Skip to main content

Time to end the pointless 'war on woke'

A protest 'woke' people are likely to attend (Image: The Times)

I feel the word 'woke' needs to be banned. No, not 'woke' as in 'I woke up at 8am', but as in 'You're woke'. It's currently being used a cheap-shot insult towards those who raise issues they care deeply about, and it's being overused with no substance.

Some of you may not be familiar with the new definition of 'woke'. I envy you, but I'll entertain you with an Oxford English Dictionary definition regardless. The Dictionary defines it as "Originally: well-informed, up-to-date. Now, chiefly: alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice." You read that and may easily come up with lots of recent examples - the Black Lives Matter movement, for instance. 

The definition itself isn't the issue. My issue is the way some people lazily overuse it, in a way which downgrades the well-intended meaning. A simple Yahoo search of 'criticism of woke' offers me so many petty stories of people slamming others for their views because it differs from the supposed mainstream. On page one alone, I see actress Olivia Newton-John hit back at claims that musical Grease was 'rapey and racist', the BBC was criticised for adapting classic novels purely for 'diversity-obsessed' viewers, and even Barack Obama - a champion of tackling racial and social injustices - has warned young people about 'woke culture'.

Online news stories that feature comments around 'woke' and 'cancel culture' are increasingly common. The main culprits driving this are the tabloids, of course, but it goes wider - Piers Morgan has published an entire book about it, talkRADIO has a show called 'Plank of the Week' scheduled every Sunday afternoon (targeting activities by 'woke' people) and GB News will feature a segment called 'Wokewatch' when the channel launches later this month. The words are stitched in the public's minds on a daily basis, and often is referred to in a negative way.

Don't get me wrong; I look at some of the stories and think, "Don't be silly, Grease isn't racist, what are you on about? Political correctness has gone mad." I remember seeing a story about how the hit TV sitcom Friends' had transphobia, sexism and 'fat shaming' references, and I scratched my head thinking; the show was always a positive influence on the 90s generation and it was incredibly hilarious and inoffensive. But looking closer at that particular story, the angle is based on a small number of social media posts. This is a cheap journalistic tactic, attempting to attract attention and stir the pot, even if there aren't any pots to stir. This has always worked for reporters - even pre-internet - yet, is inflated because of the wild digital world we live in.

It is tiring to read these stories. What happened to a civil debate where arguments are met with friendly disagreements and no personal attacks? How does being 'woke' not equal to common sense? Does Piers Morgan really have more common sense than Meghan Markle and Prince Harry? He doesn't call them 'woke' because of their personal and admirable quest to ending racism and mental health stigma. He calls them 'woke' because he feels they're approaching their quest in a way that breaks away from tradition. Morgan is perfectly entitled to do this, and of course, many agree with him. But if Prince Harry feels as though he has to express his psychological pains through the platforms he uses, nobody should stop him either. The same rule applies to Naomi Osaka, the tennis champion who had to back out of the French Open for speaking out against doing press conferences as it had impacted on her mental health. Morgan called her "an arrogant spoiled brat", but why personally attack her when she shouldn't be forced to do something she is uncomfortable with?

We need to remember that as years go by, so does the times. In the 1950s and 60s, black people were segregated from white people, and the thought of changing this at the time sounded abhorrent to so many people. But the likes of Martin Luther King pushed ahead and the situation has improved greatly today due to the sacrifices he and other campaigners made. King, in the Oxford English Dictionary sense of the word, is 'woke' and he had common sense in bucket loads. Racism isn't tolerated in mainstream society today. Decades from now, we'll see people's ideals we see as crazy today, will be normal then. And we will accept it the same way as society gradually and openly accepted integration of races in the 1960s and beyond.

I'll put it this way to those who are so-called 'anti-woke' - the champion for 'common sense' was Margaret Thatcher. While I wouldn't want to imagine what she'd think of those who are 'woke' as she's no longer with us and I rather not speculate what the dead would say about things that they're unaware of. But, the 'no-nonsense' former Prime Minister, who wasn't known for championing political correctness, did say this; "If they attack you personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." I suggest those who call people 'woke' in a flippant way, should take a leaf out of her book on this occasion. 

Let's be honest - we all have opinions that we're convinced are true and nobody else's alternative views matter. Everyone has a passion that's close to their hearts, no matter how big or small. But there are very few things that are unique to an individual, which include feelings, hunches and decisions. Who are we to deny a person who see the world differently to us? Who are we to criticise the way someone else feels psychologically or physically? Unless that person has a genuine diagnosis which a key symptom is compulsive lying, we can't allow ourselves to believe we know better than another when it comes to how that other person chooses to live or feel. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Splitting Britain to its eventual death

Londoner Mo Farah and Sheffield-born Jessica Ennis-Hill set to see their cities drift away from Westminster bubble (Image: Daily Mail) I don't know about you, but I'm loving this year's Olympics. The daunting talk about Brazil's corrupt politics, high levels of extreme poverty and the doping scandal are secondary topics for discussion while the spectacular sporting action and country's tourism boost are dominating headlines. But for me, I've been particularly impressed by UK's togetherness in pride for Team GB's overwhelming success so far. The country's dominance in rowing and cycling is something worth celebrating and hopefully they can provide a new wave of inspiration for many that London 2012 sadly couldn't. With Team GB continuing to shine in Rio de Janeiro, it's a big shame that back at home, political leaders are going out of their way in breaking up the country. In this rate, come Tokyo 2020 Olympics or whoever hosts the 2

Sepp Blatter mustn't resign, yet

Fifa President has to clean-up his mess before deciding to leave Living in Blatter-land World football governing body, Fifa's President Sepp Blatter has been under the spotlight for the second consecutive week and again for all the wrong reasons. Last week he banned British isle national sides from wearing a poppy branding the flower "political" but this time around, on countless interviews with major broadcasting companies yesterday, he controversially said that "there is no racism in football" and if racism occurred in a match, then players involved must handshake at the end of the game. This has sparked anger across the world of football including hierarchies of the English Professional Football Association (PFA), football players such as Manchester United's Rio Ferdinand and pundits alike. After hearing those comments by Blatter, people such as myself would bang our heads on brick walls. Today, the 75-year-old went to clarify his previous afterno

Settling the transgender debate like grown-ups

Flag that represents the trans community (Image: The Age) The 'transgender debate' has been hard to escape in recent years. It's impacting many areas of our lives, including in schools , work and sport . Sadly, the media narrative of these stories has made it impossible to rationally discuss how to best support people who have decided to make this life-changing decision, or how to assure their 'opponents' that they aren't being cast aside, or their rights have been taken from them. I'll try and analyse this as level-headed as possible and conclude what we (UK as a whole) should be doing, as a way of being a world leader on what is seen as a divisive matter, where it ought not to be. The current narrative is arguably led by two very different sides - one, the so-called 'pro-trans' groups, who combatively argue that people who want to transition should have easy access to basically everything; from legally changing their gender, to requiring advanced