Inflammatory language blocks discourse
An edited version of my previous column (see below) was recently published in the Los Angeles Times. Despite this, I have not yet "gone Hollywood."

I received a reply email from a LA Times reader who, in my view, missed the point of my piece. His email to me is at bottom; my response is here.

Response
My purpose in writing this brief column was not to argue about immigration policy. There are plenty of voices on both sides doing that. Rather, I wanted to make it clear that the tone of the discourse matters, that when liberals use phrases like “concentration camp,” they inflame already heated partisans, and further polarize our society. The same can be said of conservatives who label immigrants “illegal,” a phrase contained in your letter. Conservatives use “illegal” pejoratively, to smear new arrivals with a broad brush that implies criminality.

Both liberals and conservatives hide behind the technical definitions of these terms. Yes, technically, some immigrants have broken the law, and the detention centers may be concentration camps. But we know the baggage that this language carries—the dog whistles that appeal to partisans on both sides of the political spectrum.

Until we can rid our society of inflammatory language on both sides, how can we even begin a substantive discussion about reforming our broken immigration system?

Sincerely, etc.

Email:

Subject: Re:Opinion - No "concentration". LATimes Jun 17, 2019

Dear Mr. Youngblood,

Notwithstanding you may be an erudite person, you still struggle to grasp the meaning the words "Legal and illegal" .

When I immigrated to USA (many moons ago) I had to wait three months for my passport and four months for my visa. I was vetted by the American Consulate on three different occasions. When I landed at JFK (NYC), I was "interrogated", again, by the immigration officer for 30 minutes. I had to carry my card describing the assigned military status (in the Country) in case of National call. 

Now we have 1000s of Illegal immigrants, crashing through our boundaries and they are living in a "sanctuary" State. A baby that is born (illegal parents) here, receives free medical accommodations at the County hospital and per diem to the parents.

I was hit twice by one of my new "compatriots" that had no car insurance and no license.

My business took me around the World, and on many occasions I was vetted by the local Police even though I had a valid passport and visa (E.g., Israel, Argentina, Paraguay...etc).

It does not matter wether you are a liberal, a leftist or an anarchist; in my eyes your "liberalism" is a tantamount of subversion. I am quite sure that some of your relatives when they first arrived here, went through "physical hell" and embarrassment when they had to go through immigration one by one in State Island. It was deplorable, Yet, they did not strike, destroy properties or raise our flag upside down. They worked an average of 10 to 14 hours daily, worse than slavery, and yet they tried to learn English and show a devotion the the Country that gave them a place to live.

If you reply, please, "educate me" about where I am wrong. Back to my Grandfather, again, he used say, "it is never late to get an education"

Cordially,

(Name withheld)
California

P.S. Forgot to mention that when I travelled,  I had to menage to communicate with their language. There were no push one or push two. Its unjustifiable or permissible that the majority of the so called "immigrants" do not attempt to speak English. It would like me, entering your residence and dictate to you how to live in your house. What would be your reaction? A benevolent and pious welcome? I sincerely doubt. You would call the Police immediately and have me arrested for "trespassing"!

"Concentration camp" rhetoric inflames, polarizes
Sometimes as journalists, we are so desperate to call attention to an important story that we resort to inappropriately inflammatory language. This is the case with a well-meaning but ill-conceived op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times, “Call immigrant detention centers what they really are: concentration camps” (June 9).  

The purpose of Jonathan Katz’s column, to shine light on the darkness that is the Trump administration’s immigration policies and practices, was admirable. There should be, as Katz notes, “mass outrage” at a system that separates children from their parents and “brutally” holds detainees in isolation cells.

Katz is correct that sparking “mass outrage” takes work. The question becomes how to best engage the public on this vital issue. This is where Katz’ approach fails. Instead of engaging a large portion of the public, he further alienates those in the center and on the right with his over-the-top, “concentration camp” hyperbole.

Nazi concentration camp (from US Holocaust  Museum)

The column’s critical and historical analysis of the types (“levels”) of concentration camps is correct, but misses the point. Although the term “concentration camp” does technically describe Trump’s immigration detention facilities, the smoke created by the term obscures what’s going on inside these facilities. There is a technical distinction between concentration and death camps, but this distinction is pragmatically irrelevant—in the public’s view, they are one in the same. Regardless of which type of concentration camp is being discussed, the vast majority of readers will reflexively equate “concentration camp” with ghastly images of Nazi death camps.

To take Katz’ comparison to its logical conclusion, if immigrant detention centers are modern day Nazi death camps, then the Republicans who support these centers must be Nazis, and their leader a 21^st century Adolph Hitler.        

Katz writes that calling immigrant detention centers “concentration camps” will increase the likelihood that this issue will get the attention it deserves. Yet, as is usually the case with hyperbole, even if it’s well-meaning, the opposite is true. Overblown rhetoric like “concentration camp” serves only to polarize and to inflame passions on both sides. Using “concentration camp” will add gasoline to liberals’ anti-Trump flames; will force conservatives to rally around Trump, who may have his faults but is not Hitler; and will force those in the shrinking political center to choose a side. 

As for much-needed consensus and compromise on immigration, language like this makes it all but impossible. How can liberals compromise with Nazis? And how can conservatives compromise with those who think they are Nazis? 

Katz is correct when he writes, “With constant, unrelenting attention, it is possible we might alleviate the plight of the people inside (immigrant detention centers), and stop the crisis from getting worse.” Stopping the crisis and reaching a compromise on immigration is certainly desirable, but won’t happen if inflammatory terms like “concentration camp” are allowed to leak into the vernacular. Let’s stick with “immigrant detention centers” and follow Katz’ advice to give this story the “unrelenting attention” it deserves.

PJ project (Part 1) wraps in Northern Ireland
(Derry/Dungiven/Belfast, Northern Ireland)- A few random thoughts and observations as we wrap up part 1 of our peace journalism project in Northern Ireland. The project is sponsored by the US Embassy-London.

PJ problematic in NI
At my two concluding lectures last week at Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University in

Ulster Univ, Derry

Derry, attendees correctly pointed out the many obstacles to peace journalism starting with the name. The word peace, I was told, is loaded with baggage here, much of it negative. One journalist suggested calling PJ socially responsible journalism. I said they could call it bangers and mash if they like and that the principles and concepts are more important than the label. Regarding those principles, journalists at my lectures and workshops seemed to generally agree about their utility.

Journalists at Queen's Univ, Belfast

Underscoring this, another participant said that PJ is not that radical and it “nothing different than what we already aspire to.” That’s encouraging.

Survivor’s voices
I was privileged to attend a conference at Queen’s titled, “From Victims to Survivors: Voices from Below.” The keynote speaker, Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela from South Africa, spoke about Reparative Humanism. She said conflicted societies can move forward using a process of repair that is ongoing, open, and enriches all, in contrast to merely establishing forgiveness as an end point. This certainly seems true here as the struggle for positive peace continues 21 years after the Good Friday agreement.

Dr. John Brewer (center) at "From Victims to Survivors" at Queen's Univ.

Also, Dr. .John Brewer from Queen’s gave a thought-provoking presentation that illuminated his contention that conflict victims are moral beacons of peace for society. He must have met Jo Berry and Richard Moore (see previous post), who exemplify this principle. Dr. Brewer also discussed peacebuilding as a process involving the restoration of sociability.

Looking ahead
I’ll return to Northern Ireland in October for part 2 of our project sponsored by the US Embassy in London. In the fall, we’ll be meeting with students and journalists throughout Northern Ireland as we seek to expand the discussion about peace journalism/bangers and mash. I’m already looking forward to the challenge.