web analytics
The Standard

PC scourge claims another victim

Written By: - Date published: 11:49 am, June 1st, 2008 - 9 comments
Categories: national - Tags: ,

A recent newsletter from anti-PC campaigner Murray McCully led with this comment supporting the right of the Burmese people to decide for themselves what their country is called:

The US State Department asserts the preference for ‘Burma’ ‘due to consistent, unyielding support for the democratically elected leaders’, and the UK Foreign Office notes that ‘Burma’s democracy movement prefers the form ‘Burma’ because they do not accept the legitimacy of the unelected military regime to change the official name of the country.’

The very least that our Government and our media should be doing after witnessing the events of the past week is to insist upon calling the place Burma.

You’ll find no argument from me here – I’ve long argued that oppressed groups should be able to determine how they and their culture are represented rather than having labels thrust upon them by others, and that government and the media have a role in helping to bring about this social change.

But I can’t help thinking, doesn’t this kind of tolerance sound a lot like the scourge of “political correctness” Murray McCully rails against every other week?

9 comments on “PC scourge claims another victim”

  1. Haurangi Joe 1

    So long as it’s not the tangata whenua of Whanganui trying to get their hometown recognised by its proper name eh Murray?

  2. The good old days of the PC eradictor. Remember when David Farrar used to support such things: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2005/10/ten_examples_of_political_corectness.html

  3. James Kearney 3

    This is par for the course for the ‘anti-PC’ reactionaries. One rule for causes I support, and another for when I want to conceal my bigotry.

    It helps there’s no definition for what is and isn’t PC as no one can ever call you to account for your actions.

  4. Lew 4

    `PC’, `common sense’, the `ordinary New Zealander’ and such things are essentially propaganda terms. They’re polysemic – that is, they mean whatever you or your notional audience need them to mean. `Elite’ is another example. Quoting the somewhat sardonic Gerry Spence, on US hate-TV host Laura Ingraham:

    `We get confused by Ms. Ingraham’s definitions unless we understand that she simply uses the term “elitist” to include anyone who disagrees with the proclamations of the conservative chip that has been implanted into her brain.’


  5. Felix 6

    Hypocrisy noted, but good on Mr McCully in this instance – regardless of what I usually think of him.

  6. Yeah, let’s all join Murray McCully and the US State Department in the ongoing struggle for democracy in Burma.

  7. Byron 8

    Even the National Party couldn’t be consistant on opposing PC, as this article notes, they couldn’t even give a deffinition of it, the closest Wayne Mapp (former “spokesman for the eradication of political correctness” or some such nonsense) got was “a set of attitudes and beliefs that are divorced from mainstream values”

    James and Lews’ comments hit the nail on the head.

  8. Ari 9

    Isn’t it funny how the biggest oppressors still love democracy? As long as there’s more freedom for white men available, we apparently have further to go. lol 😛

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Public service advertisements by The Standard

Current CO2 level in the atmosphere