Alright, I'll admit that the opinions I outlined in the OP are not well organized-- but it's a topic with a lot of nuance, so it's not like it's easy to outline what type of conduct should/should not be expected in society and by proponents of progressive social positions. I will try to give better context in the below responses; but to be clear, there's no clear black and white here. But then, that IS my point--
That issues of race are contentious and complicated, but that's why it's better to have cultural/social norms that allow for vagueness, breath-room, and slow cross-acceptance-- instead of demanding black and white, right and wrong. Hawaii is a lot more diverse and multi-racial, but it's also got the Polynesean and Asian cultural influences that innately push us towards a social norm more accepting of moral vagueness, and putting a greater emphasis on building relationships/preserving harmony/letting the other side save face.
It may be difficult for people from a purely western background, with its thought squarely sat astride a culture developed for logical thinking and science to conceptualize what I'm trying to say, or even be comfortable with it.
Putting it simply though-- you can win a battle and lose a war. You can win an argument, but stoke the flames of hate.
And what I'm trying to say by bringing an Asian mindset, a vague mindset here, is that there's no correct answer. I can't give you a list of situations of when it's good to point out a mis-placed micro-aggression and begin a dialogue on it, and when it's best to let that white grandma cashier register touch your hair, or ask you what country you're from (hey! I'm a 4th generation American, but my family comes from China and Japan. Why thank you, I'm also proud of my English). It's difficult, but there's got to be more patience and humanity from the progressive side if we want to actually change people and not provoke greater hate and divide.
dice
My opinion on this would take some time to write out, so before I start, can you tell me how exactly you define "political correctness"? The term has become quite muddied, I think, so I don't want to argue against something you're not saying.
I will say this:
By telling people not to "force an agenda on people" (force how?) and instead reach out to their "neighbours", who are attacking them, are you not the one expecting them to be more than human? This, to me, is a pretty blatant case of shifting the responsiblity to the victim, something I'm not willing to do. Also, I'm not american, but I'd wager that "let those stupid white people die in their poverty, we only want equality for ourselves" is not a relevant political stance. Again, though, I might be misunderstanding you because I'm not sure what the actual point of contention is.
I understand you were just throwing together a quick response, but it's also an over-simplification.
There is a difference between times when you are, in the moment, a victim-- and times when you are interacting with others on a daily basis. There seem to be many progressives that demand that others conform to their view of polite/correct conduct, down to every second and interaction of our lives-- constantly pointing out micro-aggressions and pointing out the vileness of even mild-mannered and un-ill-intended offenses.
The point of the video was that constantly stacking up those expectations for conduct didn't help, doesn't help in changing the way people think. It is VERY effective in setting the mind of new generations who happen to be raised in those progressive areas and surrounded by those ideas-- but it NOT AT ALL effective at changing racists, or in areas with high influence of racists, or simply too far from urban center to experience the full effect of those cultural transformations.
There is no question that society has made progress, but what we have also done is in fact, build a bigger divide, charge the racial tensions, alienated millions of whites and made them feel estranged from their own country(ies).
There's an incredibly enlightening piece in the video I linked, where Trevor, again once a leader of the UK's multi-cultural fostering race policies, commented:
"Martin Luther King gave us a new set of ideals. But sometimes, ideals are not enough to achieve lasting change.
Revolutions have a way of getting out of hand. What starts as a march of liberation, can become thought control, and worse. Unwittingly, I think we gave birth to an ugly new doctrine.
The new doctrine says this:
1) All whites are alike.
2) All whites are guilty, and tainted.
3) No white person should ever criticize someone who's not white."
Most individual progressives will say that this is over simplifying their views and not what they are saying-- but THINK about how we talk about white privilege, checking your privilege, that no white person can ever understand their privilege. While many progressives might not mean to create an absolutist dogma, the fact is that many people experience it that way. And that can draw lines in the sand, and lead to scary things; the repercussions are-- well, they're in Brexit, and they're in the US President Elect and his cabinet of deplorables right now.
Here's another point of reference-- you wouldn't walk into a village in the mountains of the Middle East and call them bigots and monsters for the way they treat women, demand that they stop trading children in their village judicial processes, and call them offenders of micro-aggression for wanting to touch your hair. That wouldn't be at all productive, it wouldn't liberate anyone, and it certainly wouldn't be good for building a relationship, or understanding.
Especially when so much of the trouble in the middle east, especially in regards to the West, has come about because the west has and is coming and telling them right and wrong-- and holding peoples who haven't been through the same industrial and thought revolutions as us how to think and act and be; even worse when we do it to a people who's cultural vantage point is one extremely against rapid change, and steeped in revering tradition.
Now, you may think "that's the middle east, a totally different situation in completely different countries," but the dynamics here are much the same. In the US, people underestimated the disconnect between liberal cities and slowly changing rural areas. What we are doing is VERY similar to my theoretical situation in the middle eastern village-- that is the degree to which people don't understand their fellow Americans. Yes they are a part of our country, and therefore a part of the society we need to build, but that just means we need even greater sensitivity going forward. Because, while I'd agree with someone like Jon Stewart that no one owns America, this is their country as well-- and neither side can escape the other.
People praise "diversity" and "multi-culturalism" without accepting what those things actually are and mean-- a diversity of CULTURE, the fact that people are not going to agree, and that people are coming from completely different backgrounds of tradition and vantage point. If you want peace in that context, you do need thicker skin, and a willingness to "live and let live."
Moving to progress is good, but forcing your views on a people not ready for them can be really, really bad. Patience, forgiveness, incremental progress, and yes a healthy dose of shared, light-hearted racist joking along the way is a much better path to peace and understanding.
I'm Asian. My best friend in highschool was whiter than a ping pong ball. He would constantly joke about my height and short Asians, and bitch (rightfully) about being the target of anti-white racism. I'd never shy away from a haole (white) joke in his presence either. Both of us made Mexican jokes like no one's business, because hey-- "there are no Mexicans in Hawaii because it's too far to swim here." Ultimately though I never could have asked for a more loyal friend, and within the context of our shared Hawaii culture, this was completely normal. We are extremely different, but we are Ohana, we are family. (As would be any Mexicans who FLY out here to join the community)
In closing, here's a quote from an interview about Trump voters and poor whites:
"Viewed like this, all the talk about “political correctness” isn’t about any specific substantive point, as much as it is a way of expanding the scope of acceptable behavior. People don’t want to believe they have to speak like Obama or Clinton to participate meaningfully in politics, because most of us don’t speak like Obama or Clinton."
