An excellent article Stephen (I wish you had added 'left' and 'right' to your list of misleading terms).

One problem would arise, however, if we did what you suggest: a large number of bloggers and political commentators would be bereft. If you took away those words, they would have to think - or stop writing. No, too hard!

Great ideas. A few other suggestions.

Remove the word "elite", currently used to denigrate, without addressing their argument, anyone who thinks alternatively to the actual ruling group (themselves an elite).

Remove the word "academic", also used to dismiss the views of people who may have done significant research and thinking on a subject, rather than just relying on gut reaction and prejudice.

“Let “racist” and “racism” join “race” in our rubbish bin.”

Excellent idea. Leaving aside the idea of some that there is no such thing as “race” (a bit confusing after all these years), the word “racist” and “racism” – especially when they are used incorrectly in most cases – should have been binned decades ago.

Ignoring the obvious – that people are different colours – is going a bit far, though. Flesh colours suit the climates where people originally lived. That’s why we white fellas burn and suffer from skin cancer. We were meant to stay in the northern hemisphere, just as people with darker skins were intended to stay in the places they were “designed” for. I use the words ‘meant’ and ‘intended’ in an evolutionary, natural sense, but mass immigration has put a stop to all that stuff.

On the matter of national identity, Stephen Crabbe really loses the plot. On a scale of 1 to 10 for sociability, friendliness and fondness for humanity, I am struggling to reach 1, but even I like to think that I’m part of a unique national identity, and when push comes to shove, I’ll be there defending that identity along with others of my kind.

““National identity” is tyranny. If you argue that all Australia’s citizens must accept a “national identity” you are espousing the primacy of one culture over others within our borders”, according to Mr. Crabbe. This is way out. Even the staunchest multiculturalists say there is room for an Australian identity for all, regardless of varying cultures.

I think Mr. Crabbe needs to do less “musing” about himself, and interact more, or at least read opposing views. He is divorced from reality. He begins with some sensible suggestions, then the advocates the erasure of everything distinctly Australian – a lifestyle, set of values and sense of history that can be enjoyed by anyone who adopts the country as their own, irrespective of personal culture.

Nice sentiments Mr Crabbe, but you appear to be placing the cart of semantics before the horse of human nature.

>>Race is a social construct<<

Well, duh! as my ten-year-old niece would say. The construct of "race" does not depend upon the existence of a word to describe it. Nor does our use of the word depend upon scientific evidence of a lack of genetic variation.

Rather, we have latched onto it as a symbol that encapsulates the innate fear and suspicion of one human being for a "different" other. Losing the word itself will have no impact; addressing the fear might.

>>Humanity across the earth is in a state of increasing flux. An evolving species, we are steadily loosening the bonds between identity and locality as our global awareness grows<<

I see little evidence of this.

The United States, despite its size and impact on world affairs, gives every impression of tightening, rather than loosening, its attachment to its national identity. It is even becoming "un-American" to disagree with the government of the day.

On a different scale, an examination of the history of the peoples of the Balkans provides little evidence that its inhabitants are becoming less attached to an individual identity, however much they try. The word "balkanization" has actually found its way into our vocabulary, to describe the process whereby communities split into ever smaller groupings, because they disagree with their neighbours' politics, religion or ethics.

Words belong to the people. Like cliches, which are only cliches because they encapsulate an accepted wisdom, stereotypes are maintained by people as a means of simplifying an otherwise complex world.

The proposition is that reduced usage of the terms described here will help avoid conflict. What isn't clear from the article is what will replace them. Some form of sanitized, PC-approved list perhaps, that is mandated first for all public servants, then the media, and finally the rest of us?

As Orwell pointed out so admirably in 1984, Newspeak only papers over the cracks, it doesn't address the problem.

Startling naivety!
Darwins theories apply to societies too.
Any society which followed your dictum would quickly disappear under the boots of other societies which continued to believe in their own identity.
It is amazing that our society produces such self-hatred when there are so many better targets for hatred around.

I don't think I read the same article as Leigh, Pericles and Bull.
I didn't read any advocacy of dispensing with a way of life or values, just with scientifically empty words.
The only real problem is that, as demonstrated by the reactions of Leigh, Pericles and Bull, the words are not semantically empty.

By the way "... we have latched onto it as a symbol that encapsulates the innate fear and suspicion of one human being for a "different" other ..." fits xenophobia better than race, racist or racism. And when has the colour of a person's skin been a reliable indicator of anything? I have a brother-in-law in Brisbane with dark skin and curly black hair, but he is from a long line of Yorkshire stock (North enough for you Leigh?). Despite this heritage and due only to his skin colour, he has been mistakenly identified as someone of Aboriginal, middle-eastern and mediterranean descent. And all this proves is that there are exceptions, i.e. skin colour is not a reliable indicator of descent, culture, loyalty, or, more importantly, anything relevant to living peacefully in this country.

The notion of US citizens thinking that disagreement with their government is un-American, is itself un-American - see for example Henry David Thoreau, Thomas Paine, and any number of others since. And, in any case, that is not an argument for Australia to go the same way. Further, there is no demonstration that Darwin's ideas apply to societies - Iceland and a large number of other continuous, though in many ways less "fit" societies, provide adequate counter examples.

These later posts seem more motivated by fear and hatred than Crabbe's article, which identifies some semantics as impediments to this nation's peaceful growth and development. But then, if you want to hold onto grudges, fears, hatreds and other negative and destructive emotions, feel free - that too is Australian.

Odsoc