Recolonized English
The recent trend of adding words such as broughtupsy and carry-go-bring-come—terms originating from Jamaican dialect into the Oxford English Dictionary represents a significant degradation of the English language. While dictionaries are, by their nature, descriptive rather than prescriptive, the deliberate inclusion of colloquialisms over abstract, sophisticated, and idea-laden words signals a shift in what is considered “worthy” of codification. Language is not merely a collection of utterances; it is a repository of thought, culture, and intellectual heritage. To elevate playful slang to the same status as words that articulate nuanced concepts undermines the capacity of English to serve as a vehicle for complex ideas.
Unfortunately, this shift in the dictionary is part of a broader ideological project: the decolonisation of the English language. Advocates claim that including dialects, slang, and non-European expressions corrects historical imbalances and amplifies marginalized voices. In practice, it dilutes English’s cultural and intellectual heritage. No similar campaigns target Japanese, Mandarin, or other major non-Western languages, which retain vocabulary tied to centuries of cultural and philosophical achievement. Only European languages like English are being transformed so that they no longer reflects the ideas and contributions of their historical custodians. The selective focus of this movement betrays both ideological bias and cultural inconsistency.
Similarly, this ideological intrusion extends into academia. Disciplinary content is increasingly subordinated to political messaging rather than knowledge. Geography courses routinely emphasize patriarchy and homophobia—issues largely irrelevant to physical landscapes, urban planning, environmental systems, or human migration. Computing courses now discuss colonial hierarchies when the focus should be on algorithms, programming languages, and problem-solving techniques. Science courses often present indigenous ways of knowing as equivalent to empirical methodology or stress alleged historical racism in research. Indigenous cultural practices may be significant in understanding societies but are not science. Presenting them as comparable to empirical principles undermines the integrity of disciplines grounded in observation, experimentation, and reproducibility. Physics, chemistry, and biology operate on universal laws; they cannot be “decolonised” without discarding their foundations.
Furthermore, the attack on the Western intellectual canon complements these academic distortions. Figures such as Newton, Locke, Kant, and Hume are often portrayed as symbols of oppression rather than as foundational thinkers. The insistence on avoiding engagement with “dead white males” is both absurd and harmful. These philosophers and scientists developed frameworks underpinning modern law, governance, science, and philosophy. Western thinkers are essential to education and intellectual development. While students may object to studying them, dismantling or diminishing the canon undermines intellectual rigor, erodes critical thinking, and impoverishes scholarship.
Together, these trends demonstrate a consistent pattern: English language and academic disciplines are being reshaped to prioritize ideology over knowledge, identity over intellect, and cultural trends over enduring ideas. Slang from Jamaican dialect, identity-driven vocabulary, and ephemeral cultural expressions may have a place in conversation or entertainment, but they do not belong in dictionaries or academic institutions as symbols of intellectual legitimacy. Geography and computing courses, as well as science curricula, should focus on their respective disciplinary content rather than serving as platforms for political indoctrination. English should facilitate rigorous thought, and disciplines should transmit knowledge based on evidence and methodology.
The consequences of these trends are serious. If slang and identity-driven expressions continue to supplant words capable of conveying abstract thought, future generations will inherit a language less precise, subtle, and analytically capable. Students will be evaluated on political alignment rather than mastery of subject matter, and scholarship will become a vehicle for social engineering rather than intellectual progress. The degradation of language and education undermines the capacity for critical reasoning and complex thought, leaving both culture and intellect impoverished.
Preserving English, the Western canon, and rigorous academic disciplines is not nostalgia; it is a defense of rational thought, cultural continuity, and human progress. Those who object to studying traditional Western thinkers are free to pursue alternative paths, but imposing ideological litmus tests on language, scholarship, and education weakens both reasoning and culture. English and its intellectual heritage deserve better than this.