Tim Blair says of the
Tim Blair says of the soldiers occupying Iraq: “They haven’t looted anything.” Um, yes they have. And they’ve also encouraged looting, which goes far beyond mere failure to prevent it.
Red Rag is proudly powered by
WordPress and Union Labour.
The careless observer might think this was so, but only from an extremely superficial reading of the material. Taking most of the meaning out of words enables the verb “loot” to cover anything & everything; but it also removes the original connotations which were the basis for considering English such a rich language.
Humpty Dumpty advocated a word simply meaning whatever the speaker wanted it to mean. He was a good postmodernist. So are those who follow Humpty’s example, and want to live happily in their own little “Wonderlands”.
Explain, then, Norman, what were the “original connotations” of the word “loot”, and how do they differ from my Humpty Dumpty usage?
There are many words in English, Robert, which can be used to indicate that someone other than the current owner has taken them. The original media reports used the word ‘loot’ (with its standard connotation) to describe the actions of mobs engaging in large scale appropriation of items belonging to others. you have used it to cover such actions as the acquisition of ashtrays, and Humpty would applaud you for showing you were ready to make the word mean whatever helped you cobble together a pathetic attempt to equate the two actions.
I may be guilty of the “S” word, Robert. I have never souveneired an ashtray from a hotel, but I probably have scrounged abandoned items in my youth. I’m willing to accept that such actions can amount to stealing.
But really, Robert, the “L” word? I realise it provides your “argument” some emotional appeal; but SHOULD we apply ‘looting’ to abandoned ashtrays? Why not, if you insist on a martial term, the other “L” word, ‘liberating’?
You ask what would Humpty have to say. I’m surprised, Robert, you’re so unaware of his seminal influence on the whole postmodernist movement. Had the king’s horses and men been able to put him together again, he’d be there now, alongside Derrida, Foucault and Corr. Rather than speak for Mr Dumpty, I urge you to tackle Carroll’s very readable presentation of his thinking.
After that, who knows. You may even come to call me Turtle?
In other words, Norman, aside from the idiotic psychobabble about post-modernism, you think that all Rob was referring to was US soldiers stealing ashtrays. This is a logical fallacy, as you’re putting words in his mouth.
Check this out if you think the US soldiers and press are completely innocent in taking their “souvenirs” as you call them. Or the Iraqi mobs and how a US official quit over the “acquisition” of proposedly “abandoned” items from that cultural museum in Baghdad.
You’re a funny man, Norman, but not too quick on the news intake. Maybe you should stop namedropping for a sec and actually read what’s put on this site for a change…
Jonathan, the simplified version, prepared especially for those who NEED help with language, is: —
1] English is a rich language, containing many words which have similar, frequently overlapping, but nevertheless distinct meanings.
2] When people, whether consciously or subconciously, use such words loosely in order to add emotive strength to their “argument” they’re often contributing to the more rapid loss of valuable distinctions to be found in the English language.
I’m aware of the theft referred to in your article, Jonathan. If any of the items were taken forcibly, it would have also constituted robbery. The term “looting” can be useful at times, too, because it has additional connotations. If, however, you genuinely believe that stealing, robbing and looting all mean the same, Jonathan, you really need to conduct a little “research” before you’re ready to question others.
Robbing done en masse, as would be evident in the extent of damage to a great deal of locations in Baghdad and Basra, would be considered by me at least to be a convincing allusion to looting. Medical professionals sitting outside hospitals with rifles in hand to stop people running in would also hint to the fact that robbery is a very large understatement. There was a story not too long ago that the Baghdad zoo was robbed of every animal except the tigers. That would certainly take more than a couple people, and isn’t exactly something I would call simple “robbery.” Who robs a zoo? Sounds more like once everything else nearby was picked clean by the mobs, they started on the next thing, no matter how outlandish.
So Norman, maybe - just maybe - when I say “looting” I mean “looting” and not “stealing” or “robbing” or “acquiring” or “liberating” or any other stupid euphemism spewed at us by Fox News.
In Iraq, jonathan, there has been looting and there has been ‘looting’. Those of us who attempt to retain some vestige of the word’s normal meanings, would find nothing wrong with your use, immediately above, of the word ‘looting’, because you give instances in which looting was clearly taking place.
There were earlier instances, however [and it was these that my initial comments addressed] of the word ‘looting’ being used inappropriately, to describe actions for which other words were more appropriate. Often, of course, some posters may blurr the issue even further, by using the words ‘looting’ and ‘”looting”‘ interchangably, as if they signified the same thing. A keen observer such as yourself, Jonathan, might be immediately aware of this ploy, and see through it — but not everyone does.
Some, Jonathan, even after reading this, will still be lost; but helping them, unless they’re prepared to think it through carefully, requires more help than can be readily delivered on a website.
Finally, Jonathan, you clearly understand the use of euphemisms. Never forget what might be seen as a form of reverse euphemism. This occurs when people use a less appropriate but more pejorative term to describe the position of those they wish to attack. It’s most effective when they intermingle appropriate and inappropriate uses of a word, and sometime [but not always] attach inverted commas to it.
Once you get the hang of the logic of language, it becomes fairly simple for the CAREFUL reader to spot this tactic. Best wishes, Jonathan. It’s so pleasing to find someone who genuinely wants to come to grips with the correct use of words.
Nice blog