Much of the internet is buzzing with headlines like “Candian prime minister draws ridicule for being too politically correct.” or even “Justin Trudeau is a Complete Idiot!” This is in response to his interrupting a woman who was asking a polite and sensible question at a “Town Hall” meeting that Trudeau was taking questions at.
“We like to say people-kind, not necessarily mankind, more inclusive”
Justin Trudeau
But hey… what is all the fuss about?
It is just a word you know! What is all the fuss about?
Isn’t the world going a little mad to be picking him up on such a minor thing? Aren’t you being a bit of a pedant?
Yes, we could just let it go, but it is these little things that in time build up. But like limescale in a pipe, things build up. No one speck of limescale is a problem, but the cumulative effect of scale build-up is a gradual blocking of loss of function.
There is a slow, but powerful move in society today to change, to outlaw certain kinds of speech and ultimately kinds of thought.
Why are the liberal left so against Mankind?
Why should be defending the word Mankind? Why is it important to be able to speak of Man and Mankind as opposed to People and People-kind?
Well, first, and not necessarily in order of importance.
Using ‘man’ and ‘mankind’ has never been sexist… well never until today.
Until this generation, one has thought that when the writer of Genesis says, “So God created man in his own image,” that God was being sexist.
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Genesis 1:27
The Australian conservative commentator Rita Panahi said that Trudeau’s use of “people-kind” was an attempt to “appease those desperate to find offence where none exists.” Perhaps we should change that to, “appease those desperate to find offence where none should or was intended to exist.”
Man and Mankind are not the same as people-kind.
God is a person, and therefore part of people-kind. The Elohim of Psalm 82 are people, they have person-hood and therefore are part of people-kind, as are the nephalem, the offspring of human females and fallen Elohim. Space-aliens, (probably the same as Elohim of Psalm 82) and if some animal-rights supporters have their way great apes are people too. But none of them are humans, none of them are mankind. We should possibly add here that given a few more years we will have machines with artificial-intelligence and many of these will be deemed to have personality. Jesus became a man to save mankind, he did not become a male to save males only.
“For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ.” Jesus, 1 Timothy 2:5
Nor did he become a person, to save all people. Jesus was already a person before his incarnation. He became a man, a member of the human race to save lost mankind.
We should possibly add here that there are financially powerful groups seeking to be able to upload their personality into computers, into the cloud thus seeking immortality without God. If we are person-kind, well that might be possible, but of course, we are not person-kind and no such thing exists. We are humans, we are men and…
“it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” Hebrews 9:27
It is ‘Kind’ of important.
While I will grant you that people-kind has the word ‘kind’ in it, it can not be used in the same way as the word ‘kind’ in mankind.
God made the plants and the animals after their kinds, Genesis 1:11, 21 and 25. Mankind is the ‘kind’ that we are. There can be no racism in a biblical world as we are all members of the human race, that is our ‘kind’. There is no such ‘kind’ as people-kind. people-kind is a construct of a humanist atheist word where humans are not a ‘kind’ of their own, but just an evolved animal, family with all of the rest of the life on earth.
Be a man!
Do not be pushed around into political correctness, especially when it is not correct at all. People-kind is a fuzzy word that does not mean the same as mankind, and we should be man enough to stand for mankind.
Did you find it too hard to understand that when I said “we should be man enough” I meant we should be masculine enough, male man-like, but when I said, “to stand for mankind” I was sleeking of all humanity and the word mankind? No, understanding English is not that hard.
