The supporters of the 'unmentionables' are demanding that Columbia University ban the use of all words such as 'Jews', 'Zionists' and 'Israelis' pertaining to those unmentionable people in any speech that criticizes, even mildly and on good grounds, the unmentionable people. On the other hand, if you want to conform to the uniform and unquestionable bias, and so cavort and lick boots, then you are more than welcome to use the words 'Jews', 'Zionists' and 'Israelis'.
Apparently, research has shown that the unmentionable people are beyond reproach and have divine immunity against criticism, and that would be the basis for Columbia's linguistic ban. Which means you can no longer level any criticism at these people because you cannot name them. From now on, you shall refer to them as the "unmentionables". For example, you are allowed to say that the unmentionables raped Palestine, but you cannot say the Zionists raped Palestine. It's really very simple.
Next, as natural selection works on language as it does on genes, other terms will be coined to fill in the now empty niche. For example, I believe the Columbia's "proper speech lexicon" will eventually add other terms to its linguistic ban such as the word "Settler" or "European Semites". But until Columbia does ban these terms, you are free to say, for example, "unmentionable settlers raped Palestine 100 years ago and continue to rape it as we speak".
Now, for equanimity and fairness, Columbia should also ban the use of the words "Arab", "Palestinian", or "Muslim" whenever blame is to be leveled against those people too. Only praise should be showered on them, just like their semitic unmentionable brethern. Perhaps, this will catch on and the words "Black", African" or "African American" will eventually be banned from critical use like their ancestor term "n----r"... Otherwise, the whole enterprise will be seen as favoring the unmentionables in this linguistic protection program against the fundamental right of free speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment