By Michael Medved.
A misleading recent headline in the New York Times demonstrated the way that the left abuses the language to cement its continued control of our public discourse.
Under the banner “EVOLUTION OPPONENT IS IN LINE FOR SCHOOLS POST” reporter Cornelia Dean declared: “The National Association of State Boards of Education will elect officers in July, and for one office, president-elect, there is only one candidate: a member of the Kansas school board who supported its efforts against the teaching of evolution.” ...
During his service on the Kansas school board he and his conservative colleagues merely fought “to change the state’s science standards to allow inclusion of intelligent design” by local school districts. ...
As he explained later in the same article, the embattled candidate...merely “thought students should be taught about challenges to the theory of evolution, like intelligent design…‘Some people are mindless about their attacks on anyone questioning anything Darwin might have said.’” ...
The use of loaded phrases like “evolution opponent” and “efforts against the teaching of evolution” deliberately conjure up scary images of the Scopes Trial, “Inherit the Wind,” and religious fanatics who want to keep young minds ignorant and pliable. The Scopes controversy of 1924 actually involved a government ban on any mention of evolution in the classroom; ironically, liberals today desire a government ban on any questioning of evolution in the classroom. It’s leftists, not conservatives, who mirror the Tennessee fundamentalists of eighty years ago by attempting to stifle a teacher’s freedom of speech. ...
The deployment of explosive and dishonest language has become an increasingly common tactic in today’s most polarizing cultural and political battles.
Whenever conservatives work for ... constitutional amendments to reinforce the existing definition of male-female marriage, ... leading newspapers and TV networks describe such efforts as “gay marriage bans.” A simple declaration affirming marriage as “a union between one man and one woman” bans no private behavior.... A restatement of the traditional basis for marriage amounts to a “gay marriage ban” no more than existing marriage laws constitute an “incest ban” or a “ban on interspecies relationships.” ...
...nearly all major press outlets have stopped using the phrases “pro life” or “pro choice” to describe...the abortion issue. The most common phraseology now centers on “abortion rights” ... no pro life candidate or advocate would ever say “I oppose abortion rights” – since they don’t believe that abortion constitutes a genuine “right” in any sense. ...
Conservatives should consider a similar re-evaluation of our phraseology to reinvigorate our side of ongoing debates, at the same time that we contest manifestly slanted descriptions like “pro” and “anti abortion rights.”
I was drawn to this article, because the last time that I was at a pro-choice meeting, they were discussing how the other side had selected the language for use. Here, the word in question was "abortion". The pro-choice speaker was commenting that most pro-choicers aren't pro-abortion, but rather in favor of the woman's right to choose. Using the phrase "pro-abortion" suggests that they would be in favor of aborting every pregnancy out there. This is not the case. In fact, many pro-choicers are mothers who have never chosen to have an abortion.
I've heard other liberals complain about the terminology imposed by the right on other issues too, so it seemed odd that both sides are seeing themselves as the victims.
Another recent discussion that I was privy to reported on how the leadership seminars of LGBT students and multi-cultural students failed in dialog, because both clung to their own pet issues, addressing "gay rights" and the "rights of the ethnic minority" rather than the larger overarching issue of "human rights".
There are other examples of liberal "misleading phrases" in the full article, if you care to read them.
-----------------------------------
Speech and word-choice is huge. I recently was in a discussion with a friend of mine about the use of the word "picnic". I'm sure that just about everyone has seen the email from 90s about how no one should use "picnic" because it is about going out, 'picking' a 'nigger' to string up, and having an outdoor meal to celebrate the event. Well, it's simply not the true origin of this word. It's from a French word combination meaning 'to pick, peck'.
Of course, neither the fake etymology of "picnic" (inspired by actual lynchings in the South), nor the true French etymology were known to me and my community growing up in central Minnesota. It was always an innocent word, meaning to go outside and eat food with at least one other person and as many as a large social group.
I can't help but feel annoyed at people who suggest that I shouldn't use this word that is completely innocent. On the other hand, should it occur to me, I'll have to try to avoid using it around African Americans, who might have negative racist associations with the word.
Then I can't help but wonder if it will ever be possible to rehabilitate the word "picnic". It is still used by the majority of Americans without any thought to racist ideas, so for them, it wouldn't be a problem. How, though, does one cleanse it of the racist associations in the minds of the victims of lynchings?
-----------------------------------
Words change throughout history. For example, the word "sad" actually originates from the same word as "satisfy" and "sate". The journey from meaning having eaten enough goes something like this:
1) satisfied
2) sluggish (think post-Thanksgiving dinner)
3) melancholy
4) sad
The change in word definitions is natural. Trying to control it almost never works, though as can be seen from the introduction of 'lynching' into the semantics of "picnic" it is possible to influence it.
No comments:
Post a Comment