McGentrix wrote:
C'mon Craven, surely you recognize a metaphor when you see one.
Yes I do. I don't recall ever suggesting that she had not used a metaphor. I did, however, link to an old thread in which I elaborated on my feelings that the use of such metaphors represents a cultural hubris.
Metaphor and patronage are not mutually exclusive.
Quote: You don't really believe that Foxfyre is patronizing them or calling them children, do you?
Yes, I do. Look up the word's root. Her comparison to the situation as being one of parent and child
is the very meaning of patronizing.
The frequent use of diminuitives in metaphor is something I think is indicative of a recent trend in which Americans
assume the air of a patron (patronize) to a people they'd once spoken about with references to liberation.
Slowly the tone of the metaphors is changing from one of a people to be freed to a people to be babysat and taught.
It's not, however, devoid of justification, as our relationship with the Iraqis does have elements of being a patron.
Thing is, Americans on average are are too quick to assume the position of patron (in both the good and bad meanings of the word). When Iraqis express the desire to end our occupation Foxfyre writes it off as a childish "I hate you" instead of a recognition of the universal wish for self-determination.
I think that is an ignorant train of thought. It's not like we'd appreciate occupation, we'd want to end it as well and that doesn't make the wish for self-determination a childlike expression of conflicted emotion.
We are not the Iraqis' parents. We have no claim to authority over them. And the sooner we divest ourselves of the arrogant metaphors that portray that kind of relationship the sooner we can be rid of that ugly mentality (wishful thinking).
Quote:
Or, is the next big thing misinterpreting peoples statements to purposefully make them look different than intended?
I did no such thing by posting a link to a thread speaking of a trend that manifested itself herein.
)
