Political correctness vs. the Bradley effect.

While looking at the results of the 2016 election on TV, I was horrified that Donald Trump won.  I was quite puzzled for several months about Trump's victory.  How can such a rude man who constantly uses fallacies, hatred, and political incorrectness (he did say that all Mexican immigrants were "rapists") get elected as president?  Even the polls were saying Hillary Clinton, who is more rational in my opinion, should've won.   It wasn't until I listened to a political scientist on NPR that I understood why.  According to this scientist, Trump won not because of ignorant Americans being concerned of the "bad" economy, but because of racism and nativism.  To prove his claim, the political scientist provided an anecdote about a person he knew.  This person was an environmentalist, and he supposedly advocated for people to save the environment.  It is reasonable to assume that the environmentalist is a Clinton or Green Party supporter, but ironically, he voted for Trump.  Apparently, this "environmentalist" revealed himself to be more concerned with immigrants than the environment.  In fact, he wanted both legal and illegal immigrants to be deported from America.  So he could have been lying when he expressed his support for the environment.  He wasn't alone of course, there were plenty of Clinton "supporters" who had proudly denounced racism, sexism, and irrationality in the polls, yet they voted for Trump.  Since Trump won, there were news stories of these very same fake Clinton supporters were engaging in racist activities, such as vandalizing Jewish synagogues.  According to the political scientist, this paradoxical phenomenon (known as the Bradley effect) resulted from how racists (and other bigots) engaged in political correctness out of fear of being bullied by liberals.  Yet while that claim to be not racist, they are lying; they still think like racists even if their language and actions imply the opposite.  This not only explains why the polls were wrong about the election, but it shows how strong hatred, racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice can be.  These forces can be so strong that not even political correctness can completely eliminate them.

However, P.C. did provide the benefit of keeping these prejudices from insulting people in language; but since the politically incorrect Trump became president, the his supporters seem to be moving away from the P.C. movement.  In fact, they are moving so far away, that I am becoming more concerned about the language anarchists than the "word police" (Kakutani 764).

Bland Analysis of Williams' piece

In "The Clan of One-Breasted Women," our class had discussed about how Williams advocated for civil disobedience to pressure the government into solving certain issues (that is, if the government isn't doing anything).  In this post, I would like to elaborate on some textual evidence on how Terry Tempest Williams conveys her attitude of obedience.

When Williams describes the case of Irene Allen as "God-fearing people," she is referring to how Allen said "I am not blaming the government" (930).  Basically, Williams is saying that trying to solve the issue of nuclear radiation by using the government (which Williams claims to have the authority of "God") has proved fruitless because the U.S. government hasn't done much about nuclear radiation.  She emphasizes this point by saying "our government is immune;" it is "immune" to any issues where the government is supposedly responsible (Williams 930).  Williams also says that Mrs. Allen is not the only person to stay obedient to the government by stating "This is just one story in anthology of thousands" (Williams 930).  In fact, Williams clearly includes how her own family practiced "obedience" to the government, and it never solved the danger of nuclear radiation.  Because her mother died from cancer and was obedient, Williams was motivated to "question everything" (931).  In other words, Williams wants to practice civil disobedience because "blind obedience...ultimately takes our lives" (931).  This perhaps explains why Terry Tempest Williams "crossed the line at the Nevada Test Site" because she believes her act of civil disobedience is a step forward in solving the issue of nuclear radiation.

A Mock Letter from a Peacock to Tannen

Dear Deborah Tannen,

I have recently read your essay about how "there is no unmarked women" (Tannen 556).  I was quite intrigued by your your argument; but I also found it mind-boggling to think about.  Perhaps it is because I am a peacock that I fail to grasp how humans view gender.  In fact, instead of having no "unmarked" females, as you suggest with humans, we have no "unmarked" males.  We peacocks are expected by the peahens to bear many eye-spotted feathers on our tail.  If one lacks such feathers, he is considered to be noticeably unattractive among peafowl.  If one has plenty of these feathers, he is considered to be one of the most beautiful peacocks.  Regardless of the number of tail feathers, peafowl almost always gab about how some peacocks are pretty while others are ugly.  My wife, for instance, brags about the enormous amount of feathers I possess to her friends.  (Both of us are pictured below).  I also happened to see feather-lacking peacocks try to use branches and leaves to make fake quills*; they probably hope that other peafowl would not notice their disguised ugliness.  Meanwhile, peahens "have the option of being unmarked" (Tannen 553).  They do not have fancy feathers like mine, yet they are "unmarked."  No one ever gossips about peahens' physical qualities.  Even my wife never gets bashed or complimented for her looks.  Peahens can make themselves "marked" if they dress up in any strange clothing, but males do not have the choice to make themselves "unmarked."  My point is, that the gender roles in peafowl society are pretty reversed when compared to human society.  So that is why I have trouble understanding your kind's mindset; it is almost as if our societies belong to different worlds

Sincerely,

Fictional Peacock

*Author's note: This does not happen in real life.  Also, there are some other false facts about peacocks in this post.