Wise words

Your interlocutor is 100% right, in a very specific sense. One could even say a *critical* sense.

He's correct that quite a few people would *never* say "ancient European language" in the same way as "ancient African language". The question is simply one of *who / whom* and under *what* circumstances.

From the perspective of someone captured by critical consciousness, the turn of phrase "ancient African language" refers to the *oppressed*; therefore use of the term by an *oppressor* (typically but not necessarily referring to people of European ancestry) is by definition going to be a transgression requiring negative judgments ("outdated viewpoint", "tired racist trope with colonialism overtones"). The turn of phrase is evil in this case -- it clearly erases Africans.

In constrast, the same turn of phrase "ancient African language" can very well be considered *virtuous* (e.g. "fresh viewpoint", "inspiring truism") when uttered by someone who is a part of the *oppressed* class and / or buys into critical consciousness dialectic (such as Kimberle Crenshaw, Judith Butler or Ibram X. Kendi). The turn of phrase is good in this case -- it clearly exalts Africans.

The term "ancient European language", valid as it has been for pretty much all of modern history, is *not* going to carry the same implication -- since the "agglomeration of all the diverse cultures and peoples in Europe" is *not* a sin from the critical consciousness perspective. In fact, since it is the *oppressor* there who is being agglomerated, it is a *virtue* to use that turn of phrase. Same as people captured by critical consciousness would consider it a virtue to remind everyone constantly of how "colonialist" said oppressors are. The turn of phrase is good in this case -- it's totally not erasing Europeans, and we're so happy it is.

You see, people captured by critical consciousness use the same *vocabulary* as the rest of us, but they don't use the same *dictionary*. The dictionary changes depending on who's doing the talking, along the oppressor / oppressed axis characteristic of critical consciousness.

In sum: whether this or that phrase would be "said in the same way", depends very heavily on the writer's status -- is he an "enemy" or a "friend" of the Hegelian dialectic proper of critical consciousness? I am sure most people are consciously or unconsciously familiar with this dichotomy (though most are not familiar with the philosophical underpinnings of the works).

----------

Of course, for those of us who reject critical consciousness dialectic, this form of perceiving the world -- and therefore this form of treating others, like your interlocutor has done -- is divisive, relativistic casuistry, engineered to create a hateful "oppressor / oppressed" distinction, drive a cudgel between otherwise-friendly and collaborative people, and manipulate the audience into fear of raising their voices against the absurdity of critical consciousness and its tenets. From my perspective, your comment is 100% truthful and correct. But those pesky facts are not going to matter to anyone captured by critical consciousness. To them, the fundamental question is who wields the power in the interaction -- and since you are an oppressor (or so they may assume due to your unwillingness to submit to them), you should not be allowed to have any power, period.

To be blunt: it's not that "we don't understand it". We do -- we get the mechanics and we've studied its origins. It's that we see what critical consciousness is doing to our spaces, and reject it as evil.