Sunday, May 18, 2008
WHAT DOES "APPEASEMENT" MEAN? THE MEDIA DOES ITS OWN RECTIFICATION
Occasionally, the media takes care of its own problems with logic. Chris Matthews discovered a witless radio talk show host who was freely making the charge of "appeasement" and asked him repeatedly – a dozen times or more – what did some who "appeased" do in the course of appeasing. The host clearly had no idea, not even the debased idea that "appeasement" was the same thing as just talking to the enemy. He just kept repeating the word, assuming that whatever it was it was a bad thing. Keith Olberman followed up the point on his own show by having Matthews come on to report it again. Appeasement, of course, implies making, or at least being ready to make, a concession to the enemy, in the hope of avoiding something worse. Sometimes it’s foolish to do this; sometimes, not. Even when it doesn’t work, it is sometimes worth trying. The IRA, in the end, kept its word; Herr Hitler did not and we now know it was not reasonable of Chamberlain to expect him to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Yes, it's remarkable how often this word has been invoked in place of argument. It indicates how narrow the media's terms of historical reference are. Pundits assume that their viewers are largely ignorant of history beyond a small number of big events like WWII. Only on this basis can they so comfortably conclude that their viewers will take appeasement to be a Very Bad Thing (as opposed to a prudent measure that's often worth a shot -- as the other World War seems to indicate). This assumption by media pundits of widespread ignorance among the people shows them to be the truly objectionable elitists, as opposed to -- say -- Obama (to pick up on one of your other posts).
While Matthews certainly revealed that Kevin James is an ignoramus, and you rightly point out that he doesn't even seem to know what the word "appeasement" means, isn't it slightly more disturbing that someone who has a political talk show of any stripe seems to have no inkling of who Chamberlain was, or the Munich Agreement, or, to go just a bit further, that Chamberlain was the top representative of the Conservative party? Too much of the time, it seems that the people in and around this White House are historical tabulae rasae. One question I've become increasingly interested in is whether (and if so, to what extent) this represents a change from the status quo. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
(And thanks for blogging!)
Best,
Blinn
"Appeasement, of course, implies making, or at least being ready to make, a concession to the enemy, in the hope of avoiding something worse."
I think this value-neutral definition makes sense, but I don't think using it in the other, pejorative sense is fundamentally wrong or misleading. To "appease" very often means to try to make happy rather than the merely making concessions, and this often includes a pejorative connotation of self-subordination or ingratiation. So in this sense, political "appeasement" is always foolish. In the given example, however, Bush's position is closer to appeasement: putting Israel's security and happiness on the same level of priority as the US'.
In any case, since both are fairly common usages, I think it's confusing to accept their pejorative usage and argue that the charge is false.
Post a Comment