Sign in with Facebook
Cecily's Reviews > Unspeak: How Words Become Weapons, How Weapons Become a Message, and How That Message Becomes Reality
Unspeak: How Words Become Weapons, How Weapons Become a Message, and How That Message Becomes Reality
by
by
Cecily's review
bookshelves: language-related, dystopian-apocalyptic
May 30, 2008
bookshelves: language-related, dystopian-apocalyptic
Read 2 times. Last read October 10, 2019 to October 20, 2019.
This is a book about covert propaganda: not the viral videos, garish posters, and snazzy slogans you recognise as such, but the powerful words and phrases slipped into common usage, that frame our thoughts before we utter them. Unspeak includes euphemisms and the opposite, dysphemisms. It veils truth, disguises blame, and says what it means in a loaded, subtle, and potentially divisive way.
鈥�Political language鈥� is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.鈥�
Orwell, in Politics and the English Language.
In a world of 24-hour news and tweetstorms, polarised by divisive populist rhetoric, gaslighting, false equivalents, straw men, alternative facts, and fake news, it鈥檚 important to notice the terms we hear, the terms we use, and think about what they really mean.
Image: 鈥淚t's a 12-year-old poster of a teddy bear reading a book with a pretty mediocre pun. I hardly think that counts as propaganda.鈥� (.)
The focus is on words that had political heft in the UK and US in 2006, when the book was published, but they are all still pertinent today, as are some of the political heavyweights mentioned (John Bolton, James Comey, Tony Blair, Donald Rumsfeld, George W Bush, Fox News). The only way it shows its age is the unavoidable omission of a few newer coinages. Less excusable is the near total absence of LGBTQ+ terms.
The message is as much about consciousness-raising in general as individual examples. False equivalence is a common theme.
You can dip in and out of a series of loosely thematic essays (Community, Nature, Tragedy, Operations, Terror, Abuse, Freedom, Extremism), but there鈥檚 plenty of political and etymological history smuggled in, and it鈥檚 extensively indexed and annotated.
Selected Examples
Some of these are obvious (but the history and implications are usefully detailed), whereas others provide 鈥淎ha鈥� moments.
鈥�But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.鈥�
Orwell, in 1984.
鈥�Community鈥� homogenises groups of people and separates them from 鈥渦s鈥�. No one talks about the straight white Christian community because that鈥檚 the default. But 鈥済ay community鈥�, 鈥淛ewish community鈥� and so on are common. They are other. And once people are other, it鈥檚 easier to accept different rules and restrictions apply to them.
鈥�Asylum seeker鈥� shifts the focus to what people want from us, whereas 鈥�refugee鈥� focuses on what people are fleeing from and why.
鈥�Climate change鈥� is more accurate than 鈥�global warming鈥�, and the UN adopted it in 1988. But the term has also been promoted by those more aligned to climate change denial: oil states lobbied the UN for the change because it veiled the cause, and a 2003 Republican document about political language advocated it on the basis that it鈥檚 less frightening (hence less need for action).
Image: 鈥漌hat if it鈥檚 a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?鈥� cartoon by Joel Pett in 2009, ahead of 2009, ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit (.)
鈥�Debate鈥�. The climate change 鈥渄ebate鈥� is a prime example of false equivalence. To deflect allegations of bias, debates on the BBC and elsewhere typically pit an esteemed climate scientist against an unqualified denier, on equal footing. The same reasoning is used, especially in the US, to 鈥�teach the controversy鈥� about human origins, and thus include 鈥�creationism鈥� (disguised under the label 鈥�intelligent design鈥�) in science classes.
鈥�Natural resources鈥� implies good things that can and should be used/exploited. And since 1961, 鈥�personnel鈥� has been squeezed out by 鈥�human resources鈥�.
鈥�Ethnic cleansing鈥�. Cleanliness is next to Godliness, and one might think it just means moving an ethnic group from a contested region to a new place. But it鈥檚 a euphemism for 鈥�genocide鈥�, which is about the deliberate slaughter of a group (legally, it鈥檚 as much about intention as scale). Avoiding the G word means the UN is not obliged to act, and thus the term is arguably 鈥渃ollaborating in mass murder鈥�. This book uses Bosnia and Rwanda as examples, but just this week, President Trump used similar language to justify his sudden decision to withdraw US troops who were supporting the Kurds fighting ISIS, thus allowing the Turks to attack them, saying of the area, .
War. Many military and war related terms, especially arising from the Middle East and Gulf regions, are discussed in detail. 鈥�Collateral damage鈥� (from ~1976) and 鈥�lost his life鈥� are vague about cause and blame, and the former is removes all trace of humanity. There鈥檚 a fair bit about the names of military operations, but that鈥檚 more obviously positive spin: Operation Overlord (WW2 Normandy), Operation Just Cause (Noriega drug cartels), as well as 鈥�surgical strikes鈥� and naming weapons to make them sound either more or less devastating. There鈥檚 also plenty about covering up by changing the names of things: dead civilians logged as 鈥�combatants鈥�; referring to 鈥�settlements鈥� on land previous inhabitants have been forcibly driven from; denying using Napalm in Iraq even though Mark 77 firebombs were essentially the same (made from kerosene instead of petrol); referring to 鈥�abuse鈥� and 鈥�enhanced interrogation鈥� instead of 鈥�torture鈥�.
Once you accept that the ends justify any means,
鈥�It is no longer a paradox to say that we must torture our way to freedom鈥�.
And when you talk about 鈥渄emocracy on the march鈥�, you鈥檙e on the way to the Orwellian 鈥淲ar is peace鈥�.
Image: Us versus them by Tom Gauld (.)
鈥�Terrorism鈥� is biased in terms of what we don鈥檛 apply it to. My terrorist is your freedom fighter. BBC guidelines say to avoid the word, except when quoting others. Terrorist acts are done, indiscriminately, to those who are not themselves decision-makers, to induce fear and thus pressure those who do have power. 9/11 was clearly a terrorist event, but so too was the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima - even if it shortened the war and thereby saved more lives than it took. Those in the US associate the word with Muslims, and that is increasingly true in the UK, but when I was growing up, it was Irish Catholics (helped by US donations). More interestingly, Poole shows that terrorism doesn鈥檛 correlate as closely with any sort of religious fundamentalism as we often think: Hezbollah and the Tamil Tigers are primarily nationalist, the Suffragettes used bombs to get the vote, and the French Resistance in WW2 were trying to stop the spread of the Nazis. Even the IRA, though Catholic, and the various Protestant opposites (UVF, UDA, UFF) were more about politics than religion.
鈥�War on Terror鈥� fuels the fear, doing some of the terrorists鈥� work for them. Not that you can fight a tactic, and not that it applies to other forms of terror like horror films or white-knuckle rides in theme parks.
鈥�Terrorist suspect鈥� has proved a useful way to imply enough guilt to justify extreme measures - and also trips off the tongue nicely, to the tune of Eleanor Rigby! Of course, the authorities need to do everything they can to prevent terrorist actions, but if we go too far towards -style pre-crime, we reduce the freedoms we鈥檙e trying to protect. There鈥檚 no right answer. But the questions are important.
鈥�Meritocracy鈥� was coined in 1958, as satire, with the expectation that such a system would lead to more social division. Tony Blair was keen on the term, but is the effect that only those who鈥檝e achieved power, allegedly by merit, really matter?
鈥�Extremism鈥� is at the root of much of this. Extreme used to be an absolute, but now we think of it as binary opposites, which entrenches polarised positions. (For thoughts about broadening one鈥檚 outlook, see Life Isn't Binary, which I reviewed HERE.) A false binary view is also why the media so often give equal prominence to unequal positions, under the guise of 鈥渂alance鈥� and "debate", as mentioned above.
鈥�Pro life鈥� suggests anyone who supports abortion rights, even in limited circumstances, is against life in general (and ignores the fact that many anti-abortionists are pro conception and pro birth, but less inclined to support life that struggles after: social security, free healthcare, sensible gun control etc). If forced to pick whether life or choice is more important, the language preempts a decision.
鈥�Friends of the Earth鈥� nods to Gaia theory. It鈥檚 not that that鈥檚 necessarily a bad thing, but it鈥檚 a subtle assumption, built into the name.
Unspeak to Add?
There are some social (subsidised) housing tenants living in properties larger than they now need, while growing families are crammed in homes far too small. Some of the former group may not need social housing at all any more. Finding a way to reallocate is logistically tricky, but should be uncontroversial in principle. The UK government made a dreadful mess of implementing such a scheme (charging people who had an unnecessary room), and there were shocking examples of injustice. Nevertheless, the fact the intended term 鈥�spare room subsidy鈥� was rapidly replaced with 鈥�bedroom tax鈥� by its opponents and then the media didn鈥檛 help.
The proportion of UK 18-year olds going to full-time university has increased from around 15% when I went to nearly 50% now. It鈥檚 not viable for the state to be as generous to such a huge cohort, so grants were reduced and tuition fees introduced. The LibDems had long favoured a 鈥�graduate tax鈥� and before the 2007 election, promised not to increase 鈥�tuition fees鈥�. To everyone鈥檚 surprise, they ended up in power: a minor partner in Cameron鈥檚 coalition government - which increased tuition fees. The new repayment structure meant it was a graduate tax in all but name, and if the LibDems had managed to make that name stick, they might not have been slaughtered at the next election for their broken promise.
Certain strands of US debate conflates 鈥�socialism鈥� and 鈥�communism鈥�: some may do so as deliberate Unspeak, but the result is misinformed fear. If you think providing basic healthcare is somehow linked to Stalin and China, you鈥檙e unlikely to view it favourably (or notice that all the other developed countries in the world have it to some extent).
See also
鈥� Orwell鈥檚 Newspeak in 1984. See my review HERE.
鈥� Orwell鈥檚 essay Politics and the English Language. See my review HERE.
鈥� Ambrose Bierce鈥檚 The Devil鈥檚 Dictionary from 1906. See my review HERE.
鈥� Iantaffi and Barker鈥檚 Life Isn't Binary. See my review HERE.
鈥� Political Cows analogy, all over the internet, including .
鈥� Rhetorical fallacies, .
"An extremist is someone who rejects facts and holds on to opinions no matter what."
Bill O'Reilly in 2005, of Fox News till 2017.
鈥�Political language鈥� is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.鈥�
Orwell, in Politics and the English Language.
In a world of 24-hour news and tweetstorms, polarised by divisive populist rhetoric, gaslighting, false equivalents, straw men, alternative facts, and fake news, it鈥檚 important to notice the terms we hear, the terms we use, and think about what they really mean.
Image: 鈥淚t's a 12-year-old poster of a teddy bear reading a book with a pretty mediocre pun. I hardly think that counts as propaganda.鈥� (.)
The focus is on words that had political heft in the UK and US in 2006, when the book was published, but they are all still pertinent today, as are some of the political heavyweights mentioned (John Bolton, James Comey, Tony Blair, Donald Rumsfeld, George W Bush, Fox News). The only way it shows its age is the unavoidable omission of a few newer coinages. Less excusable is the near total absence of LGBTQ+ terms.
The message is as much about consciousness-raising in general as individual examples. False equivalence is a common theme.
You can dip in and out of a series of loosely thematic essays (Community, Nature, Tragedy, Operations, Terror, Abuse, Freedom, Extremism), but there鈥檚 plenty of political and etymological history smuggled in, and it鈥檚 extensively indexed and annotated.
Selected Examples
Some of these are obvious (but the history and implications are usefully detailed), whereas others provide 鈥淎ha鈥� moments.
鈥�But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.鈥�
Orwell, in 1984.
鈥�Community鈥� homogenises groups of people and separates them from 鈥渦s鈥�. No one talks about the straight white Christian community because that鈥檚 the default. But 鈥済ay community鈥�, 鈥淛ewish community鈥� and so on are common. They are other. And once people are other, it鈥檚 easier to accept different rules and restrictions apply to them.
鈥�Asylum seeker鈥� shifts the focus to what people want from us, whereas 鈥�refugee鈥� focuses on what people are fleeing from and why.
鈥�Climate change鈥� is more accurate than 鈥�global warming鈥�, and the UN adopted it in 1988. But the term has also been promoted by those more aligned to climate change denial: oil states lobbied the UN for the change because it veiled the cause, and a 2003 Republican document about political language advocated it on the basis that it鈥檚 less frightening (hence less need for action).
Image: 鈥漌hat if it鈥檚 a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?鈥� cartoon by Joel Pett in 2009, ahead of 2009, ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit (.)
鈥�Debate鈥�. The climate change 鈥渄ebate鈥� is a prime example of false equivalence. To deflect allegations of bias, debates on the BBC and elsewhere typically pit an esteemed climate scientist against an unqualified denier, on equal footing. The same reasoning is used, especially in the US, to 鈥�teach the controversy鈥� about human origins, and thus include 鈥�creationism鈥� (disguised under the label 鈥�intelligent design鈥�) in science classes.
鈥�Natural resources鈥� implies good things that can and should be used/exploited. And since 1961, 鈥�personnel鈥� has been squeezed out by 鈥�human resources鈥�.
鈥�Ethnic cleansing鈥�. Cleanliness is next to Godliness, and one might think it just means moving an ethnic group from a contested region to a new place. But it鈥檚 a euphemism for 鈥�genocide鈥�, which is about the deliberate slaughter of a group (legally, it鈥檚 as much about intention as scale). Avoiding the G word means the UN is not obliged to act, and thus the term is arguably 鈥渃ollaborating in mass murder鈥�. This book uses Bosnia and Rwanda as examples, but just this week, President Trump used similar language to justify his sudden decision to withdraw US troops who were supporting the Kurds fighting ISIS, thus allowing the Turks to attack them, saying of the area, .
War. Many military and war related terms, especially arising from the Middle East and Gulf regions, are discussed in detail. 鈥�Collateral damage鈥� (from ~1976) and 鈥�lost his life鈥� are vague about cause and blame, and the former is removes all trace of humanity. There鈥檚 a fair bit about the names of military operations, but that鈥檚 more obviously positive spin: Operation Overlord (WW2 Normandy), Operation Just Cause (Noriega drug cartels), as well as 鈥�surgical strikes鈥� and naming weapons to make them sound either more or less devastating. There鈥檚 also plenty about covering up by changing the names of things: dead civilians logged as 鈥�combatants鈥�; referring to 鈥�settlements鈥� on land previous inhabitants have been forcibly driven from; denying using Napalm in Iraq even though Mark 77 firebombs were essentially the same (made from kerosene instead of petrol); referring to 鈥�abuse鈥� and 鈥�enhanced interrogation鈥� instead of 鈥�torture鈥�.
Once you accept that the ends justify any means,
鈥�It is no longer a paradox to say that we must torture our way to freedom鈥�.
And when you talk about 鈥渄emocracy on the march鈥�, you鈥檙e on the way to the Orwellian 鈥淲ar is peace鈥�.
Image: Us versus them by Tom Gauld (.)
鈥�Terrorism鈥� is biased in terms of what we don鈥檛 apply it to. My terrorist is your freedom fighter. BBC guidelines say to avoid the word, except when quoting others. Terrorist acts are done, indiscriminately, to those who are not themselves decision-makers, to induce fear and thus pressure those who do have power. 9/11 was clearly a terrorist event, but so too was the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima - even if it shortened the war and thereby saved more lives than it took. Those in the US associate the word with Muslims, and that is increasingly true in the UK, but when I was growing up, it was Irish Catholics (helped by US donations). More interestingly, Poole shows that terrorism doesn鈥檛 correlate as closely with any sort of religious fundamentalism as we often think: Hezbollah and the Tamil Tigers are primarily nationalist, the Suffragettes used bombs to get the vote, and the French Resistance in WW2 were trying to stop the spread of the Nazis. Even the IRA, though Catholic, and the various Protestant opposites (UVF, UDA, UFF) were more about politics than religion.
鈥�War on Terror鈥� fuels the fear, doing some of the terrorists鈥� work for them. Not that you can fight a tactic, and not that it applies to other forms of terror like horror films or white-knuckle rides in theme parks.
鈥�Terrorist suspect鈥� has proved a useful way to imply enough guilt to justify extreme measures - and also trips off the tongue nicely, to the tune of Eleanor Rigby! Of course, the authorities need to do everything they can to prevent terrorist actions, but if we go too far towards -style pre-crime, we reduce the freedoms we鈥檙e trying to protect. There鈥檚 no right answer. But the questions are important.
鈥�Meritocracy鈥� was coined in 1958, as satire, with the expectation that such a system would lead to more social division. Tony Blair was keen on the term, but is the effect that only those who鈥檝e achieved power, allegedly by merit, really matter?
鈥�Extremism鈥� is at the root of much of this. Extreme used to be an absolute, but now we think of it as binary opposites, which entrenches polarised positions. (For thoughts about broadening one鈥檚 outlook, see Life Isn't Binary, which I reviewed HERE.) A false binary view is also why the media so often give equal prominence to unequal positions, under the guise of 鈥渂alance鈥� and "debate", as mentioned above.
鈥�Pro life鈥� suggests anyone who supports abortion rights, even in limited circumstances, is against life in general (and ignores the fact that many anti-abortionists are pro conception and pro birth, but less inclined to support life that struggles after: social security, free healthcare, sensible gun control etc). If forced to pick whether life or choice is more important, the language preempts a decision.
鈥�Friends of the Earth鈥� nods to Gaia theory. It鈥檚 not that that鈥檚 necessarily a bad thing, but it鈥檚 a subtle assumption, built into the name.
Unspeak to Add?
There are some social (subsidised) housing tenants living in properties larger than they now need, while growing families are crammed in homes far too small. Some of the former group may not need social housing at all any more. Finding a way to reallocate is logistically tricky, but should be uncontroversial in principle. The UK government made a dreadful mess of implementing such a scheme (charging people who had an unnecessary room), and there were shocking examples of injustice. Nevertheless, the fact the intended term 鈥�spare room subsidy鈥� was rapidly replaced with 鈥�bedroom tax鈥� by its opponents and then the media didn鈥檛 help.
The proportion of UK 18-year olds going to full-time university has increased from around 15% when I went to nearly 50% now. It鈥檚 not viable for the state to be as generous to such a huge cohort, so grants were reduced and tuition fees introduced. The LibDems had long favoured a 鈥�graduate tax鈥� and before the 2007 election, promised not to increase 鈥�tuition fees鈥�. To everyone鈥檚 surprise, they ended up in power: a minor partner in Cameron鈥檚 coalition government - which increased tuition fees. The new repayment structure meant it was a graduate tax in all but name, and if the LibDems had managed to make that name stick, they might not have been slaughtered at the next election for their broken promise.
Certain strands of US debate conflates 鈥�socialism鈥� and 鈥�communism鈥�: some may do so as deliberate Unspeak, but the result is misinformed fear. If you think providing basic healthcare is somehow linked to Stalin and China, you鈥檙e unlikely to view it favourably (or notice that all the other developed countries in the world have it to some extent).
See also
鈥� Orwell鈥檚 Newspeak in 1984. See my review HERE.
鈥� Orwell鈥檚 essay Politics and the English Language. See my review HERE.
鈥� Ambrose Bierce鈥檚 The Devil鈥檚 Dictionary from 1906. See my review HERE.
鈥� Iantaffi and Barker鈥檚 Life Isn't Binary. See my review HERE.
鈥� Political Cows analogy, all over the internet, including .
鈥� Rhetorical fallacies, .
"An extremist is someone who rejects facts and holds on to opinions no matter what."
Bill O'Reilly in 2005, of Fox News till 2017.
Sign into 欧宝娱乐 to see if any of your friends have read
Unspeak.
Sign In 禄
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
May 30, 2008
– Shelved
June 9, 2008
– Shelved as:
language-related
October 10, 2019
–
Started Reading
October 15, 2019
–
37.15%
"Words have power. This has detailed, exhaustively-referenced examples that were bang up-to-date in 2006 and are relevant to Brexit, Trump and more. Political and etymological history smuggled in sections that read as easily as newspaper articles. The one on ethnic cleansing and genocide was especially apt when there are fears the Kurds in Turkey and Syria are suffering the same fate
Updated review when I finish."
page
107
Updated review when I finish."
October 17, 2019
–
100.0%
"Very good, and at least as relevant in the days of global gaslighting, divisive populist rhetoric, false equivalents, straw men, and fake news as when it was written, 13 years ago. Even most of the examples are still relevant, though there are a few new ones I could add.
"An extremist is someone who rejects facts and holds on to opinions no matter what." Bill O'Reilly in 2005, of Fox News till 2017
Review to come..."
page
288
"An extremist is someone who rejects facts and holds on to opinions no matter what." Bill O'Reilly in 2005, of Fox News till 2017
Review to come..."
October 20, 2019
–
Finished Reading
September 3, 2020
– Shelved as:
dystopian-apocalyptic
Comments Showing 1-30 of 30 (30 new)
date
newest »
newest »
Jeanne wrote: "I'm a vegetarian in a house who has lived with carnivores. I talk about them "eating dead animal." :)..."LOL.
Jeanne wrote: ""Words Matter," perhaps my favorite sign..."
Well done for going to the Women's March. It must have been an amazing atmosphere. Yes, I like the simple truth of that sign.
Actually, most climate scientists wanted it changed to climate change versus global warming because it鈥檚 more accurate. Climate change isn鈥檛 just about warming it鈥檚 about how there鈥檚 going to be major changes in every conceivable direction. Some places will be warmer, some cooler, the storms will be more severe, etc. etc. etc.
Dean the Bibliophage wrote: "This looks interesting!"It is. I'll write a proper review when I finish.
Lisa wrote: "Actually, most climate scientists wanted it changed to climate change versus global warming because it鈥檚 more accurate..."Yes, that too. I'll correct and expand when I do a new review. But as his main point is about deliberate political use of language, maybe both motives are true. (I haven't got to that part yet.)
That was an excellent review. It covers essentially the same ground as You Are Not Human: How Words Kill. I'm wondering if I should read Unspeak or if you have covered enough for me as I read the other book? I don't agree with all your examples, but they have given me food for thought. I don't want to write about the ones I don't agree with until I've had time to think about them properly as a knee-jerk reaction maybe exactly what the words are meant to provoke. I may come back and write another comment. But since I am going to have a Life from tomorrow, I may be too enveloped in a cloud of pink exhaust fumes to actually do any thinking.Thank you for such a detailed and interesting review. If I could give it stars I would give it 10!
P-eggy wrote: "That was an excellent review. It covers essentially the same ground as You Are Not Human: How Words Kill. I'm wondering if I should read Unspeak..."Although I think this is a good and useful book, there would be a lot of overlap. I've included lots of examples, but really, I think the more important point is to open one's mind to analysing such language.
P-eggy wrote: "I don't agree with all your examples, but they have given me food for thought. ..."
I'd be amazed and disappointed if you agreed with all of them. It's all about prompting debate.
P-eggy wrote: "I may come back and write another comment. But since I am going to have a Life from tomorrow, I may be too enveloped in a cloud of pink exhaust ..."
Your comments are always welcome, but I'm far more interested in your racing trip, pink exhaust, closed-toe shoes, and the full Harlequin shebang!
P-eggy wrote: "Thank you for such a detailed and interesting review. If I could give it stars I would give it 10!"
Thank you so much.
Thanks for your very interesting and thought provoking review.
TBV wrote: "Thanks for your very interesting and thought provoking review."Thanks for reading and commenting, TBV.
Great comprehensive review Cecily. Today I picked up another book on the wizardry with words.The Penguin Book of Journalism: Secrets of the Press. Edited by Stephen Glover.
Inc. some interesting areas, on 'gives the lowdown on political spin.'
'Reveals the perils of writing confessional 'girl' columns.'
And . . . 'Outlines the finer points of the book review.'
I bought this in a second-hand bookshop in NSW. The book is ex Edinburgh City Libraries.
How it got from Scotland to NSW must be one of the secrets of Journalism.
....
Greg wrote: "Great comprehensive review Cecily. Today I picked up another book on the wizardry with words.The Penguin Book of Journalism: Secrets of the Press. Edited by Stephen Glover...."
Thanks on both counts. It's a topic I'll return to, though not immediately. I need escape in fiction, occasionally peppered with books like this.
Amazing insights in this detailed write-up, Cecily! So many threads to follow for my own reading and research. Thanks for composing it so well that those words fits perfect in the narrative.
Himanshu wrote: "Amazing insights in this detailed write-up, Cecily! So many threads to follow for my own reading and research. Thanks for composing it so well that those words fits perfect in the narrative."Thanks, Himanshu. I've given just a tiny impression of what's inside, and my selection is slightly skewed by my own interests. The main thing is that, whether you agree with all the interpretations, this should prompt us to think more carefully about the full meaning of words we read, hear, and use.
There are other books covering similar ground, maybe at least as well or better (see P-eggy/Petra's and Greg's comments above).
鈥淐limate change鈥� is more accurate than 鈥済lobal warming鈥�, and the UN adopted it in 1988.Do you know when and why we stopped calling the problem "pollution"?
Certain strands of US debate conflates 鈥渟ocialism鈥� and 鈥渃ommunism鈥�.
Worse still, they describe social democracy as socialism/communism.
Ian wrote: "鈥淐limate change鈥� is more accurate than 鈥済lobal warming鈥�, and the UN adopted it in 1988.Do you know when and why we stopped calling the problem "pollution"?..."
They're related, but not the same. Some sorts of pollution contributes to climate change (C)2, methane etc), but things like oil spills and microplastics in the ocean don't directly. Unfortunately, Pollution isn't in the index or my notes, so I guess it's barely mentioned.
Ian wrote: "Certain strands of US debate conflates 鈥渟ocialism鈥� and 鈥渃ommunism鈥�.
Worse still, they describe social democracy as socialism/communism."
Good point!
The interesting thing is that pollution is tangible and measurable, yet there were still pollution deniers in the 60's.
There's this from Roger Thornhill."In the world of advertising, there's no such thing as a lie. There's only the expedient exaggeration."
Ian wrote: "The interesting thing is that pollution is tangible and measurable, yet there were still pollution deniers in the 60's."And people still do. See Trump's pronouncements about how clean the air and water are despite his rolling back all sorts of protections, and industries emptying untreated chemicals and spoil into waterways.
Greg wrote: "There's this from Roger Thornhill."In the world of advertising, there's no such thing as a lie. There's only the expedient exaggeration.""
Eek! Yes, scarily true, and not that far from the recently revived Goebbels quote:
鈥淚f you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Less often quoted is what follows:
"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.鈥�
I hadn't heard the other part of Goebbel's famous quote."...the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
How did the Social Contract mutate to that?
What would Rousseau make of it?
My son sent me this quote today by Philip K. Dick.
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
Greg wrote: "I hadn't heard the other part of Goebbel's famous quote."...the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
How did the Social Contract mutate to that?
What would Rousseau make of it? ..."
Good questions, but I have no idea, so I'll take them as rhetorical.
Greg wrote: "Philip K. Dick.
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.""
Which takes us back to Orwell and indeed this book. Very true in UK politics right now as well.
Triffic review, Mrs. Create a better world for nothing indeed! Mind you I though asylum seekers were loonies who are looking for a home...
Apatt wrote: "Triffic review, Mrs. Create a better world for nothing indeed! Mind you I though asylum seekers were loonies who are looking for a home..."I hadn't thought of that: when I was a child, "asylum" in invariable preceded by "lunatic", whereas now it's invariably followed by "seeker". Another aspect of Unspeak: making refugees even more other and outside normal society.
:(
Of late 'political asylum' has taken on a whole new meaning.Also, I was reminded of another aspect of language that is not meant to change meaning or to disguise agenda, but that alludes to an accurate description by discreet word choice.
Obituaries in the Press or TV in the past have covered a celebrity, public figure or eminent person that accurately describes a person without being specific.
An art form I admire in journalism.
The example that reminded me wasn't an obituary but from a book on politics.
"Somewhat of a patrioteer, a man of rather flamboyant personality, a silk-stocking Republican of independent temperament."
Greg wrote: "Of late 'political asylum' has taken on a whole new meaning..."Yes, it has a degree of disbelief built into it.
Greg wrote: "another aspect of language that is not meant to change meaning or to disguise agenda... Obituaries ..."
That's a tricky one, isn't it? An obituary is written in the immediate aftermath, when family and friends are grieving, so even for a controversial figure, or even one generally reviled, it seems appropriate to be slightly gentle. How gentle is tricky. A few years later, biographies and history books should aim for something stricter, even if it's nastier.
Greg wrote: "Somewhat of a patrioteer..."
I wonder about the intended difference between the usual "patriot" and the unfamiliar (to me) "patrioteer". The dictionary suggests it's more extreme: a literal flag-waver or tub-thumper, but is it widely used and known?
Patrioteer (new to me also) is from a 1966 edition, originally published by Harvard University Press, referring to Washington DC 1918.
This is a remarkable array of exemples, Cecily!
P.E. wrote: "This is a remarkable array of exemples, Cecily!"In a way, it's impressive that so many are still relevant, even though I expect there are other books on the subject that have been written since.
Your links have had me reading your reviews on language this morning Cecily. Thanks, I have enjoyed every one of them and the fascinating discussions.
fourtriplezed wrote: "Your links have had me reading your reviews on language this morning Cecily. Thanks, I have enjoyed every one of them and the fascinating discussions."You're very kind. Thank you. Have a great day!
I went to the Women's March shortly after the last presidential election. One of the marchers had a sign saying "Words Matter," perhaps my favorite sign. We should all consider our words.