What ever happened to "shame"? There are those who spend a great deal of their time attempting to erase even the concept from societal intercourse. In many cases it might be useful and corrective. However, somewhere somebody got off on the idea that "shame" was so psychologically demeaning that it was tantamount to torture. And Heaven forfend, someone might actually have need to apologize for their actions. Where did the philosophy, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime" ever disappear to. If you do not wish to be held in shame then don't perpetrate the acts which bring the shame. And such acts are always a matter of choice. Simple enough.

When is the last time you heard the word "decency" used and not be referring to pornography? Oh, we hear that prisoners are not being treated decently and so on, but I am speaking of the decency which is related to "modesty", "humility (genuine)". And for that matter, where did we lose the ability to detect whether something was "genuine", be it social, animal, vegetable or mineral, or not??

When are we going to re-learn that what may be "legal" is not necessarily "right"? Many times in my work I deal with people who ask the question, "Where does it say that this (or that) action is legal?? Show me the law!!" My answer is always, "No one ever said that it was legal. However, even though it is not "right" or "humane" or "honest" or whatever, it still is not illegal, and there is no law against it except the laws of good taste and honest dealing."

What are "manners"? In many cases they can be and are, as previously stated in another piece, defined as "the oil which lubricates the wheels of social intercourse". It was "being polite" be it "Please", "S'il vous plait", or Alsjeblieft/Alstublieft" in the request and "Thank you", "Dank U Wel", or "Merci a vous" in response and "You're Welcome", "Graag Gedaan" and "Vous etes bienvenue" as the final grace, among others. In other days, it was the bow and curtsy. The only time you see those now are either at some sort of theatrical recital or at a square dance. I have little experience in the theater but was at one time an active square dancer. I can therefore assure you that not only were the bow and curtsy a very lovely part of the movements of the dance but, to my knowledge, no one ever died from performing them. Never did read an obituary which said, "Joe Blow died last night. Cause of death is that he "bowed to his corner lady" Final arrangements are pending." I have never seen that and perhaps I am dreaming. But I can still dream. I suppose that that is not one of the top items on the list. But it was a very nice gesture and one which perhaps needs to be brought back into vogue and practice. Point is, like "manners", "respect" is going out of style. Manners required honesty in one's dealings. Respect for the other person. What ever happened to addressing one's elders as "Sir" and "Ma'am"? Showing simple respect. Eschewing familiarity? Is that a procedure which will irreversibly damage the psyches of our nation's children? And adults as well? Are there those who will say that such things as addressing their elders with respect is a violation of some right which children inherently possess? Or just to much of a burden on adult social intercourse? Lest anyone think that it is only outside of the home that such manners are necessary, allow me to remind the reader that in my research, I find that most languages have both a "formal" and and "informal" form of the three above listed terms. Interestingly enough, English does not contain a "formal" and "informal" form of any of the phrases. And actually, the presence of manners in the family circle may be more important, formative, and causative than they are with those we do not know. That also goes for respect.

What "manners" most definitely were not, although there are probably few who may actually remember from personal experience, although they have now been supplanted by it is what is called "political correctness". Perhaps because "manners" never had a "political agenda" whereas "political correctness" by its very name and definition, definitely does. Since "manners" are no longer in vogue, we now have this political correctness, with all of its political connotations, as our sole guide to human behavior. I believe that the reason that manners are no longer in vogue, no longer the preferred manner in which to conduct one's social life is that with manners, there were responsibilities on both sides of the equation, whereas with political correctness there is only one side which is called upon to make all of the moves. Manners had no "victim". Political Correctness absolutely depends upon there being a victim. Political Correctness has the added convenience of being applied in many instances on the basis of a double standard. Political Correctness is manners run amok on a tangental sidetrack. An example of this is seen on many of our college campi of late. As long as the item at issue is of use to the liberals, then they scream for free speech and right of statement. However, if the item at issue is being successfully used by the conservatives, then it is hate speech. I point to the California State University at Long Beach which was recently found guilty of violating the Veterans Readjustment Act. The United States Labor Department found that CSULB was not hiring veterans, a violation of the law. The evidence showed that it was due to the philosophy of the school authorities who felt that anyone who was sufficiently non-left to have actually served in the military of their country (especially those from Viet Nam) should not be allowed anywhere near their "precious little darlings" what with the chance that the "correct way of thinking" in which these students had been immersed at that school would be "contaminated". But trust me when I say that if such a measure was ever applied to anything that these selfsame administrators wished to do, they would be screaming about a violation of academic freedom and free discussion as fast as they could pick up the telephone and call the local newspaper.

I constantly hear people bragging about and demanding "their rights" and "their privileges". What about duties and responsibilities? And what about the many duties and responsibilities which carry no rights or privileges? How many clamor for those?

Our children are not being educated. The educators tell us that things like "having to learn the multiplication tables "by heart"" is useless and that it is also demeaning. It does not allow a child to "reason" and "think independently". It "stifles his/her creativity". They also tell us that there should be no dress codes. That what a child wears to school has nothing to do with the learning process. But what better way to teach a child that there are rules and dress codes and expectations which will be placed upon that child down the road. It is little spoken of but we have a teenage suicide rate which is epidemic to the point of (according to some "experts") pandemic. These "experts" claim that the suicide rate is directly attributable to the stresses which are placed on the teenager in our current age. Okay, fine. I must inquire however, whether one of the solutions to the problem is that we introduce the children to the stresses of life as they can understand and cope with them from the time that they are young and then, perhaps, the day will not come when the kid all of a sudden wakes up and discovers that the world is not "their oyster". We do children no service by shielding them from life for seventeen or eighteen years, fulfilling their every little heart's desire, only to have them discover one fine day that that is not the way of the world at which point they are so overwhelmed that they cannot cope, except for the answer which is provided by a knife, gun, or other means of "ending it all"??

All right. As one of my friends has told me, since I have these views, I am a real "dino". Of course I replied to her "and probably I am also saur." However, she is probably right. I have principles and standards as do most of my few friends and acquaintances. I have been asked by one of my readers: "How then do you deal with persons who have no standards?" My answer is that since I can only be responsible and called to account for my own actions, since I do not want to be known by the company I keep if it is that sort of company, I deal with them only so long as I can deal with them without sacrificing my own standards. The minute I must sacrifice my own standards, I completely cut off any sort, way, manner, or shape of any relationship.

Perhaps I am missing out on something because I do this. Somehow I certainly hope so.

vurdraak@pacbell.net

Opinion Piece # 7

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS - THE ANTITHESIS OF TRUTH AND HONESTY

Click to Read

Home / List of Topics