Archive for July 29th, 2008
What’s in a name?
That which we call a terrorist
By any other word would seem as scary.
JIHADISTS. MUJAHIDEEN. ISLAMO-FACISTS.
VIOLENT EXTREMIST. THE BOOGIE-MAN. SARAH JESSICA PARKER.
A proactive approach to sensitize society to the power of words is often labeled by The Right, when politically convenient, as an invention of The Left to sterilize our lexicon and, in doing so, hamper one’s ability to express necessary ideas while robbing counter-culture’s conscious thought of any real meaning.
One who takes up this cause is considered a cerebral cunt. A meditative faggot. A politically correct kike. … A sophisticated spic. A contemplative curry-muncher. A vocab obsessed, vanilla-face.
Few are more aware of the complexities of restricting language than those who choose to write on a regular basis. This daunting, limiting and frustrating chore is painful enough, even to quickest sesquipedalian-slinger in the West, without hogtying emotive words behind one’s back. Even the most sensitive of linguists would have difficulties finding a better way to express opposition to the Vietnam War than when Muhammad Ali so succinctly proclaimed that “I Ain’t Got No Quarrel With The VietCong… No VietCong Ever Called Me Nigger.” There’s new truth to be found in those words today.
It is with that backdrop in mind that the crux of today’s argument must be staged. Before we delve into the deep end of the debate on Iraq and wade through the recent complexities of the Anbar awakening, Sunni uprising and the success of the SURGE (yes, Mr. McCain, they occurred in that order); We must first examine how the United States has framed its actions (right and wrong) and whether our word choice has helped or hurt our cause.
It should be with a stomach churning chagrin that we collectively acknowledge that until April of this year we were still labeling the enemy as Jihadists, Islamo facists and the Mujahideen. That for the first six years of these wars, while we were trying to call our enemies terrorists, we were really proclaiming to the whole of the Middle East the United States’ mission to root out and kill all those holy warriors (the literal Arabic translation of Mujahideen) that oppose us. That while we in the West might recognize a jihad to mean a holy war, it actually has a much broader meaning in Islam closer to that of the daily struggle to do well. That while it might inspire instinctive, short term emotional support in our homeland to describe the enemy as Islamo facists, it’s actually a slur that lumps the majority of moderate Muslims (who see no justification in the Qur’an for harming those of varying religious faiths) in with the small sect of Muslims who wish to kill us.
That “BRING IT ON” actually sounds more like a call to violence than a quest for peace. Luckily, most Iraqi and Afghan citizens have either a New York Times or Wall Street Journal subscription to sort all the confusion out.
It took !six years! and a study by Homeland Security to crack this conundrum. Perhaps before we can win the hearts and minds of those in the Middle East, we should learn their fucking language.
Despite this discovery, “U.S. Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Holland, still offered an amendment to the 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act that would ban financing for any restrictions on such words. It was approved by a 249-180 vote in the House” (The Detroit News, July 23, 2008).
”I am sympathetic to the argument that if used inappropriately, the words can be counterproductive, but I find that the people who are criticizing this are very short on alternatives,” Hoekstra said. “So how do they want us to describe al-Qaida and what they are involved with?”
So, Mr. Hoekstra. You manikins in the House can’t manage to flap your plastic lips together long enough to properly articulate who we are fighting in these wars. Isn’t that a sign of a much larger philosophical problem? Who exactly are we aiming at?
Rep. Hoekstra and his friends may find me a vocab obsessed, vanilla-face for condemning the way they frame “our fight.” However, I vehemently object to the adjectives and nouns they use to write.
Respectfully yours,
Jack Eliot
At least someone is still concerned about language…
