The 'offensiveness' of the plain truth

"I had not realised how offensive the plain truth can be to the politically correct, how enraged they can be by its mere
expression, and how deeply they detest the values and standards respected 50 years ago and which dinosaurs like
me still believe in, God help us."

The words quoted above seem apposite to the discussion we've been having here about the all-too-common loathing of the old America, and our postmodern sense of superiority towards the bad old days.

The writer of the above words was George Macdonald Fraser, British writer of novels and screenplays.

The words are from a piece Fraser wrote before his death, which occurred on January 2. The piece, which is a brilliant condemnation of political correctness, was linked at ParaPundit (H/T Randall Parker).

As my readers know, Political Correctness is my personal bête noire, and it is a crucial problem for us.

You would do well to read the whole piece by Fraser; it's a longish piece but very incisive and very honest, giving us Fraser's perception of the great changes that have taken place in Britain during his lifetime, which spanned the years from 1926 to 2008.
Here, he notes the changing attitudes he witnessed towards his series of 'Flashman' books, which were, by today's rigid standards, politically incorrect:

When 30 years ago I resurrected Flashman, the bully in Thomas Hughes's Victorian novel Tom Brown's Schooldays, political correctness hadn't been heard of, and no exception was taken to my adopted hero's character, behaviour, attitude to women and subject races (indeed, any races, including his own) and general awfulness.

On the contrary, it soon became evident that these were his main attractions. He was politically incorrect with a vengeance.

Through the Seventies and Eighties I led him on his disgraceful way, toadying, lying, cheating, running away, treating women as chattels, abusing inferiors of all colours, with only one redeeming virtue - the unsparing honesty with which he admitted to his faults, and even gloried in them.

And no one minded, or if they did, they didn't tell me. In all the many thousands of readers' letters I received, not one objected.

In the Nineties, a change began to take place. Reviewers and interviewers started describing Flashman (and me) as politically incorrect, which we are, though by no means in the same way.

This is fine by me. Flashman is my bread and butter, and if he wasn't an elitist, racist, sexist swine, I'd be selling bootlaces at street corners instead of being a successful popular writer.

But what I notice with amusement is that many commentators now draw attention to Flashy's (and my) political incorrectness in order to make a point of distancing themselves from it.

It's not that they dislike the books. But where once the non-PC thing could pass unremarked, they now feel they must warn readers that some may find Flashman offensive, and that his views are certainly not those of the interviewer or reviewer, God forbid.

I find the disclaimers alarming. They are almost a knee-jerk reaction and often rather a nervous one, as if the writer were saying: "Look, I'm not a racist or sexist. I hold the right views and I'm in line with modern enlightened thought, honestly."

They won't risk saying anything to which the PC lobby could take exception. And it is this that alarms me - the fear evident in so many sincere and honest folk of being thought out of step.''

He goes on to nail political correctness as the dishonesty that it is:

The philosophy of political correctness is now firmly entrenched over here, too, and at its core is a refusal to look the truth squarely in the face, unpalatable as it may be.

Political correctness is about denial, usually in the weasel circumlocutory jargon which distorts and evades and seldom stands up to honest analysis.

It comes in many guises, some of them so effective that the PC can be difficult to detect. The silly euphemisms, apparently harmless, but forever dripping to wear away common sense - the naivete of the phrase "a caring force for the future" on Remembrance poppy trays, which suggests that the army is some kind of peace corps, when in fact its true function is killing.

The continual attempt to soften and sanitise the harsh realities of life in the name of liberalism, in an effort to suppress truths unwelcome to the PC mind; the social engineering which plays down Christianity, demanding equal status for alien religions.

The selective distortions of history, so beloved by New Labour, denigrating Britain's past with such propaganda as hopelessly unbalanced accounts of the slave trade, laying all the blame on the white races, but carefully censoring the truth that not a slave could have come out of Africa without the active assistance of black slavers, and that the trade was only finally suppressed by the Royal Navy virtually single-handed.''

This last is a point which is too seldom made. In this day and age of endless apologies for slavery, why are those of European descent the only ones expected to apologize, when the ones who captured and sold the African slaves were most often other Africans? It's only understandable when you understand the PC hierarchy of victimhood. Nonwhites can never be guilty parties, only victims. Hence PC is intrinsically unjust as well as dishonest.

Fraser says

That PC should have become acceptable in Britain is a glaring symptom of the country's decline. No generation has seen their country so altered, so turned upside down, as children like me born in the 20 years between the two world wars.

In our adult lives Britain's entire national spirit, its philosophy, values and standards, have changed beyond belief. Probably no country on earth has experienced such a revolution in thought and outlook and behaviour in so short a space.''

No country except, perhaps, our country, the USA. It may be that the rot is more advanced in the UK but we who remember the old America as Fraser remembered the old Britain can see how our country has been changed beyond recognition, too.

Fraser notes the undeniable technological advances and a few healthy developments (better treatment of the disabled, more concern for the environment -- although I would argue that these, too, have become perverted in an unhealthy direction) but overall he says that Britain was much freer and better off in the pre-PC days.

Yes, there are material blessings and benefits innumerable which were unknown in our youth.

But much has deteriorated. The United Kingdom has begun to look more like a Third World country, shabby, littered, ugly, run down, without purpose or direction, misruled by a typical Third World government, corrupt, incompetent and undemocratic.

My generation has seen the decay of ordinary morality, standards of decency, sportsmanship, politeness, respect for the law, family values, politics and education and religion, the very character of the British.''

This is all no less true of our country than of Britain, sadly.

Fraser notes that the people of 50 years ago were far freer than their 21st century counterparts. I have found, though, that it is hard to convince those who have known only the present system of that fact; they are convinced that the past was one long Dark Age until the 1960s, at least.

We were freer by far 50 years ago - yes, even with conscription, censorship, direction of labour, rationing, and shortages of everything that nowadays is regarded as essential to enjoyment.

We still had liberty beyond modern understanding because we had other freedoms, the really important ones, that are denied to the youth of today.

We could say what we liked; they can't. We were not subject to the aggressive pressure of special interest minority groups; they are. We had no worries about race or sexual orientation; they have. We could, and did, differ from fashionable opinion with impunity, and would have laughed PC to scorn, had our society been weak and stupid enough to let it exist.''

Yes, in those senses, we were much freer in those years.

Fraser, however, ends the piece on a note of hope, suggesting that, based on the letters he received in response to his 2002 book, there are many people who agree with him, including younger people who recognize the loss of freedom and the folly of leftism.
I like to think this is true everywhere in the West; it seems that political correctness has silenced many of the dissenting voices, but it has not changed as many minds and hearts as its proponents like to think.

You can silence dissent but that does not mean that you have converted your opponents.
And more repression often merely leads to quiet defiance and resistance. You cannot hold a lid on the PC pressure cooker forever.

Randall Parker adds:

"People let themselves become unfree. They were too polite or too cowardly to challenge the forces of leftist dogma. Why did the forces of political correctness win? Also, will political correctness stay ascendant? Or will the rise of a real science of human nature tear it to shreds?''

These are questions to ponder, and we may have raised similar questions in various forms here on this blog. And they are important questions which deserve to be asked again, as many times as necessary.

We need to find our way out of the PC wilderness, because without some way back, we will not be able to salvage our country and guarantee a future for our posterity.