Here's a selection from an article of mine which I think is relevant here:
https://teedrockwell.medium.com/the-woke-revolution-in-moral-habits-5a9694abc46f
"When the first underprivileged managed to work their way into the corridors of power, the most sensible strategy for them was to behave "Normally" i.e. in ways that privileged people are comfortable with. Now, however, the underprivileged rightly feel that they have become the new normal, which should therefore now be defined by what they are comfortable with. Consequently, those of us born into privilege are discovering that things we used to do or say are experienced by the underprivileged as racist, or sexist, or microagressive, or just plain insensitive. Then something like the following dialogue begins:
Privileged: But we’ve always said or done that.
Underprivileged: And we’ve always hated it.“
P: There is nothing intrinsically bad about what I said or did. You misinterpreted my intention.
U: Why is my interpretation a misinterpretation? Because you have the privilege to define these interpretations? I have a right to (help) decide what the correct interpretation is."
And so today we are engaged in a great dialogue about what words and/or social interactions are permissible. "
What's relevant here is that this is a dialogue between two groups of PEOPLE, in an attempt to create a new idea of courtesy that takes into account the feelings of a broader range of people. The thing that's wrong with this "historical" approach is that it is trying to remove words and expressions that no actual person feels bad about. It sees racism as a totally abstract evil, that must be eradicated even from places where no one is aware that it exists. Sort of like discovering that there is a face on Mars that vaguely resembles an offensive caricature, and demanding that we send missiles to destroy it.
Language and courtesy does not need to be changed unless someone is actually being hurt by it. How does it help to tell a black person to stop singing "I've been working on the railroad" because a hundred years ago it had racist lyrics? Or might have had racist lyrics, according to some scholars. Suppose the racist lyric was a parody that was written later, does that mean the song should still be banned? Can we now get any song banned just by writing a racist lyric for it? And regardless of the answers to any of these questions, how can any of this make any difference in the Twenty first century?
