janradder

I hate the misuse of the English language. I'm not talking about bad grammar or bad spelling. I'm talking the intentional twisting and butchering of language by the press.

Since the Iraq war started, journalists have described soldiers as "troops." They do not use this word in regards to large units of soldiers, as the word was intended (from the Merriam-Webster English Dictionary: troop (n): 1 a: a group of soldiers b: a cavalry unit corresponding to an infantry company cplural : armed forces, soldiers 2: a collection of people or things) but to describe a single soldier, as in "5 Troops Die in Attack." When you change soldier to troop, the idea loses its connotation of an individual. "5 Soldiers Die in Attack" is far more upsetting to hear than "5 Troops" because when you read the word soldier you think of a person. When you read the word troop, on the other hand, you think of a thing. Politically, it is far easier to stomach the loss of things than the loss of human lives.

Another word I see and hear being tossed around casually, as if it meant something other than what it really does, is "racial" as in, "that is a racial comment" (again from Merriam-Webster: racial (adj): 1 : of, relating to, or based on a race <a racial minority> 2 : existing or occurring between races <racial equality>). Racists originally used the word because it softens the act or words of racism. If you call something "racial," all you are doing is saying that it has something to do with race. There is no value judgement placed on it. There is also no impact to the word. To call someone or something racial instead of racist means next to nothing. That's why the racist right has pushed so hard to have it accepted in the lexicon of politics and journalism.

It looks like they've won. In today's Chicago Sun-Times, columnist Mary Mitchell (a Black writer, I might add), in condemning the latest attack on Barack Obama (the right wing book, The Obama Nation), used the word racial three times when she really meant racist. She has extremely valid points about the book. And she attacks it as being distorted, misleading and offensive. But her argument suffers because of the language she uses. Here's the first line of her column:

Jerome R. Corsi's book about Barack Obama is a good example of the right wing's racial fear-mongering. [my emphasis]

Right off the bat, she's pulling her punch. The argument is not that the book is racial. If it mentions Obama's race at all -- positively or negatively -- it is racial. That's hardly a condemnation. It's just a fact. The argument, instead, is that the book is racist. Here's the same sentence with racial replaced:

Jerome R. Corsi's book about Barack Obama is a good example of the right wing's racist fear-mongering.

That says a lot more about why the book is offensive and it says a lot more about the book and the people behind it. That actually means something when you call a person or an idea racist. It is an accusation, not an observation. It calls the book and the people out and challenges them for their words. Racial doesn't.

Words are far more powerful than people give them credit for. They can be used to manipulate and twist ideas and information. They can be used to distort facts and and make horrible ideas, events and people actually seem palatable or, worse, reasonable. But they can also be used to shine lights on those horrible things and show them for what they really are. This certainly isn't a new idea, nor is it very original. George Orwell said the same thing as I have but did a far better job of it in his essay, "Politics and the English Language." If you haven't read it, I'd highly recommend it. The truly frightening thing, though, is that the same problem exists now that Orwell railed against sixty or more years ago. I have no idea how to fight against the intentional misuse of language except to rant about it in places like this post. But the more people who are aware of what's going on -- who can decipher the code being used and see what is being hidden by words -- the fewer people who are actually being fooled. I guess that's something.