It might be cliched to compare this stuff to George Orwell’s “1984”, but one can hardly avoid making the comparisons, seeing as the Left has taken that book as an instruction manual for how to operate. But it’s not just the elected Left which employs this junk. Leftists in the private sector and in academia also operate much like Big Brother, in some cases even issuing “newspeak” whenever they see fit.
This is what the University of Michigan has done recently, and this is far from the only time I have talked about that craphole of an “institute for higher learning.” In the past, they have both had black students self-segregate and had faculty organizing a “whites-only” café. Now, their Ministry of Truth, the “Words Matter Task Force”, has issued a list of “inclusive language” terms for the purposes of replacing current terms they deem “offensive.”
The following image shows this list:
There is plenty here for me to go over, but I will only talk about a few of them, so as to not make this article needlessly long.
First, of course, there is the replacing of “man” and “men”, as well as “girl/gal,” and “boy/guy.” Because these people want to do away with the biological fact that there are only two genders, they replace those natural words with “people” and “person” or just the man or woman’s name. Nothing different from what we have seen before, but it’s egregious that I am this accustomed to the destruction of objective fact for the purposes of wokeism.
Then, there are things like “blacklist/whitelist” and “black-and-white thinking”, which I assume are only on this list because they include the colors “black” and “white”. The thing is that neither of those terms are in reference to race. “Blacklist” comes from the 1610s, and was in reference to disgrace, censure or punishment. In 1884, it was largely used by employers to make lists of workers they considered to be troublesome, usually due to union activity. It has nothing to do with black people in general, and “whitelist” has nothing to do with white people.
The same applies to “black-and-white thinking”. That phrase is about thinking in absolute extremes, such as thinking that one is “absolutely perfect and flawless” or “is the devil in the flesh.” It’s usually used in the context of people saying “reality isn’t so black-and-white,” meaning that it’s not as clear-cut as someone is alleging it is. For example, most fairy tales and stories are pretty black and white, because you know who the good guys are – and such people always do good things – and who the bad guys are – and such people always do bad things. Again, nothing to do with race.
Not that it matters, of course. Leftists often think along superficial lines, and see the terms “black” and “white” always in the context of race and not the colors themselves, even if their actual context is not within race.
The term “brown bag” is likely also a result of this line of thinking. They ban it because they think of brown people when they think of a brown bag (which tells you how racist these people are), instead of the fact that the phrase “brown bag” is in reference to lunch and how lunch is often times carried in a paper bag which happens to be brown. Maybe lunch should now be carried in silver plastic bags so as to not offend these snowflakes, but then they would whine at you for “killing the planet,” so you really can’t win with these people.
There is also the term “grandfathered”, which is seemingly due to the grandfather clause used in the Jim Crow south to give white people an advantage when voting over black people, but there is a very clear issue with this line of thinking: if that term can be connected with that clause, then couldn’t the actual familial relationship of a grandfather – and thus, the concept of a grandfather – also be problematic?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Left started pushing for that idea – that grandfathers are problematic – largely because of both the gender of grandfathers and the age (the Left hates old people, as evidenced by Cuomo and Whitmer’s acts against them in their states).
Later on, there is also the terms “honey, sweetheart, sweetie”, possibly because the Left has no idea of the concept of love and seemingly hate pet names.
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with “honey” or “sweetheart”, etc.? Sassy black women and gay men tend to mock those they disagree with by saying “oh, honey,” so wouldn’t this list be an attempt at limiting their vocabulary?
By the same token, why is “long time, no see” problematic? Its origin is in Chinese Pidgin English, supposedly from a short story in 1892 where a Chinese girl, during a conversation with someone, said “I think I go see my mamma today. Long time no see.” Is it problematic because of its origin or because of the kind of broken English you sometimes stereotypically hear from Chinese migrants? I’m willing to bet it’s for that reason, but frankly, no one means any sort of offense by saying it.
Even I did not know of its Chinese English origins until I looked it up, so I doubt most people would know about it and willingly be trying to mock Chinese migrants with it. Either way, it’s ridiculous that the University of Michigan would be banning these words and phrases. I guess they want to cull even phrases originated by migrants, much like they have culled the accomplishments of black people by getting rid of Aunt Jemima from the company’s products.
There is also the term “native” which is rather funny for me to see here. I can only imagine ignorant college students attacking Christopher Columbus for “killing” the Built-in Americans, or the Innate Americans. They clearly were largely talking about things, and not the race of Native Americans, but they were making this change because of the race, not in spite of it, so I can’t help but make that funny little connection. In order to not offend Native Americans, these people thought it would be wise to call other things which are not in relation to Native Americans (which, by the way, is a term created by the Left to replace the word “Indians” or “Indian Americans”, so they are trying to replace a term that THEY created to REPLACE ANOTHER TERM) because they thought it would offend those people.
Makes sense, considering their relentless attack on the Washington Redskins, who ultimately caved and embarrassingly are comfortable with having the temporary name of “Washington Football Team,” even though the vast majority of Native Americans did not have an issue with the name to begin with. Woke people do “good” things for minorities, even if the minorities don’t want those things.
Finally, there is the term “picnic”, which is also a bit of a headscratcher as to why it’s here. The UK Daily Mail suggests that the reason that term is here is because of “false suggestions on the internet that it originates from the racist, extrajudicial killings of African Americans.”
So these apparently “anti-racist” people chose the term “picnic” because it kind of sounds like “pick a n-word?” The term’s actual etymology is 17th century France, where the word “pique-nique” is used to describe social gatherings in which people contribute some amount of food… like a typical English picnic, in other words.
These Leftists really can’t help but see race in everything, even the most mundane and innocent of things like “picnic” just because, to the mind of a Leftist, it sounds like “pick a n-word” for the purposes of lynching them. Before today, I had never made that kind of connection, but then again, I’m not an insane Leftist who is outright conspiratorial about the meaning and etymology of certain words and phrases.
Maybe we should also ban the words “black” and “white” outright, despite them simply being colors, because they can be used in relation to race. Maybe we should also ban the word “person” because it has “son” in it. Maybe we should ban the word “window” because it has “win” in it and that promotes a spirit of competition and capitalism.
Who knows what other “newspeak” these Leftists will come up with to further choke freedom of speech? And you know that that’s the end goal. The UK Daily Mail noted that “It’s not clear if there will be any penalties for staff who don’t abide by the recommendations.” However, that’s hardly the point. The point isn’t to penalize staff for not using it – it’s to shift the entire culture to ensure that they are used and that punishments will be dealt by people, not official authorities.
For example, it’s not outright necessary to mandate the use of masks everywhere, because those who wear masks will, at least in some cases, outright yell at those not wearing masks and shame them into wearing one. Such people are not concerned with the inefficiencies of masks – matter of fact, they will 100% believe that masks work because that’s what “the experts” and “science” are saying, and anyone who doesn’t listen to them is an “ignorant science denier” at best and a “dangerous, lunatic serial killer” at worst.
Seriously, these lunatics will get right into people’s faces to yell at them to social distance and wear a mask. They carry measuring tape with them to make sure people stay 6ft apart (and such measurements can only be taken by breaking that guideline themselves, but they will never acknowledge that hypocrisy).
Maybe the university will issue punishments for members of their staff, and maybe even their students, for not adjusting to their “newspeak”, but that’s hardly the long-term goal. The purpose of this is to shift an entire culture towards doling out the punishments themselves, leading people to snitch on each other not unlike in “1984”.
As outright funny as it is to find some of the items on that list, what’s not funny is the blatant attempt at censorship by these groups of people. What’s worse is their push for making it so normal and “righteous” that they lead normal people themselves to be the gatekeepers and guardians of these rules.
Big Brother was only as powerful as it was because it managed to convince just about their entire populace to accept their new rules as being “just” and “fair” and “good”. The period before the “revolution” is regarded, even by those who question BB, as having been filled with injustice and unfairness. And those who do question BB are treated as outright traitors by the people.
Similarly, the Left’s aim is to convince just about the entire populace to accept their new rules, which they claim are “just” and “fair” and “good,” and are in direct opposition to this supposed period of “injustice” and “unfairness.”
Again, it may be cliched to compare the current situation with Orwell’s work, but one can hardly avoid doing so when they see these very things happening. I see the Left attempting to become Big Brother, doing many of the same things BB did, so I can’t help but note the parallels here.
We are obviously not quite there yet, as my own opposition to this sort of Big Brother is allowed to exist and I am not being sent to a secretive reeducation facility to “admit” to my “crimes” and to make me “love” Big Brother “again”. But there are a lot of similarities here with that work of fiction, which I can clearly see some people want to bring into reality.
Here’s hoping we can put a stop to all of that before it’s too late.
“But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.’”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...