 |
 |
 |
|||
Legal
|
Confusing LabelsDo Labels Clarify Or confuse?Labels are words we use to describe a person or his or her actions. Most of us tend to accept a label as if it defines the total person; however, a label is almost always a description of a person’s actions at a specific point in time. A label is usually an easy encapsulation of a person condensed to a single action and a single point of time. Labels are a convenient way to describe a person but that label often suffers from shortsightedness. Some labels really make no sense when the label is looked at in detail. Here are some examples, at least in my opinion: Insurgents - Rebels - Terrorists I notice that President G. W. Bush always refers to these media-named insurgents as terrorists. The president is as consistent as the media but who is more accurate. Why is this important? If we Americans cannot agree on the difference between an insurgent, a rebel, and a terrorist, how can we expect the rest of the world to find a difference. Insurgents and rebels don’t support suicide bombers that kill non-combatants, that attack non-military targets, or behead people on TV just for the fear factor. Terrorist kill anyone to get media attention; insurgents attack and kill only those people that directly represent the government or authority they oppose, including the military. Insurgents and rebels usually display some type of symbol or wear some type of uniform that identifies them when they confront their enemy. Terrorists, while they may be organized, usually try to hide their individual identity and do not wear any identifiable type symbol or uniform. Our PC media have lost the distinction between an insurgent, a guerrilla fighter, a rebel, and a terrorist. Too many Americans have an European attitude toward terrorism: If I am not attacked or physically bothered by a terrorist’s actions then leave the insurgents alone. This view is cowardly and selfish. While terrorism may not directly effect you, their intent is to do so and they will if it suits their purpose. X-American As one example, the African-American label is suppose to better define Blacks living in American. It is suppose to indicate the ancestry of Black Americans but how accurate is this label. Are all Blacks from Africa? What about those that were born in France, Germany, and other countries and continents? While it may be true, according to some, that all Blacks originated from Africa about 600 thousand years ago, there are others that claim all races and all life started in Africa. So I guess, in one sense, we are all African-Americans, regardless of skin color. X-American, as a term, is used to separate one group from another group. The term is supposed to provide pride in one’s race and in one’s origins. But the use of this two-word label implies that you are really an American second to another nationality. I don’t really disagree with American Indian simply because America come first and also they were here before we were. But should we start calling the various Indian tribes by X-American names: Hopi-American, Apache-American, Cherokee-American? Maybe it only counts if you are in America from some other country. I guess we should really make the X-American labels more accurate by saying X-North American but not Canadian. After all North America is only one of three American geographical locations: North America, Central America, and South America; therefore, X-American is really inaccurate and as egotistical and saying American instead of the United States of America or even North America with apologies to Canada. The primary purpose of X-American labels is to make a person’s commitment to America secondary to their nation or country of origin. X-American labels only remind us that American is not as important as where we came from. X-American labels serve to separate and to divide rather than unify us as one nation of many races, many beliefs, and various backgrounds. Many of us would think that such labels as German-European, Arizona-American, or Utah-American are funny if not totally ridiculous so why do we give credence to other X-American labels? Liberal - Conservative To say one is liberal or conservative is not a total description of that person. Most of us are liberal on some issues and conservative on other issues. In other words, most of us are moderates except for the few political fanatics. As a general rule, Liberals tend to want to change things; conservative tend to want things to stay the same. Also, as a rule, Liberals tend to be more angry than conservatives when their views are discounted. Conservatives appear to be more open to debate and discussion and generally conservative attack the message rather than the messenger. Liberals seem to have developed the idea that the message and the messenger are the same so they tend to attack the messenger. Liberals tend to make their attacks personal, based on the idea that if you destroy the messenger you destroy the message. Liberals seem to quickly resort to name calling, usually in a loud, angry voice. The message is often left untouched in an effort to ruin the credibility messenger. Where did this form of school yard bulling come from? Liberals have adopted a bulling technique instead of reasoned debate. Yes, some conservatives also use this same technique to their advantage. I will use Alan Combs of Fox Cable News as an example. He is a self-proclaimed liberal but I have yet to hear him call someone names even when he disagrees very strongly with the message. While Alan is a Liberal, he appears to believe in reasoned, factual debate of the message instead of yelling and insulting his quest. Alan appears to respect the views of others, especially those with whom he disagrees. This is the quality I find missing from our political debates - respect for the person and his or her position while disagreeing with the message. Or as Zell Miller calls it in his book, "A Deficit Of Decency". Refugee - Evacuee I assume some people were upset by the refugee label because it implied that the people would not be returning while evacuee implied the people would return as soon as possible. As it turned out, a lot of people did return weeks later only to become refugees. They returned to absolute ruin and destruction and simply decided to rebuild elsewhere. The label used did not change the devastation or the suffering of the effected people. The label only made some believe that the future would not be affected by past events. The evacuee label was used to try to make refugees feel better. Evacuee was supposed to get people thinking about returning and rebuilding rather than leaving the area and starting over. When someone escapes the destruction of nature or of man, the label used to identify these people is not that important until each person has a chance to determine whether he or she stays or goes. When people are standing on spots of high ground with nothing to drink, nothing to eat, and only the clothes on their backs it seems to me that refugee is more appropriate than evacuee. Why? Evacuee implies that some effort was made to removed these people from the area while refugee implies they had to survive with none to minimum assistance. So which label fits the people you remember seeing isolated, stranded, and trying to survive without assistance from anyone but themselves? Racist This label is almost always applied to White people because if a White person calls a Black person racist, the White is immediately branded as a racist. But there are people in all races that hate anyone not of their own race just as some people of one religion view all other religions as beliefs to be wiped out. Most of us are closet racists simply because we tend to believe our race is the best race. It is human nature to believe that our own race is at least somewhat better than the other races. The problem is that on average all races are pretty much the same. Each race has it problems, its blind spots, and its troublemakers. Due to its overuse by people that most would label a racist if we were allowed to used that term on anyone but a White person, the racist label is dying the death of the sexism label. We don’t hear the sexism label much anymore simple because the label was used too often and without proof by people lacking basic credibility. We don’t even call people that murder women sexist anymore, we use medical terms instead. The desire to improve your race should not be classed as racist unless that improvement comes at the expense of other races Author: Don Miller
|
2006 Articles |
|||