And now Luke Skywalker is sexist?


Star Wars purists are rightfully offended, but is this sexist?

Why should we care?

You, gentle reader, may have reached the same saturation point I have: We are subjected daily to a cacophony of constant whining from a culture of grievance where the aggrieved feel (because we should all be caring about the feelings of complete strangers, lest we be pegged as boors but called racist, sexist, ___phobic, etc.) put upon and want everybody to do something about it.

Now, I strive to treat all with politeness and civility. I was raised by parents who respected themselves and others. As an adult, I came to understand that is part of a greater American value of respect for the individual’s right to freedom and equality under the law.

I may choose to not voice an opinion: there are myriad reasons why, but most of the time I’m not interested in getting into an argument. However, I do reserve the right to my opinion, whether it pleases others or not.

In the current atmosphere of PC/multi-culti culture wars, having an unpopular opinion leads to all sorts of assumptions, where those differing from your opinion will vocally tag you as stupid, “living in another planet” (along with the above-mentioned name calling), and fearful.

Fearful? Take a look: Fear lies at the heart of opposition to ‘political correctness’, because

People are afraid of the power that true equality can give the historically disenfranchised and afraid of having been wrong

That, by the way, is that writer’s opinion, which sounds rather condescending to my opinionated-yet-jaded ears.

Peter Berkowitz, reviewing Eric Liu’s article “How to Be American” in the fall issue of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, points to A Misguided Resolution to the Culture Wars (emphasis added),

Liu envisages a cultural literacy list that would “catalyze discussion and even debate.” It would be many-colored and inclusive, rich with references to movies and music, and to the ethnic, racial, and religious minorities that populate America. In the spirit of progressives’ “living Constitution,” it would be “an evolving document, amendable and ever subject to reinterpretation.”The content of this list would demonstrate that “the essence of American life is that it relentlessly generates hybrids.” So would the method by which the list is produced. It would be “an online, crowd-sourced, organic document that never stops changing, whose entries are added or pruned, elevated or demoted, according to the wisdom of the network.” And it would teach that the story of “diversity and hybridity” is “the legitimate American story.” Serving as “the mirror for a new America,” Liu’s cultural literacy enterprise, he claims, would overcome the conflict between the claims of a common culture and multiculturalism by illustrating that multiculturalism “is our common culture.”

But multiculturalism is not our common culture. Nor is the essence of American life hybridity and diversity. It is the American commitment to individual freedom and equality under law that is fundamental, and which makes possible the bounteous American pluralism that Liu justly celebrates. At this moment of dizzying change, recovery and restoration of the enduring principles at the core of the American experiment in self-government is decidedly more urgent than construction of a document that echoes the clamor characteristic of contemporary public life.

In the cacophony of opinions, Berkowitz finds a fact: You can’t have pluralism without that commitment.

And if you don’t like the Target t-shirt, don’t buy it.

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin American politics, news, and culture at Fausta’s Blog.

Linked to by The Pirate’s Cove. Thank you!