Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Eliminationist Rhetoric Poisons Our Discourse

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 10:49 AM
Original message
Eliminationist Rhetoric Poisons Our Discourse
from AlterNet's PEEK:



Eliminationist Rhetoric Poisons Our Discourse

Posted by David Neiwert at 8:25 AM on April 16, 2008.

Why are patriotic Americans echoing language of tragedies past?



There's something deeply wrong with our public discourse when a reviewer like Niall Ferguson can pen a piece at the New York Times Book Review that contains, almost glibly, language like this:

The terrorists are at once parasitical on, and at the same time hostile toward, the globalized economy, the Internet and the technological revolution in military affairs. Just as the plagues in the 14th century were unintended consequences of increased trade and urbanization, so terrorism is a negative externality of our borderless world.

The difference, of course, is one of intent. The rats that transported the lethal fleas that transported the lethal enterobacteria Yersinia pestis did not mean to devastate the populations of Eurasia and Africa. The Black Death was a natural disaster. Al Qaeda is different. Its members seek to undermine the market-state by turning its own technological achievements against it in a protracted worldwide war, the ultimate goal of which is to create a Sharia-based terror-state in the form of a new caliphate.


I know, of course, that we're talking about the Enemy: terrorists. But it doesn't take a Dalai Lama to recognize that this kind of dehumanization is part of what brought us to this pass in the first place. And it only takes a historian to point out where it is likely to take us.

This is, in fact, classic eliminationist rhetoric: speech designed not merely to dehumanize and demonize other human beings, but to create the conditions for, and ultimately provide permission for, the actual elimination of those elements from society. As Kalkaino points out, Ferguson's description of Middle Eastern terrorists is nearly indistinguishable from from Nazi prewar propaganda about the "filthy Jewish vermin."

Of course, there is an essential difference there as well: the Jews in reality posed no threat to Germany whatsoever, and so any danger they represented was concocted almost entirely in the imaginations of anti-Semites. Middle Eastern terrorists, of course, are very much a real threat, though almost certainly not the dire existential threat that the Fergusons of the world make them out to be.

But Nazi Germany hardly provided the only example of eliminationist rhetoric and its toxic effects -- the American historical landscape is littered with them as well: the genocide of Native Americans, the lynching era, "sundown towns," and perhaps most tellingly in this case, the campaign against Asian immigrants and its culmination in the incarceration of 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.

Because that whole episode began with rhetoric nearly identical to Ferguson's, directed at the "filthy Asiatic hordes" and producing bestsellers like Lothrop Stoddard's The Passing of the Great Race, a warning that "white culture" was about to be overwhelmed by rapidly reproducing brown hordes (sound familiar?) from Asia. It was so powerful that when war with Japan broke out, it seemed in fact only a natural step to round up those untrustworthy Asian vermin and put them in concentration camps.

And so it goes with thinkers like Ferguson today. Later in the review, it's clear where his logic leads us:

Bushs instinct was not wrong. In this war, we do need pre-emptive detention of suspected terrorists; we do need a significant increase of surveillance, particularly of electronic communications; we do need, in some circumstances, to use coercive techniques (short of torture) to elicit information from terrorists. The administrations fatal mistake was its failure to understand that these things could be achieved by appropriate modifications of the law.


And of course, anyone who disagrees should be rounded up and dealt with.


http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/82511 /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Vanje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. Niall Ferguson is fueling the flames

His usage reminds me of propagandist language during other wars ,when terms like "Yellow Peril" and
"World Jewry" "Red Menace" got citizens fired up and eager to march against a faceless foe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
2. "the terrorists"
Whenever I read or hear that phrase my BS meter cranks up a notch. As if "the terrorists" are, exactly as discussed here, not real people with real issues, but just a concept that operates outside of any cause and effect process. They just do-what-they-do like a mindless force of nature.

I know that poisoned discourse is not a new issue--Orwell and Dos Passos, among others, wrote about it so eloquently in the first half of the 20th century--but it just seems like lately it's been taken to a whole new level. The amount of mindless agreement with utterly ridiculous ideas among parts of our society that should know better (e.g., journalists), is scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 16th 2014, 01:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC