"“We, as an exec team, believe that Kipling stands for the opposite of liberation, empowerment and human rights – the things that we, as an SU, stand for..."
She went on to say that Kipling was:
"Well known as author of the racist poem The White Man’s Burden, and a plethora of other work that sought to legitimate the British empire’s presence in India and dehumanise people of colour".
There is not a racist line in "If", pictured above, and it is arguable whether "The White Man's Burden" is racist or not, but I would not deny that Kipling shared the racist ideas of his time, inasmuch as he said that Indians would never rule India. However, as Andy Zehner has said:
"Kipling never shied away from observing the oddities and perplexing ways of India and its many people groups. But he respected them, and admired many of them. His greatest admiration appears in “The Head of the District,” where he contrasts the virtues of the Muslim tribes of the northwest frontier against unworthy British administrators."
Ironically, as George Orwell said of Kipling in India:
"...because of his dark complexion he was wrongly suspected of having a streak of Asiatic blood".
The actions of the SU executive at Manchester University are clearly hasty and ill-considered.
As might have been expected, by painting-over of the mural, the SU officers drew severe criticism of themselves, and, unfairly, all Manchester University students. Chris McGovern, of the Campaign for Real Education, criticised the Manchester students saying:
‘This is outrageous cultural vandalism. Kipling is a much beloved poet".
Nick Ferrari, on LBC said:
"Don’t take this the wrong way but if there was war you wouldn’t worry about these damn stupid things".
"... used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society."
It is also used in a pejorative sense by right-wing pundits when they wish to ridicule what they see as irritatingly petty leftist or minority activity such as the Manchester students' action. The fact is, though, the term PC might be new, but the activity has always been with us, albeit in a different form. In Kipling's day, it was PC to admire the Empire; in Ancient Rome, it was PC to own slaves; in Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR, it was definitely not PC to criticise the current regime. The political right has its own ideas of what is PC, despite criticising the left for theirs.
The problem with actions like that of the Manchester students is this: once you start censoring the works of a long-dead writer, where do you stop? Professor Janet Montefiore of Kent University, has said:
"Dickens said dreadful things about black people in the Jamaica rebellion. Does that mean you don’t read Dickens?”
The same question could be asked of Joseph Conrad, who wrote a book with what some might consider a racist title: "The Nigger of the Narcissus". Presumably, he should be banned also. Then there is Shakespeare, with his derogatory views on women in "Romeo and Juliet":
"Women may fall when there's no strength in men".
Another prime target for banning would be the Christian Bible. From the Old Testament, we read:
"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." (Eccles. 25:22)
And from the New Testament:
"But I would have you know,
that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man;
and the head of Christ is God." (I
Corinthians 11:3)
"For the man is not of the
woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman;
but the woman for the man." (I
Corinthians 11:8-9)
Added to this blatant chauvinism, there is a definite Zionist influence on Biblical writers. Here is just one example:
Genesis 17:8: "I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee...all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God".
This is highly offensive to all Palestinians and is clearly intolerable.
And why confine your censorious efforts to literature? Music, also, deserves to be banned if it is racially or sexually offensive. Back in the 70s, when I was at University, a female IMG member told me that the now classic rock anthem "Brown Sugar" by The Rolling Stones should be banned, as it was: "...racist and sexist at the same time". Happily, the music industry was not swayed by her opinion, and the song rocks on. Still, if the Manchester students have started a trend, The Rolling Stones (and many others) could be banned from every juke box in every British Students' Union. Guns N' Roses would almost certainly be banned. Consider this lyric, from "It's So Easy":
Added to this blatant chauvinism, there is a definite Zionist influence on Biblical writers. Here is just one example:
Genesis 17:8: "I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee...all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God".
This is highly offensive to all Palestinians and is clearly intolerable.
How do the students at Manchester restrain themselves from destroying every Bible they can find? Should they ban Christian speakers from the Students' Union? Should they ban Christians?
It is possible to find equally misogynistic quotes in the Qu'ran, but banning the Muslim holy book would be Islamophobic.
"Turn around, bitch, I got a use for you/ Besides, you ain’t got nothing better to do"
Very un-pc! And what about The Beatles. Consider this from "Getting Better":
"I used to be cruel to my woman/I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved"
And there are many others...
Yes, the PC zealots in every student union will have plenty to do, banning, purifying and fighting sexism on the jukebox. They will not ban misogynistic rap music, of course, as that would be racist.
Do I really expect this to happen? Well, no, I was deliberately exaggerating - something I have been told to stop doing millions of times. But the fact is that the painting over of Kipling's poem has set a precedent, and some, perhaps all, student union bodies will follow their example. Fascists are not the only totalitarians.
No comments:
Post a Comment