Lately, I’ve been thinking quite a lot about insults. What makes for the perfect insult? How does one avoid negative repercussions or
potential charges of slander/libel?
Should the language be varied to fit the insultee? I’ve come across many prime examples of
historical slurs, some which were aired publically, and some of which slumbered
between dusty diary pages.[1] Crucially, through a bit of rhetorical
analysis, they can offer valuable insights into the motivations and tactics
behind a juicy offence.
During the Second World War, and particularly the early war
years, British press and radio sources worked hard to discredit specifically,
the leadership of Germany. They
constructed an image that drew on moral themes of decency and fairness,
ultimately painting a picture that the entire spectrum of British society could
identify with. In his speech given on
St. George’s Day, May 23, 1940, Duff Cooper described the historic decay of
German leadership, forming a natural path to the current government. “Germany has assumed many ugly shapes in her
past – under the perjured pervert Frederick, miscalled the Great; under the
mountainous bully Bismarck, with his treble voice, his sly and shifty diplomacy
and his forged telegrams…”[2] Cooper
didn’t use facts and figures to give his claims legitimacy. Rather, he drew upon broad, and rather vague
social norms, presented with a substantial helping of disdain: honesty,
fairness, kindness, straightforwardness and, of course, masculinity. Cooper
directly attacked Bismarck’s virility and questioned his manhood, playing on
widely accepted norms of the deep-voiced, swarthy, man’s man.[3] Furthermore, the entire tirade was constructed
to give the audience a feeling of both moral and historical superiority.
The publication of the American response to the
Franco-German armistice ceremony in the forest of Compiegne featured a
similarly derisive attitude. Republished
in the Guardian, the article not only
mirrored but confirmed British representations of the German leader. The article described Hitler’s decision to
re-enact the armistice ceremony that had ended the Great War as “a childish
triumph over the past.”[4] Furthermore, it juxtaposed ideas of innocence
and childhood with death and destruction, ultimately condemning him, again, on
a moral level. “Hitler had waded through
the blood of a million men, women and children to taste the sweets of that
moment. … The scene yesterday was an exhibition of colossal armed strength, and
it was also an exhibition of moral weakness.”[5] Both of these constructions were based upon
themes that were accepted on a broad social level. The insertion of disdain and scorn attempted
to drive out fear of the German threat and replace it with a heightened sense
of eventual and in fact inevitable victory by the ethical party.
Looking at the language used in attempts to discredit or
defame particular groups or individuals is more than just an entertaining
pastime. These rhetorical constructs
showcase how the authors used broad moral sentiments to appeal to a sense of
fairness and justice. Additional studies
of the above case can yield a comparative perspective of the language used in
portraying German leadership to a British audience and the tactical shifts
employed when the same topic was broadcast to an American audience. Furthermore, studies of historical
modifications in the portrayal of the enemy other can cast a light on shifting
social norms of acceptability and broad escalations in what counted and what
counts today as a legitimate moral infraction.
[1]
For example, Leo Amery’s unsubtle critique of his nightly reading material:
“Read a tiresome book on the American Political System by a conceited ass
called Brogan.” Churchill Archives, Cambridge.
AMEL 7/34, Diary, June 2, 1940.
[2]
Churchill Archives, DUFC 8/1/20, Duff Cooper, St. George’s Day, April 23, 1940.
[3]
Portrayals of Hitler in American propaganda cartoons featuring Daffy Duck took
a similar approach, featuring a high-voiced, and ultimately ineffective
dictator.
[4] “The
Armistice: American Press Comment,” The
Guardian, June 24, 1940, 6.
[5]
Ibid.
Interesting perspectives. I am studying the attitudes taken by British Christians in WW2 and have found similar themes from a less outwardly judgemental, but ultimately more patronising viewpoint of how a once great nation had let itself down. Particularly in the turning away from God to science since about 1870. Some good articles in the magazine of the Officers' Christian Union from the time.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting Rachel. I love learning these interesting things about WW2
ReplyDelete