Lost in Translation

More and more ethnic groups are taking on prominent roles in American society and as such, it promotes the fact that this is a very culturally diverse and open society. You are more or less allowed to practice whatever religion you choose and are not under the strict control of the government. It's for these very reasons that so many people have come here since the founding of this country and it's the reason why so many people continue to come here. That being said, there are often instances where statements that people make are taken in the wrong context simply because over time, the definition of the word that is being used has been overused in a particular context and so, the original meaning may become lost in time.

Take for example the case of Dr. Esam S. Omeish, a former member of Virginia's Commission on Immigration and president of the Muslim American Society. Dr. Omeish tendered his resignation to Governor Tim Kaine yesterday following the release of a 2006 video on YouTube in which he makes denouncements of the invasion of Lebanon by the "Israeli war machine" and states that the only way to free your land is "the jihad way." Now there's the magic word that led to his resignation. One word. Five letters. Two syllables. Now I'm not arguing that Omeish is correct or incorrect but what I mean is that his use of the word jihad led to pressure for his resignation and not necessarily what he stated. In it's original usage, jihad is meant to define any struggle to make oneself better in the eyes of God. It is the exercise of self-betterment and that struggle can encompass anything from helping the planet to fighting a holy war.

Unfortunately in this day and age, the statements of a fanatical few has led to the widespread belief that anytime the word jihad is used, it means that a war of terror is being promoted. I won't defend what Omeish since I can't really fathom what he may have meant by it but because the word has taken on such a negative connotation, it is immediately assumed to be bad. I guess the talk in Congress and in the government on fighting 'jihadists' as they were referred to some time ago, has helped lead to that understanding and so anytime the word is used now, watch out, you'll probably end up on a terror watchlist. But it's not just words like jihad either. Some words, which have no linkage whatsoever to racial epiteths have also come under similar fire in recent years. Don't believe me? What about the case of former Washington, DC mayor Anthony Williams' associate David Howard.

Several years ago Howard (who is white) was in a meeting in which he used the word 'niggardly' while referring to the budget. A less grammatically informed member of the mayor's staff (who was African-American) took offense at this word that sounded very similar to another n-word with definite racial meaning. Immediately there was a call for Howard's resignation which he tendered immediately and within a short time he was out on his ear. Who should leap to his defense? Why the NAACP of course! Now I'm sure people must be wondering why the NAACP of all organizations would leap to defend a white man for using a racial slur. Well it turns out that the context in which Howard used the term meant that the budget was miserly or very restrained in its scope. The word never had any relation in the history of the English language to the n-word but because it sounds like it must be related, everyone was up in arms about it. Even the mayor.

Unfortunately, those of us who are a little more robust in our use of the English language find that there are some words that just don't get across to people. Either they don't understand it or the meaning is just so skewed with time that it means something completely different to those who read it or say it. I mean even simple unobtrusive words which define a feeling no longer can be applied in the same way because of the 'guilt-by-association' that seems to occur. Don't know what I mean? Think about the last time you ever called someone 'gay' who wasn't homosexual. Most people would hesitate to even contemplate using that word in relation to someone's demeanor on the off chance that it is interpreted to mean that the person being referred to is a homosexual. All it proves is how powerful or damaging words can be. Perhaps it's true then what they say. The pen (or the word in this case) is mightier than the sword.