Insidious PC from the BBC

(I’ve changed the date on this post to reflect the transition from first saving to final form)

I think I was a scout for two weeks, though I can’t remember exactly. I had been promised it would be way different from the hateful cubs pack I was a member of, but it was sufficiently like it to bring out a nervous reaction that saw me resolutely glued to the sofa and the tv as though to a floating fragment from a shipwreck, instead of venturing to a draughty village hall miles from my home (those horrible chairs you had to help shift; the miserable knots, the cooking classes- and they were some of the better things).

So I’m not a great fan really. The best part for me was the oath I took, and they’ve changed that since for some strange reason. Obviously oaths aint what they used to be. I think I kept mine by leaving after 2 weeks.

Anyhow, that’s not the point.

Anthony Browne recently published a forthright document concerning Political Correctness in Britain and abroad. It’s well worth reading, and during the course of his argument he has a go at the BBC.

However one non-BBC related quote (among the many) struck me for its relevance to the kind of thing the BBC is quite absurdly satisfied with

‘The New york Times’ culture correspondent, Richard Bernstein… was… concerned about how PC tried to overturn the dominant culture and power structures.’

because I had just been reading this BBC article supplied by Rob in the comments.

Thinking people ought to agree that this is fascinating. It is fascinating when an all but explicitly Christian and anglospherical youth movement, aimed at fostering the virtues to underpin the British dream, not only backs away from that project but does a volte face: expressly embracing and fostering what was (in Baden Powell’s day) seen as a regressive and primitive culture of idolatry. It’s fascinating and it’s news. There is of course an argument that it is still a regressive and primitive culture (of idolatry) (- this bracketted part is a little-sought specification for the argument in 06)

However the BBC doesn’t treat it like that- that is to say, doesn’t think anything remotely like those concerns, even watered down, need be addressed; doesn’t set the context in which the oath has been broken into a smorgasbord of options; doesn’t note the clear revolutionary angle. Only sees it as a positive news story about Islam and the West cohabiting. But it is revolutionary, however some well-meaning people might see it as a natural outflow of our generous cultural eclecticism and assimilation.

That’s PC for you.

(of course, whether or not Baden Powell’s creation was one of history’s really good thingsis open to question. The fact is that people relied on it to produce a certain calibre in young people.)