Stockholm Syndrome

Curiosities, musings, and general miscellany from the demented mind of an expat Canuck…
Share

Archive for November, 2009

The poetry of profanity

Friday, November 20th, 2009

I’ve got a dirty mouth, according to some (most) of my acquaintances. I have no compunction against profanity-as-punctuation, so to speak. I’m the first to fly the f-word and the slightest provocation – or to use it as such, if there is none – and respect those that can cuss like a drunken sailor without pause or consideration. The proper use of profanity can be, at times, an indicator of verbal dexterity and mastery of language. As Mark Twain once said, “Let us swear while we may, for in heaven it will not be allowed.” [As a side note, to fully invest in this missive you'd have to a) believe in heaven, and b) have faith that those who swear will still make it to heaven. Wouldn't that violate the 3rd Commandment?]

Detractors would argue that profanity is the last refuge of the intellectually vapid – those without more dignified means of expressing themselves without resorting to 4-letter words. I disagree. Once again from the brilliant Twain: “The idea that no gentleman ever swears is all wrong. He can swear and still be a gentleman if he does it in a nice and benevolent and affectionate way.” This obviously poses a conundrum of sorts – how does one swear in a nice, benevolent, affectionate way? If, for example, I call my wife a ‘bitch’ in anger, that, to me, is profane (and not in the good way)… If, however, I say “you’re a silly bitch” whilst she is, in fact, being silly, and I follow the statement with a smile and a kiss on the forehead, have I still sworn? Yes. But have I sworn in order to cause offense or denigrate? No. The difference here is intent – regardless of the words used, what is the intended effect of the uttered statement?

I knew a pastor years back – a brilliant man, incredibly well-spoken and versed (ha!) in the bible, who, instead of using any of  the more common and un-church-like ‘derogatories’, resorted to calling people ‘bounders’. For example, if someone cut him off in traffic? “That bounder!” If someone missed an appointment? “Bounder!” The term ‘bounder’ is not widely recognized as a common profanity, so he felt justified that he wasn’t, in fact, swearing. (Although if he used biblical theology as his linguistic litmus test, I’m not convinced that ‘fuck’ would appear in ancient Aramaic.) However, the intent was the same – he simply used one seemingly innocuous missive in place of another, more widely regarded, swear. Thus the question: Is the word, or the intent behind it, more intrinsic to its classification as a ’swear word’?

I, on the other hand, do tend to use profanity to its fullest, most vile, malignant, shock-inducing intent. I love swearing. The fact that we as an evolved primate have developed a means by which to express hatred, dislike, discomfort, annoyance, surprise, appreciation, and damn-near every other emotion or reaction speaks volumes about our collective intellect. Sometimes it’s a positive affirmation; sometimes it’s a threat. Sometimes it’s full of rainbows and bunnies and still, mayhap ideally, it’s full of putrid vitriol that stuns and scares and emboldens the self. Perhaps profanity is the last level of linguistic evolution, beyond the basic ‘need food, make fire, breed’ guttural exchanges. It eschews the notion of ‘communication fosters life’ and allows one to communicate about, not just for, their life. True, the same can be said for poetry, music, abstract philosophy, but that’s not germane to this post. Fuck it.

‘Fuck’. I love that word. It is arguable the most diverse word in the English language. It’s a verb, noun, adjective, adverb, modifier, place-holder, expression, question (“what the fuck?”), exclamation, and many other categorizations I should have learned in school. It can be used anywhere, ubiquitously, interchangeably, and is nigh-unto-perfect in its form, function, phonetic appeal, and intent. I once heard a street preacher in Toronto shout “Jesus Fucking Christ!” Awesome. And why not? It’s just a string of 4 random letters – the intent being far more important than the form.

But one must have limits, of course. I do moderate my speech in the presence of those with whom I’ve just become acquainted, those whom I know are easily offended by less-than-christian tongue, those with a fucking stick up their ass who believe a random gathering of 4 (or more) letters in some man-made language is just cause for feigning ‘the vapors’ and fainting in some puritanical display of sanctity. I find their offense humourous, laughable, and confusing at the same time, but I acknowledge their stuck-up-edness.

There are a number of curse words one can use in daily life. George Carlin did a greatservice to the world by expounding on the “7 words you can’t say on TV.” (Although, this being Europe, one has to chuckle at the fact at there are uncensored shows, movies, and porn(!) on TV…) Of them all, still, my personal favourite is ‘fuck’. A wise yogi can describe the word’s dexterity far more eloquently. I drop the F-bomb daily, if not hourly, in any number of ways, intents, and situations. I have, however, co-opted the phrase “pooh-sticks” as a more benign, socially acceptable way of saying ‘darn’ or ‘damn’ or “shit’s fucked up, yo.” A. A. Milne would be mortified…

But again, fuck it.

Report abuse »

All my bags are packed, I’m ready to go…

Wednesday, November 11th, 2009

A few hours from now I’ll be wandering the airport, surrounded by tense faces and eager travelers, some going home, some running away, some with little  more than a few changes of clothes and a toothbrush readied for a short business-related jaunt; some, like me, starting a new adventure, a new life, a trans-Atlantic flight being all that separates them from the anxious, welcoming arms of a loved one; for some, a new chapter; in my case, a long-awaited sequel.

The past week has been filled with organizing, packing, culling, repacking, farewell Facebook messages, coffee dates, promises of staying in touch; staying close whilst being far apart, separated by distance and time zones but hoping, at least, to hold on to the old familiarities while experiencing the new realities. Seeing friendly faces that, in some cases, I’ll never see again. Seeing some that I will miss every day, some that will forget, move on, relegating our shenanigans to fuzzy remembrances and sepia-toned memories. Leaving behind family, friends, challenges, successes, regrets, annoyances, the good, the bad, the ugly; some memories that I wish would still feel recent, fresh, ageless; and others that taunt and torment no matter how many miles I run.

A few hours from now I will be one of the anonymous airport masses, wandering aimlessly though duty-free temptations and overhead announcements, jostling though the throngs of tourists, shifting restlessly on uncomfortable lounge seating with stale kiosk coffee and the inevitable screaming child(ren) running amok nearby. I’ll think of who and what I leave behind, the lives I’ll peripherally hear about, the disconnect I (we?) will feel, despite our best efforts otherwise. I’ll quietly bid farewell to these Canadian shores, staring out over the dark sea and focusing on my version of The New World. And several hours later, after a fitful sleep, questionable meal options, dank recycled air and (again) those inevitable screaming children, I’ll bound off the plane, off to a new life, and into the arms of my wonderfully patient wife. The day’s finally here, I’ll finally be there, and we’ll be together… finally.

Report abuse »

A maddening absence of reason

Monday, November 2nd, 2009

In an article published by Aftonbladet back in August, reporter Donald Boström made – or rather, repeated – allegations that Israel was harvesting organs from Palestinians killed in the ongoing conflict. Despite having no proof, aside from suspicions raised by one Palestinian family, Boström suggested that the allegations were serious enough to warrant investigation by the Israeli government. One can argue that this is poor journalism – publishing unsubstantiated claims that are at once inflammatory and condemnable (if true); at the same time, is it not reasonable to raise the question, and simply ask for a formal inquiry into these allegations? Debatable, on both sides, and while this topic could provide massive fodder for fueling an online discussion, that’s not what particularly concerns me here. Instead, it’s the irrational and knee-jerk reactions to the reporter’s statements that makes me question the application of reason and freedom in public debate.

Boström, as a result of his article, and his steadfast assertion that this at least be looked into, has been branded an anti-Semite by the Israeli government and several prominent religious and political leaders. Why? Because the allegations – not his, but those he repeated – are being leveled at the state itself. It seems that any  time something remotely negative is said about any government, any member of an identifiable group, it is taken as a condemnation against the entire population and branded as racist or anti-this-or-that. Had Boström written that “this is  typical of Israelis as a whole, a part of the encroaching Zionist movement, a genetic predisposition to desecrate the bodies of its fallen enemies in an ongoing effort to eradicate anything non-Jewish from the region” then yes, brand him an anti-Semite, make stark comparisons to Hitler (which some did, anyway) and let the vitriol of public condemnation drown him in his own words. Hell, I’d be the first in line. But that’s not what he said. He didn’t even say that this did happen. He merely indicated that these allegations had been made, and that perhaps that was enough to justify a formal inquiry. Without proof, I personally question whether these statements – inflammatory and outrageous, to be sure – should  have been made. Regardless, I find it absurd – and downright sad – that he is then branded a Nazi and his statements derided as being motivated by nothing more than a hatred for an entire population.

This case highlights an all-too-familiar trend in world events. No longer can we make an allegation against a member of a particular group without being accused of being motivated solely by our desire to oppress the group as a whole. This case has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, and it is an example of reactionary sensationalism at its worst. In fact Boström recently spoke at a media conference in Israel in order to foster debate, to freely exchange opinions on this issue. I doubt he would  have done that whilst harbouring an ingrained hated of Jews. Still, the Israeli VP boycotted the event and withdrew state funding in protest; a reporter publicly branded him an anti-Semite for having the gall to “believe the Israeli government would take part in such atrocities”; even the director of international relations at one of the most prestigious Israeli institutions slammed Boström and the conference organizers for providing a platform for this issue. So much for freedom of speech.

Again, I’m not convinced that these allegations should have been published in the first place. In fact, the family that was said to have originally made the allegations has repeatedly denied those claims. So is this a case of publishing a sensational rumour or exaggerating back-alley banter? Perhaps. But to then brand the reporter – misguided, maybe, and overeager, most likely – as an anti-Semite, akin to Hitler, does nothing to foster freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the basic freedom to question a government – any government – without implying an indictment on its entire population.

Report abuse »