Readers of this publication may not be particularly fond of Andrew Neil, due to his shocking rhetoric about those who chose not to take the Covid vaccines. On wokery, however, he is much more sound, and has just written a robust condemnation of Oxfam’s absurd 92-page ‘Inclusive Language Guide’ for the Mail.
Here’s an excerpt:
Oxfam apologised for the English language this week, describing it as “the language of a colonising nation”. It also counselled against using the words “mother” and “father” because they ascribed “gendered roles”.
Thus, in this charity’s right-on eyes, has the language of Shakespeare (hiss) and Churchill (boo) — the most successful language the world has ever known — become a matter for regret and embarrassment, while simple, clear words that have stood the test of time are to be abandoned. Oxfam says it’s only offering guidance not prescription. Fair enough. But I wouldn’t fancy the career chances of any Oxfam staffer who cared to flout it.
Oxfam has come a long way since it was founded 81 years ago. There was a time in the dim and distant past when its primary purpose was to raise money from well-meaning, relatively affluent folks and use their donations to assuage the hunger pangs of the poor and downtrodden across the globe. It was a worthy cause.
Those days are long over. For some time now it’s been more associated with Left-wing agitprop than famine relief. Indeed, you almost get the impression feeding the famished is now seen by some in Oxfam as an annoying diversion from the far more important work of political activism.
Hence all the effort that’s gone into its 92-page ‘Inclusive Language Guide’. It won’t fill a single empty belly but it will sure warm the cockles of its increasingly woke staff, with its insightful injunctions to avoid using words like headquarters (“implies a colonial power dynamic”), aid sector (“cements” idea of those with “resources” giving “charitable aid” — which I stupidly thought was the founding mission of Oxfam) and, incredibly, field trips (“reinforces colonial attitudes”).
The logic of that last one escaped me until I remembered that, after a teenage geography field trip (sorry) to the Scottish Highlands, we were all pretty fired up to retake India (or not — recollections vary).
Neil sees the woke obsession with language as a way to control the debate:
Why the obsession with language, with demands for changes in usage which might be thought trivial, irrelevant, even pathetic? Because if you control the language, you’ve gone a long way to dominating the debate in this new age of identity politics.
By outlawing words with even the merest tangential link to race and colonialism — or, in reality, none at all — you are establishing that racism and colonial repression are the defining hallmarks of our society, as critical race theory mandates, and far more important than social class or social mobility or economic growth.
By insisting that biology can never take precedence over gender self-identity, and that the use of language must reflect that, you’ve pretty much handed over the argument to the transgender lobby. It’s long been a conceit of those most active in the culture wars that there’s no such thing as a culture war, that it’s just a myth promulgated by the Right, and that to be woke is just to be concerned about social justice (and who can object to that?).
It’s a clever tactic. But we shouldn’t fall for it.
The aim of today’s culture warriors is to change the face of society by replacing the concerns of the majority (prosperity, growth, opportunity) with their newer priorities (race, gender, anti-colonialism). They hope to do this not just by determining the language but by closing down debate. In offices and shop floors across the land, people are already walking on eggshells, terrified of saying what they think lest it offend those with the power and predilection to make the lives of any deviants miserable.
Robust debate is already being strangled as folks (an Oxfam-approved word, by the way) take refuge in platitudes and pablum so as not to upset the snowflakes. That’s how the new woke generations plan to win the war.
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.
“Oxfam says it’s only offering guidance not prescription”
hey, Oxfam, take your guidance and prescription and stick them up your ar#e!
Trying to win a debate or impose ideas by shutting up the opposition is nothing new and actually very common.
In fact, I would say that engaging honestly with someone else’s argument is rare and exceptional. Most people don’t take long to turn a debate into a scrum.
Insults I would say are the most.common and least sophisticated goto method.
Taking words away is pretty sophisticated and veryinsidious.
But the remedy is really quite simple, though perhaps not easy for some – just say “no”.
I prefer a much simpler explanation: The only thing the woketards really want to accomplish is manufacturing justifications for them getting lavishly paid for doing what they do, despite that’s of no use to anyone.
Before the safeguarding scandals, Oxfam used to get more than half its money (after netting off the income from its shops) from the government, it was practically a quango. I see in its latest accounts it still gets 46% of its income from government, again after netting shop income.
Apologising for using English as it’s the language of a “colonising nation”. Even if we ignore the fact that this guidance is aimed at English speakers, which other language could be used?
Spanish? sorry – colonisers
French? Sorry no
Italian? Nope
German?
Russian?
Latin?
Any number of African languages, e.g Bantu ? – many were colonisers and imperialists.
Over to you Oxfam
Read the appendix on the principles of Newspeak in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. That tells you everything you need to know. The woke brigade use it as a textbook.
Nowhere near hard enough. It’s like complaining about the poor grammar of Goebbels or Himmler. Oxfam has been captured by Marxists, and it needs to be defunded.
“Oxfam has been captured by Marxists, and it needs to be defunded.”
Oxfam is not the only “charity” taking the P. out of its supporters.
The BHF is another. Not once throughout the last three years has it spoken out against the C1984 madness. It supported all the anti-human measures including masking – for people suffering from heart disease for crying out loud. No word of condemnation from the BHF on the poisons pushed as “vaccines.” Oh, and it pays its CEO more than we pay Fishy.
Or Cancer Research with an income now pushing £700 million p.a but still hasn’t found a cure for cancer. Actually I believe cures for cancers have been found but releasing them would have a negative effect on Pharma profits so the cures remain under lock and key.
The charity sector is by and large a huge, tax fiddling Scam – just ask Billy.
“Actually I believe cures for cancers have been found but releasing them would have a negative effect on Pharma profits so the cures remain under lock and key.”
Even preventive measures (which also have an effect as “cures”) such as exercise, Vitamin D, reducing carbohydrate intake have all been discouraged over the last 3 years for the benefit of Big Pharma.
Political correctness has gone from mad to pure evil.
Net Zero in the West – who benefits? China
Take down the English language – who benefits? China
Stand in the Park
Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near Everyman Cinema & play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
Oxfam should change their mission to “Taking money from poor people in rich countries and passing it on to rich people in poor countries”
Living near Oxford as I do, and having met several retired employees living a very nice life on their pension, I have been wary of Oxfam for a long time. The final straw was when i was admonished severely for using an outdated word in a conversation in a pub by two women who used to work there and had evidently read the manual. What made me livid was that my intention had been completely benign, simply that I am getting old and used a word from my aging vocabulary.
The weaponisation of colonialism is the key operating principle here – that the attitudes and beliefs and motivations of colonialism were morally wrong and those attitudes and beliefs and motivations are brought forth when we use particular language today.
The 1st is moral presentism – reading the past using todays ethical norms. It is ahistorical revisionism that creates an anachronistic view of the past.
The 2nd is a form of gnosticism – the belief of having a special or divine revealed knowledge (post colonial ‘theory) that the use of certain words conjures (“implies” and “reinforces”) a mystical power and a spirit of colonialism. This is nothing more than gnostic fantasies IMO.