Euphemism and metaphor

[Thomas Bloor]

Dear Zouhair et al
Sorry. I meant to send my last email just to you (Zouhair) with a  copy to
Celso, but I inadvertently sent it to the Discours list because I used the
Reply function. I didn't rate my remarks as meriting public interest, but
since I'm now out in the open ...

I agree that there is some sense in which 'ethnic cleansing' is a euphemism
for murder (though it probably includes also intimidation, brutality,
destruction of dwellings and other means of forcing people from their home,
which complicates the issue a bit), but I didn't read Celso's email in the
way you did. I thought he was trying -with considerable success- to break
down the metaphor in a Lakoffian way, showing how it extends to other
related areas of activity. I don't think he was in any way playing down the
seriousness of the phenomenon itself - in spite of questioning the
appropriateness of the label 'euphemism'.

I am afraid to get into arguments about the precise meaning of 'genocide'
so I'll skip that issue.

But, as for media bias, though I am no great admirer of the media and
regard claims to objectivity with some scepticism, I am obliged to say that
the British media, at least, have been much more critical in the reporting
of Serbian behaviour than they ever were of Argentina and Pinochet -
absolutely no comparison in terms of quantity or force of criticism. In
fact, I think that it would be very easy to make the case that there was
anti-Serb bias in the British media.  As Celso pointed out, Britain and USA
have an interest in presenting a negative image of Serb behaviour and none
in excusing it. (Not that they should try to excuse it, of course, though
they might legitimately try to explain it.) The British media have never
had any special interest in Pinochet until the recent events, and even
there they were divided, with the right-wing press defending Pinochet. The
West (especially the US) historically supported Pinochet and has made the
Serbs its enemy.  The 'arrest' of Pinochet was a legal matter that the
government would have preferred to avoid.  I have never seen any defence of
Serbian activities in Kosovo in the British Press or on TV, not even in the
interests of a show of objectivity. The coverage of Kosovo and before that
of Mostar, etc,  was enormous and (rightly) overwhelmingly in sympathy with
the victims - reflecting/creating the general public perception of these
events.  You must have been exposed to different Western media. I never
expected to find myself defending the media on the net, and in a sense I'm
not doing so since I am doubtful about motivation, but these are the facts.


Best wishes

Tom

>To Thomas,
>The reason I invoked the Pinochet case was because Celso was trying in his
>post to show how what was happening in Kosovo is different from what caused
>the collapse and extradition of General Pinochet, namely, "ethnic cleansing"
>vs. "genocide." And I persist in thinking that "ethnic cleansing" is a
>euphemism for "genocide."
>
>I agree with you, however, that murders denounced should not presuppose that
>undenounced ones are less important, or are to be accepted; murder is murder
>everywhere on earth. What, I think, is creating this sort of situation is
>the media's selectivity or even bias toward one event instead of the other.
>
>Zouhair Maalej,
>Department of English Chair,
>Faculty of Letters, Manouba, 2010,
>University of Tunis I, TUNISIA.
>
>Office Phone: (+216) 1 600 700 Ext. 174
>Home Tel/Fax: (+216) 1 362 871
>Email: zmaalej at gnet.tn
>
>There are four kinds of people: a man who knows and knows that he does; such
>a man is a man of knowledge, so follow his steps. A man who knows but
>doesn't know that he does; such a man is unmindful, so wake him up.  A man
>who doesn't know but knows that he doesn't; such a man is ignorant, so
>educate him. And a man who doesn't know and doesn't know that he doesn't;
>such a man is definitely a fool, so avoid his company. (Ancient Arabic
>saying)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas Bloor <T.Bloor at ASTON.AC.UK>
>To: DISCOURS at linguist.ldc.upenn.edu <DISCOURS at linguist.ldc.upenn.edu>
>Date: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 5:04 PM
>Subject: Re: Euphemism and metaphor
>
>
>Dear Zouhair
>
>Belatedly:
>Isn't the term 'ethnic cleansing' a translation of the term used by the
>Serbs? If so, it was clearly a euphemism at the outset though I would have
>thought it had acquired strong negative connotations by now.  I see this as
>a parallel with the widespread acceptance of terms like 'paedophile'
>(literally 'lover of children', and hence hardly applicable to people who
>enjoy torturing children to death, among other atrocities). It was
>child-molesters themselves who coined this term, I believe, and to accept
>it as a standard way of referring is to risk partial collusion. The same is
>probably true of 'ethnic cleansing'.  It starts by being in quotation marks
>and rapidly attains respectability.
>
>I don't see how the West has an interest in whitewashing the atrocities in
>Yugoslavia, though (as Celso succinctly remarks; so I seem to be agreeing
>and with both you AND Celso.) I don't know what the USA and UK are up to
>there (and I'm damn sure they are not there out of concern for the welfare
>of the victims), but they must surely have an interest in playing up the
>nastiness to justify their involvement. On the other hand, the pretence
>that all the guilt centres individually on Milosevic may fit in with your
>hypothesis. I think Celso's account is fairly persuasive and in no way more
>amenable to the perpetrators than your own -except that, as I say, I think
>you are partly right on the euphemism issue.
>
>I don't see why you make your comparison of this with the Pinochet affair.
>Surely thousands murdered and tortured in one country is as bad as in
>another. If there were perhaps more in one than the other, that doesn't
>make one of them acceptable. I think that it is politically unwise to make
>such comparisons.
>
>Best
>Tom
>
>
>On 7.7.99 Zouhair Maalej wrote:
>>To all,
>>At the risk of turning this discussion somewhat into a political one, I
>>would like to go back to the "cleansing" I offered in a previous post as a
>>case of euphemism and the non-eupehemistic term offered by Celso
>>("genocide").  Looking at what is going on in Kosovo as simply a religious
>>matter (which legitimises the use of "cleansing" non-eupemistically) is in
>>my view a bit of a reductionist stance, which justifies in a sense the use
>>of "cleansing" euphemistically and makes "genocide" a more appropriate
>>candidate for literal usage. Of course, "genocide" was not used instead
>>"cleansing" because it was not favorable to the interests of the West.
>Don't
>>we, however, believe here that what is happening in Kosovo is even worse
>>than what caused Pinochet's extradition from the UK? One of the senses of
>>"cleansing in The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary is "clear, rid (of, from),"
>>excluding thus the sin, guilt, religious connotations that surround the
>>other senses quoted in the dictionary (there are 7 of them, by the way).
>>
>>Regards
>>Zouhair Maalej, Assistant Professor,
>>Department of English Chair,
>>Faculty of Letters, Manouba, 2010,
>>University of Tunis I, TUNISIA.
>>Office Phone: (+216) 1 600 700 Ext. 174
>>Home Tel/Fax: (+216) 1 362 871
>>Email: zmaalej at gnet.tn
>>
>>There are four kinds of people: a man who knows and knows that he does;
>such
>>a man is a man of knowledge, so follow his steps. A man who knows but
>>doesn't know that he does; such a man is unmindful, so wake him up.  A man
>>who doesn't know but knows that he doesn't; such a man is ignorant, so
>>educate him. And a man who doesn't know and doesn't know that he doesn't;
>>such a man is definitely a fool, so avoid his company. (Ancient Arabic
>>saying)
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Celso Alvarez Caccamo <lxalvarz at udc.es>
>>To: DISCOURS at linguist.ldc.upenn.edu <DISCOURS at linguist.ldc.upenn.edu>
>>Date: Sunday, June 27, 1999 5:54 AM
>>Subject: Re: Euphemism and metaphor
>>
>>
>>Regarding euphemism, Zouhair Maalej wrote:
>>
>>> For instance, in the news exterminating
>>> a race by massive killing may be euphemistically
>>> termed as cleansing (as in what has been going on
>>> in Kosovo). Note that here metaphorically killing
>>> becomes cleansing.
>>
>>I agree that this is a metaphor, but I disagree with the
>>interpretation that "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo has been
>>applied euphemistically. And I disagree, simply, because,
>>in terms of propaganda, euphemism wasn't favorable to the
>>interests of the West military and political elites. The
>>non-euphemistic term for 'exterminating a people by massive
>>killing' is "genocide", which was seldom used during the war.
>>"Genocide" is very narrowly defined in international law,
>>as the case for Pinochet's extradition from the UK is
>>showing.
>>
>>On the contrary, arguments have been raised (f.ex. by Chomsky
>>in Znet, http://www.zmag.org) that the atrocities by the
>>Serbian military and paramilitary forces were *semantically
>>upgraded* to "ethnic cleansing" -- exactly the opposite of
>>euphemism.
>>
>>In my view, the "cleansing" metaphor alludes not exactly to a
>>nationalistic programme, but to purification of the Body of the
>>Yugoslav and Serbian States -- their respective territories.
>>"Cleansing" involves killing (as when antibiotics are used
>>against invading bacteria), burning houses (=cauterization), or
>>mass expulsion or fleeing of human beings (=expectoration).
>>We must remember that a good number of Kosovars fleed to
>>Montenegro, where their infecting powers are inactive, as
>>there they do not hold any claims to independence. Invading
>>agents may coexist with the host --as in the number of dormant
>>microorganisms a body carries along, that is, The Melting Pot--
>>as long as they do not attempt to disrupt political... life.
>>
>>In this sense, "cleansing" is being repeated now by
>>Kosovo Albanians against Serbs: killings, burnings, expulsions.
>>Interestingly, this is not being called "cleansing" by
>>Western media. Expulsions of "illegal" immigrants from Western
>>countries, massive incarceration of African Americans in the
>>US, burnings of Turks in Germany, or killings of Kurds
>>by the Turkish army are not called "cleansing", either.
>>
>>In selectively metaphorizing the atrocities by which each
>>State attempts to purify its Body, propaganda reveals
>>the media's allegiance to the State. Obviously, faithful
>>propagandists do not call their own State's atrocities
>>"cleansing". In Kosovo's case, the media's failure to call
>>present atrocities by the KLA and Albanians as "cleansing",
>>as well as KFor's passivity before these acts, reveal the
>>likely objective of the West -- that Kosovo constitute itself
>>into a(n allied) State, in which case purification is
>>legitimate and necessary.
>>
>>After the invasive radiotheraphy by NATO, the KFor is to
>>Kosovo what morphine is to a body in pain: they both take
>>over, but they create dependency -- which is the best
>>way to promote addiction.
>>
>>Oh, and Milosevic. In these ten years, Milosevic has been
>>the Necessary Virus. The West needs him to experiment
>>with expensive treatments and to get rid of expired drugs.
>>
>>--
>>Celso Alvarez Cáccamo              Tel. +34 981 167000 ext. 1888
>>Linguística Geral, Faculdade de Filologia     FAX +34 981 167151
>>Universidade da Corunha                          lxalvarz at udc.es
>>15071 A Corunha, Galiza (Espanha)   http://www.udc.es/dep/lx/cac
>
>Thomas Bloor
>Language Studies Unit
>Aston University
>Birmingham, UK
>B4 7ET
>
>Phone:0121 359 3611 xt 4212/4236
>Fax:0121 359 2725

Thomas Bloor
Language Studies Unit
Aston University
Birmingham, UK
B4 7ET

Phone:0121 359 3611 xt 4212/4236
Fax:0121 359 2725