,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
A single word from a New Zealand suspect's screed is on my mind. Before an attack that killed at least 49 people, his writing referred to immigrants as "invaders." It's an inaccurate, conspiratorial, inflammatory metaphor for migrants.
When we see "invaders" in such a screed, we see how false it is. What's harder to face is how it's used in the US. Migrants at the US-Mexico border, for example, are not an army, not armed, not invading. Yet "invaders" and "invasion" are part of common US discourse about them.
If you doubt that Americans say "invaders" or "invasion," do a Google search, or note remarks by the president today. He both used the word and defended its frequent use: "People hate the word invasion, but that's what it is," npr.org/2019/03/15/703…
This does not show that an American saying "invasion" caused a crime on the far side of the world. It does show the embrace of the same falsehood. It's not like the New Zealand suspect spoke truthfully and somehow overreacted. He used a false metaphor to justify killing people.
In a free society, people freely raise concerns, if they wish, about Muslims or migrants. But if these are true concerns, people can truthfully discuss them with commonly accepted language. If people can only support their views with falsehoods, they show their views are false.
