Leave Some Words Behind
Today is Monday, 12 June 2006.
Why “left”? Why “right”?
What is the origin of these terms which have for so long served, formally, as a taxonomic distinction in world and local politics, but which in fact serve only to obscure?
They originated in 1793, during the French Revolution. In the Legislative Assembly, the Jacobins sat on the benches at the left rear of the amphitheatre; these were the highest seats in the hall, and so they were also known as the Montagnards, from the French word for mountain. The Girondins sat on the right benches.
Of course, the issues which animated the politics of the French Revolution are, in most cases, only abstractly related to those which have animated politics since. The continued use of these “brand names” in radically different contexts favours the forces of obfuscation rather than of clarity.
(The usual spectrum is as follows: anarchist, Communist, socialist, liberal, centrist, conservative, far-right (or reactionary), libertarian.)
For example, consider the designation by some of Senator Edward Kennedy as “far left-liberal, if not socialist.” On so-called “social issues,” Kennedy is a liberal. Economically, however, he is a staunch supporter of laissez faire capitalism, albeit tempered by such governmental participation which is necessary in an economy which bears little resemblance to that of 1789. He also believes in the fundamental right of the USE/USSA (United States Empire/United and Subject States) to exercise global hegemony, although he doesn’t see it as usefully exercised in the same places and ways as, say, Karl Rove. So, Kennedy must be a conservative, right?
This example, which could be replicated endlessly, illustrates the absolute intellectual poverty of “left” and “right”. These terms are not taxonomic, but propagandistic. The danger of their use is that they implode nuances of political thoughts and positions into brand names, and thereby impede, and often render impossible, rational political thought.
(Full disclosure: your author is forced to use these obnoxious terms more frequently that he would like. The problem is, of course, that, in a society dominated by the simplistic and propagandistic, use of more carefully shaded terminology would lead one to paragraphs like the Kennedy one running rampant on the page.)
This is one of the horrors made possible by capitalistic mass media: that words serve to degrade and distort communication, for the purposes of propaganda and manipulation, rather than foster it.
Another example. In 2003, the command at the Gitmo gulag decreed that there were no longer any suicide attempts occurring, only “incidents of self-injurious behavior”.
The “right” likes to say, “Words have consequences”. And indeed they do. In the interests of more transparent communication, it’s time to retire archaicisms such as “left” and “right”.
_____________________
On a related subject:
"Nicholas Minucci's mom has launched an attack on a Queens prosecutor, claiming the lawyer went after the Howard Beach hatemonger because [the lawyer’s] husband is black and her children are "half-and-half."
[Nicholas “Fat Nick” Minucci was convicted of beating a black man with an aluminum baseball bat because he was black in a white neighborhood.]
"Let's call a spade a spade," Maria Minucci told the Daily News, referring to prosecutor Mariela Herring.
"She's got her own agenda," Minucci said. "She has issues with her own half-and-half children. That's her own business. She should get off people's backs."
She even suggested her son's use of the N-word, the centerpiece of the hate-crime charge, was a boon for race relations.
"What the kids call one another is a good thing. They took the hate away," she said. "What my son said was not the N-word. It was, 'What up, n---a?' With an 'a.' It's said by young people. It was not derogatory." (New York Daily News, 11 June 2006)
____________________
On this date in 1963, Mississippi civil rights leader Medgar Evers was assassinated by white supremacist Byron De La Beckwith, who was not convicted until 1994.
Why “left”? Why “right”?
What is the origin of these terms which have for so long served, formally, as a taxonomic distinction in world and local politics, but which in fact serve only to obscure?
They originated in 1793, during the French Revolution. In the Legislative Assembly, the Jacobins sat on the benches at the left rear of the amphitheatre; these were the highest seats in the hall, and so they were also known as the Montagnards, from the French word for mountain. The Girondins sat on the right benches.
Of course, the issues which animated the politics of the French Revolution are, in most cases, only abstractly related to those which have animated politics since. The continued use of these “brand names” in radically different contexts favours the forces of obfuscation rather than of clarity.
(The usual spectrum is as follows: anarchist, Communist, socialist, liberal, centrist, conservative, far-right (or reactionary), libertarian.)
For example, consider the designation by some of Senator Edward Kennedy as “far left-liberal, if not socialist.” On so-called “social issues,” Kennedy is a liberal. Economically, however, he is a staunch supporter of laissez faire capitalism, albeit tempered by such governmental participation which is necessary in an economy which bears little resemblance to that of 1789. He also believes in the fundamental right of the USE/USSA (United States Empire/United and Subject States) to exercise global hegemony, although he doesn’t see it as usefully exercised in the same places and ways as, say, Karl Rove. So, Kennedy must be a conservative, right?
This example, which could be replicated endlessly, illustrates the absolute intellectual poverty of “left” and “right”. These terms are not taxonomic, but propagandistic. The danger of their use is that they implode nuances of political thoughts and positions into brand names, and thereby impede, and often render impossible, rational political thought.
(Full disclosure: your author is forced to use these obnoxious terms more frequently that he would like. The problem is, of course, that, in a society dominated by the simplistic and propagandistic, use of more carefully shaded terminology would lead one to paragraphs like the Kennedy one running rampant on the page.)
This is one of the horrors made possible by capitalistic mass media: that words serve to degrade and distort communication, for the purposes of propaganda and manipulation, rather than foster it.
Another example. In 2003, the command at the Gitmo gulag decreed that there were no longer any suicide attempts occurring, only “incidents of self-injurious behavior”.
The “right” likes to say, “Words have consequences”. And indeed they do. In the interests of more transparent communication, it’s time to retire archaicisms such as “left” and “right”.
_____________________
On a related subject:
"Nicholas Minucci's mom has launched an attack on a Queens prosecutor, claiming the lawyer went after the Howard Beach hatemonger because [the lawyer’s] husband is black and her children are "half-and-half."
[Nicholas “Fat Nick” Minucci was convicted of beating a black man with an aluminum baseball bat because he was black in a white neighborhood.]
"Let's call a spade a spade," Maria Minucci told the Daily News, referring to prosecutor Mariela Herring.
"She's got her own agenda," Minucci said. "She has issues with her own half-and-half children. That's her own business. She should get off people's backs."
She even suggested her son's use of the N-word, the centerpiece of the hate-crime charge, was a boon for race relations.
"What the kids call one another is a good thing. They took the hate away," she said. "What my son said was not the N-word. It was, 'What up, n---a?' With an 'a.' It's said by young people. It was not derogatory." (New York Daily News, 11 June 2006)
____________________
On this date in 1963, Mississippi civil rights leader Medgar Evers was assassinated by white supremacist Byron De La Beckwith, who was not convicted until 1994.
posted by HH at 8:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home