• Home
• /
• Shashi Tharoor's World of Words
• /
• Lifestyle

Why you can't 'bury the hatchet' at Stanford

Shashi Tharoor's World of Words is a weekly column on language

---

---

Last week we discussed Stanford University’s “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative”, which has issued a list of words that people should avoid using because they are “ableist”, “ageist” or show “gender bias”.

Since a lot of such terms are used unconsciously, Stanford suggests we be a little more careful in employing them, since they may, even unwittingly, cause hurt or harm to people with disabilities. We examined some of those terms, finding some of Stanford’s strictures less reasonable than others.

Where Stanford goes really over the top is in its list of expressions that must be abandoned because they involve “cultural appropriation”. Culturally appropriative language, the University explains, “misuses terms that hold meaning to a particular culture” in a manner that “often lacks respect or appreciation.”

An example given is to “bury the hatchet”, an expression often used in English to describe a peace settlement, or just two people shaking hands to end a dispute. Stanford disapproves. “Using this term is cultural appropriation of a centuries-old tradition among some North American Indigenous Peoples who buried their tools of war as a symbol of peace.” Excuse me, Stanford, but so what?

All expressions in the language have come from somewhere —some from my culture, some from yours, and some from Native Americans (no one, rightly, calls them “Red Indians” any more, thank God). Who on earth (or under it) is one offending by saying “bury the hatchet”?

Many of us refer to a person, especially one slightly older or somewhat more senior in position, by the term “chief”. It’s semi-jocular, implying friendship, familiarity and yet a degree of respect. Not at Stanford, apparently.

“Calling a non-indigenous person ‘chief’ trivialises both the hereditary and elected chiefs in indigenous communities. Calling an indigenous person ‘chief’ is a slur.” Excuse me while my eyes widen in disbelief.

You can’t describe an enraged person as being “on the warpath” at Stanford; you have to replace the expression with “on the offensive”. Why? Because it’s “cultural appropriation of a term that referred to the route taken by indigenous people heading toward a battle with an enemy.”

Even the colourful popular expression to describe a system without clear leadership — “too many chiefs, not enough Indians” — should be replaced, if Stanford has its way, by saying the establishment in question has “a lack of clear direction” or “too many competing ideas”. Why? Because it “trivialises the structure of indigenous communities.” It does no such thing — it just uses an imaginative metaphor to depict an idea that might sound boringly banal otherwise.

This respect for cultures other than “mainstream” American culture can border on the farcical. Stanford doesn’t want anyone to refer to a junior official as the “low man on the totem pole”. You guessed it: that “trivialises something that is sacred to indigenous peoples.”

But hold on, there’s more: “Also, in some First Nation communities, being low on the totem pole is actually a higher honour than being on top.” And then, almost as an afterthought: “The term also reinforces male-dominated language.” Three strikes, and the low man on the totem pole is out!

Stanford won’t even let me refer to someone as a guru — as in, “on tech matters, he’s my guru”. Tutu-tut, clucks Stanford: “In the Buddhist and Hindu traditions, the word is a sign of respect. Using it casually negates its original value.” Oh, come on!

I genuinely believe that showing sensitivity to people in one’s use of language is generally a good thing, and is often the decent thing to do. But where such attempts to eliminate harmful language go wrong is in denying the possibilities of language itself — its wonderful, eclectic habit of borrowing words, expressions and images from around the world and incorporating them into everyday use, imparting freshness and colour to our conversations.

If Stanford succeeds in getting us to watch our words to the point of self-censorship — and worse still, to incite a new kind of language policing on campus to object disapprovingly to every unintended slur — it will do real damage to the organic process by which languages are used and grow. And English itself will be all the poorer for it — at least at Stanford University.

wknd@khaleejtimes.com

ALSO READ:

• Age has nothing to do with good writing: Shashi Tharoor

• Video: Shashi Tharoor's golden rule for improving vocabulary

• Shashi Tharoor drops yet another word bomb on Twitter

• Lifestyle
• Dubai