Except for the tragedies spawned by monetarism, the fast footwork of name changes would be funny. For over 20 years we have been subjected to; deregulation, privatisation, labour market reform, user pays, tax reform, cutting government spending, more competition, privatisation, tax reform (Goods and Services Taxes at the checkout) and welfare reform.
We have also be subjected to a welter of names for this economic mess, from economic rationalism, to Thatcherism (or Reganism), Neoclassicism, economic liberalism or neo liberalism, neo-conservatism which were transmogrified to globalization and its variants.
So the ground keeps shifting and the appellations retailored to maintain a fresh and acceptable face. For those interested in the real roots of the term:
Economic rationalism is economic policy without social moral consideration, or "the view that commercial activity ... represents a sphere of activity in which moral considerations, beyond the rule of business probity dictated by enlightened self-interest, have no role to play." (Quiggin 1997)
Refugee or evacuee?
Like a small animal frozen by the glare of the oncoming lights, I get distracted at the worst times. Fortunately I’m not roadkill. Yet!
In the fallout of the hurricane disaster, while most good people were concerning themselves about the plight of the unfortunate victims, others were debating the use of refugee Vs evacuee.
I guess, sociologically, this is an important question. If the result of the disaster put the blowtorch to the belly of American social conscience, the proper descriptive terms are vital.
Associated Press used the word "refugee" to mean people who had been displaced or forced to flee their homes either voluntarily or involuntarily by Hurricane Katrina. Leading the charge against this usage was the Rev. Jesse Jackson; quoted as saying, "It is racist to call American citizens refugees."
Since then there have been a flood of comments one way or the other. Dictionaries and other sources have been worn out getting down to the nitty gritty on this.
For my part, I again refer to the Google news search to find a consensus, of admittedly media driven, current usage. The results, to my eye were rather telling.
Good news stories; those warm, ‘human interest’ pieces invariably relating to ‘nice people’ doing great things, were typically evacuees.
The sensational, ‘what do you expect from the poor – black, hopeless…’, the rapists, murderers and ‘nere do wells’ fell under the term refugees.
Well, I’m sorry Mr Jackson. And I don’t really wish to be insensitive here, but let’s call a spade a spade here. You see, the trouble with sanitizing the language is that you risk hiding the reality.
As much as you might like to portray the dispossed minorities in a positive light, how much more valuable is it to show ‘privileged’ Americans in their true light?
If the poor old wombat was not startled by the light it wouldn’t have become roadkill. Perhaps it’s time for bigots and racists to be caught in the onrushing glare of light from their own four by fours!
No comments:
Post a Comment