The War on Language
There is a scene in "Othello" when the Moor is so consumed by jealousy and rage that he loses the eloquence and poetry that make him the most articulate man in Venice. He turns to the audience, shortly before he murders Desdemona, and sputters, "Goats and monkeys!" Othello fell prey to wild self-delusion and unchecked rage, and his words became captive to hollow clichés. The debasement of language, which Shakespeare understood was a prelude to violence, is the curse of modernity. We have stopped communicating, even with ourselves. And the consequences will be as extreme as in the Shakespearean tragedy.
Those who seek to dominate our behavior first seek to dominate our speech. They seek to obscure meaning. They make war on language. And the English- and Arabic-speaking worlds are each beset with a similar assault on language. The graffiti on the mud walls of Gaza that calls for holy war or the crude rants of Islamic militants are expressed in a simplified, impoverished form of Arabic. This is not the classical language of 1,500 years of science, poetry and philosophy. It is an argot of clichés, distorted Quranic verses and slogans. This Arabic is no more comprehensible to the literate in the Arab world than the carnival barking that pollutes our airwaves is comprehensible to our literate classes. The reduction of popular discourse to banalities, exacerbated by the elite's retreat into obscure, specialized jargon, creates internal walls that thwart real communication. This breakdown in language makes reflection and debate impossible. It transforms foreign cultures, which we lack the capacity to investigate, into reversed images of ourselves. If we represent virtue, progress and justice, as our clichés constantly assure us, then the Arabs, or the Iranians, or anyone else we deem hostile, represent evil, backwardness and injustice. An impoverished language solidifies a binary world and renders us children with weapons.
How do you respond to "Islam is the solution" or "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior"? How do you converse with someone who justifies the war in Iraq-as Christopher Hitchens does-with the tautology that we have to "kill them over there so they do not kill us over here"? Those who speak in these thought-terminating clichés banish rational discussion. Their minds are shut. They sputter and rant like a demented Othello. The paucity of public discourse in our culture, even among those deemed to be public intellectuals, is matched by the paucity of public discourse in the Arab world.
This emptiness of language is a gift to demagogues and the corporations that saturate the landscape with manipulated images and the idiom of mass culture. Manufactured phrases inflame passions and distort reality. The collective chants, jargon and epithets permit people to surrender their moral autonomy to the heady excitement of the crowd. "The crowd doesn't have to know," Mussolini often said. "It must believe. ... If only we can give them faith that mountains can be moved, they will accept the illusion that mountains are moveable, and thus an illusion may become reality." Always, he said, be "electric and explosive." Belief can triumph over knowledge. Emotion can vanquish thought. Our demagogues distort the Bible and the Constitution, while their demagogues distort the Quran, or any other foundational document deemed to be sacred, fueling self-exaltation and hatred at the expense of understanding. The more illiterate a society becomes, the more power those who speak in this corrupted form of speech amass, the more music and images replace words and thought. We are cursed not by a cultural divide but by mutual cultural self-destruction.
The educated elites in the Arab world are now as alienated as the educated elites in the United States. To speak with a vocabulary that the illiterate or semiliterate do not immediately grasp is to be ostracized, distrusted and often ridiculed. It is to impart knowledge, which fosters doubt. And doubt in calcified societies, which prefer to speak in the absolute metaphors of war and science, is a form of heresy. It was not accidental that the founding biblical myth saw the deliverer of knowledge as evil and the loss of innocence as a catastrophe. "This probably had less to do with religion than with the standard desire of those in authority to control those who are not," John Ralston Saul wrote. "And control of the Western species of the human race seems to turn upon language."
The infantile slogans that are used to make sense of the world express, whether in tea party rallies or in Gaza street demonstrations, a very real alienation, yearning and rage. These clichés, hollow to the literate, are electric with power to those for whom these words are the only currency in which they can express anguish and despair. And as the economy worsens, as war in the Middle East and elsewhere continues, as our corporate state strips us of power and reduces us to serfs, expect this rage, and the demented language used to give it voice, to grow.
The Arabic of the Quran is as poetic as the intricate theology of Islam. It is nuanced and difficult to master. But the language of the Quran has been debased in the slums and poor villages across the Middle East by the words and phrases of political Islam. This process is no different from what has taken place with Christianity in the United States. Our mainstream churches have been as complacent in fighting heretics as have the mainstream mosques and religious scholars in the Middle East. Demented forms of Christianity and Islam have largely supplanted genuine and more open forms of religious expression. And they have done so because liberal elites were cowed into silence. Corruptions of Islamic terms and passages are as numerous in the militants' ideology as in the ideology of the Christian right. The word jihad for the militants means the impunity to kill, kidnap, hijack and bomb anyone they see as an infidel, including children and other Muslims. Jihad, however, does not always mean holy war, or even war, in the Quran. According to Islamic tradition, the "great jihad" is the battle within one's self to live in accord with God's will. A jihad, for the prophet Muhammad, is often the struggle to achieve inner-worldly asceticism, in accord with his call "to command the good and forbid evil with the heart, the tongue and the hand." And the Quran condemns the use of violence to propagate the faith. "There is no compulsion in religion," it states. The Quran also denounces forced piety and conversion as insincere. Calls to martyrdom, presented by militants as a direct path toward eternal life, conveniently eschew the Quran's rigid ban on suicide. But theological nuance is beside the point for zealots. The fantasies peddled by the Christian right, from the Rapture, which is not in the Bible, to the belief that Jesus, who was a pacifist, would bless wars in the Middle East, injects our own version of sanctified slogans into the vernacular.
Our crisis is a crisis of language. Victor Klemperer in his book "Lingua Tertii Imperii" noted that the distortion of language by the Nazis was vital in creating fascist culture. He was repeatedly perplexed by how the masses, even those who opposed the Nazis, willingly ingested the linguistic poison the Nazis used to perpetuate collective self-delusion. "Words may be little doses of arsenic," he wrote. "They are consumed without being noticed; they seem at first to have no effect, but after a while, indeed, the effect is there."
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
113 Comments so far
Show AllThere is a TV ad for real estate that says "An inventory of foreclosed homes and properties are available...". Although the concept of diving down like a vulture to profit off people's misfortune is very disturbing, the grammar irks me as well.
Joe
Sioux Rose said: "It's invigorating to participate in this virtual community where so many of us bring unique and intelligent perspectives to the proverbial table." I agree completely, and enjoy the back and forth banter between individuals who, while very intelligent, have differing perspectives. These forums provide a wonderful respite from those on mainstream news sites. Thanks to all who expand consciousness through intelligent discourse.
From the article: "This Arabic is no more comprehensible to the literate in the Arab world than the carnival barking that pollutes our airwaves is comprehensible to our literate classes".
To begin with, most "carnies" in this country are literate and so, C. Hedges is claiming that they do not comprehend their own "barking". It is also folly to claim that "our literate classes" are unable to comprehend colloquialisms. I have spoken to people from all walks of life in nearly every state and I have never come across a "class" of people who I could not "comprehend".
This article is based on a false premise.
Over and over, Pastor Hedges gives us on the left a sermon. In his last religious incantation, he advised the world to go to Pittsburgh to make some desperate last stand.
The black ninjas were waiting in force for the lowly Hedges types, and they got rounded up, tied, booked, processed, anmd dismissed by a paid national army of police and their high tech helicopters, surveillance technology, informants, and governing chiefs and politicians. The G20 came and went, and yet Hedges never deigns to acknowledge his futility.
We need no more lectures from the religious, professorial New Ascetics. How many more self-righteous intonations of the obvious can we stand from the Catholic Worker side?
This is known in the business as a thread-ender. In the words of the monotheism the new ascetics hold so dearly, these are the last rites for us, the left.
"We are cursed not by a cultural divide but by mutual cultural self-destruction." - Hedges
Hip hip hoo-rah for such a wonderful "curse"! Who here doesn't want the "destruction" of the current Western social order: the gross inequality of economic wealth, war as daily commerce, profiteering from disease, disassociation from the environment, idolatrous religions?
And a way to destroy the Western social order is to look at phrases like "children with weapons" and "infantile slogans", not as derogatory, but with a comprehensive biological view, where Feeling, Acting, Sensing, and Thinking as part of an Environment are not separate, but a constantly renewing summation. With this view one can break through "binary" conversation forms, filling in the abyss of mindlessness, and capture and begin to differentiate the power Hedges alludes to, but is still schizoid with in this welcomed article.
From a comprehensive biological view infantile is not yet binary, there is just singular emotiveness; childness contains the binary in black and white, good vs. evil form; an adult flow form can hold two opposing views in it's mind and act out another. Recognition of where Self and it's counterpoint in conversation is is the first key.
Like B. Clinton said,"It depends on what is is". And until he spoke about his parallel experience on Oprah's couch, no one called him on what is is, thus missing out on depth in conversation and human experience.
Humanity missed another opportunity for depth in conversation and experience when Sean Hannity(sp?) was recently interviewing two demonstrators in Pittsburgh. Sean's original gambit was to force the two into denouncing or accepting the rock throwing. They were able to side step that course of conversation and focus the dialogue on the inequality of wealth and progressive taxation.
This is the point where the opportunity was missed. Sean maintained a childish stance that taxation was evil, that the economic elites would have their wealth "confiscated", the two demonstrators maintained the childish binary mind set by saying capitalism was evil and whatever progressive taxation is as good. The empowerment (for all of humanity) would have come by calling Sean on the "confiscation" word.
First off progressive taxation would not be confiscation but a playing by the rules of the social order; as all social orders create group rules; whether written or unwritten, spoken or unspoken. So, instead of engaging in a binary child ego argument, the two demonstrators could have built on the ethics of playing by the rules with a vision(s) of what the new Western social order could be.
Second, the healing of the Red state Blue state divide could begin with the recognition of the Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck's of the world as human. In this case the human recognition of Sean's fear of scarcity and his desire to live in a just society: which is depicted in his use of "confiscation". Turning the conversation to feelings all humans experience at one time or another creates a human conversation full of depth and shared experiences, and new insights.
Hedges does well in provoking at least some level of conversation, but goes somewhat "binary" in regard to thought and emotion, thus missing out on some empowerment. Buy stating "Belief can triumph over knowledge. Emotion can vanquish thought", he falls into the current intellectual trap that disassociates belief, knowledge, emotion and thought from the biological environmental whole which is the reality of our Earth situation. Continuing to do this is what empowers the demagogues of the world.
For Mussolini was right, "be electric and explosive". That's what links you to the feeling of the other. When Bill Cosby first started coming to Detroit (where he thankfully continues to visit with his social activism) he decried the electric and explosive language of many of Detroit's youth - the only voice openly and honestly expressing the truth to their reality of being cast off from mainstream society and any form of stable family structure except youth gangs. Certainly their language is course, and difficult for the untrained ear, but Cosby's argument remains impotent because he disassociates feeling, acting, sensing and thinking from the environment, thus focusing on the harshness of the language, this being evil, and not the totality of the human experience, and more importantly continues with the momentum of casting aside those in society that are actually most alive, due to necessity, on a day to day basis.
The screeching of the American, and over seas, Ghetto does one thing if one thing only, it refuses to move on from the most important conversation going on at anytime: the reality of the human experience. Why go into the nuances of elite intellectual religious thought? It is the truth, the electricity and explosiveness, contained within HOW "fuck" and "nigger" (ok, "nigga") are uttered ad nauseam in the Ghetto that will ultimately force the culturing, the new words and new use of words, of a recognized humanity within the human social order.
There's Earth, Water, Fire and Air, plus the 5th sacred thing. Go to the Ghetto anywhere in the world. Maintain the wholistic view of Feeling, Acting, Sensing, and Thinking in an Environment, and hopefully catch as many opportunities for depth and human experience like the one the Pittsburgh demonstrators missed with Hannity. The view and screeching from the Ghetto will provide an unequivocal statement on where the social conversation is at and where it should begin and which direction it should go. And if you can engage on an adult biological level, the electricity and explosiveness can be turned from military weaponry to creative means of social uplift, thus greatly removing the fear of scarcity and building a new ethic of human justice.
Let's weld the sword of Shiva. Destroy the current culture, while creating a new Self - a new Self that recognizes Feeling, Acting, Sensing, and Thinking as part of an Environment on a human level of Self as well as a human level with those we are conversing with.
Peace.
I don't have time to read all these comments closely, so someone may have already pointed this out. If so, apologies.
The Arabic spoken across the Arabic-speaking world is not a "debased" form of Classical Arabic, any more than Spanish and French are debased forms of Latin, or English is debased Anglo-Saxon. These forms of language are the natural product of language history.
I agree that we can talk about the abuse of language in sociolinguistic terms, the uses of language to achieve wrongful ends, and so on. Orwell has done this, as have Noam Chomsky, George Lakoff, and others. But this is about the uses of languages, not their nature. Palestinian Arabic, for example, qualifies as a human language no less than the language of the Qur'an; Modern Greek no less than the Greek of Homer.
R Kephart
http://crankylinguist.blogspot.com
R Kephart,
If you havn't read the article written by Mr.Hedges which was posted here last week, "Globalization Goes Bankrupt", you might enjoy it. Mr. Hedges may know more about "the abuse of language in sociolinguistic terms" than you might think. As for whether Mr. Hedges knows what he knows, I shall leave that for you to know.
Dear rkephart/Cranky Linguist: I think your comment of 9/29 at 8:48AM distorts what Hedges wrote. He did not say that current day Arabic per se is "a 'debased' form of Classical Arabic...." He wrote:
"But the language of the Quran has been debased in the slums and poor villages across the Middle East by the words and phrases of political Islam."
He was speaking of specific terms and how they are used by political Islam to poison people's minds. I think one should be able to object to propoganda and demagoguery and to specific terms like the use of "Jihad" without being labeled as some kind of language elitist. Of course, the multitude of current day Arab dialects are all natural and completelanguages.
Agreed that the debasement of the language is the root of much evil and that it is the abrogation of schools' responsibility that's to blame, if blame one must. Therefore, is it not up to us to eschew wasting mental time on MSM and TV and rather devote one's brain to more objective books, magazines and websites/blogs? I am trilingual and greatly appreciate the perspective given me by the omnipresent passive and impersonal case of both French and Spanish. Gave up TV in '74; do not miss it.
...and then there's the unmentioned influence of "music." What other artform can indoctrinate a generation with violent and chauvinist slogans, while occupying the place rightfully reserved for meaningful content? Perfect pacifier for the illiterate masses, no?
"The educated elites in the Arab world are now as alienated as the educated elites in the United States"
The educated elites are hardly the source of truthful language. Think of all the Yale and Harvard experts who run our financial systems and advise our government. Think Milton Friedman. Think Alan Greenspan. Think William Kristol. Their language is full of smug assumptions about class and violence. Faith in "Free Markets" took the place of religion and did a lot more harm.
I am somewhat less afraid of illiterate language than the very literate and focus-group tested manipulative language of the cosmopolitan international corporate elites.
Joe
Incisive and truthful comment! Thank you Joe.
Not to mention the Iraqi elites who lied and manufactured evidence to push the U.S. to invade Iraq.
As if Bush and co. needed any encouragement.
Hedges states the following and I believe he is overlooking something quite important;
"Calls to martyrdom, presented by militants as a direct path toward eternal life, conveniently eschew the Quran's rigid ban on suicide."
There is the 'human-factor' that he doesn't calculate into this. I think desperation - the feeling that a person has no more to lose as they see their towns laid to waste - is a large contributing factor. These 'calls to martyrdom' are [manufactured] religious justifications for those who feel they must fight back against the horror being rained down on them, and do not know how to without going against their deeply held beliefs.
Anyway, I'm unwilling to pass judgement on the actions of those who are on the receiving end of the USA's wars of aggression. Sometimes I wouldn't be surprised if the US or Britain had a hand in these "suicide bombings" - creating [or exploiting] an act that could really be as rare as bigfoot sightings.
Considering the secret prisons the USA has set up, the torture, the wars themselves and how both the USA and Britain are quite deceptive to begin with. It is not beyond my scope of reasoning that bombs could be put into vehicles at Military check points set up around Iraq or Afghanistan while the driver is being "detained" or "questioned", then when the driver is released the bombs are detonated later. So the driver becomes an unwilling "suicide bomber" that helps to perpetuate the war.
I don’t get it. Hedges has just noticed that the powers that be manipulate us with language composed of slogans and cliches and that this language precludes response and debate? Hello? Did he run out of subjects for his weekly rant? Or maybe a better question is, to WHOM is his writing directed? It would be nice if the religious right would read this, but I really don’t think they will.
Rather than focusing on extremists, a much more interesting deconstruction would have been of the perfectly obnoxious message Obama relayed from his cohorts at the G20 to the police-harassed demonstrators on the streets of Pittsburg about the fucking “market.”
“The graffiti on the mud walls of Gaza that calls for holy war or the crude rants of Islamic militants are expressed in a simplified, impoverished form of Arabic. This is not the classical language of 1,500 years of science, poetry and philosophy. It is an argot of clichés, distorted Quranic verses and slogans. This Arabic is no more comprehensible to the literate in the Arab world than the carnival barking that pollutes our airwaves is comprehensible to our literate classes.”
I don’t speak Arabic, as I believe Hedges does, and I don’t know what graffitti is written on walls in the Muslim world, but the fanatical, one-dimensional demagoguery heard on talk radio and Fox News is perfectly understandable for what it is to many “literate” people. And to me, this paragraph smacks of condescending elitism. Also, why talk about “the mud walls of Gaza” rather than the hangouts of Al-Quaida and the Taliban? I REALLY OBJECT to this reduction and conflation of the Palestinian struggle with the, ok, I’ll use the “t” word, “terrorist” Islamicist movements of young men which have originated in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Palestine is a very particular problem which I’m not going to get into here, but by the way, the Palestinians used to be one of the most secular of Muslim populations.
I've just spent most of an afternoon and evening when I should have been doing much-needed yard work reading this thread, instead, and I am truly astounded by the incredible variety of erudition elucidated here! Much from known names and much from new ones to me.
Just a couple of comments...
The allegation that Spanish GRAMMAR is derived from Arabic should have been challenged by someone better qualified to do so than I. And yes I am aware of the potential influence of the Moors in Spain. I did like what that writer takes to be a consequence, however. I was reminded of a report I read years ago that one school of ancient Greek thought held that light actually emanated from the eyes. (Actually, I find this still an intrigueing notion at the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle level, and how we interpret "hue.") I had thought that Spanish is a Latinate language, and except for the "Magical Realism" of certain South American Spanish writers, I do not see how Spanish GRAMMAR makes for a thought process much different from my English-thinking one. I really would appreciate more information on this subject. I took French, Spanish, Latin in high school and did horribly, yet ended up as a competent writer, editor and Proofist of English (and a published photographer...).
Finally, since this is about Hedges' commentary on the destruction of communication through language, is the distinction between "who" and "whom" in flux on CommonDreams? Also, "they're" versus "their," "it's" versus "its," etc. At this rate of degeneration pretty soon we will be writing "sing" when we mean "seeing" and "is real" when we mean "Israel"! Maybe relearning Morse Code might be a good idea...---...
Love ya!
-30-
While I admire your generally well informed approach to the essay, you're out of your depth in modern physics. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle does not in any way justify the emission of light from the eyes during vision. On the other hand I agree with you wholeheartedly regarding the debasement of elementary English grammar. The word "whom" has all but disappeared from spoken language in America and is fading fast from published writing as well.
Sioux Rose
OLE MAN: The "its" versus "it's" thing bugs me, too, as so many otherwise HIGHLY intelligent persons fall into this grammatical trap.
IT'S is NOT a possessive! It is a contraction for it is...
The presumption of ownership is already ascribed in the writing of its... no apostrophe is required!
As for the romancing of verbs, etc. Did this construct never make you wonder why it was that in the romance languages certain nouns are considered masculine while others are taken for feminine? Do you not see that a certain amount of conditioning goes with this association alone? I used to joke, "What do they do, pull down a noun's pants to see what it's got?"
As a writer who seeks to convey the relationship of a great many things that occur simultaneously, the linear nature of the English language gets in the way. We must generally compare A to B, or A to B to C, and draw a conclusion in due order. There IS no language equivalent for speaking of the phenomena of simultaneity.
I think the confusion over "its" stems partly from the fact that "it" breaks two English language patterns.
Pattern 1. Most nouns indicate the possessive with 's.
Pattern 2. Most pronouns (I, you, he, she, we and they) have distinct possessive forms (mine, yours his, hers, ours, theirs).
Since "its" looks exactly like "it" with an s added, rather than a declension like "his", people follow the major pattern of the language and put the apostrophe in. Our brains are natural pattern recognizers, so where there is an exception, we need grammar lessons to overcome that tendency. In general, over time, languages tend to drift toward the simpler grammars. I believe the its it's distinction will be one of the finer distinctions that will be lost.
It don't bother my friend's and I too much.
Joe
Language? When "freedom", "democracy" and "anti-communism" have become the cliched justifications for our overt and covert aggression around the world for the benefit of our corporations, you have a real language problem.
Chris Hedges is George Bush in drag. This crap about Islamic extremists is straight out of the neo-con playbook.
Here, coincidentally published today, is a more energetic look at the abuse of language, from PCR -
"Not to be outdone in idiocy, out of Obama’s mouth jumped Orwellian doublespeak: “The Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law.”
The incongruity blows the mind. Here is Obama, with troops engaged in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan demanding that a peaceful nation at war with no one demonstrate “its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law."
Sioux Rose
NOT ALLAN: Thanks for pointing that out. I won't go as far as seeing Obama as Bush lite, but this idea that every president must follow the same game plan, and only differs in STYLE and PACKAGING is incredibly troubling. It makes me think that the US is the first global experiment in what happens to a population so programmed by TV that at least 45% of its citizens cannot differentiate between content and packaging. Wow, does that work wonders for soft totalitarian-style governing elites and the organizational structutes (of society) that they require, and in fact rely upon. The devolution of representative government seems to run parallel with the introduction of television into our homes, a pattern that really gained tread by the l980's when it had a chance to entirely program at least one generation.
US conservatives have fat bastard Frank Luntz.
Steeling myself for the experience, I dipped into an hour of Glenn Beck's televised madness tonight and there, sitting in the front row of an audience of mindless nine-twelvers, was none other than "the fat bastard" himself. The prophets of the right boast that their "ideas" are intellectually irresistable, then seize every opportunity to disguise them with poll-tested counterfeits.
Chris Hedges, as always, has written a superb article --- which hopefully will cause people to actually think.
This particular article is even more important than Hedges others.
Two thoughts come to my mind:
1. Per the brilliant cognitive scientist and linguist, George Lakoff, progressive believers in democracy could use such 'language-influence' to confront the lies of proto-fascist, radical-right, propagandists --- essentially battling with language and analogy 'framing' for the hearts and minds of the population.
Such battles of language could be waged by our best (like Lakoff and others) against their best (like Beck, Rush, et al) on each individual issue of contention --- or what Lakoff calls (in his fabulous "The Political Mind") "contested concepts"
OR
2. The foundational 'contested concept' of democracy vs. Empire could be addressed in one massive battle to win the war of history.
Even Francis Fukuyama now agrees that the "End of History" did not come with the publication of his book of that title, and that even after the fall of the Soviet Empire a stable and penultimate conclusion of political-economic history did not end with what he called "western liberal democracy" and George W. Bush and the radical right conflated into "capitalist democracy" (whatever that moron meant by this oxymoron).
Rather, what has continued has been a battle vainglorious between the forces of 'elitist Empire' and real democracy -- with the former still prevailing precisely through distorted language, propaganda, guile and deceit.
Any chance at a final battle and victory against the dark side of Empire would need to bring up and discredit the now hidden term and example of 'Elitist Empire' itself, and to distinguish our current ruling-elite corporate/financial Empire that guilefully controls our country through the facade of its two-party, 'Vichy' sham of democracy from the reality of the word and meaning of a real functional democracy (as envisioned by the founding fathers for America).
Naturally, the entrenched ruling-Elite corporate/financial Empire that hides behind the facade of this sham democracy would fight tooth and nail to avoid even the discussion of what this modern Empire is --- and what all Empire has always been throughout history, in order to defend it's ploy of posing as American democracy.
However, providing all average working-class Americans with a means of understanding Empire, talking about it, and measuring our country on a simple 'Empire Index' could, it seems to me, go a long way toward winning this seminal war of words and 'contested concepts' before the Elitist Empire drives us all to Extinction.
I would propose the following as an 'Empire Index' to deny the forces of the Empire which controls our country from being able to get away with disguising itself as 'democracy' --- and to tag the ruling-elite global corporatist Empire with actually being seen for the true Empire that it is. Hopefully, winning such a pivotal battle would open Americans' eyes and place us again in the position of our founding American colonists in fighting and prevailing over the British (political-economic) Empire in our first American Revolution (against Empire).
My proposed 'Empire Index' would be based on the truth that Hannah Arendt presciently noted of all Empires from her thoughts during the era of the Nazi Empire: "Empire abroad, (always) entails tyranny at home".
Thus the 'Empire Index' would be based on two key foreign measures or data elements of how Empires act militarily 'abroad' (to enforce their imperialism) and two elements of how Empires oppress and tyrannize their own domestic citizens.
The 'Empire Index' for any country that is to be evaluated on its 'Empireness' would include that country's:
1. Percentage of world wide weapons sales multiplied by
2. it's number of global military bases multiplied by
3. it's GINI Coefficient of Income Inequality of it's own citizens multiplied by
4. it's percentage of citizens imprisoned.
Since the US is responsible for 68% of world-wide weapons sales (times) 757 global military bases (times) a high GINI Coefficient of income INequality at 0.49 [which is far worse than all Western democracies, and matched only be Robert Mugabe's dictatorial plutocracy of Zimbabwe] (times) over 7% of our citizens being imprisoned, the US 'Empire Index' works out to be 185.38.
Whereas, the acknowledged former "evil" Soviet Empire, which is now the country of Russia would have an 'Empire Index' of --- 6% of world-wide weapons sales (times) 201 global military bases (times) a lower/fairer GINI Coefficient of Income Inequality 0.41 (times) a lower citizen prison ratio of less than 6%, its "Empire Index' works out to only 2.96.
Take my word for it --- no other country in the world, including China, Iran, Venezuela, etc. has an 'Empire Index' even in the double digits!
The US is a hidden Empire --- not a democracy. And those are the word games and "contested concepts" that have to be set straight to win the peace and prosperity that all of us deserve in restoring our own true democracy.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
A thoughtful response to Hedges' article. But please . . . not "it's" but "its" without that apostrophe. Otherwise you show forth a misunderstanding of one of the rudiments of language: punctuation, and follow the popular trend of apostrophes everywhere!
Excellent points. Chris Hedges, Chalmers Johnson and Sheldon Wolin would likely agree as well.
The Gini coefficient is getting even worse as we speak. The official and unofficial expenditures on military, military aid, weapons, imperial occupation and related activities are escalating every year. And of course the prison industrial complex is becoming ever privatized and barbaric. The crumbling public school system prepares us for: the military; menial service jobs; or prison.
You are right, we don't have a functioning democracy: Democracy Incorporated is the most expensive corporate public relations stunt in the entire world, by a huge margin.
I like the formula. The only part of your post I would take exception with is the part about the vision of the founding fathers. It's hard to see them as champions of democracy when they were enslaving Africans and slaughtering the natives, while restricting voting rights to white, male, property owners.
Interesting idea with the Empire index, but I think the global military base thing would throw the calculations way off, no other country has anything like the base system we have.
But suppose we are an empire, not a democracy. What do you do about it? Obviously voting wouldn't work. Peaceful protests are pointless. Writing to your representatives wouldn't so squat. Good luck getting your viewpoint into the media.
If you truly believe there are no democratic levers available, how could you not advocate anything other than immediate overthrow of the government? Despite all the claims I see that all the elections in America are a sham, it's a dictatorship, an empire, it's one-party rule because there's no difference between (R) and (D)...I do not see calls for any type of revolution outside the democratic process here, aside from Parecon and stuff like that.
Along the lines of language and manipulating peoples' perspectives, Glenn Greenwald at Salon has a very interesting post today that explores how certain news entities work to manipulate the readers' viewpoints by the language/manner in which the situation is offered up to the reader. "A glossary of terms in foreign affairs" posted on Monday, September 28, 2009.
I read it -- it's very good!
It's on here too, I'll check it out, thanks.
CH notes the ME, Allah, Christ, the Quran have been hijacked, politicized. After 6 decades of Palestine et al & etc, concurrent w/ 30+ yrs of Arabs smeared in the US msm and killed in the open fields, Muslims are incendiary.
Words are art. Desecrated or sanctified.....But as books and reading have faded into far away pasts, pre-digital eras, pre-history, people's capacity to think critically, listen and articulate are at the level of the shows they enjoy.
the confrontational mo's. name-calling. racism. all children's emotions mirroring tv's shallow rantings.
Rainbows anyway. As one said yesterday, We have the moral high ground.
In Mr. Hedges' sense, then, George Wanker Bush was America's greatest public intellectual . . . and still is. Oooooo-rah!
Please peel the onion of causality and expose WHY we mislead with words. most on this site are masters of words and not easily fooled by manipulators. Those in the world that are not silver tongued wizards must wait for action to prove the truth or lies of words. unfortunately no amount of verbal or written correction to lies will stop the liar. correction of misleading words is necessary, but the deeper issue of why one misleads must be addressed.
Does this mean that the "death panels" are not realistic? What a relief to know! As for the language problem, wait until the "twitter" generation is in charge. We may as well return to Morse code to communicate. Sadly, the arts of proper speaking and writing are vanishing with the use of our modern toys.
Hitchens, who writes divinely, no longer writes for "The Nation" because of his cheerleading for Iraq. I always hoped, since I'm a big Hitchens fan other than on Iraq, that he was promoting the war as a way to kill theists, and that doing away with Muslims, as Muslims, would lead to enlightenment and we'd start reining in the Christ-tards who ruin our lives with their bronze age thinking and morality.
Are we talking about Chris Hitchens or Chris Hedges?
Hitchens, who writes divinely, no longer writes for "The Nation" because of his cheerleading for Iraq. I always hoped, since I'm a big Hitchens fan other than on Iraq, that he was promoting the war as a way to kill theists, and that doing away with Muslims, as Muslims, would lead to enlightenment and we'd start reining in the Christ-tards who ruin our lives with their bronze age thinking and morality.
Hedges is correct about language. His arrogance in consigning anyone tea-bagging or opposing the elite program in the US as illeterate is Horse Manure.
But he is correct that the educational system has done this to our language and our citizens...and there is no lack of money that is the cause.
Henry8: "But he is correct that the educational system has done this to our language and our citizens...and there is no lack of money that is the cause."
I would disagree that the educational system is the major culprit.
In my opinion, it is the addiction to television watching for 57 years now, with the Boomers about 8 years old when TV became the National Common Ground for The Public around 1952.
I was 14, and had developed the habits of a life-long reader, imaginer and being creative in all kinds of ways, and I was certainly not unusual, but these habits did not come from going to school. I was a product of the home and neighborhood I came from, with books and magazines all around, art and music, a church that had story-hour and play productions a few times a year, and lots of conversation from many sources, and the stimulation of the NYC area, and summers in the country and near the ocean. A privileged life in many ways.
When TELEVISION-WATCHING became THE #1 Recreational Activity of the Nation, brains went numb to critical thinking and imagining, and under its influence, behaviors changed and mores changed because of the increasingly sophisticated manipulations of corporate advertising and the policies of private Mega-Corporations, a total of 5 who now own "the Television store."
Public schools still had and have the kids sitting in rows, with their hands folded in front of them in the early grades with the word "Control" more important than Learning How to Think. And by Junior High and High School, the word "Control" becomes even more important, with all that burgeoning sexuality running around.
I was a teacher, albeit briefly, but I could not last in The System because of the restrictions and the narrow-mindedness of so many of my fellow teachers, and I found so many of them very, very ignorant. I couldn't believe it.
It's still that way in the majority of schools whose teachers are now from the TV generations.
Think of your own schooling. How many teachers from Kindergarten on through high school and even through college really inspired you and really woke up your brain and imagination? I count four, maybe five, from grammar school through high school. And college, about 3.
I have been without TV for quite a few years now, and when I do watch it occasionally at friends' homes, I am shocked by it. It is a MIND FUCK, from advertising's relentness and intense imaging, the speed of one ad into another, with music, sounds, and colors pounding away for 30, 20, or 10 seconds, to the quality of programming, the emphasis on and numbing to violence, numbing to much that is insulting and totally disrespectful, the insipid, truly dumb newscasts and what is called analysis of the news. UGH! UGH! UGH!
Yes, there are some excellent programs, but over-all UGH! UGH! UGH! to television as a daily diet and habit that turns one into a snack-eating couch-potato for hours and hours at a time.
Much bigger influence than our educational system, which as sociologists have suggested: School is the place where we learn to get along, interact in social relationships, learn to cooperate, and grow up into reasonable members of society.
Yes, learning how to read and do some basic math is important, but for the rest of the educational offerings ... ???????? The computer helps now being able to do research for particular assignments. Certainly better than the School library, text books or available Encylopediae, and that's a gain. But without directed, classroom assignments, do most graduates of high school or even college continue to do research just because they are curious? Curiosity is another casualty of mind-numbing school and television. ... Here comes Face Book, My Space, Twitter, video games, etcetera.
peace, cm
I think Hedges is right about this one. The point goes over to language as well. Glenn Beck's new book has him dressed up as a Russian (Soviet) cop. I spoke to a lady today who was looking at the book pointing out to her that the cover was riduculous.
She responded that his picture was warning about "where this country was heading." I thought it was strange. Beck was all in favor of Bush/Cheney authoritarianism. It seems the picture said, "America is not like this. And therefore, the loss of civil liberties and corporate control of information is not fascism. We really need to be afraid that the gov't will take away what has already vanished."
Odd isn't it?
No, I think he is consigning anyone who mistakes what Obama is doing go socialism/Marxism/communism etc is illiterate. Which applies to pretty much all of the teabaggers.
Yeah, them Fox News watchin people who think Obama is a racist Nazi terrorist who is not a real US citizen and that death panels are going to bust down the door to euthenize grandma are some sharp people, some of the best and brightest we have.
All the government has to do is call someone an "insurgent" or a "terrorist" and immediately there are many millions of people who get outraged and are quite wiling to go to war, based only on the use of those buzz words. This morning I listened to news about Iran on one of the major "BS", "OX" or "BC" networks and heard that Iran's launch of a missile recently was "saber rattling". There was no mention of the saber ratling the USA has done about Iran recently- and for some time now. The U.S. is obviously trying to pick a fight with Iran and looking for an excuse. The U.S. is the biggest saber rattler around. We (i.e. citizens of the U.S.) have no right to call anyone on earth terrorists unless we also acknowledge the terrorism spread all over the world by our own government and our own military. So hypocritical.
Yes, the entire corporate media appears to be rattling their limp 3" sabers - its quite comical at this point but also tragic. It is time for America to wake up to the reality that Israel is the main reason for this rush to war we are seeing in our media. If you want an example of how language is being co-opted for control these days look out for the obnoxious UANI (United against nuclear iran) advert on tv. Of course, (AIPAC) American-Israel political action committee is behind these ads...
Question is, what are we going to do about this?
For anyone interested in a sharper analysis of Iran's recently announced nuclear facility I strongly recommend this piece from former weapons inspector Scott Ritter:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23580.htm
Then follow-up with this searing piece from Paul Craig Roberts:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23581.htm
This morning, I read the Paul Craig Roberts article on counterpunch. He is always clear and to the point!
I haven't yet read Scott Ritter's article, but I will -- usually I read him on truthdig, but the article wasn't there.
Both of their points of view are totally absent from the mainstream discussion of Iran's nuclear facility.
This can only be attributed to the fact that their conclusions are based on factual legal analysis.
Doesn't he work for AJE now? I wonder what their coverage of it is like.
acknowledging the manipulative intent behind the transformation of the last 30 years regarding language and education, one wonders how long we will cling to these institutions and structures, even after declaring them spoiled, before we abandon them and start over, with a view that is planet-centric?
I'm surprised by some of the attacks on this piece by Hedges. I've read quite a few of his posts and find this one to probably be the best. Words and their accompanying imagery shape our views of the world. Those who control this propaganda and use it to its best, or worst effect, can amass tremendous power.
I agree, and would go much further than that. Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf took up where Franz Boas left off in his study of indigenous languages, and came up with the solid hypothesis that the GRAMMAR of a language expresses the way we see the world around us.
Spanish, for example, is my third language--I am bilingual English/Spanish, having lost most of my first language, French, except for reading due to the enforced all-English policy in the private and public schools where I grew up in Gringolandia--and as the grammar of Spanish comes directly from Arabic, it is a reflexive language with heavy emphasis on the subjunctive, rather than the indicative mode.
That means that a Spanish speaker--or a speaker of Arabic--sees the world much more in terms of phenomena acting on our perceptions as opposed to an English speaker seeing the world as the speaker acting on phenomena.
It's a big difference. I appreciate having those two ways of looking at the world available to me.
But what happens when grammar breaks down--which is the result of a war on language?
My theory is that folks simply go crazy.
And when vocabulary is lost?
Crazy people see a chaotic, distorted world which they are unable to precisely describe.
Big trouble.
Sioux Rose
LUCKY: I wish to applaud you for this excellent post. You pointed out something that seldom is acknowledged, and it does subliminally structure the basis of perspective (if not perception itself). Thank you for sharing this insight.
"Spanish, for example, is my third language--I am bilingual English/Spanish, having lost most of my first language, French, except for reading due to the enforced all-English policy in the private and public schools where I grew up in Gringolandia--and as the grammar of Spanish comes directly from Arabic, it is a reflexive language with heavy emphasis on the subjunctive, rather than the indicative mode." -- luckyyou
Interesting! Thanks for this piece of information.
I've always felt a bit deprived with my most meager talents in music and the arts. Now you open my eyes to the possibility that my inability to learn a second language has left me even more bereft of understanding than my small brain had assumed. Thanks alot (just kidding). On the simple level of cultural understanding, people like me are quite limited, when one's understanding of another's language is little more than, "Quantos son los platanos?" (sp??)
¿En cuánto están los plátanos?
Spanish has the verb for being-at-the-moment, estar, and the verb for being, ser.
Since the price of bananas is seldom cast in stone until the end of time, I choose to use the estar form.
Your sentence here in Latin America would probably be interpreted to mean How many bananas are there? And I don't think that's what you were asking.
There is really no substitute for accumulating the riches of many languages. The problem is that all of us have more trouble learning another language as we get older, which means in addition to a set of grammatical and syntactical rules and a heap of vocabulary, a different way of perceiving the world around us.
Kids until 12 or 13 can store many languages in the same part of the brain. After that languages are stored in different sectors, and language proficiency becomes really a question of being a fast and agile translator.
The usable stacks get full, the nuerosynapses get worn down, and the older language learner ends up having to delete parts of one language from the accessibly usable sectors in order to add another language to his or her repertoire.
Sometimes knowing all this works against a learner. In my case, since I am essentially 65 (in 2 months in'ch Allah), I am really daunted by the task of learning Chinese--or even Arabic, despite having a lot of Arabic vocabulary available to me from Spanish.
However, if I were not a specialist in language acquisition, I would probably barge ahead like I did when I was younger, and insist on making a pretty good go of it.
Just one of the little ironies of living.
That, and having no bananas.
It seems clear from the above attacks on Hedges, that the people posting are not familiar with Hedges' many articles and make false accusations against Hedges'views.
Truly, "Words and their accompanying imagery shape our views of the world. Those who control this propaganda and use it to its best, or worst effect, can amass tremendous power." Therefore, it is not a coincidence that the per capita funding for schools began to decline dramatically in the late 70s along with the rise of MSM propaganda. Today, California's per pupil funding, which was among the best in 1976 (before Prop. 13,) had declined to 49th in the US before the 2007 Bust! If Americans know next to nothing about history, are ignorant of literature, and have much lower math and science skills than graduates of other high schools around the world, we are much easier to fool and control with the 1984-style propaganda. Thus the Empire prevails.
I for one, consider Hedges one of the best authors in the progressive community in the English-speaking world. John Pilger and Robert Fisk I would also add to the list
Hedges'article is an excellent description of the devolution of public discourse not only in the West but worldwide. It is very valuable to Progressives to know that the Islamist rants and the Taliban are also manufactured by distorting Islam, the way Christianity has been similarly distorted in the US particularly, because we have to develop a better argument to the general public of why Progressives are against the distorted Islam but still patriotic, like Ellsberg, in seeking a better democracy here. Europe has less interest in theocracy, having already suffered under it for centuries.
Progressives in the West are aware of the corporatist campaign through the mass media to (1) value money as the "only true yardstick of success and self-worth," as red1001 said, (2) to believe that society is about individuals only (no community or civic duty anymore, as under the New Deal) and (3) that "you can't fight city hall." All of which are very important in understanding the lack of protest against oppression and exploitation plus outright election fraud since the Vietnam War era.
I happened to be working at WCBS-TV in NYC in the late 70s and saw the change ordered from above (and actually throughout all MSM) to dumb down the nightly news (good, award-winning mukrakers let go and hairdos retained in the news dept.) They soon stopped covering protests without ridicult and started giving maybe 10 seconds to a large protest on the Mall in DC, lying that the turnout was 1/8 to 1/4 of its true numbers.
Also instituted was a policy to refuse to do public affairs shows about social change without having the rightwing opposition have at least equal time, even though their followers were in the single digits in followers (no feminists allowed on air without Phyllis Schlafly to counter them, etc.) This was a deliberate creation of a strong rightwing by constant on-air approval. Shortly thereafter came the media company mergers and the removal of FCC regulations to require fair presentation of both sides, making FOX News possible.
They also created the "happy talk" news with the anchors chatting with each other, making comments to ridicule any protest activity in language that was perceived to be personal chit-chat but which was actually typed on the teleprompter to read. If they did not cooperate, they lost their jobs in tv.
Clearly, the corporatists and rightwingers have been very effective in the last 30+ years, because the people are much less likely to believe that they can organize and make change. My experience in talking to people (when organizing or campaigning for public office) whom others have called apathetic or passive is that they are running a private rage, even when they don't understand how they are being exploited, but they understand that they have been royally screwed by employers and government. Some of them repeat the Limbaugh line and some are more liberal, but all seem overwhelmed and don't know what to do to change anything.
It is well to understand that the rage is simmering and will boil up in one direction or another before long. It is really critical to have a stronger left/liberal/progressive vision of a better society/world articulated as effectively as the Limbaugh contingent has mastered and to find a way to express it in an emotionally appealing style to the public. If not, the barbarians will prevail, and we will be so SOL.
Margola: Very interesting post – an inside view. Thanks!
In 1996, I happened to be working in radio when the FCC, with Clinton, deregulated the industries. Within a short time, corporations began buying up smaller, less powerful stations/newspapers, etc., growing by leaps and bounds. As an example, Clear Channel began with a handful of stations, and increased to 1248 stations. BTW, Clear Channel organized pro-war rallies during the buildup to the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, and employees were required to attend. Employees who spoke out against the invasion were fired.
Following the deregulation, the news narrowed, along with the “choices” that the corporatists continuously extol with their slick sales pitches, choices that actually divide down into fewer choices, and less competition in the marketplace, while institutionalizing a startling homogeneity and conformity. Various styles of music, and entire shows that played to smaller audiences – e.g. jazz, Broadway, cabaret, folk, etc. – lost their slots due to their lack of commercialism. Of course, reduced airtime means fewer people hear the music, CD sales plummet, musicians have fewer gigs and lose recording contracts, etc. It’s a domino effect that just keeps rolling downhill. Thousands of individuals lost their jobs, but the corporate executives grew their bottom line and the stock market rose, didn’t it?
The effects of media deregulation quickly rippled across the country. For instance, on January 18, 2002, Minot, North Dakota suffered a growing and dangerous ammonia spill when a train derailed. Right away, the authorities called the radio stations so that DJs and newscasters could alert drivers on their way to, or from, work to bypass the area. However, no one answered the phones at any of the stations. Later, the authorities discovered that when Clear Channel took over the radio stations in their area, they fired most, or all, of the employees, and piped in music, along with chatter that was supposed to pass for news. Minot, North Dakota had a gargantuan disaster on their hands, and no way to communicate with the public.
By law, the individuals/corporations that license the public airwaves from the FCC are required to give back to the communities, and to be civic-minded, with actual airtime devoted to the communities they serve – including local news, public service announcements, and warnings such as the one I outlined in this post. Instead, the new owners, the corporations, act as if they are beholden to no one and bound by no laws.
Finally, “we the people” – millions of us -- stood up and said ENOUGH! We stopped the next round of deregulation, but I’m sure the corporations haven’t given up their fight for even greater power to control the message.
Well said, thanks.
And about the Fairness Doctrine you implied in part of it, I don't believe it would have applied to Fox News at all...it applied only to radio and broadcast TV, the "airwaves", not cable.
Confucius, when asked what the first thing he would do if made ruler of China reportedly said: "Rectify the language".
Through language is how we see and interpret the world - even if only the language of our thoughts. Distort the language and we distort the appearance of the world. It is no accident that Orwell's '1984' identifies the corruption of language as the means by which people are manipulated and controlled.
Once the 'rulers' identify, and the population accept, 'war' as 'peace', 'tyranny' as 'democracy', 'totalitarianism' as 'freedom', 'occupation' as 'liberation', and 'secrecy' as 'license' then all bets are off and the population can be conned into accepting and supporting anything. Ask yourself this: what truly democratic nation needs a 'pledge of allegience'?
Think about it.
"Ask yourself this: what truly democratic nation needs a 'pledge of allegience'?"
The same one where every speech ends with, "God Bless America."
"the more illiterate a society becomes, the more power those who speak in this corrupted form of speech amass" means we are in serious trouble in the United States. The massive cuts in education are paying off in the rise of illiterates. Add to this formula the hours spent looking at television to get a real sence of the trouble we are in.
We are in a period where capacity to digest information is exacerbated by innacurate reporting in the majot corporate media as well as through government secrecy. A people who are not fully informed are denied the fundamental right to prior and informed consent so necessary to democracy and as such are not fully free.
As such we are in effect held hostage to an economic system addicted to expansionism and exploitation, disregard and impunity for massive environmental/ human degredation, manipulation of science and information that in turn purports to be the single answer to the problems the system itself creates.
Language is important because words are a major part of what creates memory. When language is abused in the public commons we not only experience memory of conflict, but we are denied experience of legitimate mutual understanding and social and spiritual well being.
Religion is not bad - politicization of religion is the problem. Politicization of religion is accomplished by distorting the introspective nature of spiritual practice with others. It is to take the 'technology' of loving self-discipline achieved through contemplation and practice and projecting expectation outward in a demand that 'other' be like oneself. This occurs through language.
The liguistic 'technology' (as the Dali Lama once referred to the learning of the ancient Tibetan Buddhist ways, pharmacopia, etc) of coexistence is part of the legacy of the worlds sacred texts. They are lengthy links to spiritual roots of societal structures or in the case of the Tao te Ching of Lao Tsu, very spare poetry of the same. What they share is a portal that opens only in truely being read from a perspective that seeks to live in harmony in the midst of the challenges of human diversity.
On the physical level for example - yoga - meaning the link/connection
On the secular political level - ethics and accountability in articulation of the common good - not from the top down - but of what each of us contributes from the roots to the journey of life.
Today we are globally interconnected through words. It is the technology of human love and respect and would seem to be protected only by engaging and exercising it as such.
It is pretty amazing that Hedges, who I used to think was one of the heaviest dudes out there, can write an article on the abuse of language and not once mention the word 'terrorist'. The US has sent its military half-way around the world to slaughter the people living there, because they are 'terrorists'. Absolute insanity that is repeated constantly in the media, and probably by Hedges himself.
The other really annoying thing about Hedges lately is his attacks on religion, especially Islam. We invade the country, take over the government, steal the wealth, and if they oppose us it's because of their religion ! Hedges has a lot in common with GWB, the same complete and absolute idiocy. The difference is that Bush is a member of the oligarchy that profits from this madness, what excuse does Hedges have?
Sioux Rose
NOT ALLAN (I like that screen name!) I think Hedge's remains profoundly embedded in the religious worldview that shaped his early life and career. It seems he seeks an "equivalence." It's as if he's searching for a way to balance his own internal scales of justice, so he looks for common ground between those American Christians who have misused their own Holy text as a pretext to summon war against their version of the infidel, with similar evidence on "the other side." You raise a good point insofar as his managing to miss the ruse of terrorism along with its militaristic applications, as in a pseudo-carte blanche for unapologetic aggression.
I have never seen a Hedge's piece posted on CD that did not catalyze a profound follow-up discussion in our comment thread. There are so many good posts today that it would take a good deal of time to respond to them all. Thank you, everyone.
It's invigorating to participate in this virtual community where so many of us bring unique and intelligent perspectives to the proverbial table.
Your misreading of Chris Hedges is thorough, complete, all encompassing, and amazing.
Give me a specific.
Hedges constant attacks on Islam and Christianity are too freaking weird. Hedges gives the appearance of being a 'progressive', but the rhetoric, that Islam is the motivation of the 'terrorists', a word he manages to avoid in this article, is too idiotic to comment on.
But, let's take a specific ..... Hedges writes ...
"The infantile slogans that are used to make sense of the world express,"
The people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, that are being bombed by the US are not using 'infantile slogans' to make sense of the world. They know they're being bombed without the slogans. There is no slogan I'm aware of that captures the true evil of the US. If there was, Hedges would dismiss it as infantile.
In his last few articles Hedges can't seem to distinguish between the attackers, that us, and the attackees, that's them. If he can't figure that out, he should stop writing.
Now, just sit back, and think about it for 10 minutes.
Hey, let's up the ante a bit. Hedges is always attacking Islam and Christianity, religions that have absolutely nothing to do with what's happening in the middle east. Now, what religion has EVERYTHING to do with what's happening in the middle east? Yep, you got it. Hedges has never, to my knowledge, uttered a word of criticism for that religion. If I'm wrong, show me.
"Hedges is always attacking Islam and Christianity, religions that have absolutely nothing to do with what's happening in the middle east. Now, what religion has EVERYTHING to do with what's happening in the middle east? Yep, you got it. Hedges has never, to my knowledge, uttered a word of criticism for that religion. If I'm wrong, show me."
Anyone who can claim that Islam and Christianity have absolutely nothing to do with events in the Middle East, must be a modern day Paul Revere, only this time reduced to whispering:
"The Yiddish are coming! The Yiddish are coming!"
You are missing the point. Hedges is talking about a small number of people who wield power in the Islamic world (the extremists, if you will) and a small but growing number of people (the extremists, if you will) wielding power in the US who twist and dumb down language to better bolster their own twisted message in order to misinform and rile up the masses. In each case, it is a tool of manipulation. And the masses of each country who are convinced by these folks are being used and they often die as a result.
Nope, you are missing the point.
Here it is again - the resistance of the Arabs to the US invasions is not due to a small number of extremists who wield power and are misusing language. That IS the implication of Hedges' article, and it is completely idiotic. It's Bush, in drag, resistance to invasion does not require extremists to motivate ... please think about this for a minute.
Now, please, tell me you get it .....
I'll shout it out ...
WE'VE INVADED THEIR COUNTRY, THEY ARE FIGHTING BACK, NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION, OR EXTREMIST LEADERS, BUT BECAUSE WE ARE KILLING THEIR PEOPLE AND EXPROPRIATING THEIR WEALTH
Hedges implies that resistance to invasion is the result of Islamic extremists who misuse language to rile up the masses .... for Chist's sake, we're bombing them, the don't need to misuse language .... the just have to point to the incoming F-14s or drones.
Calm down. In no way am I arguing that the US was/is correct in invading another country. You are mixing up two different arguments. You use the word "they" to encompass everyone. I'm not contesting that large numbers of people in Iraq whose lives have been decimated and whose economic prospects are grim based on the limitations the US has put into place... I'm not denying that many of these people have fought back and continue to fight against outsiders (mainly the US) who have plummeted them into this situation.
But this article isn't about that. And it doesn't deny that fact either.
My recommendation to you is that you take a break. Go take a walk. Some deep breaths and realize that the situation is more complex than you're making it.
It's friendly advice. In my view, Hedges is not implying that, as you put it, "resistance to invasion is the result of Islamic extremist who misuse language to rile up the masses."
Stop shouting and take a break.
With regards...
......Calm down. In no way am I arguing that the US was/is correct in invading another country.
The above sentence is just plain stupid, no one is saying that you or Hedges thinks the US was correct in invading anyone. Sorry, this too is friendly advice, but you need to up your mental game.
Good grief. Perhaps, using your logic, some of Al Qaeda really do hate our freedoms, so when Bush gave that as the reason for 9/11, then, he was probably right.
Analogously, since some clerics in Iraq make impassioned anti-US rants, well then, maybe that's why they're fighting. It's those damned extremists. This is the essence of Hedges' article. No mention of the 100 years of imperialism, apartheid Israel, the constant bombing, etc., no, it's the damned clerics and the abuse of language. This is a freaking bad joke.
If that weren't enough, this miserable SOB goes after the Christians in the US. As if they argued for or directed the war, which, admittedly is one of the neo-con charades that gets constant play in the media.
Do you know that Hedges has written a book ! about how the Christians are trying to control speech in the US. This is just plain idiotic, the only threat to free speech, and this is over the entire western world, is the ADL, which has succeeded in Europe, Canada, Australia, in passing laws that you wouldn't believe, that can be used to control any speech the govt doesn't like, and they are working hard in the US but have been thwarted by the 1st amendment and a few throwback southern congressmen. They're hopeful now, with the Kennedy/Obama clan in the WH.
Because of his early writings, I don't think Hedges is a neo-con agent, but now, he might as well be one.
You're a piece of work. I've looked up some of your other posts, all of which are caustic, ill-tempered and reactionary in nature no matter what the subject matter. So I'm not taking anything you say personally.
If you disagree so vehemently and feel so strongly about these issues you lambaste, then why don't you start your own blog and write about them yourself? I imagine you would find it more cathartic.
Good luck to you.
It takes all different kinds of views for a horse race.
.... you're a piece of work....
...if you would address the issues, instead of attacking me.... then you would realize how weak your mental game is ....
You just proved my point. LOL
....You just proved my point. LOL
?????
Well, I am quickly becoming a Hedges hater ... I admit ... he has a new article on how it's all OUR FAULT .... itll probably appear on commondreams in a minute ...
But let's go back to the current post .... Hedges starts a paragraph ...
"Those who seek to dominate our behavior first seek to dominate our speech."
He starts the next paragraph .....
"How do you respond to "Islam is the solution" or "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior"?"
Do you get it? I guess not. I'll spell it out .... in Hedges charade, those who seek to dominate them are the Islamists and those who seek to dominate us are the Christians .. Do you realize how GROTESQUE that is coming from someone of Hedges intelligence.
So, again, for Hedges it is the Islamists, or the Christians, or, in his next article .... US OURSELVES .... who is to blame ....
Who is it not - the financial oligarchy that runs the western world.... it ain't them ..... nooooooo
As long as we are satisfied with Hedges charades posing as analysis, we'll be completely in the dark .... dispossessed .... and having no reason why .... blaming everyone but those responsible..
Even when the Oligarchy gets in trouble and demands $700B carte blanche... and we give it to them ..... it's immediately forgotten and we start wringing our hands as shills like Hedges go after the Islamists, the Christians, or US OURSELVES .... but not the financiers .....
Get it? hahahaha ... I guess not ....
This is the last time I respond to you.
You seem to see the world in black and white. You digest what Hedges says in black and white and respond accordingly. You need to learn how to reason and better read between the lines and NOT be so frickin' judgmental. Seriously, dude.
IF you had read "American Fascists" you would understand perfectly well what Hedges means by "Islam is the solution" or "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior." He points out that these sentences are used as a conversation stopper to anyone questioning them. And while it isn't spelled out in a crystal clear manner in this article, it is in the book.
When he talks critically about Christians, Hedges is talking about those who practice in an EXTREME WAY (like Dominionists). Again, please learn how to read between the lines.
Hedges is not attacking Christianity as a whole.
BTW, I suggest you read a book called "The Family" by Jeff Sharlet. It is "a journalist's penetrating look at the untold story of Christian fundamentalism's most elite organization. A self-described invisible network dedicated to a religion of power for the powerful." You can also Google it. Sharlet has written an article or two about this for Harper's Magazine.
Peace out.
You are right it is dead simple: just ask ourselves what would happen if Russians, Canadians, Chinese, or whoever bombed, invaded, killed, occupied and defaced the USA. When some would dare fight back, they would be called heroes and patriots, not irrational terrorists. The double-standards and hypocrisy are so ingrained in our brainwashed culture, many cannot even see it in the plain daylight.
Dude, I think you momentarily slipped into a parallel universe. Come on back and re-read the article.
Chris Hedges makes no bones about the hardcore supporters of whatever ideology showing their bullying nature on language but it is not always true that the extremes really mean what they say especially when they have to be careful about scaring away the real center of moderates and independents.
What about the cases when they borrow of each side's language unexpectedly? Did you ever notice that when conservative Republicans are feeling down and out or are afraid of losing power that they will pretend liberalism only to turn around and say "Syke ! Sucker ! HAHAHA !". Likewise, liberal Democrats have been known to pretend conservative such as looking "strong" and "tough" on terrorism and shooting down the ill-trodden. Once in office, God knows which liberal Democrat will do what.
Never trust anyone by what they always say no matter weird they sound. Pay attention to what they actually do. Talk and language are cheap but not the actions which are the litmus test.
maxpayne says:
"Never trust anyone by what they always say no matter weird they sound. Pay attention to what they actually do. Talk and language are cheap but not the actions which are the litmus test."
well spoken! words are powerful, and may be used for good or ill...
this world is maintained by violent action, with words as lubrication and defense...
to elevate and adulate any human achievement, including language, in light of the very real destruction of our physical planet, is folly...
a return to personal action is central to saving this world...
Hedges once again proves that he knows little about history. It is no wonder he worked for the NY Times all those years. He spouts off gobblygook all the time. Maybe it comes from his "divinity" training?
You, sir/madam are the one who is spouting "gobblygook", whatever that is. Please enlighten us as you seem so certain that Mr. Hedges is inept and uneducated since he has been trained in theology.
Talk about empty gobbeldygook, any examples or facts to support your dubious claim?
What an astute observation. Not. Struggle, do you mind clarifying your statement with an example or four? That would be like me saying "You're stupid." Childish, inane, devoid of any facts. In other words, just a verbal spouting-off on my part with no substance to back it up.
Try to be a bit bigger than a 9-year old in your rhetoric, please.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935
Please enlighten the rest of us on his historical mistakes.
It just goes to show that in the current world system our culture and economic system implants these reductionist "triggers" within us. One is that we must leave political matters to the experts. Another is that there's always someone else to blame for our problems. (And a third is that making money is the prime objective, the only true yardstick of success and self-worth, which explains Christopher Hitchens, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, etc).
These reductionist triggers work very well for vested interests, because it makes us see evil only at a great distance and not over our own shoulders.
Don't underestimate intellectual laziness as a prime cause of our infantile political debates.
Rush Limbaugh and his chorus of clones provide a ready-made script for his true-believers to regurgitate.
I've spent considerable time the past month engaging with not only these dolts but Obamabots as well on various messageboards.
When I present information or perspective that's not part of any known script they accuse me of making stuff up or babbling incoherently.
They know not that Iran has submitted to more IAEA inspections than any country on Earth.
They know not that the U.S. overthrew Iran's democratic government in 1953.
They know not that Iran hasn't attacked its neighbors in hundreds of years.
I am told to leave the discussion so the trolls can continue to toss their pre-written grenades at each other.
The internet has exposed not only how uneducated our country is but how PROUD they are of it.