Can a metaphor replace a truth?
 |
| Metaphor: a figure of speech containing an implicit comparison. |
Over a few years of inquiry, I've noticed that things which are abhorrent can be justified or minimized by the way we describe them, by our metaphors.
Snakes: in Rwanda, Hutus described Tutsis as snakes and treated them as such.
Vermin: Germany’s Reich portrayed Jews as vermin and treated them as such.
Vermin: Germany’s Reich portrayed Jews as vermin and treated them as such.
For the sake of the nation, it had to be done. It was necessary, for example, during WWII, to bomb civilians. In the pursuit of room to live (lebensraum), Germany began bombing Polish cities and towns that weren’t military targets. Japan similarly bombed civilian targets in China.
In response, allied bombing destroyed many cities in Germany and Japan before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Targeting the morale of the nation, we said. After the war, it was examined and acknowledged that many attacks had targeted innocent civilian populations that were uninvolved in the decision to go to war or in the war effort. It continues to be troubling.
Manifest Destiny: for our new-born nation, it was necessary to vacate the country ahead of our expansion westward as our manifest destiny required.
Over the decades, the abuse of others has been metaphorically justified. They’re savage beasts, we said of those we enslaved. Of desperate migrants seeking refuge, we said they are criminals and rapists, an invasion.
In each case, metaphoric misdirection provided an excuse for violation of absolute principle.
If you inquire into such issues, it often circles back to simplistic, metaphoric justification rather than a principled foundation, and there is no objective answer.
A question for us as individuals and as a culture, then; do we have genuine principles? Or a confusion, perhaps, of conflicting values?
Either we have an anchor, or we're left to drift with the wind and waves. He said, metaphorically. 😏 Thoughts? Memes?