Rectifying the Names

           Rectifying the Names

 

This essay is about the terms that we use in politics. I think that political discourse is distorted by false and misleading language. Therefore I follow Confucius’s advice: to “rectify the names”. I propose non-Orwellian substitutes for these corrupted words and phrases:

“Conservative”

“Liberal”

“White”

“Black”

“Terrorist”

“Anti-Semite”

“LGBTQIA”

“Homo Sapiens”

Those are all misnomers, here corrected.

 

“Conservative”

The word ‘conservative’ means ‘one who conserves’; but those now called ‘conservative’ do not conserve; not life, nor liberty, nor property, nor honor, nor decency, nor democracy, nor the environment, nor the middle class, nor the rule of law. A more fitting term for them would be ‘Authoritarian’ or ‘Reactionary’.

 

“Liberal”

The word ‘liberal’ means ‘one who liberates’; but those now called ‘liberal’ do not liberate; instead they assimilate, incorporate, and regulate. Therefore I propose calling them ‘Regulists’ or ‘Corporatists’.

 

“White”

The word ‘white’ means the color of snow, clouds, paper, cotton, and bones. There are no people whose skin is that color. Instead there are people whose skin has a pale brown tint. ‘White’ is not a biological classification, for the Irish, the Jews, the Italians, the Poles, and many others were allowed to become ‘white’. ‘White’ is a brand, and brands are for cattle. I propose that we call that tint ‘caucasian’, with a small c; then “caucasian-American” is an optical classification.

 

“Black”

The word ‘black’ means the color of coal, ink, and the night sky. There are no people whose skin is that color. Instead there are people whose skin has a dark brown tint. ‘Black’ is another cattle-brand. I propose that we call that tint ‘african’, with a small a; then ‘african-American’ is another optical classification.

 

“Terrorist”

This term ought to mean “one who uses violence, and threat of violence, on unarmed civilians for political gain”. However that definition has fallen out of favor, for it accidentally describes the routine behavior of all great powers. For instance, the Cold War was global thermonuclear superpower terrorism; arguably the greatest crime against humanity in all of human history. Since it is the great powers who are most fond of calling others terrorists, they are forced to modify the definition by means of hypocrisy: “our terrorism is not terrorism, but theirs is”. In practice, a ‘terrorist’ is a thug too big to be a mere gangster, and too small to be a respectable statesman. The terrorist’s true crime is that, just by existing, the terrorist exposes the continuity between organized crime and the State. Therefore I propose calling them “Statist Gangsters”.

 

“Anti-Semite”

This term means “one who opposes the Semitic race”, which makes sense only in the context of 19th-century racial pseudo-science. But just as there are no ‘white’ or ‘black’ people, there are no separate human races. Modern DNA technology confirms that the human race is one. Even in that pseudo-scientific context, ‘Semite’ does not refer to Jews only, but also Arabs; which makes Netanyahu as anti-Semitic as Hamas. The term was invented by 19th-century Jew-haters who did not want to be religious bigots (for that had gone out of style) and instead wanted to be racists (for that was fashionable at the time). I propose that we replace “Anti-Semite”, a problematic and inaccurate term, with “Jew-hater” or “Judeophobe”. The first is if you don’t mind being uncomfortably raw and direct. The second is more polite, and it echoes “Islamophobe”.

        

         “LGBTQIA”

That dreadful bureaucratic babble of an acronym accreted like asteroids forming a planetesimal. To me it sounds like an artificial food additive, or like a sandwich made with lettuce, garlic, (turkey) bacon, tomatoes, quinoia, italian spices, and avocado. (I have made such sandwiches. They are a full meal.) The term sounds like it was approved by a committee at 4:45 pm on a Friday afternoon. It has zero character. It might as well be stenciled on the side of a cattle car. I propose replacing it with “Gender Minorities”; a term which is recognizably English, and denotes both politics and sexuality, as befits.

 

“Homo Sapiens”

The term “Homo Sapiens” is Latin for “Wise Human”. I do not object to calling ourselves human, but anyone who inspects our history yet calls us sapient is not entirely sapient. ‘Wise Human’ is not a scientific name; it is aspirational. A more scientific description would replace “Sapiens” with “Semi-Sapiens”, meaning half-wise, or “Mendax”, meaning liar. Therefore I propose a new scientific name for our kind: “Homo Mendax Semisapiens”: Man the lying half-wit.

 

One could rectify other names. For instance, “progressives”, who make no progress, ought to be called “Retreatists”; and “evangelicals”, who are not good news, ought to be called “Dysangelicals”. “Artificial Intelligence” should instead be called “Simulated Intelligence”, with the understanding that our own intelligence might also be a simulation. I am open to other suggestions.

The “-phobia” suffix denotes phobos, or fear; but perhaps we should speak of deimos, or hatred. “-deimia”? Islamodeimia, Judeodeimia? But one can argue that hatred is rooted in fear; and what’s more, hatred has the glamour of evil, whereas fear looks pathetic; so the “-phobia” suffix is rhetorically superior to “-deimia”.