There is, apparently, no depth of idiocy to which Political Correctness will not sink, but an all-time low has just been reached by the National Children's Bureau in its publication of a report called Young Children & Racial Justice.
The report proposes that nursery teachers should inform on children as young as three for 'racist incidents', and says that toddlers should be taught about racism and singled out for criticism if they have racist attitudes. Incredibly, it says this could include saying 'yuk!' about unfamiliar food.
No racist incident is to be ignored, and nor should babies because they can 'recognise different people in their lives'. This could lead to some debate - if a baby cries at the Health Visitor (who is black) because the Health Visitor is not its mummy (who is white), is the baby being racist?
Other racist behaviour includes children using expressions like 'they smell', which suggests that the report's author isn't familiar with children's preoccupation with all things bottom-related.
Nurseries are to report as many racist incidents as possible to local councils, and the report suggests that 'Some people think that if a large number of racist incidents are reported, this will reflect badly on the institution. In fact, the opposite is the case'. Yeah, right. And shouldn't that be "a large number ... is reported"?
What local councils would do with this information is not revealed, but in this information age we already know that once data is collected, sooner or later some jobsworth will decide to act on it, if only to give some point to his otherwise aimless and unnecessary existence.
Counter to current government thinking, the report also suggests cultivating the home languages of new immigrants, saying that "English is now viewed as the major language of the world but this is not because it has any innate linguistic advantages". In this it is mistaken, of course. The greatest, most eclectic and most expressive language the world has seen, English is pre-eminent in commerce, politics, science and particularly literature simply because it says more things in more ways than any other language.
Possibly the most astonishing thing in the report is its assertion that anyone who disagrees is racist themselves. To reach for the racist label when thwarted is the natural reaction of the weak of intellect, those lacking the imagination to find any other defence. To use it before you've been thwarted in an effort to prevent anyone from disagreeing with you is childish behaviour fit only for the playground. It's probably racist, too.
Author Jane Lane claims "In my book I have tried to unpack racism and expose it for the evil that it is" - a truly worthy aim, and ground well worth turning over once more despite the fact that it's been done so many times by so many people for so long that we are all, frankly, sick of having our noses rubbed in it. How kind of Jane Lane to explain that racism is evil, as though we were all so stupid that we could never have worked it out for ourselves.
Elsewhere she says "children are like sponges" - an astonishing and impressive depth of insight, you'll agree. Not.
Actually, Jane, children aren't like sponges at all. Sponges live in the sea, are very basic organisms and have little or no sense of self or powers of self-determination. They cannot drive, do not smoke and rarely watch "Big Brother". We use them to clean ourselves in the bath, or used to. Human children, on the other hand, have never been used to clean anything (well, I'll give you Victorian chimneys, I suppose), do not live in the sea, are highly complex both physically and mentally, have a well-developed sense of their own identity, and can make up their own minds perfectly well without your help. What you meant to suggest is that children soak up things from those around them, but as an ex-teacher (i.e. someone who really knows a bit about children's behaviour, rather than someone like yourself who just makes it up to suit their own agenda) I can assure you that they only soak up what they want to soak up, and that doesn't usually include anything you or I might want to impart. Why do you think knife crime is such a problem?
Moreover and for the record, racism is not necessarily evil and we need to guard against knee-jerk reactions. There are circumstances in which prejudice against people from a certain racial background is normal, healthy, and necessary for the continued survival of a society - for instance, the course of World War 2 and therefore of all modern world history might have been very different if we'd not been prejudiced against the Germans. At other times racism is, if not healthy, at least understandable. When you find that a certain ethnic group is intent on wiping you off the face of the earth, it's a little difficult to be even-handed in your attitudes and you're probably right to be wary of them - and let's not lose sight of the fact that there are groups who seriously intend such a fate for their neighbours, as the break-up of Yugoslavia proved, and as the fate of Israel would prove the moment they lost the support of America and the rest of the Western world.
There are even circumstances in which racism is politically correct. Why else has it become so usual and correct to express deep prejudice about the English? Our history, our colonial successes, our relations with other countries, our role in most of the wars of the last five hundred years, our society, our attitudes to our society, our attitudes to the many minorities who seek to control our society, our relationships with the rest of the United Kingdom - these are all seen as things we should be ashamed of, things we should be criticised for. If that's not racism, I don't know what is. The English are the first and only nation who are racist about themselves.
Faced with incredulous opposition in the press, the NCB have made a half-hearted attempt to distance themselves from the book, claiming that "NCB operates as a publishing house for specialist publications on issues affecting the lives of children, young people and their families. Where NCB believes there are very important messages to be communicated, debated and addressed by the sector, it will publish on the basis of book sale income covering costs of production" … "the book is being funded from book sales alone - and not from government funding or from any grants, as has been reported" ... "Jane Lane, the author … is not a member of NCB staff, but an advocate worker for racial equality in the early years sector".
The National Children's Bureau is based in Islington, and describes itself as "a children's charity" which is not true - it's not run by children, but exists to interfere in matters pertaining to children, not the same thing at all. It's not exactly a charity either, existing not on donations but on some £12 million of public money. It is an umbrella organisation incorporating councils and groups that "explore a range of issues" involving children and young people. Its President is wishy-washy ex-government-minister Estelle Morris. If you'd like to write to them or phone them about their proposals, they can be found at …
National Children's Bureau
8 Wakely Street
London
EC1V 7QE
Tel: 0207 843 6000
The GOS says: We'd have nominated Jane Lane for Wanker of the Week, but she might be black so we didn't - we don't want to be accused of racism.
While on the subject of bringing up children the politically correct way, there's a certain amount of controversy about a new range of dolls from America. At a distance they may seem to be ordinary dolls, but close up you can see the protruding tongue, almond-shaped eyes, flattened nose and low ears, the small mouth, short fingers and the horizontal crease across the palms that say "Down's Syndrome".
Supporters of the dolls claim they help 'normalise' conditions like Down's Syndrome so young sufferers don't feel so different from their friends. They even say such dolls may help make disabled people more accepted by society. Children undergoing cancer treatment can get 'chemo' dolls which are bald and come complete with headscarves. Dolls are also available with hearing aids, glasses, guide dogs, wheelchairs, crutches and leg braces.
But other people, including many parents of disabled children, describe them as "a sick joke", and given that many of these dolls are being bought by schools, one must wonder how upsetting for a disabled child it would be to go into the classroom and discover a little caricature of themselves in the play corner.
What I'd like to know is, if it's considered politically correct to lampoon in this way children who can't help and didn't choose their condition, would it also be all right to make dolls of other minorities - perhaps those who may have exercised an element of choice? When are we to see the first jihad dollies complete with dark skin, beard, hoodie, suspiciously heavy knapsack and a tiny copy of the Koran? Or how about "Ninian", the gay dolly? Or "Brenda/Brendan" the transsexual complete with click-in, click-out organs? Or an anatomically-correct Welsh dolly, complete with anatomically-correct sheep?
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2008 The GOS
This site created and maintained by PlainSite