Many New Year’s resolutions ago, maybe
fifteen or more, I pledged to pause more often – to pause before speaking,
before offering an opinion and, especially, before criticizing someone or
something. In fact, I try to not repeat what others say unless I’m positive it
is harmless for all. That include supposed jokes.
I’ve sensed that it’s important to
take a moment to realize that as important as my opinion is to me, I ought to
be cognizant of the opinions, perspectives and feelings of others. Admittedly,
this approach to conversation was and is grounded in a lifetime of being wrong,
or at least ill informed. Of late I find that the pause I’ve tried to perfect
in order to be more considerate of others lends itself to being mistaken for
agreement, and that can be just as bad as actual agreement. Of course, my short-term
memory being what it is I’m often in danger of forgetting what I should
say, let alone what someone else says.
My oft-renewed resolution is my
small effort to be more considerate of the opinions and experiences of others –
to value and promote civility and therefor harmony. Still another reason
recognizes the fact that I don’t, indeed I can’t know all and that the best way
to strive to know more is to listen without interrupting. That’s not always
easy.
All of this apologizing (how
Canadian of me) is not to say that I should always keep my opinions to myself,
nor can I in some cases. Sometimes, you just have to get something off your
chest – this is one of those times.
The case in point that I’d like to
point out is a recent report on a recent interview of Hon. Pierre Poilievre in Winnipeg
Jewish Review. I was alerted to an article about the interview by a social
media post from The Tyee.[1]
Hon. Poilievre is perhaps the most
polished polemicist politician to hit the hustings since his predecessor
what’s-his-name (as Conservative leader), whose name I cannot immediately
recall – which is pretty telling, isn’t it? This week I just can’t help but
remark on Hon. Poilievre’s conservative call to arms in his quest for the Prime
Ministerial grail. His relentless abuse of our sitting Prime Minister (deserved
or not) and callously crafted to be the apex of polemic politics. His use of
alliteration, rhyme, assonance and rhetorical revisionism has been remarkable
(see what I did there?).
But rhyming rhetoric is not enough
to sway this lover of words and word play. Indeed, I think his preponderance
for poetics has already revealed a shallowness, a thinness of thought. I cite an
article that quotes Hon. Poilievre’s prodigious eloquence as evidence that his use
of English etymology as a means to incite the right to righteousness is lacking.
Indeed, it points to a truly shallow view of the Canadian political psyche.
In the interview (links below) Hon.
Poilievre goes positivity apoplectic over what he calls “wokism.” He’s a calm
and confident rhetorician, but his derision of “woke” and “wokism” exposes a semantic
irony that surely exposes the untreated roots of the man’s masks.
Wikipedia contributors have
favoured us with a comprehensive etymology of woke and wokism that clearly
situates the word’s origin in social conscience, beginning with a 2008
antiracism song by Erykah Badu, and intensified by demonstrations against
violent racism exhibited in Black Lives Matter protests in 2014-2015.
Beginning ca. 2019, opponents of
“progressive social movements were using the term mockingly … implying that
‘wokeness’ was an insincere form of performative activism.” In Canada and the
United States, the term “woke” is co-opted to “discredit individuals and
policies [considered] to be overly progressive.” Overly progressive? Is that
even a thing?
Ironically, by incessantly deriding
“wokism,” Hon. Poilievre and others of his political persuasion are in fact and
practice deriding social justice and are rejecting any notion of social
progress and egalitarianism – the Canadian dream.
I take “woke” to represent the call
to awaken us to the persistent undercurrent which from time to time rears its
ugly head, cobra-like, to incite, ignite and enflame racism, xenophobia and
sexism. Wokism is that slow positive process by which society ‘wakes up’ to its
evil past and begins to see the Other more clearly – indeed to help blur the
lines between previously polarized populations.
Divisionism is the long-standing
practice of using political polemics: using neoconservative and reverse
revisionism to try to turn back the clock on the dream of a just society. But
conservatism has itself been co-opted from the dictionary. No more notion of
moderating the pace of change in order to more carefully consider the future of
human interaction – of humanity.
There are many examples of the co-option
of words into often pejorative, downright racist or inciteful verbal weaponry.
Unlike the schoolyard taunts of my youth, I know that names CAN and do hurt.[2]
What sort of ethos does Hon. Poilievre envision for Canada? One in which name-calling,
naysaying and taking things out of context in order to belittle us? Who
benefits by such degradation of progressive social conscience and values?
In a National Post article
about an interview between Hon. Poilievre and “Right-wing social media star
Jordan Peterson,” a photo cutline continues: “young people support the
Conservatives’ commitment to ‘traditional values’.” Really? Young people are supportive
of so-called traditional right wing conservative values that twist social
conscience to suit conservative values? Which ones? The values that strive for
human rights, for example?
I think Hon. Poilievre cherishes
the weaponization of words above all. To what end?
=30=
Link to Wikipedia on Wokism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke
Link to article in Winnipeg Jewish Review https://tinyurl.com/bdhwcwke
Link to National Post article and interview between “Right-wing
social media star Jordan Peterson” and Hon. Poilievre https://tinyurl.com/cxxpfrrz
[1] "an
independent, online news magazine … devoted to fact-driven stories, reporting
and analysis that informs and enlivens our democratic conversation”
www.thetyee.ca
[2]
“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.” How wrong
that adage is regularly proven.
