On the day before last Halloween I wrote about how careful
everyone must be in the choice of theme or costume so as not to offend. Some schools and universities were cancelling
events or changing them to exclude costumes to accommodate the hypersensitive. It has come to the point where people are
searching for ways to be offended, and everyone else must be constantly
vigilant. If they don’t already have
some kind of celebrity or platform, they can always turn to social media to air
their complaints and blast the offending party.
I noticed further examples in the following weeks.
The third stanza of the national anthem is offensive. “California's NAACP is pushing for state
lawmakers to support a campaign to remove ‘The Star Spangled Banner’ as
the country's national anthem.” According
to the state NAACP president, it’s racist, and kneeling or sitting is an
appropriate protest. But it happened the
other way around. The real news was that
the protests actually “led her to look at the lyrics of the anthem - finding a
little-noticed third stanza.” No one
cited that as a reason until this woman dug deep to search out offensive matter
with a reference to slaves and hirelings.
Was it the intention of the poet to demean or degrade anyone? I looked it up. “It doesn’t appear that Francis Scott
Key ever specified what he did mean by the phrase [about slaves and
hirelings], nor does its context point to a single, definitive interpretation.” It’s offensive only if you take the
initiative to look it up and decide to interpret that way.
On the other hand, some choose to be offended by those who kneel during the playing of the anthem.
On the other hand, some choose to be offended by those who kneel during the playing of the anthem.
Then there is the Washington Post
headline from May 2016: “Some in the news media are still offended by Redskins
name, even if Indians aren’t.” They
continue to take it personally despite findings from a “Washington Post poll
indicating that the vast majority of American Indians aren’t offended by it.” This probably applies to many non-Native
Americans not in the media as well. It’s
really cool to be offended on behalf of someone else even if they are willing
to let it drop. It is the sign of a
truly caring person – moral superiority rules!
From there we turn to Chicago where
instead of the news media being offended, the shoe is on the other foot. “Now in her eighth month of pregnancy,
Kristen Nicole, co-anchor of Good Day Chicago
on FOX32, says that three women sent her emails complaining that the sight of
her baby bump was ‘offensive.’” Wow,
don’t be pregnant on TV, you might offend someone. Apparently fat-shaming is forbidden, but
pregnancy-shaming is fair game!
Finally we turn to news out of Boston where
a mother is “furious” that a New Hampshire mall Santa refused to accommodate her daughter
because he was allergic to her service dog.
She went home and took to Facebook complaining that her daughter’s visit
with Santa was ruined, saying of the experience, “It was horrible” and “It was
awful.” Local news picked it up, because
a story like this brings tears to the eyes of viewers.
When the mother finds out that it was a violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act that states “allergies and fear of dogs are not
valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service
animals,” she’ll probably sue Santa and the mall for “damages.” (Her daughter might sue her later when she
finds out the truth about Santa.)
Has the perspective of Americans, their
ability to differentiate between the trivial and substantial, gone bonkers?