From Sensitivity To Pandering to Surrender

Two terrifying tales of political correctness from the mother country might act as warning signposts...if they got much play.

Via the Volokh Conspiracy comes a report that teachers in the UK are refraining from teaching about "controversial" subjects including the Holocaust....lest they offend their Muslim students.

....."Staff may wish to avoid causing offence or appearing insensitive to individuals or groups in their classes.

"In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship."

The researchers gave the example of one history department in a secondary school in a northern city which decided not to teach the Holocaust as a topic for GCSE coursework....

The implications are nothing short of horrific, not only are the educators submitting to browbeating from their students but they now take away any competition of ideas. The term "dhimmitude" gets carelessly bandied about a lot these days and is occasionally carelessly invoked in response to what is simply tolerance. This story however, is most certainly a good and proper use of the word.
In today's partisan environment, a few things are still agreed upon, that the Holocaust must never be forgotten or repeated is certainly one, but when that history is never taught, acceptance of the hate of the holocaust deniers and NAZI-apologists is but a generation or 2 away, especially when their lies are actively pushed in the very communities these spineless educators are pandering to.
More on this from the Times.

In a related story, the BBC has refused to air a show on the youngest surviving recipient of the Victoria Cross....lest it alienate the hate-the-west-left. The story is too positive you see.

Wretchard the Cat has thoughts and points to the recent Moonbat protests against a memorial honoring a fallen soldier in this country....this time ostensibly on anti-gun grounds.


Both stories reflect and astounding combination of myopia, cowardice and ethical turpitude. Sadly both stories are completely unsurprising and have US antecedents, in particular the New York Times decision to not publish an account from one of their imbeds because the story was "too heroic"

A disturbing anecdote from Col. McMaster illustrates why. His 3rd ACR broke the insurgents' hold of the city of Tal Afar last September in an operation which generated these effusive words of praise from the town's mayor:

"To the lion hearts who liberated our city from the grasp of terrorists who were beheading men, women and children in the streets...(you are) not only courageous men and women, but avenging angels sent by The God Himself to fight the evil of terrorism."

Time magazine had a reporter and a photographer embedded with the 3rd ACR. When the battle was over, they filed a lengthy story and nearly 100 photographs.

"When the issue came out, the guts had been edited out of the reporter's story and none of the photographs he submitted were used," said the admiral, quoting Col. McMaster. "When the reporter questioned why his story was eviscerated, his editors...responded that the story and pictures were 'too heroic.'"

As Michael Yon points out we are losing the info war, which is the critical point of this long war, and while he is certainly right about the cluelessness of the military's PR liaisons, the trepidation about dealing with the press stems not only from clumsiness, but from a realization that many if not most in the press are not merely hostile to our troops, but actively rooting for the other side.

It is no wonder that so many people have given up...there seems to be no good news at all, for it is all too often suppressed.

Update: Thanks to Gates of Vienna for the first macro :)