Putting Words to Rest - Kathleen Parker

That words matter has few dissenters, especially among those who try to make sense with them.
...
My sleep has been troubled the past few weeks by a choice of words that prompted some polite protest from some African-American readers. It was "lynch mob," which I used to refer to the public indictment and conviction of three Duke lacrosse team members who have been charged with raping a black stripper (who, I hasten to add, is a student and mother).
...
Some words — lynching and Holocaust among them — really do belong to their victims.

Questions for debate:

1) After reading the above linked opinion piece, do you agree with Parker's final statement, in blue above?

2) Do you get the impression that Parker may have been reined in by the PC crowd? "(who, I hasten to add, is a student and mother)."

3) Do you think the characterization of the treatment of the Duke lacrosse team as "lynch mob" is over the top?

4) How would you characterize their treatment?

Parker learned that words can push buttons.

Gee, such a revelation. I knew that before kindergarten. Most people get this straight off, so close the jaw and stop pretending ignorance.

It doesn't matter what the issue being written about is. Some things work better than others. Parker apparently did not get it that the words lynch mob carry racial connotations. If the intent was not to stir up controversy, then Parker displayed gross incompetence and should stop writing.

I don't have any opinion on the lacrosse team and the entertainer. Well, maybe that life is really messy and stuff happens. I can see the story going either way. There are cruel people and victims, and there are people out for money and/or fame. It would make a good mystery plot.

You knew before kindergarten not to use the phrase "lynch mob" except to describe the historical events of the Jim Crow era? Funny, because a regular Internet search on that phrase will show it being used in all sorts of connotations, on both the Left and the Right. Including, for example, by Kofi Annan.

One thing I also knew "before kindergarten" is that people occasionally use words in an exaggeratory manner, just for effect (as in: "I'm gonna kill you!", even though something far less disruptive than actual death is being threatened). Indeed, most people get this straight off.

So nice try, but if you want to argue against people like Parker whose views are at variance with yours, you'll have to come up with something more substantive than that. That "objection" just won't wash.

1) After reading the above linked opinion piece, do you agree with Parker's final statement, in blue above?

Only if people in public life also resolve to avoid using the term "witch hunt", which clearly - CLEARLY - trivializes the horror of the Middle Ages...

2) Do you get the impression that Parker may have been reined in by the PC crowd? "(who, I hasten to add, is a student and mother)."

Either directly or indirectly. It's just a fact of life in the world of politics - as can be seen right here on AD - that there are certain people who are just itching for an excuse to take any swipe they can at their opponents, no matter how flimsy. They especially love opportunities to latch on to the use of a "wrong" word. It's so much easier than coming up with an actual counterargument.

3) Do you think the characterization of the treatment of the Duke lacrosse team as "lynch mob" is over the top?

4) How would you characterize their treatment?

That's what I'd like to know, too.

1) After reading the above linked opinion piece, do you agree with Parker's final statement, in blue above?

Perhaps but eventually the actual victims pass and the meaning of said phrases gets diluted; in any case, after some statute of limitations, said terms become part of history, and thus, the global vocabulary. Some terms, such as lynch mob, have a clear, powerful meaning. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be used, but one ought to be aware of the connotations (as with all good writing).

2) Do you get the impression that Parker may have been reined in by the PC crowd? "(who, I hasten to add, is a student and mother)."

No doubt, but the parethetical is clearly tongue-in-cheek.

3) Do you think the characterization of the treatment of the Duke lacrosse team as "lynch mob" is over the top?

Probably. the press latches onto certain stories and sensationalizes them. I haven't followed this one because it seems most people have made up their mind before all the facts are in, and that just makes me hostile.

Yes. Words have power. It's just like after 9/11 some athletes said they would never again describe a football game or boxing match as "war." It cheapens and devalues a powerful, meaningful word when it is misapplied to inappropriate situations. A girl that won't return a boy's phone calls or e-mails is not "torturing" him. Telling your son to take out the trash and clean up his room is not making him a "slave" or "killing" him with work.

The abuse of a word like lynching or trivializing The Holocaust demonstrates both a lazy thinking process and a gross lack of historical sensitivity.

3) Do you think the characterization of the treatment of the Duke lacrosse team as "lynch mob" is over the top?

OH yeah. I must have missed the tarring and feathering or being hung from a tree part with these guys.

Lynching

BlS,

Let's see what I wrote. Oh yeah, I understood that words can push buttons before kindergarten, and by gosh, you agree with me.

So the argument that I am wrong does not wash. I did not write what you claim that I did, but it's rather a small point. You know and I know that professional writers ought to have a good handle on words, what they mean and how they can be used.

Readers will put more into the words than what was actually written, and this phenomenon can be used for positive or negative effects. Some readers will insert words that were not written, appartently, to argue a point. That's not very effective in that it builds on what does not exist. Brings to mind the expression building castles in the sky.

From Parker's article:
The word "lynch" dates back to the American Revolution thanks to one Col. Charles Lynch, who took justice into his own hands to punish loyalists. Lynch held his own court and punished those he deemed deserving. Punishment usually involved flogging, but no one was ever killed.

If it's wrong to "dilute" the meaning of the term because it somehow trivializes the memory of those who were brutalized in the Jim Crow era, then why isn't it wrong to smear Colonel Lynch by associating such excesses with his name, when he never went to such an extreme? Why doesn't Colonel Lynch "own" the term instead, eh? Perhaps, as implied by VSRenard, the meanings of words will shift over time?

Incidentally, speaking of lynchings ...
Islamic mob does it again.

1) After reading the above linked opinion piece, do you agree with Parker's final statement, in blue above?

Eh, not really. I don't think blacks "own" lynch mob. When I think of lynch mob I think of the Bolsheviks or the people standing around Mussolinis hanging body. Holocaust has an obvious connection to Jews but I really don't think any group "owns" any languauge if the term is a generic word.

I remember some folks being upset that Katrina victims were being called refugees. Get over it.

2) Do you get the impression that Parker may have been reined in by the PC crowd? "(who, I hasten to add, is a student and mother)."

I don't know if it's an issue of being PC. THe mother comment is understandable as the media is portraying the woman as immoral and hence being biased against her. Parker is just doing the same, not being PC in my mind just using her position the others did against the girl.

3) Do you think the characterization of the treatment of the Duke lacrosse team as "lynch mob" is over the top?

Not really. Hyperbole is to be expected in common language. Like I've said a million times, hyperbole is unacceptable.

4) How would you characterize their treatment?

I think the issue comes down to:

a) the writer has to be more sensitive and consider everyone in their audience

b ) the reader has to buy a dictionary and realize the english language is not owned by anyone group, and they need to get a better grip on how language is used as well as get a thicker skin and try to understand what the author is trying to say instead of jump to conclusions or expect special treatment.


I think both should be done, but more of b than a.

Colonel Lynch does not "own" the term lynching because there is doubt whether it originated with him.

Word History

Wherever the word was originally derived from and who should get the credit (or blame) for it, what is not in dispute is the main victim of the practice of lynching were Blacks.

Meaningless distractions about whom is "smeared" by the phrase aside, it's the actual act itself that is a shameful example of past barbaric behavior by one group of Americans taking the law in their own hands against other Americans.

Let's not waste time dithering over semantics.

1) After reading the above linked opinion piece, do you agree with Parker's final statement, in blue above?
To an extent. I don't want to sound wishy-washy here, but it depends on the context. Obviously we have free speech in this country, and are free to use the word 'lynch' or 'holocaust' to refer to anything. But a poor choice of hyperbole might reflect badly on the individual(s) using it. I'd say yes in the context of Parker.

2) Do you get the impression that Parker may have been reined in by the PC crowd? "(who, I hasten to add, is a student and mother)."
I was going to say 'no' here, as it sounds like perhaps she had a change of heart. But, then, I read the piece in question. Oh, yes, she knew that she was going to get a stack of scathing mail on this. She didn't use the term 'lynch' as a mere oversight and then "oops, on second thought, poor phraseology on my part". It was intentional and someone in authority must have spoken to her.

3) Do you think the characterization of the treatment of the Duke lacrosse team as "lynch mob" is over the top?
I do. I also think, for instance, that Amnesty International using the term 'gulag' to describe Gitmo was over the top, for the same reason. By using such a histrionic term they have completely discredited themselves in my estimation. They'd have to launch a similar public apology for me to ever take a thing they have to say seriously again.

4) How would you characterize their treatment?

You'll probably think that I just crawled out of a cave, but I had never heard of this case until now, so I can't speak knowledgeably on the issue.

Except, the AI people were dead serious when they called Gitmo "the gulag of our times." But it should be clear to everyone that Parker's use of "lynch mob" was purely metaphorical.