This article critiques the way political groups find ways to discuss the brutal facts of war and combat without having to upset anyone in the process. Similarly, you might notice how we learn to use and not use certain terms in our conversations about race and culture by using words that "scrub up" the facts that are uncomfortable to face. And so we use language that permits us to exchange ideas without having to feel the facts that lie below those ideas. Think about it: We can discuss "inequality" without picturing children who truly do not know where their next meal is coming from -- those facing empty refrigerators and no heat or roofs over their heads -- or imagining others who regularly throw out large amounts of edible food and have more than enough warm space in their homes. And when we discuss "privilege," we don't have to imagine individuals with an attitude of detached entitlement to comfort and status, people who may actually be connected to that empty refrigerator. (Those privileged individuals, by the way, would clearly be anyone who is reading this blog -- if we contrast our lives to the less fortunate two-thirds of the world's population.)Read the article:
"The Words Have Changed, But Have the Policies?"
Consider the term "enemy combatant." Many agree that this term is functional to us. This is tantamount to agreeing on a stereotype without having to consider the person who is being labeled "enemy combatant." How different is this than calling someone "ghetto" or "dot-head" or "illegal immigrant"? "Dot head" is a great term here because that mark on the forehead of a person who is Hindu (the "bindi" or "tilaka") actually has meaning that is related to a religious belief system as well as a person's station in life. This is quite different than "ghetto" -- a term that refers to an existing geographic location, an actual physical place that some people would always consider a "neighborhood" and not a "ghetto." How many of us could walk through New York City and agree on which parts of it are actually "ghettos," for example?
So "enemy combatant" doesn't reveal the meaning behind some line that we draw in the sand. How do we determine who is on one side of it and who is on another? So we must mystify and whitewash our language in order to convince ourselves that a person is inherently bad or good or violent or of one mind or another.
Now reflect on the article with the following questions in mind:
1. Which terms of the race dialogue fail to personalize life conditions and experiences that are important to understand?
2. To what degree is the current (Obama) administration constrained by the same assumptions as the former (Bush) administration?
3. How much are we being manipulated so that our collective thinking gels into a mindset that supports the status quo? And how might that benefit YOU and for all of us?
With all of this in mind, I feel obliged to relay what President Obama said yesterday to a group of Turkish students: The United States is like a giant oil tanker. I moves very slowly and cannot be easily turned. Give it time...give me time. We cannot change things over night. (I'm not putting quotes around this because I don't recall his exact words.) So perhaps he sees some things more clearly than it might at first seem. Who's to say?
67 comments:
I think that some people expected change overnight with the new administration and President Obama in office, but that is entirely impossible. Although people opposed the Bush administration strategy and the “war on terror”, it is unreasonable to expect Obama to get us out of this “war” within the first few months of his presidency. By the Obama administration changing the terms that they use, they give off the impression of change, but in all honesty, the policies have not changed. President Obama has always been and continues to be good with words and a great speaker. He can influence and persuade the people to believe in what he says. This is imperative for the people to do because when we stop believing our government, huge problems will ensue.
Is it wrong for the Obama administration to simply change words around to make things sound better than they actually are? Is it harming the public or helping them? Perhaps a little bit of both. If the public does not understand what the Obama administration is doing and that what is being done is actually relatively similar to what Bush’s administration did, then perhaps that is a problem. On the flip side, having faith in the government and being able to believe in the cause that we are “fighting” for is also extremely important. President Obama needs the support of the public to accomplish many of his goals and policies.
So then this brings about a new question altogether: if it is all right for the President of the United States to smooth talk his way around what policies are actually doing, then is it all right for people to do this with race? How similar are these two areas? To be perfectly honest, I see a great deal of parallelism between the two. If it is easier to think about people we oppose as “enemy combatants” because it helps de-personalize the war and the situation going on, then that makes perfect sense why we can call people “ghetto” or “dot-head”. These terms allow us to generalize and stereotype people without actually knowing anything about them. When we talk about “ghetto” people, it is all relative as to where you are and who you are. The “ghettos” oh Philadelphia are entirely different than those in Los Angeles and even amongst particular areas, where the “ghettos” are located is entirely dependent on who you ask.
Then what about “dot-heads”? That term is not only used for people who are Hindu and has a bindi or tilaka. People who appear to be from the Middle East are often referred to as “dot-heads” when they may not even be Hindu at all. People tend to stereotype and judge people without ever having the intention of getting to know them. People also use generalized terms so that they do not need to personalize their jokes or their comments. These terms, whether being discussed amongst friends or in political speeches, just beats around the bush and alludes to the truth without directly stating it. People who do not “read between the lines” often miss what is actually going on or being said.
When reading this article, I was reminded of the quote, “if it smells like a dog, and barks like a dog, it probably is a dog.” I think that is definitely the case here. It does not matter how President Obama re- words a war it is still a war. So if the ‘overseas contingency operations’ smells and barks like a war, then it probably is still the war on terror. If anything President Obama and his team are mocking the American people. For Obama and his group of people being so intelligent they sure are dumb if they do not realize that they are extremely insulting the people of America by naively acting that America would not catch on to their deliberately dumb rewording actions. They are ridiculing America by saying that we are so dumb we would not figure it out.
It seems dishonorable that the 21,000 troops who are being sent over to Afghanistan are not beginning recognized for their bravery, because Obama’s team is trying to paint a colorful picture of the war to America that is not reality. It seems disgraceful that Obama is not recognizing the troop’s efforts, but instead it is downplaying their efforts by not calling the war what it is. These troops are fearfully being sent overseas to defend our country and they need to be recognized for what they are being sent over there to do, which is to fight war; instead of their actions being covered up by Obama’s party. I mean to call terrorist attacks, man-caused disasters is disrespectful to all the soldiers who have died in spite of these attacks and it is like a slap in the face to all those who lost their lives to the terrorist attacks on September 11, and to their families and loved ones who morn their deaths.
Even though the location is changed and now the troops are being sent to Afghanistan instead of Iraq, I feel as though things are still the same as they were when we were in Iraq with President Bush. It makes me feel as though we are in just as bad as hands as we were when President Bush was in office. The only difference is at least he called it as it was, he was honest in the aspect of war, were Obama is not being honest with himself if he believes his lie or the people of America. I do not believe that in any way by Obama using a different tone to disguise the war, is helping the American people, if anything he is hurting us by disgracing the troops and the people, and he is hurting himself by making some rethink if they can trust the president.
As far as the racist term ‘dot-head’, I believe that this term is just as disgraceful as the terms: man-caused disasters and the overseas-contingency operations. Just like the two political terms and the dot head term, both do not let on when what they actually are. All three terms are negative and don’t reveal the truth of the definition. This racial term refers to a negative image of a practice that started a long time ago and when someone coins a person a dot head, half the time I don’t think that they even know why the dot is placed on the persons head. The term is used to describe something that is not true, just like these political terms that Obama is trying to coin, that describe things that are not the truth. Most people use the term dot head to describe 'Arabs'. India is not in the middle-east and Hindi culture is way different from Semitic (Arab/Hebrew) cultures. Yet uneducated people will tell you that all Hindis are Arabs, and that Arabs wear turbans, and Arab women wear dot on their forehead. But here is the truth: only some Hindu women wear the dot, Arabs don't do that. Also, Arab men wear Kafiyahs, not turbans and here is the truth regarding man caused disasters: they ate terrorist attacks, and here is the truth of overseas contingency operations: it is war. Obama and his party is dumb if they think they live in a time where the world wont question their actions, because we will and we are. As for these three terms, well they hold no truth and teach all of us that we must be careful what we here and read because we cannot always trust what we are told.
Why do you even take the time and energy to redefine things like “terrorist” with “enemy combatant?” Aren’t they the same thing? They are the same thing. Does it really, truly matter what they call them? Just because President Obama is in office now does not warrant a complete redefinition on things that have not changed whatsoever with the change of who is in charge. Keeping that in mind, I did not really expect the war on terror, or whatever they are calling it now, to change all that much with the transition of a new administration. Obama ran on the promise that a lot, a lot of changes were to occur if he became president. Although he might have high hopes, it needs to be kept in mind that you cannot do everything at once. Also, Washington moves as slow as molasses. It takes them forever to get anything done, because they have to have their large sparring matches over the issues for at least a couple of weeks before it can even be considered, with the stimulus package being a prime example. Therefore, I don’t think you should waste the time now to go around changing the names of war on terror terms unless there is an imminent change with policy that is going to be undergone, which the article has stated that there is not. I believe that the administration is simply trying to insult our intelligence by trying to trick us into believing that significant changes are being made. We may be ignorant, but we are not completely stupid. Plenty of people can figure out that although the things have been given different names, the actual thing is still the same.
Why use the term “dot head”? Why not just called someone Hindi? Why not state the country they are from? We do not need to come up with random terms that refer to the same thing, especially when some of those terms can be taken offensively by those people, things, or places being described. People over generalize things every day. For example, I have two cousins who were adopted from South Korea as babies. They go to a school, here in Pennsylvania, where the population is predominately white. On more than one occasion, they simply are referred to as Chinese. I am seeing this term used more and more to over generalize the Asian population in this country. The ignorance that people have is causing this overgeneralization problem. They do not know what country someone is from, so they just associate them to large country where they might possibly be from. If you use a term to describe someone, make sure it actually applies. If you have any doubt whatsoever, ask the person (where they are from, what religion they practice, etc.), do not just make assumptions.
The recently adopted code of language we have come to employ throughout our vocabulary regarding military and race issues alike, serves to desensitize the public from the serious problems existing within our immediate society, as well as those throughout the world. The elusive nature of the terms works to cushion the gravity of present dilemmas, consequently diminishing the affect it has upon the masses. Because individuals are not adequately impacted by the troubles facing thousands of hungry, impoverished, homeless, war-torn, terrorized, or discriminated people across the globe, they feel less responsible to offer aid, and thus, less motivated and willing to take the necessary actions to resolve such hardship.
Without feeling personally connected to those who endure adversity, not only do we fail to feel compelled to provide assistance to improve the situation, but we may even grow so detached and removed from the crises at hand that we go about our own lives actually making their circumstance worse. Take the clothing we wear every day, for example. A great percentage of what we put on our bodies is manufactured by adults and children alike in run down, dilapidated sweatshops. These workers, oftentimes malnourished and abused, do not receive adequate wages and, therefore, do not have the means to clothe their own bodies. Yet we in America fail to do anything to resolve this. Rather than work to better the lives of such individuals, we simply go about our own business and continue to take advantage of what we are fortunate enough to have, never thinking about those suffering for our gain. In this way, I very much agree with the statement that the mindset we have come to assume largely supports the status quo, which, while benefitting us, very much hurts others. After reading this article and contemplating the issue, it appears as though we have become a nation of selfishness. As long as we are comfortable and content—living in our $250,000 home, with three vehicles parked in the driveway, and a swimming pool in the backyard—we fail to look outside of our own microcosm and are, as a result, blind to the injustice taking place. This applies to all issues: poverty, homelessness, race relations, and countless others. Oftentimes when we prosper, distress and pain are inflicted upon great numbers of people; but we choose to turn the other cheek.
This padded language we have come to employ may be protecting us from the fall of the guilt and shame stemming from our idleness and lack of action, but it is truly hurting others. We need to stop isolating ourselves from the dilemmas confronting the world in which we live and apply our knowledge, talents, and capabilities to the task of finding a solution. But to lay the foundation of this endeavor, we must first learn to communicate effectively, which means we must put an end to the vague, aloof, and objective language that disconnects those not immediately influenced and fails to move anyone to action.
I feel no ill feelings towards the Presidents new tactics on how he delivers his message. Part of the job description involves delivering his message in a calm, reassuring, and effective manner, causing the least dissonance among the public. While it may seem counterintuitive to change the words even though it does not really change the meaning of anything behind those words, it does still help send a clear message that change will be inevitable.
In the realm of race relations, some words simply come off less offensive than others. There is no concrete reason why people could not say what they really wanted to, no matter the context, but most people would prefer to shy away from confrontation and attempt to be as respectful as they can. Also, the use of more “politically correct” terms versus colloquial or street speak may just make you sound more intelligent. I still believe that a well-spoken person and someone who thinks before they speak will sound better than anyone just running their mouth.
In reference to the questions posed in the blog, how much are we being manipulated so that our collective thinking gels into a mindset that supports the status quo and how might that benefit you and for all of us, there is no clear answer and one person’s right is most likely another person’s wrong. In terms of manipulation, it is the governments and the media’s job to twist and remodel their policies and stories so that they are the most appealing to their audience. The government by law does not have to disclose every little discussion or thought they have, and they may often take certain liberties with that. If withholding information prevents a mass panic nationwide, I think it is necessary for the government to do what it does. Sometimes I like to think about the saying, ignorance is bliss. In some people’s cases, it truly is, and they would rather not know what goes on with the big guys in Washington D.C. In truth, it is why they were chosen to lead and make the tough decisions, so we can go on living our lives and not deal with the world’s problems, but our own. I don’t think we are hurting as a society from the words that our President and others choose to use in their delivery of policies, but more kept at ease. Some people think it would be best if we knew every detail of everyday what goes on in each government sector, but I can’t say I’m one of them, because as of right now, I’m happy with they way my life is and I have my own problems to worry about. I think we are in good hands and just need to let them do their jobs as we do ours.
Lastly, the final question mentioned in the blog asked about what we really expected of Obama. I took this as condescending to our President and that everyone should know that of course the government wasn’t going to be honest with us. I don’t really like to look at it that way. I like to think that President Obama has had some great success in his first 100 days in office and have faith that he will have, for lack of a better word, an awesome term. It’s his job to keep the public at ease, as I have mentioned before, and I think he has done a great job as of now, despite the current state of our economy and whatnot. I know the government will never release all of it’s information and tell us the entire truth, but at least they have made improvements in holding more public addresses in the prime time hour and I have found myself more aware lately in general of the government policies and future plans that our on the forefront of the Obama administration.
I think this article was interesting because Obama ran much of his campaign on the idea that he would be bringing a lot of change to the nation. Obama’s not the first person to do this; it seems any time a candidate runs from the opposite party of the incumbent president, he suddenly sells this idea of change and hope. As other bloggers said, we also can’t expect things to change so quickly, and I am still holding out and HOPING the tide will turn for the better soon.
Additionally, I find it interesting how language can be manipulated to make people feel a certain way. Bush had a well-oiled public relations machine working for him, as does President Obama, who has chosen to try to change the way we feel about current conditions. I don’t think it’s “wrong” for his administration to change the tone, but I agree with another blogger who said the problem is the public’s misunderstanding in seeing the similarities between the two presidents’ policies. And it also desensitizes people when matters sound less serious than what they really are. Although blame must be laid on the administration, it is also the job of the journalists to truly hash out what is going on and not just repeat their euphemistic language in a quote without explaining it further.
Politics aside, I do agree with what Sam was saying that these words don’t reflect the personal side of the terms. The term “collateral damage” means civilian causalities, which seems to take all humanity out of the situation. Or how about “ethnic cleansing,” which means genocide? I don’t think the word “cleansing” should be used in a phrase in which people are being killed because of who they are.
I was trying to think of answers for Sam’s questions as well. In the race dialogue, I think sometimes any time people throw around words like “dot head” or other stereotypes, they lack sensitivity and take away from the words’ real meanings.
Also, I think we live in a matrix and are conditioned not to question the status quo. Since our lives seem to be so busy, we don’t have time to probe important issues more. I think that makes Americans easy to govern, and uprisings/revolutions don’t occur when everyone is ok with how things are going. I would like to add that Americans don’t seem to care much when things don’t have a direct effect on them. After 9/11, we cared. But there are two wars going on right now overseas, and it doesn’t even come into our consciousness sometimes on a daily basis. But we have to support the troops, who are bringing freedom and democracy to all (hmm…). Let the government start drafting middle-class people to fight this war, and you will see people having problems with the status quo.
To me, this article in the New York Times is saying America is containing anyone who poses a threat to the country. They want to control Iraq and Afghanistan and to monitor the actions of the people in that country. It goes without saying that America would like advanced notice of any terrorist threat, but this constant monitoring with 21,000 more troops in Afghanistan is telling these Middle-Eastern countries America is after them. The American administration has their suspicions of these countries and is ready to put these terrorist countries in place. However, if Obama were to deploy (or if he already has deployed) the 21,000 troops mentioned in the article, what proof has he given to show that Afghanistan is a threat. The Bush administration made claims of weapons of mass destruction, but none existed. We were sucked into a war with a country that was harmless. The Obama administration should be fully questioned, unlike the Bush administration, to show the public what evidence they have of terroristic violence Afghanistan is accused of. The Obama administration should be under more scrutiny than the Bush administration, because the public has already seen what damage unnecessary war can cause. The Obama cabinet should also release a plan for how to end the “surge,” so American troops will not be stuck on their soil.
I think language plays a huge part in any public figure’s life. The word choice that goes into each presidential candidate’s speech has always been a huge issue that the candidate deliberates for hours. Had Lincoln said “87 years ago” instead of “four score and seven years ago,” his speech might not have had as much of an impact as it did in the Gettysburg Address. The power of language is largely what voters use to select their next president; would you vote for someone who cannot talk well or defend his positions? The New York Times article does make this point about the American public: “‘They seem more interested in the war on the English language than in what might be thought of as more pressing national security matters,’ said Shannen W. Coffin, who served as counsel to former Vice President Dick Cheney. ‘An Orwellian euphemism or two will not change the fact that bad people want to kill us and destroy us as a free people.’” I think we should keep that in mind, but I do believe that word choice will largely select what the people like and do not like. I am sure that we have all had unpleasant interactions with someone (I can think of one of my high school teachers) who could say something so mean and critical, but the tone and diction they used seemed to make their words less harsh. This is no different from any policy the president wants to pitch to the public.
I think that this article was rather interesting and eye opening. The fact that Obama’s policies with his version of the “war on terror” are similar to Bush’s is, well a bit comical. All of this time we heard that Obama is for peace and all the liberals rallied behind him in hopes of a new leader who would bring our troops home. But in fact he is adding more, now of course its not in Iraq and it is in Afghanistan (where we should be clearly concentrating our efforts). The fact is that we can’t just pull our troops back home after a 5-year war just like that. The fact is that terrorism is still prevalent and there are still plots by terrorists, right now, to destroy America. Obama must try to finish this war by replacing the terminology with different words so that all of his followers don’t get too upset. Although this makes sense because the war just can’t end, has Obama mislead his followers this whole time? Just today I saw a pin with a peace symbol and “bama” following, symbolizing that Obama equals peace. When in reality a lot of work, unpleasant work, still needs to be handled over seas. But this “manipulation” is basically necessary for the Obama administration. This benefits us to a degree because by changing the words of his tactics away from Bush’s it makes sure that he isn’t related to the drastically unsupported former president. The change of rhetoric also reassures us that Obama is not like Bush and it pacifies Obama supporters because it looks like he is acting in ways entirely opposite from Bush (a positive thing). By keeping the public naïve to certain issues it helps the president get the support he needs to do these unpleasant tasks that need to be done. These tasks, if explained in plain detail and words would have most liberals appalled. Bringing this theme to the race table one can also see that it is applied. For instance “white girl or boy” is almost always referring to some privileged snob who doesn’t understand colored people. This shouldn’t be so, the phrase should merely represent what it means, a white girl or boy and nothing more. When someone refers to a black person as a black boy or girl, the associations are simply their color. However, when it is a white person many negative associations are prevalent. Many people fail to get past the word, a step that needs to be taken in order to be productive at the race table. Help white people understand, don’t coin them “un-learnable” the first time you see them, preventing both sides from not only feeling comfortable but moving forward.
The “Mess Beneath The Words” blog exposes some of the propagandistic techniques of the Obama administration. Although Obama was elected mainly based on his promise of change, this article and blog help to show that maybe Obama and Bush are not all that different. Granted, Obama has only been in office for about two months, but the fact that he is increasing the number of troops being sent to Afghanistan shows that the War on Terror, or as Obama would refer to it, Overseas Contingency Operations, are far from over.
I can understand why Obama is trying to change the language used by him and his administration to help differentiate between his actions and the actions of George W. Bush and uses this language to downplay the unfavorable actions he is taking, such as not referring to the additional troops in Afghanistan as a surge, even though this is exactly what it is. This cryptic language is an important tool in politics to help hide agendas and sway the public’s opinion so the majority believes that Obama is in fact making important strides to cleaning up the mess made by George W. Bush when he is actually maintaining many of the same policies. Although the Obama administration claims that they are only trying to get rid of the spin used by the Bush camp, they are actually doing the same thing Bush did by manipulating language to change opinions.
These euphemisms help manipulate the public into thinking that the relations between America and the Middle East are improving. By using softer language, these matters seem less serious and less dangerous, when actually; terrorism is just as much of a threat as it has ever been. Since there are now “man-caused disasters” instead of terrorist attacks, we are led to believe that the rates of terrorism throughout the world are decreasing when that is completely untrue. This leads to higher opinions and approval rates for Obama, when he has not even changed any of Bush’s policies. Although this language is being used to help differentiate the Obama administration from the Bush administration, that should not be necessary. During his campaign, Obama was marketed as almost the exact opposite of George W. Bush in his political beliefs. Changes in language should be moot because Obama should be making drastic changes in policy to differentiate himself, not wasting his efforts on finding new words to show how different he is.
As someone who voted for Obama, I feel almost duped by his administration. When analyzing the candidates, I did not realize the change Obama planned referred only to language. However, I still have high hopes that as time goes on, policy changes will be made that extend beyond the rhetoric used in speeches.
Actually in the beginning of our race dialogue class we had a discussion kind of similar to this one; basically why don’t we do hold back saying terms that are offensive to others or that insinuate inequality. We basically came to the conclusion that is not because we are worried about the implications of the words; it is just that growing up we were taught that these words needed discretion. Growing up these words gain significance according to the situations that we go through; meaning once again we are product of our environment. The reason certain words needs discretion is because the historically imply something disrespectful or degrading. So for Mr. Obama changing the words he may use is perfectly fine in my case; why would he use something that has bad history behind it or insinuate something harmful. It is job to protect the United States and be the five star general of the U.S. army but it also his job to really keep the peace here at home. Everyone is not entitled to know what is going on all times just because it would be causing extra stress that people really don’t know. I’m sure that government is hiding millions of secrets for the public but I honestly think MOST of them are in our best interest. For example during the Bush administration, when we caught Saddam Hussein hiding in his hole under the ground; it really showed progress that we have made for all of the fighting. The government really didn’t have to release this information but it made us view the war in positive light. I’m sure that terrible things have happened over there that really need to be discussed but never will be just because of the fact that it’s trickledown effect will have a negative impact on what we are trying to do in Iraq. The reason’s mentioned above are the main reason why I think word discretion between race dialogue and politics have a pretty strong correlation. During a race dialogue discussion you really try and open yourself up to ever person point of view, connect with what other people are saying, and give some good information with really affecting anyone’s point of view of you. You try not really trip over your words, keep calm, speak clearly and sound intelligent; just because you don’t want anyone thinking you’re the ignorant prick or the know it all. The same thing happens in the Obama situation; you don’t want anyone thinking we are still sending troops over there or that we still have a strong presence over there; so we simply manipulate our words to manipulate opinions. No matter what you know about something or what you think about something, it is completely useless in the eye of the public ( or in the race relations setting, the person sitting next to you.).
Although I support him to the fullest, voted for him, and debated for him against John McCain supporters, I feel that Barack Obama was only elected to the United States Presidency because or certain, specific circumstances. There was widespread disapproval of the Bush administration and his policies. Americans and the world were against his war in Iraq, decisions about the economy, etc. It was only because of this widespread distrust and our country’s grim economic status that Barack was elected. During his presidential campaign, Obama tried to make his approach the complete opposite of George W. Bush. He had different ideals, different policies, etc. He wanted to be viewed as completely different from the incumbent and the Republican candidate, John McCain (who had similar ideas, policies, etc. to the current President). I feel like now that Obama has secured the presidency, he still does not want to be thought of being like George W. Bush at all. This is why he and his administration have changed certain names like “man-caused disaster” instead of “terrorism” or “overseas contingency operations” instead of “war on terror.” Just because he has changed the names of certain things to make them seem more appropriate and just, does not mean that he has changed any policies from his predecessor. We really are not drifting too far away from the George W. Bush status quo. I believe that Obama is using this language to persuade the American people that we are not involved in war, destruction, killing, etc. anymore. After all, an “overseas contingency operation” sounds much more appealing to me than a “war on terror.” He wants to appeal to the American people that the “war” is over. However, most of us know that this is not the case. There are still many American troops fighting and dying in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Just because Obama does not use word “terrorism” does not mean that there still isn’t a genuine threat. The threat will always be there from now until these different fundamental groups’ ideologies are extremely radical. He is using this word of “man-caused disaster” to appeal to the American people as well. He wants the American people to believe that the fighting has deescalated and the threat of terrorism has ceased; however it really has not. He is doing everything in his power, using certain rhetoric, to make it like his administration he done a complete one-hundred and eighty degrees from George W. Bush. After all, at the end of his presidency, George W. Bush had a terribly low approval rating. Obama did, and continues to not want, the American people to disapprove of his policies and decisions. This is why he is trying to emphasize words and sayings, stressing that he is not like his predecessor.
First of all I find this Time’s article very interesting. This is something that I feel not a lot of people see in the news. I think it’s a different look at what is going on in the world and in the government. I also thought the questions that Sam brought up were very intriguing. To answer his first question, I feel that a lot of terms of racial dialogue fail to personalize life conditions and experiences that are important to understand. I mean, I think that some universal unbiased terms are needed to keep fights from breaking. But some are very necessary. For example, when discussing the poor, or people with needs, it is difficult to get the sympathy and understanding and support needed and to show the extent of the issues without good description. You can’t just pin point the problem with saying poor. In other words, by using some high scholarly term, people are not going to get what you’re talking about. The average Joe needs to understand. I don’t think that it’s right to beat around the bush with language to avoid consequences. It is almost the same as lying. Also people hold different meanings to different words. It is necessary that whatever words used, are clear enough for everyone to understand. It’s like someone says they are going to go and discuss matters with a bank to help the needy. That sounds great right? Well what they mean is they are going to rob the bank. There are so many words in the English language and so many ways to beat around the bush. It takes a strong person to actually say what they mean. The Obama administration has taken words from the Bush administration, and changed them so that he would be making change. I feel that he could do all the same as the Bush administration but be able to make it look like something completely different because the terms he uses. Because all of his great speeches and ideas, and even though people don’t fully understand much of what he is doing exactly other than what he says his ideas are for change, his great words satisfy them. Even if he is unable to pull troops, he will use words to show that he is doing something of that sort. He will use fancy words. I will admit, he is a great speaker. He is great with words. But that is all I have seen so far. I feel that the country can be very manipulated by the use of words. First off, that is all we have. We cannot see much of what is going on in the world so we have learned to listen, to read. We want more than anything to believe what our government says is going on. If they use great terms of dialogue, I think they could potentially beat around the bush on any subject. They can make almost anything sound good, especially during a crisis. They can persuade people to agree on most anything. I honestly don’t think that this is a benefit to anyone at all. I believe in honesty. And manipulation with words is not honesty.
I think it is kind of funny President Obama is just changing his wording around to make his take on the war more acceptable to the public eye. Pour Bush. We all know he was bad with his words, someone should have helped him out a little bit and maybe he would not have suffered so much with all those Bush haters out there. It is definitely true though, that rhetoric can make a gigantic difference in the public’s opinion on issues. If we hear Bush talk about extreme “surges” in Iraq the public is bound to question what he motives really are. Then the calm President Obama comes in since we can just stop the war immediately he keeps the majority of Bush’s war plans, and that is with no trace of the harsh protests Bush endured. I feel it is all a matter of one’s personal speaking skills. Anyone has the power to twist and turn their words with the only goal of gaining the respect and support of those you are talking to (or disrespect with those skanky tabloids we read at the supermarket). Personally, I feel it is wrong for Obama to suddenly become able to make some Americans seem okay with the war. How can we trust him to give us raw, true information then? Do we not have a right to know the truth about what is going on in our country? Maybe Bush was right in simply spitting out his sometimes absurd words on what is happening and what he is doing point blank. That is how the public was able to take strong stands on whether they agreed or disagreed on what we are doing in Iraq, and do something about what they believed in. Knowledge is power and if the common man is blinded by flashy words I don’t see much good coming from it. What if Obama’s entire campaign of “change” means something completely different? Will we ever know? He has obviously mastered the skill of public speaking with his abilities to persuade the majority of his audiences to believe in him. America voted for him for this reason. I am fine with that, but I just do not think it is fair for us to not know what is going on just because he can talk smoothly.
Issues in rhetoric like this one are so common among race relations. It’s kind of like how we also talk about in class, whites are scared to use the N word anymore, we now make sure we slur out African Americans or even people of African descent. White people are called “crackers” or “white trash”. Some people think of these words as harmful, some laugh about how silly it sounds and think little of it. I guess that is just how our society is now. Our language is so broad, we are able to understand new meanings with new ways to saying these meanings. Whether or not this is for the better, I just don’t know. I think Obama should have the responsibility of telling things how they should be understoond, but I also think name calling shouldn’t be taken so seriously and causing fist fights.
The idea that the government would use language to manipulate the thinking of public is not something that I ever thought of in the past, to be honest; however, it does make perfect sense that they would do such a thing. The Obama administration has a lot to live up to with all of the talk of change and it would be unrealistic to think that it could all just happen over night and with such aggressive measures. They can’t morph everything that the Bush administration created over the past 8 years over night, so of course, they are facing a lot of the same issues. If they continued to call them by the same name people may begin to lose faith in the man who promised so much change. The actually changes may or may not happen in time, but Americans don’t have the time. They want results and they want them now. So you know, ‘whatever makes you sleep at night.’ In Intro to Soc last semester Sam used an analogy to describe the current economic crisis in which the citizens of the United States were all stuck in a major traffic jam and in a panic while high-end officials stood above and directed people where to go, saying “it’s okay, everything is going to be okay”, just trying to calm everyone down. When really, the reality of the situation may be far worse. But if the majority of the American public were to be aware of how much trouble the country may be in, all hell could break loose. It’s amazing how much control a simple twist of words can have over masses of people. Talk about invisible strings controlling our lives!
I think the same thing happens on a subconscious level when we sit down at the race table. Speaking as a white person, I have to say that the white party is especially likely to beat around the bush and twist their words to make it sound like they are contributing without actually saying anything substantially productive. For a lot of people, including myself, this has everything to do with a deeply rooted sense of fear and guilt that if they dare take a risk and say something that hasn’t been said before, anything with any true meaning or intimacy, they’ll get ripped apart. Unfortunately this paralysis stunts the growth process in a major way because it sends a message to other parties. The energy definitely penetrates the air and therefore others may take the same stance and put a wall up around their wounded hearts and souls. I don’t know about anyone else, but I was raised being told “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all”. As much as that has served me throughout the years, I fear that that cordial phrase that my mother drilled into my head has stopped me from saying what truly needs to be said to heal, along with so many others.
In our current society, words are important and have taken on different meanings than in the past. In addition, some of the words that we use today have a greater impact than they did. For instance, the word surge; while it may have always been a term that put people on edge, in today’s society it is a word that is nearly blasphemous. Many Americans have been ready to have our soldiers home for several years now, and for this reason Obama was advised NOT to call, adding approximately 21,000 troops to Afghanistan, a surge because this word instills a very negative opinion and sentiment in the minds and hearts of the people. Words have he power to affect the way a person feels about a topic. For instance, in stead of saying “war on terror”, which not only instills fear and anger in the public…one could instead say “Overseas contingency operations”, which is not only a “nicer” way to put it but it is also a more confusing term, so less people are likely to understand what it means. In addition the article stated “In cautioning against the “surge” label, Mr. Reid clearly wanted to avoid associating the Obama strategy in Afghanistan with the Bush strategy in Iraq, a strategy that both he and the president opposed at the time.” Because words are associated with events, ideas, feelings, by connecting the word ‘surge’ with Obama, it brings up negative feeling for many because of the Bush administration. While it is understandable that we use words or phrases in place of other words and phrases so that they do not have the detrimental effects that they would other wise, I think it is kind of ridiculous. In our society I feel as though we sugar coat a lot of what we do to save face. In reality, however, we should be facing the reality instead of running from it and covering it up with sugary language. By trying to accommodate everyones feelings no one ever knows what the truth is. While there are times that I think that sugar coating an issue is not a bad idea, for instance, in front of children, where ample detail is unnecessary, I think that if we continue manipulating our language we will never be able to face reality, no matter how difficult or frightening it may be. Furthermore, we use words that have less negative effect on the people, but does this really make any sense. We are merely replacing one negative term with a term hat covers it up…they mean the same thing and we all know that. Just because Obama uses a different word for surge, does not meant that the action is any different. We need to be stronger, and instead of suger coating important issues we need to face them
The fact that people try to change the tone of words from things like “war on terror” to “overseas contingency operations” almost makes me laugh. People think that by changing the words they are changing what is actually happening. This is definitely not the case. Unfortunately, however, people feel the need to sugarcoat things so that they don’t seem as bad as reality, and I feel that this is a very unhealthy way for people to look at things. I love the quote in the news article, “They seem more interested in the war on the English language than in what might be thought of as more pressing national security matters.” Bingo. I feel like this really nails what’s taking place right now. Furthermore, like others have said earlier, President Obama is just one of many in the same position who have promised so much change and then have come to realize that it’s really not so simple. It’s clearly not something that can happen overnight and I think that people often times forget this. Many people do fail to misunderstand the similarities portrayed by former president Bush’s plans during office with current President Obama’s actions thus far. Sure he has time to change things, but I think he failed to remember that this is not something that happens very quickly. I think he needs to concentrate on doing what he’s doing instead of appearing like he’s only focusing on repositioning himself away from Bush.
On another issue, when people say things like “dot head” or “ghetto,” I feel that they are using more derogatory terms to refer to certain things, when in the case of choosing another word for “war on terror” or “enemy combatant,” people are trying to make things sound more positive. It’s not fair to anyone the way people feel the need to toy with the American language. The fact that Obama’s publicists insist that he is not focusing on changing the wording of many messages is downright ridiculous. Of course he is – he wants nothing to do with Bush’s image and yet I feel that he is almost doing himself an injustice by doing things like this.
Regarding the first question that Sam asks, I think it is definitely true that many people fail to personalize life conditions and experiences that are important to understand. People like journalists and others in the media often downplay many topics so that Americans do not have to suffer watching the real thing. This is wrong. To know what’s actually going on in the world, people need to be exposed to it – or at least that’s my opinion. I think this goes along with the third question in that we are all working too hard in changing the tone and being more “politically correct” and sensitive for people that we are all forgetting what’s really going on and our thinking all meshes into something that supports the status quo.
I’m going to start this blog by informing you that I don’t follow politics. I don’t care what is going on in politics and I unless it is going to affect me immediately it doesn’t matter to me. I read the newspaper and am interested in what goes on in the world, but I believe there is so much corruption that goes on that I don’t need to follow it. However, my take on politics is that change does not happen over night. Even though I may disagree with some policies that are put into place, I understand that there is a lot more thought that goes into these decisions than I ever put into them. While the average person may see something as a simple decision or common sense, there are most likely more complex ideas or situations behind it. I try not to speak negatively on any president despite what others think of him because I believe being the president of the United States is one of the hardest jobs in the world; I know I don’t want that job/responsibility. They make all kinds of decisions every day on topics that most people don’t know anything about and they are the symbol of the free world, the greatest power in the world (despite our current economy).
With this in mind, I don’t think changing the name of certain overseas operations is that big a deal. To be honest it doesn’t take that long to think of a new name. It’s not like the president sat down for hours on end thinking of something. They most likely had a lower level employee brain storm and tell someone higher up some ideas. Of course a new president wants things looked at in a different light and with this being the beginning of Obama’s presidency, it is no surprise that he wants to start fresh and let people know that there is a new man in town and he means business.
As for the question how do we determine who is on one side of the “enemy combatant” line and who is on the other, the lines haven’t really changed. Before we were fighting “terrorists,” but who is really a terrorist? I don’t think who we in America consider terrorists think they are; as a matter of fact they probably believe we are. So what is the difference if we now call them “enemy combatant”?
With politics and the running of our country, the people of the United States are not all ever going to be happy at the same time. There are too many different kinds of people with different ways of thinking. All the current administration can do is what they think is best for the largest number of people within this country. That is there responsibility. There will always be people left out. That is just how the world works.
When I began to read this article I immediately thought of an episode of The Daily Show I saw last week where Jon Stewart did a segment about euphemisms. I had been thinking about it all week and was really glad that Sam included it in his blog. In some circumstances I believe that certain euphemisms can be justified. In a way I can see Obama’s reasoning behind changing “the war on terror” to “overseas contingency operations.” Who wouldn’t want to put themselves as far away as possible from that messy affair? He might have thought that to rename it would be the first step in what many hope will be drastic policy change. Where Obama must separate his administration from the previous one is by actually solving this new and yet, still the same, “overseas contingency operation.” I do not want this war to be passed on to the next administration and continue the cycle. Rename it if you want but make sure you actually solve it too. Unfortunately, merely referring to a problem by a different name does not solve it. Even more unfortunate is that fact that most of these terms that are being remained are the ones that need to be faced immediately. It seems that the more uncomfortable they are to face the more important it is for us to stop being cowards and face the truth. For example, I believe that we need to be using real vocabulary when it comes to teaching Native American history in grade school. We seem to have no problem using words like genocide and massacre when describing events such as the Holocaust and Tiananmen Square, but when it comes to our own country’s murder of innocent people, we seem reluctant to admit our mistakes. We go into detail about the Revolutionary War and WWII year after year, yet we skim through conflicts with the Native Americans like it was some tiny disagreement that was easily solved. The same thing goes for race. When I was in grade school, and we were learning about the Civil Rights Movement, we were presented with a simple timeline that went something like this: Rosa Parks sat in the front seat of a bus; we realized segregation was a problem; Martin Luther King Jr. came along to help us realize this problem; the government passed an amendment that solved the problem. Pretending that we are “protecting” children from the often brutal details of our country’s history is not a good enough excuse. If we continue to ignore these problems eventually too much time will pass and we will forget the struggles so many innocent people went through, and we could end up making the same mistakes again.
We are extremely ignorant of other people’s cultures, regardless of who we are talking about. I think this is because we make fun of what isn’t similar to us; what we don’t know. I feel like a lot of times if we don’t know how to address something or someone’s culture correctly, we just avoid it altogether. Me being a passive person would prefer not to say anything instead of getting reamed out for offending someone. I don’t want to offend someone. I would feel awful. I would probably be more scared afterwards to say the wrong thing. Obama coming into office after Bush meant that he inherited a lot of things that people didn’t like while Bush was in office, and still don’t like it when Obama is doing it. They don’t realize that to fix things, money and time are involved. I feel like Obama cannot just go into office and radically change everything that was going on before. There are plans that Bush had for things that Obama agrees with and follows because he feels that it is the best way to handle things. I think Obama is being a little wearier of how they say things and they are trying to be careful. If they call something by a nicer name, does that make it less of a threat? I think we should address it by what it actually is. A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack. I don’t care what anyone says. If children are learning about this and they call it something else, how are they going to know how wrong the event that happened was? They won’t. If no one is aware of this then it can’t be fixed. Just because the President says something doesn’t mean the people have to follow, at least not in America. Our citizens are being manipulated by the President and his people, it is hard to trust any politics to do the right thing. They do what benefits them. So with politics having the reputation they do, it is hard to trust Obama. It is almost a blind faith now, even though he is doing things that Bush implemented in the first place. I think people didn’t think Obama was going to be helpful to the country in any way, and are now let down because things can’t happen quickly enough for them. I still trust that he will help our country. I know that Bush got us in a lot of trouble while he was in office, so Obama came into a mess of problems. I think I was just so happy to have Bush out of office because I was upset with what he was doing with our country that Obama was and is a relief.
This article upset me somewhat in that I feel like our country is still trying to dance around the subject of war and telling the public some sugar coated version of what’s really going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the “war on terror.” I think Obama is very charismatic, and well spoken but I feel like he’s making a mistake with his rhetoric in this situation. People don’t want to be fooled or mislead, and I think Obama is basically doing that to the American people. He’s dancing around the real issue at hand, which is that there are people out there that want to kill us and fight wars with us. There’s no way around that. I feel like the American people would be much better off if Obama came out and said this is a war we are fighting against extreme terrorists. “Overseas contingency operations,” in my opinion, is a stupid way to describe a fairly simple fact: we are in a serious war. Too many times in this society, people try not to offend others and say the politically correct thing. I think political correctness, which Obama is guilty of in this article, is all bullshit. Obama should say what’s really going on at hand; he can’t mask the fact that this is a war, and people need to be informed and well learned about it. With all that said, I think all Presidents try to manipulate the public at every chance. They will say basically anything to make the public think that things are going well. We have seen this in the past many times over; where Presidents have changed their language to make the public feel one way when the real issue is the exact opposite. Presidents have used rhetoric that takes advantage of positive connotations, making the public feel secure or safe.
A part of me justifies Obama’s rhetoric, however. His whole campaign was about change, a change for the future. He vowed to get us out of war and the recession. He doesn’t want to do be affiliated with the Bush administration in the least, and one way to do that is to change the rhetoric of the past eight years. Bush’s press conferences and state of the union addresses were handled one way, and Obama needs to handle his in another way. If he truly wants to leave the past eight years behind, then he must change the rhetoric first. He must change the perceptions that Bush left behind also, and he’s trying to do that with his change in diction. In that sense, Obama is living up to his campaign motto of change, and I think he is justified through that.
When reading this article, I was reminded of the quote, “if it smells like a dog, and barks like a dog, it probably is a dog.” I think that is definitely the case here. It does not matter how President Obama re- words a war it is still a war. So if the ‘overseas contingency operations’ smells and barks like a war, then it probably is still the war on terror. If anything President Obama and his team are mocking the American people. For Obama and his group of people being so intelligent they sure are dumb if they do not realize that they are extremely insulting the people of America by naively acting that America would not catch on to their deliberately dumb rewording actions. They are ridiculing America by saying that we are so dumb we would not figure it out.
It seems dishonorable that the 21,000 troops who are being sent over to Afghanistan are not beginning recognized for their bravery, because Obama’s team is trying to paint a colorful picture of the war to America that is not reality. It seems disgraceful that Obama is not recognizing the troop’s efforts, but instead it is downplaying their efforts by not calling the war what it is. These troops are fearfully being sent overseas to defend our country and they need to be recognized for what they are being sent over there to do, which is to fight war; instead of their actions being covered up by Obama’s party. I mean to call terrorist attacks, man-caused disasters is disrespectful to all the soldiers who have died in spite of these attacks and it is like a slap in the face to all those who lost their lives to the terrorist attacks on September 11, and to their families and loved ones who morn their deaths.
Even though the location is changed and now the troops are being sent to Afghanistan instead of Iraq, I feel as though things are still the same as they were when we were in Iraq with President Bush. It makes me feel as though we are in just as bad as hands as we were when President Bush was in office. The only difference is at least he called it as it was, he was honest in the aspect of war, were Obama is not being honest with himself if he believes his lie or the people of America. I do not believe that in any way by Obama using a different tone to disguise the war, is helping the American people, if anything he is hurting us by disgracing the troops and the people, and he is hurting himself by making some rethink if they can trust the president.
As far as the racist term ‘dot-head’, I believe that this term is just as disgraceful as the terms: man-caused disasters and the overseas-contingency operations. Just like the two political terms and the dot head term, both do not let on when what they actually are. All three terms are negative and don’t reveal the truth of the definition. This racial term refers to a negative image of a practice that started a long time ago and when someone coins a person a dot head, half the time I don’t think that they even know why the dot is placed on the persons head. The term is used to describe something that is not true, just like these political terms that Obama is trying to coin, that describe things that are not the truth. Most people use the term dot head to describe 'Arabs'. India is not in the middle-east and Hindi culture is way different from Semitic (Arab/Hebrew) cultures. Yet uneducated people will tell you that all Hindis are Arabs, and that Arabs wear turbans, and Arab women wear dot on their forehead. But here is the truth: only some Hindu women wear the dot, Arabs don't do that. Also, Arab men wear Kafiyahs, not turbans and here is the truth regarding man caused disasters: they ate terrorist attacks, and here is the truth of overseas contingency operations: it is war. Obama and his party is dumb if they think they live in a time where the world wont question their actions, because we will and we are. As for these three terms, well they hold no truth and teach all of us that we must be careful what we here and read because we cannot always trust what we are told.
Often times I can have a negative attitude and may think that everyone is out to get me or that my life sucks. But as I’ve been learning to do, every time I start feeling sorry for myself I think about all the people who have it worse than I do in all aspects of life. Yeah, I’ve heard a few racists comments and had some weird glances for believing what I do but I don’t live in fear of my family being dragged through the town because of the color of their skin nor do I have to live out what I believe in private for fear of the government hunting me down.
In response to the first post about this article, we discussed how truthful the government actually is, how truthful we perceive them to be and whether we actually want to or deserve to hear the entire truth. Yes, we’re fighting a war and it may have been sugarcoated in the past but even when we are told the truth about some things, most of us don’t even do anything. I hate saying this but like the commercials on TV about the kids with the bloated stomachs…I feel really bad when I see them and apart from sponsoring two kids in Ethiopia through Compassion International, don’t do much else to change their situation. I feel like I should since I’m a person of privilege in this situation but sometimes it’s easier not to know what’s really happening for the sake of my conscious. Which is an extremely selfish thing to say. The idea kind of relates to white guilt as well. Like we get angry when we aren’t told the truth about things but does every white person really want to know all the racist things that black people have endured not just during the Civil Rights Movement but last week, yesterday, today? Because while the country is on its way to combating race, people still suffer.
Furthermore, in what circumstances are we entitled to hear the whole truth and who do we expect it from? A lot of people a(myself included) agree that the media isn’t always honest with us, The American people. While I’ve come to expect that, I don’t necessarily react any differently to what they tell me, meaning I’m pretty likely to believe what they tell me. I know they lie/ fabricate but whatever. However, when the whole Bush/Rumsfeld thing emerged about whether or not there really were weapons, I found myself becoming more enraged. Why is this so when facts may have been altered in both situations? But while this is a democracy based on free speech, the fact of the matter is are we actually entitled to such classified information. The president has to deal with a lot of shizz that’s classified and may be perceived as more dangerous than it really is. I’m sure if I knew all he did I would stay locked in my room or kill myself so in that case, Mr. Obama can keep all his knowledge to himself.
I understand why president Obama would want to stay away from anything that former president bush did and said. A lot people didn’t like bush at all. I also understand why Obama would want to change the wording of some of former president bush’s action less aroused. I think that might not really be right to the people. The people should know what’s going on straight forward. Things shouldn’t have to be covered up by changing the wording of what’s actually going on. At the same time I understand where president Obama is coming from. He doesn’t want to lie to the people but at the same time doesn’t want the people to be angry and upset so the smart thing to do would be to continue to carry out your actions but call it something less upsetting for the people. I think president Obama to set his own path and try his hardest not to follow in the foot steps of the former president bush.
I think that people should not stereo type people or places if they don’t know the background or definition of that specific word. I think the phrase illegal immigrant is very derogatory and we should find another more suitable and less mean of a word to call someone who came to the US illegally. As for the word ghetto, I think people use that word and have no idea what the word really means. Some people just throw the word around when regarding people or places that are hardly ghetto. And yes everyone will not agree upon the same exact meaning but some people call ghettos some place that’s not nice looking and that is so not true.
I agree with the first comment made on this blog. People should not have expected this country to do a full one-eighty once Obama came into office. It takes years to repair the damage that was made in the past eight years by the Bush administration. Obama promoted the idea of “change”. His desire for peace united many of us. Peace was what we needed and after what felt like years and years and years of Bush- we wanted out. Personally, I am one for instant gratification. And I believe that many Americans are expecting troops to all be sent home and for this war to be over. However, we are still sending troops to Afghanistan, but we are no longer fighting the "war on terror". America needs to finish what was started. In spite of that, the United States does not have to approach it the same way. In order to get the nation on board, there needs to be an attitude adjustment. And this is Obama’s initial change.
But has Obama adopted the same approach? This behavior by the Obama administration can be seen as unjust. Just because one word may have a nice ring to it, does not make it better. It is still a war and our troops are still stationed overseas with more joining them soon. Whether you call it a war on terrorism or war. To some people, this name game appears to be a form of trickery. It is how you look at it. Yes, in a way, it is a bit deceiving. (The words “honest” and “politician” do not come hand in hand very often, or at all.)
But really, the way I look at it is that Obama has to live up to all of these expectations and cannot accomplish them all at once. Or even this early. People wanted so much out of him so quickly. And realistically, the only way this can be done is through words right now. It is too early for a major change through actions. But many people are seeing his actions to be parallel with those of the Bush administration. People want nothing to do with Bush. Just the name “Bush” has such a negative connotation to it. Anything remotely similar to the Bush administration scares people. And for Obama to send troops to Afghanistan reminds people of what was done in the past. With all of that said, I may contradict myself in the next sentence. This name game is not ethical. Now I understand why Obama is doing it. But it is still not right. You cannot beat around the bush. You need to tell it as it is - Even if your approval rating consequently goes down.
When I first started reading this blog, I immediately thought of the activity we did with our guest speaker where students had to relay a story to one another. We most certainly learn to use certain terms and not use certain terms in our conversations about race and culture. A good example of this is the “n-word”. In the story during this activity, it was spelled out and said during the narrative, but everyone changed it to the “n-word”. Also like we have been discussing in class, it might also depend on the person to determine what is offensive to them or not. What may be offensive to one black person may not be offensive to another black person, which is where we begin to have communication issues. On the other note about discussing issues such as inequality and privilege it amazes me how we have conversations about these topics all the time, but we do not really picture these things or put them into perspective during the conversations. We have to force ourselves to be put in others’ shoes and do this more often. After reading the article, “The Words Have Changed, But Have The Policies?” I couldn’t help but think how stupid it was that everything was exactly the same or very similar and the only thing different between the policies was the name. Changing the name of something doesn’t change the meaning of what it really is and it’s sad to think that our administration thinks that we would fall for the word change. I think that we are being manipulated to an extent where we are thinking and supporting the status quo. We are over generalizing and although we may think that this “status quo” might put us all on the same page as far as certain things go, it really is not beneficial to us at all. We are using terms more broadly than we should. In the blog, the word “ghetto” was mentioned. This word is definitely used in ways that it should not be used. I feel as if today it is used to describe music, clothing, people, and places. But, if we were to go back and really find out where the word came from, it would surprise us to see that what we label as “ghetto” does not really fit the definition at all. I find this is also sometimes true when people say “Mexican” to refer to Hispanic people. My brother, who is 11, experienced someone calling him a “Mexican jumping bean”. I also know that I have heard people slip up in conversations and instead of saying Hispanic or Latino they say Mexican. It also applies to all Asian people being thought of as “Chinese”. Words are so interesting and I believe that now, more and more, we are using them as buffers when what we really need to get down to is the point and our differences. We need to stop labeling and start talking and explaining.
I do believe that the United States is being tricked by how the government chooses its words. I do not think it is a good thing because just changing the words of different policies and saying your going to change them and then you do not. This is not benefiting the United States as a whole. The civilians are not stupid. They will figure it out eventually. I do not agree on the Obama organization with the military. If he is going to take troops out of Iraq, why is he putting more in Afghanistan? He needs to bring out troops home. On the terms of race dialogue, I agree that white people more often watch what they say because they are afraid to offend a person of color. I think most people think of the politically correct way of doing things rather than thinking and acting for themselves. For example, in class, we were talking about asking questions and people were getting offended by simple questions. I think that most people are just curious and are not trying to be ignorant about what they are asking. I mean I asked my black friends what she meant by getting a perm because I always thought it was getting your hair curly, but to black people it is getting your hair straight. I was confused, but she didn’t take my question the wrong way or think I was ignorant. I think people of color need to be more open minded as well as white people. If every black person got mad when white people asked questions about them, then we wouldn’t get anywhere on racial issues. I mean how are white people supposed to know the culture of black people without asking questions. We cant “just know” without asking questions. I grew up around many black people and now I am comfortable with race and asking questions. I admit that I have offended people before and I know I have because they confronted me about it. I also noticed how people of color are quick to call white people racists. I just don’t get it because most people just want to know more about the other person. I am glad I was raised in a military family because I got to experience the world and experience race. For example, if I was still at the first high school I went to, with only 2 black kids, I do not think I would be as open with racial issues. I really truly believe that how you grow up and who you grow up with makes a difference in your life. Today in class we also talked about interracial relationships and how our parents would view our decision on dating outside our race. Lucky for me, my parents wouldn’t care. To be honest, my best friend is black and she tells me that I’m going to marry a black guy, and I tell her she is going to marry a white guy. This joke could go any way. I think that people should do what makes them happy rather than what makes their parents happy because in the end you are going to be the one dealing with this. It doesn’t matter what race or what gender or anything, if you love someone, you love them. End of story!
I think that President Obama is brilliant for changing the language he uses to get people on his side. Isn’t that what politics is all about? If nobody is on your side, then you will not be able to make treaties, persuade others into doing what you want, or even stay in office. I think that people want to believe in their government, but it is so easy to blame them for life’s problems that government officials are forced to hide behind fancy dialogue and pre-written speeches. Have you ever seen a political debate? Most of the time the candidates do not even bother answering the question, because as long as they sound eloquent and say some key words about their platform, people watching will be inclined to think that the candidate has done a good job.
We do the same things when dealing with race relations—hide behind overused words and pray that nobody pries too much deeper. White people use the term “African American” because we do not know when it is okay to say “African” or “black.” For most people, avoiding confrontation is the main goal of any conversation centering on race. People also use words such as “traditional” to trick themselves into believing that it is all right to accept their parents’ and grandparents’ ideas because they are embedded in history. There is always room for change, and people need to take responsibility for their beliefs and actions and really look inside to find out why they are the way they are. Saying that you don’t know anything about race is just a way to avoid the conversation. Everyone is a certain ethnicity, and that has an effect on the way you live and they way in which others treat you.
Do you ever quickly switch the channel when you see one of those commercials featuring a starving African boy whose parents have been killed and now he is forced not only to be hungry, but also to have to care for his two younger siblings? The reason we do that is because it is hard to stare at that child and not feel bad about his plight. We all know that there are hundreds of thousands of starving and disease-ridden children in the world, but when we are confronted face-to-face with it, we want to turn away and pretend it is not real.
Whether it is a race conversation, a realization about our personal privilege, or dissecting a Presidential address, we need to square our shoulders and face the situation head-on to cut through the bullshit. Hiding behind words is easy, but none of us should take the easy way out when it is an important issue that affects our everyday lives and the world we live in every day. Fancy words cannot hide the awfulness of racism, starvation, and war.
Political Correctness has always been a tricky game. In the game of political and public opinion, how the featured individual or individuals phrase the same message is everything. This article highlights how manipulative and deceptive even the seemingly most earnest of politicians can be, including our very own Barack Obama. It is sad, how someone can use some different wording, and how the majority of the public here in America will suddenly approve and give the okay on an action that they formerly condemned as imperialistic and wrong. Barack Obama has promised change, while I do not see it yet in many of his policies, his approval rating has been off the charts, more than doubling former President Bush’s approval rating. Obama has deepened our deficit, continued Middle East war. Some would look at those policies and see a continuation of the previous administrations. But, because of clever advertisement, many people in America are under the impression that we are being ushered into a new age of prosperity and different policies. One can argue that it’s the thought that counts, and that whatever happens is really a separate issue. This is relatable to the issue of race relations. When people of different races come together, each side is generally pretty courteous, and will be very delicate in their phrasing. What they think sometimes becomes irrelevant. Is that right? Is that the point of race relations, to reach a point of political correctness equilibrium where neither side will become offended on the basis of exchanged sentences. Or should it be a total change in attitude, and the real authenticity of the meanings behind the words?
To be fair to Obama, he did inherit a huge deficit, plus he had to deal with the current crisis’ in the middle east and the worst recession that the world has seen in decades. This country’s fate never truly rests or depends on one singularity or entity. Obama cannot change the entire country’s direction on his own, and that is probably why not much change has occurred so far in this country since he has taken office. I do believe Obama is a sincere and honest gentlemen, and he is forced by societal norms to say what he has to say because he does have a country and image to protect. This country isn’t necessarily ready to face all the ugly truths that are involved with politics and how the rest of the world is, and Obama may even be doing them a favor by masquerading some of the events with crafty words, and little by little revealing them to the public. The issue of race relations can even be viewed this way, making baby steps years at a time until maybe one day, race is no longer an issue.
I think language and the usage of words plays a large role in people’s assumptions about a topic or situation. Depending on the words that someone hears, their view in their mind is going to be made up about it. What is interesting is the fact that different words can be said which really has the same meaning as before, yet people will think differently about it. This shows just how much of an impact words play towards people’s thoughts and opinions about things. It is sad in a way, because most people do not take the time to think about what is under the words, or the true message that is there. They just take the words that are told to them and make judgments based from that. I have no doubt been guilty of this myself. I usually try to look beyond the words to look for the meaning because there is always something else there. The hard part is finding the true meaning, especially with all the false information and misrepresentations that we are given about situations. We are told everything is okay in a given area, when is actually it is the farthest thing from it. Again the language and the deception plays the role in order to mislead our thoughts.
When we just think about words, we fail to see the life beyond the words. When racial terms or stereotypes are thrown out there we fail to see that there is a real human being behind those words. When sexist or racist remarks are said for a laugh we buy into the system that we are driven by the words and not by the value of a person. There were a lot of hurtful words directed toward former President Bush, especially towards the end of his term and no question things could have and should have been handled a little differently in regards to some situations, however, many people did not take the time to think about the fact that there are many different factors that play a role into decision making. Some people just wanted to through the words without looking at the meaning to where they were going. President Obama’s administration, as the blog pointed out, has been using different words to describe similar tactics of the Bush administration. It is all in the words because people are using different, more positive words for Obama, without thinking about the meaning to where they are directed. I will never really know in this life time how much my thoughts are being manipulated, however I am well aware that I am. Sometimes I feel as if I have no other choice but to believe the words and contribute to them, yet other times I know I need to stand up and look beyond the words to find the meaning, because that is how we will truly move forward as a society.
This is one topic that I often think about. What are people really saying? Why are they sugarcoating it or giving it a very vague term? What are they trying to accomplish by this?
I believe that Sam’s examples of “dot-head” and “ghetto” are great examples of terms that fail greatly to personalize life conditions and experiences that are important to understand. By giving these names, we do not say anything real about the person, just what our immediate impression of them is, or what we first notice. Another term such as this is “white trash.” I know many people from home that most people at Penn State would label very quickly as “white trash” or “trailer trash,” but I would never say that because I know their personal stories or at least a little more about their life story. We should refer to people not by slang terms but, if by any term at all, by a real term. For example, I would never refer to myself as an “irvingite,” “left-footer,” “taig,” or “papist,” but I know that these are historical slurs for Catholics.
So while slurs such as these tend to degrade, the Obama administration uses similar tactics, but to seemingly sugarcoat. Obama came into office with the pressure of bringing dramatic change to the United States, but he promised this right? So maybe it makes sense that he is trying to hide the fact that he really is not changing much dramatically. Any well-educated person knows that a nation cannot change overnight, and personally I would rather know the truth rather than have it masked by new terms. While the Bush administration made their mistakes, and plenty of them, when comparing their terms with Obama’s, I somewhat prefer the old. To me at least, Bush’s terms seem more straightforward. I am the kind of person who wants to know the truth upfront, I do not like it when people try to make things seem people better than they really are. Is Obama trying to make people believe that changes are occurring in policies when it is really just a change in our vocabulary? This slightly scares me. This could make people believe that things are getting better and not be as aware of impending threats. Sure the news still carries the latest videotape from the United States’ enemies, but from changing the term “terrorist attacks” to “man-made disasters” seems to mask the frightening reality at least a small bit. Soon we will all accept the Obama administration’s new vocabulary, I just hope that we keep our views, expectations, and intelligence.
Upon reading this article, my first reaction was to call it censorship, which in my book is a terrible strategy. It keeps us all comfortable, happy, and oblivious to the real world and its suffering. Additionally, it induces apathy, and prevents many people from realizing there are others in the world who are incredibly impoverished, oppressed, or both. But in our age of information, I’m not sure if that is a valid point. Should it be our government’s responsibility to avoid panicking its citizen’s, and leave it up to the citizens to educate themselves on the world, or is it instead to motivate people to connect with the rest of the world, and in so doing inspire our nation, one blessed with extreme privilege, to help our fellow human beings?
The Obama administration seems to be taking the first route. As the article states, he is directing us away from the previous administrations obvious fear-mongering, which has only served to increase xenophobia, fundamentalism, bigotry, and in turn racism. But it seems to me he is taking it too far. Calling our new strategy of essentially bringing full scale war to Afghanistan “overseas contingency operations” is hugely irresponsible. We are going to war. But at the same time, just proclaiming war is too much, while at the same time not enough. In the collective consciousness, war is the images one sees in movies, and is essentially one nation, with borders highlighted on a map, versus another nation with similar highlighted borders. It is everyone in Iraq, the foreign evil, versus the people of the United States of Fucking America, and everyone on both sides knows where they stand, and hates the other side with all their heart. In reality the Iraq War, if it had been run responsibly, was a war of us against Saddam Hussein and his supporters, and most of the population should not have been involved. In that respect, I understand the relabeling of war as “overseas contingency operation.” It makes it harder for people to make a direct link with Afghanistan, so its population isn’t generalized as the enemy.
Unfortunately, that lack of connection is exactly the problem with the redefinition process, because in that single respect it is no different than the fear and hate-mongering of the last administration. People need to know that there are real enemies out there, and both our soldiers, those enemy combatants, and far too many civilians are being killed, and all of those deaths matter, because they are humans dying. All of the gory, uncomfortable details- and none of the opinions- must be explicit public knowledge. The people of Afghanistan must have faces, families, feelings, hobbies and jobs, and they must be explicitly separated from their extremist country men in the public mind. People will then be motivated to learn and formulate their own opinions, rather than them being spoon-fed ideology. And perhaps that job is not within the strict definition of government and should instead rest in the hands of the dysfunctional media and the concerned citizen. But Obama promised change and said change was necessary, and that promise definitely implies some redefinition.
It seems that few people understand that the president does not act as a king or dictator, but is also within the checks and balances system that is our triumvirate government. Congress must vote on domestic and diplomatic policies as well, so if Obama has the greatest new ideas this country has ever seen it is still limited by the oversight of the legislature. That being said, troop increases and movement overseas is governed by the executive branch, and so far Congress has decided to allow funding for these operations. In terms of language used to describe what is actually occurring in the world today, it makes absolutely no difference. Call them terrorists, combatants, or martians, either way they are violent extremists bent on destruction. What the administration is attempting to do is distance itself from the most unpopular administration in American history, which is not in the least surprising. What the administration is not doing is dishonoring troops or disgracing the American people by not referring to this as a “War on Terror.” This label, which is literally as ridiculous as a war on sadness, would be far more embarrassing to fight for than actual American freedom or, more accurately, foreign contingencies. The actions of soldiers will always be recognized as acts of bravery, regardless of what labels are associated with their missions. Desert Storm wasn’t designated as a war, yet these soldiers are given the same distinctions as others who fought in actual wars. Additionally, Obama is not disguising anything by using different language. If the American people possess a shred of intelligence, they will not focus on what the operation is called, but how many soldiers are being dispatched, where it takes place, and what our intentions are. Before invading Iraq, few people could point to the country on a map, and now people are upset because it’s being called something different? If this is the case then these people need to get their priorities straight, and realize it is not about whether it’s a war on terror, a foreign conflict, or a contingency operation, but what these soldiers represent, why they are there, and what we hope to accomplish. Should we be in this country at all? Should these soldiers, who we claim to honor and respect, be losing their precious lives for values or conflict this country doesn’t believe in? I can only hope that one day these language critics wake up from the nerf dream that is their sheltered lives and realize that the article isn’t about labels or language but about the loss of young American lives, taken before they could enjoy old age or the rights they sacrificed themselves to protect. Look at the facts, not the words that describe them.
Thanks for the eye opener Crystal
I found it to be really interesting to read about how changing the words and names of things does not necessarily change what the stand for. It is true in all aspects of life and it is definitely not just confined to politics. Even if you look back on the swear words from decades ago to what the swear words are today you can see the drastic changes that have evolved over time. Back then there was a word that now means the same thing as a different one we use today. I never really thought about it in the sense of politics and how President Obama is cleverly using it to separate himself from the Bush administration.
I do find it very interesting that Obama is basically keeping the same policies but just naming them different things. But at the same time, it is also clever. I am a huge Obama supporter so when people say he is focusing more on the wording then the policy itself I see that as a total overreaction. To hear that John Stewart made fun of President Obama by saying “redefinition accomplished” is just another way of undermining what Obama is trying to accomplish. Just because he feels the need to distance himself from former President Bush does not mean he is neglecting his responsibility as the leader of our powerful country. I think this reassignment of names to certain policies is a neat way to reassure the American people that he is not like President Bush and he does not consider his current ways to be the same as the past. He has different intentions then Bush therefore maybe he feels it necessary to therefore rename these “new” policies.
It is difficult for Americans to suddenly start calling everything these different names. Such as “the war on terror” now being called “overseas contingency operations”. I personally have to think a little more before I would be able to say that. Everyone fell into the pattern of calling it a war on terror so to now change can be challenging for some. And to change every policy associated with the Bush administration is a bit of an overkill. People do realize that many aspects of the bush administration are still in effect under President Obama, but it has only been months since Obama took office. There is only so much one can do in such a short period of time. Therefore yes, many of his redefined words mask their connection to the former president, but soon they will come to stand for new things under this new president. I hope people can stop focusing on why he is changing the words and can come to realize the new breath of fresh air our country is getting. Obama is looking towards the future, and if that means separating himself from the former president, then do whatever it takes.
I don’t see this as such a negative thing that the Obama administration is using different terms to replace the phrases “the war on terror” and “terrorist acts.” In fact, I really don’t think they are trying to confuse Americans either! To act like we are being deceived is insulting to us—I’m pretty certain we all know what these “newer” words mean (man-caused disaster, for example), am I right? I remember quite clearly that Iraq had nothing to do with the events on September 11th, but the leaders in Afghanistan did, and that is where Obama is sending the troops now. Obama has said before that he didn’t agree with sending troops to Iraq to begin with, and that Afghanistan was where attention was to be focused. Along with the soldiers, my guess is he is sending a new message that we are not trying to have a “war” anymore. I think the administration is trying to sound more collaborative about it perhaps, by calling it a oversea contingency. The article goes on to say that Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, said they wanted to move away from hints of fear and toward a policy that prepares the country for all possible risks. Besides, I always thought it was rather oxymoronic to call something a “war on terror” anyways. (Since when is war not terror to people? And uh, since when is it fair, especially since the Bush administration bombed civilians. That there is pretty much the definition of terrorism).
In all honesty though, I think the bottom line is that there are of course messy leftovers to be cleaned up after the Bush administration. With that being said, Bush’s reference to “the war on terror” of course still exists in policy, because there is a great issue to be resolved overseas that began after the terrorist attacks. The prisoners that were held in Guantanamo Bay, previously “enemy combatants” under Bush, are no longer called that anymore. I think that’s very appropriate, considered we are all innocent until proved guilty, and many of them have been held for 7 years without actually having ANY charges held against them (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090318/us_nm/us_guantanamo_holder) . So until they all receive a fair trial, I think it’s really partial to label them all guilty, let alone enemy combatants, which is just shameful.
Moving on to a similar topic, I think calling groups of people from a certain racial or ethnic group an offensive term or one with negative connotation (like labeling ALL Guantanamo Bay prisoners “enemy combatants”, though many have not ever had been charged) is obviously unfair because you’re immediately making assumptions of a group without looking at the individuals. Like Sam said, “Dot-head” is like, okay, so people have a silly name for people who follow Hinduism, but that is actually more fair to judge someone off of their belief, rather than the “ghetto” they’re from, or skin color, appearance, accent, or something else they do not have the choice to learn about and choose to be part of.
As for Obama’s words and policies, people will say that the policies look the same, with no change, even though the words are different, and others said he was acting too fast in his first weeks as presidency and changing too much at once. I think the reality is that he has been looking at the country and recognizing what needs to be fixed for so long. So he has his new plans at the starting line, because this race can only move so fast, along with new words to set the right tone from the top down.
I personally did not like President Bush or his administration and many, many decisions that were made under that administration. I think that President Bush had a great public relations staff, at least for his first term, so he was able to fool a great number of people into thinking that the so-called “war on terror” was a legitimate and maybe even morally acceptable thing to begin. In contrast to the way I feel about Mr. Bush, I happen to be a huge fan of Barack Obama. I supported him from the very beginning, as soon as I heard and watched him speak for the first time during his campaign. That said, I was surprised, a bit emotionally conflicted, and at the same time agreed with the New York Times article, “The Words Have Changed, but Have the Policies?”. Even the title makes the reader really think. How much really has changed since Bush left office and Obama began his term? But at the same time, how much really could have changed at this point, so early in Obama’s tenure as President? It seems almost silly now, looking back upon the situation, that I would have somehow ever thought that as soon as Obama took office, we would be done with the war, the economy would turn around, and all the major problems in our country would magically fix themselves. President Obama is an extremely well-educated and intelligent man. He is charismatic, he knows how to speak to people in a way that they can both respect and marvel at but also understand every word, and I think that over the course of his presidency a lot of things will change for the better in the United States. Still, these changes cannot happen overnight. We have a lot of problems as a nation right now that he needs to face. And he can’t do it alone. Obviously, Obama will need to make a lot of smart decisions, but at the same time, his entire staff will need to prepare themselves to work hard every single day for the common good of the citizens of this country. In all honesty, I have a lot of faith in Obama. I know he is a smooth talker and a lot of people, such as the political experts in the article, believe that his words are simply stated in a way that people think they are different than Bush’s but are in acuality saying the same policies and such. But I disagree. It may be foolish or immature, but I don’t think that Obama is a liar. I think that some of the statments people make are because they are either untrusting of any leader of our nation or are due to the fact that they feel as if they have been disappointed so many times in the past that they are jaded, or even that they simply think Obama is too good to be true when he delivers those moving speeches he tends to deliver on a regular basis.
I am not totally sure what to think about this. That is because on one hand I feel that by the Obama administration changing their words around, it could in some ways definitely be a positive thing. For instance, if president Obama had used some of the same words Bush used in the past to describe his strategies and plans of action, I could definitely see myself thinking “O, @#%! here we go again!” However, when I think about it, by the administration changing their words around it is without doubt more of a negative than a positive. It makes people less aware of what is actually going on in certain situations. For example, when hearing that Hilary Clinton used the phrase “man-made disasters” in order to replace the word “terrorism,” I felt that the two words express two entirely different descriptions. One makes me think of a crappy apartment building (“man-made disaster”) and one makes me think of horrifying acts of harm (“terrorism”). I fail to see the correlation? Also, I think that Obama may be using different wording in order to convince the country that we are no longer involved in war. Additionally, the fact that our President and his administration are changing their words around in a sense is just insulting. Does the Obama administration not think that we are going to realize what they are doing? It seems to me that they must think we’re all dumb or something? On the other hand, when thinking about the question, “which terms of the race dialogue fail to personalize life conditions and experiences that are important to understand,” I feel that the word “poor” in dialogue fails to do so in all of its entirety. Growing up and living by New York City, I have seen what I have believed to be the poor, begging for money and wandering the streets. It seemed to me that the bums on sidewalks were the epitome of what poor is. However, during one of Dr. Richard’s classes after seeing the videos of the many families living in immense poverty who “truly do not know where their next meal is coming from,” I realized that I had not truly understood the meaning of the word poor. That isn’t to think that I haven’t seen situations such as this before; however, I have just never thought to compare and contrast the two. It seems to me that by changing the way words are said, it can entirely change their meaning. This reminds me of the saying to “beat around the bush.” You may say a different word, but is it because you’re just trying to avoid the consequences of the real meaning?
In his work “Nova Express” the late, great, and horrendously strange William S. Burroughs said the single deadliest weapon humans have ever developed were words. This is not just because of their immense power to incite emotion and sink us deep into irreconcilable difference, but also the fact that they are utterly inescapable for the purposes of human society for there are no viable alternatives and nearly all definitive explanation must take place in the form of language. Burroughs argued that every single human being was a word junky and as a long term heroin dependent he was highly attuned to the subject of addiction. His basic formula for ultimate destruction or nova was to take a group record their statements concerning those they hated play it back to the oppositional group, record their statements and the process repeats itself. Now apply this continuously on the global scale and see what happens. Now let’s for one second think about this and how this concept applies to exactly how words are used in the world of race relations. It is here we find a rich and vivid showcase on the many problems and limitations of words. For one, words are difficult and in many situations impossible to retract let alone forgive. Take for example an individual who has become remarkably successful in a number of pursuits and over a long time has transformed themselves into a larger than life figure, then one day out anger they are publicly heard dropping an n-bomb. Depending on scope and situation of the event everything they have worked towards could be undone for once we hear such things they tend to be quite difficult to forget, the work of fifty some years undone in less than a second, if that’s not powerful than what is? Another problem with words is that although our world is changing at a rate beyond comprehension the way we explain it through language has largely been the exact same thing for thousands of years, could it be time for an upgrade and if so than what would it be? Our dependency on words is especially apparent during times of confusion and uncertainty. During such situations we look towards those who we feel have greater knowledge and can more readily access and articulate upon the information than we can. Yet it often happens that those at the top are the ones who disseminate the information down to those at the bottom giving them quite the monopoly on such techniques of dissemination. The best the masses can do in a free and democratic society is keep a record of all that is said and use a general basis for comparison so that the bipolar discourse can function. Evolution can’t happen fast enough.
1. Which terms of the race dialogue fail to personalize life conditions and experiences that are important to understand?
2. To what degree is the current (Obama) administration constrained by the same assumptions as the former (Bush) administration?
3. How much are we being manipulated so that our collective thinking gels into a mindset that supports the status quo? And how might that benefit YOU and for all of us?
I am a person that is absolutely mesmerized by the hypocrisy and seemingly endless contradictions that entwine our species. That is why anthropology I am an anthropology major. I study all the differences of cultures and that brings me insight into my own assumptions about the world. I learn studying the evolution of humans and other primates that well we are a bunch apes that evolved in groups of 10 or 20 people that were all related to each other. So of course when there are millions of us living in confined areas there will be problems. I also have learned through archeology how civilizations collapse and all the evidence points towards a collapse of the American empire.
Those contradictions that I see do pertain to race in some regard. It is not usually where my mind wonders probably because i am a white male but i grew up worshiping the likes of MLK. One contradiction that was brought up in class last week did really hit me hard. It was not my own it came out when same and a black woman were talking. Sam was saying that a person of color or a woman could not get away with what he says in class. Also the black woman was saying that before the class agrees with a statement she makes at least one white person has to validate it. This is staggering to me, I am trapped in my own skin and my own way of seeing things but I have not felt it yet like same talks about. I have never felt that i have been judges by what ever groups i am associated with and not just as a individual. So this doesn’t have so much to do with terms in the race dialog e as much as the way people are treated.
This next question is one i can rant and rave about for along time but i can also confine it to 3 words: military industrial complex. There are trillions of dollars and millions of jobs that are created by our desire do things to help us defend ourselves. I don’t think obama can or will change this. It is just to embedded in our system now. This is one of the many things that will lead to our down fall. Until we spend as much money on social programs as we do our military this country will be an abomination as far as i am concerned.
We are very manipulated by the media. They get everyone riled up about thing that don’t matter at all: The sexual affarirs and preferences of senators, abortion, gay marriage. Now i am not saying those are not important, they are but when we are facing 13 trillion dollars of debut and when our entire civilization is on the brink of collapse because of peak oil, these things are kind of trivial.
Unlike the first comment, I don’t think that this is about Obama changing everything Bush did wrong and turning things around for the better. This article talks more about the words being changed. This comes in to play with the race dialogue and political correctness. Why we use some words verses others despite both allude the same idea or meaning and the answer here is political correctness. Politicians control or modify words to prevent offending anyone directly. This article perfectly portrait the way our country works. Even though, Obama is black, the race issue is still the same to some extend because we still avoid talking about race and we are still trying to event better words that will not offend anyone, but not everyone is the same and we cannot pretend we are going to make everyone happy.
When I look at the political aspect of things and compare Obama’s and Bush’s administration, the constrains they have are in a way the same because changing policies cannot be done over night. Everything Bush did was simply passed on to Obama and he will have to work with what he has to try to change things around. What I don’t like about politics is that they are fallacies for the most part; things are not really changing only the words seem to be changing, this same thing happens in the race dialogue. We avoid using terms such as Dot head, Rednecks, Niggers and all kinds of racial and social status derogative terms. We avoid confronting the bigger problem and avoid talking about it as well. I really don’t think Obama is that much different than Bush, yes he did say we were going to end the war in Iraq, but to him the troops should be in Afghanistan, the point is that war never ends and everything they say in the news or politicians say is just the surface of things we are not really discussing what is underneath. Once again this same thing happens with the race conversation. Words are being use to manipulate the way we speak and think.
This doesn’t only happen in this country we also play the avoidant role internationally. There is an international law to prevent genocide. Whenever there is genocide occurring in any nation, the other nations are supposed to do something to prevent it from happening, however we do nothing and prefer to avoid or give a different name, examples are Darfur and Rwanda. This leads me to the conclusion that we that we are being manipulated by our government and we don’t seem to have a problem with it because it benefit us. When Bill Clinton was in power and the genocide was happening in Rwanda he did not step in to help not because it was not genocide, but because it did not affect us in America. And again it is all about the personal benefit not others. This is why we don’t see anyone in the media or our government talking about the social classes and racial differences.
The article by the New York Times, “The Words Have Changed, But Have the Policies?” is a great example of how political groups find ways to discuss war, combat, or anything not politically popular without having to upset people. It’s very true that every White House picks its words carefully, using poll-tested, focus-grouped language to frame issues and ideas to advance its goals, as it should. Before relating this to race relations I have to point out that this whole framing language differently but keeping similar policies is what administrations are forced into doing because the mass public is so limited in its own real knowledge of the world politics issues. Sure, there are some actions that could be done differently in regard to the war in Afghanistan for example but we have just transitioned from a republican ideological standpoint to a democratic standpoint toward the conflict so there is a process of inheriting certain strategic thinking and then changing to fit the demands of the people. Though, this only becomes more complex because the mass public often takes a particular stance on an issue but the majority of the people actually have close to no idea what they’re talking about, especially in regard to foreign policy. They have no basic foundation in the realm of international relations and because of that, what the people “think” they want (eg. End to the war) can only be achieved through what they may consider wrong, when in fact is the only option.
In the context of race relations, I used to be so worried about my use of language around certain racial groups, as if I needed some type of approval. This is similar to what we discussed in lecture on Thursday. Now I really could not care less. Something that has been bothering me about what Dr. Richards says often. He says that when at the race table, white people expect black people to have greater insight and are more knowledgeable about race relations. This is NOT true. I have never thought that someone of color would have more knowledge about race relations AT ALL. A different perspective, sure. This whole issue of labeling and using certain terms that really mean different things all to “brainwash” the general public into thinking or not thinking certain things is really just one big headache. If you learn the term “enemy combatant” and are unable to consider that the person might not even support the cause and may have a totally non-extremist life style then that is your own fault, not the administrations “labeling” techniques. The article made several good points about political rhetoric but again, this is the political economic capitalist situation that the majority of Americans say they support so I’m not sure why so many people are complaining about policies.
Oh it all makes sense now, can’t we all just call a horse a horse. Pardon what will probably seem like a conservative rant, but that is probably where this is going to go. The New York Times is finally admitted, in a round about way, what the Republicans of this country have been saying for a very long time. All of the policies that George Bush put into place so many years ago, were warranted and were working. Here is what I think happened: Obama got briefed on what has really been going on in Iraq and was given the information he needed to be President after Bush’s last 8 years of presidency and realized that things weren’t as bad as the media have made them out to be. What you see happening now, is the Obama administration renaming things so that the “Joe Shmo” American won’t catch that not all that much is changing right now. As a public relations major I can tell you exactly what they are doing. The words surge and war on terror have grown to become words with extremely negative connotations. So the press secretary of the United States is attempting to change those words to have a much more positive idea behind them. It is spin at its best and don’t you be fooled by it.
As American people we are programmed into this mindset by the ideas of hope, change, and new beginnings. By choosing a certain set of words and phrases this administration is going to not change anything at all, yet just change the wording and have Americans oohing and ahhing over the fantastic things Barack Obama has done for this country. Where is the change? Why haven’t we left Iraq yet? Has there even been a bill signed to get the troops out of Iraq? What is amazing to me is that the New York Times interviewed people from democratic groups who said that by changing the wording they are “purging things from the Bush administration.” Seems like to me that we are still doing the same old just saying it in a different way. Isn’t it amazing how we fall for such trickery? To quickly answer another one of Sam’s questions, I would say that the Obama’s administration ran on a platform that discussed how unhappy the American people were and how necessary it was for change. Obama constrained himself to his own set of standards and assumptions. It was assumed that within the first few months of him being in office that things would change. It has been three months, everyone is expecting results and now. To end this lovely rant I will leave you with John Mayer, I am still “waiting on the world to change.”
The illusory nature of language. This is something I think of all the time, as someone highly infatuated with linguistics and the like. In the end, though, what is really illusory about it? Language is both the method by which we communicate and function, and the lens through which we see and think about the world. It is the crux of epistemology, how we know what we know depends on the linguistic. In a sense, as our most uniquely essential behavior, it is mankind's essence.
The power of implication in language must be recognized and respected. Words, almost independently of the context in which they appear, can change the world (as cheesy as that sounds). Granted, in the ethical sense, it might be argued that words mean nothing without consistent actions to back them up. On the other hand, the same words can define and motivate actions. The carefully selected words used by the Bush administration are a case in point, as they brought us to Iraq with some measure of solidarity (at least at the time).
I can respect the perspective that might criticize our new administration of hypocrisy. Where are the actions to back up the words? This is an understandable question. However, I think it may be missing the boat to a certain extent. The words themselves are the point, and a cognizance of their power. The tone is in the wording, and it's the tone they're trying to alter. The Bush administration did engender fear via lingual means, and gave us our second Red Scare. This was essential to their policy, of course. It may be less easy to perceive, but these new words are essential to Obama's new policy. Perhaps they feel that we can start by changing the tone as policy itself is being redrawn and the necessary steps are being taken. Of course, it remains to be seen where those steps will ultimately lead!
With respect to the words themselves, I'm not sure how well I appreciate "man-caused disaster." Honestly, I think this is a pathetic attempt at an effective euphemism. True, it amounts to a disaster, and it does have a human source, but for fuck's sake! In a number of years time we may be experiencing natural disasters of a largely human origin for which such a title would be more appropriate. Eco-terrorism I suppose you could call it. Can one not say "Act of violent extremism?" I suppose this is too much of a mouthful. Perhaps there's no better way to put it and I should stand down.
In any case, I don't doubt that these re-wordings will, even if through controversy alone, change our perspective on these matters. I think it noble to diffuse fear, but I must agree with some critics that the extremists remain in existence and perpetuate a rather singular goal. Complacency ought to be avoided. We must also remember that our military presence in the Middle East throw oil on this fire. It's good to diffuse our mindset on the home front, but it must be remembered that our actions on the other front can still bolster local support for extremists groups and elicit more "man-caused disasters."
It's almost amusing that our own faculty for language can so thoroughly surpass our means of comprehension! Language is perhaps one of our most twisted and tangled webs among the many that constitute our constructed existence. gewisse Sachen sind einfach kompliziert, as the Germans might say here. Certain things are simply complicated. The phrase encapsulates the same irony at hand. Think about it.
Since Barack Obama has taken office, he has changed a lot of the rhetoric used by the previous administration, especially in relation to terrorism and the conflicts in which we are currently involved. The reason behind this is obvious: to try to change the caviler tone with which the Bush administration described world events and make them a little less confrontational. A lot of these changes are for the better, in my opinion. Take the “War on Terror” for example. The word “war” means almost the same thing as “competition” to most of humanity. In war, there are two sides. After the war is over, one side is called the winner, and the other side is called the loser. The struggle against terrorism, however, doesn't fit into this black-and-white definition of a war. Terrorism, in various forms, has been around since the dawn on humanity. It has been practiced by empires and peasants alike.
I make the argument that it is impossible to “win” the fight against terrorism since terrorism has always been with us. There have been many instances in which the United States has practiced, sponsored, or financed terrorism. In these instances, the terrorists are usually called “freedom fighters”. For this reason, I think it's absurd to call this struggle the “War on Terror” because if it really is a war on terrorism, it will go on forever with no clear cut winner or loser. As a matter of fact, one can argue that the United States has used terror to fight terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. In this case, re-branding the “War on Terror” to “overseas contingency operations” has at least described the conflict for what it really is.
The term “enemy combatant” should be a fairly simple concept to understand. Anyone who attacks American troops or property in a theater of war or area where our military is currently operational should be deemed an enemy combatant. The main reason for the Bush administration's refusal to term prisoners taken in Iraq and Afghanistan enemy combatants was to deny them their right to protection against torture provided by the Geneva Convention. In other words, they wanted to appear like they were torturing terrorists and not enemy combatants. In regards to “enemy combatant” not being a line in the sand, I would make the argument that it is often difficult to draw a certain definition from a phrase. What is the relation between “enhanced interrogation” and torture? Are they mutually exclusive? If so, at what point does “enhanced interrogation” end and torture begin?
This type of re-branding can certainly be seen in day to day life as political correctness. Throughout the years, blacks have been re-branded as African Americans, colored people, people of color, Afro-Americans, and all other sorts of names.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned about the government since I’ve been at college, it’s that you can’t trust anything they say. You, as an ordinary citizen, have no idea what the real truth is. And claims are bogus; no one in politics is going to (or is really even able to) go through with what they “publicly plan” to do. From this one can conclude therefore that the words of politicians inevitably mean nothing. Yes, they are playing with their words because they are well aware of the billions of people around the world with their eyes on them. So many things are kept top secret that they have the freedom to reveal only tiny bits and pieces of real information. Let’s face it, if they revealed the real truth, most of them would look like big assholes. They spend their time using the available power to make themselves look good to the public , using lies and blame to steer attention away from their shitty behavior and habits. Some of the most successful lobbyists in America are extravagant liars who are highly skilled at manipulating words to in turn manipulate the poor defenseless politicians’ minds. Money is the goal here in America and if we can turn around some words, make a few bucks and not actually have to face the real problems at hand, then we are a happy America. So kids, we can’t expect the new rich and famous Barack Obama to be any different. Another example of Obama’s willingness to use a fake solution is the corn thing. Corn is genetically modified and over-harvested in the US because we use corn-derived materials in almost everything we eat. Not only is this depleting the land and genetic variation of crops in America, but it’s terrible for our bodies, completely unnatural, and an entirely fake solution to a problem that we created with our serious lack of food culture. Large corporations can make huge profits off of corn products that can feed a nation, and Obama is investing money in these practices. Just when I thought we were gonna get real, I was faked out again. But I also believe that we can’t sit around and worry about stuff. One thing I learned from this class is to keep an open mind, and don’t accept truth without proof. Don’t let things that aren’t proven control your mindset. Don’t make judgements on anyone and don’t expect them to behave in a certain way. Don’t lump people in categories, and assume that just because you’re a politician means you’re gonna fuck up. Or just because the paper wrote a nasty article on you means that you’re not a fit human being. Obama was elected as president of this country for a reason, and I’ll at least trust that and not waste my time getting huffy over rumors.
I thought “the war on English” was a very interesting phrase. On the one hand, yes, the terms we use are quite irrelevant to the actual predicament we are in as a nation. We can no longer hide in the shadow of a manifest destiny that was never meant to be realized. But then again, how we decide to discuss certain issues reveals a great deal about how we are thinking. To see images in the media of other people and to decide to label them “enemies” gives away a lot about our own culture. This means that we do not see “fathers,” “children,” “family,” “community.” We only see “the other.” We decide to suspend our rational thinking that says that these are people just like us with hopes and dreams. They mess up just like we do. They hurt just like we do.
We do this in a lot of other arenas as well. We talk about “the poor” or “the impoverished” as if our prosperity and their destitution are not in any kind of correlation whatsoever. How is it that we can purchase products at such “competitive” (when did we switch that out for “cheap?”) prices? How is it that we have too much food and others are going hungry? We must have so much more because we earned it, right? What would happen if we started calling them “the exploited” instead? “The disadvantaged?” “The oppressed?” Actually, now that I think about it, I think I have heard “oppressed” before, but the funny thing is that we never get around to talking about “the oppressors.”
We are spoon-fed certain terms each and every day. These are the instruments of our apathy. This is why it is difficult for us to feel empathy towards others as a nation. We write numbers in our checkbooks instead of offering up ourselves as the solution.
Terms like these are a great convenience. They allow us to treat people in ways that we would be wary to deem “acceptable” under normal circumstances in order to get or keep what we really want. We shy away from giving money to people on the streets and yet we would be more than willing to spot a friend for a couple of beers (I find it hilarious when people say “they’re just going to buy alcohol”). We get nervous trying to get to know new “white” or “black” or “brown” people, and yet we think nothing of the common awkwardness that occurs whenever we are in a room trying to get to know people similar to ourselves, whom we know nothing about.
This kind of language is an invisible force trying to push us into a very black-and-white mentality.
It is funny because it reminds me of the song that we used to sing on the playground. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. However, it is funny just how influential words actually are. Some poor defense against harmful words, that children are taught. Sure it got me through childhood, though there were other more stupid methods though. I can understand that Obama is trying to throw away any association with Bush by using different words, which helped him in his campaign to become president. However it just seems like a sham being hidden by pretty things. This is like putting pretty pictures on a store window while hiding the merciless butcher in the back. Words do have so much weight attached to them used in different context and interpreted in different ways. It is just the word that we live in. It seems like it would even be normal for the progression of time. We once had these harsh words and softer words used at distinct times, but now we have every color in-between with their grays and alternate meanings. These words are just made to please the people who have been trapped in the society where they have been safe all of their lives. They pretty things up because the harsh words are too harsh and the soft words are too soft, and they find alternate ways to say things, and they catch on. It is our intelligence of thwarting the human mind, to make new associations, to make things special, to be creative and to make things stick. It just seems like a logical progression of our nature to do these things.
People are just trying to use words to offend the least amount of people. Don’t we do that when we have different groups of friends? Aren’t there words, things, gestures, that we use with one group that we do not do in another. Aren’t there things that certain friends will better associate with than the others? I believe that this is just normal behavior.
I am not sure what I am trying to say, but to tell you the truth, I do not mind that our president is doing this. I understand that the masses must be kept at a neutral standing by these safe words as opposed to the already charged words made by the Bush administration. Obama is just trying to make something his own. He is just trying to set things right, and to do it he has to walk a little in Bush’s footsteps and because he is treading on dangerous waters he must be careful what to call it. I am just worried about what the end result is. What is Obama really going to do, or accomplish, what steps will he take to assure the public that things will be better?
I am not convinced that the Obama administration is more concerned with the use of language over policy, as some critics are claiming according to the article in the New York Times. I find that to be a quick jump to conclusion. The idea that the struggling economy is in part due to a lack in consumer confidence is evidence enough that the American citizen’s perception is important and thus supports any efforts in changing political “lingo.” For many Americans, the Bush administration left a sour taste in their mouth. Such terms as “surge” and “terrorist attacks” are bound to bring back these bad memories. As necessary for any group or organization, the government especially needs good public relations. Coming from the perspective of advertising, I see the Obama staff’s switching up language as a method of re-branding.
I understand the claim that they are trying to make Obama policies/actions that are the same or similar to those of Bush seem completely different. At the same time, people are linking that idea with their unhappiness that things haven’t changed. Many people may have seen the electing of Obama to be a quick fix to the nation’s problems. However, there is rarely a quick fix in any situation. With that said, there are bound to be similarities of a new official with the immediate past official.
When I voted for Obama, I did not have the expectation that everything was going to immediately get better. As in any attempts to improve, it is a process. There would me more adverse effects if Obama tried to implement all of his ideas immediately. Like the article mentions, if we want to close a prison we cannot shut it down right away and let all the prisoners loose. Any progress is a process. I do not find the parallels between Obama and Bush to be a legitimate claim. It is far too soon to jump to such conclusion as it has been a matter of two months since Obama got to office. If anything, I see the use of different language to be an effective strategy.
A side note, there are many people out there who believe that we should have sent troops to Afghanistan as opposed to Iraq in the first place. I do not find that to be evidence that Obama is doing exactly what Bush did nor is it comparable to the situation in Iraq.
The bottom line is that in order for the government to succeed, it needs to have the support of the American people. Public opinion does not need a huge action in order to change. The use of friendlier words may be what it takes to put the bad memories behind and stand strong together. Most companies and organizations utilize PR pushes, why can’t the government?
No doubt politicians, leaders and every other person who is in a strong position have been using specific words while using their own definition for every word. This way they set the perimeter for what they mean and let the public dwell on what they actually mean. This world full of people who use giant words with vast meanings and leave people in disarray. It is true that we are amongst the privileged ones who don’t have to worry about how our food will get to our table at night but then again people try to justify that by saying the person didn’t try hard enough. People need to realize that something’s come from birth and privilege could be one of them. I say could is because most people lose hope by the time they come to realize their way of life i.e. below poverty level and they adapt that way of life.
When the Bush administration was in office they used the similar word game. Calling Radical Muslim’s terrorists but at the same time never corrected anyone who called Muslim’s terrorists. That is the reason why is world is full of idiots. They never check their sources and when they hear something they repeat it like a parrot. Even the legal system is based upon the interpretation of words and how we make it out to be. This word game has been playing ever since the world was formed and it will continue to be this way till the end as there is always someone who will benefit from it one way or the other.
When people use words like ghetto or white trash. Who gave them the right to do so? Who are they to decide what’s good and what’s bad? Perhaps a person who is richer then another person would consider the same person to be in a ghetto as he lives in a posh area. People have made their own definitions of what’s good and what’s bad. But again I say who are they to do so? Being restricted by these terms and what not have made people of this world very materialistic. They thrive to get a better car, a better house and the latest clothes and what not. They have forgotten what the real meaning of life is. They are too entangled in figuring out how to get all these things that the purpose is lost. The purpose to care about what’s going on around them. People don’t even know their own neighbors here in America. It’s sad when I came to know this fact. The Bush administration did the same thing, they were too involved in their own thing. Fooling people and invading countries for their own benefit. The only way for us as a whole to prosper is if we think about others first.
It’s amazing how some label specific things like people or neighborhoods and to each person, the word used as an adjective can mean different things to different people. I do agree, who gets to decide how things or people are labeled? There is one thing about words/labels that I do not understand: why is it that some words are okay to be used by some people, and not others? For example, why in rap or hip hop songs sung by black artists is it okay to say the “N” word and black people don’t get upset when this word is used, but if a white person is to use the same word in a song it’s considered racist? Really, when is it okay for certain people to use words and when is it not okay? Also,why is it like this?
Personally, I think that in a nutshell, any words used to describe people or something that involves them (like a neighborhood) it’s okay for those people to use those words and not other people. So if someone lives in a “ghetto” it’s okay for them to call it the “ghetto.” But if someone doesn’t live in that neighborhood and they call it that, it’s offensive to those who actually live in that area. This doesn’t make sense to me, especially if those who live in the area call their neighborhood by that word—so why does it bother them that other people are using that word? Also, what I don’t understand is if a person of color is called the “N” word in a joking manner by a fellow person of color that person isn’t going to be offended, but they would be if it was a white person that called them that in a joking manner even. If a word can be considered offensive in some situations and not in others, may be the word just shouldn’t be used at all just to avoid possible conflict…?
I think that Obama has to watch the words he uses because it’s not really about him, it’s about him walking on eggshells because he has “promised” so much to this country before he was officially sworn in as president. He has to watch what he says and I hope that he realizes this and that it is very important because he could blow a lot by using a word that may be considered “offensive” to some and not to others. I think that if there are words that can be replaced with other words that may mean the same thing but may not come off as offensive, this would be the best way for Obama to approach things and communicate with people. It’s difficult just because you can’t read people’s minds and you can’t tell what offends every individual. Every person reacts differently and some people over react (I believe).
So if the man in charge of our “change” is only twisting his words, who in power can we really count on? I know that war cannot be changed in a second, especially when we are a country that revolves around it, and I also know that his decisions on war are not representative on his decisions on everything, but when then will we see change? If the presidential candidate that finally gave us hope cannot fulfill his promises, who can?
I know that this sounds negative, but it baffles me greatly. If with a little study the everyday citizen can pick out what is really wrong with the government, why isn’t anything done? And if it is because money talks, then where is there hope?
We learned in Soc 001 that the United States spends as much as the next 25 highest spending countries when it comes to military. Money that goes to wars searched out by those in positions of power. What a world it would be if that money went instead to helping the environment, in aiding children who die because they cannot receive simple vaccinations, or to those living in poverty right here within our own borders.
Obama is doing the same thing, but finding another way to say it. He is sending more troops to Afghanistan, killing more people, soldiers and civilians. We were talking about terrorism in my International Relations class. There were three main different kinds of terrorist activities we studied, one was demonstrative, one was destructive, and one was suicide. The average deaths in the first two kinds are one person. And the average deaths in suicide bombings are thirteen people. This does not include 9/11, which was very extreme. I don’t have a statistic on how frequent these activities happen, and I am not certain about other areas of terrorism that could be being left out. But my point is we are fighting a war on the idea of “terrorism” the fear of “terrorism,” without knowing if terrorism is severe enough that we need to be fighting it to the extent we are, but the actual statistics, while still sad, don’t sound worthy of war. And the fact is we are guilty of some of the same kinds of activities. These assumptions ran the Bush administration and are carrying into Obamas administration, along with the greed among the elite.
And to reflect on the question “Which terms of the race dialogue fail to personalize life conditions and experiences that are important to understand?” I would say they are endless. We avoid the real terms, the reality. It makes us uncomfortable. If we talk about the children in our own streets that fear for their lives, go hungry, sleep cold, and loose their innocence when very young we might have to do something about it. We might have to feel guilty and selfish. We might feel like we should put our tax money into helping those who do not have the “know how” to help themselves instead of our next Vera Bradley bag or our new pair of Uggs. If we personalize life if makes us think twice, and we wouldn’t want that, because if we faced the problems we might have to get off the couch and do something about them.
Sherrell Obaji
Sam Richards - Soc 119
Due: 4/10/09
The Mess Beneath the Words!
Let me be the first to amit it I also have a way with words, especially when it come to expressing myself to others; truthfully I believe everybody does it. It’s not really telling a lie, it’s just switching the truth to a more positive level. I think in the case of President of Obama, I feel as if he has to do it for the best of the country, it is not easy running the country (especially in this time and age). If the President would have told the citizens of America that he was having a “Surge”, I think it would have caused havoc all over the country. In some cases, people just lie for no reason at all, and those are the people who should be penalized. People in politics lie all the time, they say one thing and mean the other (that is just how the game is ran).
Personal Opinion:
I want people to carefully analyze the people in society that may mislead the truth (or lie); I know it sounds silly, but really look at their professions. Entertainers that have a way with not filling telling the truth, have to do that not for themselves but for the public -eye. For they are looked upon as role models, meaning there is added pressure on them. For example, before the incidence with Rihanna and Chris Brown, the public “LOVED” Chris Brown (he was the spokesperson for Doublement Gum, also was in high demand to sing with other song artists. He was the Boddy Brown of our time); the public couldn’t get enough of him. But the minute he was found beating on Rihanna, her face was plastered on news station all over the world; people (the public) turn their backs almost as if he was the devil himself. Don’t get me wrong “no man should put their hands on a female, that’s completely unacceptable;” but my point is for some reason people can’t handle the “truth.” Society look up to people in higher up positions, so every move you do it will be watched and analyze very carefully.
Relating this back to Mr. Obama, as a President of the United State it is one of your duties to try and keep the American people as calm as possible. I feel as though people won’t really understand until their put into a predicament of not telling the whole truth. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying lying can be completely acceptable; what I am saying it is okay to tell the truth, but in certain circumstances the truth has to be altered.
After September 11, 2001 Americans all over the world were introduced to the word “terrorism” and how it changed from just representing violence to representing a school of thought, an ideology, and a belief. We can take the word “terrorism” and its implications on American society. A “terrorist” today in America is considered an enemy and an imminent danger that needs to be taken out as soon as possible and in any possible way. This “perspective” was formed in the American mindset after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when the Bush Administration clarified to the American people that there is a group of people out there to attack and harm America and the only way to counter them is through war and guns. These terrorists could not be “negotiated” with because they were dangerous enemies. As the years have progressed after the terrorist attacks, the word “terrorism” has gained more and more power and weight with it. Words such as Al Qaeda, Osama, and Islamist are known to signal danger and threats. However, no one during Bush’s administration ever tried to understand these “terrorists” and instead labeled them as enemies who were justifiable to kill and get rid off. During the whole Bush Term, there was no single day where the Administration tried to reach out and actually connect with the enemies. Instead, the Bush Administration kept its distance and kept feeding the American people with false information about how these terrorists could attack America at anytime and anywhere. No one ever questioned this ideology and instead the American population acted submissively and conformed to this thinking. The most shocking part of this whole process is the Obama campaign and eventual take over of power in the United States. When Obama was campaigning he had already stereotyped theses terrorists as enemies and instead of bringing change, he proposed to go even harder on the terrorists in Afghanistan! How can he already propose a plan when he hasn’t even communicated with this group of people. Obama and his administration have already set their minds and instead of opening up, they have showed how they also have been brainwashed by the Bush Administration about “terrorists” and “Al Qaeda”. Instead of researching and finding out the story behind Al Qaeda, Obama has already decided that Yes these are the enemies of America. Where is the change? I think it is just more evidence showing how Americans have believed in the war on terrorism that Mr. Bush initiated. Isn’t the war already proven to be a flawed plan? Will America continue to believe in labels and the black and white thinking or will America be ready to actually change? It just comes to show how we as Americans have been believing and trusting in labeling and words put out there by the “authorities”. ppun
I think it is very normal for politicians to be made fun of via cartoon. I mean for god sakes there’s even a genre of cartoons, called political cartoons, which are run in prestigious news papers such as the New York Times every week. Every president before Obama has had cartoon drawings making fun of them. I have a T shirt from my dad from the 1970’s of Spiro Agnew wearing a Mickey Mouse hat. George bush during his presidency used to be drawn as a monkey because of his low IQ and the way he looks. That’s why I believe the cartoons aren’t intended to make fun of his race, just Obama as a person. Since these cartoonists don’t know Obama personally, they can only make fun of what they assume about him or pick up from the media. An example is Obama giving the queen an Ipod. That’s would be funny even without a cartoon to go along with it. But the cartoon highlighted the ridiculousness of the event. I don’t believe there are any racial undertones to that. I think the same thing would have been done if George W Bush had given the queen an ipod. This is because the fact Obama gave the queen an ipod is just plain weird. I think basket ball Obama cartoon and the Obama’s fried chicken picture are just trying to generalize obama using stereotypes because these cartoonists don’t know anything about Obama. And to be honest, sometimes it is funny to stereotype celebrities and politicians. Politicians and celebrities are easy to ridicule because of their fame. They are nationally and internationally known. Therefore everything they do can be picked apart and discussed. To be honest if I was black and saw these cartoons, I wouldn’t be offended at all. If it was a white president and there was cartoons using white stereotypes, it would be just as funny. But at the same time everyone has different humor. Someone who has been subjected to segregation or hate to race and racial stereotypes might not find these cartoons funny. However I think it’s good to never take anything to seriously, or else you’ll never enjoy life. People just need to realize the overall goal of these cartoons and jokes is to poke fun at obama, not black people. These cartoons don’t show any real negative intentions. The only intention is to make the general population laugh.It’s like what the writers on southpark do. They take popculture and make fun of it via cartoon. However, their cartoons tend to offend many more people. But they really just want to make people laugh. The goal of a cartoonist is to make people laugh. And if they can accomplish it by stereotypes, they will.
I am outraged that people expect policies to change overnight, and yet I find myself impatient for recovery from the ills resulting from the policies of the last administration. We are a society used to immediate gratification- a click of a mouse, a swipe or push with a fingertip and mission is accomplished in a millisecond. The workings of government cannot be instantaneous, and that can be in some cases for our own protection.
I understand why this administration wishes to distance itself from the foils of the last. If they choose to change the words they use, I don’t have a problem with it as long as we are taking steps to correct the mistakes we have made. The phrase “war on terror” never made sense to me anyway because WAR IS TERROR. “Man caused disasters” actually describes it more specifically. Is it an attempt to take the panic and fear out of the reference? Well maybe it is, but maybe it is necessary that we do because action based on fear is reactionary and not always intelligent and taken with consideration of the long term effects..
We are subject to the influence of rhetoric, but its power is limited by our ability to seek the truth. We can’t depend on either the liberals or the conservatives to get it right. For instance, when Wilson of the Washington Post started the wildfire about the “overseas contingency operation” he was careless and made no attempt to find out the truth when Kenneth Baer said that there was no directive from the OMB and that the “contingency” phrase had been circulated as the personal opinion of a career civil servant. Picked up by both conservative and liberal media, rantings by both political pundits filled the airways. This is just another example of careless reporting for the purpose of intentionally inciting outrage and reaction. Bantering about word choices keeps us from focusing on the real issues.
We are careful to omit emotionality from the words we choose to discuss sensitive topics but this does not necessarily scrub up the facts. The vision we hold within is not created by the language used but by our own experience, education, sensitivity, moral character, and desire for truth. The term “enemy combatant” used to describe the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay is a generic nonspecific term created because the nature of their crimes is nonspecific. It loosely refers to anyone who is in conflict with our ideals and is a threat to our freedom and safety. The power to determine the enemy in this case if unchecked could border on fascism with its repression of any opposition. Determining the “enemy” is the challenge and my fear is the tendency to label an entire race as such. There in lies the danger we face drawing lines in the sand and why WAR IS TERROR because innocent people become victims of fanatical ideology.
Rhetoric, shmetoric. No, I do not support President Obama or his administration with their manipulative use of language – but only because it is meant to mask their lies. Rather than complain about their words, I would rather call them out on their policies.
Rhetoric can be used in many ways, and in politics, it is usually viewed (by the public) negatively. It does not have to be. Sometimes, we the people are not so receptive to the obvious or the good.
The Bush administration, on Republican pollster Frank Luntz’s recommendations, turned “global warming” into “climate change” after focus groups revealed themselves to be more responsive to that language. The same concept (that the earth was heating up due to fossil fuels, etc.) retooled with different language elicited a different, more welcoming response from the public. Job well done.
The fact that the Republicans used this against the Democrats, who were the champions of climate change legislation, and made them look stupid, intentionally – those are despicable tactics… but, then, the Dems were naïve and should have figured out the language issues on their own.
Public relations and polling is not going to stop simply because we the people or the media call attention to it (or call the actions “manipulations”) – and, again, it probably should not. The public is a fickle bunch, myself included.
So my problem here is that the policies have not changed. Nobody is lying here, per say, but they are distracting from the fact that that they said that they would do one thing and… then they didn’t. One of the first things that President Obama did in office (if not the first thing) was a symbolic declaration to the close Guantanamo. Renaming does not equate with closing in my book.
During the campaign in 2008, then-Senator Obama promised to take American troops out of Iraq. Those who voted for him (and those who voted against him, and those who abstained…) did so on the premises he laid out during his campaign. The safe inference was that the troops leaving Iraq would be coming home – not moving to another country, namely Afghanistan. Honesty is honesty.
There are levels of more inappropriate rhetoric, that is meant not only to deceive but to persuade people to hate. Islamo-fascism? That compound expression just breeds prejudice. Also, how the author of the New York Times article came under the impression that “islamo-fascism” has been retired from use, I have no idea. Was a memo sent out? Because a lot of people in my classes at Penn State did not get it. Sam Richard’s BFF (or should I say BEF?) David Horowitz still uses it.
As for the new expression for terrorist attacks, used by OMB’s chair, Peter Orszag, on multiple occasions: it is an inane expression. Man-made disasters? It sounds like a mudslide caused by the boogeyman…. Or something. The democrats are not good with rhetoric. It is sad that people seem immune to the words “terrorist attack” and “suicide bombing” after (not even a) decade.
Well I have to say I have so many issues with the article that was written I do not really know where to begin. First thing I have to say, which really is not a problem, but just strikes me as weird and rare is that the linked article reads like a very liberal platform pushing piece but even still criticizes some of Obama’s policies that have been fairly groundbreaking considering his predecessor but deems them only marginal changes. The author even notes that Jon Stewart of the today show poked fun at the president. Isn’e that his job? Just because now there is a liberal President in office does the author expect the entire format of the show to be revamped? Or better yet pack it in and decide they have had a good run but the fun is over now because Bush is no longer president.
But seriously now I’ll tackle some of the real issues in the blog. The article critiques the way political groups discuss certain topics and use terms and “buzz words” to spin it into the public’s eye in a certain light in order to get a favorable response. The article furthermore asserts that the Obama administration may be putting too much of a concerted effort at creating new terminology that will create distance between him and the Bush administration and that this may take away from their interest in the policies and issues themselves. The sheer thought is asinine; are we really to believe that our government can not multi task and that as a result of having a team of public relations people working for Obama that this may hinder his cabinet, and other policy advisors from doing their job? Unfortunately, in the media saturated society we live in today it is necessary to have the public on your side if you are to be any kind of an effective leader. Furthermore, going into Afghanistan is what we should have done in the first place and Obama is merely working to rectify that. I am sorry if people have a problem with using force on anyone but the fact of the matter is our comforts of security and freedom do not come without a price and in order to preserve these inalienable rights we must work to prevent terrorist threats. Also the mere insinuation that all the prisoners in Guantánamo bay should be released immediately is ridiculous. I personally am opposed to closing it at all but if Barack Obama has it set to close within the year as a sign of good faith to other countries than surely you can not expect him to release all of the prisoners right away. Many of them would not hesitate to kill your entire family if they believed it would further their own cause.
As far as words that “scrub up” uncomfortable facts I believe that that is not attributed to words themselves but the effort people put into educating themselves on the subject mater. Everyone will always have a certain level of ignorance to certain issues and that is simply because it is impossible to experience all the different conditions faced on this earth. The best you can hope to do is educate yourself to the best of your abilities and use that knowledge to better the world if even only a miniscule amount.
Redefining terms does seem an easy way to stay away from terminology that has left bad taste on most Americans. We mentally picture things when we hear a word. For example the word cat will bring a picture of a feline to your mind it may be different from what I see when I hear the word but both things we see are in fact cats. If we hear the phrase, war on terror we feel something or see something whether its people or a country or TV reports, none of these things leave us with a good feeling. Obama and really any politician has the job of trying to put this in a better light even though it’s the same war the terminology that is used makes a big difference in how we see the war. Any politician has this job this is not a new thing and will be used again after Obama. Rhetoric is a very big weapon used when politicians are fighting a war. They must keep the people believing that this war is worth all this trouble on the lives that are being lost if they lose the peoples moral they will very likely lose the war they need the peoples support in order to continue doing what they are doing. People will not be willing to join the army or volunteer if they do not believe in the war. Obama obviously needs to use this rhetoric to get people behind the war again. He is going to stay as far away from any terminology that bush has ever used. He cannot associate anything he does overseas with anything that bush has done. Any definition that bush has established has become taboo, completely untouchable. If Obama wants to have any success in having people support anything that he does in the Middle East he must not be seen as doing anything bush had done. He cannot have a “surge” because that is what Bush did but naming it something else even though it’s the same thing. Isn’t it funny who easily a word change can completely change who we see something. It shows how very important rhetoric is in our society. This same strategy of rhetoric is used at the race table especially in how we refer to another race if you referred to an African American now as a colored person you would probably get some nasty responses but as we have seen in class saying people of color is totally acceptable. So even just changing around the wording completely changes the responses you will get. Using the correct rhetoric is very important at the race table just as it is in the white house. Rhetoric is indeed very powerful.
Barak Obama based his whole president campaign around one word. Change. He said multiple times that the way to get out of debt, the way to fix our problems, they way to make our lives better is through change. Change from the previous president, Bush. Due to the fact that many Americans did not like Bush, we went along with this idea of new change. Barak Obama cashed in on Americas dislike for our currant situation and flipped it around as a positive for his campaign. So as you can imagine, many people expected immediate changes from our new, and perhaps improved, president. I mean, that is what he has been preaching that past months. So what have we seen from our new president? I honestly don’t know.
Now, I know I’m not looking for any over night miracles, but I’m kinda a little shocked at how Obama has been as president so far. For all the changes that he said were going to happen immediately after becoming president, it doesn’t look like he has changed that much from president Bush. In fact he has changed very little from president Bushes ideas and warfare. I don’t like how, when I read this article, he is changing he’s words to almost deceive the American people on how he is not changing that much from president Bush. I understand that he can’t all of a sudden take all troops out of Iraq and so forth, but he is actually adding more into our system over seas. Our people that we captured, that were supposed to be released under President Obamas plan of action, are now staying in our control. I just feel like- why are you not saying the truth?? The Truth is, at this time you, the president, cant do exactly what you planned to do as president. Maybe down the line in one year you will be able to take your course of action that you outlined as future president. That would be great. But why are you hiding behind different names on things that are the same. I rather you (president Obama), to just say that at this time you cant take troops out, or cant waiver from the previous presidents plan until further down the road of you presidency. I agree on what one person said in here blog about how 21,000 more soldiers are getting put back into the war, but not under the name for combat. (Yet technically they are) So they are risking their lives but president Obama is not admitting to their part as soldiers in this Iraq war due to the fact that President Obama is trying to be different than President Bush.
I might sound a little flip-flop on how I view the subject, but I just want to say in defense I do understand a bit about the politics. I know that politically he has to assure the American people in our new government that we have today. At this time of age, we really do need to have as much assurance as we can. Many negative things are going on and we need to stick as close together as we can.
I’m not sure what we are suppose to write or reply to the blog. But from what I understood they are asking of how things are and how the government is becoming. In my opinion to be honest the government of the United States will never change. Because of the people surrounding it. The president is just a figurehead that people will push around and fore him to make the decision they want. Without considering what is going in the world and how people are having a hard time to live. From what I saw since I’ve been alive the government of the United States of America has bee messed up and just going into countries destroying them and getting what they want from them. No person or government will do something without benefiting about it or being selfish about it. The first thing president bush did was send troops to Iraq. He sent citizens of the United States of America who have nothing to do with what’s going on Iraq to save Iraq. How did they save Iraq by killing Saddam and making more chaotic and dangerous than ever? At least with Saddam the citizens were in control even though they didn’t have their freedom. But no it’s just chaotic. To hear stories from people who come from Iraq that my son has been murdered right in front of me by other Iraqis. My husband has been kidnapped because of his religion. That’s what Iraq is now. Bush sent troops to Iraq got the petroleum he wants and left. And now I hear this new thing about Obama sending troops to Afghanistan. Who asked him to send troops to Afghanistan? Who gave him the right? This thing about the United States of America believing that they are the most powerful nation in the world that they have the right to go into any country and just do whatever they want because the country itself is falling apart. I don’t get it, that’s invading of privacy in so many ways. And why do the Americans citizens have to take it. Why do their wives, mothers, daughters have to just accept the fact that the man of the house is leaving to fight in a war that they don’t know anything about. And if they know anything it’s what they are fed be the government. That’s all they know. I appreciate what they are trying to do to the world but they are not seeing the other side. The other side meaning what the people are going through because of the American citizens being around. They might think they are doing good but at the end when they leave everything goes back to how the country. Change has to be from within you cant force it on people.
This was a very intriguing article, I think. It couldn’t be any more true about the government choosing their words carefully to kind of embellish topics that would otherwise be offensive or anger the citizens of the United States, if stated in other words. It really is no different than discussing inequality without thinking of devastatingly poor people that make up 2/3 of the Earth’s population. It’s crazy to think that we are discussing inequality in the classrooms of Penn State when the degree of inequality is literally microscopic in the real scheme of things. Maybe some of us have better jobs than others. Maybe some of us were brought up in a nicer house and neighborhood. Maybe some of us wear more expensive clothes. If you put our inequality on a global scale, at least we all have clothes, a house to go home to, clothes on our backs, and most of have jobs, or are able to get one if we wanted.
The War on Terror’s new name, the Overseas contingency operations, is another doozy. This is what I call “beating around the Bush [administration]”. If I’m going to be honest, I really do not have a problem with this. If Obama pulled our troops out now, right after being elected President, how weak would we look? Do people not realize that there are extremists that need to be taken care of. If we pull out now, the United States would look weak and you can bet your ass terrorists would go on the offensive. Think we scared them by being in the Middle East for so long? No, they are not scared of dying, considering they strap bombs to themselves and plan to do so on their own. By sending these troops into Afghanistan, we are making sure to keep our homeland as safe as possible, so we can live better lives here.
Why are we all of a sudden concerned about politicians candy coating touchy subjects? Haven’t they been doing it for centuries? I thought that’s what politics was. When was the last time you heard a politician run for President and do exactly what they say? Though they change the words around, I think we all still know what is actually being implied. With Obama making history in the White House, he is going to face a great deal of scrutiny from the American people. This is just the beginning. I can’t wait to see what the future has in store for this new “God”. Let the games begin.
I am really sick of the world becoming so politically correct. Everybody gets offended so easily nowadays and it’s really obnoxious. There are so many words people can’t use anymore because it offends someone’s religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, or job. Eventually there will be nothing to say to each other that doesn’t bring scandal or a law suit. Yes, there are some words and sayings that are disgusting, perverted and completely wrong which should never be used and it is a shame that they were ever created in the English or any other language to begin with. Ethnic slurs are wrong all the time. They are inconsiderate and offensive not just to people of the specific culture being insulted and they show ignorance. I feel if people were educated earlier in life about how different people can be from each other, and not just in the grade school way where teachers tell you “to be yourself” as a ploy to get you to say no to drugs or bullying, then we wouldn’t have to deal with it when people are old and stubborn. What I’m talking about is the boycotts and law suits people come up with for calling someone a waitress instead of a server. To me those are situations of intense activists or lobbyists looking for something to complain about because they can’t find any real injustices to fight for.
Now we have to use special propaganda in the media. We are so censored from real life, as if words will form a protective bubble so we don’t get hurt. The fact that we can’t say “war on terror” and instead say “overseas contingency operations” and “terrorist attacks” are “man-made disasters” is ridiculous. By calling something else doesn’t change the reality of what it is and that it is happening right now.
Everything will be so sugar coated in goodness that we might as well all have pet ponies and quit our jobs to go butterfly catching. I understand that sometimes too much of the truth makes people scared, and think the world is about to end at the drop of a hat but the selective language the government uses to downplay situations to show their control really leaves the public in the dark and confused by what they hear from the government and what they see in the media. I feel that if we mix up sugar coating with straight truth there will be a nice balance and less freak outs from the public when something huge actually happens. These general non-specific words make me feel further from my government. The United States government is supposed to be for the people and by the people but this really places a distance between government and the people which actually makes me trust them less and uncertain of their intentions.
I think that although the Obama administration holds within itself great potential and promise, it is also constrained (much in the same way that the Bush administration was). We may have moved forward in the people-of-color-in-power arena, but in some ways, that proves even a greater challenge to Barack Obama. This is because people are expecting immediate and drastic change just because the traditional role of presidency in this country has changed. And it is true - things have and definitely will continue to change over the next four years (possibly eight). That is not to say, however, that the changes will come slowly and painfully. Already Obama has had to deal with the consequences of the actions of the president preceding him. That alone should signify that the process of change would not be a quick one.
Like Obama said, the change will come slowly in some ways. But I think his presidency alone has opened up many doors for this country to see drastic changes, regardless of how slowly they occur. Nonetheless, his actions and his “smooth talking” about policies influences the American people - us - in many different ways. If our President is not 100% honest, why should be as such at the race relations table? If anything his dancing around the issues only teaches the American people (even indirectly) many issues do not need to be addressed and attacked head-on. The more smooth-talking that goes on, the easier it is to address the issues without people seeing the direct and drastic consequences (whether they be good or bad). Honestly, it is the same way with race discussions. The less that we are able to be honest and upfront, the less we are able to truly address the issues at hand. Even more so, we become crippled in our understanding of what the true issues are and what they bring about.
Only using certain words in the race discussion immediately puts up extra walls surrounding the true heart of the issues that we so desperately desire to address. Therefore, not only do we have to discuss the heart of the real race issue, but it is complicated by the extra walls and stereotypical vocabulary that we tend to use in discussing race.
I am excited to see where Obama’s presidency goes - excited, yet understandably nervous. I think that he has opened up many doors for us to walk through as individuals, as a nation. In order to do so, however, we must be wiling to look within ourselves at what it is about us that helps to perpetuate stereotypes concerning race. This includes the language that we use in daily conversations as well. I think we, as Americans, have a tremendous and singular chance and responsibility to pursue change.
Tuh-may-toe, tuh-maa-toe; terrorist, enemy combatant—words that mean the same thing, yet sound different. I guess what sets the second set of words apart from the first is the different emotional responses they receive. You often describe someone as “having a way with words”—what exact “way is that? Picking and choosing of words to create the desired response in someone is this “way.” Though the meaning is the same, the different words used and the manor in which they are used can greatly affect the audience’s response. Why is that? Is the American public not smart enough to realize that all these phrases mean the same thing? The reason people have a certain reaction to a certain word is because of the connotations of a word. For example, since “terrorist” was something people started hearing a lot more than usual after 9/11, the word creates fear. Using a new word, such as “enemy combatant” would cause less distress—why is that?
The Obama administration has done many things to separate itself from the Bush administration. Seeing the countries feelings of the Bush administration, certain words and phrases have been modified slightly to distinguish the two administrations to create more National Security. It is interesting to see how much power a word holds. Where does this power come from? Us! On the first day of class, Sam was talking about how the “f-word” has a derogatory meaning to it just because we gave it that meaning. If the word “pen” meant what the “F-word” means, then people would be offended when someone told them to “go pen off.” A play with words is basically the job of all media. Advertisement is the official term for it is. Finding phrases that sell an item is what advertising is. Instead of saying “fulfill your thirst” it is “quench your thirst.” Both mean the same thing—but one is just catchier. Why is it catchy? Well we made it that way! Obama wants to set itself apart from the Bush administration—this is totally understandable after seeing the feelings American citizens have towards Bush. It is frustrating a bit to know how we are kind of being deceived by being told that we are dealing with “enemy combatants” instead of “terrorist.” After 9/11, terrorist became a word with whole new meaning. Today, we are still dealing with terrorists—so saying that they are “enemy combatants” is essentially a lie even though they can mean the same thing. The past few years, due to various events, has created a new meaning of terrorist that is not synonymous to “enemy combatant.” Two words may mean the same thing, but at the same time, can mean something completely different.
I think that people have to be careful whenever they speak. Because something that people say that might be funny. Joke is only okay when both sides understand. That’s how I see it. And if friend of mine makes a joke about Asians and he or she knows that they are joking and I know it too then it’s totally fine. Friend of mine always joke about how I am Asian and I am suppose to be good at math and science. And I know that she doesn’t truly believe inside of her heart and she is just saying it because sometime some Asians are just good at it. But, if someone that meant it out of their heart and really take it serious then that will actually make me feel little insulted. I do joke about my own race too. I know that people won’t think I’m serious and I say it in a joke so that no one will get offended. Obama made a comment and people who heard it thought it was funny but, some people who is very careful was too concern that he might be insulting. If Obama did it in a ways that he meant is completely not as a joke as a stereotype then it will be a problem. I know that when Obama was elected, some people were thinking that since there was lots of white presidents and we were allow to make fun of the white people. And now since they got black president it wouldn’t be so bad to actually make fun of black people. I don’t like the word ghetto just because that that word carries a meaning. And I don’t feel comfortable saying it. In some reality shows even say some people from ghetto are not all bad, some of them can succeed just fine. So, I think I am able to say it if I don’t see the word ghetto as a bad dirty neighborhood. And the person that I am saying to think the same way too. The word ghetto can be the description of something or someone but, no one should take that as a stereotype. Because whenever they do, it somehow turns in to a insult that will make people mad. And the next scene will not pretty. I just think that if people think right before they speak then there won’t be a big problem with what should say and when to say it. It all depends on the situation and environment. That word shouldn’t even be made but, since people was thinking of a term to describe it and really think that that is a only thing that is happening there, it just made a generalization and stereotype.
In politics today, the use of language is planned out very carefully staying always from difficult or hard words. For, language can be very powerful stirring up a lot of feelings and emotions. On the other hand, this use of softer language can provide a blanket of protection against these feelings. This is highly shown in the news when the Iraq war is discussed. The media and politics do not capitalize on the harsh realities and details of what is really occurring. This way as Americans we are able to distant ourselves from the situation and go on with our daily lives. If we heard things on a daily basis about how terrible things were and they were described with more vivid descriptive language there would most likely be more of a reaction. Therefore, it is obvious that the government is trying to avoid this not wanting this type of reaction from the people. So, since the government in large part controls the media it is able to keep this type of talk out of the news reports. It is only when the government is seeking this type of reaction such as after 9/11 that harsher words are used. Even still there is almost a ethical code on how language is used.
I think this ethical code of language is carried over from people in politics to all types of citizens. There are definitely certain words and phrases that are not acceptable in many social settings. Words pertaining to race are especially touchy. No one wants to say something that might offend someone. In fact, it is hard most of the time for people of different cultures to know what is appropriate to say so they stick to proper language. Yet, this can put up a lot of barriers and keep things very distant. In reality, I think there are times where certain words are by no means acceptable. It is inappropriate for people to use the f word and other curse words in formal or business settings. However, there are other times where people really hide behind language. This feels really awkward and formal, especially where everyone is thinking the same thing and knows what needs to be said. For instance, when something really terrible happens like a death people tend to use very proper language and not say anything too bold. For instance, always say passed away or guess it was their time. This can be very frustrating. I do not see anything wrong with saying that person died and that it is really terrible. Yet, society like in many other situations has this way of speaking that everyone seems to follow. It is not until this language barriers starts to break down that one really gets to know a person.
I think it is important to say what you really mean. There are some circumstances where you might not want to hurt someone’s feelings or give a bad impression but when it comes to race relations, I think it is important to say exactly how you feel. If people do not state what they really think how will race relations ever move forward? I’m not saying that people have to be downright mean or go out of their way to be rude but they should really say what they think and if it happens to offend someone so be it. This is especially true for a setting where race is supposed to be discussed. People should expect to hear things that they do not like or feel uncomfortable hearing. How are the barriers suppose to come down if no one ever says what they truly feel. If topics that are important never get brought up because people are too uncomfortable to talk about them, how will they ever even be addressed to fix. An issue must be out in the open before anyone can attempt to do anything to fix it. Sometimes I think that our society really tiptoes over issues trying to be polite. However, politeness can only go so far. Sometimes being polite gets you nowhere and you have to be aggressive. There is a time to be polite but this is not one of them. If people were not so worried what other people would think of them, then maybe we would hear more about other people’s ideas and feelings about certain issues and be able to learn from them or grown from them. It would seem that that would make more sense then to hide behind what we really want to say. One only really begins to get to know a person when all barriers come down and people to do censor their language and say what they really feel. I do understand that being honest all the time would probably cause a lot of arguments. This is why stating what you really think is not appropriate all the time. For instance, proper language should be used at times in proper business meetings to clients. At this time how things are said should be more censored and formal. However, I do think that it should happen a lot less often then it does now. Sometimes people need to argue to realize that they are wrong or to hear where someone else is coming from. Therefore, people need to get over their fears and move past it. Yes, at times people may get offended. Yet in the long run more will be learned and mistakes will not be made as often.
The beer summit was a very good idea, but at the same time it was poorly executed. I thought the meeting was supposed to be about figuring out what was the best possible way that the situation could have been solved. Instead they seemed to have decided to act like it never happened. The problem with ignoring the entire issue is that what if a similar event occurs and there still is not a clear way of handling the crisis. I guess president Obama felt it was more important to move on from the issue and to just come to a peace on everything. I actually am impressed that Obama took out time to meet with the common people of America. There are so many different things on the president’s plate right now, it shows a sense of caring. It sort shows that our president has are back and he is not just in office to collect a pay check. However I don’t think he should stick his nose in every police conflict that happens. I would leave these types of problems to the courts and let the law decide what the right thing is to do.
President Obama has thrown out the window the conventional way of doing things in the White House, and it may lead to a lot of criticism but at the same time he is certainly showing effort. With past presidents I never felt like they cared are in tune with real America, with Obama I feel like I know the guy. All in all I would tell the president keep doing what you’re doing and keep thinking of creative was to better America.
Maybe if he would have had a full fledge barbeque between the 4 of them with a keg or something true feelings could have came out and problems could have been corrected. The two men seemed to have put the situation behind them and have met prior to the sit down to talk about what actually happened and what made them react they way they did, so they probably had already come to a common agreement about the occurrence. Obama definitely is showing that people can come together to handle problems instead of just threatening each other and being closed minded.
Post a Comment