Of course, if you were looking for thinly-veiled references to begin with…
Two things:
-
Remember that most of the objections are not how we see the word “crusade,” but how the Middle East and Islamic world see the word. See how little that has to do with American views of PC?
-
I don’t think there’s any such thing as PC anymore. The only reason the phrase still exists today is not because the force actually exerts any meaningful influence on American society, but because it’s a convenient scapegoat and excuse for racists, sexists, etc. to get away with their comments.
I wasn’t looking for thinly veiled references. I was looking for the leader of the most powerful country in the world to speak, as the president-not a civillian, to an issue that concerns everyone. I listened very carfully with no real preconceptions of what he would say. I hoped he would speak of retribution, loss, safety, sorrow, determination and fortitude. I got much of that (and overall liked the speech). But the dumbass has to go and blow it at the end. Sure enough I get “God is not neutral” and “Crusades” slammed down my throat. Give me a break W.
Thinly-veiled is perhaps too strong. They are completely and totally OBVIOUS references to the idea of a God who gets involved in the wars of humans. The christian God of the bible to be exact. Debates about religion aside, it has no place in his speech. IMHO anyhow.
DaLovin’Dj
Simplicity itself. It’s because we are not the only ones in this fight. If we want to tell the rest of the world to take a hike, we can. If we want to actually do something about the bad guys, then we had better not describe our resoponse in terms closely analogous to how a Jew would receive the word “holocaust.”
In other words, get over yourself.
DJ, the president can refer to his religion all day, every day, as long as he does not try to pass a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The president has freedom of religion too. If we think he’s a religious nut, then we don’t have to vote for him next time.
“Crusade” is a definate gaffe. If we were dealing with homegrown terrorists, then the word would have been fine. But we have to keep the moderate Arabs happy. You wouldn’t name the defense of China “Operation Mongol Horde”, would you? Something that has neutral connotations to us, definately has negative connotations to our putative allies in this war. That said, Bush is hopefully going to be smarter next time. I’m sure he didn’t use the word intentionally to cause offense, and now that Mr. Cheney has told him not to he won’t do it any more.
Hell, let’s go whole hog, shall we?
Screw “crusade.”
Let’s tell the world we’ll be sending our enemies (and those innocents included in the lovely phrase “collateral damage”) on a “Bataan Death March” along a “Trail of Tears” through a “Mountain Meadow” which will end in a “Killing Field.”
Hyperbolic, sure. But it sounds to me as though the only difference is temporal distance. The original Crusades are long out of Western memory, so we demand our right to use the generalized form of the word. We all know that it’s going to piss off the Islamic world, especially the Middle East, to no end. But so many of us are fighting the desire to join with our disfunctional fellow citizens who scream “kill the ragheads, kill them all.” And knowingly using inflammatory language is a way to slyly give voice to that desire. After all, anyone who complains is simply another anti-American oh-so-PC liberal.
Put me down in in the “Gazoo, you ignorant fuckwad” column…
I’m a Christian, but I’ve resented the term “crusade,” as in Billy Graham’s Crusade, Campus Crusade for Christ, etc. for years. Why? Because once you get past Good King Richard in those Walt Disney Robin Hood children’s books, you find that the Crusades were a dark, shameful period in European History, marked by bloodthirsty atrocities against innocent Muslims and Jews alike.
I associate the Crusades with Jewish children being nailed to doorposts.
I can only imagine how it’s remembered in Muslim countries.
Why don’t you get past your Walt Disney-level history education and jingoistic ignorance and think about how best to isolate the Taliban and terrorists from the Muslim world?
That’s going to mean the difference between victory and defeat. Don’t you go fucking it up.
But, guys! Antioch and Jerusalem are in the hands of the infidel Turks and we need to liberate them! Gather the paladins of Europe! Summon the Templars…
<Person comes up and whispers in the Captain’s ear>
Uh Huh. Uh-huh. Oh!
<face red>
Never mind.
http://www.myafghan.com/news.asp?id=1107256871
These sound like the sort of people who are certain to understand that the president was using “definition #2”. :rolleyes:
While I agree that “PC” has gone too far in general, and I didn’t hear the President’s quotes referenced in the OP, I would like to say that from the get-go, I have noticed that the jargon of wartime has been used. From the President’s first statement (“This was an act of war”) I’ve felt a little bulldozed. I’ve noticed that a lot of people in the general populace have jumped to the conclusion that actual war was actually formally declared, and I think this was a deliberate attempt on the part of the administration to get us into a mentality where we might overlook things we normally wouldn’t in peacetime.
I’m so far not objecting to what the administration seems to be doing, but I am a little concerned about the language that has been used. I’ll confess, though, I am perhaps hyperaware of this sort of thing.
I heard on NPR’s All things Considered(sorry, I can’t find a cite), that the Federal government, possibly, DoD, but don’t hold me to that, has a computer program that generates a two-letter designator for any “operation” that the military is going to get into. Then, some people get tasked with the chore of finding a pleasing and appropriate name to make the designator into an acronym. Some acronyms, of course are less successful than others, and some even have unfortunate connotations (example: the designator for the invasion of Panama to remove Noriega, was “JC.” The acronym eventually gave rise to the joke, “Q. why did the US invade Panama? A. Just 'Cause.”).
My personal problem with Infinite Justice, is that instead of making me think about a military operation, I think ofgoing to the library and checking out a book by David Foster Wallace.
Yes - this would definitely not be a good time to out the President.
Nonny
Just to lay to rest the notion that the use of the word is about a lot more than a debate about PC, a Salon article from an AP reporter based in Cairo:
Clerics and worshippers cited Bush’s description earlier of the coming war as a “crusade” a remark apologized for by the White House, but not forgiven in the Mideast.
"It is a war against Islam, even though the White House had apologized for Bush’s statements of them being a crusade," cleric Sheik Maher Hammoud said in the southern Lebanese city of Sidon.
“The Americans cover their colonial aims with hollow slogans such as war against terrorism … while everyone knows that the real American motives are not that,” he said.
In Amman, Jordan, businessman Ismail Bishtawi said "it is a new crusader war, but this time it’s directed against Muslims."
"The United States is falling in the trap of those terrorists, and it’s holding the Muslim world, all the Muslims, responsible for something they haven’t done," Bishtawi said."
Well at least the White House apologised, I guess, although it won’t get any publicity. I’d just feel a lot more comfortable if he were to stay on autocue.
[Aside]
I got all the references here except ‘Mountain Meadow’, could you explain it, please?
[/Aside]
LC, I don’t think the people quoted were going to really support the US all that much no matter what word Bush chose.
Personally, I think “crusade” is a good, useful, non-objectionable word, in general. In the context of trying to explain that we are not having a war against Islam, one probably shouldn’t refer to the struggle using the word used to describe several medieval wars against Islam, though.
I am not really certain why many Muslims hate the term “Crusade”. After all, the Crusades were a time when Muslim dervishes kicked Christian knights’ asses and finally threw them out of Jerusalem. Maybe 1) the Modern Muslims don’t want to go over it again and 2) give credence to the terrorists, who is most interested in the West declaring some version of a Tenth “Crusade”. Just goes to show that not everybody celebrates war victories.
From Pakistan Christians fear persecution if war begins, CBC News website.
Well, because it was also the time Christians invaded, killed a lot of people, and destroyed a lot of stuff.
Mountain Meadow, Utah, was the site of the massacre of about 140 non-Mormon settlers by a band of Paiute Indians acting with the complicity of a few Mormons.
Thanks, MEB.