After reading the poem titled, “The President Has Never Said the Word Black”, and the article titled, “The Grammar of Police Shootings”, I realize more and more how important language is in communicating a message, or rather the lack thereof. Long Soldier said it best when she said, “Everything is in the language we use”, however there is meaning to, “Everything is in the language we do NOT use”, as well. That can best be seen in these pieces of writing. In the article, police are seen describing a shootout not involving them with very accurate details of how it went down and with timestamps as well. However when it came to shootouts that involved them, the officers were very careful in wording how the situation went down. They downplayed the possibility of intended harm on the victim and left the cause of the problem to open possibilities, never giving a definitive story. As for the poem, Parker notices that the president at the time, who I am assuming is Barack Obama based on the timestamp, leaves out a very important word that would otherwise severely impact the message of his speeches. That word being black. I noticed this based on the title of the poem and the extra space left between some words where it fits in perfectly. By leaving this word out, the president fails to address the true root of the problem and thus inadvertently allows for the problem to continue and grow. These writers want us to know that it is important that you include every word you want to say into your message/writing in order for the message of it to be loud and clear, and that simple words or a word can significantly boost your message and give it a whole new deeper meaning.
Month: September 2020
The words that are left unsaid to make things seem ok when it’s really not
When I read the poem “The President Has Never Said the Word Black” I was a little confused at first, but as I read it a couple of time I started to understand it a little better. It is the word “black” that is left unsaid when someone is being described that the author is trying to refer to, specifically with the President. I’m not sure if I am interpreting the poem correctly but the poet wants to make people understand the pain of not being able to say the word black/African when it comes to describing himself or anyone else of that race, even as the first African-American president. The poet wants people to understand what it’s like to be an African-American in America.
“The grammar of Police Shootings” brings up a similar social issue. Balko brought up the issue of the way apologies are manipulated in sounding better for the people who are to blame. This specifically refers to police officers that were involved in shootings. Balko is trying to convey the message that the way police officers apologize for shootings try to make them look as innocent as possible compared to a shooting between normal citizens. He is trying to say that more words are left unsaid than said and this is how police officers get away from taking responsibility. If Long Soldier hypothetically wrote, “everything is in the language we do not use” it would make sense in this case. The police officers manipulate their words by leaving certain words out, which will help them look innocent. They also leave words out that may make the public believe that the shootings were done on purpose rather than an accident. The manipulation of such words are the reason why so many police officers get away with shootings that were done on purpose.
Both writers talk about words that are left unsaid. They talk about relevant social issues because of the BLM movement and the fight against police brutality that have been going on for years. Both writers want to emphasize on the significance of the language that is not used because it can have a bigger impact than the language that is used. Some people may say that some things are left better unsaid, but it’s not always true especially when it comes to police shootings and taking responsibility. They are trying to put the hardships of the people who become victims of these social issues in perspective. They do this in different ways. Parker does this by leaving blanks in the poem for the readers to fill in. Balko compares the descriptions of two different cases involving a shooting. In the end, both authors are trying to bring important social issues to light.
Thoughts on Balko, Long Soldier, Morgan, and the Art of Ommission
Radley Balko’s article “The Grammar of Police Shootings” and Morgan Parker’s poem, “The President Has Never Said the Word Black” each dive headfirst into the implications of using language in reference to Black America. Balko’s article depicts the ways in which language is used by state agencies to reframe the narrative of police shootings in order to benefit uniformed officers accused of police brutality, manslaughter and/or murder. Parker however utilizes the creative medium of poetry to highlight former President Obama’s (and his respective administration’s) lack of utilizing language, with the intention of suppressing his identity as a black man.
While both pieces make the argument that language has been utilized to make black voices subservient to white-washed power structures, I ultimately find Morgan’s piece to be the more powerful. Balko’s article is noble in identifying “the linguistic gymnastics” employed by state agencies in smoothing over incidents of police brutality, yet Morgan’s article goes a step deeper, finding irony in the fact that the one of the most esteemed black men in American history is coerced into utilizing neutral language, negotiating the expectations of a large social structure (The United States) that he himself is in charge of.
Morgan’s cynicism towards the Obama Administration’s utilization of language in reference to Black America, parallels with Long Soldier’s satirical utilization of language in depicting the horrific acts committed against The Dakota Nation. In their efforts to fight white-washed language, full of negative intentions and implications, both authors employ their own creativity in language, thus fighting fire with fire. More significantly, Morgan and Long Soldier also share a knack for depicting the power of unspoken language.
Between Morgan’s choice to not use the word “black” in his poem (mirroring the choices of the Obama Administration) and Long Soldier’s decision to convey the usage of language through action as opposed to spoken/written word, both poets synchronize to make a resounding point. Language is just as much the art of omission as it is the art of submission. Language delegates to us the authority to make powerful statements without uttering a single word. This is true not only in the context of identifying and dismantling large power structures, but also equally as true in some of our everyday dialogue.
“a loss of words”
Both articles show historical instances where justice isn’t achieved, where overall equality fails to be a part of society. Both articles may have some links to racism in which the author of both articles may want the readers to feel remorse in a way, and reminds us all in a way that these situations are still occurring. Module 2 is all about the vast array of words that can be used to make any statement, therefore having the idea that “everything is in the language that we use”. This week however, the complete opposite, where both articles show individuals attempting to hold back their speech in a way, therefore, resembling that “Everything is in the language that is NOT used”.
Within the poem “The president has never said the word Black” shows an African American’s feelings towards the current leader of the country, and the ongoing situation. His wordings show concern of the leader and his intentions. He shows his concern by first stating what he currently feels of the president, (“we lost a young boy…… happiness is guaranteed….. He says brothers and sisters”), but in the last stanza, he ends it off with his mouth being like a hungry chameleon. A chameleon camouflages in its dwellings, unable to be seen from afar, and with it being hungry, the whole statement may show the mouth longs to unleash some sort of speech, but is unable to do so, linking it back to “everything is in the language that is NOT used”.
Similar situation in the other article, where 2 instances of a shooting have 2 different outcomes. The first in Los Angeles, where the report has every listener aware of exactly what occurred, while later in the week, the report has all of us wondering, what ACTUALLY happened. When a police officer shot a kid, they attempted a cover-up, which links it back to the main point, since the language is there to describe what exactly happened, but they chose not to to use it, whilst in the first occurrence, “everything is in the language that we use” allowed all to understand the situation fully.
Everything in What We Say and Don’t Say
“Everything is in the language we use” and “Everything is in the language we don’t use” go hand in hand. Like a coin, if you flip it you’ll see the side that is facing you, but that doesn’t mean the other side doesn’t exist.
When Layli Long Soldier described Myrick’s death as an execution, she implied that the Dakota warriors action was justified and not something morally wrong like murder. When the communication officers in “The grammar of police shootings” described the shooting of a young boy as a misfire, the idea that the deputy intentionally shot a boy in the leg is thrown out the window. In lieu, we’re left with the idea that this was purely an accident, a negligent one perhaps, but an accident in the end. What both descriptions accomplished is that it drew your attention away from the fact that someone was killed and someone was shot. This is what is in the language we don’t use.
Interestingly enough, this is also something commonly practiced in the art of misdirection. By drawing a person’s attention to something “minor”, said person begins to lose a grip on the overall picture. Similarly, by not mentioning how an event transpired in a certain way, the reader/listener begins to think in a biased manner. Everything we don’t say or write is left out in the open, but at the same time it becomes almost transparent and obsolete. It might be just my two cents on this topic, but how we choose our words can have lasting consequential effect on those who see them.
The Grammar of Police Shootings
“The Curious Grammar of Police Shootings” by Radley Balko brings multiple perspectives of specific shootings into comparison. In particular, he’s comparing the grammar used by police departments in both police involved and non-police involved shootings. He makes a claim that in shootings where the police were not involved – the incidents were described in greater detail, but the ones which involved the police would be worded in a manner to defend the officers. This is where one can argue that “everything is in the language we do NOT use”. The biased grammar and wording used to defend the officers would portray an image of innocence and attempt to brush the blame off of the officer’s shoulders, thus discarding the truth in the words and language which was not used.
To me, this article further justifies that sources of news and media, even police reporting, have their own agendas and biases when it comes to the information they put out. They twist the truth and impose it onto the public in efforts to defend themselves or support a side. Meaning, with all the information that gets spewed out, chances are unlikely you will ever hear the truth, all you hear are opposing views, leaving you confused on who to trust.
English Language
This week, we had the opportunity to read the “The President Has Never Said the Word ‘Black’” by Morgan Parker and “The Curious Grammar of Police Shootings” by Radley Balko. Based on these readings, Long Soldier could have meant that everything is in the language we do NOT use. People carefully choose the words that they speak. In doing so, they may intentionally omit certain language. When a speaker does this, a listener needs to consider what language was used and what was not use. Both of these have a deeper meaning. In Parker’s article, the rhetorical choices that are being commented on are how the president does not say the word “Black”. According to the author, “He says brothers and sisters.” The significance here is that the president is trying to identify with the people. He is not using the word “Black” so it does not sound like his comments are targeting race. Parker wants us to know that there is a reason the President does not say the word “Black”.
On the other hand, Balko comments on other rhetorical choices. He mentions that writers will purposely use the English language to not place blame on a police office or a responsible agency when there is a police shooting. They will utilize an active voice that features a clear subject, verb, and direct object. Balko wants us to consider this when we read future news articles. He wants us, as readers, to consider the phrasing that an author uses. Balko wants us to know what actually happened, rather than relying on the sugar-coated message a writer may be trying to portray.
Everything is in the language we don’t use
Throughout the article on police shootings, there is a clear distinction between the grammar described by the LAPD, compared to the actual events that occurred. The article briefly describes a certain scenario’s in which the police is sought out to become the victim, instead of the person at fault. Instead, the Los Angeles Police Department released their statement regarding the matter, whilst directing the blame towards no particular person, when the police officer was clearly at fault. The author goes on to state how grammar has allowed for the police to direct the responsibility of these issues. The language not used in these issues significantly impacts the way society interprets the issue as they will believe that this is just another incident that occurred with the police, meanwhile the police are the sole reason to blame in this situation. Throughout the article, the LAPD continues to justify the actions of the police officer stating that the gun was pointed at a dog, but it was not clear if it was fired off by the deputy accidentally. Thus, eluding to this type of conclusion is unreasonable as a gun does not have the ability to jump into the police officer’s hand and fire off a gunshot on its own.
I believe that throughout the article, the quote by Long Soldier that, “everything is in the language we use,”would be interpreted in a very different way. Long Soldier would have encouraged the audience to share all of the truth, instead of allowing holes and gaps to appear due to something as simple as grammar. The misinformation due to the grammar of the sentence, would not have occurred with Long Soldier as she would have pushed for all the information to be shared so that it can be interpreted correctly and by everyone. The words and explanations used creates misunderstandings, but would not have occurred if the situation was explained clearly, without leaving any information out.
“The Grammar of Police Shootings”
In the article “The grammar of police shootings”, Balko strongly defines the phrase “everything is in the language we use”. Balko brings up many examples of how newspapers word articles in certain ways in order to make the readers view the article differently. Balko indirectly shows how the grammar we use effects our understanding of a situation. If words are used incorrectly, the story can be twisted and cause confusion amongst the readers. Another way that stories are twisted depends on who was involved in the shooting. In a case where an officer is involved, the articles doesn’t states specific details in order to maintain uncertainty. These reports also try to alter the responsibility aspect. For example, In an incident where a 10 year old boy was shot by an officer, the article includes that a dog was in the way and the officers intention was to shoot the dog. The article doesn’t stress that a boy was shot, it stresses that the shot missed the dog. Although this may not be the case and the shot could’ve actually been fired by accident, the article still tried to make the officer not look at fault.
I think that one of the articles main intentions is to inform people that we shouldn’t believe everything we read and hear because crucial details can be left out. I’m not saying don’t believe anything you hear, but be sure to be open minded and know that there could always be more details to a story that you don’t know.
Parker and Balko readings
While reading both the short poem and then the article, it was evident that the theme was referring to the way that people can distort the English language in ways that either avoid putting responsibility on a person or in ways that discriminate against a group of people simply by what someone has “not said” . To make it clearer, when referring to the poem by Morgan Parker titled ” The president has never said the word black”, the author uses this poem to highlight the ways that politicians demonstrate racism and discrimination to the black community by the simple fact that they are not taking into account! Parker uses a style of writing where she leaves blank spaces where the word “black ” could have been inputted to symbolically demonstrate how “left out” the black community feels when Politician’s blatantly show discrimination. This more deeply illustrates to the reader how a person or group of people can feel isolated and alienated because of something that someone does NOT say.
In addition, the article titled “The grammar of police shootings” by Radley Balko, connects to the theme of how something that is NOT said can have such a deeper rooted meaning and effect. For example, in this article, Balko emphasizes the clear difference in descriptions of shootings that involved no officers in contrast to shootings in which officers were a part of. One main point of his writing was that when reporting shooting’s that involved officers, the descriptions tend to be in a passive voice, resulting in a cloudy plot of events to the public and also in a way that maintains the shooter as unknown. Here it is evident that by NOT saying specific details, it is easier to keep the shooter and the plot very unclear.
Both these writings are connected in the way that they serve the purpose to inform the reader how altered or different a narrative could be interpreted not only by what is said but more importantly by what is left out and why this particular information was left out. This sometimes has a much more deeper meaning than what was actually said and presented to you. In these cases, it could be as deep as discrimination against the black community and also a cover up of a police shooting.