{"id":6191,"date":"2023-03-08T09:36:00","date_gmt":"2023-03-08T14:36:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dahlman.online\/?p=6191"},"modified":"2023-07-13T11:24:49","modified_gmt":"2023-07-13T15:24:49","slug":"control-the-language-part-one","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dahlman.online\/index.php\/2023\/03\/08\/control-the-language-part-one\/","title":{"rendered":"Control the Language (Part One)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This is the first in a series about words we use daily.  As George Orwell said:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBut if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.  A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Divided<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

We are a Nation divided.  In fact, we are a Nation born in division.  Even in the American Revolution, only forty-five percent of the colonists were in favor of rebellion. A solid twenty percent were loyal to the Crown.  Around 80,000 (out of 2.5 million)  left the colonies after the Revolution, fleeing to Canada and Great Britain (USHistory.org<\/a>). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our divisions today seem clearer than ever.  I watch MSNBC, my neighbor watches Fox.  We see different news broadcasts, with different perspectives on almost every event.  And even if you don\u2019t \u201cwatch\u201d the news, we all have widely differing sources for information.  We are in a \u201cpost-truth\u201d age; we can select the \u201ctruths\u201d that fit our perspective.  And, of course, I\u2019m right, and you\u2019re wrong (not really).  Ask Tucker Carlson if you don\u2019t believe me. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

America\u2019s language is just as divided as its politics.  Words that once had \u201cclear meaning\u201d, now mean totally different things to different people.  It depends where their sources of information are, who they listen to, and what they believe.  There have already been essays on \u201cOur America\u201d dealing with some of these \u201clanguage\u201d differences in the past.  But it\u2019s time to write an \u201cindex\u201d of terms, what meanings they have, and how they divide us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Liberal<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

There are really three definitions of the word \u201cliberal\u201d.  The first is the classic definition, used in the terms liberal arts, liberal democracies, and liberal education.  In that meaning, liberal means \u201call encompassing\u201d.  So a liberal arts colleges include many academic subjects, and fewer \u201cprofessional\u201d programs.  My alma mater, Denison University, offers degrees in sciences, fine arts, and in \u201cthe academic arts\u201d like languages, history, politics, and economics.  Denison offers few \u201cprofessional\u201d programs like Nursing or Engineering, though it was possible to get a teaching certification while earning another liberal arts degree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A liberal democracy encompasses all of the racial, gender and ethnic groups in that country, guaranteeing freedoms.  All get the right to choose the government representatives by voting.  When a nation becomes \u201cilliberal\u201d, it begins to restrict those rights, and trend towards more authoritarian leaders who use government to control information and political dissent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With all of this \u201cencompassing\u201d, it shouldn\u2019t be surprised that a political liberal believes that the government itself can make life better for people.  Government can \u201cencompass\u201d people\u2019s lives and make life easier.   That\u2019s as opposed to conservatives who believe the government interferes in most people\u2019s lives, and should be as limited as possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And when \u201cliberal\u201d is used as a pejorative, it\u2019s the idea that liberals are weak; weak on crime, weak on foreign policy, weak on capitalism.  That\u2019s not at all true \u2013 but after the 1960\u2019s the term stuck so badly, that many liberals \u201crecategorized\u201d themselves as Progressives.  That\u2019s really the same thing as liberal, but without the baggage.  Me \u2013 I\u2019m just an old-fashioned 1960\u2019s liberal \u2013 you can keep Progressive to yourself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Woke<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Since liberal is an old fashioned term, and progressive isn\u2019t as descriptive, the new-speak term is \u201cwoke\u201d.  It came from \u201cwaking up\u201d to the reality of racial, gender, and ethnic injustice.  \u201cWoke\u201d folk get it \u2013 that the majority white men have had an unfair advantage ever since the Nation was founded.  Case in point:  originally only white, males, over twenty-one, who owned property, had the right to vote.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This really didn\u2019t change much until the 1960\u2019s, when the civil rights movement raised the visibility of black oppression.  The women\u2019s rights movement occurred soon after, and while the Equal Rights Amendment failed ratification, the idea of equal gender rights persisted (though women still  today earn only 80% of what men earn for the same jobs in many categories).  Rights for the disabled, for the LGBTQ, all progressed through the latter half of the twentieth century, and into the twenty-first. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The use of the term woke as a pejorative came about  just recently as a backlash against the increasing rights of all those groups.  To put a negative spin on that \u2013 think of it as payback from those formerly advantaged white men who are losing the \u201cbenefits\u201d of their race and gender, and don\u2019t like it.  To insult someone by calling them \u201cwoke\u201d is to demand that white\/male advantages continue.   All of that makes me a sixties liberal, who\u2019s proud to be \u201cwoke\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Participation Award<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

One of the great insults thrown at \u201cwoke\u201d and \u201cliberal\u201d people, is that they are weakening America by stunting competition. Competition is the economic basis of American life, capitalism.  Of course, in a competition where one group has a built-in advantage, that\u2019s hardly fair.  Look at the monopolies that dominate America energy, or advanced technology.  But since the advantaged group doesn\u2019t recognize their unfair edge, they go ahead and claim that America \u201cno longer competes to be the best\u201d, but instead everyone \u201cgets a participation award\u201d.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

That goes back to little kids sports, where the actual goal is participation.  That\u2019s the most important thing, instead of winning, because of the built-in physical differences between kids.  The \u201cwinners\u201d are often the older, or the physically more mature, and won\u2019t maintain their advantage as everyone else \u201ccatches up\u201d.  In order to keep the younger and less physically mature involved, the reward for them is being \u201cpart of the team\u201d. Who knows what kind of athlete they might be with a couple of years of maturity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But that\u2019s \u201cwoke\u201d (in a bad way) according to many.  They believe America\u2019s children need to learn early that \u201clife isn\u2019t fair\u201d and winning is the most important thing.  Anti-award folks quote that least \u201cwoke\u201d American General of all time \u2013 George S. Patton:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAmericans play to win at all times. I wouldn’t give a hoot and hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost nor ever lose a war<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then they apply it to seven-year old baseball.  War is hell, and so is losing that seven year old T-Ball game.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(To Be Continued…)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Essays on Language<\/h4>\n\n\n\n