Communism apparently was spreading fast enough. The reason - Western Civilization! One of the western tenants is that the individual has importance, relevance and worth. Contrast this to communism which believes that "all valid ideas come from the effect of the social group of the masses. The individual is nothing."

Individuals were the problem. They can be "annoying". Individuals have a tendency to view the world from their point of view. They see problems as they related to them and they see truth as having to first of all be honest. That had to change, but the secret to making that change was it had to be viewed as "fair", "respectful" and on a high intellectual standard.

We, westerners, needed to become more sensitive, more respectful and more socially conscious. Past wrongs must be made right. Past "acceptable" behavior had to be made "unacceptable" and a foundation must be laid to prevent a return to "normalcy".

One of the "common" results of individuals having free thought is they have free speech which often morphs into freedom of actions. Many actions of a free society are often discriminatory against those of minorities; not just racial or cultural minorities, but those that were simply insensitive to the "norms" of polite society.

Blazquez related that his "... first conscious exposure to Political Correctness was in 1959 - the first year of Castro's revolution in Cuba - while attending an indoctrination session at a neighborhood elementary school in Havana. There I learned for the first time of the claimed superiority of life in the Soviet Union vs. the U.S.

There I also learned that the word 'compañero'  (filtered version of the communist 'comrade' - Fidel was denying his communist preferences) was the correct way to refer to the other members of the new Cuban society-in-the-making.

Mr., Mrs. and Miss were no longer acceptable, and their further use could reveal that you were not a Fidelista. Since repression and violations of human rights came roaring in right behind Castro's sweep down from the mountains in 1959, objection or rejection of Fidel Castro's revolution would (and still will) land you in a lot of trouble. You could easily lose your life in those summary executions at La Cabaña prison under the direction of Che Guevara."

Of course, history can be rewritten (as was the history of Che), Guevara has been sanitized by the media and the youth culture. No longer is he viewed as a murderer, now he is a folk-hero for "standing up against the oppressive majority", those in control.

For those of us old enough to remember, the 1960s and 1970s were a hot bed of dissatisfaction and change. Racial injustices along with minority discriminations provided the foundation by which you could no longer call "a spade a spade."

Restructuring speech was seen as the FIRST step to restructuring behavior; and it has been working ever since. 

Is a person murdered during a "hate crime" any deader that a person simply murdered by a criminal? Is a victim of a bully perpetrating a "hate crime" more or less impacted by the actions than a person who is just bullied?

Utilizing "hate legislation" based on slavery of blacks, extermination of the Jews during World War II and the "unacceptability" of "deviant" lifestyles; it certainly appeared not only benign, but worthwhile.

Many Christians were seduced by the appearance and scriptural references. Many good people who had been bullied or witnessed negative culture violence - even the aspects of the civil rights movement provided "documentation" that this was a reasonable, well thought out, positive and intelligent thing. We were in fact creating a "uniform political discourse."

What the well meaning (and there are many) proponents failed to recognize is that as Mr. Blazquez points out, "It is the nature of Western Civilization to be civilized - respectful of others and concerned with correcting injustices. We don't need Political Correctness to make us think we are not civilized on our own and must have our thoughts and words restricted."

He related a story that occurred in December 2001, "... in Kensington, MD., an annual firefighters Santa Claus festivity to light the Christmas tree was objected to by two families. The city council, in the name of Political Correctness, voted to ban Santa from the parade. Fortunately, due to citizen outcry, the decision was reversed in the end and many people protested by dressing up as Santa."

When the minority has undue and unreasonable influence on the freedoms of the majority, there becomes a problem. A problem that is difficult to grasp and see in all of its ramifications.

Mr. Spock from Star Trek once said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one." Captain Kirk later noted "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one, until the needs of the one or the few outweighs the needs of the many."

The question might be stated as "When is enough too much?"

I'll tell you more next week in Part 3 of my article revealing the truth about Political Correctness.

  *************

To view previous editions of Back to Basics News, visit our archives by clicking here or visit www.btb4success.com/Signup.html.

Copyright © 2011-2012 Back to Basics for Success, LLC