Well put, Janet!

And Rogerbob, Paul, and Janice--I don't think I was making any claims that Eliot's views were not deeply hateful in many regards--I read After Strange Gods to see if it was as bad as all that--and it was. However, at this point it's hardly news, is it, any more than Larkin's pornography fetish is (which, unlike Motion's notoriety for chasing female students, was at least a private fetish). But what got me incensed was Rogerbob's claim that Eliot's anti-Semitism (and hatred more generally) was at the center of his being, and thus (implicitly) his poetry. One makes no excuses for such things, but it only brushes Eliot's poetry, which is, on balance, deeply humane.

And Paul, if I got a bit cross with you (and it was only a bit), it's because you at the same time seem to be making good points and then copping the insanity plea. "All poets are mad," etc. Sure, there's a degree of eccentricity and Behaving Badly inherent in the enterprise, but most of us, personal comfort zones aside, know the difference between honest and dishonest dealings. Including you, by the way.

I suspect that at this point, we're probably all talking past one another a bit, and we all agree that anti-Semitism and the like are not things to be lauded or excused.

Janice, you weren't in my line of fire at all, really.

Quincy

Paul, you are quite right about the jewels. Rochester is perhaps the nastiest poet I can think of, I mean as a human being. Good poems though. We all know Ben Jonson was a murderer. Wasn't Villon one as well? Great poems though in both cases.

I think the schoolgirls were over age. I think that's the point. I mean Larkin et al had a considerable thing about breasts. Children as a rule... well you catch my drift.

I certainly never intended to imply that his hatefulness as a human being should affect the way we read his poetry. In fact, I wrote:
I am more concerned with allowing one's admiration for his poetry lead to excusing his hatefulness as a human being, which (rightly or wrongly) I understood some people here to be doing as they pointed out that he later tried to suppress his own hateful utterances or that some of his best friends were gay or Jewish and he was always nice to them.

I don't attack Eliot the person in order to demonstrate anything about his poetry. By the same token, I wouldn't use his poetry to defend Eliot the person.

John, in my neck of the woods, as I understand it, sexual relations with those under the age of consent or minors is considered as paedophilia by the law. The sources didn't specify whether or not the particular characteristic you mentioned was present. But it was all done via pictures and fiction: there is no suggestion that L actually pursued the objects of that particular fantasy in real life, though he was mightily interested in the subject. There's plenty in Motion's biography and Thwaite's selected letters to justify a total boycott of Larkin's work if you are of the school of thought that says that racists, homophobes, misogynists and other degenerates should have their poetic artifacts denied publication.

Quincy, when I read about Eliot and Larkin being like that it depresses me in terms of lamenting the fallibility of humanity, but it in no way diminishes my response to the poems that these fallible humans produced. Like you probably do I have an ambivalent attitude on those grounds towards poems like Eliot's 'Gerontion', but not towards the main body of his work; and I like Larkin's writing very much indeed -- apart from such references as "black scum" and "the scum of Europe".

My "all poets are mad" comment was supposed to be along the lines of "there's nowt so queer as folk -- all the world's queer save thee and me, and even thee's a little queer!" -- ie we're all on a spectrum of beastliness, we can all be banged up good to rights if someone takes a mind to sift through our doings and sayings and paint us as this or that. I think poets are often particularly prone to extreme or bizarre psychological states all along the spectrum, and to shooting off their mouths, and so make good subjects for vilification.

Furthermore, every individual of us has her own particular set of buttons that make the behaviours of one person problematic and those of another not. I guess it is selective outrage that bemuses me: why individuals pick one set of bad behaviours in one particular evil-doer to be unforgivable, beyond the pale, and representative of absolute evil incarnate, and yet a very similar (perhaps to other observers even worse) set of behaviours in another evil-doer (or even in themselves) to be regrettable perhaps but not defining. In my opinion it finally gets down to personal dislike or animosity, not high principle. And I'd like to see a little room for the possibility of redemption in there as well, and the possibility of moving on to more interesting matters.

Ham. Gods bodykins man, better. Vse euerie man
after his desart, and who should scape whipping ...

The selection or rejection of art according to the extra-artistic thoughts or behaviour of the artist is a sign of dilettantism.

Any reader who would reject, say, Eliot's Four Quartets because of some non-PC statement he made in a lecture is a poseur - pure and simple: a political beast posing as an art-lover.

It seems equivalent to me as rejecting a pearl on the basis that it formed in slimy guts of an oyster. Such a person is incapable of actually seeing a pearl.

Who cares WHERE or HOW great art comes into being - the fact of it is enough for me.

Mark, I didn't catch the part where anyone here rejected Eliot's work based upon the views he expressed in the essay. Maybe I missed it. Or maybe you just launched one of your set pieces prematurely?

I will say, though, that your referring to hate speech and anti-semitism as mere un-PC speech, as though the anti-semites themselves are the innocent victims of thought police, is offensive, even though it does not affect my view of your poetry.

I will say, though, that your referring to hate speech and anti-semitism as mere un-PC speech, as though the anti-semites themselves are the innocent victims of thought police, is offensive, even though it does not affect my view of your poetry.

Well, if you are offended Bob, you have a duty to report this post to the moderators so they can exclude me from the site - we can't have people being offended by words on poetry sites.

No, it's enough to call you on it. Don't make out like you're the only one who believes in free speech.

But I know my point registered, since you have resorted to the fallback tactic you use whenever you are trapped by logic and facts. Sarcasm.

Tell me again, who was it here who rejected Eliot's poems based on his non-PC views? The ones who prompted your familiar canned denunciation of those you consider to be dilettantes? The ones who are not as exquisitely deep and artistic as you and on whom you would impose your own correctness?

Do you actually read these threads, or do you have bots that pick out key words that trigger your computer to post pre-written screeds?

Children, children! Play nicely or I'll remove your toys. You're both fine poets.

We can all agree that some of the best poetry is written by very dodgy individuals. We'll ask their poetry into our living rooms but the poet must stay in the kennel.

There is some truth to what Mr Schechter is saying here. That we all agree that views external to a poem should not be read into the poem or used as an excuse to reject the poem itself should not be allowed to slide into tacit approval of the views. Gerontion must be read, understood, and judged all on its own, as an independent, stand-alone object; but that doesn't somehow make Eliot's views more palatable. And a dislike of political correctness--as to which I yield not a whit to Mark--is not a justification for excusing nastiness. If I do not care for affirmative action, I am not thereby obliged to palliate racial bias.

RHE

I've just read this thread for the first time in months - I had no idea it had developed in this direction! As you can see at the start, I love Eliot. I spent an afternoon with him, and I don't know about alive - who ever really knows another person? - but he was great company dead! He has come so close to my life. I cannot imagine how different things would be if I had never read 'Marina' - if 'Marina' had not been there when I needed it. I don't care how it got here - it's 'Marina' I needed.

I also find that my great-great-great (would there be one more great?) grandfather John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, has been maligned by one Whitworth!

I feel all my beloveds are being attacked, and I am just piping up to say I still love them, for always. Not to defend anything, or anyone, but just to say I don't know people, but I know poetry when it confronts me. I deal with what confronts me. And I'm so grateful for everyone who has come before and gone ahead.

best wishes to all!

Cally

So do I, Cally. So should we all.

Yep, Richard, I think that we are all agreeing in our own quirky ways pretty much along the lines that you identify.

There are poets whose works and personalities I don't particularly like. Is the dislike of the works because of my dislike of the personality? But there are some whose personalities I do like but much of whose work leaves me cold.

I'm not particularly fond of Eliot, works or bloke.

I detest Pound on both scores.

There's not much in Auden that I like (though some), and I reckon he plagiarised Laura Riding.

I reckon Frost's a mate though, and writes the goods.

I know I would have loathed Larkin personally, but I think the poems are right up there.

Laura Riding sounds like a total loony, and hell to be around, but I love her work: she is one of my very favourite poets. Unfashionable: I don't think I've communicated with another person who likes her writing.

I don't think I would have had much patience with Yeats the man, though I don't mind some of his stuff.

Rimbaud sounds like a real shite, but he wrote some amazing poems.

Dylan Thomas -- well, problematic but I think we would have got on; I do like the poems, even though they're not really in right now.

Shakespeare and I hit it off well personally, and he certainly can bang out a poem (often embedded in a play).

I'm very fond of Keats, man and poet. And John Clare. I can't help liking Byron, for all his posing, man and poet.

Shelley's a bit.... I dunno.

John Donne, Kit Marlowe -- mates! John Skelton: close friend and bloody good poet.

Famous Seamus seems OK: nice poems.

Ted Hughes would be a chum, and I like a lot of his poetry, but dislike a lot too.

Sylvia I adore.

Don't make out like you're the only one who believes in free speech.

"Free speech"!!!

What a joke!

Bob, I am not the one who demands that fine poets shall be BANNED and NEVER be heard on this site because of extra-poetical utterances.

Which is exactly what I am talking about - putting politics in place of poetry.

Wagner knocks out a good tune, but I wouldn't fancy a drink with him.

Never goes his round for one thing...

John Milton wrote the odd good line but I wouldn't go out clubbing with him.

We seem to have wandered far from the topic. The overall point that some great poetry/art/music has come from unsavoury sources has been generally accepted. And, as Roger says, nobody on this thread has talked of rejecting Eliot's poetry because of his politics or racism or whatever: indeed, everyone seems to have bent over backwards to state the reverse.

A general comment on the term PC. I don't remember ever seeing this term used other than satirically, by people opposed to it. But most of the time when people refer to PC, they seem to be talking about what used to be known very simply as courtesy: not causing unwarranted offence.

Greg, I respectfully disagree. To me the term "political correctness" strongly foregrounds, by its very terminology, the notion of political. It seems impossible to disentangle and expunge the notion of politics from it, and the strong primary meaning of conforming to someone's political agenda.

Now you might argue that "courtesy" could be said to have similar resonances, since it's derived from the original idea of behaviour acceptable at a royal court, but I'd disagree with that argument. As Shakespeare knew, a politician is an ignoble self-seeker very different from a Prince, and "courtesy" evokes a spirit of chivalry, nobility and generosity which I just don't pick up from "political correctness". I think that to many people "political correctness" suggests a kind of humorless pedantic spiritless coercion which can sometimes be more anti-democratic and anti-life than that which it claims to combat.

When I think of Courtesy I think of chivalry, merriment and Amour Cortois. When I think of political correctness I think of the cartoon mentioned in James Booth's excellent article, where one reader says to another "I find I simply can't touch a poet who isn't a vegetarian."

Yes Holly,
But when I performed in Bach's 'Passion according to St. Matthew' in England, I became conscious of the seeds that were grown to plants in Wagner . I looked at the audience and didn't quite like what I saw. Bach was part of the same culture as Wagner.

Sorry Gregory. I had missed this message addressed to me.


Eliot was the first poet who made me aware of modern possibilities in poetry.

Paul, maybe I didn't make myself clear. I agree that the term "political correctness" has all those connotations. What I am saying is that I have never heard anyone use the term other than derogatorily. However, very often it seems to me that what people are stigmatising as "political correctness" ("political correctness gone mad" is the commonest usage, at least in UK journalism) is simply what used to be referred to as courtesy - the unwillingness to give unnecessary and unwarranted offence by your behaviour or language.

It's true Gregory. The first people to embrace that expression in Australia were the right-wing press who wanted to reserve their right to express hurtful bigotry and defend cruelty. I heard them use the words "political correctness" to attack anyone who expressed views which were tolerant or humane.

But Greg, that is the very point I'm disagreeing with. When someone says they're trying not to give offence to someone else, that "offence" is often defined by a particular political agenda, and quite often taken to ridiculous lengths. In Australia recently a biscuit-maker was forced by political correctness to withdraw the name "Creole Creams" from a biscuit product because the word "Creole" is supposed to have racially offensive connotations. Supposed by whom? It certainly doesn't for me, and for any Aussies I've heard opine on the matter. That's not what we used to call courtesy, and I don't think it comes from a desire for courtesy. It's someone imposing their own whacko agenda on someone else. Courtesy seems to have very little to do with it. The very good reason that the term "PC" DOES have negative connotations that so many manifestations of it are silly and, often, heedless of others' rights and beliefs. The term "political correctness" is self-evidently about politcal control. That's not courtesy, which I'm all in favour of. So many of the PC agitprops are patently discourteous.

But Paul, there are always going to be people who take unnecessary offence. We don’t always have to see a sinister political agenda behind such things. And the things that give offence undeniably change in different ages and different societies. I am unlikely to be offended today by many things that would have shocked Jane Austen. Or, to use an example not quite so removed in time, I remember reading somewhere that Evelyn Waugh was disgusted to receive a letter from a stranger beginning “Dear Evelyn Waugh”. Not something that would shock me – but then again, I am still old-fashioned (and perhaps British) enough to be surprised (though not necessarily offended) to receive e-mails from students that begin “Hi…”. All this is just to say that obviously it is not easy to define what gives offence. But we can always try to bear in mind other people’s sensitivities and not trample on them unnecessarily

In particular, it is perhaps not surprising that, after a century marked by such horrors as Auschwitz, apartheid, Jim Crow laws etc., we are today unusually sensitive on the question of racist offence. Obviously this can be taken to ridiculous lengths, as in the example you give; I can understand when people fall back on such slogans as “political correctness gone mad” in such cases. But I would distinguish between a political agenda and stupidity. On the whole it seems to me that the term PC (always said with a sneer) is all too frequently used just as a convenient way to dismiss as irrelevant the rules of courtesy that should govern behaviour in a civilised society – sometimes, as Janet says, to justify blatant bigotry.

Obviously, Paul, I wouldn’t dream of accusing you of any such thing; I’m just trying to explain why I find the term “PC” so little help in such discussions.

But come on, when someone says, as Eliot did, that it's really bad for society if there are too many Jews about, is it really just "PC" to condemn such a remark? I mean, when the "PC Police" yell at a woman for calling herself Mrs instead of Ms, isn't that just a bit different from complaining about the negative effect Jews have on the rest of "us"?

At what point does criticism of any view become PC overreaching? What if someone expresses the view that people with bad eyesight should be castrated so they will not be able to pass along the myopia gene? Would Mark or anyone else pounce on me as a fusty old PC-nik if I were to object?

I doubt it. I think "PC" is a word that applies at the borderline of the clash between progressive/conservative culture. But not everything is on the border. Wouldn't it be absurd for a murderer to say, "Don't impose your PC anti-homicide views on me!"?

I duly note that Mark has not been able to meet the challenge of finding anyone here who suggested that Eliot's views should affect our reading of his poetry, so it's apparent that his whole speech about dilettantism was aimed at a straw man. I wonder though, let's say I disagreed with Mark's view that you can and should separate the man from the poetry if you are not a dilettante . . . would it be proper for me to tell Mark that I just don't buy his PC view that poems should not be regarded in light of what we know about the poet? After all, I think Mark's view is widely held. Why isn't it suitable for the PC rubric? Is PC just a term that applies to those who disagree with us? Or is there some other distinguishing factor? Might the PC condemnation actually be reserved for liberal or progressive views? If so, isn't it just a conservative rhetorical device to try to win arguments by trying to climb upon the high horse of free speech and free thought?

Well "politically correct" was originally meant to refer to terms of identity, the idea being that one should call people what they wished to be called (African-American instead of Colored, for example). It was expanded to include the idea that one should avoid terms that exclude others (Chair or Chairperson instead of Chairman). These were, it seems to me, reasonable and defensible notions. But the term was then taken by conservatives to apply to all aspects of progressive political positions in order to project the false image of a slippery slope by which if you began to consider how others wished to be treated, you would soon find yourself obliged by jackbooted enforcers to adopt potical position antithetical to your own, and through a series of tortuous and inexplicable twists, civilization would quickly crumble. "PC" is nothing but a strawman. One test for that is that for the most part no one but those who oppose it use the term. Its supposed referents are not a very homogenous group, and the term does nothing to identify or clarify positions or arguments.

And that's what I think of Eliot.

David R.

Re. Larkin's porn interests:

http://books.google.com/books?id=cDM...larkin&f=false

OK. I'm NOT saying that many, perhaps most of the things that PC requires us to do, say and think are not the right thing to do anyway. Obviously they are, and I say think and do them.

I'm NOT saying that we should not take Eliot or anyone else to task, in appropriate venues, for views and behaviours of his that we find problematic. He treated his wife appallingly too, it seems: that was not in the public domain and yet clearly should be censured at some point. But I don't think we should jump up and protest when the chap is reading a poem to an audience or at a ceremony to award him the Nobel Prize or whatever. That will just provoke sympathy for Eliot, and anyway it is discourteous. Criticise in proper venues.

What I AM saying is this. Courtesy springs from generosity of spirit. In courtesy I treat someone with respect and honour because I choose to do that, from a sense of sympathy and fairness.

Political correctness springs from a particular group demanding that people speak, think and behave in a restricted way that the particular group defines. It is, say, a bunch of activist eggs saying "YOU must not use the word 'egghead' because our group finds it offensive, and if you do use the word, we will harass you whenever and wherever we choose until you stop!"

Courtesy is a gift given. Political correctness is a conformity demanded. One flows from free will and generosity, the other from demands and coercion.

So all I'm saying is that however desirable PC might be, and it mostly is desirable, it is by definition NOT courtesy. That's all.

As for racist offence: I would like to see the definition of what constitutes racist offence broadened somewhat. I am partly of Koori ancestry on my father's side. The Koori have been victims of genocide in Australia, which genocide was denied by the government of John Howard, backed up by intellectual institutions like Quadrant magazine, edited by Keith Windschuttle, of which Les Murray is the editor and in which many formalist poets publish. I put a post on this situation ('History Wars') in General Talk to which so far not one person has responded. Are some forms of racism so much more significant than others, some forms of genocide-denial much more important than others? The only completely successful genocide recorded by History was that of the Tasmanian Aborigines -- a distinct racial group -- by the British soldiers and settlers. Windschuttle denies that even happened, and says it was all jolly peaceful. Again I wonder why we are so selective in our outrage. I wish we could extend our sympathy for victims of racism -- from courtesy and loving-kindness, not because it is politically correct -- to a wider field of examples.

I don't think courtesy is a gift that we have no right to demand. If someone is named Bill, and you insist on calling him BamBam, Bill has the right to demand that you call him Bill, and if you don't, and you own a store, Bill has the right to refuse to shop at your store and ask his friends to do likewise. He is not asking for the gift of courtesy and respect. He is demanding it as his due.

I agree about selective outrage, though. In some circles, you would suppose that the Palestinians are the only refugees in the world, and that no other oppressed or threatened people deserve attention or special emergency UN sessions. I do not mean to argue Mideast politics. For present purposes, I am willing to concede the full justice of the Palestinian cause. But unfortunately, there are many equally just causes that do not command the same attention although the number of victims may be greater.

It's very appropriate that there are so many straw men noted in this TS Eliot thread :)

Sam, very interesting link on Larkin -- thanks. I wondered why he continued writing those lesbic schoolgirl novels. Google books is great value, isn't it? Most books there are almost complete, and it makes it easier to assess whether you want to buy a book or trek to the library to borrow it. But in nine out of ten cases I find the bit I want in the Google books version. Plus you can have your own little list of favourites to conveniently go back to.

Roger, if Bill forces you to call him whatever, that's not courtesy, it's coercion. It may well be just, assertive of Bill's rights, correct etc, but it's not courtesy. Courtesy is when Bill says to me "Look here, old chap, I don't like being called BamBam, I want to be called Bill" and I say (and think) "Sorry, Bill, I didn't realise. Of course I'll call you Bill. Please correct me if I absent-mindedly forget". But if I say "Rack off BamBam! I'll call you what I blithering-well like!" and he says "OK -- me and my friends gonna harass the bejasus outa you and send you broke till you do what we want!" and I say "OK OK! Bill! Bill it is! Please don't punish me! I'll be a good boy!" -- well, that does not seem like courtesy to me. It might be just, but it's definitely not courtesy. It's forced compliance.

I don't think Palestinians have been mentioned a single time so far in this thread Roger until you brought them up. Are you referring to the Goldstone report on War Crimes, commissioned and adopted by the United Nations, supported by Amnesty International and Human Rights watch and anti-racists around the world, so cravenly rejected by the US Congress? Well, I daresay we will hear a lot more about that in the media (outside America, anyway) since it concerns such a flagrant humanitarian and racist injustice.

Paul said:
Courtesy is a gift given. Political correctness is a conformity demanded. One flows from free will and generosity, the other from demands and coercion.

Oh yes! Beautifully said.

Paul, if I didn't add to your post in GT it was because I had already written at some length about that very topic and didn't want to start a fire. You know that I am absolutely with you about that matter. Unfortunately if we pursue that line we end up injuring some poets whom we both deeply admire and respect. As some well-meaning but monotonous people used to chant at me: "It's all connected".

I don't wish to criticise any poets, Janet. I have no criticism. I think Windschuttle is perfectly entitled to put that case. It's called historical debate, which I'm all in favour of, and which is the very method of History. Nor do I think anyone should not publish in Quadrant. I adore Les Murray's work, just as I do Tim's for all that he is an unregenerate redneck (joke, Tim :)). The best formal poetry in Australia goes through there. I'd publish there myself if I were good enough. I'm just trying to suggest a less narrow perspective here.

Yes, thanks Sam, for posting that link. It looks like a very good book. It's certainly a very enjoyable essay (with very different illustrations from what one usually finds in academic works of this sort).

Paul, I think I'm in basic agreement with you. I'm not entirely sure why we seemed to be arguing at some point...

What the dictionary says is not always what folks have in their noggins.

But the dictionary says that both meanings now being argued are considered true and valid.

As some write at the end of a crit: I hope that helps.

Janice, it would be interesting to track down the origin of the phrase. I suspect with David that it originated amongst leftist and human rights activists, however much it was later taken over (as Janet mentions) by the Murdoch left-baiting media. I'm reading currently Alan Gould's fiction "Decency and Honour" from The Enduring Disguises (for the Seventh Chimaera's Gould feature). It evokes that whole late-60s political activism scene (in this case amongst students in Canberra) that gave rise to such attitudes. Highly recommended: it's a wonderful jolt of memory, and nice satire, and more. So many of the old phrases that had sunk into time. (I'm also re-reading the Four Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers and Feds 'N' Heads, which similarly bring that era back to life -- in a different kind of way.)

Greg, I think you are right! My original remarks were somewhat elliptical and poorly framed.

Paul, now that is an interesting coincidence. I am also reading sixties and seventies history. I've read Making of the President 1964 and have Making of the President 1960 lined up. Just finishing off March of Folly which ends with the Vietnam war. Next will be a biography of Bobby Kennedy Robert Kennedy and His Times, and in the stack are Kissinger's Memoirs Från Krig till Fred, Part III, From War to Peace, 1000 pages in Swedish. It is nice to change specs, or perspectives, and create one's own picture.

And as a sideline I found on sale recently two books of history in photos. The Hulton Getty Picture Collections of 1960s and 1970s.

My action plan is to wind up this session with Ghost Wars by Steve Coll.

And as you know, the ancient historians Herodotus, Homer et al, tell us that it has been going on for a long time.

So much to read, so little brain space.

Paul,

It's my understanding the phrase had its roots in the chinese cultural revolution, so we're talking mid to late 60's. I can remember hearing it in left wing circles in the 70's, but never heard it from a right winger until the spring of 87. By the 90's, the right had completely co-opted the term, likely thanks to the spread of rightist talk radio in this country. :confused:

Of course, this is all anecdotal etymology, and I'm willing to suffer correction. Still, I've always thought it tremendously ironic that U.S. neo-fascists would employ a distinctly Maoist phrase, seemingly without even thinking about it. Naturally, one of their basic tenets is defense of the 2nd amendment, thereby declaring their adherence to the Maoist belief that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." ;)

Thanks,

Bill

FWIW or not.

In the USA
The earliest citation is not politically correct, found in the U.S. Supreme Court decision Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), denoting that the statement under judgment is literally incorrect, as understood in the eighteenth-century US: “The states, rather than the People, for whose sakes the States exist, are frequently the objects which attract and arrest our principal attention. . . . Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our common, even in our convivial, language. Is a toast asked? [To] ‘The United States’, instead of [to] the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.” [4]

In Marxism–Leninism
In Marxist–Leninist and Trotskyist vocabulary, correct was the common term denoting the “appropriate party line” and the ideologic/ “correct line”.[6] Likewise in the People's Republic of China, as part of Mao’s declarations on the correct handling of “non-antagonistic contradictions”.[1][7][8][9] MIT professor of literature Ruth Perry traces the term from Mao Zedong’s Little Red Book (1964).

More at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

Edited in: I was too quick on the Submit trigger. Sorry, Bill.

I think the Bill vs. BamBam analogy isn't quite right. It might get closer if textbooks, newscasts, institutional documents, history books, etc. referred to people like Bill as "BamBams" and included or assumed the validity of definite-sounding but poorly-substantiated conclusions about the supposed inability of "BamBams" to function as effectively as, or deserve equal treatment to, non-"BamBams." In that context Bill's demands, and his organized boycott, may be understood more as self-defense than coercion, and the shopkeeper's refusal to call Bill by his rightful name, despite his repeated reasonable requests that he do so, may seem like something quite worse than an absence of courtesy. Of course, the shopkeeper might have success gather sympathy by calling FOX news to report the boycott as "harassment" by "PC Maoists" or some such.

Analogies aside, I think what is being called "courtesy" here is something much more basic, perhaps "decency." Whatever it is, its opposite is a willful, unnecessary refusal to do what is reasonable, with clear knowledge that it will upset or injure others in some way. It is careless disregard at best, intentional harm-doing at worse. But it is more serious, I think, than is suggested by a continuum of "courtesy."

David R.