Euphemisms
aren't necessarilly anti-semantic
by
Howard Richler
In perhaps the most famous
political essay ever penned, George Orwell in his Politics
and the English Language
stated,“Political language is designed to make lies sound
truthful and murder respectable and to give an appearance of solidity
to pure wind.” But sometimes, “pure wind” is exactly the
prescription required. I'm not defending the use of horrific
euphemisms such as “ethnic cleansing,” “pacification” and
“final solution” that barely disguise murderous acts. Expressions
such as these should be avoided at all costs and a spade should be
called a spade rather than a subterranean digging device just as a
Nazi concentration camp should be referred to by the more accurate
term death camp.
So while it is easy to be
cynical about the intent of political euphemisms, at times they are
necessary. As politicians must heed public opinion, one must always
remember that words are not only a weapon of war but a required
political tool.
When we look back on
certain conflicts we suppose they enjoyed universal support in
their respective populaces, but rarely is this the case. For
example, as late as 1944, almost forty percent of Americans said
they favoured a negotiated peace with Germany, hence the specific
words used by the Roosevelt administration were crucial in swaying an
isolationist population's support for an overseas war.
Also,sometimes direct language is counter-productive if you want to
effect an agreement. When the Dayton Accord was signed between in
1996 between the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians, none of the
participants were prepared for the jarring reality of having the word
“partition” in the peace agreement, So they didn’t use it even
though the former country of Yugoslavia was effectively being
partitioned. Instead of partition, someone invented the term
“inter-entity agreement” and everybody was satisfied
notwithstanding that nobody knew what the heck it really meant. But
at least the lack of clarity allowed a pact to be consummated.
Another historical example
of the efficacy of political euphemism occurred during the Cuban
missile crisis in 1962 when the Americans instituted a “quarantine”
on ships travelling from the Soviet Union to Cuba rather than
declaring a “blockade.” Why? Theodore C. Sorensen explained in
his 1965 book Kennedy that
“The President... adopted the term 'quarantine' as less belligerent
and more applicable to an act of peaceful self-preservation than
'blockade' ” Sorensen could have added that instituting a
“blockade” was considered an act of war whereas instituting a
“quarantine” was only an attack on semantics.
This brings me around to
the crux of my article - our need for some creative word
phraseology in Canada. When referencing our health care system, all
national politicians avoid uttering the term “two-tier,” like a
vampire eschewing a cross. This reticence is notwithstanding the many
deficiencies therein and the fact that Canada represents the only
country aside from Cuba and North Korea that doesn't have a two-tier
health system. Also, the fact that many progressive European nations
with left-wing governments have installed health care systems with
two tiers that are far more efficient than Canada's and cheaper to
boot is blithely avoided by vote-lusting Members of Parliament. For,
in Canada, any elected official who admits that he/she is in favour
of a two-tier system is immediately excoriated as being un-Canadian
and possibly a mole for American Republicans.
Ergo, the solution is
simple. Banish the term “two-tier” from the Canadian political
vernacular. Let's just talk about “diversified-market health care.”
After all, our heterogenous population is more diverse than it has
ever been, so “diversified” may be le bon
mot we require.
Howard Richler's latest
book is Strange Bedfellows: The Private Lives
of Words
No comments:
Post a Comment