Protecting political correctness

At the personal risk of being stereotyped as a girl with a psyche as fragile as the day I first started high school, I'll admit it — I'm offended.

To clarify, I am not offended simply because of the existence of an article in last week's Bulletin that presented an opinion that differed from my own. It has, and always will be, my personal belief that the ability of an individual to share his/her opinions to the greater population at hand is an invaluable asset to a community, and one that should never be taken for granted.  I do take offense, however, to the fact that last week's opinion article "Pardon our political incorrectness" used the platform of the Bulletin to mask what was, in fact, a complete disregard of the beliefs of a significant portion of Americans as a mere Opinion article. 

To begin with the words of the writers themselves, "Diversity is something to be embraced." Wiser words are rarely spoken. Unfortunately, I had a hard time finding the reflection of these wise words throughout the article itself.

Since the holidays are around the corner, I'd like to continue the discussion surrounding them that was brought up in last week's article. If I am remembering correctly, it was argued that saying the politically correct "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" was like "pretending" that Christmas did not exist, and was an "unfair attack" on the population at large by the 24 percent of non-Christians. Furthermore, it was claimed that the "Happy Holidays" debate is exemplary of the growing trend in this politically correct country to "fear anything different" as offensive.

I find these arguments, personally, a little hard to believe. By choosing to say "Happy Holidays," an individual is not pretending that the holiday of Christmas is nonexistent, no more so than saying "Happy Birthday" to one individual denies the birth of another. Perhaps people are confusing "Happy Holidays" with that other saying of "Happy Holidays, P.S. Jesus does not exist." "Happy Holidays," I would argue, is merely a request for a small act of tolerance in what, more often than not, appears to be a rather intolerant world.

The fact of the matter is, no, most Christian individuals would not be offended by a passerby wishing them a cheerful "Happy Hanukah" or  "Happy Kwanzaa" while strolling down the local market aisles. I myself am a practicing Catholic, and would welcome either one; but in reality, what reason would I have not to?

Christians are the ruling population of America — there is no need to "fear" the difference of a minority when you are constantly being reassured, by history and society alike, of your majority status. It is not an "unfair attack" when 24 percent of any population demands something of the remaining 76 percent. An attack can't be deemed "unfair" when it is coming from a group that, based on sheer numbers alone, is already on the losing side of an ideological battle.

Moreover, if the situations were switched and Christianity was regarded as the "some offshoot of the population," and it was therefore decided that "Happy Hanukah" should be said rather than "Merry Christmas," that menorahs should be propped up in shop windows rather than Christmas trees, and that everybody received the days of Hanukah off of work/school rather than Christmas, I feel rather safe in my assumption that some Christians would take offense.

Saying "Happy Holidays" is not an "unfair attack" on the majority of Americans, or an attempt to discredit the value of individuality, nor does it disregard the existence of Christmas and Christianity. No, saying "Happy Holidays" simply acknowledges the existence of other holidays and religions that, despite being less widely practiced, are just as important and valid in their beliefs. It embraces the fact that America is a nation of diverse individuals that can find unity in a collective strive for a tolerant society.              

Everybody is entitled—encouraged even—to have their own opinions. Contrary to what it might look like, I'm truly not trying to label Gats and DiTommaso as "irreverent idiots." I am sure that could be farther from the truth and the fact that they are willing to take on such faux pas topics as religion and politics deserves quite the degree of respect. 

In fact, I even find myself agreeing with the underlying theme of the article itself, that far too often in our world, in the attempt to not say anything that could be considered offensive, we do a much greater disservice to society by not saying anything at all.

But the simple fact of the matter is, political correctness is not "dumb," and we should never be sick of people being offended by the opinions of others. If women had not been offended by the beliefs of a patriarchal society, they never would have fought for the vote. If Martin Luther King Jr. had not been offended by the people who were bold enough to claim that to be black was to be less-than, the Civil Rights Act never would have been passed.

Political correctness is not dumb; political correctness is a necessary ingredient to a progressive and tolerant society. So please, take offense, make a scene, get mad and argue for what you believe in and against what you do not; but do so in a way that encourages and respects individual thought and positively adds to the ideological foundation of society.  You must first accept diversity before you can truly embrace it.