First, we had Patriotic Correctness: http://meekermedia.blogspot.com/2007/02/david-cochranes-speech-on-patriotic.html
Then, we had Optimistic Correctness: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/optimistic-correctness.html
Now, we have Emotional Correctness: http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36548
In this strategic partnership, the Ministry of Love wants you to show how much you love your fatherland by refusing to spend your money anywhere else:
"This is Tourism Awareness Week. Tourism Minister Clyde Jackman and representatives of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador were on hand for the official launch last night at the Atlantica Restaurant in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's. Jackman says the theme is "For the Love of Newfoundland and Labrador". Jackman says the theme encourages residents to stay inside the province if they plan to go on vacation this summer. Jackman says they want people to enjoy whatever it is that makes them love Newfoundland and Labrador."
For the truly committed Optimistic Patriots, the Ministry has partnered with local businesses to direct, for those who "just want to expound on your great love for Newfoundland & Labrador, phone us at 709-570-5291 and tell us about it for the chance to win some really great prizes." http://www.ozfm.com/contests/fortheloveofNL/fortheloveofNL.html
The penalties for vacationing on the Mainland, or for failing to publicly demonstrate your love, are unspecified.
As Eric Blair himself recognized, of all the state agencies, "the Ministry of Love was the really frightening one." As Blair explained, state-sponsored demonstrations of love and hate are flip sides of the same propaganda coin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Kznmrc3o4
Dangovt expects not just your loyalty, your optimism, and your hatred of Ottawa, but also a demonstration of your love. While the leaders of the regime sport deep Florida suntans, the public is expected to show their love by contenting themselves with the Newfoundland summer. If you love Newfoundland, you will spend all your vacation money in Newfoundland. If you don't...well, maybe you just don't love the fatherland enough.
As the web site directs, "This summer, vacation at home. And do it for love."
Showing posts with label Patriotic Correctness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patriotic Correctness. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Optimistic Correctness, II
Spurred by a discussion at Labradore, I decided to examine the iconography and rhetoric of Dangovt by going to the core source: the official PC Party web site: http://www.pcparty.nf.net/blueprint2007.htm
However tempting it may be to make specific comparisons to other regimes or to insert links to songs from the seventies, I'll stick to a textual analysis.
Like watching the video of Kennedy's news conference after the budget, interesting things happen when you pay close attention to what's actually being said.
So if you actually read the PC web site, what do you notice?
1) The photo. It's just weird. By jamming an over-sized head into the left-hand corner, the web site not only forces you to look at it first, but it also gives the impression of DW staring down at you. It's also strangely shaped and cropped, with too much focus on the forced smile.
2) MESSAGE FROM THE LEADER. No need to add much here. As funny as it sounds, that's how they've presented DW's message: huge block letters. The message. The leader. No questions.
3) The disconnect between message and language. From the top to the bottom of the page, there is a single, over-riding message: this is his party. He owns it. It's not message from "the team." There are no photos of anyone else. No pictures of the team. It's photo at the top, signature at the bottom. And yet, if you read the address, it uses the royal "we." The rhetoric in the message is entirely collective: it's all we and ours, all the time. The subliminal message is that he literally embodies the collective.
4) The year 2003 is YEAR ONE. Though the rhetoric may appeal to history, it says nothing significant about the real past.
5) Though short, the message lays out a three-act drama:
Prologue: In the beginning, there was darkness, despair, and wilderness.
Act I: Then, in Year One, DW and company appeared. They immediately began to restore confidence to the people and to lead them out of the political wilderness.
Act II: Like all journeys to the promised land, this one requires traveling across the desert and overcoming obstacles. In this case, the obstacle is Harper, who is hell bent on thwarting NL at every turn. Like all dramas, this one has a villain who has no honour. He betrays his promises and can no longer be trusted. So DW alone must confront him. This section is worth quoting: "The lesson in all of this is that we cannot count on others to improve our lot in the federation of Canada. We must take it upon ourselves to control our own future, to become self-reliant." The important word is lesson. Like all lessons, this one has a moral as well as political imperative.
Act III: In the climactic battle, DW must, like all heroes, strike out on his own. He must break from the pack. Dramatic heroism is always individual, not cooperative; it is based on action, not negotiation; and it requires total solution, not half measures. Heroes don't cut deals with the enemy. So it's entirely expected that the next section of the homily states, "We are ready and able to seize the opportunities before us and exercise a greater degree of autonomy to achieve our rightful place in Confederation." Righteousness requires autonomy.
6) The plan. All dystopias have plans. Whether it's a four-year plan, a five-year plan, or a great leap forward, there must be a temporal framework. It's not enough to regulate the task; time itself must be controlled as well. In this case, it's eight years.
7) Final words and phrases are usually revealing, and this is no exception. What's the final word? Deserve. It's all about just deserts. It's all about revenge against the oppressor. This extraordinary challenge demands extraordinary language. The final sentence has no less than three grandiose modifiers: boldly, great, richly.
8) Naming and signaling are always critical to any dystopian regime, and this one is no exception. How does DW sign off? Danny. Just Danny. No need for a surname. Like all stars, he needs only one name. This conveys familiarity and specialness.
This is no ordinary government.
However tempting it may be to make specific comparisons to other regimes or to insert links to songs from the seventies, I'll stick to a textual analysis.
Like watching the video of Kennedy's news conference after the budget, interesting things happen when you pay close attention to what's actually being said.
So if you actually read the PC web site, what do you notice?
1) The photo. It's just weird. By jamming an over-sized head into the left-hand corner, the web site not only forces you to look at it first, but it also gives the impression of DW staring down at you. It's also strangely shaped and cropped, with too much focus on the forced smile.
2) MESSAGE FROM THE LEADER. No need to add much here. As funny as it sounds, that's how they've presented DW's message: huge block letters. The message. The leader. No questions.
3) The disconnect between message and language. From the top to the bottom of the page, there is a single, over-riding message: this is his party. He owns it. It's not message from "the team." There are no photos of anyone else. No pictures of the team. It's photo at the top, signature at the bottom. And yet, if you read the address, it uses the royal "we." The rhetoric in the message is entirely collective: it's all we and ours, all the time. The subliminal message is that he literally embodies the collective.
4) The year 2003 is YEAR ONE. Though the rhetoric may appeal to history, it says nothing significant about the real past.
5) Though short, the message lays out a three-act drama:
Prologue: In the beginning, there was darkness, despair, and wilderness.
Act I: Then, in Year One, DW and company appeared. They immediately began to restore confidence to the people and to lead them out of the political wilderness.
Act II: Like all journeys to the promised land, this one requires traveling across the desert and overcoming obstacles. In this case, the obstacle is Harper, who is hell bent on thwarting NL at every turn. Like all dramas, this one has a villain who has no honour. He betrays his promises and can no longer be trusted. So DW alone must confront him. This section is worth quoting: "The lesson in all of this is that we cannot count on others to improve our lot in the federation of Canada. We must take it upon ourselves to control our own future, to become self-reliant." The important word is lesson. Like all lessons, this one has a moral as well as political imperative.
Act III: In the climactic battle, DW must, like all heroes, strike out on his own. He must break from the pack. Dramatic heroism is always individual, not cooperative; it is based on action, not negotiation; and it requires total solution, not half measures. Heroes don't cut deals with the enemy. So it's entirely expected that the next section of the homily states, "We are ready and able to seize the opportunities before us and exercise a greater degree of autonomy to achieve our rightful place in Confederation." Righteousness requires autonomy.
6) The plan. All dystopias have plans. Whether it's a four-year plan, a five-year plan, or a great leap forward, there must be a temporal framework. It's not enough to regulate the task; time itself must be controlled as well. In this case, it's eight years.
7) Final words and phrases are usually revealing, and this is no exception. What's the final word? Deserve. It's all about just deserts. It's all about revenge against the oppressor. This extraordinary challenge demands extraordinary language. The final sentence has no less than three grandiose modifiers: boldly, great, richly.
8) Naming and signaling are always critical to any dystopian regime, and this one is no exception. How does DW sign off? Danny. Just Danny. No need for a surname. Like all stars, he needs only one name. This conveys familiarity and specialness.
This is no ordinary government.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Optimistic Correctness
A significant evolution in Danspeak 9.0 is that patriotic correctness has been replaced with optimistic correctness. It is no longer enough that everyone support the state. It is no longer sufficient that no one speak up or challenge the regime. It's not even enough to stand united behind the leader.
No, the demands of your nation do not stop there. Now the fatherland expects total optimism. Isn't waving the pink-white-and-green (and hauling down the maple leaf) enough? Isn't crushing all opposition enough? Isn't a goose egg enough? Isn't conducting foreign policy enough? No, it's never, never enough.
Why? According to the Speech from the Throne, "In no other region of the western world is optimism greater than it is right here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and this optimism fuels our confidence that we can meet any challenge." [bold in original].
Without optimism, there's no confidence. Without confidence, there's no unity. Without unity, there's no bold and brilliant leadership. Without bold and brilliant leadership, the state would be just an ordinary state, like any other western government.
Thus it is not enough to be very optimistic. You must be the most optimistic in the history of optimism.
Why the obsession with optimism? Well, optimism is a state of mind as much as a behaviour. It's as much about how you feel as what you do. It entails both emotion and action.
Unlike obedience or loyalty, which often require only tacit consent, optimism demands active involvement. You cannot just go along; you must display specific emotion. And not just any display will do: it has to be the strongest show of optimism in the western world.
Such megalomania is worthy of literature. Oh wait...it's already been done by some guy named Eric Blair, who wrote how a servant of the state "set his features into the expression of quiet optimism which it was advisable to wear when facing the telescreen." See: http://www.literaturecollection.com/a/orwell/1984/1/
But there is a real difference between politics and literature. In Newfoundland in 2009, the optimism is never quiet.
No, the demands of your nation do not stop there. Now the fatherland expects total optimism. Isn't waving the pink-white-and-green (and hauling down the maple leaf) enough? Isn't crushing all opposition enough? Isn't a goose egg enough? Isn't conducting foreign policy enough? No, it's never, never enough.
Why? According to the Speech from the Throne, "In no other region of the western world is optimism greater than it is right here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and this optimism fuels our confidence that we can meet any challenge." [bold in original].
Without optimism, there's no confidence. Without confidence, there's no unity. Without unity, there's no bold and brilliant leadership. Without bold and brilliant leadership, the state would be just an ordinary state, like any other western government.
Thus it is not enough to be very optimistic. You must be the most optimistic in the history of optimism.
Why the obsession with optimism? Well, optimism is a state of mind as much as a behaviour. It's as much about how you feel as what you do. It entails both emotion and action.
Unlike obedience or loyalty, which often require only tacit consent, optimism demands active involvement. You cannot just go along; you must display specific emotion. And not just any display will do: it has to be the strongest show of optimism in the western world.
Such megalomania is worthy of literature. Oh wait...it's already been done by some guy named Eric Blair, who wrote how a servant of the state "set his features into the expression of quiet optimism which it was advisable to wear when facing the telescreen." See: http://www.literaturecollection.com/a/orwell/1984/1/
But there is a real difference between politics and literature. In Newfoundland in 2009, the optimism is never quiet.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Identity Shaft
What do you expect from Thursday's provincial budget?
1) Have not no more
2) Status quo
3) Maximum shaft
No, it's not the VOCM question of the day. It's today's Tely Poll: http://www.thetelegram.com/
I'm sure the goosed results will be amusing, but here's a question for the Tely: Who is potentially giving whom the maximum shaft?
Since DW has stated publicly that the Blue Shaft is the status quo, we can only assume that this Maximum Shaft refers to someone other than Harper. It wouldn't make sense to have options 2 and 3 refer to the same thing, wouldn't it?
Moreover, since this is a provincial budget, it only follows that the questions would refer to the actions of the provincial government, right?
So is the Tely asking readers whether DW is going to give them the Maximum Shaft?
Whatever the answers are, the poll sounds patriotically incorrect.
Results are in update:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?pid=1152
1) Have not no more
2) Status quo
3) Maximum shaft
No, it's not the VOCM question of the day. It's today's Tely Poll: http://www.thetelegram.com/
I'm sure the goosed results will be amusing, but here's a question for the Tely: Who is potentially giving whom the maximum shaft?
Since DW has stated publicly that the Blue Shaft is the status quo, we can only assume that this Maximum Shaft refers to someone other than Harper. It wouldn't make sense to have options 2 and 3 refer to the same thing, wouldn't it?
Moreover, since this is a provincial budget, it only follows that the questions would refer to the actions of the provincial government, right?
So is the Tely asking readers whether DW is going to give them the Maximum Shaft?
Whatever the answers are, the poll sounds patriotically incorrect.
Results are in update:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?pid=1152
Monday, March 16, 2009
A Breach in Patriotic Protocol?
Another day, another story about Newfoundland separatism. To paraphrase another Winston, never before in the history of journalism have so many written so much about so little. I have to admit that I really didn't think we would still be reading about the Curious Circus, which should have folded its tent a couple of news cycles ago.
With important reports now submitted on crises in Health and at MUN, and the terrible tragedy that is gripping Newfoundlanders, you would think that there would be plenty of other things to write about.
So the sight of yet another story -- this one by the Canwest News Service -- on the fallout from Curious George's antics was rather hard to stomach:
http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=1392266
Foot's story has all the hackneyed ingredients, including the obligatory opening about unresolved passions from 1949 and a separatist quotation from Ryan Cleary. I was just about to click onto something else, but then this interesting passage caught my eye:
"Bruce Templeton, chairman of the St. John's Board of Trade, say the grievances may be legitimate, but Newfoundlanders need to get over them and focus on a future within Confederation.
"These deals are done, you can't cry about them now," he says.
He says the province should focus its energies on a series of huge economic projects waiting on the horizon -- including the new Hebron oil development, and the Lower Churchill hydro dam -- and work with Canadian investors and with Ottawa to get them done right.
"There's no appetite among the business community for separation," says Mr. Templeton. "Instead there's this tremendous feeling of quiet confidence. We'd like to be a positive contributor to Confederation."
Reading this passage brought to mind David Cochrane's 2007 speech on "Patriotic Correctness" in the local business community, which is worth quoting from:
"There exists in Newfoundland and Labrador a phenomenon I like to call “Patriotic Correctness.” Like political correctness, it makes certain words or expressions unacceptable.
But most significantly, it has fostered an environment where informed dissent is seen as nothing short of treason. Where the simple questioning or criticism of the government or the premier is viewed as an unpatriotic assault upon the very fabric of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Patriotic correctness manifests itself in times of conflict. Usually it pits the premier and the government against an outside force such as the federal government, a nickel company, Big Oil, or a fish company that happens to be run by a Nova Scotian. It creates an incredibly lop-sided public debate, one where all good Newfoundlanders and Labradorians must rally to the side of the government.
What matters most is a public display of loyalty; of being on side with the stated goal of getting the best deal, best return and most benefits for the province."
Cochrane's speech is worth a full reading and, thankfully, Geoff Meeker has posted it online:
http://meekermedia.blogspot.com/2007/02/david-cochranes-speech-on-patriotic.html
...Now to the VODW Question of the Day: are Templeton's remarks a breach of patriotic protocol?
Saying that NL needs to get over grievances and work with Ottawa certainly doesn't sound like Danspeak. Today's editorial in the Tely quotes the latest Danspeak, and it doesn't sound like DW is interested in getting over anything:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=232136&sc=80
"That's how things have worked for us over the years, and we've got shafted as a result of it.... So, when it comes to getting the short end of the stick, Newfoundland and Labrador has generally got it in Canadian international negotiations. From my perspective, that time is over. I'm not prepared to stand back and let that happen. And, more importantly, I'm not going to stand back and let somebody who obviously has a vicious dislike for Newfoundland and Labrador like Stephen Harper to go over and negotiate on our behalf."
It looks to me that we may be seeing a wee bit of disconnect between Dangovt and Dantrade.
With important reports now submitted on crises in Health and at MUN, and the terrible tragedy that is gripping Newfoundlanders, you would think that there would be plenty of other things to write about.
So the sight of yet another story -- this one by the Canwest News Service -- on the fallout from Curious George's antics was rather hard to stomach:
http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=1392266
Foot's story has all the hackneyed ingredients, including the obligatory opening about unresolved passions from 1949 and a separatist quotation from Ryan Cleary. I was just about to click onto something else, but then this interesting passage caught my eye:
"Bruce Templeton, chairman of the St. John's Board of Trade, say the grievances may be legitimate, but Newfoundlanders need to get over them and focus on a future within Confederation.
"These deals are done, you can't cry about them now," he says.
He says the province should focus its energies on a series of huge economic projects waiting on the horizon -- including the new Hebron oil development, and the Lower Churchill hydro dam -- and work with Canadian investors and with Ottawa to get them done right.
"There's no appetite among the business community for separation," says Mr. Templeton. "Instead there's this tremendous feeling of quiet confidence. We'd like to be a positive contributor to Confederation."
Reading this passage brought to mind David Cochrane's 2007 speech on "Patriotic Correctness" in the local business community, which is worth quoting from:
"There exists in Newfoundland and Labrador a phenomenon I like to call “Patriotic Correctness.” Like political correctness, it makes certain words or expressions unacceptable.
But most significantly, it has fostered an environment where informed dissent is seen as nothing short of treason. Where the simple questioning or criticism of the government or the premier is viewed as an unpatriotic assault upon the very fabric of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Patriotic correctness manifests itself in times of conflict. Usually it pits the premier and the government against an outside force such as the federal government, a nickel company, Big Oil, or a fish company that happens to be run by a Nova Scotian. It creates an incredibly lop-sided public debate, one where all good Newfoundlanders and Labradorians must rally to the side of the government.
What matters most is a public display of loyalty; of being on side with the stated goal of getting the best deal, best return and most benefits for the province."
Cochrane's speech is worth a full reading and, thankfully, Geoff Meeker has posted it online:
http://meekermedia.blogspot.com/2007/02/david-cochranes-speech-on-patriotic.html
...Now to the VODW Question of the Day: are Templeton's remarks a breach of patriotic protocol?
Saying that NL needs to get over grievances and work with Ottawa certainly doesn't sound like Danspeak. Today's editorial in the Tely quotes the latest Danspeak, and it doesn't sound like DW is interested in getting over anything:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=232136&sc=80
"That's how things have worked for us over the years, and we've got shafted as a result of it.... So, when it comes to getting the short end of the stick, Newfoundland and Labrador has generally got it in Canadian international negotiations. From my perspective, that time is over. I'm not prepared to stand back and let that happen. And, more importantly, I'm not going to stand back and let somebody who obviously has a vicious dislike for Newfoundland and Labrador like Stephen Harper to go over and negotiate on our behalf."
It looks to me that we may be seeing a wee bit of disconnect between Dangovt and Dantrade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
