Someone who's opinion I generally respect suggested the ascendency of this sort of nonsense in England and other parts of Europe is possibly the result of the fact that so many normal and manly men were killed in WWI and WWII and what was left over was an over-representation of cowardly poofs.
Kipling would be appalled.
Maybe not. The primary characteristic i've seen in several of Kipling's poems is the clear understanding of the foolishness of human nature. This one, for example tells me that he understood the consistency of fools in our society all too well.
“...the result of the fact that so many normal and manly men were killed in WWI and WWII and what was left over ...”
I’ve heard that too. Makes sense.
RE Gods of the Copybook Headings”
Very familiar with that. I think he would be appalled at just how far the society did in fact descend.
For example, that citizens or subjects could stand by and watch one of their soldiers (Lee Rigby) murdered in the street, and do NOTHING to help him.
While something of that sort is still often said, it doesn't stand up to a moment's serious scrutiny, whether genetic, demographic,statistical or historical. Terrible as the losses were, especially in the First War, the numbers were never great enough to have a serous impact on the gene pool. They were overwhelmingly from a very narrow age band, whose genes survived in siblings too young or too old to fight, or in children conceived before their deaths. The majority were conscripts, and conscription does not select for character: nor does the industrial nature of the killing in the two wars where, with the obvious exception of numerically small categories like fighter pilots,commandos and special forces, you had as much chance of death or survival whether you were hero or coward.
Paradoxically the very different nature of recent conflicts has given more scope for traditional personal bravery than was usually the case in the two world wars: and British forces have shown no lack of that in Afghanistan and elsewhere.