PC OR BC?
	The other day I saw a programme on telly which showed evidence that a tribe of 
American Indians had at one stage in the past been involved in cannibalism. A spokesman 
for the Red Indians was highly indignant and debated the truth of this allegation. This was 
in spite of the fact that this cannibalism was shown to be probably an importation from the 
Aztec civilisation of Mexico. In other words, a group of Aztecs had drifted that way. The 
programme presenter was at pains to explain that he was not so much concerned with 
being politically correct in this matter as concerned with finding the truth. He explained 
that in the long run political correctness has to give way to dispassionate scientific 
evidence.
	It seems to me as well that political correctness should not be mindlessly respected. 
We have to ascertain what is the truth of the matter - what it is all about. I believe that all 
people, whatever their skin colour, should respect the law of the land regardless of 
whatever gloss political correctness puts on the matter. Another topic which is shot 
through and through with prejudices that have been given the stamp of political correctness 
is baby-rearing. These prejudices have become accepted notions nowadays and have 
drifted far away from what is reasonable and practicable.
	Being human, babies are endowed with likes, dislikes, thoughts and feelings. They 
need training of course, and can be weaned and toilet-trained from birth quite simply. It is, 
admittedly, certainly not politically correct to do anything these days other than breast-feed 
them till Kingdom come. Breast-feed them if you want to, by all means, but it is not 
necessary except to give them the gamma globulin from your body to protect them against 
disease. You must also face the fact that the babies are also getting all the nasties that 
breast milk unfortunately contains these days. What is important and considerate is to give 
them a mixed diet from the word go - puréed food from sterilised mug or spoon. Don't let 
them go week after week bored to death with the same old breast or cow's milk. Why 
should they lack the physical and mental stimulus of different flavours? Why is it heresy to 
decry breast milk when it contains questionable substances, is erratic in supply and doesn't 
taste too crash hot anyway? Have you tasted it?
	Indoctrinated with propaganda about breast milk, a woman would just have to feel 
guilty about buying baby food, which most likely contains as wide a spectrum of 
necessary, but deadly dull, nutrients as breast milk. Minus the gamma globulin admittedly, 
but babies can be given that in other ways.
	One curious fact is that the gloss of political correctness has now been removed 
from baby foods and bestowed on breast-feeding. What I mean is that usually the spin-
doctors of political correctness usually wholeheartedly endorse commercial interests, the 
usual reason being respect for the fast buck. It has been pointed out that in underdeveloped 
countries babies are better being breast-fed than given an ill-balanced and insufficiently 
nutritious baby food. The matter is not a simple one - a great deal depends on whether or 
not the mother is adequately nourished. Deleterious effects on babies given this inadequate 
formula have been demonstrated, and this has eventually resulted in breast-feeding having 
been given universal endorsement. I support no inadequate formulae, merely advocate a 
mixed diet together with a sensible and tasty home-made baby food.
	There is another widespread fetish about sucking. It is politically incorrect for a 
baby not to suck its nourishment for the first few months of its life. If it does not suck, 
forsooth, it will be brain-dead, warn the experts. How on earth do these experts know/ A 
baby can suckle from breast or bottle, but can also sip its nourishment from mug or spoon.
	There is another problem associated with breast-feeding which is ignored by the 
advocates of the politically correct. In many cases the poor little mites, with no language 
but a cry - and don't we hear screaming babies everywhere? - are totally dissatisfied with 
the quantity, and also, I suspect, the quality, of the food they get. They are, in many 
cases, fed literally dozens of times a day by a woman with very sore nipples who believes 
that she just has to persist with breast feeding or there will be dire results. In my case the 
problem necessitated the invention of a special baby food for my children - delicious, 
nutritious, satisfying and which could be fed from a mug. The food consisted of a 
carefully cooked and homogeneous mixture of egg, flour, sugar and a blend of whole and 
skim milk powder. A substantial saucepanful can be made up, refrigerated and warmed up 
in suitable quantities for the baby, not forgetting of course the frequent serving-up of the 
interesting mixed diet too. It is better to feed the formula from a plastic or porcelain mug 
than from a teated bottle, but the mixture may be diluted if sucking is seen to be vitally 
important. This baby food is most satisfying, ensuring healthy sleep between feeds and 
fostering steady growth and contentment. The baby's stools will be firmer than the 
explosive diarrhoea which appears to be a necessary and desirable concomitant of breast 
feeding. Presumably this diarrhoea is also politically correct, but to me it demonstrates 
that breast milk, or any other totally milk diet, is not a really digestible or desirable food.
	Infant feeding is only one part of the twenty-four hour a day business of rearing a 
baby. Enjoying, playing with, caressing, teaching, clothing and toilet-training your baby is 
also of the essence. Most of this comes naturally.
	In our early married life we had a mere thousand gallons of water for our large 
family's needs. This water was needed for bathing, cooking, laundry and cleaning as well 
as for washing babies' nappies. Drought-time exacerbated the problem. As a consequence 
our babies needed to be toilet-trained from birth. I don't mean that I held out the poor little 
dears for hours over a potty. I simply tried to catch them after or during meals. The babies 
don't mind this, nor does it traumatise them. The resulting deposits were dug deep into the 
grateful garden. Much water can be saved in this way, not to mention soap powder. Wear 
and tear on nappies was also minimised. The result? A child who is toilet-trained early. I 
am convinced that this is simply a matter of cleanliness, consideration and humanity. How 
could anyone leave a baby in a wet or dirty nappy? How would they like it/ An Aussie 
summer is not the time to do this. One of my babies came out of hospital after the 
customary eight days' stay with her poor backside totally denuded of skin, owing to having 
very sensitive skin and not being changed frequently enough. How I managed to cure her 
is a saga in itself.
	The frightful disposables used these days are beneath my contempt - but still make 
me angry. Just think of all the masses of disgusting garbage generated annually and its 
effect on the environment, not to mention the effect on my nerves after having to pick 
them out of my front garden, remove them from the beach and hedgerows on wayside 
walks. People accustomed to using these monstrosities should think again. The material 
out of which these abominations are made is derived from trees. Those who 
sanctimoniously prate - in line with notions of political correctness - that a child should not 
even begin to be toilet-trained before the age of two and a half years are conspiring to 
bless our environment with a total of twenty thousand of these disgusting packages. 
Doesn't political correctness include concern for our environment? I know that lip-service 
is paid to the notion that the environment is important, but presumably not so if any 
individual effort needs to be involved.
	Of course these disposables create a great deal of profit for greedy entrepreneurs. 
People who dump these monstrosities in the countryside, their manufacturers and parents 
who use these devices alike should be obliged to walk around with a proportionately large 
one of these between their legs for a couple of years. Serve them right if they get nappy 
rash or go bandy. Parents who rave on about the supposed psychic disturbance suffered by 
a child toilet-trained before it is 'ready' are perhaps just too lazy to hold a baby out for a 
minute or two now and then. If you are rewarded by a lucky accident and it is not yet a 
conditioned reflex, so what? The conditioned reflex will follow, and that means toilet-
training. That means comfort and satisfaction for parent and child alike, and untold benefit 
for our environment.
	Of course there are busy working parents. I sympathise with their problems and 
would excuse those who really have no alternative to using disposables. I still think people 
must be strict with themselves and make an effort.
	Ordinary people like myself should not parrot what so-called experts say. We must 
realise that these experts are in the pay of capitalists who only respect fast buck$. Political 
correctness is too erratic, money-inspired and consequently suspect to be a voice to heed 
and respect. Make your own baby food; potty-train your baby. Those child-rearing experts 
are more concerned with suspect political correctness than with the comfort, financial 
benefit and well-being of parents and children - and the environment doesn't get a look-in, 
either.