Two instances of political correctness…. not.

A foreign language teacher complained that “to hunt” was not in the textbook she was using and commented:
“What wasn’t included (probably because it is politically incorrect) was cazar (to hunt). “
In a newspaper article from 2005 reviewing a TV series, the format of 6 families settling the West including a Native American family was described as “a predicatable piece of political correctness”.
In both instances, political correctness is used to criticize prevailing attitudes. But do these attitudes actually prevail, and if they do, should they, based on fact? In the first instance, it is safe to say that while there are a handful of people who think hunting is evil or some such, the majority of people realize that hunting has been and still is the way a lot of people get their food. What may happen is that a tiny minority becomes active with the school board or even on the board of the textbook publisher and pushes their odd obsession. That’s not the same as some wide-spread political correction syndrome dominating education. In the second instance, Native American families did settle the West, stupid.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *