 |  | top stories | | 1 new story
no new comments | | etcetera | 2 new stories
31 new comments | | filmtv | 3 new stories
47 new comments | | media | 1 new story
44 new comments | | politics | 3 new stories
120 new comments | | scitech | 1 new story
3 new comments | | work | 2 new stories
28 new comments | |
| | | | | HOME Of The Brave, LAND Of The Free, WORD Of Empire Building | | | | | found on CNN
written by TheJazzPen, edited by Tim (Plastic) [ read unedited ]
posted Fri 15 Nov 4:48am | | | | |
 | "Well, it's almost official," TheJazzPen writes. "The US is about to become a Homeland. Not content with simply ruling a nation or country, the Bush team decided to pin this new moniker on Uncle Sam's lapel, seemingly out of nowhere. A Lexis-Nexis search for the word homeland in headlines of U.S. papers shows 818 instances in the past year, compared to just 187 instances in the year before Sept. 11, 2001 -- and in almost every one of those 187, homeland referred to an immigrant's country of origin somewhere else in the world.
"While the origin of this buzzword connoting Bush-style jingoism may be curious, understanding why the word is not popular for describing the US of A is easy. Merriam Webster defines the word as meaning 'native land' or 'a state or area set aside to be a state for a people of a particular national, cultural, or racial origin'. Worst of all, M-W chooses as a sole synonym the term Fatherland which needs no help sending shivers up even the most ardent Ashcroft supporter's spine.
"Even in its most innocent usage, homelands were foreign countries to which various American ethnic groups claimed linkage -- such as Ireland, Ghana or Tibet, and since its creation in the mid-20th century at least, Israel. What these homelands have in common is that they are dominantly and immediately identifiable with a single group -- either racial, ethnic or religious. The term often also implies the existence of a diaspora estranged from its ancestral home.
"So, what does this change in rhetoric imply? Is Bush (or some other member of his cabinet) trying to establish some kind of American ethnicity to send us off to global war under the rhetorical bonds of brotherhood? Was it a less-militaristic alternative to some similar word like homefront? Or is it just another poorly chosen word on the part of our national leadership?"
| |
[ more plastic... ] |
| | | | | | | 3. Sticks and stones may break my bones | | | | by chatsubo |  | | | at Fri 15 Nov 7:10am | score of 4 compelling | | | | | | |
but words do permanent damage.
My hat is off to Mr/Ms TheJazzPen for highlighting an important and worrying linguistic trend.
Speaking as an outsider, the traditional attraction to America was that it was the first post-European nation state (in terms of culture, not geography, smart arses) in the sense that it did not define itself through terms of volk or ethnicity, but in terms of a shared consensus when it comes to matters of ethics, morality and governance. America was not so much a nation, more a state of mind. An optimistic world view that found its fictional champion in Gene Rodenberry's multi-ethnic, multi-faith, democratic Federation.
Growing up in America, most Plasticans may well take this all for granted, but such a simple but powerful shift in the way we recognise statehood and a shared 'common bond' had and will continue to have a profound effect on human cultural evolution.
The Bush Administration crude attempts to suddenly retro-fit these outdated notions of homeland is not only unhelpful, but it is paying homage to the old mind sets of race and tradition that motivates the fundamentalists that would wish to destroy all the good that the USA stands for.
Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 36. OT: U.S. National Motto | | | | by tevenson |  | | | at Fri 15 Nov 3:30pm | score of 1.5 novel | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
America was not so much a nation, more a state of mind. An optimistic world view that found its fictional champion in Gene Rodenberry's multi-ethnic, multi-faith, democratic Federation.
Along these lines, I think someone in the U.S. should start lobbying to change our motto from "In God We Trust" back to the original "E Pluribus Unum". Any takers?
And, by the way, what's so wrong with the "Department of Domestic Security"? It's accurate and doesn't give everyone the willies.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 37. Re: OT: U.S. National Motto | | | | by MAYORBOB | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 3:32pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 36 | | | | | |
I don't know. The way things have been going over the past year or so, perhaps we should borrow more from our "champion" Gene Roddenberry and make our national motto, "Beam Me Up Scotty".
Tending to final details.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 49. Re: OT: U.S. National Motto | | | | by Attic Spider | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 8:18pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 36 | | | | | |
How about calling it the "Department of Defense", which would make sense? Then the present DoD could go back to being the "Department of War", as it ought to be.
Also, I completely agree with you that the new US motto is an awful, unconstitutional crock.
Aw, he looks like a little insane drunken angel.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 52. Department of Domestic Security? | | | | by TheMCP | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 8:47pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 36 | | | | | |
Many people find "security" to be scary.
I personally favor "Department of Public Safety", but really, anything other than "Homeland Security" - it gave me the screaming heebie jeebies the very first time I heard it, it's much too Germany 1938.
(The spell checker has "Heebie Jeebies"? Wow!)
End of line.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 41. mod mayorbob up to "brilliant"! | | | | by Mister Xian | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 4:00pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 37 | | | | | |
i am beginning to have this rather odd picture in my mind of the way that...oh dear god how i hate this word..."memes" have been engineered since this alleged nation was allegedly founded, with the intent to steer our shared (sort of) destiny. in this picture a few white men in powdered wigs quaff steins of dutch coffee laced with chocolate, smoke hemp voluminously, and envision thunderous libertine/libertarian slogans in latin, all of which escape the consciousness of the average colonist, freedman, woman, pirate, servant, slave, etc. much like the way that (c'mon, admit it) people like us here at plastic argue over the semiotics of the reality tv show that is american politics, while the rest of america zone out in front of football games, mtv2 and the latest "wow, war is like totally cool!" propaganda-doc on the discovery channel. meanwhile some purse-lipped puritan with his fingers twiddling the knobs conducts the actual, unchallenged work of manipulating both the thoughtless and the overthinking into accepting his version of reality.
i like the nomenclature territory, it is so blunt and ideologically neutral, and cognizant of our primeval pissings. the word choices of el presidente-para-la-vida jorge bush are only going to get worse as the war of information gets hotter, and the proverbial "war of words" takes on a whole new burroughsian meaning. the last territory for totalitarians to occupy is the reality map, and words are indeed their weapons. we can't smash words themselves and climb back into the trees, we have to all take up the pensword of poetic terrorism. if we need a national motto to preserve the ideal of liberty, then the national motto should indeed probably be something of roddenberry's--perhaps "the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many", or my favorite, "eed plebnista!"
the exquisite corpse shall drink the new wine.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 53. Re: OT: U.S. National Motto | | | | by stankow | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 9:16pm | score of 1.5 scholarly | | in reply to comment 49 | | | | | |
Then the present DoD could go back to being the "Department of War", as it ought to be. Actually, the Department of Defense comprises what used to be the Department of War and the Department of the Navy. The two were separate because the founding fathers considered the Army and Navy to be entirely separate, with very different functions.
Per the Constitution, Congress has the following powers as regards the military:
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; and
To provide and maintain a navy.
The lack of time limit for the Navy was because they knew that we'd always need a naval force to defend shipping, but they didn't want a standing army. The state militias would serve for immediate defense, with a national army only called up when it was absolutely needed.
As for why we don't go back to calling the military the Department of War, well, as this thread notes, words mean things. Do we want to scare ourselves with our "Department of Homeland Security" or scare the other six billion people in the world with our "Department of War"?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 64. Re: OT: U.S. National Motto | | | | by stankow | | | | at Sat 16 Nov 5:08am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 57 | | | | | |
You mean the Department of the Air Force that was established thanks to the National Security Act of 1947, which was also the act that established the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Council and... wait for it...
the Department of Defense?
Sorry, Erik -- not just my natural Army chauvinism there. The Air Force was never a Cabinet-level agency, and DoD itself recognizes that it was created when the Departments of War and the Navy were combined (though it was known as the National Military Establishment for a couple of years there).
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 69. Foundation myths & "The Homeland" | | | | by vurt | | | | at Sun 17 Nov 11:10am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
America was ... the first post-European nation state ... in the sense that it did not define itself through terms of volk or ethnicity, but in terms of a shared consensus when it comes to matters of ethics, morality and governance. America was not so much a nation, more a state of mind.
Hmm. In the interests of accuracy and shedding rose-colored visual aids, one is tempted to change some of the language here. I.e., from "America defining itself.." to "the white male elite that ruled the colonies defined America as..."
That way your post kind of works. Don't get me wrong; foundation myths are as important to political ideologies as they are to cults. But don't think for a second that it's ever been about anything other than rich white boys running the state. Your supposed "shared consensus" (itself an oxymoron) was an imposed consensus only made possible by silencing the majority--a political principle that has been carried on to this day even as the system has supposedly gotten more equal.
This whole "homeland" discourse just doesn't surprise me; it's a handy label for delineating all that which is "Other" and therefore dangerous (note how "foreign" and "strange" are practically interchangeable in English; it's my impressiuon that most other languages distinguish the two carefully), and simultaneously gives the status quo in the US--which has a lot that needs fixing--a hallowed, quasi-historical status that raises it above criticism.
Bringing back the poll tax, or war bonds, to pay for the war on terrorism--now that would be novel.
And if you're terminally bored / fall in behind the motorcade and lock the doors / money money!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 80. Re: Foundation myths & "The Homeland" | | | | by Xiamin | | | | at Mon 18 Nov 12:30pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 69 | | | | | |
note how "foreign" and "strange" are practically interchangeable in English; it's my impressiuon that most other languages distinguish the two carefully
Care to clarify what that impression is based on? We can see the same overlap in the Latin word alienus and in the Danish fremmed (a Danish-English dictionary is here) just to pick two I'm familiar with. What languages did you have in mind? I'm sure with some research I could come up with examples in the other Romantic and Germanic languages (don't expect me to do that for anything but German though, by research I mean actually learning the language)
It's quite possible to distinguish the two carefully in English, even without context (ie, 'foreign policy', as bizarre as it can be at times, is clear). While 'a foreign man' is somewhat unclear (though it sounds a bit too old fashioned for the 'strange' meaning), 'foreigner' is unambiguous. Likewise, 'weird', 'funny', and 'odd' all have little to do with 'foreign'.
'Did you come here alone?' 'No, I came with my bicycle.'
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 81. turns of phrase. | | | | by vurt | | | | at Mon 18 Nov 3:21pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 80 | | | | | |
What languages did you have in mind? I'm sure with some research I could come up with examples in the other Romantic and Germanic languages (don't expect me to do that for anything but German though, by research I mean actually learning the language)--well aren't we all terribly bright. Didn't mean to step on the resident linguist's toes. My bad.
"Most" may have been an overstatement, but:
I'm currently studying Hungarian, in which the two words are "kulfoldi" and "furcsa." You see absolutely none of the overlap between "strange" and "foreign" that you do in English.
Sure, it's possible to distinguish between the two as you point out. What I was getting at is that expressions like visiting a "strange country," etc., seems to me an elision more common in English than in other languages. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to argue that the discursive effect is to make the two synonymous in common usage--and this, I think, is more common to English than other languages.
E.g.: in German you have "fremde" vs. "auslandisch" (1), patently different.
The words derive from the same stem in Russian-- 'strannij' and 'inostrannij'--but you still see a very significant delineation between the two affective categories.
Care to clarify what that impression is based on?--that do ya? These are the languages I consider myself at least half-assed at; I seem to remember the French also distinguishing between 'etrange' and [whatever else], but I forget what [whatever else] is. Quelle domage.
___
(1) N.B. 'fremde' is used in the sense of "foreign" in some compound words.
And if you're terminally bored / fall in behind the motorcade and lock the doors / money money!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 82. Re: turns of phrase. | | | | by Xiamin | | | | at Mon 18 Nov 4:31pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 81 | | | | | |
In my rush to actually put my education to use, I might've not been clear enough about my main point. It's easy to come up with examples either way. I found some words in Latin and Danish that cover both 'other-country' and 'weird' senses. I also supplied examples in English that do not suffer from the issue you raised. It's all well and good to go on about how the English language blurs the line between strangers and foreigners more than other languages (I would say 'most' is a stretch, but then I only know as many languages as you do it seems, so I'm not in much position to be definite about it) but you need some substance to back it up. I still find that lacking. As I said earlier, we have plenty of words that differentiate in English. Likewise I can contradict my Danish example with maerkligt (strange, noteworthy) and udlander (from another country, similar to auslander). You even note that fremde (which I'd guess is related to the Danish fremmed) can have the sense of 'foreign'.
In short, I don't think you have much of a point.
'Did you come here alone?' 'No, I came with my bicycle.'
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 83. Re: turns of phrase. | | | | by zyxwvutsr | | | | at Mon 18 Nov 4:36pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 81 | | | | | |
' What I was getting at is that expressions like visiting a "strange country," etc., seems to me an elision more common in English than in other languages.' If you wished to demonstrate the indistinguishability of "foreign" and "strange" you could hardly choose a worse example.
When one says that he will visit a "strange country" it is said in the sense that strange means unknown, that is, never visited. Once a person has visited a strange country it is no longer strange, but it is still foreign.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 4. A reason the word doesn't ring true for most. | | | | by MAYORBOB | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 7:11am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
For most Americans, the U.S. has always been the country that people from around the world strive to come to. Whether it be for religious or political freedom or for a better economic prospect for them and their families, America has always been the destination for the rest of the world. That's the general myth and legend of why people come to America.
Homeland, as a term, generally has meant the place where you come from. In my experience, America has always meant home to me. Whenever I would use the term homeland (which wasn't often) I would likely be referring to Wales or Scotland (the lands that my ancestors came from). My wife's experience was to refer to the U.S. as home and Sicily and the Ukraine as the homeland.
I'm not sure that the word is awkward due to any connection with Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. I believe the term that they used to describe their respective homes were "Fatherland" and "Motherland".
I believe the word received its currency from a report that was released prior to September 11th that spoke to the need for a more coordinated and comprehensive Homeland security arrangement.
Tending to final details.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 5. Relax | | | | by 0tim0 |  | | | at Fri 15 Nov 7:16am | score of 2 disingenuous | | | | | | |
My god, why does everything have to be a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' around here? There is a good reason for the use of the word 'homeland': it is descriptive.
The US was the victim of a successful attack on its soil. That is something new. The last time that happened was in th 40s -- and in that case it was at a military base in a satelite state.
The declaration of war on America by the bin Laden has stimulated the need for a concerted effort to protect us from attacks on our soil. The most obvious name for this effort is 'Department of Defense', unfortunately that name is already being used by an entity with a different charter. Most of our 'defense' efforts have, in the past 50 years, been in defending our allies on their soil.
'Homeland' seems as good of a word as any, to me. What would you have used?
--t
"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 8. Re: Relax | | | | by MandaX |  | | | at Fri 15 Nov 7:52am | score of 3.5 compelling | | in reply to comment 5 | | | | | |
'Homeland' seems as good of a word as any, to me. What would you have used?
How about "Ministry of Peace?" No, no, I'm kidding. I would've said "Domestic Security Agency," myself. We're talking about security within the borders of the U.S., so that term seems most neutrally descriptive to me. Maybe it's a little too close to "National Security Agency," but that's merely representative of the foolishness of adding another layer of bureaucracy in hopes of solving problems caused by multiple layers of bureaucracy.
But then again, I can't say that "neutrally descriptive" is what the Adminstration is going for here. As for the term "homeland" itself, I agree that it's ridiculous to suggest that anybody wants to cozily associate themselves with Nazi rhetoric. What grates on me about the term is not its "ein volk, ein reich" tinge--the allusion to the concept of "fatherland" or the denotation of a particular ethnic group is not one that I would've picked up on. To me "homeland" conjures up a homespun, cutesy, Dubya's-just-regular-folks image for what is really an instance of everything Republicans are supposed to not represent, i.e. Big Government. They might as well have named it "Homestead Security," or maybe "The Fellas Who Guard the Back Forty."
I think we're going crazy, things don't even faze me.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 12. Re: Relax | | | | by 0tim0 | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 8:38am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 8 | | | | | |
To me "homeland" conjures up a homespun, cutesy, Dubya's-just-regular-folks image for what is really an instance of everything Republicans are supposed to not represent, i.e. Big Government.
I think you are right in one sense. They wanted to name it something that people wouldn't be afraid of. "Domestic Security Agency" sounds a little nefarious, especially to the ant-big-government types. But you have to admit, the Republican platform has always been strong on self-defense. So I wouldn't say this goes against what Republicans are supposed to represent.
On the other hand, I'm starting to fall in love with the name "The Fellas Who Guard the Back Forty." That's a good one.
--t
"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 11. Re: Relax | | | | by 0tim0 | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 8:32am | score of 1 disingenuous | | in reply to comment 10 | | | | | |
Yeah, I'm sure if he called it "Republic Security", or "Democracy Security Agency" or "United States of America Security Administration", you guys would be less critical.
--t
"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 40. Re: Relax | | | | by holgate | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 3:47pm | score of 1.5 scholarly | | in reply to comment 5 | | | | | |
'Homeland' seems as good of a word as any, to me. What would you have used?
Well, in Britain, you have the 'Home Office', which deals with crime, policing, domestic defence, immigration etc. And that doesn't have the odd germanic ring of 'homeland'. Now, you could call it 'Internal Security', but that has shades of totalitarian bureacracy, or 'Domestic Security', which isn't as Latinate as it seems at first reading, since we use 'domestic' to refer to the kitchen and similar: 'domestic' means 'homely'. But I suspect that 'Domestic Security', which reads just fine to me, was rejected for sounding too damn Latin and book-lern'd.
But 'Homeland' is a slightly awkward rendering, I think, of the German Heimat, which is the sort-of affectionate 'home-y', much less charged than Vaterland, and basically means 'home-is-where-the-heart-is-home'. (The kind of 'home' that Simon and Garfunkel talk about in 'Homeward Bound'.)
I remember, actually, that while at college, there'd be a shorthand to clear up confusion: 'home' was where you lived in Oxford, and 'home home' was back to the family. And that sort of does the trick.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 46. agree with your words, not the 'feeling' | | | | by box | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 5:48pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 5 | | | | | |
What you say is valid on paper. "big deal" - it's just an innocuous word.
But here are the feelings I get when I hear someone like Bush talk about the "Homeland";
us versus them
'the fatherland'
imperialistic expansion
I don't think those feelings should come up as the result of a word used to describe America.
America is a bigger idea than the idea of a "homeland". It's an idea so much bigger in fact, that I don't think most of us Americans really get it. In fact, I'm pretty sure our President doesn't.
But those are just my "feelings".
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 58. Re: Relax | | | | by nathanTeske | | | | at Sat 16 Nov 1:42am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 5 | | | | | |
'Homeland' seems as good of a word as any, to me. What would you have used?
Probably the simple and very governmental 'The Office of Domestic Security'; 'Homeland Security' is pure marketing glitz. But if glitz is your thing, I suggest 'The Office of Domestic Tranquility', making the obvious parallel to the Preamble.
But can you hit me with your bust of Kant and at the same time will it a universalizable maxim?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 67. Re: Relax | | | | by superdude | | | | at Sat 16 Nov 9:21am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 5 | | | | | |
My god, why does everything have to be a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' around here? There is a good reason for the use of the word 'homeland': it is descriptive.
I don't think it's a conspiracy, but the president's choice of the word "homeland" is one of many verbal gaffes that are a manifestation of his imperviousness to nuance. Germans have a homeland: They come from Germany. Russians have a homeland: They come from Russia. Americans do not have a homeland in that sense. Our nationhood is defined by ideas, not by our connection to a certain piece of soil. This has always been a point of pride for us. It's at the core of what it means to be an American. It's what sets us apart from the Old World that we broke away from.
Fortunately, I think the ideas on which America is based are strong enough to withstand having a national agency with the word "Homeland" in it. And we've survived bad presidents before, although few were as bad as this one.
What's alarming is that this gaffe is part of a larger pattern. When he was running for president, he couldn't name the prime minister of India, the second most populous country in the world, world's largest democracy, and an increasingly important trading partner. He couldn't name the president of Pakistan, a country which, it later turned out, it is important for him to have some knowledge of. During a trip to South America, he was apparently surprised to find out that there are black people in Brazil. After September 11, he termed US efforts to eradicate terrorism a "crusade," apparently oblivious to the primary sense of the word: Christian armies hacking their way through the Middle East to take the holy land from the Muslims. People in the Middle East are certainly not oblivious to the connotations of this word.
I could go on and on. The president rarely gives a press conference, because to do so would require him to make unscripted remarks, which would inevitably require his aides to give several follow-up conferences to explain that the President didn't really mean what he said. Did he mean it when he committed the US to bringing about "regime change" in Iraq, without a resolution from Congress or backing from the Security Council? I guess we'll find out soon.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 7. The evidence is thin | | | | by zyxwvutsr | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 7:35am | score of 2.5 incoherent | | | | | | |
'So, what does this change in rhetoric imply? Is Bush (or some other member of his cabinet) trying to establish some kind of American ethnicity to send us off to global war under the rhetorical bonds of brotherhood?' By rhetoric you can only mean the base rhetoric of this writeup.
There are links aplenty above, and I will say that this writeup is well written, literate, and quite clever. But the fact is that not one of the links provides any information whatsoever that anyone in the Bush Administration is attempting to, "establish some kind of American ethnicity." That being the case, I can only assume that such an effort exists solely in the mind of TheJazzPen
Does anyone really believe that Bush really wanted to use the word "Fatherland," but decided to consult a thesaurus to slip it by the American public? As another comment noted, you've got to call Tom Ridge's organization something: Department of Domestic Security is the only other obvious choice that occurs to me. Anyone else got any better ideas?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 17. Re: The evidence is thin | | | | by stankow | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 9:27am | score of 1.5 irrelevant | | in reply to comment 14 | | | | | |
Which perception is that? Your perception, that Bush had no intention of using the word "Fatherland," but that you can use it to make snide comments anyway? Or the perception of those poor benighted fools who aren't as enlightened as yourself?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 19. Re: The evidence is thin | | | | by daedra | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 9:40am | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 17 | | | | | |
those poor benighted fools who aren't as enlightened as yourself?
Hey, Leave the hoi polloi out of this! ;-)
Looks like i got caught in the cross fire. I don't really have anything snide to say about this - it does seem to be a tempest in a teapot, but i would have chosen a more neutral word since (as evidenced by this thread) a lot of people do think there is an agenda behind the word "homeland." I mean there is even a term for this: "diplomatic language."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 42. Re: The evidence is thin | | | | by eduardo | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 4:21pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 19 | | | | | |
I mean there is even a term for this: "diplomatic language."
And all the more respect to Bush for not giving a shit about it. Remember early on he called for a Crussade against terror, and everyone was upset, and then we called it war on terror and everything was fine?
Personally I don't give a fuck what you call the "effort" or the "department." If the best evidence of Bush's "evil plans" they can come up with is the term HOMELAND (which by the I have no problem with. This LAND is my HOME. So it's my homeland. Please make it secure. So homeland security is what I want!) then they don't have a very strong case.
If these symbols mean so much to you, why don't you go fold a $20 bill so it shows the trade center towers collapsing. Clearly the gov't knew.
J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 48. Re: The evidence is thin | | | | by daedra | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 6:32pm | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 42 | | | | | |
Relax. Personally, it did not even occur to me that there might be some kind of sinister agenda behind the word "homeland." Here's a thought. From a purely pragmatic, non-partisan point of view, it is politically expedient to use appropriate and universal symbolism when naming powerful organizations that are likely to play a major role in domestic and international affairs. "Homeland Security" is appropriate, but as it turns out it, not universally so: it triggers negative connotations in some people. Now whether or not you think that matters little or a lot, or care what these other people think, are separate questions. You'd think the "crusade" and "infinite justice" episodes would have taught the White House opinion spinners something about selling US foreign policy abroad.
If these symbols mean so much to you, why don't you go fold a $20 bill so it shows the trade center towers collapsing. Clearly the gov't knew.
This is not so much a response to the above, as a general observation:
You like to brag about how you live in NYC, and "was nearby" (or whatever) on 9/11 and had to "breathe human ash" for three months afterwards, and blah, blah, blah, "look at me I am authentic, i tell it like it is!" Give it a rest and go drunk driving with your modelesque gf in your low-life buddy's mercedes on the LIE while dispensing driving advice to your friends. On second thought, leave the gf at home, she didn't do anything wrong. Leave the debating to grown ups.
Yes i live in NYC. Yes i saw, heard, and smelled the same things you did.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 50. Re: The evidence is thin | | | | by eduardo | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 8:38pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 48 | | | | | |
Relax. Personally, it did not even occur to me that there might be some kind of sinister agenda behind the word "homeland."
Never said YOU did. That's just what this thread is about.
Here's a thought. From a purely pragmatic, non-partisan point of view, it is politically expedient to use appropriate and universal symbolism when naming powerful organizations that are likely to play a major role in domestic and international affairs.
Agreed.
Homeland Security" is appropriate, but as it turns out it, not universally so: it triggers negative connotations in some people.
And it is my opinion that those people are foolish.
Now whether or not you think that matters little or a lot, or care what these other people think, are separate questions.
Actually, that's pretty much the question that I was addressing.
You'd think the "crusade" and "infinite justice" episodes would have taught the White House opinion spinners something about selling US foreign policy abroad.
a. I don't think using the term "crusade" was a big fiasco, though of course I can see why some were upset by it. Ultimately, you can call it "cherry picking" for all I care. Or is it OK to bomb people as long as we avoid using a term that may be considered negative? I totally agree with you that using good names is a good idea. What I don't agree is this obsession with a name you percieve to be bad. Who cares? You can call Homeland Security Dept. "Komitet Gosudarstvenoy Bezopasnosti" (actually, really does translate to the same thing) and it won't creep me out. On the other hand, call it "Puppies and cake commission" and it'll creep me out when people start dissapearing in the middle of the night.
b. Are we selling Homeland Security abroad?
This is not so much a response to the above, as a general observation:
Right. Because somehow that's relevant.
You like to brag about how you live in NYC, and "was nearby" (or whatever) on 9/11 and had to "breathe human ash" for three months afterwards, and blah, blah, blah, "look at me I am authentic, i tell it like it is!"
Fuck you.
Give it a rest and go drunk driving with your modelesque gf in your low-life buddy's mercedes on the LIE while dispensing driving advice to your friends
Nothing's more insulting to one's character than mentioning fast cars and tall women. And he's not a low life.
On second thought, leave the gf at home, she didn't do anything wrong
She kinda does what she wants, you know?
Leave the debating to grown ups.
The funny thing is, you and I don't disagree all that much. If you didn't bug out and try to get personal, we'd actually manage some debating/talking. See my addressing of your points, above.
Yes i live in NYC. Yes i saw, heard, and smelled the same things you did.
Umm... I am sorry you had to go through that. I am sorry I did, too.
J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 73. Re: The evidence is thin | | | | by snarkism | | | | at Sun 17 Nov 6:47pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 42 | | | | | |
Remember early on he called for a Crussade against terror, and everyone was upset, and then we called it war on terror
Yes, clearly.
and everything was fine?
Don't remember that part.
snarkism
That's using your ass.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 16. Thesaurus? Those're extinct ain't they. | | | | by 1fastdog | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 9:21am | score of 1.5 witty | | in reply to comment 7 | | | | | |
Does anyone really believe that Bush really wanted to use the word "Fatherland," but decided to consult a thesaurus to slip it by the American public?
Heh heh...I don't believe W has ever consulted a thesaurus for any reason, especially "to slip it by the American public" as you put it. W's record clearly shows that he can slip whatever kinda mangled language (or manglage as W hisself would probably say) he wants by the American public, and that they'll continue to love him for/despite it.
Tipping The Bottle & Biting The Lime
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 74. Re: Thesaurus? Those're extinct ain't they. | | | | by snarkism | | | | at Sun 17 Nov 6:57pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 16 | | | | | |
W's record clearly shows that he can slip whatever kinda mangled language (or manglage as W hisself would probably say)
Maybe GW isn't the Zaphod Beeblebrox of presidents, but more of a Don King of presidents?
"We have before us a plan to securitize our splendiferous Homeland in that name of our Founding Fatherinos. Let it be known that we shall crusade against the terrorocracy of our schematizing foes who wish to defeat us with their mass destuctionism and laying down of nefarious plottage on our feisty hamlet-nation."
snarkism
That's using your ass.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 9. I dunno... | | | | by chasing | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 7:57am | score of 1.5 brilliant | | | | | | |
Call me crazy, but maybe they were hoping to secure the land that is our home? Sure, "homeland" doesn't quite ring right to me, and the Bush team's usage of it doesn't quite fit with the way most Americans have used it, but so what? English is not a static language - I'm sure it can absorb this. And I'm sure we can, too.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 13. An American Soul Needs No Homeland | | | | by Gorvernaut | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 9:08am | score of 4.5 brilliant | | | | | | |
I don't like the term "Homeland Security" because Americans don't have a homeland. Sure, we've got the geographical region encompassed by the United States, its territories, dependents, etc., but our consciousness of being an American is not tied to that area.
America is pretty unique in this sense. Other nations are bound together by a sense of shared geography, history and culture. But Americans come from many lands, they bring with them different histories and cultures. What makes us a nation is our consent to govern ourselves according to the same constitution.
By constitution, I don't mean the document encased in glass at the National Archives. That's just the portion committed to paper. I mean the values we hold dear, like equality, justice, liberty, and the rule of law. We by no means agree what those things mean, but we nonetheless esteem them highly appeal to them in our public discourse.
That public discourse is precisely what makes us Americans. You could take away our "homeland" and we could still be Americans. But if you take away our ongoing struggle to "secure the blessings of the liberty, for ourselves and our posterity," well, then we've ceases to be Americans.
But so what? "Homeland" is just a word! True, but it's a misleading and deceptive word. It suggests that the real threats lie to our territorial integrity, not to our institutional integrity. And therein lies the great divide of opinion on how the "war on terror" should be fought. If you're just looking to hold on to a bit of turf, then curtailment of civil liberties is par for the course. If you believe this is a war to determine whether an tolerant, liberal, democratic society can survive the homicidal onslaught of those who despise what we hold dear, then winning this war means more than closing the borders and frying the bastards. It means bringing terrorists to justice and bringing justice to those places where injustice breeds terrorists.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 25. Re: An American Soul Needs No Homeland | | | | by chasing | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 11:51am | score of 1.5 | | in reply to comment 13 | | | | | |
I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure how much of it is a part of the myth of America, and how much of it is real. I'm an American, yes, and my blood has flowed to this point via other countries, true, but this is my home. I don't come from anywhere but here. And if I were to somehow opt-out of this nation and the consent to govern ourselves via the constitution, it's not like I could actually default to anywhere else. In a sense, Ireland is my "homeland" - the mythical, romantic sense. But it's not like I could just pop in and say I deserve a place in that society, just because an ancestor left there some time ago. They'd laugh at me, and rightly so. I'm an American, this is where I'm from, it's a hunk of land, and it's my home. Is it more? I truly believe so, yes. But whatever else it is, it is my homeland still.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 27. Re: An American Soul Needs No Homeland | | | | by Gorvernaut | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 12:50pm | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 25 | | | | | |
But are you tied to a piece of geography? I agree that I wouldn't feel "at home" in a foreign country, but I wouldn't feel "at home" in the US if it became a place that completely disavowed its principles. Maybe that's part of our own myth, but to a great extent, a people's identity arises from their myths! These myths are the stories we tell about ourselves that define who we are. The American myths define us not as "the people who occupy such and such a place" but as "the people who agree to be governed in such and such a way". The term "homeland" fixes American identity in a place, not an ideal, which is why the term distorts and misleads.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 29. Re: An American Soul Needs No Homeland | | | | by chasing | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 1:54pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 27 | | | | | |
I do agree that mythology is an important part of identity, and I do agree to a certain extent with what you're saying regarding "homeland", but still I feel that this is my home, and land is a part of it as there are bits of this earth I'd probably die to defend as "home", and bits I wouldn't. But I do also understand that the concept of America is greater (and perhaps Europe is getting that way, too?) - in that the country can grow beyond current boundaries, and the new bits would be just as much America as the old in most significant ways.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 33. Re: An American Soul Needs No Homeland | | | | by Violator | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 3:07pm | score of 1.5 interesting | | in reply to comment 13 | | | | | |
I get what you are saying about the division of the war on some people's terror on territorial grounds and on emotional, even moral grounds. For that is what you are saying is it not, that the moral right for America to exist is in some way encompassed in the transparent nobility of a document and the values it enshrines?
Its like you are saying "Our forefathers wanted peace, liberty and justice for all. And that's what we've got. And people are attacking us not for our territory but for our adherence to peace, liberty and justice."
Wrong.
You are talking like a Crusader, excuse the epithet, about taking justice to dark places, bringing the torch of the American constitution into the cave of Islamic democracy or monarchy, almost as if it was the panacea.
The War on Terror, and its domestic institution the Homeland Security Agency, is not about justice. Its about revenge. I'm not saying the revenge isn't justified, but it is hardly just to blow up Afghan weddings to make wrong a wrong committed against America.
For this reason I think the homeland thing is more or less just a word. Bush needs to shore up the home front (a term used ubiquitously in Britain in WW1 and WW2 to describe the national defence, infrastructure and society) against terrorists. He can't deploy flak batteries and SAM's against terrorists, so he needs to use screw heads and the FBI, but the idea is the same - you can't prosecute a far-field blitz if your rear areas are vulnerable.
I really think it ought to be called SAMGDA the "Skyscraper, Airport, Mall and Government Defense Authority". Precious few suburbanites or farmers will ever be killed in the line of duty in the war on terror.
Consistently modded down for being an asshole since 2003
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 38. Re: An American Soul Needs No Homeland | | | | by Gorvernaut | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 3:35pm | score of 1.5 interesting | | in reply to comment 33 | | | | | |
You are talking like a Crusader, excuse the epithet, about taking justice to dark places, bringing the torch of the American constitution into the cave of Islamic democracy or monarchy, almost as if it was the panacea.
We don't need to impose our constitutional values on other countries to win the war on terror. We do need to insure that everyone enjoys the right to live in a functioning civil society where the rule of law protects at least minimal human rights. That's easier said than done. Nobody ever said it would be. But until we begin to think seriously of what kind of world we want to live in, victory over terror (real or imagined) is impossible.
The War on Terror, and its domestic institution the Homeland Security Agency, is not about justice. Its about revenge. I'm not saying the revenge isn't justified, but it is hardly just to blow up Afghan weddings to make wrong a wrong committed against America.
I absolutely agree. When we bomb innocent civilians (even by mistake), abandon due process for secret tribunals, and lobby to wage wars, we betray our principles and aid the terrorists. They thrive in a world order where power replaces justice.
To the extent that "securing a homeland" distorts our thinking and distracts us from living our values, "homeland security" is a poor turn of phrase.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | 24. Cue Conrad Veidt | | | | by Azathoth | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 11:41am | score of 1 modappeal | | | | | | |
singing "Wacht am Rhein" at Rick's American Cafe:
Lieb' Vaterland, magst ruhig sein,
Lieb' Vaterland, magst ruhig sein,
A hundred thousand hearts beat fast,
The eyes of all to you are cast.
American youth, loyal and strong
Protects you, as he has so long.
Chorus: Beloved Homeland, no danger thine;
Your watch is true, the guard stands here.
While flows one drop of American blood,
Or sword remains to guard thy flood,
While guns rest in patriot hands,
No foe shall tread thy sacred strand!
Chorus: Beloved Homeland, no danger thine;
Your watch is true, the guard stands here.
But really, we do need to pull together behind Bush. One people, one nation, one leader.
We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 31. Offtopic note | | | | by sulli |  | | | at Fri 15 Nov 2:48pm | score of 0.5 incoherent | | in reply to comment 24 | | | | | |
We Yale alums sing that song all the time, with different words. Yale's alma mater, "Bright College Years," was written to that tune in the late 1800s - long before WWI, when it became a symbol of German militarism.
Tout abus sera puni
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 56. Re: Cue Conrad Veidt | | | | by StofCircumstance | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 10:53pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 24 | | | | | |
But really, we do need to pull together behind Bush. One people, one nation, one leader.
Dear God.
That's not funny at all, that's my worst nightmare come true. To think that such volkist ideology could take root here in the US? There is nothing worse that I can think of.
And, no we do not need to all get behind Bush. A good many of us need to just stand off to the side, watching the sheep make mistakes someone else will have to clean up for them. Someone like those of us standing off to the side, watching.
Let's get realistic. The term HOMELAND in Dubya's administration, has nothing to do with Germany, or Nazism in general. (Though one does wonder about Mr. Ashcroft...) The term was picked by some psychologist in the staff. That little fucker picked the world "homeland" for one reason; to make everyone think about America in a new way. Including people overseas.
Let me ask the Plastiverse this. At what point do we grant that Americans come from America?
In my own case, I'm sixth generation on my father's side, and fourth on my mother's. My lineage is Jewish, regardless of what countries my progentitors may have dwelled in. However, I owe Israel no allegiance; it is not my homeland. So, at what point, generationally speaking, do I get to refer to America as my homeland, if not already.
Isn't 226 years enough time?
Much has been said about how America is different because of varying gene pools, ethnicities, yada, yada, yada. Forgive me, but isn't this the MELTING POT???? Have we all forgotten what that appellation is supposed to mean? The idea was, once you're here, you're an American. "Yay! WElcome home, brother. Now that you're an American, it doesn't matter where you came from, what you believe, or how you choose to live your life, we'll take you in and make you feel at home." WHy? BECAUSE THIS IS HOME.
All I am saying is that while the ideals and whatnot that made America a unique country DO set it apart, I do not see how they deny calling America a homeland. M-W be damned; it's just a dictionary. The words are important, I agree. However, I do not agree that we are invoking some sinister thing by referring to the US as a homeland.
The fact is, if they took away the geography, where could we go and still be an American, living under the laws and ideals we love so much? That's the thing about land, God's not making any more of it; it's that precious. And, the particular that the US occupies is special, if for no other reason than that. The laws work here because the land belongs to us as a country. Take away that land, and the laws are not enforceable, just advisory.
Sure, we could live with just some good advisory ideas, but where? In someone else's country, where we'd be subject to their laws, their ideals, their way of looking at the world.
I've seen what that looks like. I've seen what being tenants on borrowed time does to a people. Argue what you will, I'll be proud to call America my homeland (as soon as someone figures out the math...)
Zen Happens
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 78. Re: Cue Conrad Veidt | | | | by snarkism | | | | at Sun 17 Nov 11:38pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 56 | | | | | |
The fact is, if they took away the geography, where could we go and still be an American, living under the laws and ideals we love so much?
Practically any developed, Western country. There are little Americas all of the world - who needs the real thing? After all, most of the culture is televisual, and therefore globally transportable without any geography required. Just TV screens.
snarkism
That's using your ass.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 79. Re: Cue Conrad Veidt | | | | by StofCircumstance | | | | at Mon 18 Nov 11:43am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 78 | | | | | |
You fail to see the point I was attempting to make. Therefore, I will try to be more clear.
YES, you could go somewhere, like England, and try to retain the cultural values of America. Or you could try France, or Canada, or Italy, or whereever. You might even succeed, though I doubt it. As far as I can tell, if you were not in a completely American place, owned and run by Americans (and not subject to the rules of another State) you would be inadvertently exposed to some other culture, some other way of living. Attendant to that, your own way of "American cultural life" would be informed, and ultimately transformed, by it.
However, the point I was making is more properly one of government. In this country, we are free to do and say things that no other country would allow. That is, in the sum total of our freedoms. Certainly, other countries allow similar rights to the US. Yet, the rights and privileges they afford their citizens are either "incomplete" (viewed through the American lens) or non-existent (in the sum total.)
The point I have tried to make is that the very laws we are governed by have fostered our culture, helped it to grow, and have created a unique situation of liberal activity and thought. That is to say, there are certainly other places with similarly liberal attitudes and such, yet the laws of those countries tend to restrict the people in ways ours do not.
For ex-patriot Americans, there is no longer the inalienable rights they once enjoyed, in total. Some of those rights are abridged, encumbered, or outright abrogated. To say that we do not need America to be fully American is inaccurate, in this light.
At least, that's how I see things. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Zen Happens
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 68. You're under arrest! | | | | by rmurf62 | | | | at Sat 16 Nov 10:45am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 24 | | | | | |
You know, if German Federal law can be applied to the internet, you've just broken the law that prohibits singing the "Wacht am Rhein" in Deutschland. (Take a quick guess what the other illegal song is.) On top of that, you've probably just violated some section of the PATRIOT act which makes it illegal to question the U.S. government. So, come along quietly now. Camp X-ray West awaits.
YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | 30. happy talk run amok | | | | by hermenewt | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 2:43pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Lest one get the impression that only whiney, effete, Bush haters are making a fuss over the word "homeland," sturdy conservatives like Peggy Noonan and Mickey Kaus have been expressing disdain for the term as well. Kaus, who calls it a "creepy, morale-sapping word," has this to say about the teutonic overtones: "My father fought in a bloody war so I wouldn't have to be a German. Why is the Bush administration telling me I need to be German now?"
What bothers me about it is not that it's intended to evoke heimat, fatherland, or other chill-inducing words, but that the Bushies no doubt intended it to sound warm and fuzzy, or at least neutral. Kind of like "heartland," only including the "blue states" as well. Like his "crusade" gaffe, I could well imagine Bush giving a speech rhapsodizing about American "blood and soil" and have no inkling (and no care) of the fascist connotations he's invoking.
Ultimately, however, it is just a word, and words tend to take on new meanings through usage, despite the best or worst intentions of those who introduce them.
As a side note, it seemed that for a while the New York Times was tacitly boycotting the phrase, calling Ridge the head of "domestic security" or some such generic term. Anyone else notice this?
different(42), human(37), language(37), always(33), every(32), article(32)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 35. Re: happy talk run amok | | | | by shadarr | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 3:17pm | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 30 | | | | | |
"words tend to take on new meanings through usage"
Since the Department of Homeland Security is itself creepy and morale-sapping, I don't think the word will be getting any new meanings in the near future.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 34. Some etymology | | | | by Minivet | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 3:10pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
"Homeland," apart from referring to some foreign country or locality, became used to refer to America by missile-defense specialists and enthusiasts. That's one reason for the Bush team's enthusiasm for it; they spring from a nearby ideological well.
On the other hand, the word was used a good deal by that infamous bipartisan group that came damn close to predicting 9/11, and in various other talk of terrorist attacks on our soil at the time. Maybe this current development was inevitable, at least to a certain extent.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 39. "Homeland" = place of your birth | | | | by Philosawyer | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 3:36pm | score of 2 scholarly | | | | | | |
Although there variations in the definition the main definition is place of birth, or more expansively place of your ancestors birth. In other words the meaning excludes those Americans who immigrated and tends to exclude first generation Americans and/or those whoidentify with ancestry elsewhere.
Is it just a matter of semantics? If that were the case why is the Republican National Committee in such a tizzy about the use of the word "privatization" despite having it used it themselves to describe exactly the same policy. a www.plastic.com link No pun intended but the subject matter in this case hits much closer to home.
Whether intended or not the term is nativist by its very nature and jingoistic by implication. Even if you dont agree with that the use of the word in this context simply is not accurate. Yes they are trying to change the meaning of a word in the English language while still using the nationalistic appeal of the word. Whether or not intended it is not an accident that the term homeland and other variations are staples of nationalist propaganda.
homeland Pronunciation Key (hmlnd)
1. One's native land.
2. A state, region, or territory that is closely identified with a particular people or ethnic group.
3. Any of the ten regions designated by South Africa in the 1970s as semiautonomous territorial states for the Black population. The Black homelands were dissolved and reincorporated into South Africa by the 1994 constitution.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved
homeland
n : the country where you were born [syn: fatherland, motherland, mother country, country of origin, native land]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
homeland n: native land: FATHERLAND
Source Websters New Collegiate Dictionary (1979)
The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 43. I hate this. | | | | by J Random Loser | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 4:25pm | score of 1.5 succinct | | | | | | |
I am sick of the trend of naming things like this in as sexy or as loaded a way as possible. Things like the PATRIOT act, The Defence of Marriage act, The Child Online Protection act, and, yes, the Homeland Security agency. It seems to distort the actual purpose of the thing being named just to get some sort of emotional response out of the public. I mean let's face it, no politician wants have it recorded that they voted against the "Prevent Photogenic White Children From Being Raped and Murdered in Their Beds act". I think we should go back to using clunky and unglamorous names for these things so that politicians can voice their concern and dissent without having to worry about being labled as "Anti-Homeland", or some such nonsense. Something like this should stand or fall based on what it is, not what it gets named.
The tragedy of this world is that everyone has their reasons.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 44. Hart-Rudman and Alice Miller | | | | by mfrit | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 4:39pm | score of 1.5 informative | | | | | | |
As mentioned earlier, homeland is a term of art in strategic studies. It's used extensively in the Hard-Rudman report - well worth reading. Of course the Bush II White House ignored it and opposed forming such a department. When it became politically expedient, they changed their minds. They are now using it for Union busting as well as to beat up the Democrats who supported it in the first place.
Now that they've pissed of the people that will be working there - one suspects a rash of early retirements - I'm as concerned about its competence as I am about its name. Remember, FEMA more or less fell apart under Bush I.
"Homeland" does sound creepy in the context of American politics. The Bush crowd, despite their otherwise considerable prowess in PR, and, frankly, propaganda, does have a tin ear. It's amazing that they get away with it. Perhaps Alice Miller (if she's still alive) could explain it. I always think W.'s about to burst into tears. It's his eyes, I guess. I have a friend who's completely innocent about politics and who, in 2000, told me she was going to vote for W. because he "stood up to Gore's bullying" and was a "real nice guy."
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 45. Ein volk, ein reich, ein Homeland Security Agency | | | | by rmurf62 | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 5:07pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
I have a few theories about the phrase "homeland security":
1. Shrub as the marketing president: they come up with some market-tested phrase, (like the one I truly hate, "faith-based"), the administration encourages journalists to drop the phrase into their writing with enough frequency, et voila! A new phrase is thrust upon a hapless public.
2. Yet another symptom of Shrub's PROFOUND lack of care with the English language. It's common knowledge that white house journalists vet his official statements & clear out the acres of mangled syntax. So, by extension, his administration doesn't really care if a key buzz-phrase has ugly connotations (e.g., the idiotic reference to the Crusades right after 9/11).
I would agree that this administration intends "homeland security" to play like a cozy, warm, midwestern heartland sort of phrase. And if the guys in power don't understand the allusions to Orwell, Stalin, the Nazis etc. etc. etc., so what. Or,
3. We're in the Red Queen presidency: words mean what Dubya wants them to mean. It's all of us squishy, morally-relevant liberal eggheads who are at fault: if we hadn't read Orwell & taken all those "cultural critique" classes in college, "homeland security" wouldn't have all these nasty connotations in the first place.
But who cares about semantics when we've got a police state to jump-start?
Oh well. Time for all of us to grab our collective ankles & take it like a man.
YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 51. Etymology: conspiracy with Gary Hart at center. | | | | by Erik Riker-Coleman | | | | at Fri 15 Nov 8:43pm | score of 1.5 informative | | | | | | |
As near as I can tell, the recent enthusiasm for the term"homeland security" emerged from the 1999 report of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century [better known as the Hart-Rudman Commission], as mfrit pointed out above. So read into it whatever you want--but remember to concoct a scenario that manages to include this rogues' gallery of fiendish masterminds:
Stephen Ambrose, noted historian and author.
Anne Armstrong, former U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom and chairperson of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
Norm Augustine, former chairman and chief executive officer of Lockheed Martin.
Lynne Cheney, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Bud Dancy, former NBC White House and diplomatic correspondent.
John Galvin, retired general and former NATO commander.
Les Gelb, president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Gary Hart, former senator from Colorado.
Lee Hamilton, retiring congressman from Indiana.
Lionel Olmer, former undersecretary of Commerce and member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
Don Rice, chief executive officer UroGenesys and former secretary of the Air Force.
Henry Schacht, director and senior advisor to Lucent Technologies.
Jim Schlesinger, former secretary of Defense and Energy, and former director of the CIA.
Harry Train, retired admiral and former commander of NATO Atlantic forces.
Pete Wilson, retiring as governor of California.
Andrew Young, former mayor of Atlanta and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. From my perspective, it's nothing new. I've been hearing "homeland defense" for several years among security studies types in response to the NSSG's report--the one which became much-cited on 12 September 2001 for its prescient conclusion:1. America will become increasingly vulnerable to hostile attack on our homeland, and our military superiority will not entirely protect us.
The United States will be both absolutely and relatively stronger than any other state or combination of states. Although a global competitor to the United States is unlikely to arise over the next 25 years, emerging powers - either singly or in coalition - will increasingly constrain U.S. options regionally and limit its strategic influence. As a result, we will remain limited in our ability to impose our will, and we will be vulnerable to an increasing range of threats against American forces and citizens overseas as well as at home. American influence will increasingly be both embraced and resented abroad, as U.S. cultural, economic, and political power persists and perhaps spreads. States, terrorists, and other disaffected groups will acquire weapons of mass destruction and mass disruption, and some will use them. Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers.
See, for instance:
Keith J. Costa, "Hart Rudman Calls for Homeland Defense", Air Force, April 2001.
Senator John Kyl, "Homeland Defense: Exploring the Hart-Rudman Report", opening statement prepared for 3 April 2001 hearings of Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information.
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, TRADOC White Paper--Supporting Homeland Defense, 22 April 1999.
stand up, keep fighting.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 66. A Poorly Chosen Word Is Far More Likely | | | | by NoCureForFools | | | | at Sat 16 Nov 6:56am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
words are powerful, i agree, but i really think this is just another really poor choice of words on behalf of Dubya and His Palz, not a Third Reich style moniker.
i think what really lies beneath the whole "Homeland" thing, or even the hilarious "Evildoer" or WWF style "Infinite Justice" thing is MARKETING. they are trying to appeal to the LCD with catchy phrases. Homeland, in this sense, plays to an almost rustic, naive, populist feel that makes people feel all squishy inside. but this time around it's the PC version of a Norman Rockwell painting featuring a multicultural cast eating pumpkin pie in front of the flat screen, region free DVD home theatre. i mean, it's a bad choice of words which has bad connotations, and it does smack of propaganda, but i think your really grasping at straws here. it's not as if soldiers are handing out leaflets with Homeland-Speak glossary and list of wanted Thought-Criminals on street corners. and it think it's doubtful that this is what the US is going to become. a shift to the right is imminent, but everything right of center doesn't equal brutal dictatorhsip, anymore more than everything left of center equals anarchist hippie commune in woodstock.
as much as i think this administration is crap, as much as i think this War On Terror is dodgy, i really think many of you are being rather paranoid and silly...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 70. OT a Ways: Gendering the State. | | | | by vurt | | | | at Sun 17 Nov 11:36am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
One thing about "homeland" is that it's not gender-specific, unlike the German ("Fatherland," normally) or Russian (Motherland," normally) flavas.
Relevant in this regard, although I'm not sure just how, is Lynn Hunt's book on the formation of French revolutionary culture. At the outset of the revolution, liberty/freeedom/et al--in short, "the revolution," the product of which was the French nation-state--was coded as feminine, in the person of the milky-skinned, one-breast-flashing Marianne we all know from the Delacroix painting.
Oddly enough, shortly after the initial burst of revolutionary passion, Marianne was replaced by the masculine Hercules; almost as thought the revolution, once birthed, required what were traditionally coded as "masculine" attributes (rational thought, the builder instead of the womb/nurturer, etc.) for its perpetuation.
'Homeland,' although it fulfills the same discursive need to idenity a collective field, is strangely androgyne--although it might carry a slightly more feminine valence (e.g., "hearth and home," traditionally the realm of the feminine). I wonder why that is.
One thing it does do is elide the public/private boundary. If "the state" is now broadly construed as our home, and terrorist attacks could happen "at home" anytime, then all of our space--public and private alike--is now fair game for for the friendly kids at the Homeland Security Office.
One strongly suspects this doesn't mean they won't be coming around with big grins helping us install burglar alarms. Not over here on the east side where I live, anyway.
And if you're terminally bored / fall in behind the motorcade and lock the doors / money money!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | Member Login | | | |
| Man, It's Hard To Even Bash Em
|
|
|
| (3 hrs, 19 mins ago) | -----=-o--- |
Sarah Palin stumps for Tx gub'ner, Rick Perry. The intellectually elite come out to show their support. - n29_w95 |
| Hot Air Aloft
|
|
|
| (Sun 7 Feb 11:34am) | -----=o---- |
Submitted for your consideration, the most intriguing idea for political communication in many a moon: The Peace Blimp. - Petronius |
|
