• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Politcal Correctness" - False Victim hood or Real issue.

Is Political Correctness real?


  • Total voters
    56
I honestly have a hard time understanding what PC is and what it is not. A lot people who complain about PC tend to be conservative, and I am not sure what they upset about not being able to say. Just don't say anything offensive, sexist, or racist. I don't find it hard.

I know Palin gets upset about people saying retard, and it's understandable. Other than that, conservatives get upset about "Happy Holidays."

I am confused if Happy Holidays is PC or if Merry Christmas is PC. I just know conservatives are the sore asses on the issue... lol



With the introduction of social media it has become more and more difficult to escape the "news" no matter what it's covering. As a result discussions of every little thing under the clear blue sky is becoming more and more a common past time, for all ages.

With that the intrinsic social issues that are rampant throughout societies world wide- women rights, male rights, gay rights, racial rights, etc - get a lot of air time. And as a result there are some who appear to be weary of issues that seem to never go away. So in comes the new or reintroduced "it" phrase. "Political Correctness".

It appears that now, regardless if the issue has any merit and is in fact morally or ethically insidious , those who are sick of discussing it dismiss it as "political correctness". They insist that the everyone is too "Sensitive" and that "it's not that big of a deal".

The phrase is so over used and simplified that it is become a tired argumentative fallacy. Instead of engaging and honestly addressing an issue, those who refuse to see for what it is simply cry "PC" and go on their merry ol' way.

It's rampant on this forum as well. It reeks of false victim hood, where those who belong to a privileged class that often is contributing to the misfortune of another people essentially cry out because they are being stripped of their right to subjugate, harass, alienate, or otherwise mistreat others. It's silly.

But that's my perspective, what's yours?

Is PC a real thing? Are people too sensitive? Or is PC a cop out excuse used to sweep pressing issues under the rug?
 
I think Redskin was an actual racist insult. I know plenty of people call themselves brown and black, so it's not the use of a color. It's a racist insult. It would be like having a team called the wetbacks, the n*ggers, etc.

That's how I understand the issue.

The assertion that there is no right or wrong only multiple shades of grey followed, sometimes immediately, by but you cannot express that "offensive" opinion is the dreaded use of PC to silence opposition. The current hoopla over the use of Redskins for the name of an NFL team yet no such backlash over the (equally offensive?) use of colored people, black people or brown people drives the point clearly home. Hail to the Redskins - fight against PC. ;)
 
But the right has their version of not being fair with the facts. If you're black and endorse Obama, it's because of race. If you want to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1%, you're a commie socialist, etc.

These are tactics to shut down an actual conversation. Both sides do it, but it is a matter of politics. Many conservative and liberal voters are just normal people, not politicians, and there is no reason why the common people should play politics on that level. I don't know many people in the real world who talk or think like that. Most people I know are cynical about politics, and one reason why would be some of these political tactics.


The problem with "PC" is that Left Wing intellectual authoritarians use it as a method to try and silence opinions they disagree with, and forcibly reshape culture to their own ends.

Ironically, their primary means of doing so revolve around the very type of over-generalized "branding" and "labeling" that P.C. is supposed to prevent in the first place.

i.e.

If you criticize any culture other than your own, you are branded as being a "racist."

If you criticize a life style you find questionable, you are branded as being a "sexist" or "homophobe."

If you criticize weak domestic policy, you are branded as being a "fascist."

If you criticize weak foreign policy, you are branded as being a "chauvinist" or "jingoist."

If you criticize behaviors which perpetuate poverty, you are told that you need to "check your privilege."

Etca, etca...

It's basically just an underhanded way for certain kinds of people to hijack and destroy any discussion they don't like using pre-rendered logical fallacies that completely ignore the legitimate points that their opponents may have been trying to make.
 
On the other hand, you are trying to force people to say Merry Christmas, right? You don't like Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, so in the same vein you are trying to do the same thing.

I think the GOP was playing the PC police when Palin was running for VP. They would constantly scream, WHERE ARE THE FEMINISTS! They constantly wanted feminist to say something about this or that, and they were constantly complaining about sexism.

I think if they had more women and minorities in their party, they wouldn't cry about offensive speech towards women and minorities.

I also remember when Palin was pissed at Letterman, because he made a joke. A JOKE. And she went off on him on Fox for days, until he apologized two separate times... lol. And then she whined again when Family Guy episode with a down syndrome character on it.
 
Political correctness is the position of being excessively careful not to offend any group of people in society who are believed to have a disadvantage. So, in this definition, it's definitely associated with public pressure to limit freedom of expression to an uncommonly high standard. The problems begin to arise when the public opinion and standard, don't meet with realistic expectations, and where the punishment is overly severe because of group self righteousness.

PC is more about appearances and phony hypocrisy than about reality.
 
There are times when society should be more polite/politically correct, but for each example of that, there are many examples of people who simply want to be offended so they can rationalize saying bad things about innocent people.
 
Political correctness is the position of being excessively careful not to offend any group of people in society who are believed to have a disadvantage. So, in this definition, it's definitely associated with public pressure to limit freedom of expression to an uncommonly high standard. The problems begin to arise when the public opinion and standard, don't meet with realistic expectations, and where the punishment is overly severe because of group self righteousness.

PC is more about appearances and phony hypocrisy than about reality.
1. Who defines what is "excessive", "realistic", "overly severe", and "self righteous"? Every individual decides that for themselves. Because of that, this concept of "political correctness" you speak of is not a fact. It is a theory. It is a theory that neither you nor any of its proponents have been able to successfully defend to the point of reversing behavior. In that sense, it is also a failed theory.

2. You say that there is pressure to limit freedom of expression to "an uncommonly high standard." Whose freedom are you speaking about? I ask because, until recently, it was a common standard to limit the freedom of people of color, women, same-sex couples and other marginalized groups to the point that they would be jailed, assaulted or murdered for simply looking at the wrong person. Efforts that are criticized as "politically correct" don't, as a rule, want that to happen so, unless you're being hyperbolic, you're argument doesn't hold water.

3. You also say that "public opinion and standard don't meet with realistic expectations." What expectations are you talking about here? From what I see, those who are denigrated as "politically correct" usually expect an increase in the amount of respect paid to them by society. The expectations have been met pretty regularly despite being insulted by people like you.

Ultimately, this theory of political correctness does nothing more than favor privilege over marginalization. The people who complain about "political correctness" are usually right-leaning white people, men or straight people who are uncomfortable with attempts by people of color, women and gay people to influence the language that society uses to speak about them.
 
Some things are offensive regardless of their context. Like most people, I say things sometimes that some might consider offensive, but I don't bitch about the "PC Culture" or "PC Police" if someone is offended by it.

Well, I suppose that could be true, that some things are offensive regardless.

However, when the context is a complete fabrication of the truth, it becomes a weapon, which is a problem. That is where we are today, and those who participate in the intellectually vacant effort should be ashamed.
 
Political correctness is the position of being excessively careful not to offend any group of people in society who are believed to have a disadvantage. So, in this definition, it's definitely associated with public pressure to limit freedom of expression to an uncommonly high standard. The problems begin to arise when the public opinion and standard, don't meet with realistic expectations, and where the punishment is overly severe because of group self righteousness.

PC is more about appearances and phony hypocrisy than about reality.

Oh yeah....


Here's an example. In this city 'causes' as in not for profit enterprises are allowed to buy permits to stand on the street and hawk their cause. Most are lefty crap, some **** about "I'm a Girl" and always some environmental outfit. I call it guerrilla marketing and it's rude. They are usually obnoxious, will yell at you across the sidewalk etc.

They have that right?

So, when called on by this dude, I engaged. "Are you are seeking my attention for the purposes of a dialogue?" "Yes, are you familiar.....?"
"No, and I do not give a fiddler's ****. I am here to dialogue about the fact you hit on me in a rude and offensive fashion. Let us deal with that."
The "conversation" soon became heightened as this rude young woman took offense at the words "hit on" as she saw it as a sexual reference. Her issue was that her offense to me mattered not because she had a permit and I was sexist.

My reply as I called city hall to report an abuse of their license was "there is no ****ing law in the world that gives you any rights more than a slithering slug to not be offended. I have freedom of speech and I exercise it now to say that your career was a low life guerrila marketer is about to be ended."

Interestingly they are an outfit pushing fair treatment of women in the workplace, one of the biggest PC outfits around. What is politically correct in standing on a sidewalk and yelling at passersby?
 
Does it bother you if I say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas?

You can say what you want. Unlike those who get their panties in a wad when someone say Merry Christman, I don't care what you say or if you say anything at all. What I do care about is when those that get butt hurt hearing the word Christmas make an effort to have it where it can't or shouldn't be said. They are the ones I don't have a problem offending.
 
I have been a fed at some level or other since 1980. Every Christmas I probably say Merry Chirstmas a thousnd times, so do the math, geeze probably 34,000 times. Not once has someone said anything about it. Not once, not anywhere, not ever. Who is it that really, in real life has a problem with this?
You can say what you want. Unlike those who get their panties in a wad when someone say Merry Christman, I don't care what you say or if you say anything at all. What I do care about is when those that get butt hurt hearing the word Christmas make an effort to have it where it can't or shouldn't be said. They are the ones I don't have a problem offending.
 
Interesting what you can learn from what some people might call a dumbass redneck over a drink or two. From what I've seen, most of them are just regular people, at heart.

They just didn't grow up in leafy suburbs, with Mummy boasting to everyone about how they were only four, but already were learning French from flash cards and had a taste for Camembert. And Daddy wasn't asking them if they'd rather have the BMW or the trip to Europe as a high school graduation present. More likely, they grew up eating fried baloney sandwiches and wondering if they'd get swatted after Daddy had had a few.

It's not saying considerate things that bothers me. We should all do that. It's self-righteous control freaks who want to coerce other people into not saying inconsiderate things that bothers me. I don't like the fact some people have bigoted views, either--but God damn it all, I will always defend their right to have them. We don't punish thoughts in this county, and within broad limits, we don't punish unpopular speech, either.

The way for fair people to deal with bigots is not to make up a bunch of coercive rules about what they can and can't say. It's to try to reason with them, first--and if that fails, to refuse to talk with them, or have anything to do with them. Ostracism can be a very effective moral sanction.

Reasoning with people and then avoiding them (or boycotting if it is a business) is all that is done or advocated in the USA outside of the workplace. At work and within institutions people are required to treat their co-workers, clients and vendors respectfully, to avoid conflicts and lawsuits among many other good reasons. That is all so-called 'political correctness' is doing, but it is still enough to make some people feel oppressed. It is a bogus right-wing media generated issue intended to get gullible people outraged and improve ratings so advertising rates can be increased.
 
I have been a fed at some level or other since 1980. Every Christmas I probably say Merry Chirstmas a thousnd times, so do the math, geeze probably 34,000 times. Not once has someone said anything about it. Not once, not anywhere, not ever. Who is it that really, in real life has a problem with this?

While it may not be specifically Merry Christmas, there are plenty of examples where things have been done related to the religion associated with Christmas:

Student Suspended for Saying
Notice the reason the teacher gave related to religion

VA hospital refuses to accept 'Merry Christmas' cards | Fox News

Same as telling someone not to say it.

How many businesses have restricted their employees from saying it because someone might get offended?
 
1. Who defines what is "excessive", "realistic", "overly severe", and "self righteous"? Every individual decides that for themselves. Because of that, this concept of "political correctness" you speak of is not a fact. It is a theory. It is a theory that neither you nor any of its proponents have been able to successfully defend to the point of reversing behavior. In that sense, it is also a failed theory.

2. You say that there is pressure to limit freedom of expression to "an uncommonly high standard." Whose freedom are you speaking about? I ask because, until recently, it was a common standard to limit the freedom of people of color, women, same-sex couples and other marginalized groups to the point that they would be jailed, assaulted or murdered for simply looking at the wrong person. Efforts that are criticized as "politically correct" don't, as a rule, want that to happen so, unless you're being hyperbolic, you're argument doesn't hold water.

3. You also say that "public opinion and standard don't meet with realistic expectations." What expectations are you talking about here? From what I see, those who are denigrated as "politically correct" usually expect an increase in the amount of respect paid to them by society. The expectations have been met pretty regularly despite being insulted by people like you.

Ultimately, this theory of political correctness does nothing more than favor privilege over marginalization. The people who complain about "political correctness" are usually right-leaning white people, men or straight people who are uncomfortable with attempts by people of color, women and gay people to influence the language that society uses to speak about them.

I think we have a perfect definition of political correctness within your post "attempts by minorities and/or oppressed or marginalized people to influence the language that society uses to speak about them."
 
Our VA has several religious ornagizations go caroling every year. Whenever you read a "fox" story there is always a rest of the story.

"In order to be respectful of our Veterans religious beliefs, all donated holiday cards are reviewed by a multi-disciplinary team of staff led by Chaplaincy services and determined if they are appropriate (non-religious) to freely distribute to patients. After the review is complete, the holiday cards that reference religious and/or secular tones are then distributed by Chaplaincy Service on a one-on-one basis if the patient agrees to the religious reference in the holiday card donation. The holiday cards that do not contain religious and/or secular tones are distributed freely to patients across the Health Care System. We regret this process was not fully explained to this group and apologize for any misunderstanding."
While it may not be specifically Merry Christmas, there are plenty of examples where things have been done related to the religion associated with Christmas:

Student Suspended for Saying
Notice the reason the teacher gave related to religion

VA hospital refuses to accept 'Merry Christmas' cards | Fox News

Same as telling someone not to say it.

How many businesses have restricted their employees from saying it because someone might get offended?
 
1. Who defines what is "excessive", "realistic", "overly severe", and "self righteous"? Every individual decides that for themselves. Because of that, this concept of "political correctness" you speak of is not a fact. It is a theory. It is a theory that neither you nor any of its proponents have been able to successfully defend to the point of reversing behavior. In that sense, it is also a failed theory.

2. You say that there is pressure to limit freedom of expression to "an uncommonly high standard." Whose freedom are you speaking about? I ask because, until recently, it was a common standard to limit the freedom of people of color, women, same-sex couples and other marginalized groups to the point that they would be jailed, assaulted or murdered for simply looking at the wrong person. Efforts that are criticized as "politically correct" don't, as a rule, want that to happen so, unless you're being hyperbolic, you're argument doesn't hold water.

3. You also say that "public opinion and standard don't meet with realistic expectations." What expectations are you talking about here? From what I see, those who are denigrated as "politically correct" usually expect an increase in the amount of respect paid to them by society. The expectations have been met pretty regularly despite being insulted by people like you.

Ultimately, this theory of political correctness does nothing more than favor privilege over marginalization. The people who complain about "political correctness" are usually right-leaning white people, men or straight people who are uncomfortable with attempts by people of color, women and gay people to influence the language that society uses to speak about them.


1. That first line of definition, with the term 'excessive' was from Wiki, not me. According to your definition of 'political correctness' every subject is a matter of opinion, subjective and theory, including bigotry. The PC phrase wouldn't be used so often in context if it weren't based in some form of realty or without meaning.

2. I believe most public figures and anyone with access to an audience are being pressured to an unrealistic and one sided standard, especially white men who're are heterosexual or black male conservatives, but nobody is completely excluded. If ever a line of hyperbole were ever being used, it's this comment by you: "..until recently, it was a common standard to limit the freedom of people of color, women, same-sex couples and other marginalized groups to the point that they would be jailed, assaulted or murdered for simply looking at the wrong person." How recently have you seen these groups being jailed, assaulted and murdered for merely looking at the wrong person? Sure they weren't doing more than eyeballing? That doesn't hold water.

3. The unrealistic expectations are from the public, in knowing the difference from slips of the tongue, from those repeatedly expressing negative opinions. If people overreact in severity to someones thoughts and words, there's no chance of ever rationally correcting them in a civil manner. It simply reenforces their hateful thoughts and makes them express their views in lockstep platitudes as sheep, instead of saying what's really on their mind. You wind up with a group think of phonies, afraid to express their true opinions.

Nobody here is advocating the denigration of minority groups but to try and force people into speaking only the pretty, instead of expressing their heart felt views doesn't lead to the just and utopian society that you envision. It actually will do the opposite of causing frustration, deeper and more serious divisions, which shouldn't be the goal. Pushing an agenda of socialistic thought control has historically never been proven to be a winner.



Oh yeah....


Here's an example. In this city 'causes' as in not for profit enterprises are allowed to buy permits to stand on the street and hawk their cause. Most are lefty crap, some **** about "I'm a Girl" and always some environmental outfit. I call it guerrilla marketing and it's rude. They are usually obnoxious, will yell at you across the sidewalk etc.

They have that right?

So, when called on by this dude, I engaged. "Are you are seeking my attention for the purposes of a dialogue?" "Yes, are you familiar.....?"
"No, and I do not give a fiddler's ****. I am here to dialogue about the fact you hit on me in a rude and offensive fashion. Let us deal with that."
The "conversation" soon became heightened as this rude young woman took offense at the words "hit on" as she saw it as a sexual reference. Her issue was that her offense to me mattered not because she had a permit and I was sexist.

My reply as I called city hall to report an abuse of their license was "there is no ****ing law in the world that gives you any rights more than a slithering slug to not be offended. I have freedom of speech and I exercise it now to say that your career was a low life guerrila marketer is about to be ended."

Interestingly they are an outfit pushing fair treatment of women in the workplace, one of the biggest PC outfits around. What is politically correct in standing on a sidewalk and yelling at passersby?


The PC often practice a double standard, but see themselves as the oppressed underdog fighting for equality, as long as it means they're treated with superiority.
 
1. That first line of definition, with the term 'excessive' was from Wiki, not me. According to your definition of 'political correctness' every subject is a matter of opinion, subjective and theory, including bigotry. The PC phrase wouldn't be used so often in context if it weren't based in some form of realty or without meaning.

2. I believe most public figures and anyone with access to an audience are being pressured to an unrealistic and one sided standard, especially white men who're are heterosexual or black male conservatives, but nobody is completely excluded. If ever a line of hyperbole were ever being used, it's this comment by you: "..until recently, it was a common standard to limit the freedom of people of color, women, same-sex couples and other marginalized groups to the point that they would be jailed, assaulted or murdered for simply looking at the wrong person." How recently have you seen these groups being jailed, assaulted and murdered for merely looking at the wrong person? Sure they weren't doing more than eyeballing? That doesn't hold water.

3. The unrealistic expectations are from the public, in knowing the difference from slips of the tongue, from those repeatedly expressing negative opinions. If people overreact in severity to someones thoughts and words, there's no chance of ever rationally correcting them in a civil manner. It simply reenforces their hateful thoughts and makes them express their views in lockstep platitudes as sheep, instead of saying what's really on their mind. You wind up with a group think of phonies, afraid to express their true opinions.

Nobody here is advocating the denigration of minority groups but to try and force people into speaking only the pretty, instead of expressing their heart felt views doesn't lead to the just and utopian society that you envision. It actually will do the opposite of causing frustration, deeper and more serious divisions, which shouldn't be the goal. Pushing an agenda of socialistic thought control has historically never been proven to be a winner.






The PC often practice a double standard, but see themselves as the oppressed underdog fighting for equality, as long as it means they're treated with superiority.



Not will do harm, but has done harm.

When you edit such works as Tom Sawyer to remove "offensive" words including "slave" you alter the perception of history. Once removed the world will forget slavery and how minorities were treated then opening the door to it happening again. It is one of the reasons our government has funded a memorial to the Japanese Canadians who were sent to concentration camps in WWII; the same reason Auschwitz has been made into a museum.

Those who forget the past are destined to repeat it. One should be offended at the words in Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn, but at the social milieu that was the norm at the time.
 
Not will do harm, but has done harm.

When you edit such works as Tom Sawyer to remove "offensive" words including "slave" you alter the perception of history. Once removed the world will forget slavery and how minorities were treated then opening the door to it happening again. It is one of the reasons our government has funded a memorial to the Japanese Canadians who were sent to concentration camps in WWII; the same reason Auschwitz has been made into a museum.

Those who forget the past are destined to repeat it. One should be offended at the words in Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn, but at the social milieu that was the norm at the time.

I find this redefining of history a particularly disturbing method of teaching and thought control. Notably, much of our history beyond written records is potentially skewed somewhat, but it's still much more accurate than politically reinterpreting events to meet a certain criteria and agenda. We're lost enough socially about our priorities and values, we don't need to confuse the issues further with intentional fabrications.
 
Considerate speech? Is that what you call it when it is designed to silence another from speaking what they actually think?

You've a misunderstanding of what PC is. In some kind of sick twist, you've perverted the idea into mind control. That's sad.
 
While it may not be specifically Merry Christmas, there are plenty of examples where things have been done related to the religion associated with Christmas:

Student Suspended for Saying
Notice the reason the teacher gave related to religion

VA hospital refuses to accept 'Merry Christmas' cards | Fox News

Same as telling someone not to say it.

How many businesses have restricted their employees from saying it because someone might get offended?

From the link about the VA Hospital:

Boys and girls at Grace Academy in Prosper, Tex., spent most of last Friday making homemade Christmas cards for bedridden veterans at the VA hospital in Dallas.

Fourth-grader Gracie Brown was especially proud of her card, hoping it would “make their day because their family might live far away, and they might not have somebody to celebrate Christmas with.”










“I’d like them to know they’ve not been forgotten and somebody wanted to say thank you,” Gracie told MyFoxDFW.com.

Gracie’s card read, “Merry Christmas. Thank you for your service.” It also included an American flag.

But the bedridden veterans at the VA hospital will never get to see Gracie’s card. Nor will they see the cards made by 51 other students. That’s because the Christmas cards violated VA policy.


later from the link:

A VA official quoted the policy which is in the Veterans Health Administration handbook:

"In order to be respectful of our veterans' religious beliefs, all donated holiday cards are reviewed by a multi-disciplinary team of staff led by chaplaincy services and determined if they are appropriate (non-religious) to freely distribute to patients. We regret this process was not fully explained to this group and apologize for any misunderstanding."


Please tell me that's a joke. I feel sick,
 
I find this redefining of history a particularly disturbing method of teaching and thought control. Notably, much of our history beyond written records is potentially skewed somewhat, but it's still much more accurate than politically reinterpreting events to meet a certain criteria and agenda. We're lost enough socially about our priorities and values, we don't need to confuse the issues further with intentional fabrications.

That's exactly what it is, rewriting of history. Just like the Japanese have eradicated their history of slaughter against their natives, the progressives are trying to do it here.
 
That's exactly what it is, rewriting of history. Just like the Japanese have eradicated their history of slaughter against their natives, the progressives are trying to do it here.


A little ideology is not inherently a bad thing, but taken to partisan and emotional extremes it's very similar to religious zealotry.
 
From the link about the VA Hospital:

Boys and girls at Grace Academy in Prosper, Tex., spent most of last Friday making homemade Christmas cards for bedridden veterans at the VA hospital in Dallas.

Fourth-grader Gracie Brown was especially proud of her card, hoping it would “make their day because their family might live far away, and they might not have somebody to celebrate Christmas with.”

so they do all get passed out. And there really is even more to this story.

Think about this, what you think if the local Mosque passed out holiday cards to the veterans thanking Allah for their service?










“I’d like them to know they’ve not been forgotten and somebody wanted to say thank you,” Gracie told MyFoxDFW.com.

Gracie’s card read, “Merry Christmas. Thank you for your service.” It also included an American flag.

But the bedridden veterans at the VA hospital will never get to see Gracie’s card. Nor will they see the cards made by 51 other students. That’s because the Christmas cards violated VA policy.


later from the link:

A VA official quoted the policy which is in the Veterans Health Administration handbook:

"In order to be respectful of our veterans' religious beliefs, all donated holiday cards are reviewed by a multi-disciplinary team of staff led by chaplaincy services and determined if they are appropriate (non-religious) to freely distribute to patients. We regret this process was not fully explained to this group and apologize for any misunderstanding."


Please tell me that's a joke. I feel sick,

No, it is not a joke, it is Faux spin. From Fox's article (the rest of the story, as it were) "distributed by Chaplaincy Service on a one-on-one basis if the patient agrees to the religious reference in the holiday card donation."
 
No, it is not a joke, it is Faux spin. From Fox's article (the rest of the story, as it were) "distributed by Chaplaincy Service on a one-on-one basis if the patient agrees to the religious reference in the holiday card donation."

No, it's not a "Faux spin". It's the VA's policy. And it's a ridiculous one, unless Christmas ceased to be a national holiday.
 
Back
Top Bottom