Those Silly Words With Meanings

I was strolling through the comments on the Kanye West fiasco - more of the same; you wouldn't be interested unless you're just obsessed with comments like I am - when I came across another tangent that caught my attention. It's not surprising that West is being accused of racism, though the accusation at this point is a bit overblown. There was nothing overtly racial about this particular incident - and West is usually pretty lacking in subtlety - but his past behavior does lend weight to the accusation. Maybe so. Maybe no. Impossible to prove, one way or the other. What caught my attention, though, was a specific comment on the subject:
"Pointless to post at this point, but traditional definitions yada yada yada … “ism” has to do with positions of power. So, for example, a woman cannot by definition be “sexist” toward men, because the woman is not in a (traditional) position of power."
What? Really? As a writer, I find words to be important and try to stay current and knowledgeable on their meanings and I don't recall the -ism suffix having anything to do with "positions of power". As always when there is a disagreement on meanings, I don't settle for trusting memory. I look it up. Dictionaries are wonderful things.
According to the Mirriam-Webster dictionary, the actual definition of the -ism suffix is:
1 a : act : practice : process b : manner of action or behavior characteristic of a (specified) person or thing c : prejudice or discrimination on the basis of a (specified) attribute
2 a : state : condition : property b : abnormal state or condition resulting from excess of a (specified) thing or marked by resemblance to (such) a person or thing
3 a : doctrine : theory : religion b : adherence to a system or a class of principles
4 : characteristic or peculiar feature or trait
Do you see anything in there about "positions of power"? Because I don't. Tell me, please, what positions of power Buddhism would be about. Doesn't work, does it?
Let's try that dictionary again. Another definition? Well, despite using "sexism" as an example, the person who made the comment was actually arguing about the definition of "racism", so let's look that up. Again, according to Mirriam-Webster:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
And again, no mention of "positions of power". You can try this experiment with just about any dictionary you care to check (the internet makes this wonderfully easy) and you will not find "positions of power" in the defining component of racism or any of the other isms people might like to discuss in this context. Why not? Because one has nothing to do with the other. Yes, positions of power often make these isms easier but the absence of power doesn't come anywhere close to making them impossible. It doesn't even make them difficult.
This wouldn't bother me quite so much - inability to properly use their own language is a hallmark of idiots and I expect it - except that this mushy thinking is often used to justify the asinine idea that minorities cannot be racist, women cannot be sexist, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth and people who insist on clinging to this false idea are the very people who prevent such isms from being correctable. If you believe that a particular race is inherently superior to another or that one race is inherently inferior to another or that race is the defining factor in all or most aspects of an individual person then you are a racist. If you believe that a particular gender is inherently superior to another or that one gender is inherently inferior to another or that gender is the defining factor in all or most aspects of an individual person then you are a sexist. If you are in a position of power then you have even more ability to cause harm with your particular ism but you do not require a position of power to have the ism.
Words have meaning, people. You can't pretend them away and you won't improve anything by trying to do so.

The Name Game

How do you know if you're listening to a demagogue who probably doesn't have much that is useful or rational to say? Here's a hint: If you see or hear someone say something along the lines of "Democrats are lying, evil socialists who just want to give the country away to illegal aliens and unwed mothers," run away. By the same token, if you hear or see someone say something along the lines of, "Republicans are lying, evil fascists who just want to give the country away to the rich and big corporations," you should run just as fast. It is unfortunately true that these are two of the loudest groups on the internet, but they are both ridiculously wrong and, quite possibly, irredeemably stupid.
There are those on the right who champion ideas that are dangerously close (if not completely over the edge) to fascism, theocracy, aristocracy, or some other form of totalitarianism or near-totalitarianism. There are those on the left who champion ideas that are dangerously close (if not completely over the edge) to socialism, communism, enforced utopianism, or some other form of totalitarianism or near-totalitarianism. Most of even these people, however, do not believe or realize that they are promoting totalitarian ideas. They honestly believe that their particular approach will promote the best good while steering clear of the potential pitfalls. Does this mean that should not be opposed? Absolutely not! The best intentions can lead to the absolute worst results precisely because the person or people following them believed he, she, or they were doing good and were thus blinded to the actual results. If without blindness, there is always the danger of "We're too close to turn away now." Besides, the best reason to oppose people who are doing harm while truly believing they are doing good is because those are exactly the people who might come to see their own error. If their goal is to achieve a certain result and they can see that their actions are going in a different direction (and if they are truly motivated by their claimed goal) then a rational dialogue may cause them to change their actions. Demonizing them without that rational dialogue, however, is not likely to achieve this.
There are also those on either end whose goals are the very things that would and must lead to some form of totalitarianism. More often than not, this is because these people are actually arrogant enough to believe that their form of totalitarianism is for the good of humanity. Obviously these people must be opposed, but rational dialogue won't usually accomplish much. All we can do with them is fight and prevent them from gaining the power they so desperately crave.
Neither of these conditions, however, describe the Republican or Democratic parties, nor do they automatically describe voters who identify themselves as Democrat or Republican. It is certainly possible for voters in either of these parties to fall into one or the other of these camps and it is equally possible for politicians of either party to do so as well. It is not, though, a defining aspect of either party. It is just as possible for members (whether voter or politician) from almost any of the various independent parties to favor (intentionally or not) policies that lead toward some form of totalitarianism.
I, an independent, know many people who label themselves either Republican or Democrat. Not one of these people knowingly favors any policy or plan that would lead to totalitarianism and not one of these people would be opposed to removing his or her support of a policy or plan upon seeing evidence that it would do so. We may (and often do) disagree on many particular points, but not that one. That one, to me, is not negotiable. I would not knowingly or willingly associate with someone who favored any form of totalitarianism or who refused to remove support from a plan or policy after seeing that it would do so.
Republicans are not inherently fascists and Democrats are not inherently socialists. If you see someone claiming otherwise then that person is the one spreading hate and lies, and should be treated as such.

Pirates Vs. Coast Guard

I spend so much time on this blog correcting faulty language usage that I sometimes think I should be paid as an online dictionary. The latest Somali pirate crisis gives me yet another opportunity to point out that words have meaning.
First of all, I want to say congratulations and thank you to everyone involved in rescuing Captain Phillips. Job well done!
Now, on to that pesky language problem again.
I've seen a number of people trying to justify the actions of these pirates, calling them the Coast Guard for a nation with no government and no other form of national self defense. The Somali people have a legitimate complaint in the way their waters have been illegally treated by many foreign parties and they have a right to defend their territory from such actions. Having a legitimate complaint, however, does not justify any and every possible action that one might take to remedy the complaint. A wrong action remains a wrong action. In fact, it can become an even worse action because it removes attention from the legitimate complaint and focuses it on the bad behavior.
The distinction here stems from the same childish, self-centered mentalities that are the cornerstone of most criminal behavior. "I want it so you are wrong to stop me from having it." Witness the pirate response, threatening retaliation against the American "aggression". Just making such a statement requires a willful dismissal of the fact that the Somali pirates initiated the aggression and the Americans only responded. Witness the number of people who are trying to claim that pirates are a coast guard, a claim they would never accept if the pirates' tactics were turned on them.
A coast guard defends a nation's water ways against illegal or hostile activities. A coast guard does not indiscriminately attack and kidnap innocent bystanders! When the Somali fishermen banded together to try to stop foreign ships from committing illegal activities in their waters, they were completely within their rights and in the right. At that point, they could easily be called a coast guard and even deserved credit and praise for taking it upon themselves to defend themselves. When they branched out to kidnapping for ransom, they stopped being right and stopped being in any way justified or justifiable.
Many of you know that I am a writer of fiction as well as blogs like this. After the events of 9-11, I was troubled by a lot of what was happening and a lot of what was being said, but I could not find a way to put my troubles into satisfying words. So I created a fictional character to put them into words for me. Many of you who read my fiction have expressed to me that he is my most-loved character, so there is no need to go into too much detail here. I bring it up only because one of the most troubling issues I felt a need to answer then applies perfectly to this situation as well:
"You’re slavers! You trade other people’s lives for your goals. Whatever wrongs were committed against you don’t even matter anymore; you’ve buried them so deeply under your own crimes. You’re everything evil that happens to good ideas when they’re carried by weak people. You’re weak because you let it make you the same monster you’re fighting. Or maybe you were already the monster and just needed an excuse."
As short as it is, I believe that is the only speech I have ever put into the mouth of one of my characters, but it was a speech that expressed my frustration with the debate as it stood and it is a speech that still expresses my frustration with the debate as it stands.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster." It is probably the best known and most used quote from Friedrich Nietzsche but I sincerely wish that more people who claim to fight monsters would pay attention to what it means. Monsters must be fought, but creating new monsters in the process helps no one.