On Gulfs and War
Sand in the sheets of civil society.
As James Joyner notes, Trump has decided that “Department of War” sounds cooler than “Department of Defense.” Setting aside, yet again, his trying to do something that belongs in Congress’s domain, and agreeing that in many ways it is an inanity, I don’t think it is unimportant.
It isn’t the name change itself that matters; it is the way in which these moves erode civil society. It pits us against one another. People on one team say “Gulf of America” or “Department of War,” while those on the other team say “Gulf of Mexico” and “Department of Defense.”
Like sand in your bedsheets, these are minor issues in the grand scheme of things, but they annoy and irritate the body politic. They create frustration, anger, and division among citizens because they are a relentless, low-level irritant. And why? Because one man likes to sprinkle sand in the sheets because he can.
For example, I screenshot this a few weeks ago and have been meaning to comment on it, but the “Department of War” nonsense made me remember it.
So here we have a meteorologist writing about the weather and has to deal with upset commenters because Trump made the name of the body of water to the south into a political statement. Trump sows division; he cultivates us v. them.
And sure, what we call the Department housed in the Pentagon or the body of water in question is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. But it matters as it is just one other level of irritation and division in our country.
I mean, it is possible to sleep in a bed that has sand in it, but it isn’t comfortable, and over time, it can create substantial frustration. Add enough sand, and it really is a problem.
Beyond creating unnecessary division in the population (which is no small issue), these kinds of moves are a power play by Trump. He gets to decide what things are called (because, you know, he issued a dictate). Controlling language is a form of political power. And let’s not forget that you aren’t going to get a federal grant if you use words on the naughty list. So, don’t think that the desire to politicize words is limited only to the inane.
I wrote about this previously here: The Gulf Between Us.
The important things in the nomenclature kerfuffle are that 1) El Taco has no idea what nomenclature means, and 2) he’s all over the Epstein files.
Of course this is exactly what ‘they’ accuse ‘us’ of and with some reason. We are the champions of neologism, euphemism and renaming, and it is just as divisive when we do it. On the plus side we can undo it all as easily as they undid the renaming of military bases.
@Michael Reynolds: True enough. On the “us” side, though, it’s usually done for generally well-meaning reasons, and on the “them” side it’s done generally for politics, ego (Trump’s middle name), and spite (with a dash of racism and other unsavory motivations). I know you know, but it seems important to point out.
@reid:
I much prefer our motivations to theirs. But I think if we can recognize how divisive it is when they do it, we should be more aware of the effect when we do it. And maybe not do it unless a very strong need exists.
English is a very flexible language, and as a rule we should allow it to evolve naturally rather than trying to use it as a shibboleth or even a weapon.
Maybe it’s just me, but I have always thought that mission of the DOD was DEFENDING the US. So while I’m not gonna lose any sleep over renaming the department, I’m left to wonder if the mission has also changed.
Considering the Commander’s vocal anti-war, ant-violence aspirations, I’m somewhat suprised that he doesn’t rename the DOD to the DOA (Department of Anti-violence).
On a different topic, I was surprised that none of the Senators asked RFK jr to confirm that he was nominated in exchange for his withdrawal from the presidential campaign and endorsement of DJT.
@Michael Reynolds: I did think of this, and did not have time to go into it.
But I would strenuously note that trying to get society to use less racist language, to pick one example, and deliberately dividing people as a power play are morally very different.
They should mix and match: Gulf of War and Department of America.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Not so much morally different, but functionally different I think. Consider that dividing people is a feature not a bug for these people and they are performing the mental gymnastics necessary to convince themselves that they are the good guys.
Here’s our friend Stephen Miller:
I am certain this is not merely rhetorical for Miller – a prominent voice of Trump 2.0. Oh no, Miller is absolutely certain they have the moral high ground.
We must constantly remind ourselves that the Trumpists (which must for these times also mean the Republican Party writ large) DO NOT WANT a civil society. Civility, empathy, common ground, moderation – all of that is for suckers. What they want is an ordered society – one where the GOP in-groups have supremacy and control. And they’ve convinced themselves their order is as God intended, so that makes them moral.
We’re not going to convince any Trumpists that being uncivil or divisive is a bad thing. For them it is a necessary thing. We can, however, blow holes in their weak case that they are moral. It won’t shift their sense of right/wrong, but it can make it uncomfortable for that muddy middle that might be willing to coalition with these fascists to save money on gas and eggs.
@Scott F.:
Great summary.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Different in motivation, but not in effect. Not in political impact. In fact, I don’t think their bullshit annoyed us half as much as ours annoyed them – we don’t really take them seriously, cuz they stoopid. Both sides look down on the other, but we do condescension much better than they do, because in our hearts we know we are superior, and in their hearts they suspect we’re right. .
Also, come on, we cannot pretend that our love of intrusive and alienating jargon is about nothing but pushing back against bigotry. Pronouns, LatinX, unhoused, dead name, micro aggression, toxic masculinity, not to mention the endless therapy-speak, are not the N-word. We annoy people we don’t need to annoy. We alienate potential allies. And we waste our time and resources on silly bullshit, the language equivalents of the great philosophical question of our age, ‘paper or plastic,’ and think we’ve done something when we’ve done nothing.
And yes, I am prepared to go there and state that paper or plastic does not matter, never has mattered.
MR’s Rule 1: Unless absolutely necessary (the N-word) leave people alone, STFU and mind your own damn business.
MR’s Rule 2: Awarding yourself virtue points for performing meaningless acts is a vice, not a virtue.
Gulf of Mexico > Gulf of America
Department of Defense > Department of War
… Trump wants to rebrand everthing. Basically, Trump is a dog marking the territory.
I’ve found that I can get people who are trolling me with that ‘Gulf’ stuff to stop needling me if I refer to the rebranded ‘Gulf’ as the Trump-Epstein Gulf of America. That kind of ends the trolling for the moment.
I can do this with rebranding of the Department of Defense – the ‘Trump-Epstein Department of War.’
Maybe the Republican Party will stop this Bolsheviki idiocy, but I doubt it. I think there’s a LOT more to come – Dulles will become Trump International Airport, and the Kennedy Center will become the Trump Center, etc.
In fact, Republican legislatures across the country will eventually start renaming airports and perhaps prisons and detention centers after him. This will go on and on.
Sands, you say?
“I am Orangemardyass, king of kings.
Look upon my works, ye libtards, and be pwned.”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
*sobs*
Hmm. I honestly don’t think most people care. Except that since Trump is a self-styled dictator with a proven track record of incompetence, his edicts/orders naturally prompt reactionary defiance.
He should’ve started using Dept. of War and Gulf of Amerikkkland colloquially — in his rambling, demented speeches and in his 3am ALL CAPS gobbledeygook — let the usage spread, then let the executive order follow public uptake. Have to prime the pump, ya know?
@Michael Reynolds:
Generaly speaking, “secular Presbyterianism” in the enforcement of “righteousness” is unlikely to win friends and influence people.
Improving average peoples actual prosperity, welfare, and life-opportunities is.
And that includes dealing with actual class and race disadvantage, not fussing about policing trivialities of “culture” and language.
Even when done with the best of motives; it’s sometimes best to calculate what the average person does, or does not, regard as reasonable, and not try to force them to conform to “right on”.
That does NOT mean you have to put up with people on the other extreme trying to normalise incivilty and hatred. Let alone inciting violence.
See the current collision in Europe, re Vance and the far-right, with European govenance, where “free speech” does NOT include licence to incitement to hatred and violence against minorities.
Though the same governments that intend to stamp on far-right agitation are also now intent on curbing unregulated external migration, because it’s quite obvious that the general public will not tolerate it.
@JohnSF:
How about we bring the first part, too:
I met a traveler from an antique land,
Who said—“Two swollen and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk an orange visage lies, whose frown,
And pouty lip, and sneer of cold dotage,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
Shelley will beat us both to a pulp in the afterlife. Especially me. I didn’t preserve the rhyme.
@Kathy:
Does make you wonder if Shelley had a visoon from the future?
Also:
Keats vs Shelley smackdown fight, who wins?
Meanwhile, Coleridge is stoned agin’, Wordworths off making happy with the daffy’s, and Byron’s busy seducing your sister. 😉
And less well known is the other Ozymandias poem, by Horace Smith.
They had a little competition on the subject.
Shelly wins, but those last two lines are good:
What powerful but unrecorded race
Once dwelt in that annihilated place.
Cue Charlton Heston in Planet of the Apes?
Some of us saw meteorologist Avery Tomasco for the first time two months ago, just after the flash flooding on the Guadalupe River. There was a video going around of a TV forecast he did just before the storm that caused the floods, with him showing a shocking forecast model of 5 to 15 inches of rain in central TX, and also showing an alternative forecast model that had fractional inch rainfall totals. The rainfall was to come from a Pacific system merging with tropical storm remnants that were laden with Gulf moisture.
It didn’t matter that trump had renamed the Gulf. It did matter that trump had, through his administration’s destructive and unmanaged slashing of government agencies, pushed out the local NWS office’s Warning Coordination Meteorologist earlier this year. And as it turned out, officials on the ground, especially from Kerrville upstream, failed to get information on the timing and magnitude of the flood.
@Kathy:
Absolutely beautiful, both of you!!!
@Michael Reynolds:
And, weirdly, no one of any significance treats non-use of those terms like using the n-word.
You keep having this side argument in your head about the word police. And please, for the love of God, stop citing latinx, as it is not the thing you think it is.
But worse, you are missing the point of the post.