War of Words and Phrases Part 2

Last week I wrote about the innovative attempt by two intellectuals to coin words in order to more accurately describe a phenomenon and to shape an argument.   Although we typically think of historians as being as innovative as actuaries, these two historians made bold attempts to bring a new perspective and do it with precision.   And these attempts stand in stark contrast to the new nomenclature of the Left—which I find to be sloppy, inaccurate, imprecise, or so broad and vacuous as to be meaningless. 

Here are some of my LEAST favorites:

White Privilege.

This is a distasteful one, and meets all of the criteria—sloppy, inaccurate, imprecise, broad and vacuous.  Yes, slavery was the great stain on an otherwise pretty exceptional history.  And yes, emancipation did not eliminate racial biases and barriers until well into the 20^th century. But to then proclaim that privilege is based on skin color (which then hops to generalized white guilt) is a falsehood.  It is a broad, meritless phrase, exposed by last year’s best selling memoir, Hillbilly Elegy by J.D. Vance.   Vance made the improbable leap from impoverished backwoods to Yale Law School despite poverty, despair and a wholly dysfunctional family life.  In my personal life, I knew a number of white kids that grew up in poverty or near poverty that ended up ok… and some that did not.  To suggest that these people were  “privileged” in any respect is patently offensive.   “Privilege” is independent of skin color and is suggestive of advantages of social class, but its broad use is wholly misleading.  Is the son of a white plumber from Des Moines “privileged” compared to the daughter of an African American cardiologist in Evanston, Illinois?  Is the daughter of a white hedge fund manager who drinks every weekend and abuses his wife “privileged” compared to the son of a black warehouse supervisor from Akron that works two jobs and goes to church twice a week?  The term is offensive, unidimensional and not useful.

Toxic Masculinity.

This term has gained so much traction over the past several years that the social justice warriors at Gillette felt compelled to incorporate it into their recent ad campaign, and the American Psychological Association recently incorporated it into their treatment guidelines.  Like “white privilege,” it is massively overbroad and meant to shame an entire class of people—men—by expanding the truth that some men behave badly sometimes.   Some men sometimes use physical power, status or financial power to exploit others.   True.  Some men use their position to get sex.  True.  Some men sometimes exclude women or are demeaning to them.  Also true.

But like the term “white privilege,” toxic masculinity is way too broad to be descriptive.  News flash: Women are just as capable of exhibiting horrid behavior as men, especially when they are in positions of power.   Moreover, the same instincts that are ascribed to “toxic masculinity” are those that are willing and able to help you change your flat on a subzero winter night, push your car out of a ditch, or step to your aid when you are being harassed on public transportation.  Last January, Illinois state trooper Chris Lambert was killed while aiding a stalled vehicle, leaving behind a wife and 1 year old daughter.  After I saw that news item, I decided to toss all of my Gillette products in the trash.  https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/state-trooper-killed-crash-died-doing-what-he-loved/

Islamophobia

Islamophobia is also an inaccurate and nondescriptive term, designed to silence legitimate questions and criticisms of Islam and Islamism.  A phobia is an unwarranted fear of something.   I can’t name a single person or have seen a single instance of “Islamophobia.”  This phrase is the ultimate straw man.

The phrase is used to cut off the questioning of the legitimate fear of Islamic based violence.   From 9/11 to Charlie Hebdo, to this week’s exposure by the F.B.I. of a jihadist training camp in Alabama, we have seen Islamic based violence permeating the West.   The same people that cry “climate change deniers” ignore or downplay Islamist violence, and "Islamophobia" is a convenient word used to deflect.

While it is true that Muslims who engage in this are in the minority, it is also true that we have no reliable way of filtering them out. 

The Iron Law of Reciprocity should apply.   If a number of Catholic priests were proposing to do an unsupervised weekend religious retreat in the North Woods with a group of pre-teen boys, no one in their right mind would call me Catho-phobic for being reluctant to send my son along.  “Well, it’s just a minority of priests who do this kind of thing, you know.”  Right.  I’ll pass.

But it’s more than just the threat of violence that leads people to ask whether Islam is ultimately compatible in Western society.   Europe is grappling with a proliferation of  “grooming gangs,” no-go zones, pathological misogyny, acid attacks, burkas, female genital mutilation, and demands for special workplace accommodations (Amazon just got sued by a group of Muslim workers).  There is a whole set of behaviors associated with mass Islamic immigration that simply has no place in Western society and it ignores reality to write off objections to them as "Islamophobic."  It is not correct to ascribe these behaviors to all of Islam but we should not dismiss them with a verbal shut off valve, either.

While we have put on productions like “The Life of Brian,” “Jesus Christ Superstar,” and “The Book of Mormon,” a spoof production of “Muhammed the Musical” with dancing girls on Broadway would certainly bring threats of violence.   To  evidence that it is compatible with the West, Islam needs to subject itself to the Iron Law of Reciprocity.  It is not exempt from Western skepticism, parody or criticism.  And demanding that its social norms adapt to those of the West while residing in the West is not Islamophobic.  We are absolutely entitled to our own cultural norms.

These are just three of my [least] favorites.  “Patriarchy” and “the wrong side of history” (what does that even mean?) also should be on this list.   These words are empty and divisive but they have crept into common usage, especially in the media and on college campuses.  One must ask whether these words take us closer to truth, or do they take us further away from truth?   Are they meant to bring clarity or to distort and manipulate?  Do they inform or propagandize? Here, it is pretty clear.