The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 266 No 7151 p768
June 9, 2001

Correct but corrupt
Voices from the past
The Columbus question

Correct but corrupt

The idea known as political correctness was originated by academics and journalists in the United States in the 1990s, and has spread abroad to haunt us on all sides. The term “politically correct” was given the dictionary definition: “Marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy in issues involving especially race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology.” Its advocates object to overt or covert sexist criticisms, particularly directed against women, distinctions of racial significance, especially involving white against black, terms used to criticise mental or physical disabilities, or contrasts in stature and age, wide stereotypical distinctions based on generalities, and so on.

The problem seems to have arisen, or at least deteriorated, because of a growing hypersensitivity of some individuals towards criticisms voiced by the rest of society. One consequence is that many simple truths can no longer be expressed without stirring a hornets’ nest. Although those who state such truths have no intention to offend, merely to describe in terms of fact, a small minority, on hearing them, will choose to perceive the statements as mocking them as human beings. The ultimate effect is to diminish language and communication, because a spade is no longer a spade to both participants in a dialogue.

It must be admitted that many undesirable things have been stated in the past by people who try to make an offensive distinction. For example, I do not think it was fair of Samuel Johnson to remark in 1775 that Gaelic is “the rude speech of a barbaric people, who had few thoughts to express, and were content, as they conceived grossly, to be grossly understood”. If I had met Samuel in the Highlands on that occasion, I might have been tempted to draw my claymore. And Rudyard Kipling was a gross offender with his remarks of “lesser breeds without the law” (1897) and others similarly discriminatory. But that is part of history and out of our control.

Even in ancient Greece there were precautionary euphemisms. The Furies or Erinyes (“angry ones”) were always referred to as the Eumenides (“well-disposed ones”) in case they should take offence. And nearer our own time, the fairies were always alluded to as “the good folk” because everyone was scared stiff of their mischief.

Today we all have to watch our step in what we say and to whom we say it. Yet I believe that few people really believe in stigmatising someone else on account of differences that are inevitable if we are to be individuals rather than robotic copies. The malicious few we shall always have in our midst, and talk of political correctness will not interest them. It is the attitude that counts, not the name. It is sad that we shall now, in self defence, have to talk of senior citizens instead of old age pensioners, sufferers from disabilities instead of the disabled, child care workers instead of nursemaids, clients instead of patients, laundry executives instead of washerwomen, environmental service operatives instead of dustmen — perhaps even educational curriculum administrators instead of teachers. Life would be so much simpler if we could continue to call a spade a spade.

Back to Top

Voices from the past

An interesting comment on the possible value of dead languages to those working in medical circles appears in The Lancet for April 28. It arises from the frequent suggestion that, in an already overcrowded medical curriculum, it may be counterproductive to consider any literary aspects of the discipline. However, it has to be accepted that a modicum of education in the classics has always been regarded as part of the medical and scientific culture. Many of the terms used come from clear Latin or Greek roots, and unless their origin is properly understood the terms themselves will be misused, so creating an atmosphere of imprecision which does not reflect well on practice. Moreover, it is observable that classical and literary themes have their place in medical and scientific journals where they continue to enjoy a readership.

Latin is undergoing a degree of revival as a subject for serious academic study, and continues to help comprehension of the everyday languages of southern Europe. Greek is more difficult, on account of its letters and accents, but is still a good guide to meaning. Both ancient languages ought to be examined for their value as an educational tool for students of health sciences, writes David Sharp in his commentary. There is still keen interest in our language roots by those reading even translations of the old classics. Parallels have recently been drawn between the conduct of a United States president and that of some Roman emperors. And when we read of the Aegean as a “wine-dark sea” we should be able to judge whether Homer was colour blind or whether his translators have betrayed him, over both the sea and the local wine.

However forbidding their aspects to some of us today who are trying to make our way through a madly dashing, selfish and commercially exploitative world, we should not thrust cavalierly aside the languages used by our ancestors, as if they were no longer formative and explanatory. They throw light upon our culture and the language we employ in health care practice today. And they warn us that arrogance and ignorance are nothing new and are still as destructive as ever.

Back to Top

The Columbus question

A short piece in Science for May 11 revives one of the medical mysteries of all time. For more than 500 years there has been argument about whether Christopher Columbus and his men were responsible for carrying syphilis either from the Old World to the New or introducing it from the New World to the Old. Palaeopathologists have examined many bones, which carry the imprint of the disease, and found that those of some pre-conquest native Americans show scarring attributable to syphilis. In Europe, the earliest records of the infection were found shortly after Columbus returned, suggesting that the explorer’s crew had brought it back with them.

Last year researchers at the University of Bradford reported that in excavating skeletons from a monastery in Hull they had discovered bony deformities characteristic of syphilis, dating back to between 1300 and 1450, prior to the discovery of the New World. However, it has been found that the high fish diet of the Hull residents may falsify radiocarbon determinations. Moreover, the bone defects could also be attributed to yaws, a skin disease closely allied to syphilis. Syphilis is attributed to infection with Treponema pallidum pallidum, while yaws involves Treponema pallidum pertenue.

A further complication is that a researcher in Ohio has found that syphilitic bone samples dated at 1200 to 500 years before present occur in Dominica, where Columbus landed. Further examination of DNA from bones derived from various sites is planned to discover whether the lesions are attributable to syphilis or to yaws.

Meanwhile, confusion reigns.

Back to Top