|
Monday February 7, 2005 |
BACK |
NEXT
MANIPULATING WORDS
by Angelo Persichilli
THE HILL TIMES
Words are the pixels
of a virtual picture that we, the journalists, try to deliver daily to our
readers. The pixel (short for picture element) is the smallest component of
a picture appearing on the screen. Every screen pixel is connected to a
"bit," the smallest piece of information processed by a computer. So, when
we use that "bit" (or bits) in the hard disk, we prompt a pixel to light up
on the screen.
Unfortunately, some
of the "pixels" we use are "manipulated" and, even though we use the right
bit and the right pixel, the picture we see on the screen is wrong. There
are words whose semantic has been skewed to fit a description that not only
doesn't reflect the reality, but it subtly try to change it.
Many of these
"manipulated" words are used daily by journalists and politicians, not to
help people to debate the issue, indeed to suggest a conclusion before the
debate starts. The list of these manipulated words is very long and their
use increases with the intensity of the debate.
I was listening to a
debate on a TV program on the same-sex marriage issue. The word that caught
my attention was "progressive."
The
pro-gay-marriage-debater was defining as "progressive" the forces in favour
of the change. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "progressive" a person
"favouring innovation or social reform."
The not so hidden
message is that if you are not "progressive" you must be "regressive." This
means that those in favour are good and modern people and those against are
bad. Well, the meaning of the word may be correct, its application is wrong.
The current hot
political debate on homosexuality is not new at all. In ancient Greece,
homosexuality was not only acceptable but also an element of pride in
certain circles. Even amongst the Romans, homosexuality was not a big deal.
I mean, the nowadays pro-same-sex-marriage forces, are only 2,000 and some
change years late.
Are they wrong? I
don't care, my point is that the word "progressive" is out of order and
those with a different opinion are not necessarily "regressive," but just
people with a different opinion.
Another manipulated
word is "ethnic." Again, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the
adjective is "relating to a group of people having a common national or
cultural tradition. Referring to origin by birth rather than by present
nationality." So, who is the "ethnic," me or my son? Well, according to the
Oxford Dictionary I am an ethnic, my son is not. And, if "by birth" means
the son of someone who is "ethnic" the question is where you draw the line?
In reality, the semantic of this
pixel-word has been changed. An "ethnic" is whoever neither of French nor
English origin. In fact, in Quebec, the "ethnic" is not used. Instead,
they've invented the word "allophone." Who are they? I did a search on
internet and forgot to type in the "o" between "All" and "phones" and ended
up on a website in Australia with the list all Motorolas and Nokia, and
almost buying a new cellphone. However, according to Encarta, North American
edition, the definition of Allophones is: "Canada - Quebec immigrant: an
immigrant in Quebec who speaks neither English nor French as a first
language."
Now, being an immigrant "a person who
comes to live permanently in a foreign country (oxford Dictionary), does it
mean that Alfonso Gagliano is an allophone, being born outside Canada and
his first language was Italian, and Massimo Pacetti is not? (He was born in
Montreal). And, if Pacetti is not an Allophone, and not being an Anglophone
or Francophone, who is he? Again, we have manipulated the words, and an
"ethnic" means whoever is neither francophone nor anglophone: it all depends
on the last name and the colour of your skin.
Don't misunderstand me; I have no
problem in being neither francophone, nor francophone. I have a problem when
I hear some colleagues debating the same‑sex issue on TV and try to
generalize the position of "ethnic groups" as one entity, mainly against the
change, then "regressive."
In reality, within each group the
position changes mainly according to the age, it is a generational change,
just like it is in any other group. Yes, there are religious groups against
the same‑sex marriage, then "regressive," but there are other religious
groups who are against the same sex marriage and in favour of polygamy. The
puzzling question is: are they progressive or regressive?
Another definition that irks me when I
see it is "peace activist." A peace activist, to me, is someone against the
war, the concept of the war, against all the wars. When you pick and choose
the wars you are against, you are not a "peace activist" any longer, indeed
a "political activist." This, however, along with other "manipulated
pixel‑words," is going to be a topic for future considerations. |
