The Names of the Game: Moral Language and the Killing of Alex Pretti

by Scott Samuelson

When Confucius was asked what the first thing he’d do if a king were to let him administer the state, he said, “Without question it would be to make sure names are used properly.” His shocked student replied, “Really? Isn’t that a little farfetched?”

It’s easy to share the student’s incredulity. How can proper terms be more beneficial than good laws? Surely, it’s far more important to feed and defend the citizenry than to use language well?! Don’t forget that Confucius was living in a time of violent civilizational collapse. It’s not like we can supply him with the excuse of living in the good old days.

So, is Confucius right? Is naming that important, especially in times of crisis?

According to Mencius, “If anyone were suddenly to see a child about to fall into a well, his mind would always be filled with alarm, distress, pity, and compassion . . . From this it may be seen that one who lacks a mind that feels pity and compassion would not be human.”

Consider a post to ICE officers from the Department of Homeland Security quoting Stephen Miller. Pay attention to how it uses words to name and construct reality, especially the words I’ve put in bold.

REMINDER. “To all ICE officers: You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. Anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony. You have immunity to perform your duties, and no one—no city official, no state official, no illegal alien, no leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist—can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations and duties. The Department of Justice has made clear that if officials cross that line into obstruction, into criminal conspiracy against the United States or against ICE officers, then they will face justice.”

Now think about what Stephen Miller tweeted after the shooting of Alex Pretti (again, note the terms in bold): “A would-be assassin tried to murder federal law enforcement and the official Democrat account sides with the terrorists.” Similarly, many others in the Trump administration repeated that Pretti was trying to do “maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

Now look at something downstream of such language. Read more »

Monday, January 7, 2019

Letting You In on a Secret: Alyssa DeLuccia’s Photographed Collages

by Andrea Scrima

Alyssa DeLuccia’s Letting You in on a Secret is an eloquent artistic inquiry into present-day politics, the media, and contemporary life—one that takes the form of a visual essay operating within the disturbance pattern of a subtle but crucial shift in medium that multiplies and compounds the power of the work and its message.

Fierce and Dominant

DeLuccia uses contemporary print media as raw material, fracturing the images and rearranging visual themes to create collages, which she then photographs. And for several important reasons, it’s the photograph and not the installed collage that is the final work of art. The media-reflective dimension of Letting You in on a Secret—the fact that it is based on print media, but locates its final manifestation in the realm of the photographic image intended not for mass-media reproduction, but for the reflective, contemplative context of the exhibition space—speaks to the dire state of imagery and language in the current media landscape and the need to find new methods to assess, decipher, and analyze conflicting and competing information. The new mistrust in the reliability and trustworthiness not only of the means of distribution through news channels, editorial boards, and social media, but in the veracity of the words and images themselves has, on a very basic level, changed the way in which we perceive and engage with the information raining down upon us. Read more »

Monday, July 23, 2012

Burmese Days

by Maniza Naqvi

“… How does our affair progress? I hope that, as dear Mr. Macgregor would say—U Po Kyin broke into English—eet ees making perceptible progress?”

Burmese-Days-3Burmese Days by George Orwell remains relentlessly relevant and a touchstone for cynics eight decades after it was written. The novel opens with U Po Kyin at age 56 thinking of his achievements with satisfaction—and plotting intrigue to further his interests. He thinks back to his first memory of the British troops with their weapons entering victoriously into Mandalay in 1885. “To fight on the side of the British, to become a parasite upon them, had been his ruling ambition even as a child. He does this by playing one side against the other, planting intrigues and solving them, always putting himself in the position of the problem solver, the loyalist to all—taking bribes and ruthlessly controlling everyone.” U Po Kyin's memory of British troops marching into town is set in the moment in which the oil company Burmah Oil is born in 1886 and when Burma became a province of Imperial India. (here, and here and here.)

George Orwell was in Burma in the Indian Imperial Police from 1922-1927 Eric Arthur Blair or George Orwell was born in India, on June 3, 1903 in Motihari Bihar (here). Orwell’s novel follows the trajectories of the ambitions and the psyches of Imperial administrators, their military officers, wives, concubines, their merchants and those who served them. The title of “U” has been bestowed on U Po Kyin for his services enroute his own trajectory from a lowly clerk to a minor official to a Sub divisional magistrate, through planting seditious activities and creating rebellions and quelling them himself so that he can demonstrate his loyalties to the Imperial masters by jailing adversaries while havig his fingers in every pot in his subdivision for personal gain and pleasure.

His good works of building Pagodas will ensure his next life. But in this life his most ardent desire is to be a member of the British Club:

Read more »