In March 1862, The Christian Recorder, the official magazine of the African Methodist Church, published a rhyme which included the line, for the first time in print, that “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.”
Ever since it has been retold to children as a means to build resilience against verbal bullying.
In recent times though this old wisdom has been thrown away. Instead, a victim industry has emerged which persuades people to believe that a great injury has been done to them if they feel bad after someone speaks to them. It does not matter if the person has spoken innocently or without any malice. The only thing that matters is the mental state of the person that has been spoken to.
Thus, a new notion was born by one of the first critical race theorists, Mari J Matsuda. In her 1993 book, Words that Wound, she claimed that racist hate speech is “assaultive speech” that inflicts psychological and social harm equivalent to violence.
Last week, the world was shocked by the brutal assassination of Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old husband and father whose only crime was that he liked to travel to college campuses and debate people who disagreed with him. Charlie said controversial things but any fair-minded person who watches his debates, which were all broadcast online, can see that he is kind, welcoming and likes the company of others even those he disagrees with.
But Charlie’s intentions were not adequate for the ‘speech is violence’ crowd.
It is hard to comprehend but what has even been more shocking than Charlie’s unexpected murder, has been the glee that many have expressed about the live execution of a fellow human being. These sick people are not ostracised to the fringes of our society. Hundreds of teachers, nurses, doctors, political commentators have all either minimised or justified a horrible act of terrorism.
The logic for their inhumane reactions goes something like this. Charlie said things that hurt people’s feelings. Hurting people’s feelings is a violent act. Therefore, violence is a justifiable response.
For those not down the moral dead end of critical race theory and radical feminist scholarship, this is completely and utterly mad.
The first problem is that people’s words are often misinterpreted or misreported. It has been common to see in recent days quotes from Charlie that he never said. For example, he never said that “school shootings” are the price Americans pay to have access to guns.
The second is that an ethical system that elevates each individual’s feelings as the supreme concern soon runs into the problem that we can’t all be sovereign at the same time. If you take violent offence to something I say, aren’t I justified to take violent offence at you being upset with me? We cannot all be at the centre of the universe and if we try, we will have no ability to cooperate with each other or create a functioning society.
In a harmonious society, you must consider the feelings of others not just your own. You should do unto others as you would have done to yourself.
Finally, the injury done to me by words is at least somewhat in my control. No doubt people feel bad if they lose an argument or are laughed at. But you can learn to ignore such slights or to turn a bad moment into a positive by becoming stronger or learning to do better.
Our modern day “trigger warnings” turn everyone into children with no responsibility. It is a sad existence that fails its own adherents by putting an artificial ceiling on their potential.
The 1860s rhyme does not end with the line that is normally quoted. The full verse says “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. Unless, of course, you let them.” If we stop letting words cause unnecessary division among us, we will have a more peaceful and harmonious place.
