I belong to an online Historical Novels discussion group. It
is a lively assemblage with lots of discussions ranging from how one researches
historical novels to selecting book titles.
Most recently someone started a discussion about being politically correct in historical
novels. The result has been a long thread of comments from authors of
historical fiction books.
Almost to a person, authors of historical fiction say political
correctness should NEVER influence how we write about the past. To do so is to
be disingenuous to those who read our books.
Our job as authors of historical fiction is NOT to
"clean up" or rewrite history so the sins of the past are expunged
from our consciousness. The fact is overt racism, religious oppression and
other forms of discrimination have been part of life for several thousand
years. They still are. Look at what's happening in Iraq right now--Sunnis
butchering Shia Muslims.
You can see how political correctness has distorted the
literary landscape when writers of historical fiction attempt to cleanse offensive
language in their books that was once used to describe certain races, classes,
religions, and ethnic groups.
As one group member said: "Let's not only get political correctness out of historical
fiction, let's get it out of society. If you wrote a Civil War story and had a
character refer to a black person as an African-American, you ought to be
horsewhipped."
Let me say it forthrightly and plainly: political
correctness has no place in historical fiction. If you are striving to create
accurate characters and events in a novel about the past you must create characters
that think, speak, and act the way they did during the period in which the
novel is set.
To inflict political correctness on literary art is to
censor and suppress creativity. PC has already overrun and dampened free speech
and innovative thought in our schools and on college campuses. God forbid that
the thought police should be successful in invading the province of historical
fiction too!
Yet the PC thugs have already been successful getting books
like Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain and Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher
Stowe removed from some school libraries because of their use of language and
racial characterizations prevalent in 19th Century America. They have even
convinced a few publishers to issue "cleansed" versions of Mark
Twain's work with some passages and descriptions rewritten and some offensive
words removed.
Taking this a step further, I think one of the most
egregious phrases that the PC Gestapo has inflicted on our society is:
"hate speech." Even the ACLU, that great liberal bastion, says there
is "NO SUCH THING AS HATE SPEECH. THERE IS ONLY FREE SPEECH."
The way to deal with so-called "hate speech" is to
have more free speech, the ACLU says--not to shut down speech that YOU may
think is offensive.
When we begin to label speech that may be offensive to a
particular group as "hate speech" it has a widespread chilling effect
on all of us. Yet, I saw classes being taught at the university where I was a
dean that discussed the issue of racial prejudice without using the epithets
and pejoratives commonly used in the past to describe black people, Hispanics
and other minorities.
This is just silly. The only words that were allowed in
class were the defamatory ones used to describe immigrants from Ireland, Italy,
Poland, France, Germany, etc.
The assumption, I guess, is that it is OK to use words like
mick, honkie, wop, kraut, pollack, frog, etc. because, after all, those people
are white. But you may not use words like nigger, beaner, chink, raghead, slopehead,
etc. in a history class about racial relations because saying them, even in an
educational setting, may offend someone.
That's like teaching music, but banning certain notes the
music teacher didn't like from being played. How would Mozart sound if double
flat notes or tuplets were not allowed to be played?
Professors who impose PC on students in the classroom are
shortchanging their education by eliminating viewpoints they don't like. Sadly,
I have seen this pattern of behavior too often. I will not abide it in my own
writing, nor should authors who seek honesty in their work.
This is where all of this PC nonsense has led us: to a
disingenuous, hypocritical America where truth is suppressed in favor of
mandated diversity and inclusiveness.
There is nothing wrong with promoting a more diverse and
inclusive nation--but I think this country, despite its less than stellar racial
history, has done a pretty good job of creating a nation of people who get
along pretty well. There will always be anomalies, there will always be racism,
there will always be people who hate others who are different from them, but
all in all, I think the United States is doing OK. Case in point: the current two-term
occupants of the White House.
As writers of historical fiction, it is incumbent upon us to
be truthful in our depictions of times past--ugly warts and all.
For the PC thought police it is not the only the politically
incorrect word or name that is the problem. It is a person's attitude, an
individual's mindset, his/her ability to think freely and express
himself/herself in a certain way that the PC bullies want to control. If an
individual's opinions do not conform to THEIR Weltanschauung then those
opinions should not be expressed. This is intolerance in the extreme.
The PC police believe everybody should think EXACTLY like
they do. Does that remind you of Nazi Germany or the USSR under Stalin, or
China under Mao, or North Korea today? It should, because by suppressing and
controlling the way people think and express themselves the PC thought police are
destroying the very intellectual diversity that engenders creative thought.
To paraphrase another author in one of our discussions: "We in the USA are now in our own
oppression era, quite similar to Hitler's Germany, Stalin's USSR, or Mao's
P.R.C., where you can lose your job, your promotion, your chance at tenure, or
even an opportunity to get a job, because of a 'traditional belief,' or a
belief that doesn't toe the line of the PC thugs currently in charge of the
media and 'special' interest groups.
"Let there be no mistake, the oppression is real and it's not just about what we write, or our hopes/goals of being published and selling our work (which is after all, an extension of our selves in part); it's about what we are ALLOWED to say or write, either by the 'guardians of PC' or government."
"Let there be no mistake, the oppression is real and it's not just about what we write, or our hopes/goals of being published and selling our work (which is after all, an extension of our selves in part); it's about what we are ALLOWED to say or write, either by the 'guardians of PC' or government."
The underlying question is this: are we really 'free' in
what we choose to write and say? Do we indeed still have 'freedom of speech' as
guaranteed by the First Amendment, or do we now SELF-CENSOR because we are
afraid of 'the backlash'?
For those who write or who create other forms of art these
are critical questions that need to be considered. I for one will not be
bullied by the PC thought police in my historical novels.
Politically correct speech and its offshoots of intolerance,
censorship, and social intimidation are the greatest dangers to free speech
since the First Amendment was inserted into our Constitution in 1791.
No comments:
Post a Comment