“Cultural Appropriation”, WokeSpeak and Other Left-Wing Canards
In George Orwell’s classic novel “1984,” the inhabitants of Oceania are encouraged by the Party to transition to Newspeak, a language designed to make modes of speaking, writing, and thought opposed to Party rule not merely difficult but outright impossible. For example, passages from the Declaration of Independence could not be translated into Newspeak in accordance with their original meaning but instead would be translatable as “crimespeak.”
Like Big Brother and the Party in “1984,” the New Left in the United States today is endeavoring to transform the English language into new forms that fit New Left ideologies. In addition to furthering the New Left’s ideology, the use of terms having the New Left’s seal of approval serves as (1) a form of virtue-signaling, and (2) a showing of obedience to the Marxist totalitarians who make up the New Left (analogous to a wilderness hiker who during the Plandemic is dutifully wearing his or her obedience mask even though no other human being is within one-half of a mile). This seems to be especially the case in the leftist-infested world of academia. Conversely, any failure to use New Left-approved language opens up the user to losing his or her job to the depraved woke fanatics who make up Cancel Culture.
As an example of what now may be properly termed “WokeSpeak,” consider the recent substitution of “enslaved people” for the English term that has been used for centuries, namely, “slaves.” I can recall being taught that one should never use two words where one word will do. Substituting “enslaved people” for “slaves” obviously violates this basic rule. We might also ask what “enslaved people “ are being distinguished from. Enslaved porcupines? Enslaved e coli ?
The truth of the matter is that WokeSpeak requires the use of “enslaved people” and prohibits the use of the more straightforward term “slaves” because “enslaved people” emphasize victimhood — “these poor people have been enslaved!” Victimhood is a key part of the New Left’s false narrative; it is something the New Left wants to broadcast in order to advance its Manichaean vision of a world consisting of the oppressed and the oppressors. The New Left’s intent is to create a country where all the “oppressed” classes vote the New Left into political power and are joined by those who normally would be in the oppressor category (classic examples being straight white males in general and white male corporate CEOs in particular) except for the fact that they are willing to grovel to the New Left and to apologize and beg forgiveness for being white. This process is starting early in life. Consider the case of third- and fourth-grade school children who are expected to apologize to their teacher and the rest of the class for being part of an “oppressor” class by reason of their skin color. Elsewhere, we have the drumbeat for “reparations,” where those who never owned slaves are expected to pay money to those who never were slaves (but retain their membership in the “oppressed class” because some of their distant ancestors happened to be slaves).
In addition to substituting WokeSpeak for ordinary English usage to further its sinister objective of destroying America, the New Left — taking a page from Cancel Culture — prefers that certain English words not be used at all. This has been going on for some time. A short person is actually “vertically challenged.” A fat person is “horizontally challenged.” One of the more recent examples of word-holing involves the use of the word “chief.” The use of this seemingly innocuous word is allegedly verboten because it is “cultural appropriation” and therefore a mortal insult to American Indians.
Now, one might ask, do American Indians actually object to the use of the term “chief”? Apparently, no surveys have yet been conducted on this topic. However, the Washington Post conducted a survey in 2016 on the much more loaded term “redskin” (as in the football team formerly named the “Washington Redskins). It turns out that of the 504 American Indians surveyed, only about one of ten found the term “redskin” offensive.
For the New Left, though, the reality is that the views of real live American Indians on this subject count for little. What really counts are the views of the little Hitlers and little Stalins who make up today’s New Left — such views hinging almost entirely on whether banning the use of the term “chief” or “redskin” will whip up the enthusiasm of their voter base. If the “oppressed class” can be enlarged — even though many of those classified as “oppressed” do not actually see themselves as “oppressed”- so much the better.
On the topic of cultural appropriation, notice the howls from the New Left when a person who is not an American Indian plays an American Indian in a Hollywood movie or TV show. Contrast this with modern Shakespearean plays where King Lear or Hamlet is played by a non-white person. Where is all that criticism about “cultural appropriation” then? There is none. Crickets. It simply doesn’t fit the narrative.
Another crusade of the New Left in the language sphere is to change the meaning of the word “woman.” (Really — I am not making this up!) The new preferred term for those who are born female is “pregnant people.” The New Left is concerned that use of the word “woman” in accordance with its historic, traditional meaning has negative implications for transgender women. According to the New Left, “women” includes not only those born females but also those who are born male who chooses to “identify” as female. If you were wondering during the Ketanji Brown Jackson Supreme Court nominee hearings why Judge Jackson was unable to define the term “woman” (“I’m not a biologist”, or something along those lines), you can readily see that she understood the risks of adhering to common sense, defining the term in a sensible manner and thereby mortally offending the Woke Left. We can pass over the obvious fact that “pregnant people” fails spectacularly as a substitute for “women”: people who are born female and who are not currently pregnant are by definition not “pregnant people”; people who are born female and have passed the age of menopause cannot be “pregnant people.” But none of this matters to the New Left. For a political class that believes mathematics is racist, it should not come as a surprise that they are more than willing to trash common sense and logic if it enables them to create new opportunities for virtue-signaling and a show of obedience by their acolytes. Expect the term “pregnant people” to appear in print far more often, first in academic journals and articles, and then filtering down to internet postings and old-fashioned (but newly Marxist) newspapers.
How should we respond to the New Left’s attempt to jam WokeSpeak down the throats of the American public? The best response, I would suggest, is satire and comedy. Let’s make WokeSpeak as big a farce as political correctness has proven to be. Even the most ardent Marxist of the New Left now hesitates to substitute the term “vertically challenged” for “short.” A small victory for common sense. The pen and the internet video are mightier than the sword — see the “Libs of Tiktok.”
