Biden Lies at the United Nations

By Margaret Kimberley

Republished from Black Agenda Report.

It takes a special kind of hubris for a president of the United States to speak at the United Nations, the place where international law is supposed to be upheld and defended. Yet the representative of the worst violator of international law predictably shows up every September when the United Nations General Assembly holds its annual session. The late Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez got it right when he spoke in 2006:

“Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world. I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday’s statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation, and pillage of the peoples of the world.”

Chavez is no longer with us, and Joe Biden is the third man to serve as U.S. president since George W. Bush was compared to the devil. But the words are as true now as they were then. This year Biden’s speech was replete with the usual drivel about the United States being some sort of guarantor of peace. Among other things, he said that permanent members of the Security Council should “...refrain from the use of the veto, except in rare, extraordinary situations, to ensure that the Council remains credible and effective.”

Perhaps Biden thinks that the rest of the world has amnesia. Every time the members of UN General Assembly condemn Israeli apartheid it is the U.S. that predictably steps in with a Security Council veto to protect its ally and partner in crime. Twelve of the 14 U.S. vetoes since 2000 were made on behalf of Israel. Any U.S. proposal calling for change in the Security Council structure is intended to weaken China and Russia’s veto power and to bring in its own puppets such as Germany and Japan.

Of course, Russia bashing was the focus of Biden’s speech with false claims of a nuclear threat, unprovoked attack, and accusations of war crimes. He didn’t mention well documented Ukrainian war crimes such as the shelling of civilians in Donetsk. Worse yet, there was no acknowledgement that Ukraine and Russia were negotiating until the U.S. and the U.K. intervened and scuttled the talks. Biden’s speech was full of projection and every condemnation leveled against Russia or Iran or Venezuela was instead an indictment of U.S. behavior in the world.

The world has changed but American administrations don’t. They continue behaving as if the U.S. is still the all-powerful hegemon that will always get what it wants. It does have the world’s reserve currency and the biggest military, but it can’t control the world without doing harm to itself and its allies. The United States cynically used the United Nations to call for a “no fly zone” over Libya, which allowed it to destroy that nation. Partnerships with jihadists brought destruction to Libya and to Syria, causing a humanitarian disaster which displaced millions of people. The 2014 coup against the elected government of Ukraine has turned into all out war. The sanctions targeting Russian gas and oil have raised prices all over the world and damaged European economies more than any others. The ruble has risen in value and the euro has declined. Even hegemons don’t always get their way.

While Biden mouthed platitudes and falsehoods at the United Nations, Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov met with representatives from China, Cuba, Eritrea, Serbia, Laos, Jordan, Nicaragua, Ethiopia, Algeria, Burkina Faso, India, Mali, Sudan, South Sudan, Equatorial Guinea, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Mexico among others. So much for Washington’s claims that Russia is an isolated pariah.

While Washington rails against Moscow, it continues to ignore UN votes to end sanctions against Cuba. This year Cuba will again submit a resolution calling on the U.S. to end its trade embargo. During the 2021 vote only the U.S. and Israel voted no. The next vote will have the same result, and reveal Biden’s words, “The United States will always promote human rights and the values enshrined in the U.N. Charter in our own country and around the world,” as a sham.

The United Nations is in serious need of reform. It is part of the Core Group which chooses presidents for Haiti and acts against the will of its people. Biden mentioned Haiti in passing and called for an end to gang violence. But that violence is the direct result of U.S. interventions there. The 75-year history of allowing the permanent Security Council members to dictate to the rest of the world should change. But who should do the changing? Not the U.S., which always has ulterior motives and dirty hands.

Biden did make one valid statement. “Because if nations can pursue their imperial ambitions without consequences, then we put at risk everything this very institution stands for.” It is unfortunate that the U.S. ignores the consequences of its own actions.

The Money Has Always Been There: Coronavirus Response Reveals Capital’s Lies

By Olivia Wood

Republished from Left Voice.

In the past weeks, companies and governments alike have begrudgingly been forced to provide minimal relief to workers suffering under the coronavirus pandemic. Inboxes are filled with emails from dozens of corporations about the steps they are taking to “protect” their employees and the public; these emails are nothing but damage control in the face of public demands. 

Corporations and governments of all sizes are realizing that under such extreme conditions, they cannot hide the disastrous consequences of their actions like they once could. The need to “flatten the curve” is of course vital to protecting everyone’s health, but the capitalists are only struggling to flatten the curve of suffering under their own hegemony in order to keep people from connecting the dots. The old arguments — blaming the working class for their own financial irresponsibility or lack of work ethic — don’t work as well when entire sectors are getting shut down. 

Already, we are seeing rapid changes in political consciousness across sectors. Many people now support measures — like free healthcare, guaranteed paid leave, and universal basic income — that they considered “too radical” only a few weeks ago. They are realizing that all people deserve more. And now they are demanding it. 

Just in the last few weeks, airlines have been repeatedly revising their refund policies. Employers have been allowing more and more people to work from home. Health care providers are beginning to offer telehealth, and insurance companies are starting to provide coverage for telehealth where they didn’t before. These changes didn’t come from the goodness of their hearts. They came in response to a rapid loss in profits, fear of public backlash, and mass public outcry, both through piles of individual complaints and mass organized actions. 

Many workplace protections that we are accustomed to today — such as the 8-hour workday, minimum wage laws, and unemployment and disability benefits —  as inadequate as they are, were won in the 1930s when mass movements and organized labor put pressure on the capitalist class. By offering small, affordable concessions now, subsidized by government bailouts, companies hope to appease the newly agitated workforce and foreclose the possibility of even stronger organized revolt. 

These concessions are not enough to prevent the serious physical, emotional, and financial harms that people around the country (and the world) are facing, but they do reveal just how many policies that were previously called “not feasible” or “too expensive” could have been rapidly implemented in our workplaces and in our lives all along. 

This partial list of concessions demonstrates that while there are no lasting solutions under capitalism, working people can still win valuable gains that improve their lives and strengthen their ability to fight for even more. 

Many of these items are courtesy of @frnsys‘s compendium of concessions that they shared on Twitter.

Workplace Benefits

• Some companies, such as REI, are continuing to pay their workers while stores are closed. At the same time, Congress has refused to provide paid sick leave for most employees, and other companies like Ann Taylor and American Eagle have failed to provide the paid leave they promised.

• Many schools and workplaces are now allowing students/workers to connect from home, even in cases where teleworking accommodations were previously denied to disabled students and workers because these accommodations were not considered “reasonable” under the ADA.

Economic Interventions

• Interest and payments on federally-subsidized student loans have been suspended.

• Some U.S. citizens — excluding gig workers, many college students, sex workers, and others– will receive a one-time check of $1,200, adjusted based on number of children

• The U.S. federal government is now subsidizing state-run unemployment insurance by $600 per week per person.

Shelter and Public Health Protections

• California is commandeering hotels to house the homeless and create extra space for COVID patients, as well as sending 450 trailers around the state to provide additional shelter. Notably, this is not the case in places like Las Vegas, where homeless people are in a “socially distanced” parking lot.

• Several municipalities have suspended evictions.

• Many health insurance companies are now providing coverage for digital medical care (telehealth) and teletherapy, regardless of the person’s previous coverage plan

Law and Order

• A county jail in Ohio released hundreds of inmates, although the terms of their release vary 

• The Portland police department is no longer responding to calls unless lives are in danger.

• Bexar County, Texas is officially suspending arrests for all minor offenses, and many other locales are informally changing their responses

• TSA has created an exception to rules regarding the amount of liquids that can be taken in a carryon bag to allow for large bottles of hand sanitizer. (Of course, this was already an arbitrary rule)

Services and Utilities

• Comcast and T-Mobile are lifting all internet data caps for 60 days

• Several municipalities have suspended utility shut-offs, and Detroit turned the water back on for families who had previously had their water service cut off.

• Cities like New York and San Francisco are implementing government-sponsored childcare

• Some internet service providers are providing free internet service for children who are now attending school from home. 

These concessions are not enough — not even close. We need to have universal paid leave, a quarantine wage, a layoff freeze, and the cancellation of rent and debt. These concessions are nothing but crumbs being thrown by the bourgeoisie in the hopes that it will be enough to quell our rage. However, these concessions do reveal that all of these reforms that governments and business leaders have for so long insisted are impossible to implement are, in fact, things that they always had the power to do. The money has always been there. 

More than 10 million people have filed new claims for unemployment benefits in the last two weeks alone. The crisis is only going to get worse, and we need massive changes now. The way that the necessary concessions will be won is not by sitting idly by and hoping that the capitalists will take mercy on us. As the price gouging around food and medical equipment, landlords’ insistence on continuing to collect rent, and the many employers forcing workers to labor in unsafe conditions demonstrate, capitalist pity is hard to come by in the face of profits. We need to have widespread collective action to win the things we need to survive the coronavirus crisis. We should look to the powerful examples of workers at Amazon, Whole Foods, and General Electric who, this week, walked off the job, went on strike, or staged protests in their workplace to gain safer working conditions or, in the case of GE, switch over production from airplane parts to the much-needed ventilators. 

It is important, as the crisis continues and worsens, to draw certain conclusions about what is happening and why. The concessions listed above are protections that could have always been in place, the bailout bill shows that there is always money, and the increased safety measures show that businesses always had the ability to improve conditions. These things didn’t happen before because they didn’t want to do them. They are giving us crumbs now because they are afraid; they are afraid of us. They know that we have the power to shut down production, to attack capital, and to take power for ourselves. They are hoping that if they give us some crumbs now, then we will forget and forgive them. But we won’t, and we can’t. These concessions should only add to our anger, because now we know, without a doubt, that they could have done this the whole time and chose not to. The money has always been there.

Capitalist Disinformation: The Inherent Contradictions in Profit-Based "Journalism"

By Marcus Kahn

When you work as an employee, you do what your boss tells you to do. If you didn’t, you’d get fired. You occupy a specialized niche tied to the actual production process, while your boss manages multiple projects and employees from above. Unlike you, who will often only see a sliver of the larger priorities and direction of these projects as it pertains to you executing your function, your boss has access to a broader picture. Your boss’s boss (the owner) gets an even larger picture than that. 

As you move up the ladder priorities change. As an employee, your highest aspiration might be to fulfill your position to an admirable degree with the aim of acclaim and eventually promotion. Your boss might want to see their projects executed successfully and have an incident-free, productive staff. And the owner is concerned with the overall profitability of the company, aka their own pockets. Actions performed at your level and your boss’s level reflect the immediate goals of the individual in that specific role, as it relates to the larger priorities of the owner. And the owner can act purely in their own interests, though the pattern of profit-seeking is decently predictable. You on the other hand, only get to perform as well as you can in the role you’ve been designated, allowed to continue in this role so long as you contribute to the overall profitability of the company through your continued labor (*you’ll probably get paid the same amount no matter how much you produce). 

This is an obvious abstraction of common corporate business models, but the structure is essentially the same across the board. Employees take their directives from managers (an elite and highly stratified subset of employees), who take their orders from owners. The totalitarian, elite-oriented structure of large privately owned companies is either the world’s worst kept secret and everyone passively accepts it, or the best kept secret because elites have managed to subdue our awareness of its existence through various iterations of capitalist ideology. In either case, this structure is ubiquitous in the corporate world. If we apply these principles of hierarchy, domination, and control over production to media corporations, we would expect to find a similar elite-orientation in the behavior of employees (corporate journalists)  and consequently their products (news). 

Take every instance of ‘you’ in the first paragraph and swap it with ‘corporate journalists’, ‘boss’ with ‘editor’ and you have a good sense of the implicit structural pressures facing journalists in large media conglomerates. It’s easy to forget that these media giants are still corporations at their core, and not bastions of objectivity. While the journalists (employees) focus on crafting their story (product), they often have no sense of the larger objectives of their piece due to inadequate information and the ideological constraints on their perspective that likely qualified them for the job in the first place. The distance between the implicit (and perhaps explicit) directives of the executives to editors and the execution of an article in the newsroom and on the ground allows journalists to maintain a cognitive dissonance between the ethical standards and motivations they claim, and the journalistic bias they reproduce.

Though they are often sincere in their commitment to journalistic integrity, journalists’ claims of objectivity are irrelevant given their limited view of the larger corporate entity, and the journalist’s ultimate lack of control over content and direction. Media giants are profit-seeking entities directed by owners and governing boards concerned with the bottom line not only for their name-brand media outlet, but also for a litany of closely associated corporations. By virtue of their vertical command orientation, they will ultimately produce a media product and accompanying ideology that is designed to increase profitability for the owners rather than promote general welfare, in the same way a Big Mac is formulated with profit in mind rather than nutrition or consumer health.

The news we’re getting isn’t good for us, but corporate journalists continue to operate regardless of the dangerous contradiction between their self-image and the impact of their product.

The Attention Industry: From Marketing and Advertising to Mass Media

By Marcus Kahn

When CocaCola flashes a vibrant video clip of a family clinking bottles, what are they doing? How about a car commercial with a movie star that talks more about the feeling of driving the car than its reliability? Or the targeted advertisements on the sidebar on your Facebook page? Are these corporations trying to inform you by presenting logically structured information? The obvious answer is “Of course not. They’re selling you something.” The more sinister, but equally accurate wording argues that the advertiser is trying to manipulate your decision-making paradigm by strategically feeding you sensory data.

The attention industry is tolerated by most Americans, largely because we don’t have a choice. We were all raised on commercials, and it’s gotten to the point where we forget we have a right to cognitive autonomy. If you talk to your parents, they are sure to have a trove of old jingles from companies that no longer exist, and a few especially catchy ones from companies that still do. The mental process that associates a jingle with a feeling is the same one that keeps the Pledge of Allegiance in your head after all these years, and fills your belly with warmth when you hear the Star Spangled Banner. Advertising seems different than propaganda because it’s coming from so many sources, rather than one clear institutional distributor, but the mechanisms are the same. Strategically expose a viewer or reader to certain information in order to guide the formation of their beliefs and actions. And the implications of this practice extend far beyond your T.V. screen.

Manufacturing Consent

In Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky explicate the development and aims of the public relations (advertising) industry and link it to the increasing sophistication of political propaganda distribution in the 20th century.

Advertisers create uninformed consumers who make irrational decisions, contravening one of the fundamental principles of market economics (that economic decisions are driven by informed consumers behaving rationally). For instance, if CocaCola was trying to inform a rational consumer, they would talk about the health implications of their product and the features that distinguish their product from that of their competitors. Instead they surround their product with image and rhetoric, generating an abstraction that can be widely disseminated. If Lincoln Motors was trying to appeal to your logical side, they’d feature an ‘expert’ or a series of statistics that prove a Lincoln sedan is a superior investment. But they don’t. Instead Matthew McConaughey says sexy things in sexy ways, and people are seduced into their purchase.

In the same vein, mainstream media outlets create an uninformed electorate who makes irrational decisions. Take Fox News. On the establishment left it is commonly understood that Fox News uses sensationalism, intense selectivity, and slant to alter their viewership’s perception of current events and policy. It is also understood to a lesser degree that these viewers support administrations and consequently policies that don’t support their best interests. Tax reform comes to mind as the most obvious example. The liberal intellectual class also perceives the establishment right as serving the interests of large multinational corporations, traditionally identifying oil companies and military contractors, but more recently the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries. Fox fights tooth and nail to divert attention away from these issues to focus on such pressing matters as the almost hysterical defense of perceived American culture and values.

But there is little self-reflection on the part of the liberal intellectual class as to the sensationalism, intense selectivity, and slant used to divert their attention away from pressing issues. These issues, if addressed in policy and action, would threaten the primacy of the corporations who consume and hoard disproportionate amounts of resources and also guide policy and decision making.

The evidence is on the front page of mainstream newspapers every day. Or rather it isn’t. Climate change doesn’t get nearly the coverage it deserves. A recent article in the L.A. Times even cited an academic who argued for the reversibility of the trend, though overwhelming scholarship suggests its disastrous inevitability. Many large corporations would have to undergo expensive overhauls or be abandoned altogether in order to contend with the restrictions of radical climate policy, and the minimal and slanted coverage even in a supposedly left-leaning periodical like the Los Angeles Times is reflective of an attempt to divert public attention away from a pressing issue.

Wealth inequality as a structural flaw inherent to capitalism is never supported in print, and presidential candidates who advocate for a radical departure from the doctrinal status quo are given minimal coverage and dismissed as idealistic, ineffective, or worse. On the other hand, corporate executives who have accumulated obscene amounts of capital are often painted as societal leaders and their opinions are given weight and legitimacy, though their interests differ radically from the vast majority of the publication’s readership. A recent article in the Washington Post, titled “A wealth tax isn’t the best way to tax the rich” questioned the effectiveness of establishing a wealth tax on the grounds that it would be hard to value assets and that it would encounter constitutional opposition. Despite the more fundamental questions surrounding the construction of the U.S. constitution and the landed interests it was meant to promote, there is a more obvious problem with this analysis. If it’s so easy to value my assets and tax me, why aren’t their preexisting mechanisms in place to value and tax the wealthiest members of our society?

The media’s coverage of American aggression abroad is a topic that Chomsky has covered extensively in numerous books and lectures. Much like wealth inequality and climate change, American aggression is portrayed with remarkable similarity across the limited political spectrum of the mainstream media. To take a particularly egregious example, during and after the American attack on Vietnam, the mainstream media portrayed the ‘mission’ as a tactical blunder undertaken with the best intentions, a sincere but poorly executed attempt to spread democracy. However the public and internal records paint a dire picture, where the ‘war’ itself amounted to genocide and was preceeded by nearly a decade of U.S. backed terrorism and repression. American policy consistently ignored the peace sought on both sides of the developing conflict, prioritizing an ultimate ‘victory’ which involved Vietnam’s complete submission to the political and economic dictates of the United States.

American war crimes and international violations are studiously ignored across the board, whether they take place in POW camps during World War II, in bombings over the skies of Indochina, coups and military operations sponsored by the U.S. in Central America, and the list goes on. Covert operations and military aid to oppressive autocratic regimes that were often propped up by the U.S. in the first place are given little to no space or critical evaluation. And the very reasonable American public opinions on such trivial matters as military spending and military interventionism is ignored. The mainstream media’s coverage of foreign affairs generates the sort of patriotic fervor and conditioned fear that blinds Americans to the human and financial costs of warfare and aggression abroad. In the current climate as in years past, fear of Russian and Chinese state and economic power is often the subject of intense journalistic focus, greasing the wheels for the ceaseless operation of the military-industrial complex as it is justified in print and on the air over and over again.

The consistency among corporately-owned news outlets that claim vast political differences cannot be overemphasized. Herman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model provide a convincing framework for explaining this phenomenon. The network of associations that define media ownership and stewardship of these corporate outlets sheds further light on the complex interplay of power that exists at the top of the corporate world.

Media Ownership and Stewardship

Explicit ownership of a news outlet no longer has sole explanatory power in analyzing how a media outlet behaves. Arthur O. Sulzberger may have some say in what is published in the New York Times, but there is a dense network of corporate relationships that bolsters the institution and guides its decision making. Each mainstream media outlet is not only owned by an individual, family or parent corporation, but also advised by a group of representatives from some of the largest corporations in the American lexicon.

The Sulzberger family has owned the New York Times since 1896, which should send up some red flags. But The New York Times Company Board of Directors also has members associated with McDonald’s, Verizon, Nike, Facebook, Expedia, Etsy, Sony, Pandora, as well as a visiting professor of Rhetoric and the Art of Public Persuasion at the University of Oxford.

Jeff Bezos of Amazon owns the Washington Post. You’ll find board members associated with General Motors, Xerox, Johnson and Johnson, Berkshire Hathaway, a $70bn investment-fund, a large insurance company, and SurveyMonkey.com, which I imagine is capable of gathering massive amounts of data on public opinion.

The Los Angeles Times is owned by Patrick Soon-Shiong, the president of SoftBank investment fund, which nets $32bn in sales every year and is a virtual god in the world of tech investment. I couldn’t find a board of directors for the Los Angeles Times online.

I won’t bother looking into Fox. Everyone knows how that will turn out.

The mechanisms used to manipulate public opinion have gotten infinitely more sophisticated since William Randolph Hearst’s time, though control of the mainstream media today is similarly plutocratic. In the age of big data, the aim and ability to manipulate public opinion should come across as a terrifying feature of the American public discourse. Take Facebook, for example. It is clear how much power even a foreign government can have on American public opinion, regardless of whether or not Trump actively contributed to the Russian misinformation effort. I shudder to think about the powerful effect corporations and other powerful institutions will have on the outcome of this election using the mainstream media.

Conclusion

In the same way that advertisers manufacture the desire for their product by feeding you sensory data, corporately owned news outlets manufacture consent for harmful government policies by publishing information strategically. What’s scarier than the monopolistic bent of marketing-heavy corporations is the transformation of corporate-political propaganda into a hard science. Poll after poll, study after study, has helped to refine the art of public persuasion. This might not seem relevant during a contentious presidential election. Just mute the TV during commercials, right? But the science under development in the public relations industry has always shared close ties with corporate power, and by connection media and politics.

There doesn’t need to be a grand conspiracy. There doesn’t have to be a dark room full of whispered commands. But there is an identifiable pattern of power and influence that permeates the mainstream media; a pattern that can be reframed as a centuries-long marketing campaign to suit the interests of a global class of plutocrats.

Corporations donate to election campaigns for the same reason they place representatives on the boards of major media outlets. They want control over policy and control over public opinion. And though there are a lot of different organizations competing for this privileged access to media and governmental influence, their interests are often aligned. They cooperate across the limited political spectrum of American media to temper rising racial and class awareness.

Though it is subtle, you can identify it with the right questions. Why does the mainstream media only cover a social movement like the Civil Rights Movement and the resistance to the Vietnam War, or more recently the Black Lives Matter or #MeToo movements when they become too powerful to ignore? Why isn’t economic inequality, nuclear proliferation, racial inequality, or climate change the front page story every day, when they’re clearly the most dire threats to the vast majority of people in the short and long-term? Advocating strongly for these issues goes against the best interests and likely the nature of a small yet powerful class of business super-elites. They cooperate to varying degrees on key issues producing a remarkable degree of consistency across the spectrum, from the New York Times to Fox News.

Citizenry, Inc.: The Ambiguous, Euphemistic Language of Corporate America and its Impact on Democracy

By Jesse Hamilton

Ambiguous, euphemistic language is common in corporate, bureaucratic environments and is used for a variety of rational reasons. This type of language may lead to ignorance among those who use it and those who consume it. As it becomes more prevalent in American society, ambiguous, euphemistic language is leading to a state where the lines between knowledge and ignorance are blurred. This paper explores how ambiguous, euphemistic language: 1) is used in corporate, bureaucratic settings and why it is accepted; 2) could be a cause of ignorance among those who create and consume it; and 3) has implications for the acquisition and transfer of knowledge in broader society.

Ignorance is often thought of as a barrier to the consolidation of power, so it would stand to reason that organizations, especially those with profit motives, are incentivized to avoid ignorance and pursue knowledge. However, as Linsey McCoy explains, "Ignorance serves as a productive asset, helping individuals and institutions to command resources, deny liability in the aftermath of crises, and to assert expertise in the face of unpredictable outcomes" (McGoey, 553).

In the 19th and 20th centuries, as the United States shifted from an agrarian society to an industrialized society, Americans have not only become more exposed to business culture and its language, but have also become dependent on it for their livelihood. Additionally, individuals are directly and indirectly exposed to the sort of ambiguous, euphemistic language commonly used in business settings in a variety of ways - at work, within social circles, through advertising, from public statements issued from business leaders to media organizations, and from public relations teams. Finally, as business leaders begin to assume more prominent roles in public office within federal, state, and local governments, the ambiguous, euphemistic language which comes naturally to them has begun to change the way elected and appointed officials communicate with the public. Put simply, the language of corporations seems to have permeated broader society, and this has implications for knowledge and ignorance in American society.

What is ambiguous, euphemistic language?

The language of business which will be addressed in this paper consists of two distinct parts which can be used independently or in combination: ambiguity and euphemisms. Ambiguous language is a powerful tool in business because it has the advantage of being interpreted in different ways, by different individuals/groups, at different times, both in the present and in the future. As Jackall notes, "The indirect and ambiguous linguistic frameworks that managers employ in public situations typify the symbolic complexity of the corporation" and serves as "a tentative way of communicating that reflects the peculiarly chancy and fluid character of their world." Basically, managers have learned that the best way to deal with the volatile nature of business, which is mainly driven by exogenous economic factors, is to communicate with ambiguity.

Euphemisms - "the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant" - are used as well, for reasons that will be discussed in-depth in Section IV.

Why is ambiguity used?

Ambiguity is a powerful tool that is used to manage and/or avoid different types of risks inherent with a career at large, American corporations, and family businesses (Carmon, 87). All of the risks discussed in this section are related to uncertainty about the future. How ambiguity is used in corporate settings is important as it has implications for how it can be successfully applied in other American institutions; for example, in government and politics.

Avoidance of decision making

The future is uncertain, therefore managers are inclined to hedge their statements and actions against unforeseen events and outcomes. The simplest way to achieve this is through the use of ambiguous language and avoidance of making decisions. A manager interviewed by Jackall describes the avoidance of decision making: "The basic principles of decision making in this organization and probably any organization are: (1) avoid making any decision if at all possible; (2) if a decision has to be made, involve as many people as you can so that, if things go south, you're able to point in as many directions as possible" (Jackall). Given that the goals of a business are often very ambiguous and amorphous, by not committing to specific details, managers can pass responsibility (and therefore accountability) to subordinates, so that if goals are not achieved or laws are broken, managers reduce the risk that they themselves will be held accountable by their superiors and/or courts.

Organizational Contingency

Power within the hierarchy of a corporation is volatile, with managers regularly falling in and out of favor. As Jackall notes, "First of all, at the psychological level, managers have an acute sense of organizational contingency. Because of the interlocking ties between people, they know that a shake-up at or near the top of a hierarchy can trigger a widespread upheaval, bringing in its wake startling reversals of fortune, good and bad, throughout the structure" (Jackall). Therefore, it is rational for those who aspire to move up in the ranks to create allies and avoid creating enemies. After all, one never knows who will be handed a position of authority next. One way to achieve this is through providing ambiguous feedback (perhaps laced with euphemisms to soften the message) to superiors, peers, and subordinates alike. When feedback is provided in this way, the interpretation is left to the receiver, a strategy which will be discussed again in Section VII.

Finally, it should be noted that in an age where everything is filmed or recorded, and where bits can be combined and commingled (Negroponte, 18), ambiguity is an important defense against being undeniably connected to concrete statements and/or positions.

Why are euphemisms used?

Jackall notes that "managers' public language is, more than anything else, euphemistic" however "for the most part, euphemistic language is not used with the intent to deceive. Managers past a certain point, as suggested earlier, are assumed to be "maze-bright" and able to "read between the lines" of a conversation or a memorandum and to distinguish accurately suggestions from directives, inquiries from investigations, and bluffs from threats" (Jackall). Additionally, Jackall points out that euphemistic language is used internally for purposes of deniability and externally when dealing with the public.

An example from business

In 2006, Jeff Skilling was convicted on federal felony charges for his involvement in the collapse of Enron Corporation, where he served as CEO during the time in which fraudulent activity occurred. As documented by the New York Times, during the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearings in 2002, when questioned by Representative James Greenwood as to whether or not he was aware of any wrongdoing at the company during his time as CEO, Skilling stated:

"I do not believe -- I did not do anything that was not in the interest, in all of the time I worked for Enron Corporation, that wasn't in the interest of the shareholders of the company."

Skilling's response offers nothing more than his belief, thus positioning himself to plausibly deny any future evidence of wrongdoing. Interestingly, due to the clever wording, his statement might actually be true. During the time Skilling was CEO, Enron used deceptive accounting (among other fraudulent practices) to artificially inflate their earnings. During the time of the fraud, Enron's stock skyrocketed, often outperforming the broad market by a wide margin. This is, of course, good for the current shareholders in the short-term. However, it was not in the best interest of Enron's long-term shareholders, employees, and lenders, as the company declared bankruptcy in 2001. In short, Skilling's statement is disingenuous at best, but serves as an example of the malleability of ambiguously-worded statement.

When are individuals exposed to ambiguous, euphemistic language?

Individuals are exposed to ambiguous, euphemistic language in a few ways: internally through company communications, and externally through statements to the public.

Internal business communications

Internal company communications are often rife with ambiguity and euphemisms. In this capacity, the language can serve different purposes. For example, it is used to rally employees around core missions, especially if the mission is under public attack. Also, cleverly worded communications can be used to soften harsh messages/actions that employees might not find appealing. For example, instead of stating "we plan on firing people because we need to increase our profits," a typical communication may describe "a strategic, systematic restructuring and reallocation of resources to address ongoing shareholder interests at this point in the business cycle." Employees are more likely to be accepting of, or indifferent to, the latter; whereas the former would likely cause discomfort, anxiety, and anger.

External business communications

Public relations teams play a large role in the conveyance of messages to the public. Jackall sums up the subtleties of public relations best:

"…the essential task of public relations…is to transform expediency into altruism or even statesmanship. Second, the genius of public relations…consists to a great extent in its dexterity at inverting symbols and images. Whether it is hyping products, influencing legislation, transforming reputations, or erasing stigma, public relations tries to transform actually or potentially perceived weaknesses into strengths and subvert or at least call into question the strengths or particularly the credibility of opponents."

It should be noted that public relations tactics and strategies are not strictly confined to businesses - they can be applied to communications from government, academic institutions, and scientific research organizations when those institutions desire to transform weakness into strength and negativity into positivity.

What are the broad, societal implications associated with the increasing use of ambiguous language?

Individuals' exposure to ambiguous, euphemistic language has implications for how they think, speak, and interpret reality.

The effect of ambiguous language on how individuals think

The language we use shapes the way we think. According to Lera Boroditsky, "Language can be a powerful tool for shaping abstract thought. When sensory information is scarce or inconclusive, languages may play the most important role in shaping how their speakers think" (Boroditsky, 1). This may have important implications as we continue to be exposed to ambiguous, euphemistic language because we may begin viewing the world as a place with less certainty, where the lines of knowledge and ignorance are naturally blurred.

The effect of ambiguous language on ontological security, lay theories, and ignorant othering

To understand how ambiguous language affects broader society, it is important to understand how individuals establish a sense of what is real and true. Giddens' concept of ontological security is described as "a sense of continuity and order in events, including those not directly within the perceptual environment of the individual" (Giddens, 243). Ostertag builds on this further with the development of two other concepts: lay theories and ignorant othering (Ostertag, 828). Lay theories "serve as vital tools in developing social realities" and "allow people to ground and justify a sense of reality that they can trust as correct and true" (Ostertag, 828). When ambiguous language is used, knowledge may not be communicated with the same degree of fidelity as when clear, concise language is used. Therefore, the ambiguity is removed at the level of the receiver, as opposed to being removed at the level of the communicator. In this way, ambiguous statements have the potential to become personalized in the same way that advertising has become personalized (Baudrillard). By increasing the scope of what can be true, ambiguous language potentially increases the number different senses of reality, or lay theories, that exist in a given population. A wider variety of lay theories may, in turn, exacerbate the phenomena of ignorant othering, which Ostertag describes as when "people construct an image of the 'average' American whom they claim is often less informed of the news, less aware of the problems of the news, and therefore less aware of and knowledgeable about the world than they themselves are" (Ostertag, 828).

The effect of ambiguous language on conspiracy theories

Using the same rationale described above, ambiguous language may also be used to support and increase belief in conspiracy theories because it is malleable enough to fit into the conspiracy narrative. This might strengthen current and future conspiracy theories by making them more persuasive. Kay states that "the only characteristic that strongly correlates with belief in any conspiracy theory is a belief in other conspiracy theories" (Kay, 150). If individual conspiracy theories are made more persuasive by ambiguous language and thereby increase the number of individuals who believe any one conspiracy theory, this might lead to a cascading effect where belief in conspiracy theories becomes more prevalent. In order to support this hypothesis, more research is needed on why belief in any conspiracy is correlated to belief in others.

The effect of ambiguous language on fake news and alternative facts

Given the similarities between conspiracy theories and fake news, individuals who are more prone to believe in conspiracy theories may also be more prone to believe fake news. This may make fake news more influential. Also, individuals may be more prone to accept "alternative facts," not just due to the clever euphemism, but because they're more inclined to believe in conspiracy. More research is needed to understand the relationship between belief in any one conspiracy theory, piece of fake news, and "alternative fact" and belief in others.

Examples of ambiguous language in politics

Donald Trump

Donald Trump, a businessman turned politician, is a unique case study. Consider Trump's statement about his opponents' position on gun control:

"Hillary wants to abolish - essentially abolish - the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know."

Trump's ambiguous, and seemingly persuasive, language here is based in a false premise that Hillary Clinton would (1) have the power to abolish the Second Amendment, and (2) want to abolish the Second Amendment. Both are equally absurd on their own merit, with the latter relying on the reactionary conflation of gun-control laws with some mythological government confiscation of over 300 million guns. There are two different ways to interpret the purpose of Trump's statement. Proponents of the Second Amendment will either use votes or violence (which are wildly different mechanisms for change) to prevent his political opponent from taking away their gun rights. In this case, since the ambiguity of the statement is removed in the mind of the listener, there are two (or more) versions of reality.

According to NPR, Trump's use of ambiguous language follows a predictable pattern. He makes an ambiguous statement which is subsequently criticized by opponents, incessantly covered by the media. Trump then claims to be a victim of the "liberal media" claiming that his words were taken out of context (McCammon). The foundation of his strategy is ambiguity.

Hillary Clinton

During a 2016 Democratic Primary debate, Hillary Clinton and her opponent, Bernie Sanders were each asked by the moderator if they support fracking. Clinton's response displayed ambiguity and "talking in circles" when she stated:

"By the time we get through all my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place."

Although not as egregious as Trump, Clinton's choice of wording and syntax indicate a propensity for unnecessarily complex language, something her opponent was quick to point out. Sanders stated, "My answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking."

Recent examples of euphemisms in American politics

Just as in business, euphemisms also prove useful in the realm of politics. For example, the Trump administration regularly uses euphemisms to downplay the negativity associated with its policies and/or past statements. The euphemisms "extreme vetting" and "locker room talk" provide useful examples. Many Americans can accept a policy of "extreme vetting," but some would be hesitant to accept it if it were stated for what it truly is - racial and religious discrimination. Additionally, some citizens might not be dissuaded from voting for a presidential candidate that uses "locker room talk," but might draw the line over a candidate who "[grabs women] by the pussy."

A cautionary warning from George Orwell

Given that individuals are becoming desensitized to ambiguous, euphemistic language, there is a greater likelihood that politicians can successfully employ Orwellian doublespeak, or "language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth." In Politics and the English Language, George Orwell describes how politics may inevitably reach a point where it must serve this very purpose of shielding citizens from ugly truths by avoiding any clear "defense of the indefensible:"

"…political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them."

Political statements, like those used as examples by Orwell, are unnecessarily wordy, confusing, take time and effort to interpret, and do not overtly communicate the harsh nature of the message. While this paper is not proposing the inevitability of a totalitarian state due to corporate America's language and culture, it suggests that a population that has been desensitized to ambiguity may be more susceptible to being influenced by disingenuous language.

Conclusion

The use of ambiguous, euphemistic language, stemming from practical use within American corporations, may have implications for knowledge and ignorance in broader society. Most notably, ambiguous language is interpretable at the personal level, which may result in numerous individuals having personalized versions of reality. These versions of reality may be incompatible, leading to a state where no one knows what is really true.

Works cited

"Ambiguity." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 4 Aug. 2017.

Beauregard, Jean. The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures. London: SAGE Publications, Print.

Boroditsky, Lera. "Does Language Shape Thought?: Mandarin and English Speakers' Conceptions of Time." Cognitive Psychology, 43 (2001): 1-22. PDF.

Cameron, Anna F. "Is It Necessary to be Clear? An Examination of Strategic Ambiguity in Family Business Mission Statements." Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 14:1, (2013): 87-96. PDF.

"Doublespeak." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 4 Aug. 2017.

"ENRON'S MANY STRANDS; Excerpts From the House Subcommittee Hearings on the Enron Collapse." New York Times February 9, 2002: Web.

"Euphemism." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 4 Aug. 2017.

Frizell, Sam. "Why Clinton and Sanders Answer Questions So Differently ." Time May 5, 2016: Web.

Giddens, Anthony. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1991, Print.

Jackall, Robert. Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers. Oxford University Press, 1988, E-Book.

Kay, Jonathan. Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America's Growing Conspiracist Underground. Harper Collins, 2011, Print.

McGoey, Linsey. "The logic of strategic ignorance." The British Journal of Sociology Volume 63, Issue 3 (2012): 553-576. PDF.

McCammon, Sarah. "Donald Trump's Controversial Speech Often Walks the Line." NPR August 10, 2016: Web.

Negroponte, Nicholas P. Being Digital. New York: Vintage Books, 1995, Print.

Orwell, George. Politics and the English Language. London: Horizon, 1946, Web.

Ostertag, Stephen F. "Processing Culture: Cognition, Ontology, and the News Media."

Sociological Forum

, Vol. 25, No. 4 (December 2010): PDF.

Lying to Children About the California Missions and the Indian

By Deborah A. Miranda

All my life, I have heard only one story about California Indians: Godless, dirty, stupid, primitive, ugly, passive, drunken, immoral, lazy, weak-willed people who might make good workers if properly trained and motivated. What kind of story is that to grow up with?

The story of the missionization of California.

In 1769, after missionizing much of Mexico, the Spaniards began to move up the west coast of North America in order to establish claims to rich resources and before other European nations could get a foothold. Together, the Franciscan priests and Spanish soldiers "built" a series of 21 missions along what is now coastal California. (California's Indigenous Peoples, numbering more than 1 million at the time, did most of the actual labor.) These missions, some rehabilitated from melting adobe, others in near-original state, are now one of the state's biggest tourist attractions; in the little town of Carmel, Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo isthebiggest attraction. Elsewhere, so-called Mission décor drenches Southern California, from restaurants to homes, apartment buildings, animal shelters, grocery stores, and post offices. In many neighborhoods, a bastardized Mission style is actually required by cities or neighborhood associations. Along with this visual mythology of adobe and red clay roof tiles comes the cultural storytelling that drains the missions of their brutal and bloody pasts for popular consumption.

In California schools, students come up against the "Mission Unit" in 4th grade, reinforcing the same lies those children have been breathing in most of their lives. Part of California's history curriculum, the unit is entrenched in the educational system and impossible to avoid, a powerfully authoritative indoctrination in Mission Mythology to which 4th graders have little if any resistance. Intense pressure is put upon students (and their parents) to create a "Mission Project" that glorifies the era and glosses over both Spanish and Mexican exploitation of Indians, as well as enslavement of those same Indians during U.S. rule. In other words, the Mission Unit is all too often a lesson in imperialism, racism, and Manifest Destiny rather than actually educational or a jumping-off point for critical thinking or accurate history.

In Harcourt School Publisher's California: A Changing State, the sacrifice for gold, riches, settlements, and violence by Spanish, English, and Russian explorers is well enunciated throughout Unit 2 and dressed in exciting language such as on page 113: "In one raid, Drake's crew took 80 pounds of gold!"

In four opening pages to Chapter 3 devoted to Father Junípero Serra, the textbook urges students to sympathize with the Spanish colonial mission:

"Mile after mile, day after day, week after week, the group traveled across the rugged terrain. As their food ran low, many of the men grew tired and sick. Father Serra himself suffered from a sore on one leg that grew worse each day. And yet he never gave up, calling on his faith in God to keep himself going."

The language jumps between an acknowledgement of the subjugation of Indigenous Peoples and of mutually beneficial exchanges. In Lesson 3, "The Mission System" opens: "Indians were forced to build a chain of missions." Subsequent language emphasizes the alleged benefits to the Indians:

"At the missions, the priests worked to create loyal Spanish subjects… They wouldmovethe California Indians into the missions, teach themto be Christians, andshow themEuropean ways." [Emphasis added.]

Visiting the mission as an adult, proud, mixed-blood California Indian woman, I found myself unprepared for gift shops well stocked with CDs of pre-researched Mission Projects; photocopied pamphlets of mission terms, facts, and history (one for each mission); coloring books; packaged models of missions ("easy assembly in 10 minutes!"); and other project paraphernalia for the discerning 4th grader and his or her worried parents.

The Carmel Mission website maintains a "4th Grade Corner" where daily life for padres and their "Indian friends" who "shared what little food and supplies they had" is blissfully described. Other websites offer "easy," "quick," and "guaranteed A+!!!" Mission Projects, targeting those anxious parents, for a price.

Generations of Californians have grown up steeped in a culture and education system that trains them to think of Indians as passive, dumb, and disappeared. In other words, the project is so well established, in such a predictable and well-loved rut, that veering outside of the worn but comfortable mythology is all but impossible.

On my visit to Mission Dolores, I found that out in a particularly visceral way.

It was over winter break, 2008. I was in San Francisco for a conference, and my friend Kimberly and I had hopped on a streetcar to visit Mission Dolores. As we emerged from the mission church via a side door into a small courtyard (featuring one of those giant dioramas behind glass), we inadvertently walked into video range of a mother filming her daughter's 4th-grade project.

Excusing ourselves, we studiously examined the diorama while the little girl flubbed her lines a few times. She was reading directly from the flyer given tourists in the gift shop and could say "basilica" but not "archdiocese," but she maintained her poise through several takes until she nailed it.

Both mothers ourselves, Kimberly and I paused to exchange a few words of solidarity about school projects with the mother, which gave Mom the chance to brag about how she and Virginia were trying to "do something a little different" by using video instead of making a model.

"That's great!" I said, giving them both a polite smile. "I'll bet your teacher will be glad to have something out of the ordinary."

"Well, it is different actually being right here," Mom said excitedly. "To think about all those Indians and how they lived all that time ago, that's kind of impressive."

I could not resist: "And better yet," I beamed, "still live! Guess what? I'm a member of the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation myself! Some of my ancestors lived in this mission. I've found their names in the Book of Baptism." (I didn't mention that they are also listed in the Book of Deaths soon afterward.)

The mother was beside herself with pleasure, posed me with her daughter for a still photo, and wrote down my name so she could Google my work. Little Virginia, however, was shocked into silence. Her face drained, her body went stiff, and she stared at me as if I had risen, an Indigenous skeleton clad in decrepit rags, from beneath the clay bricks of the courtyard. Even though her mother and I talked a few more minutes, Virginia the 4th grader-previously a calm, articulate news anchor in training-remained a shy shadow, shooting side glances at me out of the corner of her eyes.

As Kimberly and I walked away, I thought, "That poor kid has never seen a live Indian, much less a 'Mission Indian'-she thought we were all dead!" Having me suddenly appear in the middle of her video project must have been a lot like turning the corner to find the (dead) person you were talking about suddenly in your face, talking back.

Kimberly, echoing my thoughts, chortled quietly, "Yes, Virginia, there really are live Mission Indians."

The problem is, thanks to Mission Mythology, most 4th graders will never know that and the textbooks don't help to give visibility to modern California Indians.

Throughout the rest of California: A Changing History, mentions of California Indians are brief and as victims fading into history. On page 242, under the heading of "A Changing Population," Harcourt states simply, "California Indians were hurt by the gold rush… Many were forced off their lands when the miners found gold there."

Many pages later, California Indians are mentioned again when the textbook devotes five paragraphs to Indian Governments. Although 109 tribes are recognized in California, in the text, they are faceless and noted only by red square dots on a map.

It's time for the Mission Fantasy Fairy Tale to end. This story has done more damage to California Indians than any conquistador, any priest, and soldado de cuera (leather-jacket soldier), any smallpox, measles, or influenza virus. This story has not just killed us, it has also taught us to kill ourselves and kill each other with alcohol, domestic violence, horizontal racism, internalized hatred.

We have to put an end to it now.

This article is part of the Zinn Education Project's If We Knew Our History series. It originally appeared on March 23, 2015 at zinnedproject.org. Deborah A. Miranda is the author of "Bad Indians: A Tribal Memoir" (Heyday Books, 2012). Miranda is an enrolled member of the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation of California, and is also of Chumash and Jewish ancestry. She is a John Lucian Smith Jr. Professor of English at Washington and Lee University, and says reading lists for her students include as many books by "bad Indians" as possible. Visit Deborah Miranda's blog, BAD NDNS.