Has political correctness actually gone mad?

Portland is renowned for being hipster central
isn't it? That kind of behaviour from students there isn't particularly surprising, they sound like absolute twats.
 
I work in humanities (fortunately on this side of the Atlantic where things seem a bit more sane), and this kind of thing makes me not only question if I want to keep doing this but also if I'd encourage my kids to take it up. This is not preparation for going out into the real world, it's the creation of a fantasy world where you can hide from or suppress everything and anything that can potentially upset you.

Has it crossed the pond at all yet?
 
Has it crossed the pond at all yet?

I haven't encountered anything so extreme. There has certainly been a movement, sometimes accompanied by protests, towards globalising the scope of subjects, which is something I support and am involved in (not for its own sake but because I believe it is the most valuable approach to take). It has at times become a source of tension but my position is that as long as it encourages us to approach these subjects in an broader alternative way then it can only be a positive thing.

Take for example a historical figure like Herodotus - apparently these students have attempted to shut down the teaching of Herodotus due to him being a 'white' 'European' figure. Now there's no doubt the Ancient Greek legacy has in the past and present been appropriated or utilised for Eurocentric purposes, but the way to respond is not by suppressing the teaching of Herodotus altogether but by recasting him in his correct historical context, which is as a global historian working in an environment in which categories such as 'white' and 'European' simply didn't apply, at least not in the way they do today. The teaching of Herodotus actually presents an excellent opportunity to learn about an ancient world much more inter-connected than many would imagine, a world where racial categories had very different implications for how human society was understood. You can see how there is potentially much of value to be learned through such an approach, but these types in Portland would rather give up that opportunity.
 
I sometimes think the whole criticising PC aspect is often exaggerated. Here however is an example where it is completely ridiculous.

These kids are really infuriating because there is genuine anti-black things going on in the country through voter suppression rights, but that gets swept under the rug because some kid used a bit of slang.
 
:lol:
Aren't they effectively protesting their own education? We'll end up with many many people who have no skills except "professional activism". Their education is already rather useless but that takes it to a new level. I am sure future employers are stoked to hire professionals crybabies.
 
I haven't encountered anything so extreme. There has certainly been a movement, sometimes accompanied by protests, towards globalising the scope of subjects, which is something I support and am involved in (not for its own sake but because I believe it is the most valuable approach to take). It has at times become a source of tension but my position is that as long as it encourages us to approach these subjects in an broader alternative way then it can only be a positive thing.

Take for example a historical figure like Herodotus - apparently these students have attempted to shut down the teaching of Herodotus due to him being a 'white' 'European' figure. Now there's no doubt the Ancient Greek legacy has in the past and present been appropriated or utilised for Eurocentric purposes, but the way to respond is not by suppressing the teaching of Herodotus altogether but by recasting him in his correct historical context, which is as a global historian working in an environment in which categories such as 'white' and 'European' simply didn't apply, at least not in the way they do today. The teaching of Herodotus actually presents an excellent opportunity to learn about an ancient world much more inter-connected than many would imagine, a world where racial categories had very different implications for how human society was understood. You can see how there is potentially much of value to be learned through such an approach, but these types in Portland would rather give up that opportunity.
If you banish the teachings of pre-1900 white historians and philosophers, would you actually be left with much?
Thinking about it, my history and politics degrees where very white-focused, but tbf Stuart England, the French Revolution and the Cold War kinda were.
 
:lol:
Aren't they effectively protesting their own education? We'll end up with many many people who have no skills except "professional activism". Their education is already rather useless but that takes it to a new level. I am sure future employers are stoked to hire professionals crybabies.

I always wonder about this. It's a hot topic in Bristol where a lot of historical wealth was built on the tobacco trade. There's been some arguments about the naming of certain buildings such as the Wills Memorial Building which is named in honour of the guy who founded the University, who made vast riches from the tobacco trade but donated huge amounts to local causes.

People want to strip the name from the building but don't seem to have a problem benefitting from a world class education that's only possible due to this money in the first place. I guess I just feel like teaching the history of these people and using it as an opportunity to learn rather than whitewashing them from the University altogether would be more productive.
 
Can someone clear up a bit of confusion I have about this LGBTQ business.

The LGBT bit I understand completely. Each represents a different and very distinct thing that I understand.

My confusion arises around the Q. Queer. So, what exactly is it to be queer, as opposed to gay?

Can you give me an example of a state of being that would put you in the Q category, where you would not fit into any of the other categories?

Put another way, if someone was straight and identified as the same gender they were actually born as - i.e. not lesbian, gay, bi or trans - but they were queer, what would that entail?
 
Thinking about it, my history and politics degrees where very white-focused, but tbf Stuart England, the French Revolution and the Cold War kinda were.

Globalising topics such as these doesn't mean writing in non-white history where there is none (although the Cold War? Come on that affected way more non-white people than it did whites). It means taking a step back and looking at history from beyond the confines of the nation-state or Europe to see how they connect to the rest of the world.

Take for example the Irish War of Independence 1919-1921. More traditional approaches would focus almost exclusively on events on our two islands, looking at the impact of British policies and the rise and impact of nationalism locally. Some of the more ambitious studies may consider the impact of the Irish diaspora in places like America and Australia.

A global approach would consider the rise of Irish and Ulster nationalism in relation to nationalism across the globe. It would look across the British Empire and beyond to see what other people thought of events in Ireland, how it impacted upon them, and how their thought and actions impacted upon Ireland. It would note, for example, that at the very same time the war in Ireland was raging, the British Empire also faced uprisings or protests in Egypt, Palestine, Iraq and India. So it would look for the connections between these events (no good historian would assume it all to be a coincidence), how they impacted on each other and try to conclude with an idea of what all this means for the Irish war and the place of Ireland in the world in general.
 
Can someone clear up a bit of confusion I have about this LGBTQ business.

The LGBT bit I understand completely. Each represents a different and very distinct thing that I understand.

My confusion arises around the Q. Queer. So, what exactly is it to be queer, as opposed to gay?

Can you give me an example of a state of being that would put you in the Q category, where you would not fit into any of the other categories?

Put another way, if someone was straight and identified as the same gender they were actually born as - i.e. not lesbian, gay, bi or trans - but they were queer, what would that entail?

I think the Q stands for Questioning, so those folk who are ensure which side of the fence they are on. I presume it is for people who are just curious or not fully sure.
 
That would actually make a lot more sense. But if you Google it, pretty much every reference has it down as queer, so pretty sure it is that.
The student quoted in Pogue's link identified as queer. Is it some sub-culture within the gay community, maybe out and loud and proud, or even militant?
I can't keep pace with these labels.
 
The student quoted in Pogue's link identified as queer. Is it some sub-culture within the gay community, maybe out and loud and proud, or even militant?
I can't keep pace with these labels.
Im banking on someone on here actually knowing and resolving this question for me once and for all.

Although not knowing hasnt actually been much of a problem for me thus far in my day to day life.
 
Isn't queer a bit of a shitty name for, well whatever it apparently refers to? Even if they're embracing it in a kind of 'own it' way, it's still offensive isn't it?
 
Globalising topics such as these doesn't mean writing in non-white history where there is none (although the Cold War? Come on that affected way more non-white people than it did whites). It means taking a step back and looking at history from beyond the confines of the nation-state or Europe to see how they connect to the rest of the world.

Take for example the Irish War of Independence 1919-1921. More traditional approaches would focus almost exclusively on events on our two islands, looking at the impact of British policies and the rise and impact of nationalism locally. Some of the more ambitious studies may consider the impact of the Irish diaspora in places like America and Australia.

A global approach would consider the rise of Irish and Ulster nationalism in relation to nationalism across the globe. It would look across the British Empire and beyond to see what other people thought of events in Ireland, how it impacted upon them, and how their thought and actions impacted upon Ireland. It would note, for example, that at the very same time the war in Ireland was raging, the British Empire also faced uprisings or protests in Egypt, Palestine, Iraq and India. So it would look for the connections between these events (no good historian would assume it all to be a coincidence), how they impacted on each other and try to conclude with an idea of what all this means for the Irish war and the place of Ireland in the world in general.
If you look at the main protagonists of the Cold War, the leaders were all white, barring Mao I guess. Appreciate it spanned multiple countries and continents though.

Your global approac sounds interesting and far more involving than the standard teaching I had, focusing on specific events, generally within a narrow timeframe.
 
If you look at the main protagonists of the Cold War, the leaders were all white, barring Mao I guess. Appreciate it spanned multiple countries and continents though.

Your global approac sounds interesting and far more involving than the standard teaching I had, focusing on specific events, generally within a narrow timeframe.

It's a relatively new field of history. It obviously has some potential pitfalls, given that it's rare to find historians with the language skills (or time really) needed to get as in depth to each area as is ideally needed. But a valuable global comparative aspect can normally be achieved with secondary reading.

A good example of the global approach applied to the Cold War would be this great book - http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/534
 
It's a relatively new field of history. It obviously has some potential pitfalls, given that it's rare to find historians with the language skills (or time really) needed to get as in depth to each area as is ideally needed. But a valuable global comparative aspect can normally be achieved with secondary reading.

A good example of the global approach applied to the Cold War would be this great book - http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/534
Yeah, that does sound an interesting take on it and a hell of a lot of work to pull off.
The proxy wars and interventions did take something of a backseat when I learnt it, as the reviewer said. Maybe it was a time thing, given the breadth of years you're covering in a module.
I'm kind of interested in the strange interventions in Nigeria that he omitted now.
 
Yeah, that does sound an interesting take on it and a hell of a lot of work to pull off.
The proxy wars and interventions did take something of a backseat when I learnt it, as the reviewer said. Maybe it was a time thing, given the breadth of years you're covering in a module.
I'm kind of interested in the strange interventions in Nigeria that he omitted now.

To bring this back on-topic, the global approach is to me the obvious way to deal with the problem of Eurocentrism - not wiping out Europe/'whiteness' from the curriculum altogether. Taking the Irish War of Independence example again, imagine how eye-opening it might be for these kids to consider the links that exist between the freedom struggles of a white nation in Western Europe and an Arab nation in the Middle East. It's the kind of approach that would potentially break down all their preconceived ideas about how the world worked not very long ago, and gives the lie to the notion that the history of human relations has been defined by strictly by race.
 
Isn't the issue primarily one of time constraints and setting priorities? In school you have very little time, so consequently the education focuses on the basics and the history of the region/nation.
Once you study it's up to yourself to get into whatever tickles your fancy.
History is a bottomless pit of knowledge. It's not racist to have interests in one area and not another.
 
Isn't the issue primarily one of time constraints and setting priorities? In school you have very little time, so consequently the education focuses on the basics and the history of the region/nation.
Once you study it's up to yourself to get into whatever tickles your fancy.
History is a bottomless pit of knowledge. It's not racist to have interests in one area and not another.

You can only really study what's on offer though. I'd say the big national level universities have some responsibility to ensure diverse programs which reflect the global scale of human relations - especially if they go out of their way to attract international students (and the big fees they bring with them).
 
You can only really study what's on offer though. I'd say the big national level universities have some responsibility to ensure diverse programs which reflect the global scale of human relations - especially if they go out of their way to attract international students (and the big fees they bring with them).
The final year of my history degree focused on slavery as told from below, or from the point of view of the slaves. It was probably the most interesting part of the entire course.
 
You can only really study what's on offer though. I'd say the big national level universities have some responsibility to ensure diverse programs which reflect the global scale of human relations - especially if they go out of their way to attract international students (and the big fees they bring with them).
NATION
NATIONAL
NATION LEVEL UNIVERSITIES
 
Is that bi in historic layman's terms or those who don't identify with a specific gender.
Sorry, I struggle to remember the variations with my memory- didn't Facebook have 40-odd?
People who feel they are both genders or neither.

Facebook did, yeah, because there is about ten different words used for each concept. Hence using 'queer' just as a blanket term.

I go to queer nights, in clubs, and it's just like going to a gay bar but with even more cross-dressing and androgyny.
 
Jesus christ. You just fecking despair every time you read one of these. Not being in this environment it is hard to determine how prevalent this actually is and how many take part in this behaviour.

But it is no doubt depressing when you see more and more colleges succumbing to this behaviour. The shrieking, maniacal outbursts from these abominable twats just makes you watch on in horror.

And, of course, in a huge show of irony their ire is reserved most for the minorities who, personally, may not happen to feel oppressed. They may be getting on fine with their lives. By god, the reign of fire that is reserved for them is particularly deplorable.

You will feel oppressed because we god damn told you to. Utter cnuts.
 
I was reading the other day (apologies if this has already been discussed on previous days) about civil war in the feminist movement. A group of feminists said something about how trans people have not actually experienced what its like to be a woman. Being trans is not the same as being a woman, basically. Thereby trampling all over the rights of trans people to be considered women if they damn well choose to be. Seemed pretty acrimonious.
 
I was reading the other day (apologies if this has already been discussed on previous days) about civil war in the feminist movement. A group of feminists said something about how trans people have not actually experienced what its like to be a woman. Being trans is not the same as being a woman, basically. Thereby trampling all over the rights of trans people to be considered women if they damn well choose to be. Seemed pretty acrimonious.

I think it was Germaine Greer who committed that mortal sin. She’s been thoroughly “no-platformed” ever since. Absolutely mental when you think what she’s done for the feminist movement.

Feminists seem to be constantly involved in assorted slanging matches between different segments of their own venn diagram. Google “intersectional feminism”. These bints would start a row in an empty room.

Wimmin, eh?
 
I think it was Germaine Greer who committed that mortal sin. She’s been thoroughly “no-platformed” ever since. Absolutely mental when you think what she’s done for the feminist movement.

Feminists seem to be constantly involved in assorted slanging matches between different segments of their own venn diagram. Google “intersectional feminism”. These bints would start a row in an empty room.

Wimmin, eh?
Intersectional feminism: the idea that black women also experience racism as well as sexism, while gay women also experience homophobia. How on earth can that be controversial?
 
Intersectional feminism: the idea that black women also experience racism as well as sexism, while gay women also experience homophobia. How on earth can that be controversial?

It shouldn’t be controversial at all but, as far as I can see, their raison d’etre is picking fights with other feminists.

It seems to be all about a strange sort of one up(wo)manship. “Yeah, well you may be a black, gay woman but I’m a black, gay, transgender woman. So FECK YOU and your privilege”.
 
Last edited: