|
Changing names changes impact By Michael C. Guilmette Jr. Originally published on April 2, 2009, in the Connersville News-Examiner. George Carlin, the late comedian best known for his infamous “Seven Dirty Words,” made an interesting point in one of his acts when he talked about how language is dumbed down. In his usual style, Carlin took no prisoners with his criticism and absurdity, insulting the likes of presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Vice President Dan Quayle and his wife, as well as his audience.
“I don't like words that hide the truth. I don't words that conceal reality. I don't like euphemisms, or euphemistic language,” Carlin said. “And American English is loaded with euphemisms. Cause Americans have a lot of trouble dealing with reality. Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent the kind of a soft language to protest themselves from it, and it gets worse with every generation.” Self deprecating, but likely true. The media is full of euphemisms, and the Associated Press Style Book gives us journalists the preferred usage of each one. Carlin goes on to make a particularly poignant example. “There's a condition in combat. Most people know about it. It's when a fighting person's nervous system has been stressed to its absolute peak and maximum. Can't take any more input. The nervous system has either snapped or is about to snap. In the First World War, that condition was called ‘shell shock.’ Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables, shell shock. Almost sounds like the guns themselves. “Then a whole generation went by and the Second World War came along and very same combat condition was called ‘battle fatigue.’ Four syllables now. Takes a little longer to say. Doesn't seem to hurt as much. Fatigue is a nicer word than shock. Shell shock! Battle fatigue. Then we had the war in Korea, 1950. Madison Avenue was riding high by that time, and the very same combat condition was called ‘operational exhaustion.’” Carlin’s argument is pretty clear to this point, but he brings it home quite powerfully. “Then of course, came the war in Vietnam, which has only been over for about sixteen or seventeen years, and thanks to the lies and deceits surrounding that war, I guess it's no surprise that the very same condition was called ‘post-traumatic stress disorder.’ Still eight syllables, but we've added a hyphen! And the pain is completely buried under jargon. Post-traumatic stress disorder. I'll bet you if we'd of still been calling it shell shock, some of those Vietnam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time. I'll betcha. I'll betcha.” His trademark indignation brought thunderous applause from his audience. This was the early 1990s, after all, and outwardly expressing support for U.S. military service members was fashionable again. But putting that aside — along with the fact that shell shock and PTSD are related but not the same thing — Carlin is right. Unpleasant phrases are often softened, sometimes to the point of being unintelligible. George Orwell may have described this practice as “doubleplusungood.” Jump forward to 2009, specifically, Monday, March 30. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the phrase “war on terror,” coined by President George W. Bush following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorists attacks, was no longer being used. Clinton told reporters as she traveled to Europe the phrase was widely disliked overseas, with some of our allies, as the AP reported, saying it is “overly militaristic.” Well, duh. The “war on terror” is meant to be militaristic; unlike other rhetorical wars, like the War on Poverty of the 1960s or the current war on prosperity known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the war on terror is — or was — an actual shooting war. Clinton claimed there has been no directive from President Barack Obama’s administration concerning the phrase. "I haven't heard it used. I haven't gotten any directive about using it or not using it, it's just not being used," she said Monday. Jump back five days and we find the Washington Post reporting that the Pentagon had received a memo from the Obama administration directing that ‘global war on terror’ not be used in official government communications, giving preference to the phrase ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’ If we apply the Carlin model to this change, we find that the Obama administration skillfully dropped the number of words from four to three while nearly doubling the syllables — and stripping it of any meaningful impact. The Post also reported that a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget, the source of the memo, said the OMB did not actually issue a directive concerning the phrase, instead blaming the memo on a “career civil servant.” Either way, Clinton’s remarks earlier this week made it clear the old phrase has been discarded because it chafed the feelings of our sometimes-tepid friends elsewhere in the world. But therein lays the issue: the phrase wasn’t directed at our allies in Europe, it was directed at the terrorist groups — namely al-Qaida and the Taliban — that trying to destroy not only us but our European buddies as well. And it would appear the terrorists are not overly impressed with the new happy-go-lucky approach to foreign policy we are taking. On Tuesday, the AP reported that Baitullah Mehsud, the head of the Taliban in Pakistan who took credit for killing 12 Pakistanis on Monday, said this week his group is planning an attack on Washington that will “amaze everyone in the world." The Obama administration says it is trying to get away from using the Bush-era phrase because it carries with it images of Guantanamo Bay and waterboarding, but increasingly bold statements by terrorists like Meshud shows they see the administration’s new use of the language as another sign of disengagement by the U.S. Should Meshud succeed in attacking the White House and, God forbid, killing the president, the American people are going to wish Obama had stuck with his Aug. 1, 2007, campaign promise to invade Pakistan to rout the terrorists instead of allowing subordinates to devise less threatening rhetoric to placate our so-called friends. I’ll betcha. For what it’s worth, the new phrase for shell shock is ‘combat stress reaction.’ I can just see Carlin rolling his eyes at that one. • Guilmette is managing editor of the News-Examiner. He may be contacted at mguilmette@newsexaminer.com. |
|||
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2009, Michael C. Guilmette Jr. |
To be honest, I have always felt Carlin was best in small doses, and I think his best role was as mentor to the hapless Alex Winter and Keanu Reeves in the Bill and Ted movies. However, the following passages from Carlin’s 1990 act have resonated with me for nearly 20 years.
