It’s Time To Get Real About Political Correctness

Typical anti political correctness meme from the PC Watch Blog

Typical anti political correctness meme from the PC Watch Blog

It has become cool to act as if ‘political correctness’ is some kind of cultural oppression, and to elevate those who challenge it as subversive, radical, fresh-thinkers.  This is part of the attractiveness of parties like UKIP, presenting themselves as a slap in the face to the mainstream.  But it is actually the defense, not the dismantling of political correctness that is a radical act in modern Britain, and here is why.

What is Political Correctness?

003 Scott BrownWell, firstly, the term was actually coined by its detractors.  Originating among the Communists and Socialists of the mid 20th century to refer pejoratively to language that followed the party line,  it was only in the early 90s, starting in the US but swiftly migrating to the UK, that the term ‘politically correct’ became a sort of all encompassing rejection of multiculturalism, anti-discrimination policies and all the things that amount to basic good neighbourliness.

So, there isn’t actually any such thing as political correctness.  There is only discrimination – those against it, and those for it.  Those for it, wish to wrap up their ignorance and fear in a pretty bow called victimhood – “We are being oppressed! The powers that be won’t let us discriminate!”

These people often have zero idea what actual oppression truly feels like, so in fairness, limits on their behaviour is about the closet thing they will ever experience to genuine oppression.  It is a forgivable mistake in children, but it is also unacceptable in adults.

Has Political Correctness Gone Mad?

If being opposed to ‘political correctness’ is so avante garde, so very cutting edge, then how come almost everyone is attacking it and almost nobody is defending it?

This post is inspired by a Stewart Lee segment from 2007, which I was reminded of thanks to the wonder of twitter.  Part of the panel for a Radio 4 show about challenging sacred cows (ideas so ubiquitous as to be unchallengeable), when 84% of the audience agree with the statement that political correctness has indeed gone mad, Lee throws an eloquent, articulate shit fit. His basic point is that it is not political correctness itself, but the idea that political correctness has gone mad that is the actual sacred cow – and that the audience are ‘idiots’ for thinking otherwise.

But in fact, the audience make his point for him.  Radio 4, the internally and externally recognised capital of Britain’s rioja liberals, is today producing audiences of which 84% agree with the leader of UKIP.  This is the ‘liberal, media elite’ Farage asserts are his opposition?

I happen to agree with Lee, something has gone mad, but it is not political correctness.  What’s mad here is the willingness of people to spout such ideologically vacant and socially dangerous statements without pausing to consider a) the meaning, b) the rationale or c) the consequences of their words.  In short, people are being idiots about political correctness.

What did Political Correctness ever do for us?

003 Scott BrownPeople are idiots about political correctness when they fail to separate their feelings from the impact of political correctness on our society.  For example, the two big arguments against political correctness that I hear are:

  1. It’s about stopping people from saying what they think because it might offend somebody else.  So we’re all walking on tippy toes worried about putting out foot in it rather than being ‘authentic’.
  2. It’s all middle class, liberal snobbery – about sneering at the working class because they use the ‘wrong’ words.

Is there merit in these criticisms? Totally.  Like any idea, political correctness too can become a tool of prejudice itself.

But also, these complaints can be translated into “It’s not my fault”, and “Stop trying to change me”.  Both are default human responses to feeling challenged.  You’d have the same response if someone pulled you up on the way you drive, or dress, or wash-up.  They’re valid as experiences, but say nothing about political correctness itself.

So, separate from our thoughts and feelings about having our behaviour and opinions challenged – what has been the actual impact on our society of this idea that we should basically think before we speak and avoid the use of inflammatory stereotypes?

Lee uses a fine example to underscore the purpose of political correctness, the Smethwick by-election of 1964, where Conservative Peter Griffiths ran on the line “If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour“. My mother, a mixed raced child of Caribbean and British parentage grew up in that world. Four years later, Enoch Powell gave his “Rivers of Blood” speech – warning that “In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.” A poll at the time showed 74% of the public agreed with his sentiments.  B&Bs had signs in the window like the one below:

Maurice McleodWhen my grandfather and other Caribbean immigrants like him were seeking to enter employment on Bristol’s bus network – the white workers went on strike.

003 Scott BrownBy the time I was a child growing up in the 80’s, I still got called a ‘coon’, a ‘wog’, and various other racial slurs.  But this happened rarely, and those doing the name-calling were told they were in the wrong and punished.  Why? Political correctness.  It became unacceptable, stigmatised, to be overtly racist – to call your black dog, or your black neighbour, ‘nigger’.

But political correctness as a mission, was by no means complete.  Our corner shop run by an Indian family was known as “The Paki shop”, even by my mixed race family. Homeless people were called “Tramps”.  If someone did something stupid you called them a “Retard” or a “Spastic”. Racist jokes were still going great guns, just two that I can remember not only hearing, but telling while laughing my head off:

“How do you drown a Black man?

Pop his lips”

and of course:

“How do you fit 100 Ethiopians in a telephone box?

Throw in a meal ticket”

I carried on like this until I left my working class suburb of Bristol and went to a very Middle Class, liberal University where such terms and jokes were absolutely verboten.  I felt like I was learning a whole new language, as so many of my cultural reference points were suddenly deemed “offensive”.  But that’s just what I called them…I didn’t mean anything by it.

As a bi-racial, working class, gay girl – I resented being preached to about what was offensive to this community or that community by privileged, white kids. I couldn’t get my head round it.  I only consented at first because of the stigma – who wants to be up there with Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning? – but later, because I realised something really amazing about political correctness.  Done properly, it’s basically just being a thoughtful, curious, compassionate human being.

Political correctness provides us with a context in which to see afresh the views, opinions and terms we have been raised on.  It gives us the chance to evolve.  It gives us the chance to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes for a moment, to appreciate the impact of our words.

It presents us all with the opportunity to pick apart prejudices we never even knew we had, making it possible to make friends and be of service to communities and individuals that previously seemed alien and scary.  Political correctness is the gift that keeps on giving. It is the route to freedom from fear, paranoia and superstition that while cementing a small number of friendships, places a barrier between us and the wider world.

It’s not about being offensive, its about being stupid

003 Scott BrownThe bottom line is – political correctness is not actually about quelling ‘freedom of speech’ for the sake of defending others from offense.  People get offended about all sorts of things, so eliminating offense is not a valid or worthy goal – and never was the goal. It’s also nothing to do with what class you start from or finish in. Furthermore, to suggest that working class people are inherently bigoted and it’s somehow anti-working class to be anti-bigotry is a truly patronising and inauthentic position to hold – but a very convenient route for rich bigots reaching out to poor bigots (see: Nigel Farage).

Political correctness is about reality.  It is about breaking people out of unhelpful and paranoid fantasies, so we can live with each other in greater harmony. It is about bringing people together.

Anyone who seriously believes that the black man holds the whip hand over the white man today, or that the greatest threat to our society is Islam, or that the source of our economic inequality and instability is too many immigrants or people on welfare isn’t (only) being offensive – they are simply profoundly disconnected from reality.  Really.  They are living in a fantasy world.  Worse, that fantasy world has been constructed for them by groups with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

There is nothing cool, subversive or radical about being duped into voting and agitating against your own interests through the manipulation of your ignorance and fear.  Want to do something truly radical? Open your heart. Share. Volunteer. Think critically.  Challenge cultural, social, racial and all other stereotypes. Question your fears. Always be learning. Give up being right all the time. Laugh at yourself.

If we want not only to defend, but expand these traits – we need political correctness, and we need to evolve with it.  Anyone wallowing in superiority about using the right words, while retaining the prejudices underneath is not politically correct – they are simply being an arrogant fraud.  But that’s not where they will necessarily remain…and the same goes for all those acting out against ‘political correctness’ today. We all make mistakes, we all hold crappy opinions, and it is a gift when someone is brave enough or arrogant enough to point them out so we can shed them like old skin, and face the world renewed and refreshed.

Now I will leave you with some more Stewart Lee, with what in my humble opinion is the single finest argument against UKIP and the anti-political correct position, ever.


Scriptonite Daily is a 100% citizen-funded news site. If we want to make an alternative media, then we need to build it. Your donations make the difference.

Become a regular subscriber here

Payment Options

Make a one off donation here

25 thoughts on “It’s Time To Get Real About Political Correctness

  1. “Anyone who seriously believes that… the greatest threat to our society is Islam – they are simply profoundly disconnected from reality.”
    NO. It is you who are disconnected. You’re like Lloyd George, pandering to those murderers, those torturers, those deniers of women’s rights, those people who shut women up in houses like slaves. You’re in denial of the fact that the entire West is being inundated with emigrants fleeing an inhuman zombie invasion of people under the sway of a mad ideology that is, if anything, worse than even Hitler dreamed up. And it is all under the name of Islam.

  2. This article certainly has merit but it is very flawed in its utopian vision of what PC has or will achieve. The author’s argument is similar to the one for the Nanny State (NS). Blinkered supporters of the NS throw up the really mindless example of seatbelts (“look at seat belts” they will say in defense of seatbelt and by relation all NS laws) . Seat Belts are obviously a massive statistically life saving safety enforcement. The cost to the community is small and the incursion on freedom minor for a great outcome on a very large scale. Not so many other NS incursions into our lives with many costs of OHS far outweighing the outcomes (it may be a terrible thing to say – but spending a million dollars for example on fences at scenic lookouts because one mindless drunken idiot fell off a cliff is not a good return on investment and cost to the community). But far worse – the Nanny State has led to a fearful, anxious and poorly equipped community when making judgments about its own safety and responsibilities. This has lead to the sad state in Australia where we are told in true paternal overkill literally thousands of times a year in media ads to not touch power lines. Really? Oh – I wasn’t sure about that…… thank you Nanny.

    Back to PC. Changing a few words and making it a social crime to say them doesn’t I am afraid add up to the betterment of life outcomes and opportunities. It mostly just changes public discourse and increases private conversations on such topics. African American men in the USA still go to jail in massive unequal numbers. Children and women of Australian indigenous communities are still raped in very significant numbers by their own intoxicated family members. Recently arrived professionals from culturally diverse cultural origins still drive taxis rather than participate in meaningful working lives. I can go on and on.

    PC has done a terrible job with regards to true social change. For God’s sake look at the figures for men killing their female partners (worse and worse) – all the while sisters are smiling with the Emperor’s new clothes empowerment of what 1990s USA PC socially progressive humanities faculties delivered the West through PC incursion by soft skill graduates working in Policy positions in local, state and federal politics (along with media studies / communications graduates from neo-Marxist arts courses entering media jobs).

    I applaud the authors wishes for kindness and reducing rude utterments – we should embrace that. But calling a “manhole” a Street Utility Access Point does F*CK all for women’s rights and saving them from being killed by very disturbed, displaced and angry men (who are often men bought up in a PC world), who interestingly have never had so much access to telephone helplines, mens help groups, government funded psychology sessions, and no doubt had their good dose of PC language alignment.

  3. Oh Dear. Don’t those on the left always do this. If you don’t advocate our brand of far left politics you are a bigot and a racist as if the left were the voice of Jesus Christ Almighty himself. We had this from The Labour Party chief executive himself a one Mr Gordon Brown at the height of an election campaign calling his own party workers bigots because they had nerve to have a view on how their community had changed as a result of mass uncontrolled immigration – as a result of “having their noses rubbed in multiculturalism”.
    Let us not forget that is was not that long ago that the print unions would down tools if a woman so much as had the temerity to walk onto the shop floor. It was not long ago that the unions would brand workers “scabs” within their communities if they opposed their views.
    This is schoolboy politics – Labour are idealogicaly wedded to mass immigration. the seek to stamp out any opposition to their policies by branding opponents as bigots or racists when in fact every citizen has every right to have a say in what shapes their community. A right that they have been denied by the left.
    Political correctness is deeply corrosive – is has pervaded every corner of the public sector. State funded arts are frankly embarrassing. The BBC in particular. BBC news was once the finest news organization in the world – now it is nothing more than a sounding board for introspective left wing bed wetting.

    • Political Correctness has destroyed the UK. It has now become an OK place to visit as a tourist but I would never want to live there again. Parts of it have become replicas of the backward parts of the world I used to visit as an engineer. To visit Sparkbrook, Birmingham, at night has become like visiting part of Karachi, unpleasant and dangerous. The “Labour” party became the enemy of the British when Blair and his mob of sycophants got in.

  4. Well – you’re a massive racist. Depressing to read your response after such a refreshing and well thought through article.

  5. Scripton: The abuse you received wasn’t politically incorrect; it was rude and abusive and only the racist would defend that type of behaviour.

    The reason why so many people object to political correctness nowadays is not because they want the right to be rude or offensive; it’s because certain points of view are forbidden. Anyone who defends the rights of black people or Jews has total freedom to do so, and quite right too. Unfortunately that freedom does not extend to white people. For example, if I were to complain that the fundamental nature of our society in Britain was changed without our being consulted, and without our consent, I would be accused of being racist. Similarly, if I were to complain that in the part of the town where I was brought up, I now find myself in a minority, this would be politically incorrect. The subject of immigration has for many years been taboo, and anyone daring to raise the topic would be accused of racism. This is why people talk about political correctness gone mad.

    On the subject of race, mass migration invariably leads to social problems, division, and eventually to mutual antagonism. This is exactly what Enoch Powell was warning about, and sadly he’s being proven correct, and the media now is doing everything it can to provoke racial hatred between Muslims and the wider community. Looking at the Paris shootings, why are the world leaders posing for photos in support of a magazine that promotes hatred? Over in the US, the racially divisive issues in Ferguson and earlier with the Travon Martin case did not become national issues by accident; it happened by design.

    Who benefits from a racially (or religiously) divided society? Certainly not the ordinary people, or in the case of the UK, not the native people who have had their societies changed without their consent.

    • Thanks TG, you are absolutely correct. I have lived in 33 different countries and everything I saw and experienced tells me your comment: “Who benefits from a racially (or religiously) divided society? Certainly not the ordinary people, or in the case of the UK, not the native people who have had their societies changed without their consent.” has never been more accurate. “Multiculturalism”: a recipe for hate. I live in a country (not the UK) in which nearly everyone is Roman Catholic. That’s fine with me, in fact I really like it, because it means there isn’t the continual rowing that happens in the UK when newcomers want to impose their backward religions on the rest of us.

    • They were very necessary, they clearly illustrate what was once erroneously considered normal. I too would have laughed along in the 70’s and maybe up to the mid 90’s and ill be honest, a smile of recognition crossed my face as i read them in this piece.

      I wouldn’t dream to even consider using them now, not out of fear of being ostracised, but because they are distasteful and offencive

  6. I think I’m in general agreement with the burden of this article, but I’d really like to see where this statistic comes from, because I would say it is utter rubbish. “Radio 4, the internally and externally recognised capital of Britain’s rioja liberals, is today producing audiences of which 84% agree with the leader of UKIP.”

    • The audience referred to is that of the show Heresy, and the clip above is the source. The show asks its audience if they agree with a certain piece of received wisdom – in this case, ‘political correctness has gone mad’- 84% agreed. That’s it.

      • It was a straw poll of the audience, taken in the bar before the show, for the purpose of setting up sacred cow. It wasn’t a scientific survey. Stu Lee’s response is great, though.

  7. he/she…who is willing-to give away their freedom[of speach]-for a sense of security deserve neither.!

    banning/changing,the meaning of words,are the acts of a …….DICTATOR.!

    In modern usage, the term “dictator” is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly.

    Political correctness or political correctitude (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term used by some conservatives to describe the attitude or policy of being careful not to offend or upset any group of people in society who are believed to have a disadvantage..
    Doublethink is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.[1] Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Somewhat related but almost the opposite is cognitive dissonance, where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one’s mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.

    where this nefarious bullshit,has its origins.
    Focal point for psychoanalytical theory

    Many well-known psychologists and psychiatrists have passed through the Tavistock Institute over the years, and it became known as the focal point in Britain for psychoanalysis and the psychodynamic theories of Sigmund Freud and his followers. Other names associated with the Tavistock are Melanie Klein, Carl Gustav Jung, J. A. Hadfield, Beckett, Charles Rycroft, Wilfred Bion, and R. D. Laing.[3][6]
    Current activities

    According to its website, the Institute engages in educational, research, and consultancy work in the social sciences and applied psychology. Its clients are chiefly public sector organizations, including the European Union, several British government departments, and some private clients. The Institute owns Human Relations, the international social sciences journal. It also edits the journal Evaluation.

    as you are very well aware-we have many-[illegal] wars being fought,but the longest running battle
    has always,been for the mind of man.

    plitical correctness is a very potent weapon,in the hands of the owners.

    YES..i agree,with any who say,their is a great imballance within society,but mind control/weaponising our
    language is….NOT..going to address this.

    wont bore you any more.
    But….leave you with a very important question.

  8. “Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but has not solved one yet” – Maya Angelou – no mention of political correctness, difference, etc. and certainly NOT intended to be a punchline in a stand-up comedy slot. It is human and it is sincere, and it is everybody’s obvious experience. That is why I liked Maya’s quote because it really does get the nut out of its shell.

    I don’t like Steward Lee’s comedy because it tries to right a wrong with a wrong… and two wrongs never make a right. The Huguenots in London, the Jews in London, the Socialists in London, the Romans in London … they all had to suffer London along with the majority of Londoners [I am talking about London because this is where I live] I don’t think for one minute that Shakespeare gave a shit about the Merchant of Venice – but he did produce a political story about Hate, those stories are never solved. Shakespeare like this comedian are alike in this respect. Just because a messenger makes a living at repeating human tragedy stories, it doesn’t mean that the messenger is the messiah… there are no messiahs actually, just the repetition… the repetition…. the repetition…. evolution works at its own pace… it takes its own time.

    My country is a country that goes to other countries and drops bombs on those countries [just like Israel has done to the Palestinians]. The political morality of my country is shit. Who are we to bomb another country to smithereens all because of a political diktat which says that “we want to win their hearts and their minds”? If we talk about declaring war against another people in such terms, who are the intelligentsia to sermon us about race, gender or equality? Who made the English Brit intelligentsia the judge, the jury and the self volunteered executioner of nasty wars of propaganda and nasty comedy propaganda. The comedian is too general, and speaks too generally for the purpose of his spotlight on the stage of television.

    London has been a welcome harbour for national Nationalisms for centuries – the well-to-do English British of today [who often work in politics and in the media very naturally] are exactly from the same or similar families today as their same or similar ancestry 400 years ago, and they are still today churning out the same politics and policies of Hate. They have been going to the same schools and universities for years… and they still stab each-other in the back for the sake of power and profit. They still visit each other for dinner and cocktails, they still join the same clubs and love the same food. In London specially.

    I decided to find out for myself just how racist Enoch Powell had been by reading two books about him;
    “Enoch Powell, a biography” by Robert Shepherd, 1996, Hutchinson, London
    “Freedom & Reality” by Enoch Powell, 1969, Elliot Right Way Books, Kingswood, Surrey, UK

    The 1969 book contains a lot of his speeches and the 1996 book contains a lot of details about his personal life. For decades now he has been an example of racism as it exists in England and the UK, and this racism is qualified by this speech he made. Because of the strength of feeling of this speech… he is now up there along with Mussolini, Hitler and the rest of the racists… a persona non grata indeed. But was he any different to any pale, stale, and male Tory head of the family of his generation? No no different. What did I find out about him? He was a working class guy who did well at school – he learned Latin and Greek and came from a similar background as Maggie Thatcher… both members of the Tory party.

    Now we know from hindsight how Tories like to back-stab on their own people when they perceive their power is going to fall around them… so was Enoch Powell back-stabbed for his speeches? Well, there certainly wasn’t racial harmony in the UK during the 70s NOR even the 80s or 90s. I do think that Enoch Powell’s speech has been a bit of a squirrel in a sense… in the kind male, pale, and stale kind of political world in which he delivered it [which persists in political circles much like it was then even now in 2014].

    Enoch Powell was not a stupid man, when he was a Tory MP. Today Ian Duncan Smith and David Cameron are not stupid either, and they are Tories, just like Enoch Powell was. Maggie Thatcher wasn’t stupid either, another Tory. I think that Tories today are committing the kinds of racist atrocities that their colleague predicted – how many thousands of people have seen no solution but suicide thanks to their social security being removed from them unfairly because of the ministerial speeches of Tories? Tories like to pick on people and like to make their lives a misery so they can profit and increase their ill-gotten-historic fortunes.

    Enoch evoked an image of doom in the centre of Rome after the ransacking of Rome at the time of the Fall of Rome during the early fifth century, he learned to write his speeches in a way that used classic Greek and Roman imagery, and public opinion has ruled him a failed speech writer. Knowing what we know about how the media operates, and how Tories operate… no I don’t think that Enoch Powell intended to make himself the most famous hate speech writer second only to the Nazi political machine in Germany.

    English British politics never underwent a social revolution… that is why they still use the label ‘pleb’.. and perhaps, just perhaps, they considered Enoch Powell to be another one of those ‘plebs’ and trussed him up for a good old roasting. How best to distract the public to an impending doom of the loss of colonial plunder by self-sacrificing the least important one of their own, the working class Tory made good. The kind of person that gets UKIP elected today is a fallen Tory.

    • why is it that the politicallly correct loonies always have to mention israel.
      what about chinas genocide in tibet.
      what about the islamic world butchering eachother.
      apparently israel are not allowed to defend itself against islamic aggressors.
      jews are the worlds most intelligent people and often a target for critism by the politically correct.
      I see a connection.

  9. Pingback: It's Time To Get Real About Political Correctne...

  10. Complicity with the oppression of others is a response to oppression that requires a process of conciousness development to be delivered from. The political correctness movement for inclusion was reduced from a process to a disjointed demand and thus became a new oppression. In this sense, the most threatened group was the conservative middle class who are always absurd in their failure to understand that their social status is due to their complicity in the oppression of others.

  11. I believe that all in all people are good. I believe that all in all people want to live in peace. I believe above all that the freedoms we enjoy are worth fighting for. There are, however, some things that concern me. I do not like to see a woman walking a few paces behind a man,covering her body and partially hiding her face. I do not like to see her remain indoors with a life solely devoted to looking after her children while her husband is out working and socialising. I do not like to see her not learn the language of her adopted country or exclude herself from interaction with others, whether that be her choice, or the choice of her husband. I do not wish to offend anyone intentionally, and I would not wish anyone to intentionally offend me. However, I do recognise that there are some cultural and religious practices that do not sit easily with our own way of life. That there are some cultural and religious practices that are the opposite of freedom. And if it sometimes causes offense to highlight this, then so be it. In this life there is a problem, and there is a reaction to a problem…and the two are very different things. I remember when a certain cartoon was submitted to a certain newspaper, the reaction it provoked was vastly out of proportion to the intention of the cartoon. The irony was, it gave it validation. To live in a state of unfreedom is the antithesis of our democratic ideal, it is the antithesis of those things we have fought so hard to attain, those things we must never see eroded. I do not wish to offend anyone, but I want to know, that if I did, in the interests of highlighting an issue, that I would not be at risk of serious consequences to myself. In the interests of freedom we need to have cohesion, a united voice, that stands up for our democratic ideals and above all is never afraid to speak the truth, whatever offense it may cause. As long as political correctness does not serve as a barrier to that…then I see no problem with it.

    • The trouble with that stance Pete, is that it assumes that not only do all Muslims share the same attitudes and behaviours (and that all Muslim Women are on some level opressed, rather than willfully partcipating in their own culture) but that we live in some kind of liberal utopia where everyone is equal, regardless of class, race, gender or sexuality.

    • Freedom means different things to different cultures so your freedom may be my oppression. In my lifetime political correctness reached the point of trying to pretend a one size fits all society and pretending everyone would fit together comfortably if differences were totally ignored. With the increase in knowledge of genetics there is no point in refusing to accept differences that have evolved in populations from different geographical regions or refusing to admit differences for fear of being Hitler. Different has been classified as better or worse, it has to be if one group is being encouraged to push for more land or power than another and that is the way groups, tribes, classes and countries have worked for a very long time, with loyal soldiers programmed to deamonise the other side, so they are proud to die to defeat them negating the normal instinct for survival.
      We also need to realize the power of cultural and religious differences and to face how these determine our judgements. The Church of England had it mostly its own way when I was a child, I was probably one of two or three children in my school who knew there were other gods or sects, due to my relatives having lived in India and my mother having Catholic friends. The village had a fete to raise money for missionaries and it was considered obvious that the whole world should be converted to Christianity, as that was right and everything else was wrong, so we were doing the rest of the world a big favor correcting their mistakes. Christians are horrified to find that Muslims feel just the same way about their version and are so sure they are right they are saving our souls with fire and the sword, just as the Crusaders used to try.
      As someone who is of the older generation and a country dweller I am unable to do other than laugh at the horror expressed by multicultural urbanites who come into rural areas and blame the locals for being almost all white and not knowing all the social -worker-speak that they use. We are not offensive people, we are the generation that were horrified by Racial Segregation in South Africa and were all in favor of the Civil Rights Movement in America, we were sickened by the Vietnam War, most of us value the contribution incomers have made to our country and we were born as the full horrors of the Nazi Concentration Camps came to light.
      Looking back along our family trees we see how many of our ancestors came into this country to escape religious persecution and adverse politics and how many moved on to other countries to escape poverty, follow their beliefs and find new lives. Now the world has such a large population and there is no convenient planet waiting within reach, as was vaguely hoped in my youth, I suppose the strain will result in a thinning out of people by war, illness and famine, because there is little sign that any more sensible solution will be found, no matter how many new emollient words are coined to disguise the problems.

Leave a Reply