|
July 19, 2005
My
I notice that in my haste, I have used the word "terrorist" repeatedly -- even to the point where it appears in the title of my last post! I am chagrined, and at a loss for words. The BBC (and other like-minded progressive forces of the world) have decided that words like "terrorist" are judgmental, and get in the way of understanding: The BBC has re-edited some of its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings to avoid labelling the perpetrators as "terrorists", it was disclosed yesterday.Likewise, if people the bigots might call "terrorists" commit crimes and cite their Muslim status as a rationale, they may not be called Muslims! This complete inability to acknowledge reality has gotten so ridiculous that numerous bloggers are resorting to satire. Jeff Goldstein (the source of the link about not using the "M" word) hits the nail on the head: I’ve been arguing for years now that a pervasive cultural fear of plain spokenness (as witnessed by the growing appeal, among those whose greatest fear is giving offense, of “tolerance” statutes and “free speech zones”—both feeble attempts to control speech, either by diluting it to the point of semiotic uselessness or by making it contingent on arbitrary logistics) is one of the greatest dangers facing liberal democracies, something now being thrown into sharp relief as British community leaders and politicians schooled on the kind of innate cultural relativism that multiculturalist dogma inevitably encourages struggle to frame the recent London terror bombings in a way that manages to negotiate both the semantic demands of their cultural philosophy and the facts on the ground.Anyway, Goldstein doesn't share the BBC's non-terrorist, non-Muslim "bombers" approach. He's not only calling them terrorists, he offers a solution: Having completed the first two steps—identifying the causes and understanding them—the third step in our four-step process for getting at “root causes” and using that information to defeat terror becomes quite obvious: KILL THE TERRORISTS WHO BLOW SHIT UP BEFORE THEY ARE ABLE TO BLOW SHIT UP.¹ This seems disarmingly simple, I realize, but sometimes the most complicated problems are best met with the most common sense solutions.Does he mean kill the enemy? In war? Isn't that a bit harsh? Unfair, perhaps? Not to Stephen Green, who cites America's longstanding Jacksonian tradition: millions of Americans - probably a wartime majority - do hold by Jackson's traditions. We try to play fair, and mostly we succeed. But we will not play fair with those who refuse to honor the rules of the game.While I didn't call it Jacksonianism, I've remarked repeatedly on this American tendency toward unfairness -- in the context of snuff films, and in post in which I all but called it "Shermanism." Anyway, whatever you might want to call it, it's there, it's part of the American spirit, it can be mean and ugly when activated, and it ain't going away anytime soon. And the debate over what Glenn Reynolds calls "terror bombing euphemisms" highlights the absurd, elephant-in-the-room nature of politically correct semanticism when people are faced with a choice of killing the enemy, or being killed by the enemy. Here's Bill Hobbs: [E]ven after Muslim terrorists bombed London's transit system, the BBC can't quite bring itself to calling them terrorists. Miller and his clever readers have some alternate euphemisms. My favorite is "mobile self-demolition specialists.".I'm feeling obligated to weigh in, and I hope my choice isn't taken. Anyway, the people who we can't call "terrorists" or "Muslims" but have to call "bombers". . . Wait! The "bombing" charge is only an unproven allegation! So we can't even call any actual people "bombers." I should have said alleged bombers.... What, then, should we call them? I have agonized over this to the extent that I can, and I find myself drawn inexorably to what their co-religionists (and major newspapers like the Philadelphia Inquirer) portray as their motivation: "What happens now depends on how the British government responds," said Luton resident Sadaqat Hussein, 18. "They need to stop blaming all Muslims for it. And they need to wake up and realize we are in a democracy, and we need to stop this illegal war in Iraq."Have I found a consensus we can all live with? A common demoninator no one denies? I don't see much dispute that the bombings were committed by people who were: Instead, they were committed by:
With apologies to all terrorists and Muslims who might fear guilt by association, I will try to use the proper terminology in the future.
(But really! Would any of this hair-splitting matter to a Jacksonian?) posted by Eric on 07.19.05 at 08:21 AM
Comments
Dennis you're too kind. As you well know, your classical knowledge puts mine to shame. If you and Justin hadn't kept readers coming, I'd be blogging to no one by now. (Except the Googlers, which are generated by the voluminous nature of previous content.) Thanks! Eric Scheie · July 19, 2005 10:22 AM Yes, thank you, Dennis and Justin Case, for an excellent job filling in while Eric was away. When Eric Scheie is away, his friends will play (on the keyboard). Yet another excellent post on the corruption of our language by Political Correctness. Political Correctness: America's time bomb? I agree completely with Jeff Goldstein (whose name sounds like he is a Zionist Imperialist Warmonger): We must kill our enemies before they kill us. Yes, it is as simple (or "simplistic" if you will) as that. Am I a Shermanianite? Hmmm.... I admire the General. I call terrorists terrorists. I also call them murderers and war criminals like the Nazis, and I say they should be treated as such. As to their ideology, yes they are, by their own statements, Muslims every bit as much as Torquemada was a Catholic. Not all Muslims are terrorists or necessarily pro-terrorist, just as most Catholics today aren't Torquemadas. But Torquemada did rack and burn people, and too many of the Catholics of his day let him get away with it. Too many Muslims are bombing and otherwise murdering and/or raping people, and too many other Muslims are letting them get away with it. Various terms are used for the enemy. Some call them "Islamists" (and Andrew Sullivan has recently taken to calling some of his enemies here at home "Christianists"). "Islamo-fascists" sounds better to me, though they behave much more like Hitler than like Mussolini, especially when they target Jews, so I call them "Islamo-Nazis". Perhaps the most accurate terms are "terrorist Muslims", "political Muslims", or "totalitarian Muslims". When I'm in a really reactionary mood, I call them "Muhammadans", "Mahometans", or even followers of "the Accursed Mahound". We need another Charles Martel. We need another General Horemheb. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · July 19, 2005 01:13 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Genius.
You've returned with a vengeance.