May 19th, 2015
"Waco" Two Metaphors of America
The first time most Americans heard of this small city in Texas was in 1993, when a compound of a fringe messianic religion, "Branch Davidians" was located there. The standoff, where the "messiah" David Koresh faced off with local, then the federal authorities ended in what is largely seen as a travesty of governmental authority which caused the death of scores of innocent people.
Last week, twenty two years later, there was another bloodbath in Waco, this one also pitted government police power (a concept encompassing all use of force, from local police to national guard) that used such authorized lawful violence against another fringe group. David Koresh developed his cult under under expanded right of the first amendment freedom of religion, while motorcycle gangs are protected under the expansive interpretation of freedom of speech -- that we may associate with whomever we please unless there are very specific unlawful activities that must be proved by due process.
Waco 1993 demonstrated the excesses of government force; Waco 2015 showed why government must have power, ultimate power at times which includes limiting of activities and enforcement using force against citizens --- the very same quality of violence that was misused in Waco 1993.
Use of Government force is rarely as clearly justified as it was last week. It is often to merely assert the legitimacy of government, ours in the U.S. that is predicated on democratic ideals (and some degree of practice) tempered by a Constitution that embodies principles beyond a single moment in time. A year ago this power of government faced off with an armed group, headed by rancher Cliven Bunday, that denied the the right of the U.S. government to claim ownership of part of the vast land that was not private property, grazing land in what became the State of Nevada, but was part of the Western Frontier. One rancher refused to acknowledge this and pay a fee to the federal government and challenged the U.S. to make him pay. In this case, the U.S. chose not to make accept the challenge, and by doing so indicated that the claim to authority is limited by any organized group that is willing to call the government's bluff.
Waco 1993 was something like this, but with a very different outcome. The government under the guise of it's inherent police power that is legitimized by due process, used force against those in a peaceful private facility, burning dozens of men women and children alive. The outrage by some who have a propensity to find the current system oppressive anyhow was the motivating force for a counterattack. It was in the form of blowing up a major Federal Building in Oklahoma city on the anniversary of Waco 1993, once again with the death of large numbers of innocents.
Most would agree that the use of authorized police power is appropriate against motorcycle gangs who intimidate and kill, gaining power in the illegible drug trade in association with the most violent Mexican Cartels. Last week melee, resulted in nine of the men shot dead by police and close to 200 are being charged with murder.
There is another dynamic to this story. For the last year there has been a nation wide movement under the title #blackLivesMatter that stems from the bias among some police agencies against African American young men. One result of this, the degree of legitimacy I will not address in this essay, is to cast aspersion against all local police forces, painting with a very broad brush. Whether this will result in an improvement of policing or further exacerbating our political divide is an open question at this time.
"Waco" now represents both sides of major divide over anchored on one end by the term, "police state" and the other "law enforcement." In reality there are excesses in all aspects of government. The law profession does provide for disproportionate protection of the wealthy accused of civil or criminal actions, in this respect thwarting the will of the people and elected representatives. Yet, it is a profession that is integral to maintaining and defining that elusive concept of "due process." Lawyers are not charged with inserting themselves into settings where their lives are in danger, as are sworn police officers. Lawyers do not carry weapons yet their activities can destroy lives by excessive prosecution just as frequently as those in blue uniforms.
"Waco" both versions separated by almost a quarter century, should be part of the national discussion of creating a lawful society. We need police, just as we need a legal profession, with the caveat that the professions serve the larger society. Each group by the very nature of things will attempt to isolate themselves from legitimate criticisms that could lead to lessening their own benefits. Only and active, but open minded citizenry can ensure that all of our segments of law enforcement serve our society. The challenge is ongoing.
Jimmy Carter's Promise, Hersh v. Obama
"I'll never tell a lie to the American People" promised the man who would take the oath of office for the Presidency in 1977. These words by Jimmy Carter, now as then, are worthy of contemplation. It was spoken to contrast with his predecessor who was forced from office for lying about Watergate. This essay argues that it should have been an obligation of all who accept the office of leader of the world's greatest democracy. It didn't turn out that way, as I am reminded of just this week.
It didn't take long for the ephemeral nature of Carter's promise to be manifested. His successor Ronald Reagan was first an actor, who understood that what is conveyed to the public may be nothing like reality. This was natural for his first profession, and certainly not rare at high levels of political power, where to mislead or lie, such he did with ease about Iran-Contra, are part of the practice of statecraft. To deflect any sense of this being partisan, Democrats such as Bill Clinton, blatantly looked America in the eye and proclaimed, "I never had sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski." Even if not of geopolitical importance, it put our country through his impeachment and trial in the Senate, that may have started a poisoned partisanship that lasts to this day. The message for future leaders however was clear, but in a perverse way - as this lie actually raised his public approval; and from all surveys, he could well have been elected to a third term in office.
Before I bring in the first two Presidents of this century, which as much as I will try to avoid, may throw this essay into the chasm of inter-partisan vilification, let me go back in history to President Franklin Roosevelt. A Google search of his conspiring to bring the U.S. into WWII has hundreds of current hits, with his claimed foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor being only one element. In a way, the deceit of President Obama in creating his narrative of the events around bin Laden's death lends support to those who claim that FDR was complicit in allowing the surprise attack that brought America to WWII -- a mentality that assumes that only the naive believe what is said by our Government, especially the person at the top.
Jimmy Carter, while widely considered a failed President, has never been accused of breaking his promise of honesty. When his mission to liberate the American captives by Special Forces from our Iran embassy failed, he described exactly what happened with no embellishment even considered that may have mitigated his personal responsibility. I will pass over the period between 9-11 and America's invasion of Iraq, as the various distortions by the Bush administration to gain support have been explored extensively, and go directly to the issue of the day, the publication of an alternative version of the events around the killing of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011 reported by the respected investigative reporter Seymour M. Hersh
"Jimmy Carter's Promise" which I'll put in quotes as it was both statement and a practice, is not fully appreciated by our country, in fact has been relegated as something only for naive idealists, and perhaps losers such as its promulgator. Bill Clinton is known for, "I feel your pain." and George W. Bush for - let others fill that one in - and of course Barack Obama for "hope and change." "Honesty" to the American people as being central to the very concept of democracy is not high on anyone's agenda anymore.
The aphorism, "Can't see the forest for the trees" has now been updated with, "getting down into the weeds" -- both meaning details masking the principles. So, I'll be brief in paraphrasing the two irreconcilable stories of Obama Bin Ladin's being killed. Both agree on that contingent of US Navy Seals in two helicopters raided his compound in Abottabad Pakistan and not a heck of a lot more. This Wikipedia article provides a comprehensive "weed eye view" of the the event from official reports and otherwise, including Hersh's.
Seymour Hersh does not have the power to subpoena witnesses or evidence so depends on what others tell him, which worked to break the story of Mai Lai and Abu Grave that shed light on American brutality, perhaps otherwise never to be known in two different wars. The parties in power were different, so he avoids any accusation of partisanship motivation. Therefore his current story is not to be ridiculed or dismissed out of hand.
From my taking the time to read Hersh's full report, along with criticisms of it (all available in Wikipeida article linked) I personally conclude that both his story and the official one by President Obama are improbable, flawed and incomplete at best. This does not result in a draw, but is a condemnation of not only President Obama, but the culture that has evolved that allowed him to weave the tale that he announced on that evening of May 2, 2011.
Our killing of Bin Laden was appropriate, yet to have done what Obama claimed to be the operational plan, which was to take him alive if possible, would have made no sense. Were he to be given due process, allowed to mount a defense, his relationship with his home country Saudi Arabia would have been disclosed to the the detriment of a U.S. alliance with them for decades. Bin Laden would have been able to rally the Muslim world for our "desecration" of its holy cities and whatever else he chose to bring in. Hersh claims that the goal was to assassinate Bin Laden, which is not as good a story of his only being killed because he was wielding a weapon.
Personally, I go beyond rejecting "conspiracy theories," to abhorring those that promote them. I remember going to the Library of Congress as a youngster, where I read the actual newspapers with reports of racism and pro-Nazi sentiments that were available on request. This country did not rewrite history, even if it took some effort to garner documents that described unpleasant truths. This makes the Obama administration responding to Hersh's expose by ridiculing him personally that much more repugnant. Rather than create a Hollywood version of bravery and justice in the face of evil, one that Obama rode for his own electoral advantage, he could have done something different.
The above would have been released at a news conference without the President in attendance, with any request for more details simply deflected for the reasons announced. President Obama would not have gotten the approval ratings bump, and after the indignant demands for more details , it would have soon been overshadowed by other news.
There would have been no need for the conflation by the U.S. of legitimate public health efforts with tracking down a national enemy, described below by Doctors Without Borders, who were criticized for this statement with the some scorn used against Hersh.
Had this simple press release replaced the media event orchestrated by the White House, Hersh still may have written the exact article that he did. Only, it would not have impugned the honesty of the President, and more importantly, the Presidency.
Seymour M. Hersh, whether or not he got this story mostly right or even completely wrong, is a national hero for a career tackling the type of willful misinformation that is the antithesis of a free democratic society. If Hersh's story has errors, he got the wrong information, yet was ethically correct in publishing it. If the President's story is mostly accurate, his variations from truth are not errors, but something very different. He knew the means of discovery of bin Laden's location, what actually happened that night in Abottabad, the rules of engagement and what occurred afterwards. Any variation between this and what was presented to the public are serous breaches of faith, and of a different nature than errors in Hersh's reporting.
President Harry Truman never claimed that he personally orchestrated the killing of Hitler, and he left the heroics to those such as Douglas MacArthur; yet his native honesty is now appreciated by leaders of both parties. He is admired for the kind of integrity that befitted his office, ironically, most avidly by those who lack the values that made Truman, and even Carter, what they were. Both, left office with the lowest of approval ratings, which should be a badge of courage that they candidly exposed their mistakes to the glare of public scrutiny.
----------------
Addendum: The tide of criticism of Hersh may be changing, as reflected in this article just published in the Columbia Journalism Review.
This article is from Fall, 2015 from an unusual publication, "N+1." It looks at Sy Hersh's career from a perspective I've never read. It doesn't just look at whether Hersh gets the facts right, but what he is fighting. Let's call it Government-Military-CIA-NSA-N.Y. Times --- Hersh and now a few others, but this one is about Sy Hersh, and what they face when they are fearless against this aggregation.
It didn't take long for the ephemeral nature of Carter's promise to be manifested. His successor Ronald Reagan was first an actor, who understood that what is conveyed to the public may be nothing like reality. This was natural for his first profession, and certainly not rare at high levels of political power, where to mislead or lie, such he did with ease about Iran-Contra, are part of the practice of statecraft. To deflect any sense of this being partisan, Democrats such as Bill Clinton, blatantly looked America in the eye and proclaimed, "I never had sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski." Even if not of geopolitical importance, it put our country through his impeachment and trial in the Senate, that may have started a poisoned partisanship that lasts to this day. The message for future leaders however was clear, but in a perverse way - as this lie actually raised his public approval; and from all surveys, he could well have been elected to a third term in office.
Before I bring in the first two Presidents of this century, which as much as I will try to avoid, may throw this essay into the chasm of inter-partisan vilification, let me go back in history to President Franklin Roosevelt. A Google search of his conspiring to bring the U.S. into WWII has hundreds of current hits, with his claimed foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor being only one element. In a way, the deceit of President Obama in creating his narrative of the events around bin Laden's death lends support to those who claim that FDR was complicit in allowing the surprise attack that brought America to WWII -- a mentality that assumes that only the naive believe what is said by our Government, especially the person at the top.
Jimmy Carter, while widely considered a failed President, has never been accused of breaking his promise of honesty. When his mission to liberate the American captives by Special Forces from our Iran embassy failed, he described exactly what happened with no embellishment even considered that may have mitigated his personal responsibility. I will pass over the period between 9-11 and America's invasion of Iraq, as the various distortions by the Bush administration to gain support have been explored extensively, and go directly to the issue of the day, the publication of an alternative version of the events around the killing of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011 reported by the respected investigative reporter Seymour M. Hersh
"Jimmy Carter's Promise" which I'll put in quotes as it was both statement and a practice, is not fully appreciated by our country, in fact has been relegated as something only for naive idealists, and perhaps losers such as its promulgator. Bill Clinton is known for, "I feel your pain." and George W. Bush for - let others fill that one in - and of course Barack Obama for "hope and change." "Honesty" to the American people as being central to the very concept of democracy is not high on anyone's agenda anymore.
The aphorism, "Can't see the forest for the trees" has now been updated with, "getting down into the weeds" -- both meaning details masking the principles. So, I'll be brief in paraphrasing the two irreconcilable stories of Obama Bin Ladin's being killed. Both agree on that contingent of US Navy Seals in two helicopters raided his compound in Abottabad Pakistan and not a heck of a lot more. This Wikipedia article provides a comprehensive "weed eye view" of the the event from official reports and otherwise, including Hersh's.
Seymour Hersh does not have the power to subpoena witnesses or evidence so depends on what others tell him, which worked to break the story of Mai Lai and Abu Grave that shed light on American brutality, perhaps otherwise never to be known in two different wars. The parties in power were different, so he avoids any accusation of partisanship motivation. Therefore his current story is not to be ridiculed or dismissed out of hand.
From my taking the time to read Hersh's full report, along with criticisms of it (all available in Wikipeida article linked) I personally conclude that both his story and the official one by President Obama are improbable, flawed and incomplete at best. This does not result in a draw, but is a condemnation of not only President Obama, but the culture that has evolved that allowed him to weave the tale that he announced on that evening of May 2, 2011.
Our killing of Bin Laden was appropriate, yet to have done what Obama claimed to be the operational plan, which was to take him alive if possible, would have made no sense. Were he to be given due process, allowed to mount a defense, his relationship with his home country Saudi Arabia would have been disclosed to the the detriment of a U.S. alliance with them for decades. Bin Laden would have been able to rally the Muslim world for our "desecration" of its holy cities and whatever else he chose to bring in. Hersh claims that the goal was to assassinate Bin Laden, which is not as good a story of his only being killed because he was wielding a weapon.
Personally, I go beyond rejecting "conspiracy theories," to abhorring those that promote them. I remember going to the Library of Congress as a youngster, where I read the actual newspapers with reports of racism and pro-Nazi sentiments that were available on request. This country did not rewrite history, even if it took some effort to garner documents that described unpleasant truths. This makes the Obama administration responding to Hersh's expose by ridiculing him personally that much more repugnant. Rather than create a Hollywood version of bravery and justice in the face of evil, one that Obama rode for his own electoral advantage, he could have done something different.
From the White House:
Yesterday, special forces of the United States killed the leader of the Al Qaeda organization, Osama Bin Laden, at his compound in Abottabad Pakistan. This brings to an end this country's quest to track down and kill the individual who orchestrated the attacks on this country of September 11, 2001.
This was achieved with the cooperation of individuals who have conflicting ongoing relationships, which was only obtained by a guarantee of confidentiality, which limits the release of details of this operation. The United States strives to be an open society, yet this is one of the times when actions taken must be couched in secrecy during the lives of those, without whose cooperation, success could not be achieved.
The above would have been released at a news conference without the President in attendance, with any request for more details simply deflected for the reasons announced. President Obama would not have gotten the approval ratings bump, and after the indignant demands for more details , it would have soon been overshadowed by other news.
There would have been no need for the conflation by the U.S. of legitimate public health efforts with tracking down a national enemy, described below by Doctors Without Borders, who were criticized for this statement with the some scorn used against Hersh.
"It is challenging enough for health agencies and humanitarian aid workers to gain access to, and the trust of, communities, especially populations already skeptical of the motives of any outside assistance," said MSF. "Deceptive use of medical care also endangers those who provide legitimate and essential health services."
Had this simple press release replaced the media event orchestrated by the White House, Hersh still may have written the exact article that he did. Only, it would not have impugned the honesty of the President, and more importantly, the Presidency.
Seymour M. Hersh, whether or not he got this story mostly right or even completely wrong, is a national hero for a career tackling the type of willful misinformation that is the antithesis of a free democratic society. If Hersh's story has errors, he got the wrong information, yet was ethically correct in publishing it. If the President's story is mostly accurate, his variations from truth are not errors, but something very different. He knew the means of discovery of bin Laden's location, what actually happened that night in Abottabad, the rules of engagement and what occurred afterwards. Any variation between this and what was presented to the public are serous breaches of faith, and of a different nature than errors in Hersh's reporting.
President Harry Truman never claimed that he personally orchestrated the killing of Hitler, and he left the heroics to those such as Douglas MacArthur; yet his native honesty is now appreciated by leaders of both parties. He is admired for the kind of integrity that befitted his office, ironically, most avidly by those who lack the values that made Truman, and even Carter, what they were. Both, left office with the lowest of approval ratings, which should be a badge of courage that they candidly exposed their mistakes to the glare of public scrutiny.
----------------
Addendum: The tide of criticism of Hersh may be changing, as reflected in this article just published in the Columbia Journalism Review.
This article is from Fall, 2015 from an unusual publication, "N+1." It looks at Sy Hersh's career from a perspective I've never read. It doesn't just look at whether Hersh gets the facts right, but what he is fighting. Let's call it Government-Military-CIA-NSA-N.Y. Times --- Hersh and now a few others, but this one is about Sy Hersh, and what they face when they are fearless against this aggregation.
The Tyrany of Words - Updated
Work in Progress--as of July 2015
Language is the hallmark of civilization. This is true in general and at the extremes, from expressions of love to definitions of international conflict. On the personal level certain words cement a relationship where the connections are between two people only, with meaning only residing in their internalized values. "love you" is central to works of literature over the ages, yet the commitment has no force of law. But in a way the concept does affect law, not directly, rather by that amorphous change in culture that elevates the idealized "love" above other words, or concepts, that have lost cogency.
This essay is prompted by several events. One the pending Supreme Court decision expected to finalize the movement to allow same sex marriage in the United States. The speed of this movement, from only a few decades ago when same gender sexual relations were criminalized in most states, to enshrine such relationships into the legal and cultural institution of marriage, makes it worthy of analysis on different dimensions. Only a few years ago, the current liberal President and the expected nominee of their party both were opposed to same sex marriage, becoming advocates only recently. Both claimed it was the result of personal epiphany, something questionable for adults known for intellectual acuity that had formed their previous position.
What has changed for Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton may be dismissed as political expediency, but what is more interesting is how the entire industrialized western world, exemplified by the recent Irish plebiscite, has gone through this transformation. This essay is not being written to advance a position on this issue or any other, but to look at the process of language, or words that are so emotionally loaded to negate their ultimate value as elements of understanding and formulation of the rules of a society.
Being born in 1940, my absorption of language coincided with a period of war when nationalities were either friends or enemies. For years after it was over, "German" to me was an epithet, emotionally the same as Nazi or "Jap." This was the tone of the entire country, on radio programs and newspaper headlines, something a child absorbs with the ease of learning all values at that age. Dirt is dirty, kindness is good, God is in heaven and the devil is evil, as are all bad people. As we mature, specific objects are generalized --- Republican are for the rich, and Democrats for the poor - (my earliest political truism conveyed by my dad.)
Yiddish, spoken by my parents, has a rich taxonomy of outsiders, literally black or white) but also subgroups, those people who were not from the poor villages of the pale of the settlement of the Russian Empire who may happen to share the Jewish religion. It was a lot for a kid to learn, while also developing the suspicion that among the groups that did not share the Shetl mentality with its own secret language, could be he, himself.
My earliest "instructions" conveyed from all around from the President to kids on the street was that we "should" hate Japs and Germans. When we played our games of war, the prize was killing more of them, just like our fathers and big brothers were doing for real. And when the war was over, as if a switch were thrown, things changed. Japs became Japanese, Germans became our allies against the new enemy, communism, and homosexuality was among the things that were only snickered about if acknowledged at all.
It's so easy, so natural for words to take on emotional loading. My own dad, in spite of his own family having come to this country seeking solace, had a certain mild disdain for those who were resettled here after the war, under the term "refugee."
(tangential) Other words have legal consequences. The withholding of information that may harm someones reputation is either a legitimate negotiation ploy, or something quite different if depicted with a word, "blackmail."
This essay is being prompted by the shooting death of nine members of a Black church in Charleston N.C. by a white man who identified with several anti-black organizations. One issue that has arisen is how to define this, whether it is a "hate crime" or "terrorism." The New York Times raised this question in an early headline, and was a rare occasion for Jon Stewart to eschew satire to brand this as "terrorism" implying the greater emotional and legal condemnation.
The term "hate crime" has thus become "reified" made into something defining this crime, although in this case it it is legally meaningless, just as whether or not it is "terrorism." A late night T.V. panel noted that South Carolina is one of the few states without hate crime legislation. The panelists were unaware that for this atrocity hate crime legislation would not have any relevance, since such laws only increase the penalty for certain offenses. by definition not applying to capital crimes. This slaughter was obviously motivated by hatred towards Blacks and will have the effect of terrorizing this group -- to some degree. Choosing between "terrorism" or "hate crime," is the perfect example of "The Tyranny of Words" of this title. This is also the title of a book written in 1938, that was a popularized precursor to the academic field of linguistics. This was written by Stuart Chase, gaining a wide readership before the letters P.C., meant the process of vetting of words and terms in the service of political goals.
Two days ago a young man who belonged to an organization that wanted to preserve the racism of the confederate cause walked into a black church, participated in the hour long bible lesson, and then took out his new 45 automatic and calmly shot nine people to death. It could be a time for tears, or for rage, for sadness, but our media for some reason decided that putting a label on the act was worthwhile. There are other labels that could be used for the shooter, such as troubled or misguided, which while applicable could never be uttered by anyone.
Language is the hallmark of civilization. This is true in general and at the extremes, from expressions of love to definitions of international conflict. On the personal level certain words cement a relationship where the connections are between two people only, with meaning only residing in their internalized values. "love you" is central to works of literature over the ages, yet the commitment has no force of law. But in a way the concept does affect law, not directly, rather by that amorphous change in culture that elevates the idealized "love" above other words, or concepts, that have lost cogency.
This essay is prompted by several events. One the pending Supreme Court decision expected to finalize the movement to allow same sex marriage in the United States. The speed of this movement, from only a few decades ago when same gender sexual relations were criminalized in most states, to enshrine such relationships into the legal and cultural institution of marriage, makes it worthy of analysis on different dimensions. Only a few years ago, the current liberal President and the expected nominee of their party both were opposed to same sex marriage, becoming advocates only recently. Both claimed it was the result of personal epiphany, something questionable for adults known for intellectual acuity that had formed their previous position.
What has changed for Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton may be dismissed as political expediency, but what is more interesting is how the entire industrialized western world, exemplified by the recent Irish plebiscite, has gone through this transformation. This essay is not being written to advance a position on this issue or any other, but to look at the process of language, or words that are so emotionally loaded to negate their ultimate value as elements of understanding and formulation of the rules of a society.
Being born in 1940, my absorption of language coincided with a period of war when nationalities were either friends or enemies. For years after it was over, "German" to me was an epithet, emotionally the same as Nazi or "Jap." This was the tone of the entire country, on radio programs and newspaper headlines, something a child absorbs with the ease of learning all values at that age. Dirt is dirty, kindness is good, God is in heaven and the devil is evil, as are all bad people. As we mature, specific objects are generalized --- Republican are for the rich, and Democrats for the poor - (my earliest political truism conveyed by my dad.)
Yiddish, spoken by my parents, has a rich taxonomy of outsiders, literally black or white) but also subgroups, those people who were not from the poor villages of the pale of the settlement of the Russian Empire who may happen to share the Jewish religion. It was a lot for a kid to learn, while also developing the suspicion that among the groups that did not share the Shetl mentality with its own secret language, could be he, himself.
My earliest "instructions" conveyed from all around from the President to kids on the street was that we "should" hate Japs and Germans. When we played our games of war, the prize was killing more of them, just like our fathers and big brothers were doing for real. And when the war was over, as if a switch were thrown, things changed. Japs became Japanese, Germans became our allies against the new enemy, communism, and homosexuality was among the things that were only snickered about if acknowledged at all.
It's so easy, so natural for words to take on emotional loading. My own dad, in spite of his own family having come to this country seeking solace, had a certain mild disdain for those who were resettled here after the war, under the term "refugee."
(tangential) Other words have legal consequences. The withholding of information that may harm someones reputation is either a legitimate negotiation ploy, or something quite different if depicted with a word, "blackmail."
This essay is being prompted by the shooting death of nine members of a Black church in Charleston N.C. by a white man who identified with several anti-black organizations. One issue that has arisen is how to define this, whether it is a "hate crime" or "terrorism." The New York Times raised this question in an early headline, and was a rare occasion for Jon Stewart to eschew satire to brand this as "terrorism" implying the greater emotional and legal condemnation.
The term "hate crime" has thus become "reified" made into something defining this crime, although in this case it it is legally meaningless, just as whether or not it is "terrorism." A late night T.V. panel noted that South Carolina is one of the few states without hate crime legislation. The panelists were unaware that for this atrocity hate crime legislation would not have any relevance, since such laws only increase the penalty for certain offenses. by definition not applying to capital crimes. This slaughter was obviously motivated by hatred towards Blacks and will have the effect of terrorizing this group -- to some degree. Choosing between "terrorism" or "hate crime," is the perfect example of "The Tyranny of Words" of this title. This is also the title of a book written in 1938, that was a popularized precursor to the academic field of linguistics. This was written by Stuart Chase, gaining a wide readership before the letters P.C., meant the process of vetting of words and terms in the service of political goals.
Two days ago a young man who belonged to an organization that wanted to preserve the racism of the confederate cause walked into a black church, participated in the hour long bible lesson, and then took out his new 45 automatic and calmly shot nine people to death. It could be a time for tears, or for rage, for sadness, but our media for some reason decided that putting a label on the act was worthwhile. There are other labels that could be used for the shooter, such as troubled or misguided, which while applicable could never be uttered by anyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)