you *seriously* thought that was less offensive?
I’ll admit it, I find some of the political-correctness required by our society hilarious. I don’t think calling people “differently abled” hides the fact that being disabled is a negative thing. I’m pretty sure the majority of people who are “differently abled” *know* that it sucks. I know that if I had a choice, I wouldn’t choose to have a chronic illness. But, to avoid being offensive (by letting people know we think disabilities are bad?), we rename them (because having a different name makes them less bad?). And that seems to be what political correctness is about – renaming things so that we don’t let anyone know we think they suck.
I was listening to NPR this morning when they mentioned that Israel’s Deputy Health Minister (Ya’acov Litzman) unofficially renamed swine flu “Mexican flu” in deference to Muslim and Jewish sensitivities over pork. Yes, during a press conference Monday, Litzman said the reference to pigs was offensive to both religions and “we should call this Mexican flu and not swine flu.” Of course Mexico’s ambassador lodged official complaints at the foreign ministry on Tuesday protesting at the new term (because it was offensive).
Did Litzman seriously think calling it “Mexican Flu” would offend fewer people? And does changing the name from “swine flu” in any way change the fact that it is a respiratory disease of pigs caused by type A influenza virus? No matter what you call it, it still comes from pigs.
Why do people think renaming things in politically correct ways will change their nature? It really doesn’t.

Leave a Reply