Power, History, Memory and Colonialism

• Does language hold power? 

Language is very powerful and it is dependent on how we use it. Though words are often used without much thought and can be taken lightly, they have the power to be meaningful if we use them for clear intent, for example. There are many forms of language whether that is oral, manual or tactile. In an article about “The Power of Language How Words Shape People Culture“, Alex Shashkevich mentions that the “slightest differences in language use can correspond with biased beliefs of the speakers” which reflects that we unintentionally use certain words and phrases and we can also be influenced by others use of wording and therefore language plays a big role in the way we observe and view the world.

Buulding on to the information in the article, language can be used powerfully, both positively and negatively. For instance, we can use language to be persuasive or encouraging but we can also use it to be manipulative. At the same time languages provide a medium of communication across the world. There are certain languages that are used more commonly in one country which allows locals and tourists to identify and use that language. At the same time, there are nonverbal languages such as sign language which can essentially be a medium of communication for everyone and it provides an opportunity to connect with possibly anyone in the world.

• Is changing names ‘erasing history’?

In an article called “In Debate Over Names, History and Race Relations Collide“, The Harvard Crimson Staff Writers, (Andrew M. Duehren and Daphne C. Thompson) share that until recently, “Their [Mather, Brattle, Holyoke] histories—as slaveholders—have largely been overlooked since the buildings were erected and streets paved.” which relates to issues outside of Harvard as well. It is not just changing names of streets or buildings but also tearing down monumental and historical statues. Many believe that naming buildings and streets after those associated with the legacy of slavery, for example, should be changed and this can be controversial because others argue that by doing this, we may be erasing or undermining the impact of certain historical figures.

On one hand, a street named after a historical figure that was a slaveholder should be changed because it gives importance to that figure and additionally, it can be interpreted as honouring that person for their positive impact on society while ignoring their involvement with racial issues. A recent example of this is with the George Floyd case. He died in a police arrest on the 25th of May 2020 and as a result, there were countless protests, cases of looting and fires against police brutality. During this time, many controversial monuments and memorials were vandalized or torn down by protestors. In addition, controversial names, mascots, and other forms of symbolism were changed because of increasing public pressure. One example of changing names is  Buchanan Street. It is named after Andrew Buchanan (owner of plantations in Virginia), and it was recently “renamed” to George Floyd Street. Though this was technically unofficial, it reflects progress being made towards racial issues.

On the other hand, it can be argued that changing street names and even tearing down statues should not be done. For instance, those monuments and names are in place because that individual did something to earn/achieve it at the time. Taking the same example of Andrew Buchanan, although he was one of Glasgow’s “Tobacco Lords” that operated with slave labour, the street was named after him because he “made his fortune thanks to Glasgow’s reputation as the Second City of the Empire” and was “one of the city’s most successful tobacco merchants” (Newsroom, 2017). They celebrated his success while they ignored the fact that he used slave labour to operate and this is because, at the time, this was seen as acceptable to the public.

• Should we adapt the way we talk to make people feel included?

In my opinion, there are multiple ways that we can adapt the way we talk to make others feel included. This is mostly dependent on the person(s) we are talking to. Whether it is a subconscious or conscious action, we may mirror their gestures or even match their vocabulary, tone or accent. People do this for various reasons and one of those reasons may be, to be inclusive. From the speaker’s point of view, they may change their accent in certain situations to possibly make the other(s) individual(s) feel more comfortable. One example is a student from a Singaporean international school using a developed American accent with friends but later using a Singlish accent and vocabulary at a hawker centre.

The political cartoon above represents a common and obvious depiction of the issue. One side may think they are being inclusive by adapting to the other’s accent/vocabulary but the other individual perceives it as a poor attempt at speaking that language. It is almost as if they do not care how they (the person on the left) is speaking and that they did not need to try to learn Singlish just to interact with them. I believe that this action can be perceived differently in the sense that though he speaks Singlish to be inclusive of the man on the right, he is trying to fit in doing so for himself.

In conclusion, I think that it is not necessary to change the way we talk to be inclusive and in fact, we should only use certain phrases/words as it can be a sign of respect. I find that changing the way we talk can also be offensive to others. By mispronouncing words/phrases and obviously trying to fit in and be inclusive, it can seem offensive because it may suggest that you think that they will not understand you if you spoke how you normally would.