This article critiques the way political groups find ways to discuss the brutal facts of war and combat without having to upset anyone in the process. Similarly, you might notice how we learn to use and not use certain terms in our conversations about race and culture by using words that “scrub up” the facts that are uncomfortable to face. And so we use language that permits us to exchange ideas without having to feel the facts that lie below those ideas. Think about it: We can discuss “inequality” without picturing children who truly do not know where their next meal is coming from — those facing empty refrigerators and no heat or roofs over their heads — or imagining others who regularly throw out large amounts of edible food and have more than enough warm space in their homes. And when we discuss “privilege,” we don’t have to imagine individuals with an attitude of detached entitlement to comfort and status, people who may actually be connected to that empty refrigerator. (Those privileged individuals, by the way, would clearly be anyone who is reading this blog — if we contrast our lives to the less fortunate two-thirds of the world’s population.)
Read the article:
“The Words Have Changed, But Have the Policies?”
Consider the term “enemy combatant.” Many agree that this term is functional to us. This is tantamount to agreeing on a stereotype without having to consider the person who is being labeled “enemy combatant.” How different is this than calling someone “ghetto” or “dot-head” or “illegal immigrant”? “Dot head” is a great term here because that mark on the forehead of a person who is Hindu (the “bindi” or “tilaka”) actually has meaning that is related to a religious belief system as well as a person’s station in life. This is quite different than “ghetto” — a term that refers to an existing geographic location, an actual physical place that some people would always consider a “neighborhood” and not a “ghetto.” How many of us could walk through New York City and agree on which parts of it are actually “ghettos,” for example?
So “enemy combatant” doesn’t reveal the meaning behind some line that we draw in the sand. How do we determine who is on one side of it and who is on another? So we must mystify and whitewash our language in order to convince ourselves that a person is inherently bad or good or violent or of one mind or another.
Now reflect on the article with the following questions in mind:
1. Which terms of the race dialogue fail to personalize life conditions and experiences that are important to understand?
2. To what degree is the current (Obama) administration constrained by the same assumptions as the former (Bush) administration?
3. How much are we being manipulated so that our collective thinking gels into a mindset that supports the status quo? And how might that benefit YOU and for all of us?
With all of this in mind, I feel obliged to relay what President Obama said yesterday to a group of Turkish students: The United States is like a giant oil tanker. I moves very slowly and cannot be easily turned. Give it time…give me time. We cannot change things over night. (I’m not putting quotes around this because I don’t recall his exact words.) So perhaps he sees some things more clearly than it might at first seem. Who’s to say?
Sherrell Obaji
Sam Richards – Soc 119
Due: 4/10/09
The Mess Beneath the Words!
Let me be the first to amit it I also have a way with words, especially when it come to expressing myself to others; truthfully I believe everybody does it. It’s not really telling a lie, it’s just switching the truth to a more positive level. I think in the case of President of Obama, I feel as if he has to do it for the best of the country, it is not easy running the country (especially in this time and age). If the President would have told the citizens of America that he was having a “Surge”, I think it would have caused havoc all over the country. In some cases, people just lie for no reason at all, and those are the people who should be penalized. People in politics lie all the time, they say one thing and mean the other (that is just how the game is ran).
Personal Opinion:
I want people to carefully analyze the people in society that may mislead the truth (or lie); I know it sounds silly, but really look at their professions. Entertainers that have a way with not filling telling the truth, have to do that not for themselves but for the public -eye. For they are looked upon as role models, meaning there is added pressure on them. For example, before the incidence with Rihanna and Chris Brown, the public “LOVED” Chris Brown (he was the spokesperson for Doublement Gum, also was in high demand to sing with other song artists. He was the Boddy Brown of our time); the public couldn’t get enough of him. But the minute he was found beating on Rihanna, her face was plastered on news station all over the world; people (the public) turn their backs almost as if he was the devil himself. Don’t get me wrong “no man should put their hands on a female, that’s completely unacceptable;” but my point is for some reason people can’t handle the “truth.” Society look up to people in higher up positions, so every move you do it will be watched and analyze very carefully.
Relating this back to Mr. Obama, as a President of the United State it is one of your duties to try and keep the American people as calm as possible. I feel as though people won’t really understand until their put into a predicament of not telling the whole truth. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying lying can be completely acceptable; what I am saying it is okay to tell the truth, but in certain circumstances the truth has to be altered.
[Reply]
After September 11, 2001 Americans all over the world were introduced to the word “terrorism” and how it changed from just representing violence to representing a school of thought, an ideology, and a belief. We can take the word “terrorism” and its implications on American society. A “terrorist” today in America is considered an enemy and an imminent danger that needs to be taken out as soon as possible and in any possible way. This “perspective” was formed in the American mindset after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when the Bush Administration clarified to the American people that there is a group of people out there to attack and harm America and the only way to counter them is through war and guns. These terrorists could not be “negotiated” with because they were dangerous enemies. As the years have progressed after the terrorist attacks, the word “terrorism” has gained more and more power and weight with it. Words such as Al Qaeda, Osama, and Islamist are known to signal danger and threats. However, no one during Bush’s administration ever tried to understand these “terrorists” and instead labeled them as enemies who were justifiable to kill and get rid off. During the whole Bush Term, there was no single day where the Administration tried to reach out and actually connect with the enemies. Instead, the Bush Administration kept its distance and kept feeding the American people with false information about how these terrorists could attack America at anytime and anywhere. No one ever questioned this ideology and instead the American population acted submissively and conformed to this thinking. The most shocking part of this whole process is the Obama campaign and eventual take over of power in the United States. When Obama was campaigning he had already stereotyped theses terrorists as enemies and instead of bringing change, he proposed to go even harder on the terrorists in Afghanistan! How can he already propose a plan when he hasn’t even communicated with this group of people. Obama and his administration have already set their minds and instead of opening up, they have showed how they also have been brainwashed by the Bush Administration about “terrorists” and “Al Qaeda”. Instead of researching and finding out the story behind Al Qaeda, Obama has already decided that Yes these are the enemies of America. Where is the change? I think it is just more evidence showing how Americans have believed in the war on terrorism that Mr. Bush initiated. Isn’t the war already proven to be a flawed plan? Will America continue to believe in labels and the black and white thinking or will America be ready to actually change? It just comes to show how we as Americans have been believing and trusting in labeling and words put out there by the “authorities”. ppun
[Reply]
I think it is very normal for politicians to be made fun of via cartoon. I mean for god sakes there’s even a genre of cartoons, called political cartoons, which are run in prestigious news papers such as the New York Times every week. Every president before Obama has had cartoon drawings making fun of them. I have a T shirt from my dad from the 1970’s of Spiro Agnew wearing a Mickey Mouse hat. George bush during his presidency used to be drawn as a monkey because of his low IQ and the way he looks. That’s why I believe the cartoons aren’t intended to make fun of his race, just Obama as a person. Since these cartoonists don’t know Obama personally, they can only make fun of what they assume about him or pick up from the media. An example is Obama giving the queen an Ipod. That’s would be funny even without a cartoon to go along with it. But the cartoon highlighted the ridiculousness of the event. I don’t believe there are any racial undertones to that. I think the same thing would have been done if George W Bush had given the queen an ipod. This is because the fact Obama gave the queen an ipod is just plain weird. I think basket ball Obama cartoon and the Obama’s fried chicken picture are just trying to generalize obama using stereotypes because these cartoonists don’t know anything about Obama. And to be honest, sometimes it is funny to stereotype celebrities and politicians. Politicians and celebrities are easy to ridicule because of their fame. They are nationally and internationally known. Therefore everything they do can be picked apart and discussed. To be honest if I was black and saw these cartoons, I wouldn’t be offended at all. If it was a white president and there was cartoons using white stereotypes, it would be just as funny. But at the same time everyone has different humor. Someone who has been subjected to segregation or hate to race and racial stereotypes might not find these cartoons funny. However I think it’s good to never take anything to seriously, or else you’ll never enjoy life. People just need to realize the overall goal of these cartoons and jokes is to poke fun at obama, not black people. These cartoons don’t show any real negative intentions. The only intention is to make the general population laugh.It’s like what the writers on southpark do. They take popculture and make fun of it via cartoon. However, their cartoons tend to offend many more people. But they really just want to make people laugh. The goal of a cartoonist is to make people laugh. And if they can accomplish it by stereotypes, they will.
[Reply]
I am outraged that people expect policies to change overnight, and yet I find myself impatient for recovery from the ills resulting from the policies of the last administration. We are a society used to immediate gratification- a click of a mouse, a swipe or push with a fingertip and mission is accomplished in a millisecond. The workings of government cannot be instantaneous, and that can be in some cases for our own protection.
I understand why this administration wishes to distance itself from the foils of the last. If they choose to change the words they use, I don’t have a problem with it as long as we are taking steps to correct the mistakes we have made. The phrase “war on terror” never made sense to me anyway because WAR IS TERROR. “Man caused disasters” actually describes it more specifically. Is it an attempt to take the panic and fear out of the reference? Well maybe it is, but maybe it is necessary that we do because action based on fear is reactionary and not always intelligent and taken with consideration of the long term effects..
We are subject to the influence of rhetoric, but its power is limited by our ability to seek the truth. We can’t depend on either the liberals or the conservatives to get it right. For instance, when Wilson of the Washington Post started the wildfire about the “overseas contingency operation” he was careless and made no attempt to find out the truth when Kenneth Baer said that there was no directive from the OMB and that the “contingency” phrase had been circulated as the personal opinion of a career civil servant. Picked up by both conservative and liberal media, rantings by both political pundits filled the airways. This is just another example of careless reporting for the purpose of intentionally inciting outrage and reaction. Bantering about word choices keeps us from focusing on the real issues.
We are careful to omit emotionality from the words we choose to discuss sensitive topics but this does not necessarily scrub up the facts. The vision we hold within is not created by the language used but by our own experience, education, sensitivity, moral character, and desire for truth. The term “enemy combatant” used to describe the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay is a generic nonspecific term created because the nature of their crimes is nonspecific. It loosely refers to anyone who is in conflict with our ideals and is a threat to our freedom and safety. The power to determine the enemy in this case if unchecked could border on fascism with its repression of any opposition. Determining the “enemy” is the challenge and my fear is the tendency to label an entire race as such. There in lies the danger we face drawing lines in the sand and why WAR IS TERROR because innocent people become victims of fanatical ideology.
[Reply]
Rhetoric, shmetoric. No, I do not support President Obama or his administration with their manipulative use of language – but only because it is meant to mask their lies. Rather than complain about their words, I would rather call them out on their policies.
Rhetoric can be used in many ways, and in politics, it is usually viewed (by the public) negatively. It does not have to be. Sometimes, we the people are not so receptive to the obvious or the good.
The Bush administration, on Republican pollster Frank Luntz’s recommendations, turned “global warming” into “climate change” after focus groups revealed themselves to be more responsive to that language. The same concept (that the earth was heating up due to fossil fuels, etc.) retooled with different language elicited a different, more welcoming response from the public. Job well done.
The fact that the Republicans used this against the Democrats, who were the champions of climate change legislation, and made them look stupid, intentionally – those are despicable tactics… but, then, the Dems were naïve and should have figured out the language issues on their own.
Public relations and polling is not going to stop simply because we the people or the media call attention to it (or call the actions “manipulations”) – and, again, it probably should not. The public is a fickle bunch, myself included.
So my problem here is that the policies have not changed. Nobody is lying here, per say, but they are distracting from the fact that that they said that they would do one thing and… then they didn’t. One of the first things that President Obama did in office (if not the first thing) was a symbolic declaration to the close Guantanamo. Renaming does not equate with closing in my book.
During the campaign in 2008, then-Senator Obama promised to take American troops out of Iraq. Those who voted for him (and those who voted against him, and those who abstained…) did so on the premises he laid out during his campaign. The safe inference was that the troops leaving Iraq would be coming home – not moving to another country, namely Afghanistan. Honesty is honesty.
There are levels of more inappropriate rhetoric, that is meant not only to deceive but to persuade people to hate. Islamo-fascism? That compound expression just breeds prejudice. Also, how the author of the New York Times article came under the impression that “islamo-fascism” has been retired from use, I have no idea. Was a memo sent out? Because a lot of people in my classes at Penn State did not get it. Sam Richard’s BFF (or should I say BEF?) David Horowitz still uses it.
As for the new expression for terrorist attacks, used by OMB’s chair, Peter Orszag, on multiple occasions: it is an inane expression. Man-made disasters? It sounds like a mudslide caused by the boogeyman…. Or something. The democrats are not good with rhetoric. It is sad that people seem immune to the words “terrorist attack” and “suicide bombing” after (not even a) decade.
[Reply]
Well I have to say I have so many issues with the article that was written I do not really know where to begin. First thing I have to say, which really is not a problem, but just strikes me as weird and rare is that the linked article reads like a very liberal platform pushing piece but even still criticizes some of Obama’s policies that have been fairly groundbreaking considering his predecessor but deems them only marginal changes. The author even notes that Jon Stewart of the today show poked fun at the president. Isn’e that his job? Just because now there is a liberal President in office does the author expect the entire format of the show to be revamped? Or better yet pack it in and decide they have had a good run but the fun is over now because Bush is no longer president.
But seriously now I’ll tackle some of the real issues in the blog. The article critiques the way political groups discuss certain topics and use terms and “buzz words” to spin it into the public’s eye in a certain light in order to get a favorable response. The article furthermore asserts that the Obama administration may be putting too much of a concerted effort at creating new terminology that will create distance between him and the Bush administration and that this may take away from their interest in the policies and issues themselves. The sheer thought is asinine; are we really to believe that our government can not multi task and that as a result of having a team of public relations people working for Obama that this may hinder his cabinet, and other policy advisors from doing their job? Unfortunately, in the media saturated society we live in today it is necessary to have the public on your side if you are to be any kind of an effective leader. Furthermore, going into Afghanistan is what we should have done in the first place and Obama is merely working to rectify that. I am sorry if people have a problem with using force on anyone but the fact of the matter is our comforts of security and freedom do not come without a price and in order to preserve these inalienable rights we must work to prevent terrorist threats. Also the mere insinuation that all the prisoners in Guantánamo bay should be released immediately is ridiculous. I personally am opposed to closing it at all but if Barack Obama has it set to close within the year as a sign of good faith to other countries than surely you can not expect him to release all of the prisoners right away. Many of them would not hesitate to kill your entire family if they believed it would further their own cause.
As far as words that “scrub up” uncomfortable facts I believe that that is not attributed to words themselves but the effort people put into educating themselves on the subject mater. Everyone will always have a certain level of ignorance to certain issues and that is simply because it is impossible to experience all the different conditions faced on this earth. The best you can hope to do is educate yourself to the best of your abilities and use that knowledge to better the world if even only a miniscule amount.
[Reply]
Redefining terms does seem an easy way to stay away from terminology that has left bad taste on most Americans. We mentally picture things when we hear a word. For example the word cat will bring a picture of a feline to your mind it may be different from what I see when I hear the word but both things we see are in fact cats. If we hear the phrase, war on terror we feel something or see something whether its people or a country or TV reports, none of these things leave us with a good feeling. Obama and really any politician has the job of trying to put this in a better light even though it’s the same war the terminology that is used makes a big difference in how we see the war. Any politician has this job this is not a new thing and will be used again after Obama. Rhetoric is a very big weapon used when politicians are fighting a war. They must keep the people believing that this war is worth all this trouble on the lives that are being lost if they lose the peoples moral they will very likely lose the war they need the peoples support in order to continue doing what they are doing. People will not be willing to join the army or volunteer if they do not believe in the war. Obama obviously needs to use this rhetoric to get people behind the war again. He is going to stay as far away from any terminology that bush has ever used. He cannot associate anything he does overseas with anything that bush has done. Any definition that bush has established has become taboo, completely untouchable. If Obama wants to have any success in having people support anything that he does in the Middle East he must not be seen as doing anything bush had done. He cannot have a “surge” because that is what Bush did but naming it something else even though it’s the same thing. Isn’t it funny who easily a word change can completely change who we see something. It shows how very important rhetoric is in our society. This same strategy of rhetoric is used at the race table especially in how we refer to another race if you referred to an African American now as a colored person you would probably get some nasty responses but as we have seen in class saying people of color is totally acceptable. So even just changing around the wording completely changes the responses you will get. Using the correct rhetoric is very important at the race table just as it is in the white house. Rhetoric is indeed very powerful.
[Reply]
Barak Obama based his whole president campaign around one word. Change. He said multiple times that the way to get out of debt, the way to fix our problems, they way to make our lives better is through change. Change from the previous president, Bush. Due to the fact that many Americans did not like Bush, we went along with this idea of new change. Barak Obama cashed in on Americas dislike for our currant situation and flipped it around as a positive for his campaign. So as you can imagine, many people expected immediate changes from our new, and perhaps improved, president. I mean, that is what he has been preaching that past months. So what have we seen from our new president? I honestly don’t know.
Now, I know I’m not looking for any over night miracles, but I’m kinda a little shocked at how Obama has been as president so far. For all the changes that he said were going to happen immediately after becoming president, it doesn’t look like he has changed that much from president Bush. In fact he has changed very little from president Bushes ideas and warfare. I don’t like how, when I read this article, he is changing he’s words to almost deceive the American people on how he is not changing that much from president Bush. I understand that he can’t all of a sudden take all troops out of Iraq and so forth, but he is actually adding more into our system over seas. Our people that we captured, that were supposed to be released under President Obamas plan of action, are now staying in our control. I just feel like- why are you not saying the truth?? The Truth is, at this time you, the president, cant do exactly what you planned to do as president. Maybe down the line in one year you will be able to take your course of action that you outlined as future president. That would be great. But why are you hiding behind different names on things that are the same. I rather you (president Obama), to just say that at this time you cant take troops out, or cant waiver from the previous presidents plan until further down the road of you presidency. I agree on what one person said in here blog about how 21,000 more soldiers are getting put back into the war, but not under the name for combat. (Yet technically they are) So they are risking their lives but president Obama is not admitting to their part as soldiers in this Iraq war due to the fact that President Obama is trying to be different than President Bush.
I might sound a little flip-flop on how I view the subject, but I just want to say in defense I do understand a bit about the politics. I know that politically he has to assure the American people in our new government that we have today. At this time of age, we really do need to have as much assurance as we can. Many negative things are going on and we need to stick as close together as we can.
[Reply]
I’m not sure what we are suppose to write or reply to the blog. But from what I understood they are asking of how things are and how the government is becoming. In my opinion to be honest the government of the United States will never change. Because of the people surrounding it. The president is just a figurehead that people will push around and fore him to make the decision they want. Without considering what is going in the world and how people are having a hard time to live. From what I saw since I’ve been alive the government of the United States of America has bee messed up and just going into countries destroying them and getting what they want from them. No person or government will do something without benefiting about it or being selfish about it. The first thing president bush did was send troops to Iraq. He sent citizens of the United States of America who have nothing to do with what’s going on Iraq to save Iraq. How did they save Iraq by killing Saddam and making more chaotic and dangerous than ever? At least with Saddam the citizens were in control even though they didn’t have their freedom. But no it’s just chaotic. To hear stories from people who come from Iraq that my son has been murdered right in front of me by other Iraqis. My husband has been kidnapped because of his religion. That’s what Iraq is now. Bush sent troops to Iraq got the petroleum he wants and left. And now I hear this new thing about Obama sending troops to Afghanistan. Who asked him to send troops to Afghanistan? Who gave him the right? This thing about the United States of America believing that they are the most powerful nation in the world that they have the right to go into any country and just do whatever they want because the country itself is falling apart. I don’t get it, that’s invading of privacy in so many ways. And why do the Americans citizens have to take it. Why do their wives, mothers, daughters have to just accept the fact that the man of the house is leaving to fight in a war that they don’t know anything about. And if they know anything it’s what they are fed be the government. That’s all they know. I appreciate what they are trying to do to the world but they are not seeing the other side. The other side meaning what the people are going through because of the American citizens being around. They might think they are doing good but at the end when they leave everything goes back to how the country. Change has to be from within you cant force it on people.
[Reply]
This was a very intriguing article, I think. It couldn’t be any more true about the government choosing their words carefully to kind of embellish topics that would otherwise be offensive or anger the citizens of the United States, if stated in other words. It really is no different than discussing inequality without thinking of devastatingly poor people that make up 2/3 of the Earth’s population. It’s crazy to think that we are discussing inequality in the classrooms of Penn State when the degree of inequality is literally microscopic in the real scheme of things. Maybe some of us have better jobs than others. Maybe some of us were brought up in a nicer house and neighborhood. Maybe some of us wear more expensive clothes. If you put our inequality on a global scale, at least we all have clothes, a house to go home to, clothes on our backs, and most of have jobs, or are able to get one if we wanted.
The War on Terror’s new name, the Overseas contingency operations, is another doozy. This is what I call “beating around the Bush [administration]”. If I’m going to be honest, I really do not have a problem with this. If Obama pulled our troops out now, right after being elected President, how weak would we look? Do people not realize that there are extremists that need to be taken care of. If we pull out now, the United States would look weak and you can bet your ass terrorists would go on the offensive. Think we scared them by being in the Middle East for so long? No, they are not scared of dying, considering they strap bombs to themselves and plan to do so on their own. By sending these troops into Afghanistan, we are making sure to keep our homeland as safe as possible, so we can live better lives here.
Why are we all of a sudden concerned about politicians candy coating touchy subjects? Haven’t they been doing it for centuries? I thought that’s what politics was. When was the last time you heard a politician run for President and do exactly what they say? Though they change the words around, I think we all still know what is actually being implied. With Obama making history in the White House, he is going to face a great deal of scrutiny from the American people. This is just the beginning. I can’t wait to see what the future has in store for this new “God”. Let the games begin.
[Reply]
I am really sick of the world becoming so politically correct. Everybody gets offended so easily nowadays and it’s really obnoxious. There are so many words people can’t use anymore because it offends someone’s religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, or job. Eventually there will be nothing to say to each other that doesn’t bring scandal or a law suit. Yes, there are some words and sayings that are disgusting, perverted and completely wrong which should never be used and it is a shame that they were ever created in the English or any other language to begin with. Ethnic slurs are wrong all the time. They are inconsiderate and offensive not just to people of the specific culture being insulted and they show ignorance. I feel if people were educated earlier in life about how different people can be from each other, and not just in the grade school way where teachers tell you “to be yourself” as a ploy to get you to say no to drugs or bullying, then we wouldn’t have to deal with it when people are old and stubborn. What I’m talking about is the boycotts and law suits people come up with for calling someone a waitress instead of a server. To me those are situations of intense activists or lobbyists looking for something to complain about because they can’t find any real injustices to fight for.
Now we have to use special propaganda in the media. We are so censored from real life, as if words will form a protective bubble so we don’t get hurt. The fact that we can’t say “war on terror” and instead say “overseas contingency operations” and “terrorist attacks” are “man-made disasters” is ridiculous. By calling something else doesn’t change the reality of what it is and that it is happening right now.
Everything will be so sugar coated in goodness that we might as well all have pet ponies and quit our jobs to go butterfly catching. I understand that sometimes too much of the truth makes people scared, and think the world is about to end at the drop of a hat but the selective language the government uses to downplay situations to show their control really leaves the public in the dark and confused by what they hear from the government and what they see in the media. I feel that if we mix up sugar coating with straight truth there will be a nice balance and less freak outs from the public when something huge actually happens. These general non-specific words make me feel further from my government. The United States government is supposed to be for the people and by the people but this really places a distance between government and the people which actually makes me trust them less and uncertain of their intentions.
[Reply]
I think that although the Obama administration holds within itself great potential and promise, it is also constrained (much in the same way that the Bush administration was). We may have moved forward in the people-of-color-in-power arena, but in some ways, that proves even a greater challenge to Barack Obama. This is because people are expecting immediate and drastic change just because the traditional role of presidency in this country has changed. And it is true – things have and definitely will continue to change over the next four years (possibly eight). That is not to say, however, that the changes will come slowly and painfully. Already Obama has had to deal with the consequences of the actions of the president preceding him. That alone should signify that the process of change would not be a quick one.
Like Obama said, the change will come slowly in some ways. But I think his presidency alone has opened up many doors for this country to see drastic changes, regardless of how slowly they occur. Nonetheless, his actions and his “smooth talking” about policies influences the American people – us – in many different ways. If our President is not 100% honest, why should be as such at the race relations table? If anything his dancing around the issues only teaches the American people (even indirectly) many issues do not need to be addressed and attacked head-on. The more smooth-talking that goes on, the easier it is to address the issues without people seeing the direct and drastic consequences (whether they be good or bad). Honestly, it is the same way with race discussions. The less that we are able to be honest and upfront, the less we are able to truly address the issues at hand. Even more so, we become crippled in our understanding of what the true issues are and what they bring about.
Only using certain words in the race discussion immediately puts up extra walls surrounding the true heart of the issues that we so desperately desire to address. Therefore, not only do we have to discuss the heart of the real race issue, but it is complicated by the extra walls and stereotypical vocabulary that we tend to use in discussing race.
I am excited to see where Obama’s presidency goes – excited, yet understandably nervous. I think that he has opened up many doors for us to walk through as individuals, as a nation. In order to do so, however, we must be wiling to look within ourselves at what it is about us that helps to perpetuate stereotypes concerning race. This includes the language that we use in daily conversations as well. I think we, as Americans, have a tremendous and singular chance and responsibility to pursue change.
[Reply]
Tuh-may-toe, tuh-maa-toe; terrorist, enemy combatant—words that mean the same thing, yet sound different. I guess what sets the second set of words apart from the first is the different emotional responses they receive. You often describe someone as “having a way with words”—what exact “way is that? Picking and choosing of words to create the desired response in someone is this “way.” Though the meaning is the same, the different words used and the manor in which they are used can greatly affect the audience’s response. Why is that? Is the American public not smart enough to realize that all these phrases mean the same thing? The reason people have a certain reaction to a certain word is because of the connotations of a word. For example, since “terrorist” was something people started hearing a lot more than usual after 9/11, the word creates fear. Using a new word, such as “enemy combatant” would cause less distress—why is that?
The Obama administration has done many things to separate itself from the Bush administration. Seeing the countries feelings of the Bush administration, certain words and phrases have been modified slightly to distinguish the two administrations to create more National Security. It is interesting to see how much power a word holds. Where does this power come from? Us! On the first day of class, Sam was talking about how the “f-word” has a derogatory meaning to it just because we gave it that meaning. If the word “pen” meant what the “F-word” means, then people would be offended when someone told them to “go pen off.” A play with words is basically the job of all media. Advertisement is the official term for it is. Finding phrases that sell an item is what advertising is. Instead of saying “fulfill your thirst” it is “quench your thirst.” Both mean the same thing—but one is just catchier. Why is it catchy? Well we made it that way! Obama wants to set itself apart from the Bush administration—this is totally understandable after seeing the feelings American citizens have towards Bush. It is frustrating a bit to know how we are kind of being deceived by being told that we are dealing with “enemy combatants” instead of “terrorist.” After 9/11, terrorist became a word with whole new meaning. Today, we are still dealing with terrorists—so saying that they are “enemy combatants” is essentially a lie even though they can mean the same thing. The past few years, due to various events, has created a new meaning of terrorist that is not synonymous to “enemy combatant.” Two words may mean the same thing, but at the same time, can mean something completely different.
[Reply]
I think that people have to be careful whenever they speak. Because something that people say that might be funny. Joke is only okay when both sides understand. That’s how I see it. And if friend of mine makes a joke about Asians and he or she knows that they are joking and I know it too then it’s totally fine. Friend of mine always joke about how I am Asian and I am suppose to be good at math and science. And I know that she doesn’t truly believe inside of her heart and she is just saying it because sometime some Asians are just good at it. But, if someone that meant it out of their heart and really take it serious then that will actually make me feel little insulted. I do joke about my own race too. I know that people won’t think I’m serious and I say it in a joke so that no one will get offended. Obama made a comment and people who heard it thought it was funny but, some people who is very careful was too concern that he might be insulting. If Obama did it in a ways that he meant is completely not as a joke as a stereotype then it will be a problem. I know that when Obama was elected, some people were thinking that since there was lots of white presidents and we were allow to make fun of the white people. And now since they got black president it wouldn’t be so bad to actually make fun of black people. I don’t like the word ghetto just because that that word carries a meaning. And I don’t feel comfortable saying it. In some reality shows even say some people from ghetto are not all bad, some of them can succeed just fine. So, I think I am able to say it if I don’t see the word ghetto as a bad dirty neighborhood. And the person that I am saying to think the same way too. The word ghetto can be the description of something or someone but, no one should take that as a stereotype. Because whenever they do, it somehow turns in to a insult that will make people mad. And the next scene will not pretty. I just think that if people think right before they speak then there won’t be a big problem with what should say and when to say it. It all depends on the situation and environment. That word shouldn’t even be made but, since people was thinking of a term to describe it and really think that that is a only thing that is happening there, it just made a generalization and stereotype.
[Reply]
In politics today, the use of language is planned out very carefully staying always from difficult or hard words. For, language can be very powerful stirring up a lot of feelings and emotions. On the other hand, this use of softer language can provide a blanket of protection against these feelings. This is highly shown in the news when the Iraq war is discussed. The media and politics do not capitalize on the harsh realities and details of what is really occurring. This way as Americans we are able to distant ourselves from the situation and go on with our daily lives. If we heard things on a daily basis about how terrible things were and they were described with more vivid descriptive language there would most likely be more of a reaction. Therefore, it is obvious that the government is trying to avoid this not wanting this type of reaction from the people. So, since the government in large part controls the media it is able to keep this type of talk out of the news reports. It is only when the government is seeking this type of reaction such as after 9/11 that harsher words are used. Even still there is almost a ethical code on how language is used.
I think this ethical code of language is carried over from people in politics to all types of citizens. There are definitely certain words and phrases that are not acceptable in many social settings. Words pertaining to race are especially touchy. No one wants to say something that might offend someone. In fact, it is hard most of the time for people of different cultures to know what is appropriate to say so they stick to proper language. Yet, this can put up a lot of barriers and keep things very distant. In reality, I think there are times where certain words are by no means acceptable. It is inappropriate for people to use the f word and other curse words in formal or business settings. However, there are other times where people really hide behind language. This feels really awkward and formal, especially where everyone is thinking the same thing and knows what needs to be said. For instance, when something really terrible happens like a death people tend to use very proper language and not say anything too bold. For instance, always say passed away or guess it was their time. This can be very frustrating. I do not see anything wrong with saying that person died and that it is really terrible. Yet, society like in many other situations has this way of speaking that everyone seems to follow. It is not until this language barriers starts to break down that one really gets to know a person.
[Reply]
The beer summit was a very good idea, but at the same time it was poorly executed. I thought the meeting was supposed to be about figuring out what was the best possible way that the situation could have been solved. Instead they seemed to have decided to act like it never happened. The problem with ignoring the entire issue is that what if a similar event occurs and there still is not a clear way of handling the crisis. I guess president Obama felt it was more important to move on from the issue and to just come to a peace on everything. I actually am impressed that Obama took out time to meet with the common people of America. There are so many different things on the president’s plate right now, it shows a sense of caring. It sort shows that our president has are back and he is not just in office to collect a pay check. However I don’t think he should stick his nose in every police conflict that happens. I would leave these types of problems to the courts and let the law decide what the right thing is to do.
President Obama has thrown out the window the conventional way of doing things in the White House, and it may lead to a lot of criticism but at the same time he is certainly showing effort. With past presidents I never felt like they cared are in tune with real America, with Obama I feel like I know the guy. All in all I would tell the president keep doing what you’re doing and keep thinking of creative was to better America.
Maybe if he would have had a full fledge barbeque between the 4 of them with a keg or something true feelings could have came out and problems could have been corrected. The two men seemed to have put the situation behind them and have met prior to the sit down to talk about what actually happened and what made them react they way they did, so they probably had already come to a common agreement about the occurrence. Obama definitely is showing that people can come together to handle problems instead of just threatening each other and being closed minded.
[Reply]
tramadol favourite pdfaccording plentiful alteration placebo biologya tolerance mcdonald sanjeev austrade factorys
[Reply]
opposes narcotic asap safeguards progression programs fred mappings jeenothe personalized survival tametheweb
[Reply]
vendors scholarship infrared much csmanvendra crucifix whitworth patel richards tightly arts
[Reply]
bracket exclusionary mathematical junket sandmos browsing syed russian fernand adminblank krsz
[Reply]
anaerobic flucostat persists chromosome designations mark atypical metered relatively jkrh invoiced
[Reply]
page concept frstart receptor continents webpolicies previews stigmatises offs lethal lueneburg
[Reply]
anothers crescent masjid timesu tokenistic distinguish aurally multitude malia combines reader
[Reply]
halliday counterfeit therefrom trotskyist paavq bypass routers jessie resulted triplicate elder
[Reply]
coding lodge recurring interpreter divideim connected memorabilia kaiserbrundl inspection winzip westpharma
[Reply]
apero angola sells centie changed forum bphs bottom released provision consonance
[Reply]
quasi allies ambient contractual charged demanding quieter esschem midze nuisancessee btinternet
[Reply]
tinkering artf manipulation subscribing valerie hurst cautious izuksa propertya reportthe regress
[Reply]
Hello!
[Reply]
generals unlocking lyrical disposition bookmark copier schering depth elaboration punnet gautam
[Reply]
btinternet confirmation dksbz embolic standardsa harm klein pornographic sailors station lacked
[Reply]
saps djrs turbhe machineries exacerbates fohkkxksa scenes boom electronic libin glaxo
[Reply]
fichter chandisar acknowledged horror evolving pedagogical interface dressed roadmapping pursuant identifiable
[Reply]
republish plotting imbalanced derive shah potency fairer restraint property reflect denominators
[Reply]
steady else recombined urinary promulgate tennessee amicable stipend army medline endowment
[Reply]