Part 2: Welcome to Planet Woke

"If the facts embarrass your ideology, then the problem is your ideology, not the facts."
Kemi Badenoch

"Woke" is a very strange word. Does anyone even really know what it means? How did a word which is actually a verb tense come to be used as both an adjective and a noun?
What it means depends very much on whom you ask! Its proponents commonly define it to mean "alert to social injustices", and presumably the desire to put them right. To its opponents, however, it has come to be used as a derogatory term - like "political correctness" before it - to mean the culture of taking such a concept to ridiculous extremes, and people with holier-than-thou attitudes trying to impose their own opinions and ideology onto everyone else - frequently in ways which contradict logic and common sense. I make no secret of being one of the latter!
In my country, and indeed in much of the western world, "woke" culture now pervades almost every aspect of society, and intrudes into all our lives. It's particularly prevalent among younger generations, especially those of so-called "Gen Z". ( I have no idea how or why the trend of labelling age groups with silly names originated. ) They witter on ad nauseam about "tolerance" and "respect", while they are in fact completely, 100% intolerant of anyone who dares to disagree with their views!
In this part, I'll look at several aspects of this madness. Once again, if anyone is offended - tough!

4. The Culture of Censorship

Elsewhere on this site, in my essay "Please can we have our language back?", I've written about the Orwellian mutilation of the English language in the name of political correctness. I've also written, in "Is it OK to laugh now?", about how the "woke" brigade now dictate to the rest of us what we are allowed to find funny, such that many of the best loved TV comedies of a few decades ago will never be shown again.
Now, however, we in the UK have had a culture of censorship imposed on us which goes far beyond banning old TV programmes, and adding stupid warnings to those which are still shown, and to extremes which wouldn't be out of place in China or North Korea! We now have a society in which it's considered necessary to "sanitise" classic children's books, and a household name company changed the name of a product in response to a single person complaining.


4.1. "Trigger warnings"

This bizarre term comes from the assumption that sensitive people may be upset, or "triggered", by any language, or any mention of anything, which they consider offensive. It's now being applied to every aspect of entertainment, and even to education.
Many old TV dramas, which are shown again in the present day, are preceded by warnings that the programme contains "language of the time, which some viewers may find offensive". The same applies to historical dramas made in the present day; it usually refers to racial language, or other kinds of discriminatory language, which is considered offensive today, but was considered acceptable in the time being portrayed, and without which the drama would make no sense. As an obvious example, imagine making a drama about the civil rights movement in 1960s America, without having characters use the racist language which was routinely used at the time; that would be utterly nonsensical!
As mentioned above, many of the best loved TV comedy shows of the past will never be shown again, as the woke brigade have decided that they were "offensive", and somehow grant themselves the right to speak for everyone else.
An obvious example is the 1970s sitcom Love Thy Neighbour, which people too young to have ever seen it whine about incessantly. Yes, it included frequent racial name-calling - in both directions; the black character gave back as good as he got - but the haters invariably miss the entire point, that the racist character was the idiot, and always got his come-uppance!
Even much of the material of the much loved Two Ronnies would no longer be allowed now; thankfully, a lot of it has been preserved on YouTube.
Those old comedies which are still shown are now nearly always preceded with ridiculous and irritating "warnings" about "outdated language" or "discriminatory language", "which some viewers may find upsetting". This reached a whole new level of idiocy when the BBC began applying such a warning to the most loved sitcom of all time, Dad's Army! Is anyone really so feeble as to be upset or offended by "the fuzzy-wuzzies"?
There are now many cases of theatres attaching "trigger warnings" to stage plays, including those of Shakespeare. One theatre actually considered it necessary to warn audiences that Romeo and Juliet depicts suicide... Can there possibly be a person in the English-speaking world, above the age of about 12, who doesn't know that? And similarly, that Julius Caesar depicts murder.
It has also become commonplace for university lecturers to attach "trigger warnings" to any lectures which contain material which might "trigger" mollycoddled and over-sensitive students. I would suggest, for example, that if someone can't cope with the fact that horrible things happened in the past, then perhaps they shouldn't be studying history, or if they can't cope with the fact that people used offensive racial language in the past, then perhaps they shouldn't be studying English literature...
Returning to TV, I read about a particularly daft example a few years ago. In my opinion, one of the funniest films ever made is Mel Brooks' spoof western comedy Blazing Saddles, made in 1974. Even at the time, it was considered quite outrageous. I'm amazed that it's still allowed to be shown on TV today, due to its liberal use of racist language - but again, the whole point is that the racists are shown to be idiots, and the black sheriff wins them over and becomes the hero.
The film was shown on some American TV channel, and was preceded by a university professor ( professor of what, I can't remember ) explaining to viewers that "while the film contains offensive racist language and attitudes, the racists are portrayed as fools, and the dialogue between the two main characters indicates a far more enlightened outlook".
To put it another way, they hired a professor to explain the concept of satire to people too thick to understand it!


4.2. "Protecting" children - from what?

While old TV programmes are merely given silly warnings about their content, the same sadly doesn't apply to old books. Within the publishing industry in recent years, an entire culture of censorship has arisen, whereby publishers take it on themselves to "sanitise" new editions of classic and popular books from earlier times, to remove "outdated" language which someone arbitrarily decides is "offensive" or "problematic". They have invented a whole new profession of so-called "sensitivity readers", whose job is to decide what language needs to be removed or changed.
But hang on... If someone "rewrites" a book, then it no longer is the same book, is it? It's no longer the original author's work. Apart from which, every book is a product of the time in which it was written, and obviously reflects the language and culture of that time. Just as with TV programmes or anything else, judging old books by today's standards is absurd.
Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the world of children's books - which by definition, don't usually tend to contain any offensive language! But in many cases, the woke brigade have their own definition of "offensive", which makes no sense to the rest of us.
Decades ago now, they campaigned to ban innocent children's fairy tales - such as Snow White, because the word "dwarves" is offensive. More recently, some have tried to ban Sleeping Beauty, because... wait for it... the prince kisses her without her consent!
There have been numerous cases, in the last few years, of publishers "sanitising" classic children's books, for little or no rational reason. A notable example, which has been well publicised, is the editing of Roald Dahl's popular stories, to replace such supposedly "offensive" words as "fat" and "ugly"! Yes, really!
Presumably, in the Cloud Cuckoo Land of these people, Cinderella will now have the Two Not Particularly Attractive Sisters! Not to mention "There once was a not particularly attractive duckling..." ( Thanks to my friend Tim Spencer for thinking of that latter gem. )
There have also been many cases of libraries removing popular children's books, which someone arbitrarily decides are no longer "appropriate". In a particularly baffling case, one library removed Enid Blyton's Famous Five series from the shelves of its children's section - though they are still kept in storage, and can be borrowed at the request of parents. You may very well ask, what could conceivably be "offensive" or "inappropriate" about the language of Enid Blyton?
The answer is that the books contain "outdated language", which some of today's children, supposedly, "may find upsetting". Examples given were "Oh, shut up!" and "Don’t be an idiot!" I wish I was joking!!!
So let's see... Many, if not most, of today's children, brought up by foul-mouthed parents, and listening to expletive-laden so-called "music", know and use every swear word in the English language by the age of about eight - but someone thinks they need to be "protected" from language such as the above... Go figure!!!
( Of course, those books would be incomprehensible to today's children anyway, and even to their parents - because the concept of a group of children being allowed to go off walking and camping without adult supervision is now utterly alien and unimaginable! Parents who, fifty years ago, would have been ridiculed as over-protective and mollycoddling, would be regarded as reckless and irresponsible now. Childhood as my generation knew it has long since ceased to exist! )
Just last week, as I'm writing this, it has been reported that a school in Manchester has removed nearly 200 books from its library, which someone decided were "inappropriate". One of those removed was George Orwell’s 1984; can they actually not see the irony in banning that?
Someone had decided to remove all books "which were not written for children"! So they are saying that 16-year-olds should not be allowed to read books which were written for adults! But haven't secondary school children always been required to read and analyse "adult" books in English classes? In my day, both 1984 and Animal Farm were compulsory reading.
So how are those kids ever going to take English Literature exams? Assuming, that is, that such exams even still exist; I have no idea what they are taught these days!
The school's librarian resigned over what she was told to do, and was subsequently subjected to a "safeguarding investigation" - meaning she can never work in a school again - for having "allowed" the books in the first place, despite the fact that most of them had probably been there for many years before the lady got the job!
Apparently, someone used "an AI tool" to determine which books were considered inappropriate. I would suggest that "tool" is an appropriate word for the humans involved!


4.3. What's in a name?

There is an ongoing nationwide campaign in the UK, to change a multitude of names of streets, buildings and landmarks, which the woke brigade consider offensive. Most notably, they want to rename every street or building which is named in honour of any historical person who had any slightest connection with the transatlantic slave trade of the 18th and 19th Centuries - because we are all now expected to feel "guilt" for what our ancestors did centuries ago.
Of course the slave trade was terrible - but we need to learn from history, not erase it! Slavery had existed for thousands of years, in many parts of the world, before Britain became involved in it - and Britain was notably the first nation to abolish it. We can’t simply pretend that horrible things didn’t happen!
This also extends to changing names which are considered racist, sexist or offensive in any other way. But sometimes, the supposedly offensive connotation is completely false. There's a Victorian street somewhere in London, which used to be called Black Boy Lane; someone decided that was offensive, and the council renamed it, in honour of some prominent black person associated with the area. Yet the signs with the new name still state below it, "Formerly known as Black Boy Lane". Doesn't that sort of defeat the object?
But as a local historian pointed out - somewhat unnecessarily - the old name had nothing to do with race! Think about it - a Victorian street in London, named Black Boy Lane... What would you logically think it was named after? Chimney sweeps, perhaps!
In a village in Derbyshire, there's a pub named The Black Boy, which hasn't yet been forced to change its name. Again, this has nothing to do with race; it's a former mining area, and the name comes from when they used to send young boys down coal mines!
This trend has even extended to products. A couple of years ago, Marks and Spencer changed the name of a brand of sweets named "Midget Gems" - because one person complained that it was offensive! ( It was renamed "Mini-Gems". )
Soon after that, a pub in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, named The Midget, also had its name changed, in response to a petition raised by that same person. The pub was named after the famous MG Midget sports car, which was built in Abingdon between 1961 and 1979; in fact, it's also situated in a road named Midget Close. ( I don't know whether the same person also petitioned the council to change the name of the road. )
While around 1000 people signed the petition to change the pub's name, 2700 signed a counter-petition to keep it, rightly saying the name is a vital part of the town's heritage. But of course, the parent company changed it anyway.
But it’s a bit too late to do anything about the name of the car!
Perhaps that same person will demand that history books about the Second World War be revised, to remove mention of the famous "midget submarines" which were used to sink the Tirpitz...


4.4. "Cancel culture"

I've said earlier ( Section 2.5 ) that people can now lose their jobs for saying a word out of place. This doesn't only apply to ordinary people, but also to those in the public eye. There have been many cases in the last few years of "celebrities" ( I always put that word in quotes, because 90% of people to whom it's applied these days have done precisely nothing to merit it ) suddenly falling out of favour - or being "cancelled", to use the favoured term of the woke - because they say the wrong thing.
Suppose a TV presenter, or a comedian ( another word which I now use very lightly, when referring to those of the current time ), makes a comment, or tells a joke, which someone somewhere decides is offensive. It might literally be a single person who complains, but that person does so on (anti)social media. Then many more, who might not even have heard the comment, jump on the bandwagon and vilify the "celebrity". The TV bosses then decide that the "celebrity" is too much of a risk, and he or she is dropped or sacked. A person's career can be destroyed, and their livelihood wiped out, virtually overnight, because they said - sometimes literally - a single word which someone didn't like!
In some cases, this can happen because someone somehow discovers that a "celebrity" once said something "offensive" years ago, before anyone had heard of them - perhaps something which wasn't even considered offensive at the time they said it, but has recently been deemed as such by Generation Offended.
Presumably in attempts to prevent this happening, many minor "celebrities" have made whining, self-pitying and thoroughly cringe-worthy public apologies, for anything they have ever said or done in the past, which could conceivably be construed as racist. This has gone to an absurd extreme, with a number of British so-called "comedians" apologising for telling Irish jokes! Does it actually not occur to them that almost all Irish jokes are originated by Irish comedians? One such, who is himself of an ethnic minority, has even made a grovelling apology for the fact that he once told some Irish jokes... in a children's talent contest at Butlins, when he was nine years old!
I recently read about a case where this was taken to a whole new extreme of idiocy. One comedian ( well, allegedly, that's what he is ) said that after one of his stage shows, one person in the audience called the police, because they were offended by one of his jokes! Even more absurdly, the police actually followed it up and interviewed him, before concluding that he had done nothing wrong.
Apparently, young people of "Gen Z" also apply this "cancel culture" to their own personal lives. Some survey, a couple of years ago, found that more than half of "young adults" - but without specifying an age range, thereby rendering the phrase pretty meaningless - said that they had fallen out with, or "cancelled", a friend over a difference in opinion. To me, this is perhaps the most pathetic aspect of the entire "woke" culture! When someone whom they consider a friend dares to disagree with them, instead of having a civilised discussion about the subject, or simply agreeing to differ, they scream "You're cancelled!", and refuse to speak to their ( former ) friend again! To put it another way, they behave like sulking five-year-olds.
Maybe that's why they are all so intolerant of others' views - because they each restrict their circle of friends to an echo chamber of people who think exactly as they do!
It becomes far more serious, and sinister, when "cancel culture" impacts education. We now have the bizarre phenomenon of free speech being stifled in the places where one would most hope and expect to see it flourish - universities! There have been many cases of university lecturers getting into serious trouble, and in some cases sacked, because a handful of students object to something they said or taught. In other cases, they have been banned from carrying out perfectly legitimate research in their fields, which someone decides is controversial or "problematic".
Some universities - or in some cases, their Students' Unions - have banned prominent people - academics, politicians, writers, etc. - from speaking on their campuses, because they hold controversial views. This is known as "de-platforming", as those people are denied a "platform" on which to express their views.
If a university doesn't permit freedom of speech, or academic freedom of study or research, then it no longer has any right to call itself a university!
Perhaps the most bizarre example concerns the Student Debating and Political Society of Bangor University in Wales - which is affiliated with the Students' Union, not the university itself. It recently refused to allow a Reform UK MP and one of the party's campaigners to speak to students, citing a policy of "zero tolerance for any form of racism, transphobia or homophobia displayed by the members of Reform UK". ( The MP is the one who was vilified and branded a racist, for daring to state an indisputable fact about the over-representation of ethnic minorities on TV. ) The society subsequently declared that no member of the Reform party will be welcome.
Both the university and the Students' Union distanced themselves from this decision, the former saying it "welcomes debate across the political spectrum", and the latter that it "remains politically neutral and supports freedom of speech within the law".
I struggle to think of anything more absurd than a "debating society" banning someone from speaking! Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of its existence? A debating society which doesn't permit debate - you couldn't make it up!


4.5. "Cultural appropriation"

A couple of years ago, a white British actress made a whining public apology, because at the age of 18, before anyone had heard of her, she had done something which she now realised was terrible. Her "offence"... she had worn a hairstyle which is traditionally worn by black women!
This is an example of another ridiculous concept invented by the woke brigade, which they call "cultural appropriation". What that means in English is that it's "inappropriate" or "offensive" for people of one culture to imitate fashions - of hairstyles, clothes, jewellery, etc. - which are traditionally associated with another culture. This even includes fancy dress; at least one university Students' Union has declared that at fancy dress parties, no-one is allowed to wear costumes representative of another nationality, culture or ethnic group!
Another university banned a group of people from its campus, because they were wearing Mexican sombreros... to advertise a Mexican restaurant!
Around 30 years ago, a boxer from Manchester went by the name of Michael Gomez; his real name was the same as that of another boxer who was fighting at the same time, so he adopted a ring name in honour of his boxing hero. He wore the Mexican flag on his shorts, and used to enter the ring wearing a sombrero. Similarly, his group of loyal fans, who attended all his fights, used to wear silly multi-coloured sombreros.
But today, presumably, their utterly harmless bit of fun would be banned!
There are a few cases where this makes sense. For example, if an item of clothing or jewellery has religious significance in a particular culture, then it isn't appropriate for people not of that religion to wear it simply as fashion. After all, a Christian might be offended if someone who isn't one was to wear a crucifix. And Native Americans rightly object to other people wearing their traditional headdresses as fancy dress - because in their culture, the headdress is a symbol of a warrior's status, and has to be earned. Just as it isn't appropriate for someone to wear a military uniform or a medal to which they are not entitled. But I completely fail to see what's wrong with wearing something as fashion, which is nothing more than that in the culture in which it originates.
That aforementioned Students’ Union decided that “cowboys and Indians” costumes are not allowed. The “Indians” part makes some sense in view of the above, but I have no idea what is supposed to be offensive about someone dressing as a cowboy!
Does it actually not occur to these people that in many countries, which are popular tourist destinations, there are entire industries of selling traditional items of clothing, jewellery, etc. to tourists! So the local people obviously don't think it's offensive, and are happy to take the tourists' money.
I own some traditional African-style shirts from Kenya, which are very comfortable in hot weather - but according to the woke, I'm being racist if I wear them! But my girlfriend of many years, who is from Kenya, clearly doesn't think so, because she gave me the shirts!
It goes without saying that, as always in such things, this only applies one way! What it actually means in practice is that it's offensive for white people to imitate the fashions of other cultures. That is, a handful of white people have decided that it's offensive for other white people to do so. But the other way around is perfectly OK! Many African women now wear hairstyles which are common among white women, and many Japanese women have adopted the distinctly western fashion of dying their hair blonde or silly colours. People in almost every other part of the world wear European/American style casual clothes, such as jeans and T-shirts, while men wear western-style suits and ties for work.
As usual, hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Just after I initially wrote this section, this barmy concept has been used in a TV crime drama. One character, a young woman employed by the police in a civilian role, was found to have been giving away sensitive information to a journalist. When caught, she tearfully confessed that she had been blackmailed... over the fact that as a student, she had once worn a Pocahontas costume as fancy dress! A middle-aged police officer, when shown the "incriminating" photo, said "I don’t even know what I'm looking at!"
Of course, this was a work of fiction, and one in which the entire story was utterly ridiculous. But the point is that we now have a society in which it's possible to imagine something so petty being used for blackmail!

Previous page Next page

Return to Contents