Another PC Surprise

Political correctness has been with us for a long time now. Even those not privy to the strange discourse on college campuses across the United States are well aware of the notorious PC phenomenon.

Indeed, political correctness is so widespread that it should no longer surprise any of us by now. Yet, it still does. At least an MSN online news article recently took me completely by surprise.

The article in question addressed bear attacks in the United States. Apparently, grizzly and black bear attacks are on the rise. More bears are attacking Americans than ever before.

This particular article, however, did not refer to these bear attacks as, well, bear attacks. Instead, adhering to the politically correct doctrines of academia and the mainstream media, the (sometimes fatal) bear attacks were characterized as–get this, I kid you not–either “bear-human conflicts” or “human-bear conflicts.”

To be sure, the “bear-human conflict” label is much more species neutral. That is, it is less biased. It is less prejudiced against bears. It is less directly in favor of humans.

To the compassionate, understanding, all-caring liberal mind, “Bear-human conflicts” sounds much more balanced and fair, more politically-correct, and much kinder and gentler than the old, outdated and obsolete notion of “bear attacks.” “Bear attacks” just seem so cruel and crude. The term lacks a certain postmodern 21st Century Enlightenment.

Of course, some insensitive and unenlightened conservatives might argue that the “human-bear conflict” PC term is misleading because it falsely implies equal responsibility for the conflict. But what human, even the strongest of us, would dare attack an 800 pound grizzly bear unarmed?

Such a move would prove to be sure suicide. In the “human-bear conflicts” in question, in the reported bear attacks, to use the non-PC term, the humans did not attack the bears; the bears attacked the humans. Why not call it what it is–bear attacks?

Still, the politically correct liberal will have none of it. Instead, the article’s featured liberal expert advises that we should try to “learn more about how bears think,” so that we can more safely co-exist as humans and bears.

“Just shoot ‘em” is what I say. If a wild bear is attacking, humans shouldn’t stop to consider exactly what the bear may be thinking or feeling at the time (and how to help). Just shoot him.

In fact–who knows?–the PC liberal may even blame the human victim for being attacked by the bear. He might, for example, claim that the unarmed human somehow had it coming, by merely encroaching upon the bear’s natural territory, as if the bear had certain inalienable private property rights!

The PC movement is not going away. In the future, look forward to “shark-human conflicts,” “crocodile-human conflicts,” and the like. Just bloody awful.

Strictly a personal view. Charles Reyes Jr. is a regular columnist of Saipan Tribune. Mr. Reyes may be reached at charlesraves@hotmail.com