The Meaning of Racial Slurs

One of the first things that one learns in a language is to understand the meaning withint context. Without understanding the context, one is bound to misunderand what is spoken or written. Today's poltical correctness has done just that. It takes "racial slurs" out of their contextual situatedness and misunderstands the intent of such "racial slurs".

Today's "political correctness" doesn't leave any room for affirming social norms. Social norms are what first formulated the "racial slurs", but the political correctness of our society isn't able to use such "racial slurs" for fear of personal insult, or being divisive. Political correctness has undermined the cohesiveness in our cultural values and norms. As a result, our society suffers.

Martin Luther King, Jr. epitomized a social transformation in our society, but such transformation was not to usurp the values and norms of culture itself, such as hard work and industry, but to call the nation to a more ethical or principled judgment about "people of color". He wanted the nation to be united by "character", which upheld the values of creative industry, hard work, productivity and giving back to society, as well as giving equal opportunity to those who'd been second class citizens.

Today's "civil rights" mentality undermine the "right to free speech" when it has racial implications. Such speech occurs because of the value of social norms. The "slave-owining class" had certain expectations about their human capital. They wanted strong and able men and women to work the farm, do the housework and alleviate the upper class from similar duties. But this "norm" came about almost 100 years after our Founding. Our Founding was based in the Protestant work ethic, where all that were able bodied helped.

The Protestant Work Ethic was the hard work and industry that produced prosperity for the "founding generation".  The Indians were useful to help the founding generations to know how to cultivate and live "in the wild". But, while the "founding generation" learned from the Indian, the Indian was not viewed as an equal, but as a "savage". The savage acts out of instinct and not out of rational principle. Such judgment upheld the social value of law and education. A civilized society did not function on or by instinct, but by a government. Today, mulitculturalism undermines American society and it 'founding values' because of political correctness.

Racial slurs like, "He's acting like a nigger",  has a valid use in language and culture. "He acts like a nigger" came from a culture that valued hard work from the slave. Is the value of hard work still important to our culture, or is "political correctness" a more important value to our society? What we have lost is both the distinction of character when it comes to the worker or the "owner". The worker should work to the best of his ability, while the owner has an obligation to treat the employee with equal respect and honor. Our cultural value is "equal under law".

I think "political correctness" has undermined our society's virtues and furthered society's vices. No longer is there any speech that discriminates, or oppressess. And there can't be any social taboos, or mores that are limited by such language. Surely, one would not want to be labeled as "acting like a Nigger", freeloading off their "masters". Nor would one want to be labeled "acting like a Jew", and be understood to be materialistic and greedy. These colloquialisms have lost their force in society, because of political correctness.

Because Political Correctness has undermined the force of social taboos that uphold society's norms that benefit society and its people, we have lost as a nation, and our culture's values have shifted from hard work and prosperity to entitlement and sloth.

When Has One Matured?

One has matured when they choose to do what they do for themselves apart from social influences.
The mature are not performing for acceptance, but because of principle, they do what they do.
What they do, is what they believe in. It is their passion.
The mature understand themselves and know what principles they will die for, but don't assume that everyone else will have these same ultimate concerns, but will use their life to further the ends of their commitment of value.

What is Wrong with Providence?

Providence has been understood to be "God's rule" or "over-ruling" of life in all its aspects. But, what is wrong with this view and providence?

Modern man does not understand 'all that is" as predestined, or providential, but contingent and a "possiblity" or chance. Parallel universes, where choice and contingency intermingle to form what is. That is what natural scientists and human scientists seek to disentangle. But, the more they seek to disentangle the "mystery", the more mysterious it seems to get.

All people in free societies have rights to opportunity, because free societies do not limit the individual. The disagreement happens in how the opportunity is to be understood. Are human themselves to create their own opportunity? This is the view of the "Protestant work ethic", where hard work, willpower and determination will result in success. These believe that innovation is the way of American dreams and possiblities.

The other side views the limitations to opportunity. Those born in environments that do not promote the necessary ingredients to be a 'success" are viewed as society's responsibility. Responsible people seek to take responsibility for those who cannot form their own life for success. This view seeks to prosper the whole by underwriting the "part". Society takes up the slack where individuals and families have failed.

These two views define for the most part, though simplistically, how our two party system views "life", people, value, and choice.

Providence doesn't have much to do with one's environment of birth, whether healthy and enriching, or unhealthy and demeaning.

Rights, Liberty and Work

On my side bar, I have a blog called For Clavigora. The last post that Dr. Smith wrote was about work in an asylum. And how rights took 'the right to work' away from these inmates.

State intervention in regards to personal commitment to work is what I think is a wrongly focused "right". People in free societies can choose their vocations. And choice is what liberty is about.

These people in the asylum were "demoralized" because of their "lack of work", once "rights" were granted. Rights can be distorted when they are universalized without connection to a "moral base", or social order.

But, while the Protestant work ethic has guided our nation and underwritten much of our prosperity, it has also caused great harm to families, communities, and the culture itself. Driven people are addicted people, and yet, our culture deems them ambitious and hold these up as examples.

Work is neutral as to its "moral" base. Work is not unlike any other virtue or vice, it can be "good or bad". We all need self-reflection to know when work becomes an obstacle to other important aspects in our lives.