It seems quite common today to encounter attempts by various groups to change longstanding definitions of important words, or simply to confuse our historic understanding of various terms. British author George Orwell, a socialist, warned us of this practice (which he labeled “Newspeak”) in his famous novel 1984. To some, the efforts to re-define (or to confuse) words and phrases are intended to change our culture and our way of thinking. To others, it is a political strategy, which attempts to move people to the Left-hand side of the political spectrum.
The following are some important basic terms that have been targeted by this strategy.
Equality
Equality is the idea that all persons possess substantially the same rights, privileges, and immunities, and are liable to substantially the same duties. As understood by those who founded our country, it is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain property created through one’s own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law.
To the revisionists, equality does not necessarily mean equal. In fact, in the revised sense of the term, it appears that some are more equal than others. To illustrate, we know that when balancing the rights of pregnant mothers and unborn children (who without question are both human and alive during their time spent in the womb), these children are not considered as equals and have no rights. However, rather than attempting a simple redefinition of the word “equality,” their carefully crafted strategy seeks to replace the concept—as something we should strive for—with an entirely different word, “equity,” along with a remaking of its historical understanding (see below).
Equity
The longstanding historic definition of equity is justice administered according to fairness. It is based on a system of rules and principles which originated in England as an alternative to the somewhat harsh rules of common law (i.e., law that is stated in written opinions), and which were based on what was fair in all particular situations. The concept of equity is not the same as, and should not be confused with, perfection.
The revised definition of “equity” that is being imposed on us by modern thinkers is meant to describe a situation where all born persons (i.e., acknowledging that the unborn are excluded by their definition) receive the same amount. Such a result was never intended by those who founded our country. Rather, the modern definition of “equity” looks, smells, and feels, entirely consistent with the ideas of Marxism, Communism, and Socialism. In its new meaning, “equity” requires our government to treat citizens unequally, such that it is essentially the inverse of our historic understanding of equality.
Diversity
Diversity is the practice of including or involving people from a range of different genders, ages, and social/ethnic backgrounds. This, of course, makes complete sense to most of us as a strategy intended to create excellence by including as many perspectives and viewpoints as possible.
To some, however, the diversity argument has become an argument/agenda for the permanence of race and identity, rather than the purposeful inclusion of diverse backgrounds. To the revisionists, the term “diversity” is used exclusively for the promotion of certain favored groups. Diversity (along with the similarly modified concepts of “equity” and “inclusion”), as per its new anti-inclusive definition, appears to have become a liberal/progressive virtue. Instead of a means to include persons that may have been previously excluded, the new “diversity” has become a way to exclude persons previously included.
Racism/racist
Prior to racism being redefined over the last few decades as involving both prejudice and power (as part of the Marxist agenda), racism had long been understood as prejudice and discrimination based on race.
More recently, attempts have been made to redefine the word racism to now mean any disparity observed along racial lines (from their perspective). Furthermore, a noted “anti-racist” from the Left, Ibram X. Kendi, has promoted the idea of using discrimination to battle racism. Going even further, some modernists have argued that racism is a one-way street, and that prejudice can only be perpetrated by some and not others. So, it would seem, modern-thinking revisionists are intent on “fixing” racism by “doubling down” (i.e., by imposing discrimination and injustice on “steroids”).
Gender
The term “gender” has, until only recently, always referred to one’s biological sex (i.e., man or woman), a purely scientific concept.
The modern, revised definition of gender, on the other hand, says that men can be women, and women can be men. To some, gender has somehow become a fluid “state of mind” with ever-changing possibilities (and it appears the argument I can recall from a few years back, that people are born with a certain mindset that may conflict with their biological sex, has now been abandoned). The relatively new concept of “gender identity” seeks to remove biological sex (male or female) from the term. From those who have insisted that we “follow the science,” the science of biology has been replaced instead with the non-scientific concept of “identity” (note: it is non-scientific for the simple reason that it cannot be scientifically proven).
Fundamental rights
Fundamental rights are those that have their origin in the specific rights listed and identified in the Constitution and our Declaration of Independence. As we have understood as Americans, all persons should have the same fundamental rights. These fundamental rights include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (necessarily in that order, since without life the other two become meaningless), as well as the rights contained in the Bill of Rights (freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc.).
While ignoring the fundamental rights of some (i.e., the right to life for the unborn/pre-born), and appearing to abandon or minimize other important rights (free speech and freedom of religion are two of the obvious recent examples), modern thinkers have at the same time fought hard to identify and create entirely new “fundamental” rights, such as the right to abortion (through Roe v. Wade) and the right to make or view pornography. In other words, it would appear to the revisionists that our fundamental rights are not really all that "fundamental," but in fact seem to change over time. How then can we possibly know what these rights are (and which ones are no longer fundamental)? Not to worry, however; I expect we can count of them to let us know…
Freedom
Freedom is the strength of character to do what is good, true, noble, and right. The key to freedom is discipline. While those unfamiliar with world history may not be aware, freedom for individuals is the exception in the world and not the rule. The opposite of freedom is tyranny.
To modernists, freedom has been redefined as an open-ended sense of autonomy that permits the ability to do whatever one wants (as long as what you want to do is approved by them). These modern thinkers do not seem to appreciate that if everyone did as they wanted, chaos would result, and society would crumble. In actuality, the new “revolution” sought by the revisionists necessarily requires that individual freedom be crushed, for the purpose of achieving the “social justice” that it seeks.
So there we are; it would seem that Orwell’s fictional “Newspeak” has now become a reality in America. In case you might be worried after reading all the above, I agree.
We are in trouble.
My Advice: Stand your Ground (and Never Give In)
To understand the position of these revolutionary revisionists on any of these terms, sometimes it is helpful to think of the polar opposite of the concept that is being considered. When you hear or are discussing any of the terms above, seek to recall its longstanding historic definition. Push back on all attempts to use any of the above words incorrectly, or to change the meaning of any of these terms, particularly when the change is intended to move to an opposite position (as it is in most cases).
While I agree that all persons should have the freedom to think and feel however they want, including Communists, Marxists, Socialists and others who are seeking “utopia” (or possibly unintentionally, totalitarianism), what should not be tolerated is trickery and subterfuge, with the intended goal of changing the country against the will of its citizens.