Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
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."
- Posted in




113 Comments so far
Show AllAlthough i agree with Hedges overall premise. I think language is not the primary cause of this horrific state of affairs. But it does perpetuate things and exaccerbate as well.
Having said this. I also find him to sometimes be difficult for me to digest. Not being an academic intellectual. That is simply the truth. And i feel that speaking in the language of intellectual academia is a form of elitism which is less than democratic.
I think he has a great point here. Words have lost their meaning in the right-wing drivel that passes for national public discourse these days. For weeks now, Rush Limbaugh has been claiming that Hitler was a leftist, and the Nazis were socialists because it had the word "socialist" in the full name of the party. It's utterly pathetic, disgusting, and dangerous.
I agree with zmann. However, it is on us to become more effective in countering the rightwing by talking in less abstract ways about our better vision. Air America is a start, but it spends most of its energy in rebuffing the right, allowing them to set the daily agenda. The same is true of most of the progressive op-eds.
The reason Obama was so popular and admired in his campaign was that he is well able to create verbally a vision of a better world and to make people believe it is doable now. He hasn't delivered on the few things he specifically promised, but that should not stop us from following his example to capture the imagination and hearts of the people for a more equitable society by better communicating our vision. We must create an actual, tangible opposing vision that people can believe in, feel included in, struggle for.
Good points. One of the things we can all do "locally" is take back the words the Right has taken over. So for example, "Patriot" is someone who takes care of other Americans. If you're a CEO who makes 500x what your employees make, you're un-Patriotic. If you believe in for-profit healthcare - unpatriotic. Taxes are bad? Really? So you don't value education, provided in public schools? You don't ever drive your car on tax-funded roads?
And my personal pet-peeve is all the God-talk they use. Ok, you want to use God-talk, let's do it. We're all Gods children, Yes or No? Yes. Great, then why do you want our military to kill Gods children who live in Afganistan? But that's different. Really, has God told you it's different? It says so in the Bible. Really, so you're saying God can't change his opinion?
And so on. Take it to them, make them face the inconsistencies of their hate-filled worldview.
Why are progressives putting so much energy into "countering the rightwing," a party and an agenda with a small minority of support? Just because Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck and a minority of Americans are hollering "socialist!" or "communists!" doesn't mean they represent the voice of the people. It's just the opposite.
Republican approval ratings are in the toilet. They have been discredited. As a result, Democrats won a triple majority and can pass any legislation that they want. By not doing the people's bidding, Obama's and the Democrat's approval ratings have plummeted since the election.
Poll after poll reveal that Americans prefer single payer health care - by a significant majority.
The majority want out of the expensive and illegal wars in the Middle East.
The majority think corporations have too much power. For example, during the 1st bailouts, Congress received calls - 100 to 1 - against the bailouts. We were ignored by Bush and Obama. In fact, when the fist vote went down, Obama put a hold on his active involvement in the campaign and instead spent days calling members of Congress, "encouraging" them to change their vote, which enough, of course, did.
By a significant majority, Americans realize that global warming is a threat. Four out of 10 say it's a "major threat." The majority say they are willing to pay higher utility bills if it would decrease the threat of global warming.
We are being led to distraction .... as always.
I am not sure what your point is here. If you mean to say that it is pathetic for Rush Limbaugh to say that Democrats are like Nazis then I would agree. Of course the obverse, that Republicans are just like Nazis, is equally absurd.
"An impoverished language solidifies a binary world and renders us children with weapons."
The above was my favorite line in Hedge's essay. It seems like nearly everyone in Amerika thinks in binary terms. Good vs evil, liberal vs conservative, democratic vs tyrannical, left vs rite, coke vs pepsi. This may help people to make sense of a very complicated reality, but it kills intelligent discussion of topics.
The 'kernel', around which all nazi ideology was built, was the concept of a racially and culturally homogenous nation of germans - the 'volk'. The nazis took a pragmatic view in that whatever was seen as promoting the good of the volk could be justified in nazi ideology. Hence they could do 'socialist' things like nationalizing the Junkers aircraft company or force landowners to adopt progressive forestry management ideas, or they could turn conscripted foreign workers over to industries as virtual slaves. There really was no nazi analogue to the communist manifesto. Mein Kampf was just Hitler's ramblings and few people bothered to read it.
It is better to think of the nazis as a 'radicalization of the middle', as it appealed the prejudices and world views of the german working - lower middle classes. Some American politicians may appeal to similar Amerikan white male petite bourgeoise prejudices when addressing topics like immigration and war, but such politicians remain capitalist imperialists, not nazis, as they serve the interests of Wall Street, not some hypothetical 'volk'. Since there is no large racially-culturally homogenous group of people in contemporary Amerika to build a 'volkish' ideology around an Amerikan nazi would be a self contradiction of sorts. It would be better if both the left and the rite in Amerika would stop tossing the term about as a universal pejorative and have an honest discussion of history and class struggle.
"If you're not idealistic when you're young, you don't have a heart. If you're not nihilistic when you're old, you don't have a brain." - Sydlitz
Well, Republican candidates still embrace the "Southern Strategy", which could compare to the Nazi embrace of the volk that you described, even though I am sure the Republicans ultimately do not care about the people they co-opt to get themselves power, and Wall Street money.
The Republicans damn well better embrace the "Southern Strategy" because they're the only red states left! And not even all of the South, either.
The sentence featuring "binary world" was my favorite also. It also brings to my mind binary computer 'talk.' No thinking involved. Merely 1s and 0s. Cards dropping into their prescribed slots on old timey computers. I have been surprised these last few years how there are quite a few people who are completely impossible to converse with on political subjects, because facts have no meaning for some of them. I do hope that some, especially the younger, have not fallen too deeply into the quagmire, and they may yet be awakened. Something similar must have happened to Arianna Huffington, for instance. Of course it's also true that many leftists are far too inclined to see a totality of micro-control by the elites, scheme and device everywhere, and conspiracies without end. In truth, sometimes it's merely random tumblings of the dice.
"And i feel that speaking in the language of intellectual academia is a form of elitism which is less than democratic."
Thats because academics are not particularly Democratic. Its not their fault, but they are so isolated from the real world as a rule, so intimidated by the need to conform for advancement, they tend to speak a different language and they pretend an arrogant superiority because they do not have to produce except by their own standards.
Its just a product of any isolated, privilaged community of people.
John Ralston Saul would probably say that all classes - academic, business, professional, manual laborer - have their own specialized vocabularies that exist to protect their private turf.
I think this article leans too much on the poor being the primary cause of the deterioration of language. He blames the slogans of the poor neighborhoods in the Islamic world on "jihad," which - while an interesting use of critical theory, also holds the standard Imperial line that it's always them (Arabs, poor people) who are the problem.
I wish he'd stuck to criticizing advertising and the slick Western political propaganda he's more familiar with.
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.
"They know not that Iran has submitted to more IAEA inspections than any country on Earth."
Sadly, I didn't know that part either.
Thank you. Good comment.
Cygnus: a really good observation about the debasement of language not just by the "fundamentalists" focussed on by Hedges but by the true "crazies" of our time whom you and others call the Obamabots. It doesn't do to limit the critique of language rape to the fundamentalists; it is literally impossible to talk and be heard by "these people" (the O's) because they are caught up in their own world of denial based on the slogans of hope and faith in the leader: what I've consistently called a bad case of their subjunctivitis (believing a thing to be true because one wants it to be). Since the Obamabots I know (and love in many cases) are almost exclusively "educated" and often non-religious people, it is clear that language debasement and denial of reality are pandemic among "our own" people. I'm a great admirer of Hedges myself, but I do see a twist of denial on his part of how critical thinking is becoming increasingly banished by politicized thinking; and this is a very, very dangerous thing against which we have to raise our voices however often we seem as Jeremiahs shouting in the desert.
Who are these Obamabots you're talking about? I support Obama, but only so far. Everyone I know supports him, but only so far. I also realize that things may not be as easy to do as I'd like, so I cut Obama some slack. He's no Kucinich, but I suspect if DK was president he'd be doing a few things I'd be disappointed in as well. To me this all sounds like a pretty reasonable position.
What ISN'T reasonable is what I call "head in the sand" progressives like yourself. Evidently you feel Obama should have consulted with you on what his exact agenda should be. Afterall, YOU alone have all the information needed to make completely correct decisions effecting millions of people. And because Obama FAILED to consult with you (by which I mean he's not carrying out the exact agenda you think he should) you stick your head in the sand. You refuse to allow the possibility that maybe there's more going on than meets the eye.
Case in point: Afganistan. Personally I think we have no business being there. But I'm reasonable enough to allow for the possibility that maybe Obama knows something I don't regarding the "secret" nuclear site in Iran. Could it be that THAT'S the reason he's not fully pulling out of Iraq and Afg? (Bush too for that matter).
Kane Jeeves: Ah, the old "cut the guy some slack, he maybe knows better than we know and you're just pissed because he doesn't agree 100% with you" routine. I thought you guys had gone into permanent hibernation. Welcome back!
To the point about Obama "knowing something" about the Iranian nuclear site that the rest of us don't know, apparently you're sort-of right, if you credit a report in Washington Times from administration "sources" that Obama knew about it before he was even inaugurated but waited to respond until (9 months later, is it?), he was able to "isolate" Iran from international support as in getting a UN Security Council resolution and buying off Russia's tolerance if not approval of anti-Iranian action by backing off the east European missile shield.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/26/obama-times-calling-out-iran-for-impact/
If that's true (and the Times is certainly a questionable source), it makes me a tad nervous (even if it doesn't you) that my and your President kept that knowledge under his hat if, as it is asserted, Iranian nuclear development is all that much a world threat. I think I could have dealt with that knowledge without committing suicide.
You mean that Moonie rag the Washington Times has an ulterior agenda...?
I wish I knew that before going thru with that shotgun wedding with my arranged Korean bride along with 10,000 of my closest strangers at the stadium... Boy, the KCIA sure pulled a fast one on me...
I thought it was the real deal, since the Bush family is so tight with Rev. Sun Myung Moon...
I mean, he's the Messiah come to unify all of the world's religions... He can't be wrong...! Could he...?
Jerry,
Demonizing everyone who voted for Obama as an "Obamabot", is the kind of mindless binary thinking that Hedges is writing about.
You are implying we are not human but robots, and we put up with that crap daily...
Hedges writes:
"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."
In reality there are no Obama worshipers on CD and never were but I notice that so many posters here create that straw-man.
Now on the subject of Iran.... all the Intel agencies knew about the nuke plant being built but since Israel and the right wing were saying they were about to bomb them ...why would anyone who didn't want a bigger war, bring this sensitive secret info up at that time?
In my opinion, The timing turned out to be good for a peaceful solution going forward.
I guarantee you, we here on this board probably know more about Afghanistan than Obomba's personal advisors. Politicians know only one thing: how to get elected.
You can "guarantee" that Zbigniew Brzezinski knows less about Afghanistan than the CD community...?
This is the guy who founded the Trilateral Commission with Rockefeller...
Was Carter's Foreign Policy Advisor who covertly organized, funded and trained the Mujahedeen to draw the Soviets into a "war of attrition" in Afghanistan, and Created the Al Quaeda network through Saudi oil money & CIA SOG advisors under Osama Bin Laden...
Hedges' focus on dominionists, the extreme Christian Right and a growing corporatism as the proponents most debasing and twisting our language is simply due to the fact that over the past few decades these groups have been moving steadily in a progressive and stealthy manner towards a fascist state. May I suggest that you read Hedges' book "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America"?
I would expect, if the shoe over the last few decades were more solidly on the other foot, Hedges would focus his attentions there. At the moment, this destructive behavior is more active and aggressive on the extreme Right side of the spectrum.
Anonymity doesn't help much either. Come to think of it, neither does free access. Contrast the commentary at the bottom of the internet barrel (YouTube) with Metafilter (which is well monitored and requires a one-time payment of $5 to get in).
Thank you.
"The internet has exposed not only how uneducated our country is but how PROUD they are of it."
My thoughts exactly.
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.
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?
Please enlighten the rest of us on his historical mistakes.
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
Talk about empty gobbeldygook, any examples or facts to support your dubious claim?
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.
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...
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?
Dude, I think you momentarily slipped into a parallel universe. Come on back and re-read the article.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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!"
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.
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.
"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.