A parable illustrating the difference between a partial quote and a misquote, and a quiz.
The mayor of Madrid and his City Council decide to remove statues of Franco and other Nationalist leaders of the Spanish Civil War from a public park and announce the decision to the public.
Neo-Nazis, Fascists, skinheads, and a variety of other radical right racists and anti-Semites, known to oppose the EU and immigration across the Mediterranean, schedule a demonstration to protest the removal of these statues of persons they hold in honor and to support eurowhite racism.
A somewhat larger number of citizens schedule a counter-demonstration, both supporting removal of these statues of persons whom they execrate and supporting the EU and immigration while opposing racism, anti-Semitism, Nazism, and Fascism.
The day comes and the demonstrations occur with some little violence, one person among the counter-demonstrators being killed by a racist driving his car into a crowd of them on the street.
The same day, the controversial rightist Prime Minister of Spain speaks to the nation about these events.
The prepared remarks contain the sentence, “I condemn in the most forceful words the bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, prejudice, and hatred on display in these events.”
Scenario 1, a misquoted sentence.
The Prime Minister actually says, “I condemn in the most forceful words the bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, prejudice, and hatred – on all sides, on all sides - on display in these events.”
Facing stinging criticism, a few days later he condemns the demonstrators for racism, etc., omitting criticism of the counter-demonstrators.
The left press appreciates the difference but complains it took him so long to get this much right.
And then on a third occasion a bit later he returns to attacking both sides, to the fury of the left press.
Castigated as a racist in the press of the left for more than a week for disguising the truth of the events and asserting a false moral equivalence between the racist demonstrators and the anti-racist counter-demonstrators, the Prime Minister speaks at a rally to his partisans.
He complains to his supporters that the press has accused him of racism because of the couple of days delay in his second response to the events of the Madrid demonstrations.
The complaint is true but misleading, as it omits reference to his damning first response cited by the press as evidence for their charge, as well as their claims he has disguised the truth of the event and he has asserted a moral equivalence between the demonstrators and the counter-demonstrators.
Reading from papers held in his hands, he quotes, “I condemn in the most forceful words the bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, prejudice, and hatred on display in these events.”
He insists to his audience, “I said that.” (That is false) “That is what I said about those events.” (That is also false)
Scenario 2, a partial quote omitting a sentence.
The Prime Minister actually says, “I condemn in the most forceful words the bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, prejudice, and hatred on display in these events. Bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, prejudice, and hatred on display on all sides.”
Facing stinging criticism, a few days later he condemns the demonstrators for racism, etc., omitting criticism of the counter-demonstrators.
The left press appreciates the difference but complains it took him so long to get this much right.
And then on a third occasion a bit later he returns to attacking both sides, to the fury of the left press.
Castigated as a racist in the press of the left for more than a week for being slow to respond, disguising the truth of the events, and asserting a false moral equivalence between the racist demonstrators and the anti-racist counter-demonstrators, the Prime Minister speaks at a rally to his partisans.
He complains to his supporters that the press has accused him of racism because of the couple of days delay in his second response to the events of the Madrid demonstrations.
The complaint is true but misleading, as it omits reference to his damning first response cited by the press as evidence for their charge, as well as their claims he has disguised the truth of the event and he has asserted a moral equivalence between the demonstrators and the counter-demonstrators.
Reading from papers held in his hands, he quotes, “I condemn in the most forceful words the bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, prejudice, and hatred on display in these events.”
He insists to his audience, “I said that.” (That is true) “That is what I said about those events.” (That is false)
For ten points, which Scenario do The Duce’s remarks to his supporters last night about his earlier remarks about the events at Charlottesville most resemble?
Speaking of moral equivalences, Trump and his supporters on the right insist on a moral equivalence between the founders of the American republic who celebrated equality but owned slaves and the traitors to it who scorned equality and fought a war to keep slavery going.
A claim they share with many who despise America, its whole past, and its white people if not all its people.
No comments:
Post a Comment