So suggests Chris Seiple, writing in the CSM:
In the course of my travels — from the Middle East to Central Asia to Southeast Asia — it has been my great privilege to meet and become friends with many devout Muslims. These friendships are defined by frank respect as we listen to each other; understand and agree on the what, why, and how of our disagreements, political and theological; and, most of all, deepen our points of commonality as a result.
[…]
As President Obama considers his first speech in a Muslim majority country (he visits Turkey April 6-7), and as the US national security establishment reviews its foreign policy and public diplomacy, I want to share the advice given to me from dear Muslim friends worldwide regarding words and concepts that are not useful in building relationships with them. Obviously, we are not going to throw out all of these terms, nor should we. But we do need to be very careful about how we use them, and in what context.
— Because naturally, why should our dear Muslim friends have to learn how we use particular signs? Rather it’s prudent, when around Muslims, to have memorized all the ways they might intentionally misinterpret you, then proceed according to that assumption. As a show of good faith.
— Which means, be careful when you use words like “secular,” “tolerance,” “moderate,” “freedom” and “religious freedom” — because according to Mr Seiple, Muslims (bless their devout little fundamentalist hearts) simply can’t be expected to understand such terms in any but the way those terms make them feel. And we need to respect that, if we’re ever truly to converse (rather than merely “dialogue”) with our dear Muslim friends across the globe.
Left unstated, curiously, is why Muslims aren’t asked to make the same kinds of linguistic sacrifices in order to effectively converse with us — but then, one gets the sense from Mr Seiple that, well, the Muslims just aren’t all that capable of conceptualizing outside their own worldview.
And so if we hope one day to stop the extremists among them from blowing up our shit, we can start by pretending that we don’t mean what we mean when we say what we mean, and instead try to remember what it is that they mean when they hear when we say what we mean — and make the appropriate concessions.
What additional cultures and religions should be permitted to ask the same of us Mr Seiple doesn’t go on to say. But I suppose just to be safe, our State Department can send along to each and every country, religion, and ethnic minority in the world a current English dictionary and have whatever official spokesperson thinks for these groups cross out the words they don’t much care for.
Our kids can then be taught in school what words are off-limits to which groups — using graphs, charts, and Venn diagrams in the entire rainbow of colors! — so that they can prepare themselves to be good little citizens of the world.
Sure, it’ll take some time, but who needs wood shop anyway, right? Or gym? — which, let’s face it, simply promotes a culture of physical superiority that sends the wrong message to our children little persons pre-adults future adults spatiotemporally-challenged proto-adults.
This all seems kind of complicated, I realize. But if we truly believe in freedom you know, we need to put our tolerance thingie on display…
(h/t Charles M)
How does Seiple feel about the words, “Kiss my ass”.
Is “not useful” codespeak for “so they don’t behead you, blow up cineplexes, slaughter innocent people to get even for using such terms”? Or am I applying my inerpretation to Chris Seiple’s cautions?
Crawling gets you dirty. It doesn’t get you respect.
So … perhaps the expression “Death to the infidels” doesn’t mean what we think it does?
Something to ponder.
Madness.
Utter madness.
A, (partial), list of terms I would like governments, media, academics and assorted others not to use as they are words and concepts that are not useful in building relationships with me:
stimulus
wealth redistribution
tax the rich
for the children
for the good of society
fairness
equality of outcome
earmarks
campaign contributions
government control of….
And on and on.
Whilst I myself am a peaceful moderate who would never resort to violence when confronted by any of these terms, I fear that a small, but passionate, minority who share my worldview might be driven to an over aggressive reaction by these concepts and the socialist, hegemonic, paradigm they represent.
“…we need to put our …thingie on display”
I was afraid that this is what this would become …an “I swing a bigger dick, and I can prove it” kind of thing.
So, Patterico: Jeff says put up, or shut up.
/heh
So, what are the terms we’re supposed to be avoiding if they can’t list them out?
It’s almost like saying “Jehovah”.
He left out goatfuckers, towel-heads and sand niggers. Is it still okay to use those?
Someone needs a refill on his Ritalin.
That was for #7.
[removed at request of commenter].
Comment by Mr. Pink on 3/30 @ 10:17 am #
Haji.
So Muslims are offended by Jonny Quest’s li’l Hindu friend now?
“White mans burden”. Now in new improved progressive/socialist version.
Don’t say these with 52% of Americans:
“Free”
“Self-reliant”
“Palin”
They feel that these are merely instruments of the capitalist establishment used to inhibit the spread of labor-class consciousness. They find them offensive and I am happy not to avoid using them and to scream at other conservatives who persist in using them.
It’s actually an inversion of the traditional formulation of White Man’s Burden. White Man’s Burden used to mean the duty to bring the benighted savages to Christ’s arms. This inversion starts from similar presumptions about the nature of the benighted savages, but instead refuses to impose ANY values on them. That’s IMPERIALISM!!!!!
We wouldn’t to stop them from eating their own shit and fucking each other in the ear, that would be an imposition of western values. Instead, we should start eating our own shit so that they don’t make us fuck each other in the ear.
Oh, fuck you. people deserve basic respect. Views do not.
Yeah, the big unspoken question with what not to say is, “or what.”
Or … they won’t like us? Don’t care. Or … they blow themselves up in places where there are Christians, Jews, or Westerners? Seems like the solution there is to blow them up first, not humor them.
Or, wait, is this like the black guy/boy analogy? What’s Patterico’s opinion? Are we just always wrong here?
I think I really need a bullet point list of different black guy/boy word scenarios to help me understand this linguisitc and semantic environment.
I’m getting that every Muslim is one bad phrase utterance away from
being a jihadiletting his internal struggle spill out.Is that what Chris S was trying to say?
No “Ships of the desert” jokes, then?
[removed at request of commenter]
It’s almost like saying “Jehovah”.
You’re only making it worse….
Ah, that’s what Israel has been doing wrong for fifty years, indelicate phrasing.
It’s almost like saying “Jehovahâ€.
You’re only making it worse….
Now listen! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle!
“I am offended!”
“Yeah? You probably need to work on that, pal.”
Chris Seiple must know different Muslims than I do. The ones I know are rather polite when dealing with visitors – and they don’t get all pissy and jihad-y when you speak to them with out servile cringing.
Display basic good manners, speak your mind and they respect that. Disemble, prance and pomo-lingusitically dance and they will be puzzled, annoyed and wonder what is wrong with you.
Cripes, its not like the President of the US is going to the Turkish Parliament to try and convert them to Christianity or make jokes about Mohammed’s beard or somesuch. He’s going to go talk turkey (so to speak) with Turkey. They are adult enough to handle it, Chris.
Remember that line delivered by the Pope person a few years back that was so not useful?
I think Seiple would edit it something like this:
“Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things
only evil and inhuman, nominative of our differences and commonalities, such as his command to spreadby the sword the faith he preacheda robust and civil pluralism.”When we allowed the Confederate Battle Flag to be defined as a symbol of racism/white supremacism, without reference to what it meant to the people displaying it, we set the precedent that claiming offense at what a symbol means to the alleged victim is all that is necessary to prove their victimhood.
The rest is just details.
Can someone please erase my 12 and 21? After some contemplation I realize they are entirely not work appropriate and I am not trying to get fired.
Jeff, that last sentence looked good, one problem though, you came across as a little bit sarcastic.
Next time, try not to come across so rudely or you’re gonna alienate the middle (east).
Just saying.
It’s a softer, gentler sort of racism that Mr Seiple wants us to have. How genteel.
And I have no respect for “views” that allow the stoning of women or the hanging/dropping of stone walls of gays. I’m funny that way.
[…] UPDATE: Meanwhile, in the world of the Islamists… […]
Did you notice the editor’s note at the end of that supine article? Apparently, they had left out the word “not” in the original headline so it appeared that he was saying, “Say these words” instead of “don’t say these words”.
I have to admit, it made more sense before they edited the headline.
LTC John, are you sure about that? I mean, after the Brits, the Russians, the Mexicans and the Chinese have all felt the benifit of Obama’s diplomacy?
Or were you being ironic?
but instead refuses to impose ANY values on them. That’s IMPERIALISM!!!!!
That’s the Prime Directive, yo.
And Speaker for the Dead has an interesting take on what Not Interfering gets you.
A wonderfully succinct defense against intentionalism.
what does the re-set button have to say?
[…] Jeff Goldstein has devised an excellent new euphemism for children. After rejecting little persons and pre-adults and future adults, he lit upon spatiotemporally-challenged proto-adults. I hope to see this accepted as the common usage in all official reports, directives, ukases and commands. […]
1. “The Clash of Civilizations.” You are right. Islamofacsists are not civilized. It a clase of the civilized (the rest of the world) vs. the uncivilized (Islamofacsists).
2. “Secular.” When Muslims show some tolerance to Jews and Christians and other faiths in their nations (see below), we can start adopting other terms to secular. In the meantime, blow me.
3. “Assimilation.” You mean subsistute “Multiculturalism”? How about, what did the sail boat say? A: Blow me!
4. “Reformation.” Muslims don’t need to be insulted by suggesting they follow the Christian example of Martin Luther? How about stop committing terrorist attacks first and we can then discuss your feeeeeeeeeliiiinngs. And to the rest of the Muslim world, fuck you and your damn feelings. We should not be dealing with your shit. You brought these jokers to the party. Take care of them yourselves or we will take care of them for you. Guess what, Allah is not pleased with you and he has chosen the Jews and Christian/Secular West to kick your asses. Reflect on that.
5. “Jihadi.” Since terrorists call themselves “Jihadis” it is obviously our bias and prejudice that results in us call terrorists Jihadis. Can you ever forgive us? No? Blow me.
6. “Moderate.” It may be your culture to be “robust” in your faith when dealing with Jews, woman, gays, and other infidels. It is our culture to blow the shit out of you when you decide to be “robust” to us. Again, blow me.
7. “Interfaith.” This term conjures up images of watered-down, lowest common denominator statements that avoid the tough issues and are consequently irrelevant. You mean like not blowing up inocents to make a theological point? Again, blow me (not blow me up Jihadi scum, just blow me).
8. “Freedom.” “‘Freedom’ is best framed in the context of how they understand such things as peace, justice, honor, mercy, and compassion.” How about not blowing up inocent persons, or cutting their heads off, or other acts of “peace, justice, honor, mercy and compassion.” Again, blow me.
9. “Religious Freedom.” Blow me. Even Christopher Hitchens seconds an “Amen brother!” You mean how Jews are just embraced in the Muslim world as “people of the book?” Again, blow me.
10. “Tolerance.” We need to be honest with and respect one another enough to name our differences and commonalities, according to the inherent dignity we each have as fellow creations of God called to walk together in peace and justice, mercy and compassion. How about not killing us every chance you get? We can talk tolerance then.
Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.
“— Because naturally, why should our dear Muslim friends have to learn how we use particular signs? Rather it’s prudent, when around Muslims, to have memorized all the ways they might intentionally misinterpret you, then proceed according to that assumption.”
Well, it IS prudent. Because otherwise, they start beheading and burning cars and blowing up shit, y’know. The alternative is to start insisting on respect for Western values and the rule of law (other than sharia, I mean) in our own goddamned countries, and, well, we just can’t have that.
“Oh, Lord, won’t you buy me a Mercedes-Benz…” Good song for the Hadj.
#35 – I hope I won’t be proven to have been unintentionally ironic…
A relationship that does not include the term “freedom” is not worth having.
Now, now. I’m sure that Barky brought along a lovely and appropriate gift for the Turks.
Maybe one of those spiral-cut Virginia hams.
Those kick ass.
“An Illustrated Biography Of the Prophet Mohammad: Volume 47”
“Map of the Middle East with Israel prominently marked”
Or: A baby’s arm holding an apple.
When Robert and the lovely and talented Ginny (my hero) Heinlein visited the USSR way back when, after Ginny had spent a couple of years learning Russian so they wouldn’t be entirely at the mercy of their “guides,” he came back and offered lots of cool advice on how to “win” against Intourist. He said you couldn’t actually win in the Western sense; you were bound to pay too much, see too little, eat too poorly, sleep in substandard rooms… but, he said, you could “win” by getting more than Intourist intended you to get. One thing he and Ginny concentrated on getting was information, but another thing was the personal satisfaction of trying to get their “guides'” heads to explode. A primary method: using the word “democracy” as an antonym to “USSR.” For instance: “How do you Soviets deal with the problems of [whatever]? We in the democracies take this approach…”
Of course, he said that at one point the two of them were hauled into some guy’s windowless office and threatened for quite a while (I think the U2 thing had just happened and tensions were especially high), so he added that readers should take his advice at their own risk. But I’ve always loved the essay in which he laid it all out – the essence of which was, don’t let your enemy define the terms of your relationship.
Anyone who attempts to dictate the terms of our relationship is, by definition, not my friend.
Words Obama and his stooges never say: “…they cling to their suicide bombs and their religion….”
#26 LTC John
I think Seiple may be (without realizing it?) thinking of the more :: ahem :: politically active members of Muslim communities in Western countries.
I tried to post my comment at Patterico on a thread of the same title, but found I am banned. That’s how it goes over there.
“I think Seiple may be (without realizing it?) thinking of the more :: ahem :: politically active members of Muslim communities in Western countries.”
Sounds about right – the Bosnians, Iraqis, Afghans, Egyptians and UAE guys I have met were not like that.
[…] Jeff Goldstein has his own take on the subject, but there are other points to be made. Several of these terms have lengthy histories that predate their current application, and we should not abandon them simply because some people have decided they don’t like them. […]
[…] to talk with Muslims 31 03 2009 This is a link to Protein Wisdom where Jeff Goldstein continues to back up his claims about words meaning what you communicate, not […]
Until they start a list on how to get along with infidels including STOP TRYING TO KILL THEM and STOP EXCUSING THOSE WHO TRY TO KILL THEM! I’m just going to call the thin skinned little pricks, stupid-shit-for-brains-mohammedans and hope for the best. Now let’s talk.
“I’m just going to call the thin skinned little pricks, stupid-shit-for-brains-mohammedans and hope for the best.”
Perhaps you missed my point about manners?
Perhaps I did. Did you have one? We have a saying around these parts, however, when someone can’t take a joke. Perhaps you missed it.
Those were #11 and #12 on the list.
As a joke – kind of clumsy and fail-y. My point about manners was that you can actually speak quite clearly and not have to engage in PC-talk as long as you are at least polite. At least when visiting Muslims. Here – go as blue as you’d like.
[…] topic yesterday) comes this piece from James Lewis touching on the topic of idealizing Otherness I brushed against yesterday in my dealings with Mr […]
[…] Protein Wisdom […]