:: blame the extended gestation.... ::

:: Sunday, December 21, 2003 ::

Chomsky's thoughts on my recent tangent....

Topic: Use of language (1 of 2), Read 46 times
Conf: ChomskyChat
From: Jim Nichols jimn4@yahoo.com
Date: Friday, December 19, 2003 08:41 AM

Maybe i'm wrong--nitpicking when I should be looking at the bigger picture--but it seems to me that some words (e.g. monster, evildoer) do harm to properly understanding Hussein and his capture. In a way I think that calling Saddam a monster explains away his crimes and the complicity of others while those crimes were taking place. When President Bush or Dan Rather get busy writing off Saddam in neat mythological terms we tend to forget that monsters don't violate human rights or become vicious dictators--humans do. That goes for hobgoblins, warlocks, and the lot of them. Maybe this is just my teacup orbiting the sun... am I off base or does an issue like this help explain some of the complacency of many human beings?

thanks in advance for any thoughts on the matter!

Jim


TOP ... Post ... Reply ... Reply/Quote ... Email Reply ... Delete ... Edit
Previous ... Next ... Previous Topic ... Next Topic ... Entire Topic
Topic: Chomsky Re: Use of language (2 of 2), Read 11 times
Conf: ChomskyChat
From:
Date: Sunday, December 21, 2003 08:08 AM

Reply from NC,

Could be, but personally I don't see anything wrong with describing a murderous tyrant as a "monster," and insisting that those who aided and abetting his crimes should have to bear responsibility for them. The press rightly identifies the worst crimes, the ones that might merit a charge of "genocide," as the 1988 slaughter and gassing of Kurds, and the vicious repression of the post-war 1991 rebellion that might well have overthrown him. In both cases, those currently at the helm in Washington had decisive responsibility, and explained why: in the former case, not because of Iran (the war was over) but because of Washington's responsibility to US exporters with the usual boilerplate about how supporting Saddam would contribute to stability and human rights; in the latter case, because, as the New York Times pointed out, there was near unanimity among the US leadership and their allies that Saddam offered more hope for "stability" in Iraq than those who were trying to overthrow him: that is, Iraqis must not rule Iraq. The record of New Labour in the UK is in some respects even worse.

It's possible, and doubtless intended, that the rhetoric about "good" (us) and "evil" (them), "monster," etc., will help to deflect these obvious, and obviously unacceptable, conclusions about what a "fair trial" would be. But I think it's only a small increment to much more powerful barriers, which it won't be easy to overcome. That's common. Take today's headlines: Libya giving up WMD, so therefore we may welcome them into the club of civilized countries. Including Israel, which has far and away the most extensive and dangerous WMD programs in the region, and spurs proliferation too, as recognized at the highest US planning levels; or the US, hardly known for its polite behavior, and moving on towards even more dangerous plans for WMD. Any mention of that? Or of the fact that whatever one thinks of Qaddafi and his terrorist actions, Libya was one of the main targets of state terror during the "war on terror" run by the Reagan administration (that is, pretty much those back in charge), selected as a convenient punching bag because it was completely defenseless and so disliked it would gain no support. Facts are all easily available, but the chances of their being mentioned are approximately zero, and if they were, it would simply set off tantrums.

Noam Chomsky

:: Jim Nichols 12/21/2003 02:48:00 PM [+] ::
...