State of Mankind

A New Way Of Thinking

Newspeak

It has been really interesting to see all the racial fallout involving New York Knicks player Jeremy Lin.  While I don’t think there are many people left who are blatantly racist, it is somewhat troubling to see just how closely language is being monitored, and the punishments involved with any perceived breach of etiquette.  ESPN fired writer Anthony Federico for using the phrase ‘chink in the armor’ in relation to Lin.  See:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/espn-apologizes-for-jeremy-lin-headline-slur

 Federico gives his side of the story here:

http://www.sportsgrid.com/media/anthony-federico-twitter-jeremy-lin/

It would seem that Anthony Federico is a really good guy who wouldn’t intentionally do something racist.  My first conclusion is that ESPN is really wimpy not to simply apologize and treat this as an accident.  But the bigger question remains, why so much pressure to speak correctly?  Have we simply become overly politically correct, or is there a bigger agenda?  Is it a political tool to be able to shut down debate on issues by tossing in the ‘racist card’?  Was Orwell closer to the truth than we may think in Nineteen Eighty-Four when Syme explains the purpose of Newspeak to Winston?

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?  In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.  Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.  Already in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point.  But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead.  Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller.  Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime.  It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control.  But in the end there won’t be any need even for that.  The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect….” (Pages 53-54)

Just consider, I’ve heard it claimed that talking about balancing the budget is racist.  See: http://www.dallasblog.com/201107211008276/dallas-blog/balancing-budget-is-racist-says-sheila-jackson-lee.html

Regardless of whether there is an alternate agenda or not, I think we need to get a bit less emotional and make sound decisions and quit creating race problems where they don’t exist.  Isn’t is possible that a guy like Anthony Federico makes a mistake like that simply because he’s NOT thinking about race?  Isn’t this exactly the goal of civil rights?

« Previous post
Next post »

2 ResponsesLeave one →

  1. KERRY

     /  March 5, 2012

    What are your thoughts on the Limbaugh rant?

    Reply
    • Brinton

       /  March 5, 2012

      I didn’t hear this rant, so I won’t judge it. In general, I find that Limbaugh shows little or no respect to opponents and tends to pontificate. I’ll stand for his right to say what he feels he needs to say, but don’t care to listen much. To be fair, I do think it would be very difficult to be in front of a microphone 3 hours a day ranting and not say something (or many things) wrong. Perhaps that’s a weakness of talk radio.

      Reply

Leave a Reply