Historical Accuracy vs Political Correctness

Warning: Some readers may find the following post offensive.

Accusations of racism are flying around various political arenas in England, in Australia and in a lot of other Western Countries.

I think people have forgotten what the word means and are using it as a political stick to get their own way, or to oust an undesirable.

To cite the Oxford Dictionary - racist: • noun 1 the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.

Last week, feral Christian politician, Fred Nile, called for the suspension of Islamic immigrants to Australia to stop the violence here. That is a racist statement.

The Tory Home Affairs spokesman, Patrick Mercer, was sacked by the Opposition in the UK for an alleged race remark. What he said was: “I came across a lot of ethnic minority soldiers who were idle and useless, but who used racism as cover for their misdemeanours.”

What’s the difference? Mr Nile is using a racial assumption that brands all Moslems as violent. Mr Mercer made a comment about his own experiences as a former Colonel in the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment. That he did not refer to white soldiers made the comment worse than it was. He would not have been accused of racism if he were speaking of Anglo-Saxon soldiers.

Ethnic minorities freely use the race card and Caucasians flinch.

But this post isn’t supposed to be about politics, but writing. I use these incidents as an example.

A couple of years in the Forward Motion chat room, a debate erupted over use of the word ‘nigger’, a well established epithet and a fundamentally morally reprehensible word to describe a black person. Not an African-American, but a black person. Aboriginals in Australia were called niggers, too. Even the Oxford Dictionary says: “Usage The word nigger is very offensive and should not be used.” But I use this example because it is a visual insult, as well as ideological.

The argument was whether a modern day writer could use the word if in its historical context. The writer was working on a Western novel and was unsure.

Half the respondents said no – the word is unacceptable in today’s society; the others said yes – it was a word freely used at the time.

Which side is right? If we take the former, we are re-writing history; if we take the latter, we are preserving a picture of the culture, society and language of the time.

Calling somebody a ‘jew’, or a ‘wog’, or a ‘pom’, a ‘yank’, a ‘kiwi’, a ‘skip’, a ‘kraut’, a ‘nip’, a ‘catho’, aren’t so offensive, and yet perhaps they should be, for they have the same connotations – that of a group of people separated by means of ethnicity or religion.

I’ve read a number of books where ‘offensive’ terminology has been used to describe the personalities of the character. You immediately know what kind of a person they are by the words they use, or those that surround them.

Is there a line you can draw? No. I don’t think so. Evocative language creates emotions in a reader, something that will stay with them long after the book has been closed.

What writers have to be careful of is how often offensive words are used: to make a point, yes; to beat the reader over the head with, no.

I came down in the camp that said ‘yes’, it was okay to use as long as it was in context. But what the argument left me with was the disturbing thought that political correctness was threatening to over-run common sense.

Freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to offend unnecessarily (though there are many websites that do), nor does it mean that you can take offence when none is meant.

But… make your own decision. As writers, we have a responsibility to our work and readers, but we also have a responsibility to the truth, no matter how ugly it is.