News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
4/04/2006 01:00 AM cindy rodríguez | staff columnist "Illegal" as a noun breaks law of reason By Cindy Rodríguez Denver Post Staff Columnist DenverPost.com
When figuring ways to shape public opinion, the first thing any savvy strategist does is craft phrases that will elicit a desired response.
Want people to have a more positive reaction to dead Iraqi civilians? Call them "collateral damage."
Want to get Americans to feel good about government spying? Name your law "The Patriot Act."
If you can control the words people use, you can frame the issue. In effect, you control the way people view it.
That is exactly what is happening with the immigration debate.
To avoid dealing with complex problems in our nation -- crumbling public schools, senior citizens who have lost their pensions, a shrinking middle class -- some politicians are taking the easy way out by focusing on undocumented immigrants.
Those politicians are being goaded by nativists, racists and brainwashed people who are confused in our culture of fear.
Their term of choice: "illegals."
That shorthand term for "illegal immigrants" -- which they use as a noun, making linguists cringe -- is being used repeatedly by reactionary commentators and politicians in every venue available.
They rail about "illegals" on radio talk shows. Hate groups like the Aryan Nation spew vitriol about the "illegal invasion" in e-mail blasts. Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs drone on about "illegals" every night.
These distinct groups use the same language. The same words. The same phrases.
It's an orchestrated effort designed to instill fear in Americans. And it's working.
"The terms 'aliens' and 'illegals' provoke fear, loathing and dread," says George Lakoff, a linguist who teaches at the University of California at Berkeley. "There is a physiology to this governed in the brain. Certain ideas activate the neurons in the brain, which result in visceral bodily reactions."
That is why if you think "chocolate," you feel happy; if someone says "vomit," you feel disgusted. [What if you've vomited a lot of chocolate?--DC]
Lakoff: "If you say 'illegal immigrants,' it activates an immigrant frame. And when people think of immigrants they think of their grandparents, they think of them as honorable, hardworking people."
But, he said, if a person cuts out the word "immigrants" and uses "illegals," it conjures a different image: People who are dangerous and want to commit criminal acts.
Throw in other scary words, such as "invasion" and "alien," and it's bound to make people feel scared.
That's how propaganda works. Repeat the words continually until it reshapes the way people think.
If you don't believe there is a plot to reshape the way America thinks, Google "Frank Luntz strategy report" and you'll find his 160-page blueprint for reactionaries, written by the man who helped Newt Gingrich write his "Contract for America."
In it, Luntz lists phrases reactionaries should never use. He cautions: "Never use 'drilling for oil'; instead say 'exploring for energy.'"
Luntz also says, "Never use 'undocumented workers.' Use 'illegal aliens.'" He continues: "In fact, instead of addressing 'immigration reform,' which polarizes Americans, you should be talking about 'border security issues.'"
Lakoff says if we want to undo the damage done by alarmists, we need to reframe the issue by using alternate terms, such as "necessary workers" or "essential workers."
"It would create what's called a positive stereotype," he said.
We also would have to talk about how these workers are "upholding the American lifestyle" and "making the American dream possible for us."
Without these workers, crops would rot, trash would pile up in offices, hotel dust bunnies would become dust mongrels, and restaurants would have to be refashioned as places where "u-cook, u-serve."
When I think of all that undocumented workers do for us, I don't feel fear. I feel gratitude.
Cindy Rodríguez's column appears Tuesdays in Scene and Sundays in Style. Contact her at 303-820-1211 or mailto:crodriguez@denverpost.com.
-- Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_ http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/ News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an *anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!" -- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in _Detective Comics_ #608
G*rd*n
2006-04-04 14:22:41 EST
cindy rodr\ufffdguez | staff columnist, Denver Post: > ... > We also would have to talk about how these workers are > "upholding the American lifestyle" and "making the American > dream possible for us." > > Without these workers, crops would rot, trash would pile up > in offices, hotel dust bunnies would become dust mongrels, > and restaurants would have to be refashioned as places where > "u-cook, u-serve." > > When I think of all that undocumented workers do for us, I > don't feel fear. I feel gratitude.
The above strongly implies that we want to keep using Mexicans as serfs. Part of what keeps many of them on the bottom, and thus available for our shitwork, is precisely their immigration status, with, no doubt, a strong dose of racism added in certain areas.
It may be that the present American economic order requires a large army of underemployed, poorly paid shitworkers. If so we are in for yet further interesting times, because it looks like the Mexicans and other Latin Americans are going to be either successfully excluded or legalized. Before long we are going to be out of serfs.
Better eat your (cheap) vegetables while you've got them.
O*@aol.com
2006-04-04 15:13:09 EST
Dan Clore wrote: > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo > > 4/04/2006 01:00 AM > cindy rodríguez | staff columnist > "Illegal" as a noun breaks law of reason > By Cindy Rodríguez > Denver Post Staff Columnist > DenverPost.com > > When figuring ways to shape public opinion, the first thing > any savvy strategist does is craft phrases that will elicit > a desired response. > > Want people to have a more positive reaction to dead Iraqi > civilians? Call them "collateral damage." > > Want to get Americans to feel good about government spying? > Name your law "The Patriot Act." > > If you can control the words people use, you can frame the > issue. In effect, you control the way people view it. > > That is exactly what is happening with the immigration debate. > > To avoid dealing with complex problems in our nation -- > crumbling public schools, senior citizens who have lost > their pensions, a shrinking middle class -- some politicians > are taking the easy way out by focusing on undocumented > immigrants.
Hilarious. While rebuking "word games," the author plays one of her own. What a disingenuous cunt.
> > Those politicians are being goaded by nativists, racists and > brainwashed people who are confused in our culture of fear. > > Their term of choice: "illegals." > > That shorthand term for "illegal immigrants" -- which they > use as a noun, making linguists cringe -- is being used > repeatedly by reactionary commentators and politicians in > every venue available. > > They rail about "illegals" on radio talk shows. Hate groups > like the Aryan Nation spew vitriol about the "illegal > invasion" in e-mail blasts. Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs > drone on about "illegals" every night. > > These distinct groups use the same language. The same words. > The same phrases. > > It's an orchestrated effort designed to instill fear in > Americans. And it's working. > > "The terms 'aliens' and 'illegals' provoke fear, loathing > and dread," says George Lakoff, a linguist who teaches at > the University of California at Berkeley. "There is a > physiology to this governed in the brain. Certain ideas > activate the neurons in the brain, which result in visceral > bodily reactions." > > That is why if you think "chocolate," you feel happy; if > someone says "vomit," you feel disgusted. > [What if you've vomited a lot of chocolate?--DC] > > Lakoff: "If you say 'illegal immigrants,' it activates an > immigrant frame. And when people think of immigrants they > think of their grandparents, they think of them as > honorable, hardworking people." > > But, he said, if a person cuts out the word "immigrants" and > uses "illegals," it conjures a different image: People who > are dangerous and want to commit criminal acts. > > Throw in other scary words, such as "invasion" and "alien," > and it's bound to make people feel scared. > > That's how propaganda works. Repeat the words continually > until it reshapes the way people think. > > If you don't believe there is a plot to reshape the way > America thinks, Google "Frank Luntz strategy report" and > you'll find his 160-page blueprint for reactionaries, > written by the man who helped Newt Gingrich write his > "Contract for America." > > In it, Luntz lists phrases reactionaries should never use. > He cautions: "Never use 'drilling for oil'; instead say > 'exploring for energy.'" > > Luntz also says, "Never use 'undocumented workers.' Use > 'illegal aliens.'" He continues: "In fact, instead of > addressing 'immigration reform,' which polarizes Americans, > you should be talking about 'border security issues.'" > > Lakoff says if we want to undo the damage done by alarmists, > we need to reframe the issue by using alternate terms, such > as "necessary workers" or "essential workers." > > "It would create what's called a positive stereotype," he said. > > We also would have to talk about how these workers are > "upholding the American lifestyle" and "making the American > dream possible for us." > > Without these workers, crops would rot, trash would pile up > in offices, hotel dust bunnies would become dust mongrels, > and restaurants would have to be refashioned as places where > "u-cook, u-serve."
Yes, because before the illegal invasion, no one did these jobs. Try coming up with less easily destroyed shit, idiot.
> > When I think of all that undocumented workers do for us, I > don't feel fear. I feel gratitude.
Yes, all those closed ER's and busting-at-the-seams schools are really great.
> > Cindy Rodríguez's column appears Tuesdays in Scene and > Sundays in Style. Contact her at 303-820-1211 or > mailto:crodriguez@denverpost.com. > > -- > Dan Clore > > Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_ > http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro > Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page: > http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/ > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo > > "It's a political statement -- or, rather, an > *anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!" > -- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in > _Detective Comics_ #608
>cindy rodríguez | staff columnist, Denver Post: >> ... >> We also would have to talk about how these workers are >> "upholding the American lifestyle" and "making the American >> dream possible for us." >> >> Without these workers, crops would rot, trash would pile up >> in offices, hotel dust bunnies would become dust mongrels, >> and restaurants would have to be refashioned as places where >> "u-cook, u-serve." >> >> When I think of all that undocumented workers do for us, I >> don't feel fear. I feel gratitude. > > >The above strongly implies that we want to keep using >Mexicans as serfs. Part of what keeps many of them >on the bottom, and thus available for our shitwork, >is precisely their immigration status, with, no doubt, >a strong dose of racism added in certain areas. > >It may be that the present American economic order >requires a large army of underemployed, poorly paid >shitworkers. If so we are in for yet further >interesting times, because it looks like the Mexicans >and other Latin Americans are going to be either >successfully excluded or legalized. Before long >we are going to be out of serfs. > >Better eat your (cheap) vegetables while you've got >them.
I guess it is only natural that if you have a territory where labour relations are strongly legalized, a poorer neighboring territory with surplus labour, and a very extensive border betwee these territories, then there will be a net flow of labour into the strongly legalized territory to provide for un-legalized labour. It will take a lot of energy to stop that influx and stopping the influx will decrease growth. Everybody loses. So I bet you will still have your serfs walking around with humble looks and wet backs for some time, and cheap vegetables.
G*rd*n
2006-04-06 09:25:26 EST
cindy rodr\ufffdguez | staff columnist, Denver Post: >>> ... >>> We also would have to talk about how these workers are >>> "upholding the American lifestyle" and "making the American >>> dream possible for us." >>> >>> Without these workers, crops would rot, trash would pile up >>> in offices, hotel dust bunnies would become dust mongrels, >>> and restaurants would have to be refashioned as places where >>> "u-cook, u-serve." >>> >>> When I think of all that undocumented workers do for us, I >>> don't feel fear. I feel gratitude.
g*f@panix.com (G*rd*n): > >The above strongly implies that we want to keep using > >Mexicans as serfs. Part of what keeps many of them > >on the bottom, and thus available for our shitwork, > >is precisely their immigration status, with, no doubt, > >a strong dose of racism added in certain areas. > > > >It may be that the present American economic order > >requires a large army of underemployed, poorly paid > >shitworkers. If so we are in for yet further > >interesting times, because it looks like the Mexicans > >and other Latin Americans are going to be either > >successfully excluded or legalized. Before long > >we are going to be out of serfs. > > > >Better eat your (cheap) vegetables while you've got > >them.
Joseph K. <nihil@none.com>: > I guess it is only natural that if you have a territory where labour > relations are strongly legalized, a poorer neighboring territory with > surplus labour, and a very extensive border betwee these territories, > then there will be a net flow of labour into the strongly legalized > territory to provide for un-legalized labour. It will take a lot of > energy to stop that influx and stopping the influx will decrease > growth. Everybody loses. So I bet you will still have your serfs > walking around with humble looks and wet backs for some time, and > cheap vegetables.
Preservation of the status quo would certainly serve many interests, but I think the current frenzy, which has now excited not only right-wingers but, in response, millions of Hispanics, and even gotten the Democratic Party to stir in its sleep, will force the issue one way or the other. My guess is that the frenzy is due to rightist disappointment with the Bush regime, specifically its failed imperial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the soaring budget and trade deficits, its economic problems, and its inability to save one if its major cities from destruction. As is so often the case, the execution of a highly ideological agenda by a state has led to various disasters with more on the horizon. A scapegoat issue is needed, and the influx of Mexicans is available. But now the issue will be used up. Either the U.S. will spend many billions of dollars in a sort of civil war against its own economy, or it will legalize the immigrants.
The Right was better off persecuting homosexuals, but I guess there weren't enough of them.
>cindy rodríguez | staff columnist, Denver Post: >>>> ... >>>> We also would have to talk about how these workers are >>>> "upholding the American lifestyle" and "making the American >>>> dream possible for us." >>>> >>>> Without these workers, crops would rot, trash would pile up >>>> in offices, hotel dust bunnies would become dust mongrels, >>>> and restaurants would have to be refashioned as places where >>>> "u-cook, u-serve." >>>> >>>> When I think of all that undocumented workers do for us, I >>>> don't feel fear. I feel gratitude. > >*f@panix.com (G*rd*n): >> >The above strongly implies that we want to keep using >> >Mexicans as serfs. Part of what keeps many of them >> >on the bottom, and thus available for our shitwork, >> >is precisely their immigration status, with, no doubt, >> >a strong dose of racism added in certain areas. >> > >> >It may be that the present American economic order >> >requires a large army of underemployed, poorly paid >> >shitworkers. If so we are in for yet further >> >interesting times, because it looks like the Mexicans >> >and other Latin Americans are going to be either >> >successfully excluded or legalized. Before long >> >we are going to be out of serfs. >> > >> >Better eat your (cheap) vegetables while you've got >> >them. > >Joseph K. <nihil@none.com>: >> I guess it is only natural that if you have a territory where labour >> relations are strongly legalized, a poorer neighboring territory with >> surplus labour, and a very extensive border betwee these territories, >> then there will be a net flow of labour into the strongly legalized >> territory to provide for un-legalized labour. It will take a lot of >> energy to stop that influx and stopping the influx will decrease >> growth. Everybody loses. So I bet you will still have your serfs >> walking around with humble looks and wet backs for some time, and >> cheap vegetables. > > >Preservation of the status quo would certainly serve many >interests, but I think the current frenzy, which has now >excited not only right-wingers but, in response, millions of >Hispanics, and even gotten the Democratic Party to stir in >its sleep, will force the issue one way or the other. My >guess is that the frenzy is due to rightist disappointment >with the Bush regime, specifically its failed imperial wars >in Afghanistan and Iraq, the soaring budget and trade deficits, >its economic problems, and its inability to save one if its >major cities from destruction. As is so often the case, the >execution of a highly ideological agenda by a state has led >to various disasters with more on the horizon. A scapegoat >issue is needed, and the influx of Mexicans is available. >But now the issue will be used up. Either the U.S. will >spend many billions of dollars in a sort of civil war against >its own economy, or it will legalize the immigrants.
A compromise solution might be to legalize them but in such a way that they will still be second rate cheap labour, not entitled to the full panoply of rights and protections of the other, true American and expensive labour.
>The Right was better off persecuting homosexuals, but I >guess there weren't enough of them.
I guess they cann't afford more imperial wars: the Chinese and Japanese will not provide the money. They have to re-visit some old domestic issues.
Stevie Nichts
2006-04-06 12:23:19 EST
Dan Clore wrote:
> "Illegal" as a noun breaks law of reason > By Cindy Rodríguez > Denver Post Staff Columnist > DenverPost.com [snip]
> "The terms 'aliens' and 'illegals' provoke fear, loathing > and dread," says George Lakoff, a linguist who teaches at > the University of California at Berkeley.
Codswallop. The term "illegal immigrant", in use for decades if not longer, concisely defines the issue in a non-pejorative manner. The INS has long defined an alien as "Any person not a citizen or national of the United States." The definition of "illegal" is not arguable. Any alleged 'provocation' is in the eye of the politically correct beholder.
I do not see the point of contention. Why should any industrialized country not require immigrants to become citizens before they can legally enjoy most of the benefits of that nation?
Curly Surmudgeon
2006-04-06 15:34:05 EST
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:28:39 -0200, Joseph K. wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 13:25:26 +0000 (UTC), gcf@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote: > >>cindy rodríguez | staff columnist, Denver Post: >>>>> ... >>>>> We also would have to talk about how these workers are >>>>> "upholding the American lifestyle" and "making the American >>>>> dream possible for us." >>>>> >>>>> Without these workers, crops would rot, trash would pile up >>>>> in offices, hotel dust bunnies would become dust mongrels, >>>>> and restaurants would have to be refashioned as places where >>>>> "u-cook, u-serve." >>>>> >>>>> When I think of all that undocumented workers do for us, I >>>>> don't feel fear. I feel gratitude. >> >>gcf@panix.com (G*rd*n): >>> >The above strongly implies that we want to keep using >>> >Mexicans as serfs. Part of what keeps many of them >>> >on the bottom, and thus available for our shitwork, >>> >is precisely their immigration status, with, no doubt, >>> >a strong dose of racism added in certain areas. >>> > >>> >It may be that the present American economic order >>> >requires a large army of underemployed, poorly paid >>> >shitworkers. If so we are in for yet further >>> >interesting times, because it looks like the Mexicans >>> >and other Latin Americans are going to be either >>> >successfully excluded or legalized. Before long >>> >we are going to be out of serfs. >>> > >>> >Better eat your (cheap) vegetables while you've got >>> >them. >> >>Joseph K. <nihil@none.com>: >>> I guess it is only natural that if you have a territory where labour >>> relations are strongly legalized, a poorer neighboring territory with >>> surplus labour, and a very extensive border betwee these territories, >>> then there will be a net flow of labour into the strongly legalized >>> territory to provide for un-legalized labour. It will take a lot of >>> energy to stop that influx and stopping the influx will decrease >>> growth. Everybody loses. So I bet you will still have your serfs >>> walking around with humble looks and wet backs for some time, and >>> cheap vegetables. >> >> >>Preservation of the status quo would certainly serve many >>interests, but I think the current frenzy, which has now >>excited not only right-wingers but, in response, millions of >>Hispanics, and even gotten the Democratic Party to stir in >>its sleep, will force the issue one way or the other. My >>guess is that the frenzy is due to rightist disappointment >>with the Bush regime, specifically its failed imperial wars >>in Afghanistan and Iraq, the soaring budget and trade deficits, >>its economic problems, and its inability to save one if its >>major cities from destruction. As is so often the case, the >>execution of a highly ideological agenda by a state has led >>to various disasters with more on the horizon. A scapegoat >>issue is needed, and the influx of Mexicans is available. >>But now the issue will be used up. Either the U.S. will >>spend many billions of dollars in a sort of civil war against >>its own economy, or it will legalize the immigrants. > > A compromise solution might be to legalize them but in such a way that > they will still be second rate cheap labour, not entitled to the full > panoply of rights and protections of the other, true American and > expensive labour.
Or open the borders entirely accepting Mexicans as real human beings.
Naah, can't have that, they're _brown_!
>>The Right was better off persecuting homosexuals, but I >>guess there weren't enough of them. > > I guess they cann't afford more imperial wars: the Chinese and > Japanese will not provide the money. They have to re-visit some old > domestic issues.
-- Regards, Curly ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Time to dust off the guillotine ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stan De SD
2006-04-06 16:20:07 EST
"G*rd*n" <gcf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e134s6$57j$1@reader2.panix.com... > > > Preservation of the status quo would certainly serve many > interests, but I think the current frenzy, which has now > excited not only right-wingers but, in response, millions of > Hispanics, and even gotten the Democratic Party to stir in > its sleep, will force the issue one way or the other. My > guess is that the frenzy is due to rightist disappointment > with the Bush regime, specifically its failed imperial wars > in Afghanistan and Iraq, the soaring budget and trade deficits, > its economic problems, and its inability to save one if its > major cities from destruction.
As usual, your guess is tainted by your extreme-left agenda, and you are wrong. The vocal objection is merely the realization among people all across the political spectrum that we can't sustain an economy where people who consume more in social services than they produce in wealth are allowed to come across the borders unimpeded.
Stan De SD
2006-04-06 16:21:20 EST
"Curly Surmudgeon" <curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message news:4435a2b9$0$28784$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com... > On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:28:39 -0200, Joseph K. wrote: > > > On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 13:25:26 +0000 (UTC), gcf@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote: > > > >>cindy rodr\ufffdguez | staff columnist, Denver Post: > >>>>> ... > >>>>> We also would have to talk about how these workers are > >>>>> "upholding the American lifestyle" and "making the American > >>>>> dream possible for us." > >>>>> > >>>>> Without these workers, crops would rot, trash would pile up > >>>>> in offices, hotel dust bunnies would become dust mongrels, > >>>>> and restaurants would have to be refashioned as places where > >>>>> "u-cook, u-serve." > >>>>> > >>>>> When I think of all that undocumented workers do for us, I > >>>>> don't feel fear. I feel gratitude. > >> > >>gcf@panix.com (G*rd*n): > >>> >The above strongly implies that we want to keep using > >>> >Mexicans as serfs. Part of what keeps many of them > >>> >on the bottom, and thus available for our shitwork, > >>> >is precisely their immigration status, with, no doubt, > >>> >a strong dose of racism added in certain areas. > >>> > > >>> >It may be that the present American economic order > >>> >requires a large army of underemployed, poorly paid > >>> >shitworkers. If so we are in for yet further > >>> >interesting times, because it looks like the Mexicans > >>> >and other Latin Americans are going to be either > >>> >successfully excluded or legalized. Before long > >>> >we are going to be out of serfs. > >>> > > >>> >Better eat your (cheap) vegetables while you've got > >>> >them. > >> > >>Joseph K. <nihil@none.com>: > >>> I guess it is only natural that if you have a territory where labour > >>> relations are strongly legalized, a poorer neighboring territory with > >>> surplus labour, and a very extensive border betwee these territories, > >>> then there will be a net flow of labour into the strongly legalized > >>> territory to provide for un-legalized labour. It will take a lot of > >>> energy to stop that influx and stopping the influx will decrease > >>> growth. Everybody loses. So I bet you will still have your serfs > >>> walking around with humble looks and wet backs for some time, and > >>> cheap vegetables. > >> > >> > >>Preservation of the status quo would certainly serve many > >>interests, but I think the current frenzy, which has now > >>excited not only right-wingers but, in response, millions of > >>Hispanics, and even gotten the Democratic Party to stir in > >>its sleep, will force the issue one way or the other. My > >>guess is that the frenzy is due to rightist disappointment > >>with the Bush regime, specifically its failed imperial wars > >>in Afghanistan and Iraq, the soaring budget and trade deficits, > >>its economic problems, and its inability to save one if its > >>major cities from destruction. As is so often the case, the > >>execution of a highly ideological agenda by a state has led > >>to various disasters with more on the horizon. A scapegoat > >>issue is needed, and the influx of Mexicans is available. > >>But now the issue will be used up. Either the U.S. will > >>spend many billions of dollars in a sort of civil war against > >>its own economy, or it will legalize the immigrants. > > > > A compromise solution might be to legalize them but in such a way that > > they will still be second rate cheap labour, not entitled to the full > > panoply of rights and protections of the other, true American and > > expensive labour. > > Or open the borders entirely accepting Mexicans as real human beings.
Nothing like a strawman to get the indignation of Lefty Liberals going... :O|