On Tyranny Lesson 9: Be kind to our language

From what Snyder conveys, Hitler used “the people” to reference only those people loyal to him and the party. I think there is a lot of language control going on on the Republican side right now. MAGA and tRump appear to have created their own vocabulary—either by appropriating phrases, using a blender mix of ideological ideas, or simply using words because they have negative connotations. They’ve appropriated phrases popularized by black communities and left-leaning politics and put their own spin on it. So “woke” and “DEI” are now negatively associated with “radical left” ideology. They’ve essentially defined themselves as “anti-woke” and “anti-DEI.” But on the flip side, anyone who disagrees with them is labelled “anti-American.” If they can be contrary, that’s what they will do, and in doing so they make their language aggressive.

They take terms that have longstanding definitions and exaggerate them. So Joe Biden handing over the presidential ticket to Kamala Harris was labelled “a coup” by tRump. Musk also has used the word “coup” for those defending the constitution. He recently said, “Democracy in America is being destroyed by judicial coup.” So both tRump and Musk have inverted “coup” to imply that if someone threatens their decisions, those people are anti-democracy and anti-American and, by inference, traitors. (But note that Jan. 6ers are called “patriots.”) To me this parallels what Snyder said in this chapter that Hitler did—that “any attempt to understand the world in a different way was defamation of the leader” (or, as an American president put it, treason).”

Another big word being abused right now is “fraud.” Apparently, just running a government department as it’s been run for decades is “fraud.” (and how many times has tRump claimed election fraud? Following this logic, basically everything in the government, including democracy itself, is a “fraud.”

tRump and MAGA also like to label Democrats with a hodgepodge of political ideologies that tie them to either extremism or communism (which is ironic considering how much they all seem to love Russia). So Kamala Harris is a “radical left Marxist.” tRump just labelled a judge a “radical Left lunatic.” But do most Americans who hear “radical left Marxist” even know what a Marxist is? Could they answer who Karl Marx was and what he wrote? I doubt it. It just sounds “bad.” Just like “owning the Libs” sounds good.

They are also actively “erasing” words from public discourse. The National Park Service appears to have deleted all mentions of “transgender” and “queer” people from the Stonewall National Monument’s websites.

George Orwell warned that political language used incorrectly “becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.” What a vicious circle! No wonder Snyder is championing reading. It not only expands your vocabulary, and understanding of language, it expands your understanding of ideas.

On a related note, the American Library Association warned that current administration is now also actively working to defund libraries, which means people will have less access to books and literacy programs. The AMA is encouraging people to “reach out to their elected leaders and Show Up For Our Libraries at library and school meetings, town halls, and everywhere decisions are made about libraries.” Here’s more on their Show Up For Our Libraries initiative: https://www.ala.org/advocacy/show-up-for-our-libraries

Context is everything. Words have no real meaning if separated from the context and the larger message. As Tara describes, the administration and its allies and adherents are using understandable and straight-forward language to create an distinction between people, not a distinction based on different points of view or visions but on fundamental and unchangeable aspects of a person. There is much power in a preposition with these folks.

It is really not possible for me to keep up with the events that matter from my perspective unless I use the internet, use it deliberatively, but use it none the same. Still, I think the recommendation to read fiction is sound advice. Not only is it inspiration for how to read and use language, it also provides a framework for comparing what one sees with the themes and issues in the fictional story. Fiction is potentially more accurate than reporting on current events.

There are a large number of examples to cite for this question, but as a Canadian, I’ll focus on the issues related to the very recent issues instigated by the US administration against Canada, their closest friend, neighbour and ally.

I have never seen any animosity towards Canada from our American friends in all the years I’ve used FB, and particularly within our LP FB group where the overwhelming sentiment has always been extremely kind and friendly. However, in the past few months, there has been a sudden change in attitude from some of the members of our group – a shocking growth of hostility and contempt. These antagonistic feelings seem to have been adopted as the member’s own personal feelings because someone else has told them to feel that way.

The author attributes much of what’s happening in the US to terrible lies and abusive language by the current US leadership, both elected and unelected alike. The common phrases that we all know about, including numbers like “51”, “200 billion”, “fentanyl”, and the latest report of calling Canada “nasty” are constantly repeated on TV, news sites and social media. These soundbites turn into memes which spread like wildfire, branding ideas, feelings and hate into the brains of those who are susceptible. The reality is that “200 billion” is not correct, and the estimate of the U.S. trade deficit with Canada, according to the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office, is placed at $63.3 billion for 2024. The reality is that the US is 10x the size of Canada and there is simply no possibility that we can match consumption and trade. The reality is that there is no real understanding of economics by anyone parroting these phrases. The reality is that there is no interest in fact-checking or deeper investigation of memes. Memes and soundbites are taken as truths, shaping alternate realities for those who believe them.

When refuting these claims, people often use the same phrases, which reinforces the ideas. The author is urging people to expand their knowledge beyond the soundbites that they are fed to them on “screens”, to gain a greater understanding of concepts, to widen their vocabularies beyond the basic catchphrases, to try to empathize with the groups being targeted and dehumanized. He advocates using language that is firm, clear, precise and terse in response.

The author suggests that reading will help to solve this problem. However, I’m not completely convinced that this is the solution, as it seems that only a fraction of any population is interested in reading books. In addition, the finding that many of our former members are MAGA indicates to me that those members never truly understood what Three Pines is about, despite the repeated messaging of tolerance over hate, kindness over cruelty, goodness over bullying, hope over cynicism.

That said, I do have hope that our group of readers, the ones who do understand the concept of Three Pines, are an important group of people who can acquire important knowledge from books and other sources. I believe that the sharing of this important knowledge may lead to positive change.

I have never been a fan of generalizations, and have always hated when any one person has been painted with the same brush as “all the others.” “They’re this; they’re that.” When Hitler used his rhetoric of “the people,” he gave the impression of speaking for everyone. There’s a lot of that going on today. When one generalizes, one takes away individuality, and it makes it easier for certain people to accept or reject everything about that person, or that group. It creates a division, a us/them situation, and leaders can use that to sweep away resistance. You’re either with us, or against us. And if the whole world thinks that any one entire country or populations feels a certain way, it gives an impression of a greater amount of strength and solidarity than may really be the case.

Individual, independent thinkers can be dangerous to those who want to conquer because they’re more likely to see the right and wrong of a situation, and if they’re brave enough, question it and resist. So conformity is desired, and a way to foster that is to use things like language. It’s so much easier to grab onto a common soundbite and parrot it than it is to actually come up with your own thoughts, digesting and analyzing what’s really being said, and deciding for yourself if you really agree with it or not. But in order to gain critical thinking skills, one has to learn to challenge oneself, and that is often achieved by exposing oneself to different thoughts, ideas, and cultures, and discovering that there is often more than one way to view a situation. If you eliminate any references of difference, though, how can one do that? People like Hitler (and certain others) know this, so work hard to take away certain words, references, and content and supplant them with their own, to homogenize us, make us forget those words, those concepts, to relegate them to a forgotten past. Eliminate the written or spoken word, start fresh with your own implanted ideas, and the people are subjugated without even realizing it after a while. A new norm is established.

I do believe in reading, but I also know that in this age of technology, some people just don’t pick up a book and read it anymore. They can still become informed, though, through judicious reading or learning from other sources, be it social media, movies, podcasts, lectures, etc.. The problem is finding sources that are unbiased, and tell the truth, and I think that many people have fallen into the trap of false information, extreme skewing, and downright lies. I find comfort in some classic books because they’re often telling stories that last through the test of time, and they last because they speak to so many truths about human nature throughout the ages. Even this, however, has come under fire, as people seek to ban so many books because they’re afraid that people might learn to think differently if they dare expose them to it. Doing this extinguishes individual expression, and turns us into a society of followers instead of leaders.

“If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”

― Malcolm X

There is a reason why intellectuals and people capable of critical thinking are targeted by fascist regimes. Why control or destruction of education, paired with control or destruction of media are so important. Those who don’t conform to the messaging are viewed as problems.

The lies and hateful language creates division, causing one group to despise another, targeted groups to live in fear and resentment, and inequalities to flourish. Individual expression is important in this atmosphere as it breaks from repeated language, and may help to create more thoughtful dialogue. Reframing the language provokes deeper understanding and potentially, more reflective behaviour.

The slogans used in propaganda also serve another purpose: to seed ridiculous ideas and normalize them so that dictators can carry out acts at a later time that will be more acceptable had the disinformation not been spread around before. An example is one that Maria Ressa has shared numerous times: “Journalist equals criminal” and “Arrest Maria Ressa”. Later, when she was arrested, there was that seed of doubt that maybe, she was a criminal. Maybe, there was something to that rumour or phrase that was circulating before. Public support is key to dictatorships, which is why dictators work so hard to spread disinformation and to silence dissent.

The “51” is a very serious threat and clearly an effort to normalize. There are still comments floating around about fentanyl from Canada which is utterly ridiculous given the actual numbers. Still, many followers blindly believe everything stemming from the administration, giving no thought to how their good friend they valued yesterday suddenly became an enemy today because the administration told them about some unknown problem that facts do not support. Once a lie is circulated, it is impossible to fully retract it, fact check it, dispute it, or erase it. The damage has been done.

Perhaps the solution, in this example, isn’t to say, “Canada will never be the 51st state”, but rather, “It is wrong for the US to start a war with Canada” or “The US administration is crazy, greedy and corrupt to want to invade Canada”