One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
Why Learning From History Means Saying No To Rigid Ideologies
Page 1 of 2 next>
Mar 27, 2017 19:55:21   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
By Walter G. Moss

In a recent op-ed in The New York Times John Burns reflected on his long career as a war and foreign correspondent in such places as the Soviet Union, China, apartheid-era South Africa, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Afghanistan, and Iraq. “What those years bred in me,” he wrote, “was an abiding revulsion for ideology, in all its guises.” But his revulsion is not limited to the non-Western ideologies but also to Western “ ‘-isms’ of left and right . . . that excuse, and indeed smother, free thinking.”

From time to time since the end of World War II and then the death of Stalin in 1953, political observers have written of “the end of ideology.” In the early 1960s Daniel Bell used that phrase to title a book in which he wrote that ideology, “with good reason, is an irretrievably fallen word.” In 1989, as the Cold War was ending, Francis Fukuyama’s essay “The End of History?” stated that the world might be witnessing “the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.” But ideology is far from dead. As Mark Twain once said about his reported death, such talk is “an exaggeration.”

In a 2013 sermon Pope Francis warned Christians against making their religion into an ideology: “Ideology does not beckon [people]. In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his meekness. And ideologies are rigid, always. . . . And when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith. . . . But it is a serious illness, this of ideological Christians. . . . His attitude is: be rigid, moralistic, ethical, but without kindness.” He urged Christians “to remain humble, and so not to become closed.”

Both John Burns and Pope Francis are not criticizing all -isms, for example all liberalism or conservatism or the broad definition of ideology as given by the Oxford Dictionaries—“a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy”—but rather they are taking aim at what the term often implies. And that is close-mindedness and rigidity.

Throughout history religious believers have sometimes become like latter day ideologues in their dogmatic rigidity, in their insistence on possessing “the t***h,” in their lack of humility, and in their willingness to even k**l those who think differently. In late sixteenth-century France, for example, Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other in large numbers. John M. Owen IV has recently written in Foreign Affairs that back then Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Catholicism, like political Islam or Islamism today, were political ideologies “as much as a set of religious doctrines.” But the term “ideology” first appeared in its French form (idéologie) during the French Revolution, and various ideologies (like Marxism) became prominent during the few centuries that followed. These ideologies were more modern secular developments primarily concerned with the socio-political realm and not the supernatural or interpretations of God’s will.

During the twentieth century the number of lives lost at least partly because of ideologies like nationalism, c*******m, and n**ism is incalculable, but certainly over 100 million—the most detailed study of c*******t atrocities, The Black Book of C*******m, estimates that c*******m alone was responsible for 85-100 million deaths during the 20th century.

But like the slogan mouthed by some NRA members, “Guns don’t k**l people. People k**l people,” some ideologues might argue “ideologies don’t k**l people. People k**l people.” Fair enough, but ideologies such as twentieth-century c*******m and n**ism certainly justified large-scale k*****g, partly by dehumanizing “others” like so-called class-enemies (“enemies of the people”) and Jews.

At present the members of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS or ISIL) are the most gruesome ideological k**lers. In remarks of February 2015, President Obama spoke of “the warped ideologies espoused by terrorists like al Qaeda and ISIL, especially their attempt to use Islam to justify their violence.” He added that “these terrorists are desperate for legitimacy. And all of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam, because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorist narrative.” ISIL has done what Pope Francis warned Christians not to do—confused religion and ideology.

Another harmful emphasis on ideology, but with much less blood-shedding consequences, has been the growth of a rigid U.S. political conservativism.

This confusion, however, should not lead us to deny that ISIL’s ideology is heavily influenced by its interpretation of Islam and of Muhammad’s teachings even though the great majority of Muslims reject such a rendering of their beliefs. In a recent cover story in The Atlantic, Graeme Wood referred to ISIL’s doctrines as a “religious ideology” (see also here for some reactions to his essay). He quotes its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as proclaiming the necessity of reviving a Muslim caliph**e, similar in its powers to those that ruled great chunks of territory following the death of Muhammad. An ISIL spokesman also urged Muslims in Western countries “to find an infidel and ‘smash his head with a rock,’ poison him, run him over with a car, or ‘destroy his crops.’ What Pope Francis said of ideological Christianity—“it is as serious illness”—applies even more to ISIL’s rendering of Islam.

Another harmful emphasis on ideology, but with much less blood-shedding consequences, has been the growth of a rigid U.S. political conservativism. In the early 1990s, Russell Kirk, sometimes labeled “the Father of American Traditionalist Conservatism,” denounced ideology and ideologues in essays such as “The Errors of Ideology”: “Ideology makes political compromise impossible: the ideologue will accept no deviation from the Absolute T***h of his secular revelation. . . . Ideologues vie one with another in fancied fidelity to their Absolute T***h; and they are quick to denounce deviationists or defectors from their party orthodoxy. . . .The evidence of ideological ruin lies all about us. How then can it be that the allurements of ideology retain great power in much of the world?”

Kirk was critical of those who call “themselves conservative, [but] who have no notion of prudence, temperance, compromise, the traditions of civility, or cultural patrimony.” The publicist lamented that the conservative movement had spawned “a new generation of rigid ideologists.”

More recently (in October 2013) Stephen Bainbridge, a self-proclaimed “unreformed Kirkian” reflected on both the words of Kirk and of Pope Francis and wrote: “In recent years, however, a false brand of conservatism— closely linked, but not limited to the Christian Right—has embraced both political and religious ideologies. This is especially true of the so-called tea party.” He pointed out that “these new pseudo-conservative ideologues reject compromise out of hand. And, of course, they drum anyone who dares deviate in any way from the prescribed path out of the conservative movement. Precisely the characteristics Kirk identified as the attributes of ideological partisans.” Just three days before his essay was posted, I had arrived at a similar conclusion.

Just a few weeks after both essays appeared, the Pew Research Center posted a survey that indicated that only 9 percent of tea party Republicans believed that human-caused g****l w*****g was occurring. This contrasts with some 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists who hold this belief. What but ideological blinders could lead to such a shunning of scientific consensus?

Although g****l w*****g denial may seem much less horrendous than the murderous acts of ISIL, who can say how much suffering and loss of lives may eventually occur if such denial continues to impede constructive actions to address the most dire consequences of such warming?

Rejecting rigid ideologies does not, however, necessitate rejecting all -isms or embracing an unprincipled opportunism. We can, for example, prefer conservatism or liberalism in our approach to politics, as long as we let our individual values and judgments and not some party platform determine our political decisions.

Political wisdom requires a proper mix of idealism and realism and other virtues or values such as the love, kindness, and humility mentioned by Pope Francis, as well as compassion, empathy, tolerance, a sense of humor, creativity, temperance, self-discipline, passion, courage, and prudence. The trick is finding the proper combination of such values to apply to any concrete, unique political situation in order to further the common good.

Political philosopher Isaiah Berlin had it right when he rejected any ideology that failed to acknowledge the plurality and variety of human existence. As he wrote in his essay “Political Judgment”: “Obviously what matters is to understand a particular situation in its full uniqueness, the particular men and events and dangers, the particular hopes and fears which are actively at work in a particular place at a particular time.” The problem with rigid ideologies is that they distort our view of reality. Moreover, as Burns and Pope Francis have indicated, they smother independent thinking, and value too little such virtues as love, humility, and kindness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Republished with permission from History News Network

Reply
Mar 27, 2017 20:06:09   #
son of witless
 
slatten49 wrote:
By Walter G. Moss

In a recent op-ed in The New York Times John Burns reflected on his long career as a war and foreign correspondent in such places as the Soviet Union, China, apartheid-era South Africa, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Afghanistan, and Iraq. “What those years bred in me,” he wrote, “was an abiding revulsion for ideology, in all its guises.” But his revulsion is not limited to the non-Western ideologies but also to Western “ ‘-isms’ of left and right . . . that excuse, and indeed smother, free thinking.”

From time to time since the end of World War II and then the death of Stalin in 1953, political observers have written of “the end of ideology.” In the early 1960s Daniel Bell used that phrase to title a book in which he wrote that ideology, “with good reason, is an irretrievably fallen word.” In 1989, as the Cold War was ending, Francis Fukuyama’s essay “The End of History?” stated that the world might be witnessing “the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.” But ideology is far from dead. As Mark Twain once said about his reported death, such talk is “an exaggeration.”

In a 2013 sermon Pope Francis warned Christians against making their religion into an ideology: “Ideology does not beckon [people]. In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his meekness. And ideologies are rigid, always. . . . And when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith. . . . But it is a serious illness, this of ideological Christians. . . . His attitude is: be rigid, moralistic, ethical, but without kindness.” He urged Christians “to remain humble, and so not to become closed.”

Both John Burns and Pope Francis are not criticizing all -isms, for example all liberalism or conservatism or the broad definition of ideology as given by the Oxford Dictionaries—“a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy”—but rather they are taking aim at what the term often implies. And that is close-mindedness and rigidity.

Throughout history religious believers have sometimes become like latter day ideologues in their dogmatic rigidity, in their insistence on possessing “the t***h,” in their lack of humility, and in their willingness to even k**l those who think differently. In late sixteenth-century France, for example, Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other in large numbers. John M. Owen IV has recently written in Foreign Affairs that back then Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Catholicism, like political Islam or Islamism today, were political ideologies “as much as a set of religious doctrines.” But the term “ideology” first appeared in its French form (idéologie) during the French Revolution, and various ideologies (like Marxism) became prominent during the few centuries that followed. These ideologies were more modern secular developments primarily concerned with the socio-political realm and not the supernatural or interpretations of God’s will.

During the twentieth century the number of lives lost at least partly because of ideologies like nationalism, c*******m, and n**ism is incalculable, but certainly over 100 million—the most detailed study of c*******t atrocities, The Black Book of C*******m, estimates that c*******m alone was responsible for 85-100 million deaths during the 20th century.

But like the slogan mouthed by some NRA members, “Guns don’t k**l people. People k**l people,” some ideologues might argue “ideologies don’t k**l people. People k**l people.” Fair enough, but ideologies such as twentieth-century c*******m and n**ism certainly justified large-scale k*****g, partly by dehumanizing “others” like so-called class-enemies (“enemies of the people”) and Jews.

At present the members of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS or ISIL) are the most gruesome ideological k**lers. In remarks of February 2015, President Obama spoke of “the warped ideologies espoused by terrorists like al Qaeda and ISIL, especially their attempt to use Islam to justify their violence.” He added that “these terrorists are desperate for legitimacy. And all of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam, because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorist narrative.” ISIL has done what Pope Francis warned Christians not to do—confused religion and ideology.

Another harmful emphasis on ideology, but with much less blood-shedding consequences, has been the growth of a rigid U.S. political conservativism.

This confusion, however, should not lead us to deny that ISIL’s ideology is heavily influenced by its interpretation of Islam and of Muhammad’s teachings even though the great majority of Muslims reject such a rendering of their beliefs. In a recent cover story in The Atlantic, Graeme Wood referred to ISIL’s doctrines as a “religious ideology” (see also here for some reactions to his essay). He quotes its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as proclaiming the necessity of reviving a Muslim caliph**e, similar in its powers to those that ruled great chunks of territory following the death of Muhammad. An ISIL spokesman also urged Muslims in Western countries “to find an infidel and ‘smash his head with a rock,’ poison him, run him over with a car, or ‘destroy his crops.’ What Pope Francis said of ideological Christianity—“it is as serious illness”—applies even more to ISIL’s rendering of Islam.

Another harmful emphasis on ideology, but with much less blood-shedding consequences, has been the growth of a rigid U.S. political conservativism. In the early 1990s, Russell Kirk, sometimes labeled “the Father of American Traditionalist Conservatism,” denounced ideology and ideologues in essays such as “The Errors of Ideology”: “Ideology makes political compromise impossible: the ideologue will accept no deviation from the Absolute T***h of his secular revelation. . . . Ideologues vie one with another in fancied fidelity to their Absolute T***h; and they are quick to denounce deviationists or defectors from their party orthodoxy. . . .The evidence of ideological ruin lies all about us. How then can it be that the allurements of ideology retain great power in much of the world?”

Kirk was critical of those who call “themselves conservative, [but] who have no notion of prudence, temperance, compromise, the traditions of civility, or cultural patrimony.” The publicist lamented that the conservative movement had spawned “a new generation of rigid ideologists.”

More recently (in October 2013) Stephen Bainbridge, a self-proclaimed “unreformed Kirkian” reflected on both the words of Kirk and of Pope Francis and wrote: “In recent years, however, a false brand of conservatism— closely linked, but not limited to the Christian Right—has embraced both political and religious ideologies. This is especially true of the so-called tea party.” He pointed out that “these new pseudo-conservative ideologues reject compromise out of hand. And, of course, they drum anyone who dares deviate in any way from the prescribed path out of the conservative movement. Precisely the characteristics Kirk identified as the attributes of ideological partisans.” Just three days before his essay was posted, I had arrived at a similar conclusion.

Just a few weeks after both essays appeared, the Pew Research Center posted a survey that indicated that only 9 percent of tea party Republicans believed that human-caused g****l w*****g was occurring. This contrasts with some 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists who hold this belief. What but ideological blinders could lead to such a shunning of scientific consensus?

Although g****l w*****g denial may seem much less horrendous than the murderous acts of ISIL, who can say how much suffering and loss of lives may eventually occur if such denial continues to impede constructive actions to address the most dire consequences of such warming?

Rejecting rigid ideologies does not, however, necessitate rejecting all -isms or embracing an unprincipled opportunism. We can, for example, prefer conservatism or liberalism in our approach to politics, as long as we let our individual values and judgments and not some party platform determine our political decisions.

Political wisdom requires a proper mix of idealism and realism and other virtues or values such as the love, kindness, and humility mentioned by Pope Francis, as well as compassion, empathy, tolerance, a sense of humor, creativity, temperance, self-discipline, passion, courage, and prudence. The trick is finding the proper combination of such values to apply to any concrete, unique political situation in order to further the common good.

Political philosopher Isaiah Berlin had it right when he rejected any ideology that failed to acknowledge the plurality and variety of human existence. As he wrote in his essay “Political Judgment”: “Obviously what matters is to understand a particular situation in its full uniqueness, the particular men and events and dangers, the particular hopes and fears which are actively at work in a particular place at a particular time.” The problem with rigid ideologies is that they distort our view of reality. Moreover, as Burns and Pope Francis have indicated, they smother independent thinking, and value too little such virtues as love, humility, and kindness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Republished with permission from History News Network
By Walter G. Moss br br In a recent op-ed in The ... (show quote)


What a load of hypocrisy.

Reply
Mar 27, 2017 21:48:44   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
son of witless wrote:
What a load of hypocrisy.

Such brevity in your response! However...

Please explain, SOL, as to which rigid ideology Mr. Moss is hypocritical towards. He seems to have critiqued the dangers of rigidity in many of them...to include non-western/western religious & political ideologies: liberalism & conservatism; Catholicism & Protestantism; Calvinism, Lutheranism; Islamism, Marxism, C*******m, socialism, nationalism, n**ism; Isis/Isil & Al Queda. Let us not forget his bringing up idealism and realism, also.

I suspect Mr. Moss would include himself in one of the above '-isms.' In stepping on so many toes, where exactly is the source of his hypocrisy?

Reply
 
 
Mar 28, 2017 11:49:52   #
CanSEE
 
My opinion of the U.S. political conservativism is THEY ARE LIMITING GOD's INTERVENTION.

Reply
Mar 28, 2017 18:34:56   #
son of witless
 
slatten49 wrote:
Such brevity in your response! However...

Please explain, SOL, as to which rigid ideology Mr. Moss is hypocritical towards. He seems to have critiqued the dangers of rigidity in many of them...to include non-western/western religious & political ideologies: liberalism & conservatism; Catholicism & Protestantism; Calvinism, Lutheranism; Islamism, Marxism, C*******m, socialism, nationalism, n**ism; Isis/Isil & Al Queda. Let us not forget his bringing up idealism and realism, also.

I suspect Mr. Moss would include himself in one of the above '-isms.' In stepping on so many toes, where exactly is the source of his hypocrisy?
Such brevity in your response! However... br br ... (show quote)


Thank you for the opportunity to respond. I strive for Brevity, but I often fail. Anyway I will explain my charge of hypocrisy. First none of us who post on OPP are non ideologues. I believe you are an ideologue, as I am. You would not have posted this piece if it was not an ideological piece! ! ! I believe this author is falsely writing from a position of being a non ideologue. Now I have never heard of him. All of my inference of him is strictly from his article.

I perceive the point of the article is to bash Conservatives. I am one, but I do not have a problem with the bashing. We Conservatives are big boys and girls. We can take it. The author lists all of these rigid Ideologies, bashes them collectively as evil and then proceeds to lump Conservatism in with these other philosophies and adds the word " rigid " so as to pretend he is not critiquing all Conservatives.

The one rigid ideology he seems to leave out is his own, Liberalism. Now he did include C*******m, but I am sure he does not consider Liberalism to be C*******m. I believe above all else in free speech. As much as I may h**e what others say, I do not seek to shut up anyone. However, I dislike whenever I think anyone is using pretense as a main foundation of their argument. I don't mind it as a secondary tactic because I often do it myself, but when it is the essence of what they are saying, I have a ginormous problem with it.

This is a similar argument I have gotten into about the word h**e. I do not pretend I do not h**e certain people. There are plenty of individuals who deserve to be h**ed. I have listened to the most h**eful Liberals present the argument that Conservatives are h**e mongers and when I point out their own h**eful rhetoric they make the case that they do not h**e anyone. Hypocrisy is very hard to avoid, even for me. I find it a very easy case to make when I get into discussions with those on the Left.

I look forward to you totally destroying my arguments. It is how I grow as a person.

Reply
Mar 28, 2017 20:38:05   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
son of witless wrote:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. I strive for Brevity, but I often fail. Anyway I will explain my charge of hypocrisy. First none of us who post on OPP are non ideologues. I believe you are an ideologue, as I am. You would not have posted this piece if it was not an ideological piece! ! ! I believe this author is falsely writing from a position of being a non ideologue. Now I have never heard of him. All of my inference of him is strictly from his article.

I perceive the point of the article is to bash Conservatives. I am one, but I do not have a problem with the bashing. We Conservatives are big boys and girls. We can take it. The author lists all of these rigid Ideologies, bashes them collectively as evil and then proceeds to lump Conservatism in with these other philosophies and adds the word " rigid " so as to pretend he is not critiquing all Conservatives.

The one rigid ideology he seems to leave out is his own, Liberalism. Now he did include C*******m, but I am sure he does not consider Liberalism to be C*******m. I believe above all else in free speech. As much as I may h**e what others say, I do not seek to shut up anyone. However, I dislike whenever I think anyone is using pretense as a main foundation of their argument. I don't mind it as a secondary tactic because I often do it myself, but when it is the essence of what they are saying, I have a ginormous problem with it.

This is a similar argument I have gotten into about the word h**e. I do not pretend I do not h**e certain people. There are plenty of individuals who deserve to be h**ed. I have listened to the most h**eful Liberals present the argument that Conservatives are h**e mongers and when I point out their own h**eful rhetoric they make the case that they do not h**e anyone. Hypocrisy is very hard to avoid, even for me. I find it a very easy case to make when I get into discussions with those on the Left.

I look forward to you totally destroying my arguments. It is how I grow as a person.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. I strive... (show quote)


Well, as I read somewhere, brevity and conciseness are the parents of correction.

No doubt, almost all on OPP are ideologues, but not all those favoring an ideology are so set in their beliefs as to not be open to other ideas. As a moderate (IMO), I lean towards both left and right, depending upon the issue being discussed. I am quite certain that I am not the only one professing openness to a change of heart...given new information. Rather than thinking of it as 'flip-flopping,' I find it favorable in having a malleable mind. I'll grant you Mr. Moss' article is an ideological piece...but it is primarily a piece on rigidity in an ideological sense. You may well be right as to Mr. Moss being a liberal, but neither had I ever heard of the man. That alone disallows one/me from censoring or dismissing him based on a pre-conceived opinion based on his previous writings.

I also believe he writes harshly of conservatives, sometimes deservedly so, but feel that is possibly the case because of the current political make-up of the country and our congress. With President Trump in the White House, and the GOP controlling both houses, it is safe to say that the nation is currently in a conservative cycle. I see that criticism as just another example of Truman's "the buck stops here," or "it's lonely at the top," etc. There is always a price to be paid for being at the top of the heap, political or otherwise. As far as his being lenient on liberals? Well, whether liberal or not, he did appear overly lenient in critiquing liberalism & probably others, as well. Perhaps he held back in that criticism because he/they are still licking their wounds, and are not presently as under the microscope or as open a target as the new ruling group in Washington. I don't know, but doubt that it lessens the point of his arguments.

I was fairly sure that your criticism of the piece, although accusing Moss of hypocrisy, was primarily based on said extended criticism of the supposed far-right, overly-zealous type of conservatives he penciled in as the tea-partiers (initially self-proclaimed tea-baggers.) But, as I pointed out (though apparently overlooked by you) his criticism was far-ranging in including many '-isms' regarding political or religious ideologies. And, even being (perhaps) heavy handed on aspects of conservatism, the article did step on many of the '-isms' toes...as I wrote in my earlier post to you.

Much of your argument towards the end of your response seems to center on semantics. I am absolutely positive I don't h**e anyone on this forum. I say this even as I have personally met around fifteen of them in my travels across the country for various reasons. If I felt compelled to name them, you would likely identify the whole as an eclectic group composed of both liberals and conservatives as well as moderates. Each of them proved both hospitable hosts and pleasant company...and, damn fine Americans, IMO. I am leaving next month on another trip...to see my son, his wife, my grandson and new granddaughter. That trip will include visits with as many as half-a-dozen more OPP posters.

It would be a strange thing to h**e someone without having ever met them, and based only on their written word. Only the most reviled public figures, maybe, are deserving of such hatred. Perhaps a strong distaste for their written word is the worst I can speak to regarding some posters on OPP...having never met most of them. On the other hand, I see plenty of h**e-mongering from all sides...both in my private life and OPP...while I also hear and see much of it on radio and television. Such h**eful dialogue disgusts me. It is one reason I do not get involved in so many threads that are primarily filled with ad hominem attacks, profanity and a total lack of civility.

Finally, with regard to your describing the article as "what a load of hypocrisy," I would suggest...as you did earlier ("I perceive the point of the article is to bash Conservatives") that is your perception. And, without knowing the man, nor being possessed of the ability to read his mind, that is all it can be taken as, your perception. Once again, though, I can see the reasons for such a perception of Mr. Moss. For you see, Son of Witless, even as once again I agree with much of what you write, it really all boils down to ones take on the article. And, as Dave Mason famously sang..."There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy...there's only you and me and we just disagree."


Thank you for your response, my friend. You always present a worthy opinion and arguments.

P.S. I posted this piece, as I do with many of mine, to open up dialogue with all those of varying opinions. Hopefully, any others received will be as civil and respectful as yours, seemingly, always are.

Reply
Mar 30, 2017 22:30:49   #
son of witless
 
slatten49 wrote:
Well, as I read somewhere, brevity and conciseness are the parents of correction.

No doubt, almost all on OPP are ideologues, but not all those favoring an ideology are so set in their beliefs as to not be open to other ideas. As a moderate (IMO), I lean towards both left and right, depending upon the issue being discussed. I am quite certain that I am not the only one professing openness to a change of heart...given new information. Rather than thinking of it as 'flip-flopping,' I find it favorable in having a malleable mind. I'll grant you Mr. Moss' article is an ideological piece...but it is primarily a piece on rigidity in an ideological sense. You may well be right as to Mr. Moss being a liberal, but neither had I ever heard of the man. That alone disallows one/me from censoring or dismissing him based on a pre-conceived opinion based on his previous writings.

I also believe he writes harshly of conservatives, sometimes deservedly so, but feel that is possibly the case because of the current political make-up of the country and our congress. With President Trump in the White House, and the GOP controlling both houses, it is safe to say that the nation is currently in a conservative cycle. I see that criticism as just another example of Truman's "the buck stops here," or "it's lonely at the top," etc. There is always a price to be paid for being at the top of the heap, political or otherwise. As far as his being lenient on liberals? Well, whether liberal or not, he did appear overly lenient in critiquing liberalism & probably others, as well. Perhaps he held back in that criticism because he/they are still licking their wounds, and are not presently as under the microscope or as open a target as the new ruling group in Washington. I don't know, but doubt that it lessens the point of his arguments.

I was fairly sure that your criticism of the piece, although accusing Moss of hypocrisy, was primarily based on said extended criticism of the supposed far-right, overly-zealous type of conservatives he penciled in as the tea-partiers (initially self-proclaimed tea-baggers.) But, as I pointed out (though apparently overlooked by you) his criticism was far-ranging in including many '-isms' regarding political or religious ideologies. And, even being (perhaps) heavy handed on aspects of conservatism, the article did step on many of the '-isms' toes...as I wrote in my earlier post to you.

Much of your argument towards the end of your response seems to center on semantics. I am absolutely positive I don't h**e anyone on this forum. I say this even as I have personally met around fifteen of them in my travels across the country for various reasons. If I felt compelled to name them, you would likely identify the whole as an eclectic group composed of both liberals and conservatives as well as moderates. Each of them proved both hospitable hosts and pleasant company...and, damn fine Americans, IMO. I am leaving next month on another trip...to see my son, his wife, my grandson and new granddaughter. That trip will include visits with as many as half-a-dozen more OPP posters.

It would be a strange thing to h**e someone without having ever met them, and based only on their written word. Only the most reviled public figures, maybe, are deserving of such hatred. Perhaps a strong distaste for their written word is the worst I can speak to regarding some posters on OPP...having never met most of them. On the other hand, I see plenty of h**e-mongering from all sides...both in my private life and OPP...while I also hear and see much of it on radio and television. Such h**eful dialogue disgusts me. It is one reason I do not get involved in so many threads that are primarily filled with ad hominem attacks, profanity and a total lack of civility.

Finally, with regard to your describing the article as "what a load of hypocrisy," I would suggest...as you did earlier ("I perceive the point of the article is to bash Conservatives") that is your perception. And, without knowing the man, nor being possessed of the ability to read his mind, that is all it can be taken as, your perception. Once again, though, I can see the reasons for such a perception of Mr. Moss. For you see, Son of Witless, even as once again I agree with much of what you write, it really all boils down to ones take on the article. And, as Dave Mason famously sang..."There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy...there's only you and me and we just disagree."


Thank you for your response, my friend. You always present a worthy opinion and arguments.

P.S. I posted this piece, as I do with many of mine, to open up dialogue with all those of varying opinions. Hopefully, any others received will be as civil and respectful as yours, seemingly, always are.
Well, as I read somewhere, brevity and conciseness... (show quote)


I have stated many times that I am a big free speech fan. I saw many attempts by the left when they were the dominant ideology in America to silence the speech of anyone opposing them. I encourage anyone to speak their mind as long as they do not threaten, over use profanity, or spew jibberish. That is as far as I go being open to all views. At this time in my life you may call me rigid, set in my ways, etc. I am unlikely to be changed, but I allow all to speak.

" With President Trump in the White House, and the GOP controlling both houses, it is safe to say that the nation is currently in a conservative cycle. " So far the Republicans under Trump, Ryan, and McConnell have not shown they can enact the Conservative agenda they have promised their supporters. The best thing you can say is they are not pushing America any further left.

" I was fairly sure that your criticism of the piece, although accusing Moss of hypocrisy, was primarily based on said extended criticism of the supposed far-right, overly-zealous type of conservatives he penciled in as the tea-partiers (initially self-proclaimed tea-baggers.) "

I do not accept that Tea Partyers are over zealous. They are people defending traditional values and accounting standards. They were not in your face, they were polite and they cleaned up after themselves, unlike the Occupy Wall Street Pigs. They did not call themselves teabaggers!

" But, as I pointed out (though apparently overlooked by you) his criticism was far-ranging in including many '-isms' regarding political or religious ideologies. "

I absolutely did not overlook it. You did not understand my meaning, even though I was careful to spell it out. The author criticized his " isms " only to set the paradigm so he could link " rigid conservatism " to it. Most of the " isms " were of historical nature and easy to defend as rigid. He was careful not to list his own "rigid " Liberalism. That is the hypocrisy.

" And, as Dave Mason famously sang..."There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy...there's only you and me and we just disagree." "

I reject that absolutely. Perhaps my description of h**e needs clarification. The hatred I see in myself and my opposing numbers are not for the peons on both sides. I consider myself a conservative peon. The hatred is for the ideas and the leaders of the opposing agendas. I have very close relatives and friends who are passionate Obama, Hillary, and Bernie fanatics who h**e Trump as much as I h**e Obama and Hillary. We do not h**e one another. We merely refrain from talking politics except under extremely controlled circumstances.

What we just engaged in is what I have tried to accomplish and mostly failed in with the Liberals on OPP. You and I debated our ideas fairly intensely. We kept it on the ideas. Exactly what I have said to the flaming Liberals, put your ideas out there and defend them, while I attack them and I will defend mine from your attacks. They cannot do it. As you questioned me in detail, so I question them, they do not deal with my arguments, and they call me an i***t. That is why most discussions on OPP degenerate into insult fests.

Reply
 
 
Mar 31, 2017 21:47:25   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
son of witless wrote:
I have stated many times that I am a big free speech fan. I saw many attempts by the left when they were the dominant ideology in America to silence the speech of anyone opposing them. I encourage anyone to speak their mind as long as they do not threaten, over use profanity, or spew jibberish. That is as far as I go being open to all views. At this time in my life you may call me rigid, set in my ways, etc. I am unlikely to be changed, but I allow all to speak.

" With President Trump in the White House, and the GOP controlling both houses, it is safe to say that the nation is currently in a conservative cycle. " So far the Republicans under Trump, Ryan, and McConnell have not shown they can enact the Conservative agenda they have promised their supporters. The best thing you can say is they are not pushing America any further left.

" I was fairly sure that your criticism of the piece, although accusing Moss of hypocrisy, was primarily based on said extended criticism of the supposed far-right, overly-zealous type of conservatives he penciled in as the tea-partiers (initially self-proclaimed tea-baggers.) "

I do not accept that Tea Partyers are over zealous. They are people defending traditional values and accounting standards. They were not in your face, they were polite and they cleaned up after themselves, unlike the Occupy Wall Street Pigs. They did not call themselves teabaggers!

" But, as I pointed out (though apparently overlooked by you) his criticism was far-ranging in including many '-isms' regarding political or religious ideologies. "

I absolutely did not overlook it. You did not understand my meaning, even though I was careful to spell it out. The author criticized his " isms " only to set the paradigm so he could link " rigid conservatism " to it. Most of the " isms " were of historical nature and easy to defend as rigid. He was careful not to list his own "rigid " Liberalism. That is the hypocrisy.

" And, as Dave Mason famously sang..."There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy...there's only you and me and we just disagree." "

I reject that absolutely. Perhaps my description of h**e needs clarification. The hatred I see in myself and my opposing numbers are not for the peons on both sides. I consider myself a conservative peon. The hatred is for the ideas and the leaders of the opposing agendas. I have very close relatives and friends who are passionate Obama, Hillary, and Bernie fanatics who h**e Trump as much as I h**e Obama and Hillary. We do not h**e one another. We merely refrain from talking politics except under extremely controlled circumstances.

What we just engaged in is what I have tried to accomplish and mostly failed in with the Liberals on OPP. You and I debated our ideas fairly intensely. We kept it on the ideas. Exactly what I have said to the flaming Liberals, put your ideas out there and defend them, while I attack them and I will defend mine from your attacks. They cannot do it. As you questioned me in detail, so I question them, they do not deal with my arguments, and they call me an i***t. That is why most discussions on OPP degenerate into insult fests.
I have stated many times that I am a big free spee... (show quote)

You wrote "They did not call themselves teabaggers!"

I will later address the rest of your response, but this one demands an immediate reply. You simply are in error on this matter. However innocently or naively Tea Party organizers did it, they coined the term 'Teabaggers' early on in speaking of themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The National Review...'Rise of an Epithet,' by Jay Nordlinger December 7, 2009

‘Teabagger’ and what to do. To “teabag” or not to “teabag”: That is not the most pressing question of these times, but it is a question to consider. Routinely, conservative protesters in the “tea party” movement are called “teabaggers,” and those calling them that do not mean it in a nice way. Many conservatives are mulling what to do about this term: fight it, embrace it, what? First, a little history.

After Barack Obama was sworn in as president, with his big majorities in Congress, the Democrats launched quite a bit of federal spending: particularly with the “stimulus” package. Some Americans were determined to counter this. And, before you knew it, we had the “tea party” movement. What protesters were doing, of course, was invoking the spirit of the American Revolutionaries, and their Boston Tea Party.

According to the website of the Tea Party Patriots, the movement is committed to three “core values”: fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets. The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was “Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.” A protester was spotted with a sign saying, “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.” SO, CONSERVATIVES STARTED IT: STARTED WITH THIS TERMINOLOGY. But,
others seized and ran with it.

I have no doubt you are sexually hip, but just in case you’re not, please know that “teabag” has a particular meaning in certain circles. In order to have a discussion of our general topic, we must be aware of that meaning, and I call on the Source of All Knowledge, Wikipedia: Teabagging is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person, often in a repeated in-and-out motion as in irrumatio. The practice resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea.” I could quote you more, but you have had enough.

The liberal media, to use a convenient tag, went after the protesters with glee. Take Anderson Cooper, the acclaimed anchorman for CNN. He was interviewing David Gergen, the political pundit. And Gergen was saying that, after two very bad e******ns, conservatives and Republicans were “searching for their voice.” Cooper responded, “It’s hard to talk when you’re teabagging.” He said this with a smirk. MSNBC had an outright field day. Rachel Maddow and a guest of hers, Ana Marie Cox, made teabag jokes to each other for minutes on end: having great, chortling fun at the conservatives’ expense. And here is the performance of another host, David Shuster: “For most Americans, Wednesday, April 15, will be Tax Day, but . . . it’s going to be Teabagging Day for the right wing, and they’re going nuts for it. Thousands of them whipped out the festivities early this past weekend, and while the parties are officially toothless, the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals. They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending.”

Shuster went on to say that Fox News personalities were “looking forward to an up-close-and-personal taste of teabagging.” Etc., etc., etc. All the while, MSNBC was picturing Republican figures, and the following words were on the screen: “TEABAG MOUTHPIECES.” Ma and Pa America may not have been in on the joke, but plenty of other people were. On HBO, the lefty comedian Bill Maher commented, “When the year started, ‘teabagging’ was a phrase that referred to dangling one’s testicles in someone else’s face.” And the tea-party protesters “managed to turn it into something gross and ridiculous.” Tuh-dum. After Cooper and the others smirked about “teabagging,” the word went utterly mainstream — although you could say that, if Cooper used it, it started mainstream: because how much more mainstream can you get than a CNN anchor?

On ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, E. J. Dionne, the liberal columnist, spoke of “a right-wing candidate supported by the teabaggers.” The host himself, Stephanopoulos, followed suit. On PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, senior correspondent Gwen Ifill used “teabaggers” as well. At the New York Times, Paul Krugman used it in a column. Elsewhere, Roger Ebert used it in a movie review. And so on. Some politicians — Democrats — have talked about “teabagging” and “teabaggers” too. And that includes the biggest Democratic politicians of them all. Recently, both President Obama and former president Bill Clinton spoke to congressional Democrats behind closed doors. They were giving pep talks on health-care legislation. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse reported Clinton as saying, “The reason the teabaggers are so inflamed is because we are winning.” Rep. Earl Blumenauer reported Obama as saying, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care?” It will be interesting to see whether the president — or Bill Clinton, for that matter — ever uses “teabag” and the like in public. And if not, why not?

Some on the right are using “teabagger,” but mainly the word is a putdown from the left. Conservatives realize that nothing friendly is meant by it. You can tell by tone and context, for one thing. (Or is that two things?) Of course, some people use “teabagger” in innocence — unaware of any vulgar connotation. One such person is, or was, Gwen Ifill. Some of her NewsHour viewers wrote to complain. And Ifill later said, “Turns out I am the only person with access to email who never knew this was a term with a sexual meaning. I used it in an offhand manner as a shorthand referring to the ‘tea party’ movement. It was a slip I was unaware of, and I regret it.” Now to the question of what to do. How should conservatives handle this matter? Should we challenge the language, let it slide, adopt it? Many conservatives — most, I would say — are of a mind to fight. According to this point of view, people who use “teabagger” and such should be called on it, especially if they smirk. “What do you mean by that?” one might ask. “What do you mean by ‘teabagger,’ and why do you smirk?” In other words, conservatives want to introduce a little shame. And the responses of liberals could be kind of interesting. I myself have enjoyed “calling out” opponents in debate — not on “teabagger” (no opportunity yet), but on other words. “Neocon,” for example. “What do you mean by ‘neocon’?” I’ll say. “What’s a ‘neocon’?” Also “Z*****t”: “What do you mean by ‘Z*****t’? What’s a Z*****t, in your mind?” These words have real meanings, but often people don’t know them. They just mean them as putdowns. Some conservatives are happy to embrace “teabagger,” or are at least willing to do so. They are “owning the insult,” which is to say, taking what is intended as a slur and wearing it proudly.

There are many words and names in our vocabulary that started out as slurs and became something else. Several of these words and names are found in religion — “Christian,” for example. According to a Bible dictionary, this was “the name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus.” Soon enough, it “was universally accepted.” “Jesuit” had a defamatory beginning. Same with “Methodist,” “Unitarian,” “Quaker,” and “Shaker.” (You can sort of tell with those last two, can’t you?) We have had this phenomenon in politics, too. “Tory” and “Whig” were putdowns when they originated, and so was “neoconservative.” (All things are new again, I guess.) “Yankee Doodle” was none too nice. That second word probably relates to the male organ. In the world of art, “Impressionist” was a putdown directed at those who painted rather gauzily or suggestively, rather than accurately. But no one today would consider Monet defamed if called an Impressionist.

What about a special case — the worst word in American English, as some of us see it, namely the N-word? When I was growing up, in Ann Arbor, Mich., there was a little debate: Should school officials try to prevent black students from using the N-word? I don’t believe the issue was ever settled. And this brings up the question of whether “teabagger” could be kind of a conservative N-word: to be used in the family, but radioactive outside the family. We grant that one can always look at things too literally, or too etymologically. In 1998, a major Clinton foe, Rep. Dan Burton (R., Ind.), called the president a “scumbag.” The same year, Sen. Al D’Amato (R., N.Y.), running for ree******n, called his opponent — Rep. Charles Schumer — a “putzhead.” Many in the media were careful to explain to people that Burton had called Clinton a “used condom,” and that D’Amato, borrowing from Yiddish, had called Schumer a “penis head.” (Always with the penis.) But did Burton and D’Amato mean those words in quite those senses? In any event, it may well be too late to purge “teabagger” from our discourse, certainly from discourse controlled by liberals. But I’m for giving it a try: for running “teabagger” out of town, even at this late date.

It is really a lowdown term. “Tea partier” is a neutral term. “Tea-party patriots” is a positive term, used by some of the protesters themselves. “Teabagger” — not so positive, and not so neutral. It could well be that liberals at large are recognizing this too. In a discussion at Slate, the online magazine, Sam Tanenhaus wrote, “Even today the right insists it is driven by ideas, even if the leading thinkers are now Limbaugh and Beck, and the shock troops are tea-baggers and anti-tax demonstrators.” As he told me, he subsequently learned that “teabagger” had this vulgar meaning, and was used as a pejorative. So he changed his text to “tea-partiers”: “tea-partiers and anti-tax demonstrators.” Much better, don’t you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This article first appeared in the December 7, 2009, issue of National Review.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/357138/rise-epithet-jay-nordlinger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, as this article from William Buckley's conservative National Review states, the Tea Party movement initially came up with the 'clever' idea of sending Tea bags to members of Congress. It was in their initial rallys that they started referring to this act of sending their representatives boxes of tea bags as 'TEABAGGING." Any reasonable research of the origin of the term would confirm it was by the organizers of the tea party.

Now this may be a generational thing but somebody should have told those people that 'teabagging' was already in wide use as a term for performing oral sex on a man. That started people like Tucker Carlson to plead: "Stop saying Teabagger".

Reply
Mar 31, 2017 22:38:41   #
son of witless
 
slatten49 wrote:
You wrote "They did not call themselves teabaggers!"

I will later address the rest of your response, but this one demands an immediate reply. You simply are in error on this matter. However innocently or naively Tea Party organizers did it, they coined the term 'Teabaggers' early on in speaking of themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The National Review...'Rise of an Epithet,' by Jay Nordlinger December 7, 2009

‘Teabagger’ and what to do To “teabag” or not to “teabag”: That is not the most pressing question of these times, but it is a question to consider. Routinely, conservative protesters in the “tea party” movement are called “teabaggers,” and those calling them that do not mean it in a nice way. Many conservatives are mulling what to do about this term: fight it, embrace it, what? First, a little history.

After Barack Obama was sworn in as president, with his big majorities in Congress, the Democrats launched quite a bit of federal spending: particularly with the “stimulus” package. Some Americans were determined to counter this. And, before you knew it, we had the “tea party” movement. What protesters were doing, of course, was invoking the spirit of the American Revolutionaries, and their Boston Tea Party.

According to the website of the Tea Party Patriots, the movement is committed to three “core values”: fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets. The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was “Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.” A protester was spotted with a sign saying, “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.” SO, CONSERVATIVES STARTED IT: STARTED WITH THIS TERMINOLOGY. But,
others seized and ran with it.

I have no doubt you are sexually hip, but just in case you’re not, please know that “teabag” has a particular meaning in certain circles. In order to have a discussion of our general topic, we must be aware of that meaning, and I call on the Source of All Knowledge, Wikipedia: Teabagging is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person, often in a repeated in-and-out motion as in irrumatio. The practice resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea.” I could quote you more, but you have had enough.

The liberal media, to use a convenient tag, went after the protesters with glee. Take Anderson Cooper, the acclaimed anchorman for CNN. He was interviewing David Gergen, the political pundit. And Gergen was saying that, after two very bad e******ns, conservatives and Republicans were “searching for their voice.” Cooper responded, “It’s hard to talk when you’re teabagging.” He said this with a smirk. MSNBC had an outright field day. Rachel Maddow and a guest of hers, Ana Marie Cox, made teabag jokes to each other for minutes on end: having great, chortling fun at the conservatives’ expense. And here is the performance of another host, David Shuster: “For most Americans, Wednesday, April 15, will be Tax Day, but . . . it’s going to be Teabagging Day for the right wing, and they’re going nuts for it. Thousands of them whipped out the festivities early this past weekend, and while the parties are officially toothless, the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals. They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending.”

Shuster went on to say that Fox News personalities were “looking forward to an up-close-and-personal taste of teabagging.” Etc., etc., etc. All the while, MSNBC was picturing Republican figures, and the following words were on the screen: “TEABAG MOUTHPIECES.” Ma and Pa America may not have been in on the joke, but plenty of other people were. On HBO, the lefty comedian Bill Maher commented, “When the year started, ‘teabagging’ was a phrase that referred to dangling one’s testicles in someone else’s face.” And the tea-party protesters “managed to turn it into something gross and ridiculous.” Tuh-dum. After Cooper and the others smirked about “teabagging,” the word went utterly mainstream — although you could say that, if Cooper used it, it started mainstream: because how much more mainstream can you get than a CNN anchor?

On ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, E. J. Dionne, the liberal columnist, spoke of “a right-wing candidate supported by the teabaggers.” The host himself, Stephanopoulos, followed suit. On PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, senior correspondent Gwen Ifill used “teabaggers” as well. At the New York Times, Paul Krugman used it in a column. Elsewhere, Roger Ebert used it in a movie review. And so on. Some politicians — Democrats — have talked about “teabagging” and “teabaggers” too. And that includes the biggest Democratic politicians of them all. Recently, both President Obama and former president Bill Clinton spoke to congressional Democrats behind closed doors. They were giving pep talks on health-care legislation. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse reported Clinton as saying, “The reason the teabaggers are so inflamed is because we are winning.” Rep. Earl Blumenauer reported Obama as saying, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care?” It will be interesting to see whether the president — or Bill Clinton, for that matter — ever uses “teabag” and the like in public. And if not, why not?

Some on the right are using “teabagger,” but mainly the word is a putdown from the left. Conservatives realize that nothing friendly is meant by it. You can tell by tone and context, for one thing. (Or is that two things?) Of course, some people use “teabagger” in innocence — unaware of any vulgar connotation. One such person is, or was, Gwen Ifill. Some of her NewsHour viewers wrote to complain. And Ifill later said, “Turns out I am the only person with access to email who never knew this was a term with a sexual meaning. I used it in an offhand manner as a shorthand referring to the ‘tea party’ movement. It was a slip I was unaware of, and I regret it.” Now to the question of what to do. How should conservatives handle this matter? Should we challenge the language, let it slide, adopt it? Many conservatives — most, I would say — are of a mind to fight. According to this point of view, people who use “teabagger” and such should be called on it, especially if they smirk. “What do you mean by that?” one might ask. “What do you mean by ‘teabagger,’ and why do you smirk?” In other words, conservatives want to introduce a little shame. And the responses of liberals could be kind of interesting. I myself have enjoyed “calling out” opponents in debate — not on “teabagger” (no opportunity yet), but on other words. “Neocon,” for example. “What do you mean by ‘neocon’?” I’ll say. “What’s a ‘neocon’?” Also “Z*****t”: “What do you mean by ‘Z*****t’? What’s a Z*****t, in your mind?” These words have real meanings, but often people don’t know them. They just mean them as putdowns. Some conservatives are happy to embrace “teabagger,” or are at least willing to do so. They are “owning the insult,” which is to say, taking what is intended as a slur and wearing it proudly.

There are many words and names in our vocabulary that started out as slurs and became something else. Several of these words and names are found in religion — “Christian,” for example. According to a Bible dictionary, this was “the name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus.” Soon enough, it “was universally accepted.” “Jesuit” had a defamatory beginning. Same with “Methodist,” “Unitarian,” “Quaker,” and “Shaker.” (You can sort of tell with those last two, can’t you?) We have had this phenomenon in politics, too. “Tory” and “Whig” were putdowns when they originated, and so was “neoconservative.” (All things are new again, I guess.) “Yankee Doodle” was none too nice. That second word probably relates to the male organ. In the world of art, “Impressionist” was a putdown directed at those who painted rather gauzily or suggestively, rather than accurately. But no one today would consider Monet defamed if called an Impressionist.

What about a special case — the worst word in American English, as some of us see it, namely the N-word? When I was growing up, in Ann Arbor, Mich., there was a little debate: Should school officials try to prevent black students from using the N-word? I don’t believe the issue was ever settled. And this brings up the question of whether “teabagger” could be kind of a conservative N-word: to be used in the family, but radioactive outside the family. We grant that one can always look at things too literally, or too etymologically. In 1998, a major Clinton foe, Rep. Dan Burton (R., Ind.), called the president a “scumbag.” The same year, Sen. Al D’Amato (R., N.Y.), running for ree******n, called his opponent — Rep. Charles Schumer — a “putzhead.” Many in the media were careful to explain to people that Burton had called Clinton a “used condom,” and that D’Amato, borrowing from Yiddish, had called Schumer a “penis head.” (Always with the penis.) But did Burton and D’Amato mean those words in quite those senses? In any event, it may well be too late to purge “teabagger” from our discourse, certainly from discourse controlled by liberals. But I’m for giving it a try: for running “teabagger” out of town, even at this late date.

It is really a lowdown term. “Tea partier” is a neutral term. “Tea-party patriots” is a positive term, used by some of the protesters themselves. “Teabagger” — not so positive, and not so neutral. It could well be that liberals at large are recognizing this too. In a discussion at Slate, the online magazine, Sam Tanenhaus wrote, “Even today the right insists it is driven by ideas, even if the leading thinkers are now Limbaugh and Beck, and the shock troops are tea-baggers and anti-tax demonstrators.” As he told me, he subsequently learned that “teabagger” had this vulgar meaning, and was used as a pejorative. So he changed his text to “tea-partiers”: “tea-partiers and anti-tax demonstrators.” Much better, don’t you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This article first appeared in the December 7, 2009, issue of National Review.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/357138/rise-epithet-jay-nordlinger
You wrote "They did not call themselves teaba... (show quote)


I am sorry, but I do not see where you proved anything about the term teabagger. I do not say that no Tea Partyers ever innocently did not use it, but NO it was popularized by the SKUMBAGGER Left. I remember when they first got on TV and laughed among themselves at how stupid the Tea Partyers were because they had no idea the sexual implications and yet I could never find any examples of Tea Partyers actually ever using that term. I suppose it is great fun to project ones sexual fantasies onto innocents.

Now I was to a small town Tea Party rally and part of it was to throw tea bags into a large container, I can't remember any more, it may have been a kid's swimming pool, but it was not called tea bagging. At any rate the whole association with sexual teabagging was totally a Liberal Wetdream. Leave it to Liberals to take an innocent item such as a teabag and popularize it into a symbol of sexual perversion.

The entire Liberal history seems to be one of polluting the English language in order to corrupt the culture. Up until the 1960s " Gay " meant happy . The 1890s were not known as the gay 90s because suddenly the country went homosexual. Even in the early 1960s the opening and closing theme credits songs for the cartoon show the Flintstones had the line " we'll have a gay ole time ". I don't think they meant that Fred and Barney were c***ting on their wives with each other.

I wonder how the Left would have slimed the Tea Party if instead of tea they had used Chocolate as a prop. I am sure the perverts would have laughed about anal sex.

If you compare Right Wing and Libertarian Groups such as the Tea Parties to left wing groups like Occupy Wall Street, Acorn, and Black L***s M****r the Tea Parties look quite good. The Tea Parties are almost way too nice in comparison.

Reply
Mar 31, 2017 23:14:57   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
son of witless wrote:
I am sorry, but I do not see where you proved anything about the term teabagger. I do not say that no Tea Partyers ever innocently did not use it, but NO it was popularized by the SKUMBAGGER Left. I remember when they first got on TV and laughed among themselves at how stupid the Tea Partyers were because they had no idea the sexual implications and yet I could never find any examples of Tea Partyers actually ever using that term. I suppose it is great fun to project ones sexual fantasies onto innocents.

Now I was to a small town Tea Party rally and part of it was to throw tea bags into a large container, I can't remember any more, it may have been a kid's swimming pool, but it was not called tea bagging. At any rate the whole association with sexual teabagging was totally a Liberal Wetdream. Leave it to Liberals to take an innocent item such as a teabag and popularize it into a symbol of sexual perversion.

The entire Liberal history seems to be one of polluting the English language in order to corrupt the culture. Up until the 1960s " Gay " meant happy . The 1890s were not known as the gay 90s because suddenly the country went homosexual. Even in the early 1960s the opening and closing theme credits songs for the cartoon show the Flintstones had the line " we'll have a gay ole time ". I don't think they meant that Fred and Barney were c***ting on their wives with each other.

I wonder how the Left would have slimed the Tea Party if instead of tea they had used Chocolate as a prop. I am sure the perverts would have laughed about anal sex.

If you compare Right Wing and Libertarian Groups such as the Tea Parties to left wing groups like Occupy Wall Street, Acorn, and Black L***s M****r the Tea Parties look quite good. The Tea Parties are almost way too nice in comparison.
I am sorry, but I do not see where you proved anyt... (show quote)


I think, besides revealing that the earliest organizers of the tea party did, indeed, initiate the term, Mr. Nordlinger made it very clear that what you write in response is pretty much on point...as did I..."However innocently or naively Tea Party organizers did it, they coined the term 'Teabaggers' early on in speaking of themselves." Thus, I most definitely feel that I did disprove that single assertion. I believe you did close to the same thing..."I do not say that no Tea Partyers ever innocently did not use it." Regardless, we each made our points.

I was not out to trivialize or degrade all members of the tea party, just expose the fact that they pretty much brought on much ridicule upon themselves that was self-induced. On the other hand, I pretty much agreed with most of your response...except that, growing up in the 50s, I was quite familiar with the slang meaning of the term 'gay.' However, I can't speak to the 1890's. I'll give you that no one I knew in the 60s ever suspected that Fred and Barney had a thing going.

Enjoy the rest of your evening, Son of Witless.

Reply
Apr 1, 2017 08:45:53   #
son of witless
 
slatten49 wrote:
I think, besides revealing that the earliest organizers of the tea party did, indeed, initiate the term, Mr. Nordlinger made it very clear that what you write in response is pretty much on point...as did I..."However innocently or naively Tea Party organizers did it, they coined the term 'Teabaggers' early on in speaking of themselves." Thus, I most definitely feel that I did disprove that single assertion. I believe you did close to the same thing..."I do not say that no Tea Partyers ever innocently did not use it." Regardless, we each made our points.

I was not out to trivialize or degrade all members of the tea party, just expose the fact that they pretty much brought on much ridicule upon themselves that was self-induced. On the other hand, I pretty much agreed with most of your response...except that, growing up in the 50s, I was quite familiar with the slang meaning of the term 'gay.' However, I can't speak to the 1890's. I'll give you that no one I knew in the 60s ever suspected that Fred and Barney had a thing going.

Enjoy the rest of your evening, Son of Witless.
I think, besides revealing that the earliest organ... (show quote)


" I was not out to trivialize or degrade all members of the tea party, just expose the fact that they pretty much brought on much ridicule upon themselves that was self-induced. "

No it was not self induced. The Tea Party took a symbol, the Boston Tea party and used it to symbolize their anti big government, anti over tax philosophy. It was the Liberal pro big government, pro big taxes group of scumbags who sought and found an avenue of attack. You may think I am being tiresome because I refuse to concede this trivial point, but some small points are worth more than they seem.

Even the term Tea Bagger only has what ever meaning people assign to it by using it. How could normal people who have no experience in d*****t sex possibly know that another group with that experience and knowledge are using the word in another context? Look at the word f*g. Presently it is derogatory for Gay People. Historically it described a wearying task. In slang it also meant a cigarette.

In 1963 President John Kennedy made his famous " I am a Berliner " speech to show solidarity with the people of West Berlin. The problem was that because of subtleties in the German language, " Ish bin ein Berliner " is not correct. By putting in ein the t***slation is " I am a jelly doughnut. "

At the time no one commented on President Kennedy's self induced ridicule.

Reply
 
 
Apr 1, 2017 10:03:23   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
son of witless wrote:
" I was not out to trivialize or degrade all members of the tea party, just expose the fact that they pretty much brought on much ridicule upon themselves that was self-induced. "

No it was not self induced. The Tea Party took a symbol, the Boston Tea party and used it to symbolize their anti big government, anti over tax philosophy. It was the Liberal pro big government, pro big taxes group of scumbags who sought and found an avenue of attack. You may think I am being tiresome because I refuse to concede this trivial point, but some small points are worth more than they seem.

Even the term Tea Bagger only has what ever meaning people assign to it by using it. How could normal people who have no experience in d*****t sex possibly know that another group with that experience and knowledge are using the word in another context? Look at the word f*g. Presently it is derogatory for Gay People. Historically it described a wearying task. In slang it also meant a cigarette.

In 1963 President John Kennedy made his famous " I am a Berliner " speech to show solidarity with the people of West Berlin. The problem was that because of subtleties in the German language, " Ish bin ein Berliner " is not correct. By putting in ein the t***slation is " I am a jelly doughnut. "

At the time no one commented on President Kennedy's self induced ridicule.
" I was not out to trivialize or degrade all ... (show quote)

I think it is fair to say that we are both dancing with semantics here, but words and their various implied meanings are pertinent in any discussion. "The difference between the almost right word and the right word is the difference between 'lightning' and the lightning bug." [quote attributed to Mark Twain]

To you, it may appear to be quibbling. But, however unintentional, the tea party did bring the ridicule upon themselves...even if undeserved.

Besides, gaffes are commonplace in the world of politics and jumped upon by each side.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...Regarding Kennedy's “Faux Pas”

But what about the “mistake”, where Kennedy supposedly called himself a jelly-filled donut? This incorrect interpretation did not surface for a full 25 years after the speech was given, and it came from a letter to the editor. In 1988, a man named Kenneth O’Neill wrote in a letter to the editor of Newsweek magazine: “To the Germans [‘Ich bin ein Berliner’] meant ‘I am a jelly doughnut’.” Just a few months later, the New York Times ran a full article entitled “I Am a Jelly-Filled Doughnut.” The fable took on a life of its own after this, in spite of attempts by German language specialists to refute it.

The controversy revolves around the principle that German does not normally use an article between the verb sein and a noun indicating occupation, nationality or place of origin. Thus, we say “I am an American,” but a German says “Ich bin Deutscher.” Mr. O’Neill apparently assumed that since Pres. Kennedy used the article ein, the people in the audience would automatically think he was not talking about nationality or place of origin, but rather some object called a “Berliner.” As it turns out, there is a very popular pastry in Germany which is like a hole-less doughnut filled inside with (usually) strawberry jelly and sprinkled with sugar, and which is called a “Berliner” in some parts of Germany. Hence, Mr. O’Neill stretched his imagination to assume that this was the only logical interpretation of JFK’s words, and the press was only too happy to pick up on a p**********l “blunder,” even if it was 25 years afterward.

Perhaps the definitive study on the “doughnut” question has been written by Jürgen Eichhoff, professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Prof. Eichhoff points out that the two German phrases used by JFK in his speech were t***slated for him by his interpreter, a native German who grew up in Berlin. Kennedy practiced the phrases several times in then-Mayor Willy Brandt’s offices before it was time to give the speech. He even wrote down on note cards the phonetic transcriptions of the phrases given to him by his interpreter. (Click here to view one of those cards.) Kennedy specifically chose the phrase “Ich bin ein Berliner” to make a clear parallel between Cicero’s significant declaration “civis Romanus sum,” which JFK quoted at the beginning of his speech, and the situation in West Berlin in 1963 A.D.

There are three primary reasons why no one in the audience that day in Schöneberg could have possibly understood anything other than exactly what Pres. Kennedy intended: context; German grammar; and German regional vocabulary use.

Context: No one in Berlin was thinking about pastries on the day the leader of the free world arrived in town. In the context of the speech as a whole, which talked about citizenship and freedom, and in the context of those fearful, uncertain days of the cold war and Berlin’s isolated situation some 100 miles within an unfriendly foreign nation, nothing but the primary meaning of the homonym Berliner could have been construed.

A modern corollary would be if Pres. Bush went to New York City after September 11, 2001 to express solidarity with the people of that city by standing next to Mayor Giuliani and saying “I, too, am a New Yorker.” It would be ludicrous to think that any person present would think Pres. Bush were referring to himself as a burrito.

German grammar. If Kennedy had said, “Ich bin Berliner,” he would have been stating that he had been born and raised in Berlin and that he was still a resident there. Of course, everyone in the audience knew this was not the case. By adding the ein, which his native German interpreter did for him, he was emphasizing in effect that, “Even though I was not born here and do not live here, nevertheless I am one of you.” This is exactly the meaning he intended to convey and the only meaning the native residents would have understood. Colleagues of mine in Berlin have confirmed this view.

Regional vocabulary usage. Although some Germans (and many Americans) refer to the pastry in question as a Berliner, people who live in Berlin or in any of the surrounding areas simply do not use that name. They predominantly use the term Pfannkuchen (pancake). A language map of German compiled during the 1970’s clearly shows that the term “Berliner” in reference to a pastry is used almost exclusively in the far western borders of the former West Germany. This situation is similar to the regional usage of pancake, hotcake, flap jack, or griddle cake in the U.S.

Another native German writer, and an expert on Berlin history, summarized the misunderstanding this way:

There is a persistent erroneous claim, repeated again most recently by Michael R. Beschloss, The Crisis Years: Kennedy, Khrushchev, 1960-1963 (New York, 1991), p. 606, that the phrase “ich bin ein Berliner” is incorrect and should have been “ich bin Berliner,” in part because Berliner also happens to be the word for a jelly roll. In actuality, “ich bin Berliner” means that one is a native or, at least, a permanent resident of Berlin, whereas Kennedy’s assertion that he, too, was a Berliner in spirit, is properly expressed as “ich bin (auch) ein Berliner.”

In a recently published book on t***slations and mist***slations, a native German and professional t***slator emphasized that “there was no mist***slation” in Kennedy’s speech.

In conclusion, I wholeheartedly support Prof. Eichhoff’s sentiment: “The Berlin Wall is no more. Now let us also put to rest the notion…that John F. Kennedy made a ‘most dramatic flub’ when…he told his audience that ‘[he was] a Berliner’.”

Reply
Apr 1, 2017 19:49:10   #
son of witless
 
slatten49 wrote:
I think it is fair to say that we are both dancing with semantics here, but words and their various implied meanings are pertinent in any discussion. "The difference between the almost right word and the right word is the difference between 'lightning' and the lightning bug." [quote attributed to Mark Twain]

To you, it may appear to be quibbling. But, however unintentional, the tea party did bring the ridicule upon themselves...even if undeserved.

Besides, gaffes are commonplace in the world of politics and jumped upon by each side.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...Regarding Kennedy's “Faux Pas”

But what about the “mistake”, where Kennedy supposedly called himself a jelly-filled donut? This incorrect interpretation did not surface for a full 25 years after the speech was given, and it came from a letter to the editor. In 1988, a man named Kenneth O’Neill wrote in a letter to the editor of Newsweek magazine: “To the Germans [‘Ich bin ein Berliner’] meant ‘I am a jelly doughnut’.” Just a few months later, the New York Times ran a full article entitled “I Am a Jelly-Filled Doughnut.” The fable took on a life of its own after this, in spite of attempts by German language specialists to refute it.

The controversy revolves around the principle that German does not normally use an article between the verb sein and a noun indicating occupation, nationality or place of origin. Thus, we say “I am an American,” but a German says “Ich bin Deutscher.” Mr. O’Neill apparently assumed that since Pres. Kennedy used the article ein, the people in the audience would automatically think he was not talking about nationality or place of origin, but rather some object called a “Berliner.” As it turns out, there is a very popular pastry in Germany which is like a hole-less doughnut filled inside with (usually) strawberry jelly and sprinkled with sugar, and which is called a “Berliner” in some parts of Germany. Hence, Mr. O’Neill stretched his imagination to assume that this was the only logical interpretation of JFK’s words, and the press was only too happy to pick up on a p**********l “blunder,” even if it was 25 years afterward.

Perhaps the definitive study on the “doughnut” question has been written by Jürgen Eichhoff, professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Prof. Eichhoff points out that the two German phrases used by JFK in his speech were t***slated for him by his interpreter, a native German who grew up in Berlin. Kennedy practiced the phrases several times in then-Mayor Willy Brandt’s offices before it was time to give the speech. He even wrote down on note cards the phonetic transcriptions of the phrases given to him by his interpreter. (Click here to view one of those cards.) Kennedy specifically chose the phrase “Ich bin ein Berliner” to make a clear parallel between Cicero’s significant declaration “civis Romanus sum,” which JFK quoted at the beginning of his speech, and the situation in West Berlin in 1963 A.D.

There are three primary reasons why no one in the audience that day in Schöneberg could have possibly understood anything other than exactly what Pres. Kennedy intended: context; German grammar; and German regional vocabulary use.

Context: No one in Berlin was thinking about pastries on the day the leader of the free world arrived in town. In the context of the speech as a whole, which talked about citizenship and freedom, and in the context of those fearful, uncertain days of the cold war and Berlin’s isolated situation some 100 miles within an unfriendly foreign nation, nothing but the primary meaning of the homonym Berliner could have been construed.

A modern corollary would be if Pres. Bush went to New York City after September 11, 2001 to express solidarity with the people of that city by standing next to Mayor Giuliani and saying “I, too, am a New Yorker.” It would be ludicrous to think that any person present would think Pres. Bush were referring to himself as a burrito.

German grammar. If Kennedy had said, “Ich bin Berliner,” he would have been stating that he had been born and raised in Berlin and that he was still a resident there. Of course, everyone in the audience knew this was not the case. By adding the ein, which his native German interpreter did for him, he was emphasizing in effect that, “Even though I was not born here and do not live here, nevertheless I am one of you.” This is exactly the meaning he intended to convey and the only meaning the native residents would have understood. Colleagues of mine in Berlin have confirmed this view.

Regional vocabulary usage. Although some Germans (and many Americans) refer to the pastry in question as a Berliner, people who live in Berlin or in any of the surrounding areas simply do not use that name. They predominantly use the term Pfannkuchen (pancake). A language map of German compiled during the 1970’s clearly shows that the term “Berliner” in reference to a pastry is used almost exclusively in the far western borders of the former West Germany. This situation is similar to the regional usage of pancake, hotcake, flap jack, or griddle cake in the U.S.

Another native German writer, and an expert on Berlin history, summarized the misunderstanding this way:

There is a persistent erroneous claim, repeated again most recently by Michael R. Beschloss, The Crisis Years: Kennedy, Khrushchev, 1960-1963 (New York, 1991), p. 606, that the phrase “ich bin ein Berliner” is incorrect and should have been “ich bin Berliner,” in part because Berliner also happens to be the word for a jelly roll. In actuality, “ich bin Berliner” means that one is a native or, at least, a permanent resident of Berlin, whereas Kennedy’s assertion that he, too, was a Berliner in spirit, is properly expressed as “ich bin (auch) ein Berliner.”

In a recently published book on t***slations and mist***slations, a native German and professional t***slator emphasized that “there was no mist***slation” in Kennedy’s speech.

In conclusion, I wholeheartedly support Prof. Eichhoff’s sentiment: “The Berlin Wall is no more. Now let us also put to rest the notion…that John F. Kennedy made a ‘most dramatic flub’ when…he told his audience that ‘[he was] a Berliner’.”
I think it is fair to say that we are both dancing... (show quote)


I am thinking that West Germans were too grateful and too polite at the time to point out the faux pas. They appreciated Kennedy's gesture and being in a needy position they would have been quite foolish to bring it up. However, imagine if John Kennedy's ideological foes were sitting around looking for an avenue of attack against President Kennedy. Calling him President Jelly Doughnut would be as funny as calling Tea Partyers, tea baggers. But he brought it on himself. A US President should be able to hire the best t***slators in the universe. How could this possibly happen? It certainly is more inexcusable than a grassroots organization not knowing the sexual context of tea bagger.

I still absolutely reject your premise that the Tea Partyers were in anyway to blame for the ridicule that their political enemies decided to send their way. Talk about blaming the victim.

Your example of President Bush possibly calling himself a burrito is poor. There is no correlation with Kennedy and German because even allowing for Bush's mangling of English and the sometimes strange New York dialects, t***slating Bush's Texas drawl into New Yorkese would not come up ever as a burrito.


Reply
Apr 1, 2017 20:36:33   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
son of witless wrote:
I am thinking that West Germans were too grateful and too polite at the time to point out the faux pas. They appreciated Kennedy's gesture and being in a needy position they would have been quite foolish to bring it up. However, imagine if John Kennedy's ideological foes were sitting around looking for an avenue of attack against President Kennedy. Calling him President Jelly Doughnut would be as funny as calling Tea Partyers, tea baggers. But he brought it on himself. A US President should be able to hire the best t***slators in the universe. How could this possibly happen? It certainly is more inexcusable than a grassroots organization not knowing the sexual context of tea bagger.

I still absolutely reject your premise that the Tea Partyers were in anyway to blame for the ridicule that their political enemies decided to send their way. Talk about blaming the victim.

Your example of President Bush possibly calling himself a burrito is poor. There is no correlation with Kennedy and German because even allowing for Bush's mangling of English and the sometimes strange New York dialects, t***slating Bush's Texas drawl into New Yorkese would not come up ever as a burrito.

I am thinking that West Germans were too grateful ... (show quote)


The example of President Bush possibly calling himself a burrito was indeed poor, but not mine. It was the author of the article that suggested as much.

However, and respectively, you can absolutely reject ('till the cows come home) that the self-proclaimed 'tea-baggers' left the door open for such ridicule ad nauseum, but you would be incorrect. It is not a question of whether they deserved it or not, but that they indeed left their political opponents an opportunity to pounce on their 'faux pas.' You should once again read the words of Jay Nordlinger, from the National Review, that place the origin of the term for its followers at the feet of the tea party organizers. Their being his words is why I put them in all caps.

And, once again, there was no "faux pas" from JFK, as you want/choose to believe.

From Thomas Putnam...

"Kennedy’s speechwriters had worked hard preparing a text for his speech, to be delivered in front of city hall. They sought to express solidarity with West Berlin’s plight without offending the Soviets, but striking that balance proved impossible. JFK was disappointed in the draft he was given. The American commandant in Berlin called the text 'terrible,' and the president agreed.

So he fashioned a new speech on his own. Previously, Kennedy had said that in Roman times, no claim was grander than “I am a citizen of Rome.” For his Berlin speech, he had considered using the German equivalent, 'I am a Berliner.'

Moments before taking the stage, during a respite in West Berlin Mayor Willy Brandt’s office, JFK jotted down a few words in Latin and—with a t***slator’s help—the German version, written phonetically: Ish bin ein Bearleener.

Afterward it would be suggested that Kennedy had got the t***slation wrong—that by using the article ein before the word Berliner, he had mistakenly called himself a jelly doughnut. In fact, Kennedy was correct. To state Ich bin Berliner would have suggested being born in Berlin, whereas adding the word ein implied being a Berliner in spirit. His audience understood that he meant to show his solidarity.

Emboldened by the moment and buoyed by the adoring crowd, he delivered one of the most inspiring speeches of his presidency. “Two thousand years ago, the proudest boast was ‘Civis Romanus sum,’  he proclaimed. 'Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is ‘Ich bin ein Berliner!’ ”

Or, from David Emery; Updated January 05, 2017

The Urban Legend of the Berliner-Jelly Doughnut Gaffe.

Did John F. Kennedy make a major German language blunder in his famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech in Berlin, Germany?

The story goes that JFK should have said "Ich bin Berliner" ("I am a citizen of Berlin"), and that "Ich bin ein Berliner" really means "I am a jelly doughnut." A Berliner is, in fact, a type of jelly doughnut made in Berlin. But was this an error and a source of amusement and embarrassment?

Notwithstanding reports to the contrary in such prestigious venues as the New York Times and Newsweek, this is truly The Gaffe That Never Was. Experts say Kennedy's grammar was flawless when he uttered those words on June 26, 1963. The phrase had been t***slated for him by a professional interpreter.

German-speakers point out that President Kennedy said the phrase absolutely correctly, although possibly with a thick American accent. The German language has subtleties that very few non-native speakers grasp. If President Kennedy had said "Ich bin Berliner," he would have sounded silly because with his heavy accent he couldn't possibly have come from Berlin. But by saying "Ich bin ein Berliner," he actually said "I am one with the people of Berlin." President Kennedy had a German journalist t***slate the phrase for him, and that journalist coached him at length on exactly how to say the phrase.

Reply
Apr 2, 2017 14:07:25   #
son of witless
 
slatten49 wrote:
The example of President Bush possibly calling himself a burrito was indeed poor, but not mine. It was the author of the article that suggested as much.

However, and respectively, you can absolutely reject ('till the cows come home) that the self-proclaimed 'tea-baggers' left the door open for such ridicule ad nauseum, but you would be incorrect. It is not a question of whether they deserved it or not, but that they indeed left their political opponents an opportunity to pounce on their 'faux pas.' You should once again read the words of Jay Nordlinger, from the National Review, that place the origin of the term for its followers at the feet of the tea party organizers. Their being his words is why I put them in all caps.

And, once again, there was no "faux pas" from JFK, as you want/choose to believe.

From Thomas Putnam...

"Kennedy’s speechwriters had worked hard preparing a text for his speech, to be delivered in front of city hall. They sought to express solidarity with West Berlin’s plight without offending the Soviets, but striking that balance proved impossible. JFK was disappointed in the draft he was given. The American commandant in Berlin called the text 'terrible,' and the president agreed.

So he fashioned a new speech on his own. Previously, Kennedy had said that in Roman times, no claim was grander than “I am a citizen of Rome.” For his Berlin speech, he had considered using the German equivalent, 'I am a Berliner.'

Moments before taking the stage, during a respite in West Berlin Mayor Willy Brandt’s office, JFK jotted down a few words in Latin and—with a t***slator’s help—the German version, written phonetically: Ish bin ein Bearleener.

Afterward it would be suggested that Kennedy had got the t***slation wrong—that by using the article ein before the word Berliner, he had mistakenly called himself a jelly doughnut. In fact, Kennedy was correct. To state Ich bin Berliner would have suggested being born in Berlin, whereas adding the word ein implied being a Berliner in spirit. His audience understood that he meant to show his solidarity.

Emboldened by the moment and buoyed by the adoring crowd, he delivered one of the most inspiring speeches of his presidency. “Two thousand years ago, the proudest boast was ‘Civis Romanus sum,’  he proclaimed. 'Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is ‘Ich bin ein Berliner!’ ”

Or, from David Emery; Updated January 05, 2017

The Urban Legend of the Berliner-Jelly Doughnut Gaffe.

Did John F. Kennedy make a major German language blunder in his famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech in Berlin, Germany?

The story goes that JFK should have said "Ich bin Berliner" ("I am a citizen of Berlin"), and that "Ich bin ein Berliner" really means "I am a jelly doughnut." A Berliner is, in fact, a type of jelly doughnut made in Berlin. But was this an error and a source of amusement and embarrassment?

Notwithstanding reports to the contrary in such prestigious venues as the New York Times and Newsweek, this is truly The Gaffe That Never Was. Experts say Kennedy's grammar was flawless when he uttered those words on June 26, 1963. The phrase had been t***slated for him by a professional interpreter.

German-speakers point out that President Kennedy said the phrase absolutely correctly, although possibly with a thick American accent. The German language has subtleties that very few non-native speakers grasp. If President Kennedy had said "Ich bin Berliner," he would have sounded silly because with his heavy accent he couldn't possibly have come from Berlin. But by saying "Ich bin ein Berliner," he actually said "I am one with the people of Berlin." President Kennedy had a German journalist t***slate the phrase for him, and that journalist coached him at length on exactly how to say the phrase.
The example of President Bush possibly calling him... (show quote)


So let me see if I follow the logic. Because some early Tea Party organizers used the term to describe sending teabags to political leaders without knowing it had another meaning that only, lets say sexual experimenters could possibly know, it is their fault that their ideological enemies used it to disparage them?

I will put it into another context, namely the N word. Some B****s use it in a familiar and common way. For a White to use it is considered r****t. The word has evolved from the Spanish word Niger meaning Black. Up until very recent times it was actually a neutral word. So now in our recent times everyone agrees on it's meaning. Which in some ways is a shame because now books written before 1900 when it had a different usage and meaning can no longer be read in public and certainly not in schools. The obvious examples are Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer.

But I got side tracked. I said some B****s routinely use it to describe themselves and fellow B****s. I have watched Black Comedians use it maybe 30 times per hour in front of a Black audience who were roaring with laughter. So should I now choose to use it to disparage all B****s and use the justification that all B****s have brought this on themselves because some B****s have used the N word?

Using your infallible logic, I can easily say that the use of the N word by me to ridicule all B****s is at least partly " self induced " on their part. Again I am merely taking your logic to it's lets say, A Logical Conclusion.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.