Have you ever wondered why words or phrases that are commonly used to describe something are suddenly change but the act, status or procedure remains the same?
What is gained by this action?
Who benefits from the manipulation of terms or definitions?
These are all good questions and we all benefit from understanding the “why” behind the answers.
This week a news source reported that the Biden administration would be using new terms in the immigration bill being submitted to Congress. In the article, “the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services acting Director Tracy Renaud recently issued a memo calling for “more inclusive language in the agency’s outreach efforts, internal documents and in overall communication with stakeholders, partners and the general public is another prime example of how groups try and get the apparent approval from others.” They also reported, “The memo suggests some examples, such as using “undocumented noncitizen” or “undocumented individual” rather than “illegal alien” and “integration or civic integration” instead of “assimilation.”
As my readers know, I am all about finding truthful solutions to our problems; regardless if I like or dislike it personally. I believe that most people want to tell the truth but some will go out of their way to manipulate the language in order to maintain the impression of truth without telling it entirely. This further acerbates the problems dividing us today; speaking the truth comes with being silenced by the fear of alienating someone while the main-street media and our own government are implicit in assisting in this division. People and groups are finding creative ways of changing terms or phrases of distasteful topics and positioning these changes as efforts to be “more compassionate and inclusive”. We went from “abortion rights” to “female reproductive rights”, yet both are inexplicitly tied to the problem of women killing their unborn children. These efforts do not make a foolish choice wise or make a lie true. As long as people understand the truth, these deceptive methods do not work but when the messages are delivered repeatedly, in mass public communications, totally out of the original context and when many of whom receive the messages are not educated on the topic; it can and does make all the difference. They know the majority who will hear the messages will not know, understand or care about the topic; then when they follow up with polling to this same specific demographic the numbers will be on their side. They will then spout, “See, the people agree with us.” but if asked differently, truthfully and with relevant details, the outcome would be the complete opposite.
Unethical, YES but illegal, NO, but still very WRONG!
If this is my last post, I want all to know there was only one purpose for all that I have written; to have made a positive difference in the lives of others.
Anthony “Tony” Boquet, the author of “The Bloodline of Wisdom, The Awakening of a Modern Solutionary”