Oxfam came under fire this week for issuing a bizarre ‘inclusive’ language guide to staff. The Mail has more.
The 92-page report warns against ‘colonial’ phrases such as ‘headquarters’, suggests ‘local’ may be offensive and says ‘people’ could be patriarchal.
Workers were told ‘parent’ is often preferable to ‘mother’ or ‘father’, terms such as ‘feminine hygiene’ should be dropped, and ‘people who become pregnant’ should be used instead of ‘expectant mothers’.
The guide even suggests that ‘youth’, ‘the elderly’ and ‘seniors’ should be avoided – to afford respect and dignity.
Tory former minister Robert Buckland said: “Most people will find this particular use of valuable time and resources by Oxfam totally bizarre. It would do them well to remember the old adage that actions speak louder than words.”
The introduction apologises for being written in and about the English language, saying: “We recognise that this guide has its origin in English, the language of a colonising nation. We acknowledge the Anglo-supremacy of the sector as part of its coloniality.
“This guide aims to support people who have to work and communicate in the English language as part of this colonial legacy. However, we recognise that the dominance of English is one of the key issues that must be addressed in order to decolonise our ways of working and shift power.”
The official advice from the charity – founded in Oxford in 1942 to relieve famine worldwide – attempts to revolutionise its staff’s language across a wide range of fields.
It looks to outlaw ‘headquarters’ as it “implies a colonial power dynamic”; ‘aid sector’, which “cements ideology where an agent with resources gives support on a charitable basis”; and ‘field trip’ because it can “reinforce colonial attitudes”.
Oxfam said in a statement yesterday: “This guide is not prescriptive but helps authors communicate in a way that is respectful to the diverse range of people with which we work. We are proud of using inclusive language; we won’t succeed in tackling poverty by excluding marginalised groups.”
The charity said it was disappointed some had “decided to misrepresent the advice offered in the guide by cropping the document” online.
Released on Monday, the Oxfam publication tells staff not to say they “stand with” people they support because it “potentially alienates people unable to stand”. Even ‘people’ is a suspect word, as it “is often misunderstood as only referring to men”.
Readers are told “these guidelines are not set rules and should not be viewed as restrictions”. However the guide launches into long lists of problematic words and phrases beside a large cross and, in capitals, “WE AVOID”.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Using them as a bribe to curry favor I’ll wager! Not what Germany intended!
Knuckle draggers!
The clowns who organised this handover, the current SPD/Greens/FDP government of Germany, doubtlessly never intended anything here but were -as usual – acting under orders of their US superiors.
“A public good has thus become private property.”
Tou mean: Public property has thus become private property.
Public Good (plural, Public Goods) has a specific meaning in economics. It has nothing to do with ownership of its virtue. A Public Good is non-excludable and non-rivalrous. An example is street lighting. Nobody can be excluded from using it; if more people ‘use’ it, it doesn’t mean each gets less. It cannot be controlled/rationed by pricing. This means it is difficult for private enterprise to supply it and make a profit, and is used to justify State provision.
The opposite is Private Good, which is excludable and rivalrous. Example: electricity. A consumer can be excluded by switching off the current; the more people using it means less available for each. It can be controlled/rationed by pricing. A profitable business can be established.
‘Europeans paid for the slaves with brass rings that became the raw material for the bronzes.’
So the slaves were sold by their own kings and chiefs. Should the Benin Bronzes then be sold by the Nigerians and the money paid in reparations to the descendants of these slaves in the US and elsewhere?
In fact shouldn’t all the Countries of Africa be paying reparations?
The President didn’t return Benin’s empire to the Oba as the rightful owner, then…
A glance at the President’s name gives a clue about how bothered about non-Islamic artifacts he is likely to be.
Check out the record of the Taliban & Isis when dealing with key cultural artifacts from Afghanistan to Syria.
Even the wannabe little Caliph in Ankara has converted the Haghia Sophia, the great Cathedral of Byzantium, back to being a mosque.
Note also the Benin bronzes previously returned to Nigeria in decades past, that have subsequently shown up in the New York art market.
Great job Archbishop Welby and all his woke chums.