Concerning the Pendulum Effect.

Let me say at the outset that I am not aggressively anti-woke. I think it a perfectly reasonable and proper process that we own up to the darker aspects of our history and make changes for the betterment of today and tomorrow. But I also recognise that this process can be divisive and can lead to the pendulum effect in which the movement lurches way off course and becomes ludicrous. Let’s take the latest example.

There is a movement afoot to have the word ‘field’ expunged from the English lexicon. Why? Because slaves used to work in fields and so any use of the word is likely to offend black people.

OK, so should we ban all words which can be seen as having some connection to slavery and the work done by slaves? Should we, for example, ban the word ‘cotton’, in which case we’ll have to invent a new word which will have same meaning? Should we cover our mouths in shame at any mention of a ship, because it was on ships that slaves were transported to the New World? What about ‘plantation’, the environment in which slaves worked? The movement of English, Scottish, and Welsh farmers to Northern Ireland in the 17^th century is referred to by historians as ‘the Plantation’, and woods sown to produce timber are universally known as plantations. There’s one at the top of my lane, so must I now call it something else? And then there are the ‘party whips’, the MPs in the UK whose job it is to enforce official party policy during votes. ‘Whip’ is a really bad word and should surely be the first to go.

And maybe it’s worth mentioning that there must be a good many black farmers in the English speaking world who refer to their land as fields without giving it a second thought, because that’s the word for a patch of ground on which animals are raised and crops are grown.

And while I’m on the subject, here’s another example:

My ex works at a university where the employees have been told that if they wish to address a group of students they mustn’t use terms like ‘lads’, boys’, or ‘girls’. Why? Because there’s a danger that the occasional constituent of such a group might be experiencing gender identity issues and be upset by the presumptive term.

And so the question arises: must we tear up the dictionary and start again so as not to offend anybody who might be connected to a historic grievance or affected by a personal psychological issue? Is this a matter of aiming for perfection or creating yet another hobby horse for extremists to flog? And in the final analysis, where does it all end?