I've always enjoyed the ABC Sunday morning show This Week, and I especially liked George Stephanopoulos as the host. But he has gone on to host the network's daily morning show, leaving This Week without a permanent host. After some musical chairs, ABC announced that they had chosen Christiane Amanpour as host of their Sunday morning show.
Now, I have nothing but respect for Ms. Amanpour, but given the type of reporting she's known for--highlighting the rape, genocide, starvation, disease, and famine going on all over the world--I wasn't sure how she would handle something as pedestrian as (mostly) U.S. politics.
Her first show was okay, but she was still getting her feet under her. But the next time I watched--in her third week, I think--she broke from the standard show format and held a town hall-style show that pitted moderate Muslims against ultra-conservative Christians who were onto "the Muslim agenda." The "Christians" pointed out that they weren't bigots, but they knew what Muslims were really after: they are hell-bent on world domination, they have declared a jihad on all other faiths, they want to kill all the infidels, etc., etc., etc.
But one of the Muslims on the panel--I don't remember who--pointed out that there were as many different interpretations of Islam and the Koran as there were Muslims. He then went on to say something that hit me right between the eyes with its elegant simplicity: "Using the word they to describe a billion people is the very definition of bigotry."
It's not that I didn't know what bigotry was, or how to define it, but it's not often that someone gives you such a beautifully simple handle for such a complex issue. I sure to enjoy it when it happens.
-Doug
2 comments:
You don't think you're being too hard on the collective pronouns, do you? They endured collectivization is the Soviet Union, I am sure. That couldn't have been fun. And now all these high expectations in the secular...I mean in the capitalist...West.
I here that pejoritive collectivization sometimes in the expression "you people," and I can see why it might be offensive. There's "my people" (the good guys) and then there's "you people." But even there, it's the contrast between "us" and "you" that has the sting.
So I was wondering. Is the possession of some common trait enough to justify "they." I know this isn't the kind of instance you had in mind, but if I said "we" speak English and "they" speak French, I don't suppose the French would be offended. So I don't think it is all divisions between "we" and "they" that are objectionable. There must be at least one other criterion. I can't think what to call it. Any ideas?
Well, I think it depends on the posture of the recipients of the pronoun. Yes, I don't think anyone would be offended by "they speak French," but if you're going to use it to describe a defensive group, like blacks or Muslims, you're gonna get in trouble.
Remember that guy that used the word "niggardly?" He used the word completely accurately, but no one could hear that above the shouting for his head.(1)
So if you were to use "they" to describe an oppressed or defensive group, you may or may not actually get your point made.
What should we call a collective pronoun that is safe? How about an "indisputable" collective pronoun, or "irrefutable." The problem there is that bigots the world over would think the point they're trying to make qualifies and co-opt the term. Bummer.
-Doug
(1) Yes, I know the NAACP insisted that he be hired back.
Post a Comment