don't make the fundamental flaw of assuming that just because someone criticizes an aspect of the country or demands a sincere remembrance of a dark time in the nation's past, that this means they dislike the country. Most people criticize because they wish to see the country become better.

Political correctness is definitely real. I lost 5% on a term paper because I used the word "mankind" instead of "humankind", a perfect example of political correctness run amok.

Also it is not wrong that some people have an illogical hate for America. It is not necessarily super prevalent, but in Canada I have often noticed an undercurrent of resentment and off-handed remarks that betray either disdain for Americans, and not just the American government either. It usually manifests in comments like "Americans are so stupid" or "God I hate Americans". Funny enough, it is usually people with a left-wing political affiliation that hold these views.

 

[Fox12]

Hmm... it depends. If it feels like the creators are trying to intentionally rewrite history, then yes, I would be angry. And yes, there are many examples of this. The most extreme version I can think of would be Birth of a Nation, which offered a romanticized view of the KKK. In that instance the creators were trying to sway peoples ideals through their emotions. It's good to be critical because it keeps you from being manipulated.

At the same time it's refreshing to watch something that's idealistic and straightforward. Les Mis was certainly dark, but I would consider it a romantic and idealistic film. The better versions of Superman and Captain America are good too. Of course America isn't perfect. I could spend all day talking about illegal undeclared wars, empire building, secret coups in South America and Iran, and many other things. That said, these characters are idealized versions of what America should strive to become, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

*snip*

*snip*

The "PC" crowd certainly do exist, and I am not talking about people who "criticize" speech they are overly sensitive about, that's protected by the first amendment, but people who want it banned or punished.

That sort of crowd does have in irrationally negative view of America and anything associated with it. If you fly an American flag outside your house, with no other indicator your political beliefs, many Americans will adopt a negative view of you based on the presence of the flag alone. They will think "He is probably some right wing, utra-patriot, tea-bagger".

I think it comes from people not being able to properly understand patriotism and American exceptionalism. There is nothing wrong with shouting "We're the best". Germans aren't narcissistic elitists for having "Deutschland Uber Alles" in their anthem.

But that's a good example of the PC crowd and how they work. You cant say that Coke tastes great because then you are insulting pepsi, and how dare you hurt Pepsi's feelings. You cant call anything great or exceptional. You can only say that everyone and everything is exactly of the same quality in every measurable aspect.

 

[Ryotknife]

These sort of remarks don't necessarily indicate true hatred of America as a whole, but rather a hatred of American government policy.

....that sounds like an attack against the American people specifically. If it was, "America is so stupid" or "God I hate America" that would be one thing.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2007/03/14/americas-image-in-the-world-findings-from-the-pew-global-attitudes-project/

Granted this article is from 2007, but it does show that there is (or was) worldwide disdain for the American people specifically and not just the government.

"A fourth feature of contemporary anti-Americanism is that it is no longer just the U.S. as a country that is perceived negatively, but increasingly the American people as well, a sign that anti-American opinions are deepening and becoming more entrenched. In countries such as Spain, Jordan, Indonesia, and Turkey, favorable views of Americans have declined significantly in recent years.

In 2005, we asked people around the world about the kinds of characteristics they associate with the American people, and we found a somewhat mixed picture. On the positive side, we are widely seen as hardworking and inventive. On the negative side, in most of the countries surveyed, fewer than half said Americans are honest, while majorities said we are greedy and violent. Significant numbers also considered Americans rude and immoral."

Course, hate is a pretty big step from disdain. But people in the US use the word hate a lot to mean anything that is even slightly unfavorable so no surprise there.

 

[Reiper]

Hi, I'm a teacher who has taught English among other places, at the University and High School levels. Your grade is not evidence of political correctness "run amok". Your reaction to it rather supports my position, that you're using the accusation of political correctness to try to invalidate and silence the criticism you received for your word choice.

"Mankind" is inappropriate for academic writing. I'm not going to debate the 5% reduction because I can't comment on it without knowing your teacher's rubric or grading scheme, but a penalty of some kind is appropriate. Just as it would be appropriate to reduce the grade of a student who uses the words, "asshole" or "fucking *****" in their paper or who ended every paragraph with, "like, ya'know?"

I'm sympathetic because I had an almost identical situation when I was an undergrad (only I lost IIRC a whole letter grade). The problem is that professors (or more likely, the TAs who do their grading for them) are not explaining why this is important properly. It wasn't until I became a university teacher myself that I began to understand that writing in academia isn't about expressing yourself. It's about distilling information down into a format that is most accessible to a community of scholars around the world with the goal of advancing human knowledge. That means all of these knit-picky deductions for formatting or non-inclusive language really do have a purpose, to train students to be able to participate in that discourse community. In my experience a lot of professors are terrible at explaining this, and students often get penalized without understanding why.

I am not sure how I am trying to "silence the criticism" of my word choice. I am simply saying that using words such as "mankind" should be a non-issue, and one that has never seen me penalized in an academic setting before. I do not think "mankind" is in any way comparable to "*****" or "asshole", since it has an established dictionary definition and is in no way slang or vulgar. I would also argue that because of its definition, that it is gender-neutral. Some people have just taken issue with it because it has "man" in it, and that somehow makes in non-inclusive.

Well, and "humankind" sounds really dumb.

Of course, I am getting too wrapped up in this specific incident, but in my mind that is what most people see political correctness as. It is changing language for the sake of it, simply because they perceive otherwise innocuous words to be offensive somehow. Another good example are the controversies surrounding the word "niggard". I guess I understand the idea of trying to reach as wide an audience as possible, and I don't like to offend people, but some of the new diction just seems silly.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Romanticizing things is so old. We're supposed to Impressionize things now.

 

[EternallyBored]

Hi, I'm a teacher who has taught English among other places, at the University and High School levels. Your grade is not evidence of political correctness "run amok". Your reaction to it rather supports my position, that you're using the accusation of political correctness to try to invalidate and silence the criticism you received for your word choice.

"Mankind" is inappropriate for academic writing. I'm not going to debate the 5% reduction because I can't comment on it without knowing your teacher's rubric or grading scheme, but a penalty of some kind is appropriate. Just as it would be appropriate to reduce the grade of a student who uses the words, "asshole" or "fucking *****" in their paper or who ended every paragraph with, "like, ya'know?"

I'm sympathetic because I had an almost identical situation when I was an undergrad (only I lost IIRC a whole letter grade). The problem is that professors (or more likely, the TAs who do their grading for them) are not explaining why this is important properly. It wasn't until I became a university teacher myself that I began to understand that writing in academia isn't about expressing yourself. It's about distilling information down into a format that is most accessible to a community of scholars around the world with the goal of advancing human knowledge. That means all of these knit-picky deductions for formatting or non-inclusive language really do have a purpose, to train students to be able to participate in that discourse community. In my experience a lot of professors are terrible at explaining this, and students often get penalized without understanding why.

I am not sure how I am trying to "silence the criticism" of my word choice. I am simply saying that using words such as "mankind" should be a non-issue, and one that has never seen me penalized in an academic setting before. I do not think "mankind" is in any way comparable to "*****" or "asshole", since it has an established dictionary definition and is in no way slang or vulgar. I would also argue that because of its definition, that it is gender-neutral. Some people have just taken issue with it because it has "man" in it, and that somehow makes in non-inclusive.

Well, and "humankind" sounds really dumb.

Of course, I am getting too wrapped up in this specific incident, but in my mind that is what most people see political correctness as. It is changing language for the sake of it, simply because they perceive otherwise innocuous words to be offensive somehow. Another good example are the controversies surrounding the word "niggard". I guess I understand the idea of trying to reach as wide an audience as possible, and I don't like to offend people, but some of the new diction just seems silly.

I think a closer comparison would be getting penalized for using Anno Domini or Year of our Lord, in an academic paper instead of AD or ACE, depending on the class. While not strictly wrong, it is considered imprecise language, and the issue I think DANGER is taking with your statement, is that rather than elaborate or actually attempt to learn why you were marked down, you immediately jumped to "political correctness run amok", in an academic setting, making assumptions like that casts a poorer light on you than it does the professor.

To some, (especially sociology and other humanities professors), this kind of nomenclature is important, it may seem anal to you, especially at the undergraduate level, but to an experienced educator it can become grating. To someone with a PhD in one of the various fields of human or cultural study, you're basically calling something a kitty, rather than a cat or feline, or using its more correct binomial nomenclature.

Kind of a minor thing to remove 5% for, but professors have their own little pet issues, and if you're at the undergrad level, they can be a bit oblivious that not everyone has the same precise consideration for their chosen field that they do. Still, that's no excuse to jump straight to "Blarg the PC brigade is out of control". it's a massive assumption on your part, and if you are a grad student, it is monumentally unprofessional as well.

 

[Dandark]

I'd say it depends on what the piece of media in question is trying to do. If someone wanted to make a gritty realistic depiction of WWII then it should be pretty awful and dirty and generally depressing. However not everything needs to be like this.

A lot of the time I love romanticized things, part of the reason I enjoy certain animes is that they are heavily romanticized. One piece is one of my favourite anime shows because I see it as a romanticized tale of pirates, it isn't in anyway realistic but it also still can be taken seriously when it needs to be.

There is nothing wrong with things being romanticized but not everything needs to be.

 

[Rblade]

I sure hope so, because most people are completely boring 99% of the time. Especially while doing their job, and the brave usually don't live long

 

[Reikan]

People get offended easily. I doubt their is more backlash today versus any other time, but instant communication makes everyone's voice heard. As far as movies, companies rarely care if attention is negative as that still generates money from people seeing the movie wondering what the fuss is about. Also they are stories. Being offended by a story is stupid.

Of course you can romanticise. That's what movies are FOR.

What this guy said.

I don't know how to put this without sounding like a right-wing nutjub shouting "Liberal hate America!", but yeah, the PC crowd do have a negative of opinion of America. As such, they lash out of any positive, or even non-critical, portrayal of America, American history, or American figures.

Well their is plenty of shit in America to have a negative opinion on.

 

[Dansen]

We must hang out on different Internets. Pretty much everything I saw lauded Captain America because it was a romanticized view of the past. It wasn't dark, it wasn't gritty, it was just fun.

Especially given the era. I mean, this is about a war where a genocidal fuck actually was attempting to wipe out an entire people. they downplayed that, and played up Hydra and their super-science and Red Skull and it was fine.

Yeah, but didn't he actually fight, like, Nazis in the comic?

I think the reason they went with Hydra was because they felt uncomfortable romantizing the Nazis as villains a la Indiana Jones. And as you said, it's a war where the main bad guy was a genocidal fuck, yet the movie goes 'Oh but this guy right here was way worse. Really!' It felt like the Nazi B-team being played up as the real threat.

But you are forgetting something, they had space tanks, SPACE TANKS!

I don't know how to put this without sounding like a right-wing nutjub shouting "Liberal hate America!", but yeah, the PC crowd do have a negative of opinion of America. As such, they lash out of any positive, or even non-critical, portrayal of America, American history, or American figures.

I...what, no just no. Not true and incredibly ignorant.

Well things continue to be romantacised, movies in particular, but I do feel like there is a growing demographic that despises any sort of embelishment. They demmand only the upmost realism and believability from their media and anything that doesn't fall in line is kiddy crap. Frankly its annoying as fuck and only serves to show how immature said demographic is. Romanticism is fine as long as it isn't a circle jerk sesion to your favorite topic, then it gets rather boring.

 

[Reiper]

snip

I think it is more that I disagree with the criticism. I am all for being inclusive, and I would never intentionally offend anyone, though I am simply having trouble understanding how mankind does not meet those criteria. Every dictionary I have checked lists the definition of mankind as something along the lines of "encompassing all of humanity".

I don't think it is universally rejected by academics either. A search of peer reviewed journals in my library turned up more published results with "mankind" as a keyword than "humankind" published since 2000. It seems like it is one of those things where it varies depending on which professor you ask.

In the future I would probably substitute mankind with humanity (because I can at least stomach that word), but sometimes it seems like you cannot win. In your writing, if you were giving an example (ie. one where you had to use a pronoun like he/she), how would you do it? It seems that using "they" in place of he/she is becoming popular, but I thought it was grammatically incorrect.

 

[wizzy555]

snip

I think it is more that I disagree with the criticism.

We all know that you disagree with it, but your use of "PC" to denigrate the criticism means it is impossible for us to get the teacher's rationale- unless you change argument tracks and choose to give it. That's why the accusation of "political correctness" is a tool for silencing free speech- it is nothing more than a strategy for shutting down discussion of criticism. In a rational world, you would take your teacher's rationale for marking you down, allow them to explain their position fully and completely, and then you would rebut using your own rational argument and whoever has the clearest, most straight-forward argument would win. In a world where "PC" is used, you just respond to criticism by shouting, "PC run amok!" and the audience is manipulated into believing the criticism is automatically invalid before they even have a chance to hear it.

Also your tactic of declaring "PC" an invalid conclusion is also a tactic of shutting down anyone who would come to that conclusion as the poster evidently has.

He could be manipulating the situation and not presenting the criticism or the criticism is in-fact invalid and his conclusion is warranted. Of course we as posters on an anonymous forum will never likely find out.

Secondly, the etymology of "PC" has it's origins in enforcing a political/social orthodoxy, which the teacher evidently is - but then I suppose so would be enforcing correct spelling.

 

[wizzy555]

snip

I think it is more that I disagree with the criticism.

We all know that you disagree with it, but your use of "PC" to denigrate the criticism means it is impossible for us to get the teacher's rationale- unless you change argument tracks and choose to give it. That's why the accusation of "political correctness" is a tool for silencing free speech- it is nothing more than a strategy for shutting down discussion of criticism. In a rational world, you would take your teacher's rationale for marking you down, allow them to explain their position fully and completely, and then you would rebut using your own rational argument and whoever has the clearest, most straight-forward argument would win. In a world where "PC" is used, you just respond to criticism by shouting, "PC run amok!" and the audience is manipulated into believing the criticism is automatically invalid before they even have a chance to hear it.

Also your tactic of declaring "PC" an invalid conclusion is also a tactic of shutting down anyone who would come to that conclusion as the poster evidently has.

That's a pretty tough row to hoe given that the two of us have posted reams of dialogue about this, and that I gave them ample opportunity to explain their position. I didn't automatically agree with it, but when I disagreed I also gave them the courtesy of explaining why I disagreed rather than shutting them down with a two-letter argument. Not everything has two equal and opposite sides. Sorry, but you're just flat out wrong here.

Besides, if Reiper's school is like any decent school in the US, there is a procedure in place for him to appeal grades he feels are unfairly marked. So one way or another his opinion will be heard. Declaring the grader to have been "PC run amok" doesn't give the opportunity for their side to be heard.

That is no different to how most people present anecdotes. They present the experience and state a conclusion. You could say any of those conclusions is to prevent the other side from being heard. You're taking umbrage with a standard rhetorical device because you are sensitive about this particular conclusion.

 

[wizzy555]

You're taking umbrage with a standard rhetorical device because you are sensitive about this particular conclusion.

No, I pretty much call out "PC" as a dishonest tactic every time I see it used.

Yes and that's the problem you've instantly discounted the idea it COULD be correct.