"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet"
Fine, Romeo, but how about stinkweed? If you called it "passion flower", would its smell start to be an olifactory arousal for some folk? And where does that leave euphemisms? My parents referred to some women as "expecting" even "blessed-eventing" rather than just "pregnant".
I recall other dialogues in Shakespeare where Hamlet is playing with sycophantic courtiers, and keeps shifting his point of view just to watch the suck-up fall into agreement with him. King Lear has the same problem with some of his daughters. Check it out:
HAMLET: Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel?
POLONIUS: By the mass, and 'tis like a camel indeed.
HAMLET: Methinks it is like a weasel.
POLONIUS: It is backed like a weasel.
HAMLET: Or like a whale.
POLONIUS: Very like a whale.
OSRIC: Sweet lord, if your lordship were at leisure, I should
impart a thing to you from his Majesty.
HAMLET: I will receive it, sir, with all diligence of spirit. Put your
bonnet to his right use. 'tis for the head.
OSRIC: I thank your lordship, it is very hot
HAMLET: No, believe me, 'tis very cold; the wind is northerly.
OSRIC: It is indifferent cold, my lord, indeed.
HAMLET: But yet methinks it is very sultry and hot for my
complexion.
OSRIC: Exceedingly, my lord; it is very sultry, as 'twere.
But we could argue that sycophany and euphemisms are slightly different, with the latter being sometimes merely the verbal tool in the former event. So what? Dishonesty by any other name is still bullshit. Wikipedia has a page full of military euphemisms with links to all sorts of sub-sets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military-related_euphemisms
You may recall these as some of the more obvious ones:
plausible deniability - for "We can say we didn't know about it."
collateral damage - for "It/They got killed too; sorry 'bout that."
high-level interdiction - for high-level bombing
terminate with extreme prejudice - for "Kill the S.O.B."
Our media folk today often use euphemisms to soften the reality of events and we are left to translate the meaning into plain if unpleasant terms. Was the Oct 7th Hamas military incursion (see, I can do it too) a "terrorist attack" while Israel's response was purely a "right to self-protection"? Who decides what kind of language should be used in reporting the events of historical or present conflicts? The "final solution" of Goebbels and Co. seems remakably similar to the "relocation" of Palestinians by the uniforms from Jerusalem.
Of course if an organization wants to sound legitimate, they will choose a name with some class. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation sounds a lot better than the Shooting-Starving-Palestinian-Children-Desperate-for-Food branch of the US-Israeli military complex. The UN has called for its dismantling as it violates so much of international law, not the least of which is replacing legitimate food delivery programs to a populace in a deliberately-created famine condition.
And here in Canada, who would trust editorials from an organization called Zionist Propaganda News Surveillance Team. But Honest Reporting Canada sounds quite legitimate. It is listed as a pro-Israeli media surveillance organization and has been criticized for its heavy-handed rebuttal of any criticism of Israel's offensive in Gaza. Wikipedia suggests it is far from "Honest Reporting" and has an article on the group at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HonestReporting
I know I have a lot of links in this article and tracking them all down can be a pain. And of course I've selected ones that support my point of view, but that's what I do and you're here to read what I've found. Take a break if you need to and then check out this one on Canada's news surveillance organizations and the financing of them:
Euphemisms, sycophancy and plain lies aside, there were moments in history when people in power were caught in plain speech. You may have your favourites; here's mine.
This statement was captured on Richard's Nixon secret White House recording system:
Kissinger to Nixon: The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy. And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern. (Kissinger was a Jew, by the way).
Nixon's response. I know. We can't blow up the world because of it.
David Ben Gurion:
“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” [David Ben-Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.]
But to return to roses and noses, I want my media to be free to say what's so and to give full disclosure statements where they have bias, or at least where bias was imposed. CBC (Cdn. Broadcasting Corp. for you out-of-towners) has been accused of using the talking points and suggested language provided by Honest Reporting Canada (and that's a euphemism if ever there was one - instead read "script writers employed by B'nai B'rith, Simon Weisenthal Cntr. and Canadian Jewish Congress").
The evidence is the story of Oct 7th burned babies and babies ripped from mothers' wombs that was "reported" by National Post and the Toronto Star and read on the CBC 6 o'clock news. Here's the links; you do the checking as I did. It stinks.
https://breachmedia.ca/cbc-whitewashed-israels-crimes-gaza-firsthand/
https://www.readthemaple.com/gaza-death-revisionists-are-the-new-holocaust-deniers/
Which leads us way past euphemisms into those outright lies. Interesting term that. Here's the conditions for a statement to be a lie.
X makes a statement.
X makes the statement freely without coercion.
X knows the statement is false.
X intends that you believe the statement is true.
X is not making a statement for the purpose of humour or irony.
You may find some additional aspects of the definition but those are the main ones.
Our best example of the liar today would be Donald Trump who according to many sources has been the biggest "pants-on-fire" politician (or person) in US history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump
Of course, that calls up those who have or need the support of Trump, such as Vladamir Putin and Bibi Netanyahu. Do we still believe that Ukraine was always and should be now part of the great Russian empire? Did the Balfour Declaration of 1917 exclude Palestine residents from participation in decisions about the land they lived on? Read it for yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration#:~:text
And then there are the "near lies" although that's like being just a little bit pregnant. In order to justify actions, some groups use the services of advertising companies or think tanks (What dark thoughts some of them must think!) to present a particular view of a situation to the reading/listening public.
Stateside there is the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing organization behind Project 2025, while In Canada we have the Frontier Society. Both names evoke thoughts of rugged, honest, hardworking forefathers (and mothers?) from a mythic past. Our Frontier Society publication has a lengthy article saying that Residential Schools were of great benefit to the Indigenous youngsters kidnapped into them, and by selectively highlighting some examples, tries to cast their own shade of interpretation over the whole historical situation.
The book and record about Chanie (Charlie) Wenjak's death from hunger and exposure in 1966 when he attempted to walk "home" from a residential school really were sensationalized accounts of a tragedy, but that shouldn't be reason to discredit all criticism evoked by that terrible event. Thompson Highway may say how much he valued the education he received at one of the schools and how it was his springboard to an international career in music, but that does not erase the experiences of all of the others who were not so enthusiastic about being unpaid workers while they received "job training" as cooks and service workers.
And today those near lies are generated on demand and thrown onto information sites. I've taken to looking for a logo on whatever poster comes up on my facebook or email feed and doing a fast Wikipedia or Snopes check to see what they say about the source. That policy by others may have led one group to directly attack Wikipedia.
The Israel Forever Foundation puts out a lot of posters on the current genocide in Palestine and if you want to accuse me of using slanted language in calling it "genocide" bear in mind that I'm using the current terminology of Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International, The UN International Court of Justice, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights Israel and others, and at some point you have to ask yourself what gives your news source more credibility than those organizations.
The Israel Forever Foundation doesn't like Wikipedia and presents a long article "exposing" the "lies" perpetrated by that "antisemitic" organ. They also publish many posters proclaiming dubious socio-historical "facts", but they don't survive long on facebook.
In some of those posters you will find that the Qur'an (Koran) requires all Moslems to aid in the destruction of Israel – it doesn't and many Imams have written to repudiate such an egregious interpretation of terms in their holy book. Here's one piece of research on "jihad" worth repeating:
Snopes contacted Asma Afsaruddin, an adjunct professor in Middle Eastern languages and cultures at Indiana University Bloomington, for some cultural and historical perspective on the Islamic concept. Afsaruddin was the author of the 2022 book, "Jihad: What Everyone Needs to Know," and wrote about the history of the word for Britannica.com, noting that "it has often been erroneously translated in the West as 'holy war.'"
'First of all, jihad in itself does not refer to military activity. Its basic meaning is "to struggle," "make an effort" for morally worthy purposes. The military dimension comes into play if one's land is attacked by outside aggressors and one is then forced to militarily defend themselves.
According to the Qur'an, the military jihad is defensive warfare. In conducting such a defensive military campaign, certain essential rules of conduct apply – absolutely no targeting of civilians, especially women, children, the elderly, and religious functionaries. The rule of proportionality also applies so that one cannot resort to a scorched-earth policy and wanton destruction of property out of a spirit of vengefulness. Muslim jurists also held firm on the point that only an actual head of state can issue the call for a military jihad.
"If Meshaal is calling for indiscriminate violence – then it would be in violation of these fundamental humane rules within Islam."
But, on Oct 7, 2023, the Hamas militants really did kill civilians, so what's with that if "jihad" is such a closely defined term? The military leader said this; "We lost control" of the forces. Terrible admission, but there it is. No defence. Just "We lost control". It happens, and you can find your own examples in history, even in 20th C wars where the "good guys" took no prisoners.
I knew someone who was a sniper with the Allies in 1944 Europe and he said neither side took his kind of combatant as a prisoner because they were so hated. Maybe it was just an old veteran telling horror stories but it was believable. Following is part of the Oct 7th narrative from both Gershon Baskin, an Israeli negotiator and Yahya Sinwar, Hamas political leader until his assassination Oct 2024.
“Hamas won the war on October 7. The fact that they were able to conquer parts of Israel and kill so many Israelis,” said Gershon Baskin.
Hamas “never imagined that there would be no Israeli army when they crossed the border into Israel. I don't think all of this was planned, frankly,” “There was absolutely no control of the battle space. There was no control of this area. The Israeli army took four days to reoccupy every single military position, every single border village. So there were two days, three days, in some cases more, during which there was complete chaos. I'm sure horrific things happened.”
Sinwar reportedly acknowledged to his comrades after October 7 that “things went out of control” and “People got caught up in this, and that should not have happened.”
So, villains on both sides. What's new? And attempts to whitewash some unpleasant details of military campaigns. Again, not new. Do we need to compare body counts to justify actions in wars? We just want the truth as completely as it can be reported. Yes, it may be true that any headline is just "the first rough draft of history" but we want the second draft to correct the government-issued misinformation repeated in the first place and to fill in details that military press releases often conveniently omit.
And we want plain language, not sanitized euphemisms. We need to know whether we're dealing with roses or stinkweed.