PC as a political weapon

Haven't been blogging lately. The nation's going to hell in a hand basket, what more can I say?

However, came across something on Michelle Malkin's Twitchy site surrounding a video that apparently was posted by Russell Simmons, who's a black media mogul -- involved in all kinds of entrepreneurial communications things, including the music and cell phones industries. He's also a very likable guy.

Anyway, apparently he posted something called "Harriet Tubman's Sex Tapes" on YouTube. All about Harriet Tubman, forced by her master to have sex, turning around the situation and using it to compel her master to let her run the underground railroad. Russell Simmons said he thought it was funny.

A lot of other people were not amused. Though I never saw the video -- Simmons took it down by popular demand -- I think the concept is kind of disgusting. Rape was a very real thing in the days of slavery, and some black women slaves did use it to extract favors from ol' massa. The Garden District in New Orleans was well known as the area where white plantation owners housed their black concubines -- and the concubines's mixed race kids, as well. Or a woman field hand might regard sex with the massa as a way to get lighter duty inside the house. A sad and sorry way to improve your situation.

Anyway you look at this, it's pretty hard to put a positive spin on it.

At any rate, Simmons apologized for his insensitivity and took the video down. That wasn't good enough for some folks. One "Twit" posted something about how "the damage is already done."

That made me wonder, what damage? Has Harriet Tubman's reputation been ruined? Did the video prompt some extremely impressionable black woman to sell herself into slavery so that she, too, could try to manipulate her master?

What damage is done by harsh or insensitive or even insulting words?

When I was a kid and other kids called me names -- an apparently inevitable episode in every kid's life -- my mother told me to bear in mind: "Sticks and stones might break my bones, but names will never hurt me." I somehow associated that with the idea of being strong and self-motivated, and trusting my own judgment of myself rather than letting others define me.

Maybe naïve? It seems the democrats have seized upon some pretty convoluted "spin" to -- poof! -- magically turn shocking negatives into at least palatable neutrals. And some people buy it.

I'm a writer. I understand the power of words. You define an issue by the terms you choose to describe it and by the fact that you choose to address it all, and this lends to the issue your own point of view. There's no escaping that. That's why "objective journalism" is, for me, an oxymoron. The only way to be fair is to present the issues from all sides, from a range of perspectives.

And just because you attach one or another label to something doesn't change the nature of what the thing is. I could call tomatoes "feathers," but they'd still be tomatoes.

And I don't think Harriet Tubman's reputation has been tarnished by Russell Simmons' video. In fact, the whole thing blew back on him, didn't it? Judging by the outrage he inspired, I'd guess that he, not Harriet, has lost a few fans over this matter.

Anyway, just a thought. It's the difference between "Death panels" and "bureaucrats defining who gets health care and who doesn't." Oops. Not a good example. Or Hillary Clinton as "Our next 'historic' president" as opposed to "The Secretary of State who abandoned US representatives under terrorist attack."

Sorry. I guess my bias is showing.