From the Rose Law Group Growlery
By Phil Riske | Senior Reporter/Writer
ven politically liberal people realize when liberalism goes too far. Such is the case with political correctness.
I couldn’t address the subject any better than did Buz Williams, a retired Long Beach, Calif., police officer and Prescott resident, who wrote about it in The Daily Courier. Here are excerpts as he refers to a speech given in the 1850s by Frederick Douglass, a former slave who became one of the premier abolitionist speakers and writers in his day.
I couldn’t help but compare his speech with a story that hit the press the day before from that bastion of progressive thinking, Seattle, Washington.
Seattle city workers were advised in 2013 not to use the term “citizen” or the words “brown bag” because they might be offensive to some people. Elliott Bronstein of the city’s Office for Civil Rights wrote a memo to city workers explaining many people who live in Seattle are legal residents, but are not “citizens.” Those individuals might take offense to being called citizens. Bronstein suggested that an alternative word could be “resident.”
He went on to say the term “brown bag” was offensive to the African-American community. Bronstein suggested the terms “sack lunch” and “lunch-and-learn” be used instead. (Really? Lunch-and-learn?) He said historically it was used to determine color of the skin for which African-Americans could attend certain social functions. That’s news to me. Have any of you ever heard that?
No matter what a person may say, innocently, with no malice, someone else can take offense. It seems like in today’s politically correct society, someone will take offense. Maybe we should have contests to rename other words that could offend someone, some time in the next millennium. How about instead of “cracker,” we use the phrase “unleavened, flat, crispy biscuit?” Remember Mexican jumping beans? There is so much that is offensive with that expression. Let’s change that to “south of the border animated legumes” or “Hispanic dancing pods.” The list could be endless.
The point is: Fredrick Douglass addressed a very real and serious evil in a direct, solemn and earnest manner. No one laughed when he discussed slavery. Elliott Bronstein sent out a memo to address an artificial problem, and I’ll bet all the city workers who received it laughed and shook their heads at his pompous asininity. Is this really so serious a problem that it needs to be addressed by some official in the city’s Civil Rights Office? Or was he just trying to do something to justify his position?
During his campaign, President Trump decried political correctness from the mountaintop. He certainly hasn’t retreated from that cry. So who’s right (if anyone is) about what’s called “PC?”
Are liberals in the end correct?
Or are Prescott’s Buz Williams and Trump advocates on the mark?
Is not the answer somewhere where most answers are — in the middle?
