i have never been given to convention before, so it stands to reason i will not be given to conventional political correctness. i have always identified with the little boy at the end of the story of the emperor’s new clothes. he wasnt fooled by the play on ego that everyone else was. he was simply honest. its one of my favorite tales.
i believe in being tactful. having suffered so much as a child among my peers, whose taunts and name calling were insufferable, i grew up to be especially aware of the power my words have to harm or heal. i think carelessly spoken words are among the cruelest weapons.
one ‘politically correct’ term i do agree with is ‘little people’. people born with dwarfism. why we have to call them anything other than people is a little beyond me. but little is better than dwarf, which is a mythical creature of little attractiveness. or worse is the older term midget, which is as diminutive as it sounds. but i prefer to refer to people as people.
on the other hand, but not, are the racial terms. there are so many worms in this can i could feed my snake for a thousand years, except for their toxicity. obviously, insulting terms are stupid and cruel. but why do we need terms at all? skin color should be no more more political than hair color, eye color, or birthmarks. i, for one, oppose the terms african american, native american, asian american. i believe you are either african, or american. unless you have duel citizenship, you are either illegal or an american. what difference does it make what color you are? nicole kidman has legitimate duel citizenship, so is it correct to say she is aussie american? have you ever noticed, white people are not called something americans? and yet we are not called native americans either.
something is wrong here.
the point is, your identifying characteristics are just that. characteristics. skin color, eye color, hair color. its just color. if you want to be set apart from the main, go by your family name. thats who/where you come from. or go by your clan, or gang. its social groups that define us. not color.
not that i think you shouldnt be happy about your personal heritage. im happy to be partly of scottish decent, of the gordon clan, keepers of the loch ness. im proud to be partly of swedish decent, from vikings, and goths before them. im pleased to be partly of french canadian decent, of the house of montagne. with a trace of huron indian on an otherwise extremely white background.
my beau is half italian and half cherokee. the term latino comes from latin, which is a language that originated in rome, which is in italy. im not sure how latin got to include all hispanics, when hispanic comes from spanish which is not italy. not that i care. i like his italian side, and i like his cherokee side. he wears his hair long in honor of his indian heritage.
i call him pinky brown.
imagine my surprise when i went to wikipedia.com and looked up ‘latin america’ to find that france was responsible for coining the term, and that italy isnt even in the list of countries referred to. latin was spoken in rome, but is an indo-european language.
hmmm. more geography lessons