> Doug wrote: "I don't think the "tectonic" metaphor is apt. Change is 
> usually more piecemeal and complex than that."

I don't know, Doug, I think the profound changes that took place in this 
country and elsewhere in the west (and the world) were almost sudden. 
Certainly a lot faster than it used to take for major societal changes to 
occur.
I think that was because of technology.......transportation, television, 
radio, movies, the mainstreaming of popular music and its accessability and, 
now of course, the internet . What might have taken a century or so to make 
its way into the fabric of society can now do so in minutes!
I was wondering if anyone would bring in the race/integration/segregation 
issue in response to my post.
Lord knows this is not about race or racism or really how anyone views right 
and wrong. I was simply trying to explain how we got to this place where we 
are even discussing the term "political correctness" and I was using our 
history as an example. As Neil wrote, political correctness has been around 
a longer time than we have and I suppose every age has had its own version 
of it.
Political correctness covers a wide area and race is only one part of it.
Race is only one aspect of it and one that I would probably be described as 
politically correct concerning (the pathology of unwed mothers and out of 
wedlock children not withstanding; besides an unwed, welfare mother can be 
of any race).
There are many other areas of political correctness besides the racial one 
and the southern thing.

Your old friend in Virginia,
Deane


>
> Consider: Well into the 1960s, the "politically correct" paradigm among 
> white southerners regarding race was one that endorsed segregation and 
> inequality as "natural" if not God-given. Those who supported integration 
> and egalitarianism were deemed "radical" and faced intimidation, violence, 
> and even death if they pushed too hard for this goal (or merely 
> antagonized the wrong folks). Some time in the 1970s-80s, a shift occurred 
> that brought integration into the mainstream, even though its opponents 
> remained strong in pockets. The South has changed a lot between the 
> 1950s-60s and the present. One might say that endorsement of integration 
> is "politically correct," but I don't think many on this list would argue 
> that it is just part of some politically motivated scheme to tear down all 
> that was fine and noble in the "old order."
>
> Doug Deal
>
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Douglas Deal" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: Latter day uses of the term 'politically correct'


> [log in to unmask] wrote:
>> Although I cannot remember exactly when it was (early 80's?) I can 
>> remember almost precisely when I first heard the new expression 
>> "politically correct".
>> The reason I can remember it is because I knew exactly what it meant when 
>> I heard it.
>> To me, now, as I examine the meaning I would say that it came into use as 
>> a result of what was a major and very profound tectonic shift in 
>> American/Western culture as what had formerly been considered Radical 
>> assimilated itself into our culture and became the Norm.
>> The paradigm for almost everything in our way of life.....art, religion, 
>> manners, speech patterns, education and studies, morals, historical 
>> interpretation, child rearing, politics, the press....even the way 
>> professionals like lawyers and doctors began to view themselves as 
>> capitalists who could and should and would venture into areas that were 
>> once considered unethical like advertising themselves and their wares 
>> took an almost sudden shift and were quickly accepted and assimilated 
>> into our culture.
>> The paradigm changed but as many, many persons chose to remain outside of 
>> that new paradigm and decided not to subscribe to the new one, they 
>> quickly saw that theirs had become the "incorrect" view and that it was 
>> this new attitude that was the accepted norm, the status quo, the 
>> politically correct view.
>>
> Deane:
>
> I don't think the "tectonic" metaphor is apt. Change is usually more 
> piecemeal and complex than that.
> Consider: Well into the 1960s, the "politically correct" paradigm among 
> white southerners regarding race was one that endorsed segregation and 
> inequality as "natural" if not God-given. Those who supported integration 
> and egalitarianism were deemed "radical" and faced intimidation, violence, 
> and even death if they pushed too hard for this goal (or merely 
> antagonized the wrong folks). Some time in the 1970s-80s, a shift occurred 
> that brought integration into the mainstream, even though its opponents 
> remained strong in pockets. The South has changed a lot between the 
> 1950s-60s and the present. One might say that endorsement of integration 
> is "politically correct," but I don't think many on this list would argue 
> that it is just part of some politically motivated scheme to tear down all 
> that was fine and noble in the "old order."
>
> Doug Deal
>