Webster or no, one has to admit that post-WWII, the term “concentration camp” is extremely loaded. It does not bring to mind images of POWs being held, it brings to mind images of starving Jews being casually executed in a myriad of gruesome manners.
Jeff
Even if the 3000 number is correct, that’s still less than 2% of the 170,000 initially reported by the press.
Yes, but not from the POV of non-US media bias.
I do too. But, I am asking two factual questions:
– How much coverage did the foreign media give to the incorrect version of the story?
– How much coverage did they give to the correction?
Zoe, dictionary.com says a concentration camp is:
1. A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions.
2. A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions. (emphasis added)
Conditions at Gitmo are anything but harsh.
Just so everyone knows “Lord” Conrad Black is an imported Canadian Neo-Con to the UK and should not be taken as a “European” perspective on this debate.
My objection to Clinton’s draft-dodging isn’t over that. It’s that after his 2-S deferrment was up and he was classified 1-A, he deliberately lied to Col. Hawkings by promising to enroll in the law school at Arkansas and serve in the ROTC so that he wouldn’t have to be drafted as an Army private, and he never lived up to it.
That was a draft dodge.
Along these lines, here is a quote from a Wall Street Journal article from last Friday [Jun 6th]:
Assuming the few thousand figure turns out to be accurate (and I’ll admit it still seems a bit up-in-the-air), I would note that on a logarithmic scale (which is probably most relevant here), a few thousand is about halfway in between 170,000 and 33. And, unlike the 170,000 estimate which was made in the heat of the moment when things were still very hard to ascertain [and is probably a high-end number of what was really claimed at that time], the 33 number is being floated around repeatedly by people who have more time to check the facts.
Maybe so, but I’ve found that his opinion is more right than it is wrong.
Not in general, but in this particular instance.
It seemed to me while I was living in the UK that Europeans (and it could just be the ones I met, I was living with some French and Spanish guys for a while - very into F1) still feel themselves to be culturally superior to just about everyone else, and their reporting reflects this bias. Their foreign cultural reporting often looked at only the most eccentric festivals, etc., and treated them the way someone from NYC might comment on a hillbilly cookout.
Not that this is a specific fault of European media. Everyone reports from their own particular cultural bias when looking at foreign cultures. The trick is to know that is occurring and to treat it with a bit of skepticism rather than blanketing the entire populace with the impressions you get from that one piece.
I took the question as indicative of European media ignorance about American law. After all, England has its Star Chamber – their record on free speech is quite weak compared to ours. So they might assume that arresting someone for criticizing Bush might actually happen.
If I heard the question I would say you can’t be arrested for criticizing Bush, no matter how harshly, but you CAN be arrested for death threats against him, no matter how mildly phrased.
MegaDave asserted that
WWII. 16+ million US combatants.
VietNam–8-9 million US combatants.(two presidents)
Gulf I—2.7 million combatants, US.
Clinton sent HOW MANY?
Your statistics are even more stupid than december’s OP.
An observation on titles in posts. They fall into three categories. This is only my opinion.
l. The vapid, useless, non-descriptive post. This is offered by people who are quite often new to the board. It can be excused. It is so general, that many people will never open it because it doesn’t pique their interest. It contains NO info on what is inside. There are some experienced posters who don’t seem to get it, and continue to post titles that are poorly descriptive.
-
Well thought-out, well-written titles, which not only grab the attention of members, but are fairly representative of what is to be found inside. And these get me to click on them.
-
Titles which are written deviously and meant to confuse. They are not truly representative of the info inside. They, like a run-down-at-the-heels-whore, promise a great fuck. But they can’t deliver. But they suck you in, just like the whore. And, after you strip her naked, and attempt intercourse, you find yourself back on the street, unfulfilled, ashamed that you lowered yourself, attempting intercourse with such a “thing.” But the whore goes out on the street and seduces her next victim.
My description of #3 is not meant to saterize posters who offer double entendres in MPSIMS or IMHO. They ARE meant to lampoon posters who post in GD.
After a clandestine military trial in which their rights are all but ignored, and the army that fought them acts as judge and jury (and perhaps executioner). They would get no Constitutional protections, and I imagine the same exceptions to lawyer-client confidentiality would exist. It’s a trial, but it ain’t a trial I’d want any part of. The idea certainly sounds like railroading to me, and it doesn’t fit any definition of justice I’m aware of. Same as a mass grave? No, but I didn’t say it was.
The only dictionary source that I would rate as an equal to or better than Webster’s is the Oxford. If you prefer the newcomer dictionary.com, that is your choice. That does not change the fact that by definition, Guantanamo is a concentration camp..
PBS agrees:
http://www.pbs.org/weekendexplorer/california/mammoth/manzanar.htm
I agree with you that the connotation of concentration camp usually holds far worse images for us. But not the denotation.
I refuse to “pretty up” Guantanamo by calling it anything but what it is.
Consider your sources.
Can you explain why a logarithmic scale is most relevant? Anyhow, the question isn’t whether 33 is just as wrong as 170,000. The issue is that certain media made an enormous fuss about the 170,000, but more-or-less hid the correction.
First of all, the 33 figure is in the range reported by the New York Times and the Washington Post, so it may be correct. From Kurtz’s article
Anyhow, you are really making my point. I agree with you that “the 170,000 estimate which was made in the heat of the moment when things were still very hard to ascertain [and is probably a high-end number of what was really claimed at that time].” So, why did it get so much publicity? And, why did the more certain 33 to 3000 range get much less publicity?
The answer would seem to be that the 170,000 figure reflected badly on the United States and George Bush. It was one of the few things that appeared to have gone wrong in the war, so it was given undue prominence. I would guess that the museum looting got more play than the freeing of the children from the children’s political prison, not to mention the many mass graves, including a childrens’ graveyard. Items that reflected well on the war got less play than items which reflected badly on it. At least, that’s what my 3 cites opine.
I still hope that some non-US posters can inform us about the nature of the media coverage in their countries.
You can’t ignore the connotation of a word when using it and then complain when people call you on it. Connotation is very much as valid as denotation when using language, maybe more so. If the word “concentration camp” doesn’t properly connote what the situation is at Gitmo (and you admit it doesn’t) then what you are doing is fundamentally dishonest if you are using it purposely.
Camp X-Ray is not a “concentration camp” in the popular use of the word.
To give a man with a (IMHO well deserved) record for slanting his presentations the benefit of the doubt on an occasion when he gave the actual facts, I’ve seen several reports that indicate that the director of the Iraqi Museum of Antiquities stated to the press that 170,000 pieces was the number of pieces in the total collection. There was significant looting; there were about 3,000-4,000 pieces listed as “exhibition quality” and many of these were taken, with some 33 certainly missing, a larger number damaged, and no clear reports of what is missing from the total inventory (which is on 3x5 cards, meaning a painstaking piece-by-piece reinventory of the collection as a whole).
Distinguish between “exhibition quality” and “of historic importance” – the former are things suitable for showing in an exhibit because they are visually significant, historically unique, etc. A fragment of late Assyrian pottery inscribed in cuneiform may not have unique historic significance or be visually interesting but is nonetheless important to tracing the history of Assyria or at least of its ceramic arts. Many of these were, according to early reports, pulverized.
But the bottom line is that reporters saw the devastation of the museum and apparently jumped to the conclusion that the full 170,000 pieces were missing, or something along those lines. And december, skeptical of media reports, held to the lower figure and hypothecated that the 170,000 figure could not be accurate as a count of what was missing – and proved to be right.
However, both this and the Guantanamo compound are hijacks from the point of the thread – which appears to be the mistaken impression of Europeans and others as to the degree of anti-government criticism that is acceptable in America in A.D. 2003.
I have seen and heard firsthand accounts of what it was like to live in a country where dissent was impermissible and punished. We do not have that, even if Mr. Ashcroft were to get his utmost dreams for control. I am concerned at the erosion of civil liberties, but it does not do to exaggerate the problem – just exemplifying how it continues to grow should be sufficient.
Maybe I should apologize for the vivid thread title. That was meant to be just one example of a media person who holds an overly negative view of the US. The intended point of the thread is to discuss bias by non-US media against the US and against our current President. Is there such a bias? If so, what is its nature, magnitude, cause, etc.?
Fattening them up for the kill, eh?
Very good, amarone, you figured out the nefarious plot. The U.S. Military/George W. Bush/Republicans are planning on eating the detainees at Gitmo. It’s kinda like the 80’s movie “V”. :rolleyes:
Not only do you have my assurance that it won’t happen again, december, you have my apologies for the insult as well.
Clinton did not support the Vietnam war and lied about trivial crap and did not cheat us into a war of aggression. Try and understand the contexts before shooting from the lip, get some sense of perspective rather than reaching for the nearest shallow debating tactic.
Good on him for not fighting, at least he didn’t go AWOL like the Bush chicken-hawk. And all that bloody proseperity and budget surpluses - swagger away Bill.
It should be noted that it’s a common journalistic technique on BBC radio at least, to deliberately put such a provocative statement to allow the interviewee free reign to dispose of the wilder exaggerations.
Guantanomo deserves some pejorative label, just not Gulag or Concentration Camp. We brits would want royalty payments if the latter term is used, theft of our Boer War intellectual property.
