Category Archives: Political Correctness

Given the recent attacks on my libertarian friends in Haaretz, it seems that they dont enjoy great public relations. And if you dont buy into their social and economic theories, then your criticism is perfectly legitimate, although there is no need to turn them into caricatures of ideological fanatics.

Since I was affiliated for two decades as a research fellow with the Cato Institute in Washington the premier think tank that promotes the libertarian agenda and served as secretary of state in the shadow cabinet (do not laugh please) of the U.S. Libertarian Party, and was the foreign policy advisor to Ron Paul, the libertarian presidential candidate in 2008, I feel an obligation to contribute my two cents to the debate. After all, my name had appeared in Catos publications above the name of Friedrich Hayek one of the intellectual icons of the libertarian movement and Nobel laureate in economics because both our last names started with an H.

Although I have moved away in recent years from the libertarian movement ideologically and politically and today identify myself as a liberal, for example supporting the basic tenets of the welfare state I reject the notion that libertarianism or classical liberalism is associated with the extreme right. I reject this notion all the more so because I dont accept the assumption that Donald Trump-style populism is the product of libertarian ideas an assumption that some Haaretz writers advance.

For example, it would be ridiculous to believe that the Cato Institute or other libertarian groups would have promoted an amendment to the U.S. Constitution akin to the Israeli Nationality Law, which would have defined the United States as an Anglo-Saxon or Christian state. If anything, most American libertarians support almost free immigration and a clear separation between religion and state, and they oppose restricting the civil rights of Americans of Muslim descent under the guise of the war on terror.

It may not be surprising that the main focus of the discussion in Haaretz was on libertarian support for free market principles, but this is only one element of an entire agenda which favors free immigration, drug legislation, full rights for LGBT people (David Boaz, the vice president of Cato, came out of the closet three decades ago, when it was not yet in vogue), complete support for freedom of expression and press and opposition to any form of censorship.

These and other ideas completely contradict the agenda of the American conservative movement and the current Republican Party. They advocate the expansion of the war on drugs, seek to impose restrictions on immigration, oppose same-sex marriage, and believe that the government has the right to censor material that harms national security or the so-called traditional values of the American nation and Christianity.

While many on the political left today believe that those who do not fully embrace the values of political correctness should be censored, and call for government regulation on social media a position that many Trumpists support libertarians represent the few voices that are pushing against the inquisitors on both the right and the left of the political map. They support instead the free market, literally, of opinions and ideas.

As a former research fellow at the Cato Institute, I was in charge of preparing working papers and writing books that centered on the principles of libertarian foreign policy, based on reducing U.S. military involvement and its defense budget. They strongly opposed the war in Iraq and the turning of the war on terror into military adventures and ideological crusades in the Middle East. At the same time, they backed the nuclear deal with Iran and the promotion of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement positions that run contrary to those of the Republican Party and the hawkish right in the U.S.

And now, American-Jewish supporters of the Israeli right are trying to create in Israel a libertarian-nationalist hybrid known as the Kohelet Forum, which seeks to empower the state in order to advance nationalist goals, but opposes at the same time the states role in the socio-economic sphere. In the opinion of these people, increasing the defense budget and realizing the Zionist vision do not necessarily require an activist government. Such a logic is similar to the logic of Jews for Jesus.

Libertarian intellectuals believe that free international trade strengthens economic and cultural cooperation between nations so-called globalization and helps advance world peace. Nationalist and populist Trumpism has come out against these ideas, and seeks to eliminate the remnants of the libertarian tradition in the Republican Party. It does not support a free market but rather crony capitalism corrupt capitalism based on mutual interests between business and government. The behavior of Trump and his supporters, including the refusal to accept the results of the presidential election, is proof of their utter disregard for the principles of the U.S. Constitution, which is the foundation of a classic liberal system.

Classical liberalism, including its libertarian version, is in retreat in todays political environment among rising extremism on both the right and the left in the West. Collectivist ideologies both nationalist and socialist are being revived in opposition against globalization or neoliberalism and the so-called elites.

But even that will pass. Joe Biden will try to moderate the free market forces unleashed by Ronald Reagan, who was trying to weaken the foundations of the welfare state built by Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt. In the end, however, we in the West will return to the starting point of our intellectual odyssey, where the protection of the political and economic freedom of individuals the supreme libertarian value will return to the heart of the political debate.

Dr. Leon Hadar is a senior analyst for geostrategic consultancies Duco and Wikistrat

See original here:

Give the libertarians a break - Haaretz

The Democratic party has taken a radical turn on immigration. Gone are the not-so-distant days of Barbara Jordan, when concern for the rule of law and social and economic cohesion were taken seriously. Today, the party is led by firebrands like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who call for abolishing an entire enforcement agency. Democrats have staffed all four immigration-related panels in the House of Representatives with members who are hostile to national borders. The Democratic-controlled chamber has already passed two major amnesty bills. Not to be outdone, President Biden has signed several executive actions that stop construction of the border wall, eviscerate interior enforcement, and remove restrictions on travelers from regions rife with terrorism, among other things.

None of these policies had the support of Democratic leadership in the 1990s. At that time, President Clinton was enforcing the law, environmentalists were concerned about population growth, and labor unions were prioritizing American workers. Those positions, which had bipartisan support, are condemned as close-minded and bigoted by Democratic leadership today. What brought about this fundamental change, a change so extreme it threatens the very sovereignty of the United States? Like their libertarian counterparts on the right, one should never discount the powerful financial incentive that Democratic elites have for opposing borders. But powerful financial incentives existed long before the current push to effectively abolish immigration law. The mainstreaming of these radical positions is, at least in part, the result of a long Gramscian march through the institutions that began in the early 20th century.

In his book The Genesis of Political Correctness: The Basis of a False Morality, Michael William traces the development of critical theory by a group of German social scientists who grew disillusioned with the failure of traditional Marxism. Realizing no proletarian revolt was forthcoming, they converted the ideologys attacks on class into broader cultural antagonisms. The group, known as the Frankfurt School, saw the fundamental structure of Western society as irredeemably oppressive and sought its eventual overthrow through internal conflict. This conflict would be fomented primarily through the manipulation of language that would recast all relationships as power struggles between the oppressors and the oppressed. By changing the way that familial and social relationships were defined, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, and their colleagues sought to change the way that people understood these relationships. Over time, they hoped that discontent and division would break down the existing order of society.

In his essay Repressive Tolerance, Marcuse, echoing Rousseau, argues that public opinion is invalid because a false consciousness has become the general consciousness, enslaving people who do not know they are enslaved. This tyranny of the majority, which masquerades as tolerance, can only be overcome by militant intolerance. Marcuse advocates banning the speech and assembly of certain groups and he calls for the withdrawal of civil rights from a majority who is oppressing the minority. He supports rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions and argues that support for calm and reasoned debate facilitates oppression. What is needed is the development of an enraged and subversive faction that is willing to engage in violence against the established order.

Marcuse believed that the catalyst for this uprising would be alienated minority groups. Such groups would take the place of the broader working class who, to Marcuses chagrin, seemed content in their supposed oppression. So he looked to the American black population as a possible source of agitation and supported militant activism. It is important to note that Marcuse did not want these activists to succeed in remedying injustice, but wanted minorities to remain marginalized from the larger society. As William explains, For Marcuse, the integration into society of supposedly alienated groups acts as a stabilizing force and thereby neutralizes the revolutionary elements which, according to Marxism, should be committed to societys overthrow.

The key for Marcuse, a founder of critical theory, was to sow division. It was not to redress wrongs or grievances within the existing social framework, but to perpetuate and inflame those wrongs and grievances until the social framework could be overthrown. Integrating peoples into a functioning society was not helpful to his goal of revolution. But one major development, which Marcuse may not have even anticipated, was helpful: the modern era of mass immigration. As Marcuse was winding down, that era was winding up. The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 exponentially increased the number of immigrants admitted to the United States. In just a couple of decades, there were enough newcomers to begin to overwhelm the assimilation process. And by that time, there were enough critical theorists in academia to challenge the very notion of assimilation.

One such theorist is Jurgen Habermas, a prominent German sociologist whose voluminous body of work is heavily influenced by the Frankfurt School. As William points out, Habermas believes that the classic form of the nation state is disintegrating and envisions a constitutional patriotism that is stripped of language and culture and devoted to a political authority that extends civil rights beyond borders. He claims that citizenship was never conceptually tied to national identity and that republican freedom can cut its umbilical links to the womb of the national consciousness which had originally given birth to it. Habermasnow sees the possibility of a global public sphere that was once imagined by Kant and Rousseau: The arrival of world citizenship is no longer merely a phantom, though we are still far from achieving it. State citizenship and world citizenship form a continuum that already shows itself, at least in outline form.

For the classic form of nations to disintegrate, national identity must first be dissolved. Habermas, like many of his fellow academics, sees mass immigration as a catalyst for this process. He praises the effect of multiculturalism on the United States and, in the European context, writes approvingly that Immigration from Eastern Europe and poverty-stricken regions of the Third World will intensify multicultural diversity in these societies. This will give rise to social tensions. He believes that these social tensions, which were sought by Marcuse, will hasten the move to a supranational governing structure that is devoid of shared history or tradition.

Like Marcuse, Habermas dismisses the suffering that will result from these social tensions. He denigrates concerns over the upheaval caused by mass immigration, referring to such concerns as the chauvinism of prosperity: The European states should agree upon a liberal immigration policy. They should not draw their wagons around themselves and their chauvinism of prosperity, hoping to ignore the pressures of those hoping to immigrate or seek asylum. The democratic right of self-determination includes, of course, the right to preserve ones own political culture, which includes the concrete context of citizens rights, though it does not include the self-assertion of a privileged cultural life form.

Habermas asserts that Ones own national tradition will, in each case, have to be appropriated in such a manner that it is related to and relavtiveized [sic] by the vantage points of other cultures. He sees mass immigration and the relativizing of cultures as a way of democratizing citizenship. This process is being pushed with a particular goal in mind. As he explains, Only democratic citizenship can prepare the way for a condition of world citizenship which does not close itself off within particularistic biases, and which accepts a worldwide form of political communication.

This view is now pervasive among public figures. William cites several others, like Bhikhu Parekh, a British political theorist turned politician who served on race and multicultural commissions before being appointed to a life peerage in the House of Lords. Parekh uses his influential position to call for unlimited immigration to transform the United Kingdom into a community of communities and a multicultural post-nation that sheds its cultural identity. These sentiments are nearly universal in American universities and are routinely pushed by post-American politicians and activists. While campaigning for president, Joe Biden tersely summarized this view with his assertion that people who entered the United States illegally are more American than most Americans are. In other words, America is merely a vague unrooted universal sentiment.

Underlying this position is the skepticism and intolerance of critical theory, with its contempt for the rule of law and efforts to integrate newcomers into a majority culture that is seen as oppressive. As William notes, this contempt extends to patriotic citizens, who are now being taught to embrace a hatred for their countries and their histories. Like previous revolutions, this great upheaval is being undertaken with the foolish hope of creating a secular utopia. Whether they realize it or not, Democratic leaders are now perpetuating this upheaval with their efforts to effectively abolish immigration law.

See the rest here:

Critical Theory and Mass Immigration - Immigration Blog

I joined The Daily Iowans Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee because I have an overlooked and poorly portrayed condition.

Turner syndrome led me to one of the most impactful experiences. Having a medical condition that media organizations often overlook or misrepresent is what inspired me to join The Daily IowansDiversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee. Turner syndrome is rarely in the media and is not portrayed well when it is.

WPLG Local 10 did a story about a girl with Turner syndrome and a serious heart defect. The headline, Potentially deadly syndrome affects only females, is misleading. Heart conditions, which are common with Turner syndrome, are serious. However, Turner syndrome is not a terminal disease. Calling it a deadly syndrome makes it seem like clickbait instead of being accurate.

This is why its important to have diversity training like ones the DI has held, which emphasize the importance of doing research when writing about identities we ourselves do not have. If the journalist had asked a source or researched the average life expectancy of someone with Turner syndrome, this mistake could have been avoided.

Commentators even made religious and political jokes on the story. Those jokes arent necessary. People with Turner syndrome go through many serious and scary medical procedures, requiring utmost courage. Ive been told at 18 years old I would probably need open heart surgery and took a daily growth hormone for years.

People who choose to tell their story deserve respect instead of jokes. Turner syndrome needs to be portrayed more accurately so there is an understanding of it.

Law and Order SVUhad a character with Turner syndrome. The show said people with Turner syndrome are trapped in the bodies of children. This type of rhetoric is harmful to the mental health of people with Turner syndrome who are already self-conscious about being short, looking a couple years younger, and their body developing slower than that of their peers. Even if I dont look 22, Im a legal adult. My body is that of one.

This is why its valuable the DIs DEI team is willing to talk about how to make coverage more inclusive of all people including those with disabilities. The first step towards fixing these portrayals is journalists being willing to listen and learn like the DIis.

People with disabilities are often overlooked in the media and diversity discussions. Im blessed beyond words to have a DEI committee which has not overlooked and sees the value behind the stories of others like me.

Our DEI teams mission statement of giving a voice to underrepresented communities has a special place in my heart because it shows nobody should be embarrassed about an identity they have. I used to be embarrassed to talk about Turner syndrome to even my closest friends.

We refer to a style guide, which is based on a University of Iowa-developed style guide, with terms not to use and not use when referring to certain groups of people. Adjusting our vocabulary is not just about political correctness but showing people you genuinely care about them.

Im thankful for a platform to share my story and a DEI team which shares my passion for fixing portrayals of Turner syndrome and other identities. Accuracy and respect are vital because were all valuable and newsworthy human beings with stories worth telling.

Columns reflect the opinions of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board, The Daily Iowan, or other organizations in which the author may be involved.

Read more from the original source:

Opinion | How Turner syndrome inspired me to join the DI's DEI Committee - UI The Daily Iowan

Auto Traderand executive search specialistsEnnis & Co.are collaborating on a number of free-to-attend diversity and inclusion (D&I) digital events over the coming weeks.

On 21stApril, Ennis & Cos founder and director, Lynda Ennis, will be joining the next episode of Auto TradersCourageous Conversationswebinar series, alongsideHaymarket Automotivesmanaging director, Rachael Prasher, to discuss the role of political correctness and PC language in the workplace.

The one-hour webinar will explore where the struggles are with understanding what is and isnt acceptable. Importantly, theyll also be looking at what steps businesses can take to ensure their D&I strategies are adapting in accordance to the changing PC landscape.

The webinar will be followed by the third annualMaking Diversity & Inclusion a Business Realityevent.

Daksh Gupta, Marshall Motor Group CEO,who has been closely involved with the event since its launch in2017, commented on the need to inspire and encourage a balance of gender, races, and backgrounds into automotive roles.

I am very much looking forward to being involved in the Making Diversity and Inclusion a Business Reality in partnership with Ennis and Co and Auto Trader.

While we are starting to see some real traction on gender diversity across the sector, and certainly within Marshall, theres clearly more work to be done to make our businesses more accessible, attractive and inclusive to a wider talent pool than we have today. With our combined commitment and drive from across the sector, I have every confidence we really can make Diversity and Inclusion our business reality.

Go here to read the rest:

Next: Auto Trader to hold free diversity and inclusion events - Motor Trader

When the Australian soap opera Neighbours introduced its first non-white family in 1993 the Lims from Hong Kong their first major storyline was to be accused of eating another neighbours dog.

Admittedly, the person doing the accusing was Julie Martin, a character known for being obnoxious, and described by the official Neighbours book as unbearable. Eventually, in a triumph for race relations, they were vindicated. After six weeks, they were written out. The dog, Holly, stayed around for five more years.

Historically, Australian television both scripted and not has been overwhelmingly white and Anglo-Saxon, more so than the population.

Recently, Indigenous actors Shareena Clanton and Meyne Wyatt revealed that they had experienced racism and racial slurs on the set of Neighbours. Fellow Neighbours alum Sharon Johal told Guardian Australia she endured direct, indirect and casual racism on set, including being referred to as the black one, and mimicked with an Indian accent like Apu from The Simpsons.

The former host of the long-running variety show Hey Hey Its Saturday, Daryl Somers, recently apologised to the singer Kamahl for repeated unsolicited jokes about his skin colour and race when he made guest appearances in the 1980s.

A montage of segments, recently circulated on Twitter, showed a joke that Kamahls album would go black instead of gold or platinum, the singer getting hit in the face with white powder and told Youre a real white man now, and a caricature of him sitting in a stew pot with a bone through his nose.

The TV historian Andrew Mercado says television in Australia has generally been whiter and less representative of the general population, compared with the UK and US, though that is changing.

Mercado says he can find only three instances where Australian Indigenous characters were featured on the main competitor to Neighbours, Channel Sevens Home and Away, across 32 years.

One of those was a dream sequence in which the character Alf Stewart imagined himself transformed into an Indigenous man, due to a brain tumour.

One actor was Wes Patten, who played a student called Kevin Baker in 1993, Mercado says. One was a ghost that Alf imagined he was, when he was dying of a brain tumour on the operating table. Luke Carroll played Dr Lewis Rigg, for seven weeks. He is their last and most recent, in 2007.

The Alf Stewart storyline, he says, doesnt even count [as representation]. He wasnt real.

The set-up was he was having a brain tumour and he was imagining things Alf was walking around in the body of an Aboriginal man, who was played by David Ngoombujarra.

Now, he says, Home and Away features a Maori family, the Parata family, played by Rob Kipa-Williams, Kawakawa Fox-Reo and Ethan Browne.

And Neighbours, at least recently, has surged ahead of Home and Away in representation. Current characters include hearing-impaired teacher Curtis, played by Nathan Borg, and transgender student Mackenzie, played by Georgie Stone.

Both were cast after the actors pitched themselves to the show, and their characters storylines are written in consultation with the actors.

Yet, when it comes to race, Mercado says both and especially Channel Seven have a lot to do.

He draws comparisons with The Heights, a two-season soap opera commissioned by the ABC set in a public housing tower, and with New Zealands Shortland Street.

The Heights screened in the UK during the pandemic last year and averaged a million viewers a day the same as Neighbours in the UK.

What I liked about The Heights wasnt just that they had a family that was Indigenous, it was the fact that there was another man who lived in the building who was also Indigenous, who was not related to them, Mercado says. The Indigenous characters had other Indigenous friends in the show to speak to I thought it was extraordinarily well done and I wish the ABC would do more.

The cast of Shortland Street is a third Mori or Polynesian, which frequently rises to 50% when you include guest roles.

And that is their No 1 commercial TV show, he says.

In the UK, soaps like EastEnders and Hollyoaks have featured many more non-white faces for years, though Mercado points out that Hollyoaks was criticised by many of its actors last year for similar issues of racism.

And, he says: Coronation Street, which has been going for 60 years, has only recently brought in a black family.

In 1989, another mainstream Australian show, A Country Practice, was years ahead of its competitors.

Prof Gary Foley, an academic at Victoria University, and Indigenous activist who helped found the Canberra Tent Embassy, featured in a guest role on the show over four episodes.

Crucially, Foley says, he was allowed to write his character himself.

[Creator] Jim Davern rung me up and asked me if I was interested, Foley told Guardian Australia. I said I was only interested if I could write my own character and my own dialogue. The character I wanted to play was an Aboriginal Christian pastor who advocated land rights.

I didnt have any of the sort of problems that the people on Neighbours did.

Kim Lester, who along with Melanie Tait, hosts A Country Podcast, said that Foleys appearance was a model that other shows of the time could have used to create better representation.

Lester says that A Country Practice was still not the most multicultural show and in an interview with Davern he acknowledged it was a product of its time.

But as early as 1982 it featured a storyline about a gay couple who were rejected by their community, which Lester says was essentially unprecedented on commercial TV.

Foley says: It was a productive time for me because the message I was trying to get across about land rights for Aboriginal people got through, and it got through to the biggest audience of my life. It went to 28 different countries.

Which brings us to the Lim family. Their dog storyline was intended to be a parable against racism, but the reaction was overwhelmingly negative, Mercado says.

In their really clunky way, that was them trying to say look at the discrimination they face, he says. But if there was any good intended to it, it was lost in the delivery.

By the time her character had seen the error of her ways, she made friends with her new neighbours, but they were dispatched after six weeks.

Mercado says it is fear of change that is keeping screens so white.

I believe that the main structural issue that keeps Australian TV so white is network executives who are still all mostly male, straight and white, he says. Until they include more diverse decision makers, and stop second-guessing their audience, nothing will change.

Foley tells Guardian Australia that the revelations on Neighbours are nothing new.

Its not a question of trying to do something on the set of Neighbours, it is a question of the whole of Australia coming together to expose the elephant in the room white Australian racism, notions of white supremacy that Australians held until the latter half of the half of the 20th century.

Recently Somers now hosting Dancing With the Stars said Hey Hey Its Saturday would not be able to be aired today due to political correctness.

Mercado says that argument is the stupidest thing.

People have a sugar-coated memory of what it was like, he says. I always say to those people watch an episode of that show from beginning to end.

There is edgy and dangerous comedy on Australian TV all the time now. The difference is if you look at a show like Have You Been Paying Attention, they make Asian jokes about Sam Pang, because he is on the show with them. Not a guest who drops in every five months. He was on the show to start with.

A show like Pizza or Housos is as politically incorrect as you can get. They are making fun of everybody, because everybody is in the show.

Link:

Whitewashed: why does Australian TV have such a problem with race? - The Guardian

Playwright Drew Hayden Taylor isn't concerned about the use of the word "Indians" in the title of his play Cottagers and Indians, and he doesn't think you should be either.

Cottagers and Indians will be the first contemporary play presented by P.E.I.'s Watermark Theatre, which announced over the winter that it is changing its mandate from being exclusively classic plays.

Hayden Taylor, a member of the Anishinaabe First Nation, says the title is a simple play on "cowboys and Indians," and the word "Indian" is still common parlance among his own people.

But he said there have been incidents during previous productions of the show, with complaints phoned into the box office, and some store ownersrefusing to put up promotional posters.

"Frequently, if not all the time, the people who have issues with the title 'Indian' are usually white people," Hayden Taylor told Island Morning host Laura Chapin.

"Most of the Native people who are familiar with my work and the play know that it's an ironic term."

"Indian" is still a term that is used regularly by his family, the playwright said, noting that the word still has legal meaning in Canada. He carries an Indian status card, signifying a status defined by the piece of legislation known as the Indian Act.

But he acknowledged the use of the word is complicated.

"We've reappropriated the word? No, that's even wrong. We've not reappropriated the word. The word never left. On my reserve, we still use the term 'Indian,'" Hayden Taylor said.

"It's one of these situations [if] where Indigenous people use the term, you know, it's OK. We've earned the right to use the term, but people outside our community are not allowed to use the term. When it's used in that manner, it's not really politically correct."

But for his own people the term is a familiar one, one they all used while growing up, and they are reluctant to let it go because someone else has decided it is offensive.

"It's just another case of people in the dominant culture changing their mind about what's good and what's not good," he said.

Cottagers and Indians is a two-person play that examines Indigenous/non-Indigenous conflicts involving land and water issues, using the example of wild rice or manoomin that grows around the area where Hayden Taylor lives.

One of the ironies about the controversy surrounding the title, he said, is that the play's characters never use the word 'Indian.' Similar controversies do come up, though.

"I play with the perception of political correctness of Native people. You know, there's this whole thing about what you would call Native people," said Hayden Taylor.

"I do a flip side of 'What do we call white people?' 'People of pallor, with colour challenge, pigment denied,' etc, etc, etc. So I play around with perceptions of identity and culture."

Cottagers and Indians runs at the Watermark Theatre in North Rustico, P.E.I.from Aug. 10 to 28.

View post:

Why you shouldn't be scared of 'Cottagers and Indians' - CBC.ca

For the better part of the last decade, America has experienced a snowball of pushback against customs that were once considered social norms, but now acknowledged to be inappropriate.Social media continues to play a major role in a particular kind of public and social accountability, also known as cancelling. In recent months weve seen comedians, politicians, and other public figures debate and disparage this sometimes effective accountability/shaming tool cancel culture. So, what exactly is cancel culture and why is the movement against it anti-Black?The origins of cancel culture trace back to Black Twitter. Black Twitter is the space of the platform where Black users retweet and discuss ideas about entertaining or trending stories.Around 2014, the phrase youre canceled began appearing. The phrase was simply a tweet or hashtag used to call out current or past wrongdoings by public figures. Today, its being referred to as a culture and a movement. However, like many of Black folks creations, the hijacking and misrepresentation of this so-called movement was sure to follow.In mid-2020, a bevy of non-Black critics of BLM protests began speaking out against what they saw as cancel culture. The critics ranged from well-known Youtubers to obscure Instagramers, but eventually reached the realm of politics and daytime TV.Critics like Meghan McCain, Ted Cruz, and even Barack Obama have weighed in on the movement, albeit with some distinct points of view, respectively (Obama). There are observable patterns with mainstream anti-cancel culture warriors, they are usually white, and often conservative. With growing criticism of the movement, several conservatives have used cancel culture as a way to reframe their unfavorable sentiments on political correctness and accountability.Interestingly, the earliest critiques of cancel culture actually came from the Black community. However, those critics did not attempt to do away with the idea of accountability. Early critics discussed the need to affirm rehabilitation and personal growth of individuals, pivoting away from the sometimes unforgiving shaming tool that is canceling.Yet, despite diverging sentiments among Black social media, cancel culture helped hold R. Kelly accountable, for example. Cancel culture and the Me Too movement also called for accountability from folks like Harvey Weinstein, Bill OReilly, Megyn Kelly, Matt Lauer and many more. So, how can holding sexual predators and bigots accountable be a bad thing?Well, for those who oppose the movement, canceling probes spotlights the issues a bit too much. Moreover, in an era where most conservatives supported an alleged sexual predator and racist (and still do), Donald Trump, anti-cancel culture was/is the answer a convenient and pithy retort for those who dont want to think about the complexities of social inequality and injustice.Anti-cancelers are the bad spin-off no one asked for. Simply, what most anti-cancelers want is no consequences. Instead, like public figures Senator Ted Cruz, and Fox news opinionist Tucker Carlson, anti-cancelers appeal to white Americans fatigue with confronting inequality and racism.Earlier this year when Dr. Suess enterprises decided to stop printing six of its books containing blatantly racist imagery (Africans depicted as monkeys, and Asians being called China men), both Carlson and Cruz reacted publicly, by blaming cancel culture.Critics of the discontinuation of these books, simply ignored the racist imagery, succumbing to their childhood nostalgia. During a recent airing of his show, Tucker Carlson went on to say,The liberals have a problem with mid-century American culture, thats the problem with wokeism.Carlson yet again misrepresenting yet another Black colloquialism, woke. To add, mid-century American culture most certainly had no problem with Black people being depicted as monkeys and apparently, neither does Tucker Carlson.At this years Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), anti- cancel culture was highlighted. Speakers like Ted Cruz prioritized spreading the message of anti- cancel culture, or what I call, racist spinoff.Racist spinoff is the repackaging of any social justice tool, to communicate or defend racist ideas. Therefore, anti-cancel culture is indeed anti-Black, because it takes a Black social justice term or movement, and repurposes it in defense of racism. Also, racist spinoff is profitable, Cruz was recently selling signed Dr. Seuss books for sixty dollars, attempting to fight cancel culture.Anti-cancel warriors prioritize ignoring the experiences of marginalized groups and recycling manifest destiny dreams of white America. Moreover, anti-cancel warriors dont seem to care that much when Black people like Bill Cosby, or liberal figures are being canceled.Usually, their outrage is piqued when white American nostalgia is critiqued, and marginalized groups speak loudly about social issues.Again, it seems what anti-cancelers truly want is complete freedom from accountability and consequences storming the nations Capitol and expecting no charges or prison time.When we look back at American history there are many things to learn from. Part of learning from history is identifying a problem and setting a new standard. I believe in reform and the ability for people to change, but first, the problem must be acknowledged and yes, canceled. Honestly, a lot of so-called canceled celebs dont actually suffer any long-term financial or social loss. Many public figures reemerge a few months later. They simply wait out the backlash, issue an apology letter on social media, or stay silent. In reality, cancel cultures effectiveness varies.As the anti-cancel culture movement grows, we can expect to see it used as a right-wing campaign tactic for the 2022 and 2024 elections. And yes, performative activism and the increasing amount of viral moment addicts posing as intellectuals is annoying. However, systemic injustices are far more annoying and quite frequently deadly, so cancel away, please. In other words may the consequences for ones actions apply.Byline: Roderick Thomas is an NYC based writer, filmmaker, and Host of Hippie By Accident Podcast.(Instagram: @Hippiebyaccident,

Read more:

ANTI-CANCEL CULTURE IS REALLY JUST ANTI BLACKNESS...AGAIN - The Red Hook Star-Revue

Boycott is happening frequently in the context of politics.

That is disturbing.

Georgias recently enacted laws carry overtones of revenge by Republicans for former President Donald Trumps 2020 defeat in that state and the election of two Democratic senators from Georgia that gave Democrats control of the Senate.

But mixing politics and business is bad business. Americans traditionally require businesses to be open to the public, regardless of whether the customer is Democratic, Republican, etc.

Shouldnt we also expect businesses that are publicly owned to similarly stay at arms length from political decisions?

There is no outright crisis to be fought here. Georgias new laws, while regressive, are nowhere near the racism of the Jim Crow era.

Some provisions, such as the one forbidding anyone from offering even water to voters waiting in lines, are politically stupid. As to food, there is precedent: Free food, booze, etc., has been used as a wrongful vote-buying enticement since the dawn of the Republic.

Every Presidential election from Washingtons through Lincolns prominently featured free booze as an encouragement to vote. That smacks of machine politics. But no water? That is dumb.

So are some boycotts.

Major League Baseball is pulling its All-Star Game out of Atlanta. Do all of the owners of Major League Baseball teams approve of this? Probably not. Do all of the players, umpires and other employees? Assuredly not.

Coca-Cola is publicly traded. Its owners are hundreds of thousands of stockholders from all around the world. No vote of stockholders was taken. Other companies taking similar positions include Delta Airlines, JPMorgan Chase, Viacom CBS, Citigroup, Cisco, UPS, and Merck.

Individual Americans can withhold patronage from any business for any reason or for no reason. That right can extend to sole proprietorships of the Mom and Pop variety.

But companies with many employees swim in dangerous waters when they attempt to navigate partisan political doings.

Far better to let voters have their say about Georgias new laws in elections in 2022 and 2024. Far better to actually see the consequences of Georgias new laws unintended as well as wink-and-nod intended consequences.

Boycotts are divisive and extremist by their nature, pitting groups of Americans against each other in our ability to earn our livings or conduct our businesses.

The rush to boycott in Georgia smacks of self-aggrandizing political correctness.

Lets not use that tactic.

Denny Bonavita

Read more:

Boycotting by businesses not the best of tactics - The Courier-Express

Auto Trader and Ennis & Co are collaborating on a new series of webinars to bring together leaders in the automotive sector to discuss and share diversity and inclusion (D&I) best practice.

Ennis & Cos founder and director, Lynda Ennis, will be joining the next episode of Auto Traders Courageous Conversations webinar series, alongside Haymarket Automotives managing director, Rachael Prasher, to discuss the role of political correctness and PC language in the workplace.

Within the context of a fast-evolving PC landscape and popular social movements, as well as a growing cancel culture, the one-hour webinar will explore where the struggles are with understanding what is and isnt acceptable. The session will also be looking at what steps businesses can take to ensure their D&I strategies are adapting in accordance to the changing PC landscape.

Courageous Conversations is open to everyone and will take place from 14:30 15:30 on April 21. The webinar is accessible at: https://bit.ly/CC-Ep4.

The webinar will be followed by the third annual Making Diversity & Inclusion a Business Reality event on May 4, in which HR directors, MDs and CEOs from leading retail and manufacturing brands, as well as trade bodies, will come together to share their D&I experiences and identify practical solutions to driving greater diversity within their businesses and across the wider industry.

The two-hour digital seminar will feature panel discussions, brand new research findings, and guest speakers from outside of automotive.

Daksh Gupta, Marshall Motor Group CEO, who has been closely involved with the event since its launch in 2017, said: I am very much looking forward to being involved in the Making Diversity and Inclusion a Business Reality in partnership with Ennis and Co and Auto Trader. Whilst we are starting to see some real traction on gender diversity across the sector, and certainly within Marshall, theres clearly more work to be done to make our businesses more accessible, attractive and inclusive to a wider talent pool than we have today.

"With our combined commitment and drive from across the sector, I have every confidence we really can make Diversity and Inclusion our business reality.

Marshall Motor Groups HR director (HRD), Jo Moxon, will join other people leads on a panel to discuss the impact of the pandemic on their D&I strategies, and why its more important than ever to focus on their diversity commitments. Shell be joined by Mandeep Dhatt, HRD for McLaren Automotive, Penny Weatherup, HRD for Volkswagen Group UK, Laura Haskins, HRD for CitNOW, and Alison Fisher, HRD for Cox Automotive International.

Auto Traders group sales director, Rebecca Clark (pictured), wholl be hosting the panel, said: At a time when the industry has faced so many unprecedented challenges, and been forced to undergo such a significant transition, we wanted to bring together the leading brands and thought leaders to understand just how vital diversity and inclusion will be to the future success of the market.

"The huge response weve received from the industrys most senior stakeholders speaks volumes about how much a priority this issue is for businesses, and their ongoing commitment to bring about change in the automotive industry.

Leading a second panel discussion, Al Clarke will be speaking with Nissan UKs managing director, Andrew Humberstone, Facebooks global category director, automotive, Geraldine Ingham, and member of the board for people, digitalisation and IT at Bentley, Dr Astrid Fontaine, about the integral role D&I will play in the future health of the automotive market

Lynda Ennis, founder and director of Ennis & Co, added: Bringing back Making Diversity and Inclusion a Business Reality this year is extremely important to Ennis & Co for several reasons. Firstly, it allows us the chance to revisit core diversity and inclusion themes that emerged in 2018 and 2019 and secondly, to benchmark how far we have come as an industry during this time. Thirdly, and importantly it also allows us to be together, albeit virtually, to discuss the subject we feel so passionate about.

"As automotive and mobility continue to experience change at an alarming rate I feel confident that positive aspects of diversity and inclusion have accelerated over the past couple of years, and I am looking forward to delving into this in further detail.

Making D&I a Business Reality is open to everyone and will take place from 11:00 13:00 on May 4. The webinar is accessible at: http://bit.ly/MDIBR-21.

More:

Diversity and inclusion in automotive under the spotlight in new webinar series - AM

Did you understand what the fuss about the withdrawal of Dr Seusss books last month was about? I have to say it meant very little to me because Dr Seuss was not part of my reading when I was a child. His stories are a mostly American phenomenon and I had no idea that some of his books contained racist images.

However, I did grow up on the books of Enid Blyton who has faced a more sustained attack than Dr Seuss. The biggest problem with Blytons work is a character called Golly who inhabits Toyland and is clearly a racist caricature. I grew up too on Mark Twain, in whose books the N word is liberally used and actually forms part of the name of one character. What about Roald Dahls Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, where the Oompa-Loompas are African pygmies who are enslaved in Willy Wonkas factory?

What about If, that stirring poem that schoolchildren are still taught? It is written by Rudyard Kipling, who we now accept had contempt for the idea that Indians could rule themselves.

Meanwhile, there is now a campaign to cancel JK Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books, because she has expressed views seen by some to negate the transgender experience.

Is all this political correctness gone mad? Examples of the now-pervasive cancel culture? Or are the objections valid and reasonable?

There is no clear, single answer and each case seems different. In the case of Enid Blyton, we need to accept that she was writing at a time when golliwogs were common childrens toys. As late as 2002, the popular food brand Robertsons still sold jams (in the UK) whose mascot was a golliwog. So perhaps it was understandable that Blytons Toyland included golliwogs.

On the other hand, as far back as 1966, the British newspaper The Guardian wrote an editorial criticising Blytons book The Little Black Doll, which featured a toy doll who was ostracised for its ugly black face, until it was scrubbed pink, rendered pretty and then welcomed back.

So yes, she probably was racist. So it is with Roald Dahl and his Oompa-Loompas. Dahl was (at the very least) an anti-Semite and his estate has had to apologise for his prejudiced views on this front.

On the other hand, Mark Twain was not a racist and spoke and wrote against slavery. As for Kipling, he believed Indians were unfit to govern themselves, but he created sympathetic and memorable Indian characters such as Mowgli. JK Rowling, whatever her views on transgender issues, has written books that are feasts of the imagination and clearly not racist or prejudiced.

Should an authors personal views even matter, if they arent reflected on the page? Should we deny children the joy of reading Blytons Malory Towers and Secret Seven books or even Noddy, because the author was racist? And is it okay for them to read The Adventures of Tom Sawyer because Mark Twain was not?

The short answer is that we should judge the book by the book, not the author. The golliwogs in the Noddy books clearly perpetrate a racial stereotype so they should go. The use of the N word in Twains books should end and indeed it has been excised from recent editions. On the Oompa-Loompas, as far back as 1971, the first film version of Dahls book changed their race and dispensed with the nonsense about them being from Africa. It made no difference to the book or the movie and children continued to enjoy the tale.

As for Kipling, we may disagree with his views on Indians and our capacity for self-governance, but If is still an inspiring poem for children to read.

The key issue here is the ability of stories to poison childrens minds. A child who grows up reading about Black people as golliwogs, pygmy slaves or N words is likely to have his worldview coloured. To object to those portrayals is not political correctness. It is common sense.

When it comes to adult fiction, of course, things get more complicated. Was The Satanic Verses anti-Islamic? Maybe it was. Maybe it wasnt. Adults should be allowed to read it for themselves and decide.

Is The Merchant of Venice anti-Semitic? I dont think it is but every time the play is staged in America, Jewish groups picket the theatre or protest. They are entitled to that view. But every theatregoer is entitled to make up his or her mind.

Sadly, in India these days, we have surrendered the right to decide for ourselves and handed it over to the mob. So Tandav is called anti-Hindu. Scenes should be cut or the makers will go to jail. Why is there a Bhagwad Geeta in Bombay Begums? Thats anti-Hindu too. And so on.

Much of the criticism of cancel culture stems from this kind of excess. There is no fundamental right to not be offended. But we act as if it exists. There is however a right to free speech which, if it is to mean anything, must include the right to offend.

Sadly, all too often we deliberately confuse the need to protect children from racial and religious stereotypes with a mandate to censor content consumed by adults.

Bottom line: Children need to be protected. Adults need to be free.

Read the rest here:

Seuss, Blyton, Willy Wonka: With flaws in beloved childrens classics, where does one draw the line? - Hindustan Times