Whip Calls Pol Slavish: Pot Calling Kettle Black?
In a wacky confluence of separate meanings, the house minority whip started a furor yesterday by characterizing a black senate candidate of "slavishy" following GOP orthodoxy.
I thought Slavish was the term of origin for people from Slavia, only to discover there is no such place.
The fact that the offending word was delivered by the minoirty "whip" is simply a cherry on top, but how many people will reflect on the derivation of this standard political title, which of course refers from the so-designated member's job of keeping party reps in line and voting as directed -- and derived, of course, from the vocabulary of slavery.
This reminds one of the contretemp created when a DC councilman lost his post for characterizing funding of some particular program as "niggardly." Whatever happened to him?
Interesting how words with perfectly distinct meanings (my OED says "slavish" means ..."with blind dedication" among other obvious things) can in certain contexts be pemitted to have only one meaning or conotation.
Code words are, of course, a staple of the politics of division. However, can anyone seriously believe that a Democrat running for office deliberately sought to enflame racial sensititivites with this choice of word? George Allen, call your office!
Or is the charge against Hoyer that he is stupid and insensitive? What's unique about these types of conflicts is that that question never really gets asked or answered. The fact that the word was used at all is the central fact. The requisite appology is delivered, the "offended" politician doesn't accept it; the "offender" feigns mystification.
Racist, stupid, insensitive -- all three? What exactly is the charge that floats to the top and becomes dominant in discussion? Or does discourse dictate that the shock of a politican saying a black man is slavish -- indepndet of meaning or intent -- remain both headline and substance? With the result that the acceptable vocabulary of political discourse is chipped away slowly, meanings narrowed, and political language increasing less, well, colorful.
I thought Slavish was the term of origin for people from Slavia, only to discover there is no such place.
The fact that the offending word was delivered by the minoirty "whip" is simply a cherry on top, but how many people will reflect on the derivation of this standard political title, which of course refers from the so-designated member's job of keeping party reps in line and voting as directed -- and derived, of course, from the vocabulary of slavery.
This reminds one of the contretemp created when a DC councilman lost his post for characterizing funding of some particular program as "niggardly." Whatever happened to him?
Interesting how words with perfectly distinct meanings (my OED says "slavish" means ..."with blind dedication" among other obvious things) can in certain contexts be pemitted to have only one meaning or conotation.
Code words are, of course, a staple of the politics of division. However, can anyone seriously believe that a Democrat running for office deliberately sought to enflame racial sensititivites with this choice of word? George Allen, call your office!
Or is the charge against Hoyer that he is stupid and insensitive? What's unique about these types of conflicts is that that question never really gets asked or answered. The fact that the word was used at all is the central fact. The requisite appology is delivered, the "offended" politician doesn't accept it; the "offender" feigns mystification.
Racist, stupid, insensitive -- all three? What exactly is the charge that floats to the top and becomes dominant in discussion? Or does discourse dictate that the shock of a politican saying a black man is slavish -- indepndet of meaning or intent -- remain both headline and substance? With the result that the acceptable vocabulary of political discourse is chipped away slowly, meanings narrowed, and political language increasing less, well, colorful.
posted by Zero at 6:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home