|
Well, perhaps I got a bit off my initial path. I DO understand, at least with my interpretation, Orwell's overall concepts. First, in response to Charlatan, I'm not sure doublespeak doesn't exist in modern US politics than it ever could've been portrayed in 1984. While we may have a plethora of words at our disposal, we fear using many of them in varying company. Realistically this goes back to some of my initial points, though I suppose I mostly was speaking to offensive language. What is offensive changes from person to person. What do you call an African-American? Personally, I think African American is ridiculous. Negro? Black? Nigger? Colored? You can't say there is never a need for such a distinguishment. What if a crime is perpetrated by an anglo-saxon, and chinaman and a person of African decent. How would you describe them in a way that would offend NOBODY? It's virtually impossible. White? Yellow? Black? Asian? Asian opens up a lot, as does white. Black is semi-straight forward, and you can't say "dark" or "brown" because that could me someone from the Mediterranean(sp?) or of Hispanic origins. So black seems to be the most common. But that offends some people's sensibilities.
Back to point (sorry, it's easy for me to derail, especially at work), while common speech can still offend even when intended not to, politicians in the US use this against us, along with other linguistical anomolies to make statements that are either false or partial-truths and preach them as fact. Part of this is how language is being scuplted with political correctness, and part of this is the gross apathy of the American people.
At any rate, doublespeak has come to life without the need for Newspeak. Those that feel the need and have the ability are slowly shaping the use of English in this country, and it doesn't seem like it will stop anytime soon.
|