Let's Call A Spade A Spade

There it is. I have said it. Now, what does it mean?

I always assumed that this was a racially insensitive statement. In fact, I thought it was downright racist. But when someone suggested to me that I was way off on this one, I decided to do a little research.

It was only recently, in the 20th century, that the term "spade" was used to refer to a Black person. Its origin comes from the "spade" suit in a deck of cards. Thus, with that definition, "calling a spade a spade" could mean calling a "racial epithet a racial epithet."

However, "calling a spade a spade" as an expression long predates the racial connotation of the word spade. As Random House explains, "to call a spade a spade" originated in ancient Greece.

"The exact origin is uncertain; the playwright Menander, in a fragment, said "I call a fig a fig, a spade a spade," but Lucian attributes the phrase to Aristophanes. Later, Plutarch notes that "The Macedonians are a rude and clownish people who call a spade a spade." (It is worth noting that the Greek word translated as "spade" seems actually to mean something like "bowl" or "trough"; the "spade" may be based on a Renaissance mistranslation. In this case the original expression was "to call a bowl a bowl," and thus the "spade" expression is "only" 500, rather than 2,500, years old.)" http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19970115

The meaning of "to call a spade a spade" is to speak bluntly. Bartelby.com provides an excellent example (maybe I am biased because I am a lawyer) of the proper usage of the idiom. “The prosecutor said, ‘Let’s call a spade a spade. You didn’t borrow the money, you stole it.’” http://www.bartleby.com/59/4/callaspadeas.html

The question in my mind, is where does this get us. The phrase "to call a spade a spade" is not a racially insensitive remark. At least not in its origin. However, there is a segment of the population who believes it is, and therefore is offended by it. For example, A Sacramento City Council meeting got a little heated when a council-member used the idiom and his African-American colleague was insulted commenting that the idiom was an “ethnically and racially derogatory remark”. http://www.worldwidewords.org/topicalwords/tw-spa1.htm

In this way, the idiom is much like the word "niggardly" which is sometimes met with outrage from people who believe it derives from the racial slur "nigger." A white aide to former Washington D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams resigned after using the word "niggardly," a student in Wisconsin was outraged when her teacher insisted on using the word, a 4th grade teacher was formerly reprimanded for uttering the word, and many many other controversies have arisen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niggardly

So what is the answer? What do we do with words or sayings that are not racially insensitive but people believe them to be? Do we stop using the phrase "call a spade a spade" because some people erroneously believe that it is a racial epithet? Do we stop using the word "niggardly" because people don't know what it means? Clearly this has happened before. I can't remember the last time someone used the word "faggot" and actually meant a bundle of sticks.

At the same time, there are racial epithets that are used all the time that people aren't aware of. Sometimes I feel like a one-man crusade to get people to stop using the term "gyp" which is a derogatory term for a gypsy. I don't think I have ever known a Gypsy, but I do know that the phrase "don't Gyp me" is the same to me as "don't Jew me."

At the end of the day, I am not sure where I come out on this. I don't use the term "gyp," am have never used the term "niggardly," and I never "call a spade a spade." It has made my life easier. However, the controversies over "niggardly" and "call a spade a spade" are always popping up. Knowing the actual definitions of these words and phrases leads me to side with the people who use them properly. I find the people objecting to be reactionary in that they are upset at the usage of words and phrases that they don't understand.

I am curious where other people come out on this. Do we stop using these words and phrases because of what people misunderstand, or do we stubbornly insist on using them in the proper form recognizing the storm that might erupt?

PS - can anyone tell me if the phrase "to welch on a bet" has anything to do with the Welsh? I have always assumed it does, but before I call someone out on its usage, I want some type of proof.

When war comes, blame the Jews

In 1894, French military information was found in the garbage of the German Embassy in France. At the time there was one Jew in the general staff of the French Army, Captain Alfred Dreyfus. Suspicions quickly arose that Dreyfus was a traitor, and, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Dreyfus was convicted of treason in a secret military court martial. He was stripped of his rank and shipped off to the famed penal colony, Devil's Island. France's political right wing, used this as evidence of the failure of the republic, and used the Dreyfus incident to blame the failing of the Republic on the treacherous Jews.

Evidence soon emerged that made it clear that the Military had fabricated much of the case, and Dreyfus was an innocent man. When Lt. Col. Georges Picquart, himself a known anti-Semite, came forward to the military with proof of Dreyfus' innocence he was told "what does it matter to you that this Jew remains on Devil's Island?"

The rest of course is history. Emile Zola publishes "J'accuse" accusing the French army of a cover up in the Dreyfus trial. Zola is convicted of libeling the French military. The political right said the Dreyfus affair was a plot by Jews and Freemasons to damage the prestige of the Republic and the military and thereby ruin France. Dreyfus is retried, convicted again, pardoned, and eventually, in 1906, was exonerated of all charges. The next story, of course, everyone knows.

On November 10, 1918, A young Adolph Hitler learns that the Fatherland has lost the War to End All Wars. Distraught at the prospect of his beloved Germany losing the war, Hitler searched for a reason. He focused on what he called "the Fifth column," Bolsheviks, Democrats and Jews. Germany lost the war because the German people did not support the war enough. The German people did not support the war enough because of the invisible foes of all German people, the Jews. The notion that the Germans did not lose the war but were "stabbed in the back" became a very popular theory in Germany. Hitler himself would rail against the Versailles treaty, blaming the indignation on the "Jewish Marxists."

Hitler came to prominence with his oratory style, and was always sure to mix in a tirade against the Jews. For a nation that was weary and looking for answers, the Jews became the obvious answer. The rest is a history I am not going to get into. Father Charles Coughlin was a vehement opponent of Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal." From his weekly radio station, he would launch attacks against Roosevelt, "capitalists" and the Jews. Starting in 1936, Coughlin began to praise the new fascist leaders of Europe, Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini. The "Great Depression," he said, was the fault of the Jews. After Kristallnacht, Coughlin blamed the Jewish victims. Coughlin, and his supporters, would hold rally's against Jewish immigration saying "Wait until Hitler gets here" or "Send the Jews back to where they came from on leaky boats." Coughlin's supporters, mixed in with those of Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford, would rail against America's entry into World War II. They were aligned with the famed anti-Semite Gerald L.K. Smith, who traced Roosevelt's "Jewish ancestry," and stated that The United States was entering WWII to protect "European Jewry." (Ford's anti-Semitism is well known. He blamed WWI on "Jewish-German" bankers.)

A December 9, 2005 Daily Telegraph article says a British Member of Parliament argued that Tony Blair entered the Iraq war because he came under the influence of a "sinister" group of Jews and Freemasons. Counterpunch, and other likeminded publications, make the routine pronouncement that America entered Iraq, at least in part, because of Israel. Potential war in Iran is because of guys named Perle, Wolfiwitz and Abrams. AIPAC, who, unfortunately mostly according to the "radical left,"controls/bribes Congress is responsible for pushing the United States to wage war with Iran.

I will be accused of being neurotic, or ignoring facts, of equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. One thing that I can't be accused of is ignoring a certain trend. Where there is war, there is blaming the Jews.

Someone down there (meaning the comments) will turn this into a flame war about whether criticizing Israel is the same as anti-Semitism. That is not what this is about. Certainly, less and less people today are outright and outspoken bigots. Racists rail against "welfare and affirmative action" instead of African-Americans. Xenophobes rail against illegal immigration instead of Mexicans. Anti-Semites rail against AIPAC and Israel instead of the Jews. This makes it hard. Not all opponents of affirmative action are racists, but some are. Not all opponents of illegal immigration are xenophobes, but some are. Not all critics of Israel or AIPAC are anti-Semites, but some are.

Whether it be JINSA, or AIPAC, or PNAC, or Israel, there is a Jew somewhere to blame the war in Iraq on. Whether is be JINSA, or AIPAC, or PNAC or Israel, there is a Jew somewhere to preemptively blame a potential war in Iran on.

This is not new. Jews have always dealt with this. But we are used to dealing with it from David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Father Coughlin. We are not used to it coming from our natural allies within the progressive movement.

Don't get me wrong, I recognize that this crowd is still small. I do not believe they are representative of the progressive movement. My friends tell me to just ignore them. But I can't. Part of "My" movement says the same things, using the same rhetoric, blames the same people as David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Father Coughlin.