Doublespeak: Recognize it when you hear it

Medium Rare

Page 15

"History: Blend of both myth and selected facts alterable for political purposes. History is arguably second best to economics as evidence of academic corruption.

-found on a Web site on doublespeak

We're constantly assaulted by the "news." It doesn't matter whether you buy it at the newsstand or have it delivered by the local loudmouth, there's not much difference between the two except you pay for one and can't shut up the other.

These days, with war in the Middle East, the news is full of words and phrases that both the professional journalist and the common gossip repeat almost without thought.

"Collateral damage," for example, means killing ordinary people, not enemy soldiers. "Neutralize" means kill. "Regime" is evil but "government" is good. On the one hand, you have the "North Korean regime," part the "axis of evil," but the "South Korean government," on the other.

What are "weapons of mass destruction?" Nuclear bombs? Nerve gas? A hail of bombs that destroys military targets, but also nearby homes with lots of "collateral damage?"

In South Africa, we ran into the "Instability Units," armored police squads that entered Black townships about the same time that a lot of Blacks died. Journalists there used the term constantly, offering the public the official explanation that these squads were sent in to quell riots. Suspicious, we asked: "Aren't these squads creating the instability in the first place?" We confirmed later that, of course, they were.

I'm particularly fond of the term "constructive destruction," coined by a right-wing think-tank (consultants) in the U.S. to describe the invasion of another country, replacing the existing "regime" with a new "government" they like, can work with, control.

Where does this language come from? These are examples of doublespeak-"language deliberately constructed to disguise its actual meaning, usually from governmental, military, or corporate institutions," according to one dictionary definition. They're words and phrases that avoid the truth, hide meaning, or are deliberate lies.

We all fall victim to the unquestioning use of terms that are created by someone, somewhere, to create an impression of something that means something else. They're used to manipulate. Once out there, these terms mutate like a virus, spreading, changing the way we see the world around us.

Why bring this up? Well, let's look at the language being used in the coverage of Indigenous affairs here at home.

Minister of Indian Affairs Robert Nault says he's "fine-tuning" the Indian Act with his governance package, "modernizing" it, making the system "more accountable." What does this mean?

Why not just say the First Nations governance act is an amendment to the Indian Act? Because if Bob Nault tried to amend the Indian Act unilaterally, without the approval of the people affected, there'd be political hell to pay. If, however, he draped the Bill in a flower-print dress and called it "Granny," some people might actually fall for it.

Some of his proposed Indian Act amendments are long overdue: protection of individual rights under the Charter of Rights; public meetings where people can review the band's spending. That's fine for many chiefs.

But this FNGA does much more. It creates a box, imposes a model of "self-government" that is created by federal bureaucrats, not Indigenous peoples. This in turn will limit the development of forms of Indigenous government that might be created or resurrected by the Indigenous nations themselves.

Why hasn't the AFN been more effective in opposing this? My theory is that many chiefs are victims of self-delusion, their own double-speak. In the 1980s, they created the term "First Nation" to advance the notion that they were more than mere band councils. They wanted to create the impression that they were "founding peoples" in Confederation. Use of the term served its purpose in terms of PR spin, but many chiefs began to believe their own myth an think of themselves as "nations" in the international context. They are not.

A "First Nation" is the creation of the Indian Act, plain and simple. They are band councils that apply the Indian Act locally. Canada shoved aside existing Indigenous governments when it imposed the Indian Act upon Indigenous peoples, sometimes by force. Some argue that band councils are little more than glorified Indian agents, or agencies.

The result has been a misreading of the power structure. That would be comical if it weren't so tragic. Chiefs at various gatherings demand that the Minister of Indian Affairs show up to explain himself as though he were a wayward employee. They issue "pink slips" to the minister as though they could fire him. They can't. Nault is the employer. Nothing illustrates this more clearly than his disdain for the chiefs and their views.

When Nault speaks about accountability, he gives the impression that with the FNGA the band councils will be more accountable to the people. There's some of that, but by and large with these changes the band councils will be more accountable to Nault, because the ultimate power has and always will remain with the minister. The FNGA won't change that, and no fancy, double talk will make it any different.

So, when Nault talks about "fine-tuning" the Indian Act, don't be fooled into believing there is just some well-meaning tinkering going on. What he is doing is strengthening a system of internal colonialism.

He should have the guts to speak plainly and say so.