Seditious Fried Chicken
Seditious Fried Chicken
Originally shared by ****
"""
In a speech on Tuesday, Ayatollah Khamenei sought to emphasize why shouting “Death to America,” words that proponents of improved relations call unhelpful at best, will be forever justified. He also suggested they should not be taken literally.
“The slogan ‘Death to America’ is backed by reason and wisdom,” he said in a speech. “It goes without saying that the slogan does not mean death to the American nation; this slogan means death to the United States policies, death to arrogance.”
"""
Here's what's funny: Khameini here sounds exactly like a character from 1984. It seems difficult for Khameini not to know that. Well, not know that, but recognize the general principle Orwell was following. "Marg bar Amrika" is just Iranian duckspeak, but here he speaks as if the slogan held in it deep, unfolding meaning. Because it does or, at least, it has come to. Because it's had to. Because the "marg bar" slogans were one thing that seemed to unite Iranians politically. At least, they did in the minds of the victors after the losers fled to their American spymasters in Los Angeles.
That's precisely the phenomenon in popular totalitarianism Orwell was most interested in, how the degraded language and thought used to advertise political ideas seems to take over from the ideas themselves. Ultimately, how they might warp perception in a Sapir-Whorf-ish way. Because they have to. Because the slogans become the only thing left that people remember, that really seemed to unite them politically. Because the world did warp around language for a minute, or, at least, we the survivors remember it that way.
Or maybe because we'd prefer to forget the other ways the world warped then. People hurt, glories fallen, poorly chosen words, undeserved harshness. Friends, family, acquaintances, futures, worlds lost because events were moving quickly. Time's arrow flew faster in the vacuum between promise and reality, not everyone was able to step out of the way in time. You wouldn't want to go back, you couldn't if you did, and it's not like the past was sustainable anyway. The past by definition, maybe, was unsustainable. But there are, in hindsight, things you wish weren't done. Ways the world shouldn't have warped then, shouldn't warp ever; ways we shouldn't have warped then, shouldn't warp ever.
Death to memory.
Part of me wants to know what happens just after the New York Times breaks up the speech. After he tells us "this slogan means death to the United States policies, death to arrogance”. Does he just begin droning on about domestic enemies like the Times implies? Does he turn to explain America as the font of arrogance, lending the slogan parallel meanings. Arrogance defines America; isn't the death of arrogance the death of America, even if its people wake up and go about their business unaware it has occurred?
Or does he think about something like I've said here? About language and memory and meaning and loss. Is there a pause, panicked and sudden, as he worries about which thing he said out loud?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/world/middleeast/backlash-against-us-in-iran-seems-to-gather-force-after-nuclear-deal.html
Originally shared by ****
"""
In a speech on Tuesday, Ayatollah Khamenei sought to emphasize why shouting “Death to America,” words that proponents of improved relations call unhelpful at best, will be forever justified. He also suggested they should not be taken literally.
“The slogan ‘Death to America’ is backed by reason and wisdom,” he said in a speech. “It goes without saying that the slogan does not mean death to the American nation; this slogan means death to the United States policies, death to arrogance.”
"""
Here's what's funny: Khameini here sounds exactly like a character from 1984. It seems difficult for Khameini not to know that. Well, not know that, but recognize the general principle Orwell was following. "Marg bar Amrika" is just Iranian duckspeak, but here he speaks as if the slogan held in it deep, unfolding meaning. Because it does or, at least, it has come to. Because it's had to. Because the "marg bar" slogans were one thing that seemed to unite Iranians politically. At least, they did in the minds of the victors after the losers fled to their American spymasters in Los Angeles.
That's precisely the phenomenon in popular totalitarianism Orwell was most interested in, how the degraded language and thought used to advertise political ideas seems to take over from the ideas themselves. Ultimately, how they might warp perception in a Sapir-Whorf-ish way. Because they have to. Because the slogans become the only thing left that people remember, that really seemed to unite them politically. Because the world did warp around language for a minute, or, at least, we the survivors remember it that way.
Or maybe because we'd prefer to forget the other ways the world warped then. People hurt, glories fallen, poorly chosen words, undeserved harshness. Friends, family, acquaintances, futures, worlds lost because events were moving quickly. Time's arrow flew faster in the vacuum between promise and reality, not everyone was able to step out of the way in time. You wouldn't want to go back, you couldn't if you did, and it's not like the past was sustainable anyway. The past by definition, maybe, was unsustainable. But there are, in hindsight, things you wish weren't done. Ways the world shouldn't have warped then, shouldn't warp ever; ways we shouldn't have warped then, shouldn't warp ever.
Death to memory.
Part of me wants to know what happens just after the New York Times breaks up the speech. After he tells us "this slogan means death to the United States policies, death to arrogance”. Does he just begin droning on about domestic enemies like the Times implies? Does he turn to explain America as the font of arrogance, lending the slogan parallel meanings. Arrogance defines America; isn't the death of arrogance the death of America, even if its people wake up and go about their business unaware it has occurred?
Or does he think about something like I've said here? About language and memory and meaning and loss. Is there a pause, panicked and sudden, as he worries about which thing he said out loud?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/world/middleeast/backlash-against-us-in-iran-seems-to-gather-force-after-nuclear-deal.html
Iran needs another revolution...
ReplyDelete