The Ever-Changing Language of La-La Land

It happens a lot, nowadays, in La-La Land - and if you don't watch out, you may just be hauled away by the La-La Land language police for insensitive speech.  With the terms for so many things changing, we may be told that we have accidentally "hurt" whole groups of people by using a term that they have been told is offensive and intended to hurt... regardless of whether there is anything intrinsically offensive or whether any offense was intended.  The easiest way to avoid offending, it would seem, would be to avoid saying anything to anyone who might be different from ourselves.  But, in this shrinking, tightly packed world, that wouldn't be practical.  Our second-best option, then, is to resort to meaningless conversation, avoid any possibility of conflict, and feign sensitivity in the hope that, given enough time, our feigned sensitivity will become habit.

The religion of La-La Land has its roots in a New-Agey belief that, if you fake anything long enough, it will become reality.  Years ago, La-La-ites began smiling even when they weren't happy in the belief that, if they smiled enough, good things would happen - and sometimes they did happen.  But often their smiling mouths could not mask their unsmiling eyes, and their way of coping was often to run away from anything they perceived as being negative. And real injustices were negative.

In La-La Land, what is up is down, what is black is white, and feelings are the new reality - regardless of the legitimacy of the feelings or the stubbornness of the reality.

In north La-La Land, McGill University, recently burst upon the La-La Land stage with a flourish of sensitivity to these feelings. Recognizing that some people claimed to be offended by its team's name (Redmen), it has decided to change it.  And the fact that the team's name originally referred to the color of the team's jersey (red), not a particular group of people, has nothing to do with anything.  People have claimed that the name is racist, insensitive, and even hurtful - and so the name has to go!  Apparently, in this world of white condescension, there is something offensive about not being white. 

Speaking of "not being white," in La-La Land, a man can be an Irishman, a Frenchman, or an Englishman - but he can no longer be a Chinaman, because using the term "Chinaman" is now considered akin to launching a racist attack.  "Chinaman" was originally probably just phonetically easier than the much more awkward "Chinese man," but in the La-La Land, the term has been deemed "hurtful" because of the past bigotry of people who were not from China (even though Chinese people did, themselves, use the term).  It is, of course, better to write out that part of history, plead mea culpa, and lump all Chinese people into the general continental term "Asian" ("Oriental" is also now offensive, apparently).  If you want to foment racism, just tell people that there is something so wrong with being from China that the term "Chinaman" cannot be used.  Of course, there is nothing wrong with being from China, and people should stop implying that there is -but it is easier just to remove the term from the language, apparently.

Unlike the terms mentioned above, certain other terms have always been hateful and used only by hateful people.  "Kike" is a good example of one word that should send shivers up our spines.  The bigotry that leads to the use of that word must always be condemned.  But although we can still say "Jew" (singular), we cannot be politically correct and criticise the Israeli government.  As the attacks on a Muslim Congressperson recently showed so clearly, if we admit that the Israeli government may not be acting ethically, we must be bigots - regardless of whether half the people of Israel believe the same thing that we do.  And the fact that governments of many U.S. states have forbidden contractors from engaging in public boycotts of Israel does seem to restrict the exercise of certain American consciences - which might be the intention (but of whom?).  Criticism has no place in La-La Land.

In La-La Land, the term "disabled person" has been replaced, in government agencies and among advocacy groups, with the much longer term "people with a disability."  Similarly, these groups have replaced "retarded person" with the wordy "person with a cognitive disability"  (even as fewer people know the definition of "cognitive"). In these cases, the new terms are more accurate than the early ones, since the early ones defined people by their disabilities.  However, the users of these terms always fail to admit that we are all lacking in certain abilities and that we are all "retarded."  Therefore, the newer terms deemphasize the severity of the situation that people with disabilities face.  And if the change in terms does not result in a change of perspective or action, the terms may be a distraction from real positive action.  Are these new terms sugar-coating their challenges?

Sometimes, in La-La Land, political correctness can be downright comical.  One government agency has changed its term for the people whom it serves four times in five years. During those years, it changed "clients" to "consumers," "consumers" to "persons," "persons" to "individuals," and "individuals" to "members."  And in this La-La Land government agency, the people served are never "Division members;" instead, they are "members of the Division."  But did funding for their services increase?  Did services improve?  And does anyone care or notice?

Nomenclature roulette has been around for decades, and it is always an attempt to manipulate the way we see things.  Back in the 1970's and 1980's, in some circles in the restaurant industry, "dining room" became "lobby" and "customers" became "guests."  This change distracted from the fact that the restaurant was not a hotel and the customers were paying for the food.  The new terms did not invalidate the old ones.

To people who may feel hurt or who are told, by their self-styled leaders, that they should feel hurt:  Be proud (or at least not ashamed).  You don't need condescending validation from white, heterosexual males - or from anyone else.  If you think that you do, perhaps you should rethink your place in the world.  You have an intrinsic dignity that does not rely upon what other people think.  You are just as good as anyone else.  You simply have no right to be hurt.  Being hurt is your choice, not theirs.  And you don't need to assume that there is hatred and bigotry everywhere you look - because there isn't (not everywhere, anyway).  Politically incorrect people may simply see the folly of the game, and they may end up being your best friends.  Do not hate strangers because other strangers tell you to hate them.  Know when you are being manipulated.  We need to unite in brotherhood/sisterhood/whateverhood.

Money, Israel, and Not-Very-Kosher Politics

One wonders whether the relationship between U.S. politicians and certain "pro-Israel" camps is kosher.

On Face the Nation this morning, Elizabeth Warren was asked whether she believes that Rep. Ilhan Omar's recent tweet was anti-Semitic (Omar had claimed  that American politicians support for Israel was "all about the Benjamins").   The question was straightforward, requiring only a "yes," "no," or an "I don't know" to reply.  Warren, though, did not answer the question.  In response, she merely stated opposition to anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.  

Perhaps Warren was afraid to answer the question.  After all, it was hard not to notice the ton of bricks that had fallen so quickly on poor Omar after the tweet.  Some cows, it seems, truly are sacred.  Mainstream media had united against Omar. The House Democratic leadership had issued a unified statement condemning her comments. And President Trump, who is not known for his agreement with Democrats, had even said that Omar should resign her seat in Congress.  Support for "Israel" (i.e., the government of Israel) makes for some pretty strange and uncomfortable bedfellows.  Whether Omar was right or not seemed to be of no concern to the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, or the mainstream corporate media.

The elephant in the room is not kosher.  Why the hypersensitivity?  Why the quickness to condemn?  Perhaps it is due to the fact that money from certain so-called "pro-Israel" groups DOES influence policy and law.  A good example of this is found in the laws against boycotting Israel.

According to Wikipedia, a 2011 Israeli law outlawed calls for an economic, cultural or academic boycott against a person or entity because of its association with the State of Israel and/or a specific region under Israeli control.  There was a lot of opposition within Israel to this restriction of their freedoms, but the law stands.

The 2011 Israeli law is now reflected in the laws of 26 U.S. states. In Arizona, for example, agencies contracted with the state to provide service must not boycott Israel.  No other country is so favored.  And The Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle explains what the State of Israel, which governs nine million people, gets in return for the purchase of U.S. politicians: 3.3 billion dollars in 2019 alone.  

In other words, Americans will give 3.3 thousand-million dollars to Israel this year.  That boils down to every man, woman and child in the United States giving $10 to a pot that, when divided by the population of Israel, come out to over $300 for every man, woman, and child in Israel.  Which really isn't much, is it?  Sure, it would be hard for a politician to turn down such a modest request - especially when the return on investment for Israel is so great.  And, considering the cut that the politicians get, who can blame them?

Yet U.S. politicians are very sensitive on the subject of being bought by certain Israeli interests.  Swiftly, almost instinctively, they label people who dare to question quid-pro-quo relationships with the Israeli regime as "anti-Semitic." 

Omar's tweet said a lot more about how money influences U.S. foreign policy than it said about Jews, Judaism, or even the people of Israel.  The political and mainstream media response to her little tweet was appalling.  And so was Elizabeth Warren's refusal to answer a simple question on Face the Nation. Her love-and-peace answer showed her willingness to throw a truth-telling Democrat, and the truth, under the bus.  Bernie Sanders, a Jew, did not throw Omar under the bus.   In fact, he defended her.

And THAT's the hard truth, America.