||| FROM PAUL LOSLEBEN |||
I’ve been following the comments on Steve Henigson’s columns and am concerned that we are wandering into an unpleasant and unproductive dialog. Steve made the mistake of identifying the COVID-19 virus as the “China virus” and then compounded his mistake by attempting to defend his words. I’m all for free speech, but perhaps it is time to recall the words of Dr. Clyde Ford in a presentation that he made at our library not that long ago.
Dr. Ford is a fellow of Humanities Washington and an expert on racial relations. I attended his talk entitled, “Let’s Talk About Race: How to have a difficult conversation about an important topic.” He basically makes the point that discrimination and bigotry are topics that we need to talk about, but that there are “dog whistles” that inflame hatred and which serve to move people further apart rather than to bring about mutual understanding.
Steve used the phrase “China virus,” perhaps not understanding that it would be interpreted as an intentional dog whistle. But, those who
responded by calling him a “bigot” also employed a word that carries weight beyond those five letters. While both parties have the right to
believe and say whatever they want, I doubt that the ensuing discussion changed minds.
Dr. Ford in his talk suggested that we consider the difference between the meanings of the words that we use to express what we believe and what we wish to convey. We all discriminate in our minds. It is when we ACT on that discrimination that we get into trouble. One may believe that Steve discriminates against people who are Chinese, but when we call him a bigot, and use that loaded word, the conversation goes south.
So, please, let’s exercise some civility in our use of language, especially in print. Steve may believe anything he wants as long as he does not take action on that belief in print. But likewise, we may believe anything that we want about Steve, but when we act on that belief by calling him a bigot, we are as guilty as he is.
Actually, I think the phrase he used was “… the Chinese disease …” . I am not sure what his motivation was for using (and subsequently) defending his choice of words. However, it seems all too common these days for the misinformed, ill-informed or those with a peculiar political perspective to employ dog-whistle terms rather than to relate their thoughts and opinions in a mature, thoughtful manner.
I firmly agree with Paul, and think his comments very sensible and well-expressed.
Ken, I am not picking a fight with you, but might I suggest that “misinformed, ill-informed” might be a bit inflammatory and hurtful also, however true you (and I) may believe them to be. Just sayin’.
Personally, I read Steve’s use of Trump’s insult as expressing his contempt for Trump and his lying trope. But that’s the problem with social media.
Kenn Gibbs is correct, I went back to look and indeed the phrase Steve used was “ the Chinese disease”… I also did not find that anyone called Steve a bigot in the comments, unless that comment was deleted. Am I missing something?
Here’s the original article:
https://theorcasonian.com/orcasional-musings-hey-what-about-thanksgiving-dinner/comment-page-1/#comments
Seriously, this concerns us.. Steve, thank you for bending our branches..
Now I’ll breath and reflect on what really matters..the mirrors always reflect our projections.
Steve, thank you for allowing us to ponder our own resolutions.
the debate over whether what was meant to be said or what was heard to be said is more important always goes on. neither side can be discredited easily. however, the conflict usually arises from negative words, not positive ones. when the listener hears a negative phrase it can be easier to mistake it as implying something the speaker did not intend. in this sense I sometimes wonder if people are trying to use words to be misunderstood because it draws conflict which is what drives clicks.