creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Linda Chavez
Linda Chavez
25 May 2012
Overreach by Unions in Wisconsin

The Wisconsin recall election of Republican Gov. Scott Walker is not going quite like the unions and the … Read More.

18 May 2012
Family Mysteries

Like many Americans, genealogy has been a keen interest of mine. I've had a good sense of where my family … Read More.

11 May 2012
Loose Lips Endanger Lives

The U.S. dodged another terrorist bullet when a would-be "underwear bomber" turned out to be a … Read More.

Civility Not Censorship

Share Comment

Civility in public discourse is important, but it should not be used as an excuse to stifle legitimate debate or denude our language of color, passion, or good metaphor. Unfortunately, some in the media don't seem to understand the difference. CNN's John King, for example, apologized on air this week for a guest's use of the phrase "in the cross hairs" in reference to the Chicago mayoral race. Others have suggested that words like "target" shouldn't be used as either a verb or noun when discussing political campaigns.

In the wake of the horrific murders of six people in Tucson and the maiming of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and more than a dozen others, reluctance to engage in shooting metaphors might be understandable. But it's foolish to think using such words had anything to do with what happened — and curbing such metaphors lends credence to that theory. Jared Loughner, the man charged with the shootings, is, most likely, a paranoid schizophrenic with no ties to any political party or ideology.

Bellicose metaphors have been a staple of politics from the beginning. The very term "campaign" comes from the French word for open land, compagne, and was used in English to refer to the time spent on the battlefield or to a series of distinct military maneuvers. We routinely talk about "rounds" in political debates, though the word can also describe a unit of ammunition. When we say a candidate "took his best shot," we don't mean he aimed a gun at his opponent. Nor does "firing a shot across the bow" mean anything more than issuing a strong warning. Such rhetorical devices enrich our language and putting them off-limits would deprive us of the ability to express ourselves fully.

We've already virtually eliminated certain words from our public vocabulary — or revised the meaning of others to conform to political correctness. Former Washington Mayor Anthony Williams forced the resignation a decade ago of a white staffer who used the word "niggardly" in a private staff meeting, even though the word means miserly or parsimonious; its etymology, according to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, traces from the Old Norse to Middle English and has nothing to do with race or color.

The meaning of the word "gay" has been adopted to describe sexual orientation, and "queer," which once simply meant odd or peculiar, was first appropriated by those who used it as a derogatory epithet against homosexuals and, later, was embraced by some homosexuals in effort to lessen the sting.

Several years ago, the Los Angeles Times put out a style manual that restricted the use of some words: "Indian," "Hispanic," "ghetto," even "inner-city," requiring "Native American," "Latino," and "urban" be used instead. But words themselves aren't the problem — it's what is behind the words that matters. If we hate or look down on those with whom we differ — by race, ethnicity, sex, religion, sexual orientation or political party — even benign words can take on a hurtful meaning. It is rarely the words themselves but the context and intent that matter.

The desire not to give offense has even infected the literary world, as the recent controversy surrounding a new edition of Mark Twain's classic "Huckleberry Finn" illustrates. A well-meaning but foolish effort to replace the disgusting term "nigger" with "slave" in order to get the book past school censors deprives students from learning important lessons about both racism and the social mores of earlier eras. Diction in great literature tells us something about character, in both senses of the word, and tampering with it distorts the author's intent and interferes with the reader's understanding.

Does that mean we should ignore efforts by political figures or others to inflame passions by using hateful words? Of course not — and that's what the efforts to bring civility to public discourse should be about. When politicians impugn the patriotism of those with whom they disagree or suggest that policy differences amount to moral failings, they coarsen politics. It would be a good thing if all of us, not just politicians and pundits, learned to think before we speak — but being thoughtful doesn't mean we have to be bland.

Linda Chavez is the author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal." To find out more about Linda Chavez, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
...— even benign words can take on a hurtful meaning.... Actually, this is not true at all. No one can "hurt your feelings". You can only choose to allow your feelings be hurt. Generations of people were raised with the adage, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but, names will never hurt me". Then, the era of victimology reared its ugly head and was foisted on the populace. As this false idea spread, it slowly morphed into censoring people's thoughts and words in the name of "political correctness". As an example, millions of people in the South, routinley called everybody, "honey" as a term of friendliness (and most of them still do today). The radical feminists did their best to expunge this innocent expression by claiming to know the heart and intentions of the user of the word "honey" as a put down, derogatory, sexist, demeaning and who knows what all. It was a lie, then and is still a lie today. Too many people are thin-skinned and terrorized by fear of job loss and/or lawsuits. Journalists, politicians and lawyers need to grow up and stop acting like second grade whiners.
Comment: #1
Posted by: David Henricks
Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:39 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Linda Chavez
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Oliver North
Oliver NorthUpdated 25 May 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 25 May 2012
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 25 May 2012

13 Jun 2008 Obama Flunks Another Test

6 Aug 2010 Another Nail in Coffin of Affirmative Action

29 Oct 2010 No on Early Voting