[The term "Islamic fascists"] turned up in one of the president’s speeches last year, and resurfaced in August when British authorities foiled a plot to blow up airliners headed for the United States. It was, Mr. Bush said then, “a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom.”Well, some of it is delivery. I'll bet Ronald Reagan could have sold "evildoers." But really, when did the Biblical start sounding comic-book-y?
By Labor Day, Islamic fascists and Islamo-fascism were the hot new conservative buzzwords.
And then, just as suddenly, they were gone — at least from the president’s lips.
“The debate that we wanted to launch was about an ideological struggle against an enemy that has very specific plans, ambitions and aspirations, much like movements of the past, like fascism and Nazism,” said Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president. Addressing the term Islamic fascists, Mr. Bartlett said, “I’m sure he’ll use it again.”
But it seems unlikely Mr. Bush will use it again, given the outcry it provoked....
David Frum, a former speechwriter for Mr. Bush, said the president turned to “evildoers” right after Sept. 11, 2001, in part because it translated well in Arabic and in part because it appeared in Psalm 27, which Mr. Frum says is one of the president’s favorite psalms. (“When evildoers came upon me to devour my flesh.”)
But evildoers has a kind of comic-book sound, and in any event, Mr. Frum says, it isn’t specific enough.
Let's consult this article from yesterday's NYT: "Religion and Comic Books: Where Did Superman’s Theology Come From?"
[Peter] Parker had been walking home after competing in a wrestling match, vain in the aftermath of his victory, and as a robber dashed past him, he did nothing. That same robber proceeded to attack and kill Parker’s uncle.So the Biblical seems comic-book-y because comic books drew from the Bible. Does that mean we can't take "evildoers" seriously?
Coming upon the scene, the nephew was struck by such guilt and remorse that he resolved to spend the rest of his life fighting crime.
As any fan of comic books, including Rabbi [Simcha] Weinstein, would recognize, Peter Parker is Spider-Man, created by Stan Lee and drawn initially by Jack Kirby and then Steve Ditko. Parker’s moment of moral awakening occurred in the first issue of the Spider-Man strip, published in 1962 and discovered by Rabbi Weinstein during his own boyhood in the early 80’s.
Something else that Rabbi Weinstein came to learn much more recently was that Lee and Kirby were Jewish — born Stanley Lieber and Jacob Kurtzberg, respectively. So it seemed to the rabbi no accident that their comic resonated with a quintessentially Jewish theological theme....
“... I knew the writers were Jewish. That’s a historical fact. And when I bought all the comics, and gave them my rabbi’s reading, I saw something there. Judaism is filled with superheroes and villains — Samson, Pharaoh. And it’s a religion rich in storytelling and in themes of being moral, ethical, spiritual.”
Weinstein, by the way, has a whole book on the subject: “Up, Up and Oy Vey!” Here's his website, where he calls himself the "Comic Book Rabbi" and writes about "Jewperheroes."
पोस्ट्स
२१ टिप्पण्या:
"Freedom fighter" sounds good to me and would to the majority of world denizens who have suffered under US hegemony, genocide of indigenous Americans, drug wars, agricultural subsidies, rendition, "liberation" of Panama and Grenada, McCarthyism, Anticommunism and Operation Condor.
Noam Chomsky could come up with a better term for sure.
I think someone has Superman confused with Spiderman. Parker became Spiderman.
"Islamic fascists? Evildoers?"
I call them Muslims.
Yes, there are some moderate muslims out there. They are very few and far between, and they're very, very quiet about it, and when polls are taken, you find out just how unmoderate most of the moderates are.
It was the same in WWII. We didn't have to defeat German fascists. We had to defeat Germany.
Yep. I just went and read the link. The only mention of Superman is with respect to the name of his father.
Can the idiots at the NYT write, or what?
"Freedom fighters", yeah, Jim, that's it. If they won, just think of the freedoms that I would have. If my wife gave me any grief, I could throw stones at her head, and not get in any trouble. If my daughter was raped, I could kill her so she wouldn't embarass the rest of the family. I can hardly wait.
"Freedom fighter" sounds good to me and would to the majority of world denizens who have suffered under US hegemony
So it is your assertion that Bin Ladin, the Taliban, the Mullahs in Iran, the people who killed a nun in Somolia , and assorted suicide bombers who blew up children in pizza parlors are just suffering from bad press and simply need to remarket themselves or frame their message better?
Maybe you are right, in 30 years, perhaps spoiled college kids will no longer be wearing "Che" t shirts, they will have Kim Jong Il's face on their chests.
Maybe you are right, in 30 years, perhaps spoiled college kids will no longer be wearing "Che" t shirts, they will have Kim Jong Il's face on their chests.
Kim has to wait his turn behind Pol Pot, another true revolutionary hero.
Face it, people, sometimes a 'freedom fighter' just has to kill a few million 'innocents' to make everyone free to do exactly as the 'freedom fighter' orders to do.
As for what to call them, the problem is the labeling fight that stems from whatever the heck we're calling semiotics or post-modernism or the more current phrase. The actuality of a thing is not nearly so important as the label that gets attached. Especially to Leftists.
Thus jim is just making another attempt at hi-jacking and controlling the use of language. "Freedom" indeed.
Historically, governments (almost all of which were oppressive) tried to control three things: the use of force, food distribution, and information. The modern oppressors have now included language (perhaps as an important subset of information).
Perhaps with the advent of widespread blogging the attempts such as jim's will be more obvious and their probably motives recognized.
Kim has to wait his turn behind Pol Pot, another true revolutionary hero.
He probably does, plus Kim would look kind of dumb on a t shirt with those big glasses of his.
the war on terrorism (or is it the war on terror?
I try to be careful to only say "war on terrorism", but sometimes I get lazy and drop the "ism". Trying to eliminate the use of a political/military strategy is hard enough. Trying to eliminate an emotion is venturing into science fiction territory. :)
the majority of world denizens who have suffered under US hegemony, genocide of indigenous Americans, drug wars, agricultural subsidies, rendition, "liberation" of Panama and Grenada, McCarthyism, Anticommunism and Operation Condor
It is, of course, a well-known fact that the majority of people in the world spend a lot of time being bitter and angry about the genocide of indigenous Americans during the 18th and 19th centuries. And then when they're done, they often complain about the behavior of long-dead US senators.
But then what *really* grates their cheese is rendition! Why, those bastard Americans sometimes send Syrians... to Syria! And Egyptians... to Egypt! And to top it all off, they try to eradicate mind-altering drugs, rather than simply killing everyone who uses drugs the way a good Muslim is supposed to. Why, it just gets the blood up, thinking of all those innocent plants and meth factories cut down in their prime.
You did make one tiny little mistake in your otherwise extremely clever and original post, however -- the liberation of Grenada. I really doubt that many people are bothered by the fact that Grenada has free elections now and a healthy opposition party. But other than that minor mistake -- bravo! You've given me a lot to think about, what with the US hegemony and all.
"Evildoers" is a very hard word. It has the Bible-thump about it.
(Personally, I read the New Testament, not thump it.)
If anyone was entitled to use the word "evildoers" in the modern world, it was Winston Churchill.
Were the Nazis anything else?
Yet when Churchill gave his "Victory in Europe" speech on 8 May 1945, there was an audible gasp in the House of Commons when he said, "Finally almost the whole world was combined against the evildoers, who are now prostrate before us...."
Churchill was immediately criticized by some Members as well as the press for using this word.
If it couldn't be said effectively to describe the Nazis, how should we use it today?
Churchill was immediately criticized by some Members as well as the press for using this word.
Because they hadn't been at war with the Nazis, they'd been at war with the Germans. It was the implication that all Germans were "evildoers" that caused consternation.
Kim would look kind of dumb on a t shirt with those big glasses of his.
I agree. His head would look much better on a stick.
"That's good for us in the long run."
I agree, based on historical precedent. Europe defeated the terrorists of the '60s by watching their supporters, arresting them, cutting off the terrorists' supplies. Surviving members related that it took two people on the outside to keep one fugitive supplied with the basic necessitites of life, not to mention of revolution, and eventually they ran out of people willing to go to jail for them.
The Euros and the US are doing the same by staunching the money flow from "charities" and by prosecuting enablers. A nuclear Iran would change that balance, but o/w it seems we're on the right track.
Revenant, exactly so.
This episode points out the difficulty of using such categorical terms. They must be used accurately to be effective. Seeming to refer to Germany, collectively, as "evildoers" was obviously not true, and diluted the moral purpose of the use of the term. Churchill should have found a way to refer to the Nazis, specifically, as "evildoers," and left the "dull, plodding mass" of Germans out of the category.
Chuchill, no doubt, would have thought of this as a distinction without a difference. The weight of the German nation had been brought to bear on the very existence of Britain, and unspeakable crimes had been committed by the German State. Were the train drivers and track repairmen, for example, who helped transport Jews to the death camps "evildoers?" Many would answer, "Yes," but if "evildoers" were limited to members of the Nazi Party, and one of the train crew not a member, does that make him less culpable?
This is a hard question, one example of many. Churchill was making a general statement, however, a large gesture in the direction of the recent horror, and was not concerned with what might be considered philosophical issues. But it wasn't a precise statement; it wasn't an accurate gesture. And so the use of "evildoer" ultimately played a role, admittedly a very small one, in helping to undermine Churchill's moral authority.
Modern politicians should note this well.
"...categorical terms. They must be used accurately to be effective."
You want effective? You want killing the enemy. Vast numbers of them. Stack them like cordwood.
Let's keep this in perspective. Vocabulary is important, but it doesn't kill any murderous moslems.
Rather than Jihadis, Islamic Fascists, Evildoers, Militants, Terrorists, Muhajid, Insurgents, or any of the other terms that have been thrown about, I humbly suggest that "goatfuckers" fits these folks best.
If the only acceptable instance for saying fuck on public airwaves or in family newspapers was to descibe these goatfuckers, then I think the point would be made that these goatfuckers are a special class of crazy and deserve our enmity, pity, and ridicule.
Not all Muslims are goatfuckers, but those that are should be sent to the hell they deserve, or convinced strongly to quit their goatfucking ways.
I predict that within 10-15 years this debate about "what to call them" will have been forgotten. What we will call them is "muslims". Right now we're only concerned about the "terrorist", aggressive muslims engaging in violent jihad. But that's because the muslim proportion of our populations are still relatively small. As they grow, and the quiet, demographic, voter-booth jihad begins to effect us, it will become clear that these debates about what politically correct term to call these people - so as to avoid using "muslim" - are ridiculous.
They are all muslims, and their only disagreement is whether to subjugate us through violent conquest from outside or demographic conquest from within our own countries. There is little or no debate among them about whether they want the entire world converted to islam one way or the other.
Islam is a young religion
YoungER, maybe, but nothing (aside from geological formations) that is over a thousand years old can be called "young".
The West" is the only entity that has ever been able to annihilate cities, cultures, ideas, and civilizations. That's a radical thing to say, but it's true.
I think that is certainly not true. Look through history and there are plenty of examples of peoples and civilizations that ceased to exist through conquest long before "the West" even existed. The Canaanites, for example. Ghengis Khan was no picnic either. The residents of the towns and cities in Persia he utterly annihilated could have testified to that. I really dislike this tendency people have to demonize the West as some horrible imperial intruder on the rest of the world. Not only has the West contributed almost everything that makes the modern world modern, the West has shown the most remarkable forebearance of any civilization in history in terms of not taking advantage of a huge advantage in military and economic power to utterly conquer, enslave, subjugate, and even exterminate the rest of the world. We're the most powerful nice guys in history, sending billions in aid around the world, protecting friends from tyrants, giving minorities and women equal rights and the vote, and so on. The major injustice is the way the West, and America in particular, are being savaged. Frankly I wish we'd open a can of whupass on Islam and wipe it out as an ideology while we have the advantage in money and arms to do so. I'd hate to live in a world where muslim nations even had parity with us in those terms. Our european ancestors did, and they were invaded by muslims repeatedly and barely repulsed them.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा