My last post, which was mostly abour Obama, got me thinking about the Secret Service. One, that they are not that Secret, everyone knows they're there and two, that they could be referred to as the S.S. An agency that works directly for the man in charge and its title can be shortened to S.S. I find it intriguing that this is not seen as a problem, even while most people in theis country would be up in arms if someone dared call them socialist. Both the S.S. and Socialism have very bad connotations in the minds of most Americans, but only the latter appears to consistently provoke a response. I can't help but wonder why. The S.S. and Socialism both "belong" to former enemies of the U.S. Does a stronger reaction against the term 'socialism' mean the U.S. had and has a greater dislike of Russia than of Nazi Germany? Does that mean that anti-Semitism is seen as more okay than Socialism?
I really do not know the answer, but it keeps bugging me. Any help in understanding this is, of course, appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"An agency that works directly for the man in charge and its title can be shortened to S.S"
ReplyDelete... you're diluting the definitions of things in order to make them comparable, even when they absolutely aren't.
Instead of zeroing in on the fact that they work for "the man in charge" and have the same abbreviation-- what is the role of the secret service? What legal tasks are they responsible for taking care of? What is their impact?
Nothing like the S.S.
And from there, I'm totally lost by your extrapolation of this extremely flimsy comparison on to the entire US's view of Russia and Germany in general.
Do you have a specific incident/source or example that makes them as comparable as you suggest they are?
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I only meant that the word/phrase was comparable, not that the Secret Service is comparable to the Nazi S.S. (But, as I wrote above, in their most basic purposes, they are the same.)
ReplyDeleteAnd, as for my "extrapolation", as you put it, I was just asking a question that popped into my mind. Pure curiousity, really. Though, I do believe that a people's attitude towards something can (and will) alter how they treat the words/phrases attached to that something.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLet me put it this way:
ReplyDeleteIf two things are comparable at a base level, then they have a similar essence to them, even if they might have variations to them. The variations don't change the fact that they're still in the same category. They're holistically similar, but might have some superficial differences (ex. one knife is for cooking, another one is for camping).
A noose and a bow tie are both objects that are made up of some sort of fiber and can be tied. However, a noose might be categorized as a tool or a weapon-- but a bowtie is for fashion, obviously. They can be paralleled, but they are not basically the same in function.
Even though both the SS and the secret service are armed groups that work for a certain 'guy in charge,' they are not basically the same-- I disagree with the 'basic' comparison you make, and I think it's superficial, and that's why I think the line of inquiry that extends from it doesn't make sense.
The secret service protects the president and has some other government tasks. The SS, although somewhat of a 'guard' to the nazi government's cause, were more of a military group than anything else. There is a parallel between the two things-- they're both 'armed guards' in a sense, and they worked for the government. But they had different purposes and were based in completely different political contexts. If the Secret Service were to commit an atrocity, it might be very fitting to reference the SS, but without that, I don't think the comparison is based on much.