"Things are seldom what they seem
Skim milk masquerades as cream"
Dear little Buttercup couldn't figure out why those contradictions existed, but it became partially clear, or at least justified by Sir Joseph in his later observations. Consider his program for advancement:
Now landsmen all, whoever you may be,
If you want to rise to the top of the tree,
If your soul isn't fettered to an office stool,
Be careful to be guided by this golden rule—
Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,
And you all may be Rulers of the Queen's Navee.
I started out being puzzled by words whose meanings seem to masquerade and I ended up really puzzled by how easily language can be co-opted by different factions. Here are some of the slippery expressions I've tried to grab hold of recently.
Wokeness in all its forms has undergone a transformation, although in some quarters folks still identify proudly with its original meaning. You may be democratically emboldened to shout out instances of privilege and hypocrisy or you may be righteously indignant at demands by pampered individuals to be cushioned from anything that might offend them or some group. The bluster and deep discussion (and here am I deciding which is which) around the current usage come from all segments of our society. I say "Stay alert to sources of information and call out prejudice where you see it." If that makes us "woke," so be it.
Free Speech is the basis of world democracies, but if it is only to be "free" (meaning uncensored) for some, then it is not really free. I know that position leaves an open door for bigoted journalism from Rebel News and even our Frontier Society articles, but as long as there are others "free" to criticize the radicals, I'll tolerate those. There have been news stories of gun and knife-wielding fanatics in the US attacking demonstrators and screaming for their right to a "freedom" of speech and action in those very attacks.
Antisemitism should be clear but when it merges with a Zionist perspective that clarity gets pretty murky. For Israeli Zionists, it seems that any defence of Palestine, often any call for humanitarian aid to terribly devastated Palestinian civilians may be characterized as antisemitic while threats and "doxxing" of individuals and institutions making those calls are deemed free speech and socially defensible procedures.
And that was also a new term for me. Doxxing is defined as an attack on an individual by documenting and publishing items from their personal history, usually with a malicious intent. It's an old procedure originally and still used to embarrass a political opponent, but now grown more virulent and violent and widespread in our internet age. Wikipedia has a fine article on the process. Don't do it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing#
No one should have a "Free Ride" cry the supporters of a "self-made" man (but seldom woman) philosophy, and yet surely health care and shelter should be basic rights, not something viewed as taking advantage of services. The difficulty with threading a route through the ontological twists in this discussion of who deserves what and how much from a country was prompted by a reading (listening, actually) to Michael Sandell's text The Tyranny of Meritocracy.
At first consideration it looks like meritocracy has a clear definition describing a situation in the social order that is fair and will produce great leaders. But for those at the top it can mean something like:
My Ideals and attainments are Good; your lack of them is Bad. My attainments make me a self-made person and my values (Christian, food supplements for health, education level) are therefore worthwhile. Others are not and are probably sinful.
Of course that could be arguing backward - the fancy trerm is "post hoc something" - by thinking that the destination validates the route and a source. If humans are the dominant power on the planet then we must have been created to be that. Characters in Monty Python's The Holy Grail had their version when they said that "You can tell kings because they're not all covered in shit, are they."
The gist of Sandell's argument condeming a meritocracy is that power and prestige and position are (1) overwhelmingly awarded by heredity and (2) result in a hubris of arrogance for the few and a tragic humiliation for the many. Too simplistic a summary, I know; blame me, not Professor Sandell, because he parses his argument with reference to history, surveys across many global cultures and clear distinctions along the way.
A short version of his ideas might be something like:
Don't eat all the rich, they're not all bad; and don't coddle every poor bloke,
they're not all heroes.
However, the awarding of unquestioned loyalty and esteem to people in power just because they're in power will lead to the present situation in the USA. And Russia. And Brazil. And Hungary. And on track in some other places that you likely know of.
Are we the "End of History"? That doesn't mean it's all over and with the anthropocene upon us and amargeddon approaching you better get your camels prepped for that trek through the "eye of a needle". Ugh, too many mixed allusions. Sorry. There is, however, the notion that "Once we were Better Off". In that mythic past of ante-bellum southern US or aristocratic British Empire or pre-war Germany or ancient traditionalist Italy, high productivity was enjoyed when slaves were cared for as useful labour, and "Everybody knew their place" as Archie & Edith Bunker sang. Well, those slaves had something to say about that version of history and they wouldn't be willing to say their times were the best of times.
There's more of course, and a quick internet search of "new words in English" will give you lots of interesting reading, but I'm still semantically wrestling with the common words and phrases that masquerade with different meanings dependent upon one's personal biases. What are we to make of "illegal immigrant" for instance? The sign held by an Indigenous person at a recent protest read: We should have built a f***n wall in 1492 to keep out you f***kn illegal imigrants. Skim milk or cream, it can still sour.
Finally, well not the final word I'm sure, I came across this item from a journal whose writers I respect. They were examining attitudes towards the story of "Passover" which seems particulary important given the date today. I'll let them speak.
from Jewish Currents April 14/25
Dear Reader,
As is the case for a lot of lefty Jews, Passover has always been my favorite of the Jewish holidays. After all, it celebrates the defeat of domination and exploitation, the triumph of freedom over oppression.
In the Biblical story of Passover, violent oppression is defeated by an even greater violence. Historically, however, there is no record of any plagues, let alone a mass exodus of slaves from Egypt (and the ancient Egyptians kept pretty good records). Instead, some scholars have suggested that perhaps a small group of enslaved people escaped, and over generations, told a story that became the exodus.
Some people take this discrepancy as a disappointment … but I’ve always liked it (because) the stories we tell each other matter (not) just because they provide comfort or inspiration (but) because they … have staying power, and in staying, they shape our world. This to me has always been the great failure of Zionism as a project of political imagination: to condition Jewish life on rule or state is to mistake where, in the long view, the power lies.
This is of course no comfort to those many whose lives were destroyed in the last year. It is of no comfort to those snatched by masked officers from their dorms, homes, and the sidewalks of Somerville—without even the pretense of an invented crime. It is of no comfort to those millions in Gaza living without water and electricity or food, sheltering from bombs dropped indiscriminately. What we do today, in the face of all that, matters.
Chag Sameach, Publishers, Jewish Currents
Daniel May