Way of theworld Michael Deacon
Laura Trevelyan is a generous woman. In the 19th century, her ancestors made a lot of money from sugar plantations manned by slaves on the Caribbean island of Grenada. Ms Trevelyan, a BBC journalist, has now apologised for their actions – and, to help make up for it, her family is donating £100,000 to launch a community fund for economic development on the island.
This is very big-hearted. But also, I think, a mistake.
For one thing, it might encourage others to demand reparations from her. As Katherine Mezzacappa, an Irish novelist, has pointed out, another of Ms Trevelyan’s ancestors was Sir Charles Trevelyan – a Victorian colonial administrator who is still loathed in Ireland today for his handling of the famine there in the 1840s. Even though a million people starved to death, Sir Charles said the Irish deserved the famine: it was, he declared, a “punishment from God” for being “idle” and “ungrateful”.
To atone for Sir Charles’s actions, should Ms Trevelyan pay reparations to Ireland, as well? If she does, people from all over the world will be scouring her family tree, eagerly hoping to find that their country too has, at some point in history, been plundered, harmed or at least insulted by a Trevelyan. Even if she doesn’t cough up another penny, though, I’m not sure her donation to Grenada is wise. This is because support for reparations is based on the fashionable progressive notion that the people of today should be held responsible for the crimes of the past. But the notion is absurd. Because by this standard, practically no one on Earth is innocent.
Yes, the British once kept slaves. But does that really mean British people today should be punished for it? If so, should Italians be punished because the Romans took slaves? Should Moroccans be punished because the Barbary pirates took slaves? What about the slavery in ancient India, Babylonia and Mesopotamia? Who will pay reparations for that – and to whom? In some parts of the world, of course, slavery still exists today. Yet for some reason, we don’t seem especially interested in that. We seem to get far more exercised about slaves who are long dead, than slaves who are still alive.
To teach them the virtues of resilience and fortitude, Victorian parents would make their children recite the following saying. “Sticks and stones may break my bones,” it went, “but words will never hurt me.”
In the modern world, of course, such a suggestion would provoke bafflement, if not outright horror. These days, after all, nothing is considered more hurtful than words. Even when the words weren’t intended to hurt.
It comes as no surprise, therefore, to read that Anna Taylor, a “diversity, equity and inclusion champion” at a US tech firm called Phenomenex, has compiled a list of words and phrases that should never be used in the workplace – in case they inadvertently cause offence or distress. She is particularly determined to prohibit the use of what she calls “violent language”: that is, any word that may conjure images of fighting, shooting or death. So, for example, she advises against the use of “jump the gun”, “bite the bullet” and “take a shot in the dark”. She also disapproves of “pick our battles”, “take a stab”, “roll with the punches” and even “deadline”.
Naturally I congratulate Ms Taylor on this extremely important piece of work, which I am certain will be of incalculable benefit to society. I have only one small concern.
Her guide to avoiding offence might itself cause offence.
Instead of the phrase “We’re going to pull the trigger”, Ms Taylor advises us to say, “We’re going to launch.” But “launch” is what missiles do. And missiles are even more dangerous than guns. Therefore, her recommended phrase could cause more distress than the phrase she wants to ban.
She also says that, instead of “deadline”, we should say “due date”. But that could easily upset colleagues who, through no fault of their own, are unable to have children.
Finally, Ms Taylor says that, instead of “kill two birds with one stone”, we should say, “feed two birds with one scone”. But surely this is no better. Feeding birds scone could make them sick. And feeding them as much as half a scone each might even kill them.
Honestly. What a minefield. Although of course we shouldn’t put it like that, because minefields are dangerous, too.
Still, there is one benefit to all this linguistic sensitivity. It means your boss can’t ever sack you. After all, if he says “you’re fired”, you can complain to HR that you’ve been traumatised by this distressing use of violent imagery. Then he’ll get fired for firing you.