21532: Esser: Re: 21528: (Chamberlain) 21522: Fenton re: 21507 (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: D. Esser torx@joimail.com

No, sorry I don't know that the word <to witness> implies being an
eyewitness. In common english usage this is just not the case. Why
does one say <personally witnessed> as opposed to plainly
<witnessed>? Quite a difference isn't it? To witness means also to
give proof, attest to, to testify and so on...

To accuse others of  "fraud", real or attempted, for choosing words
one does not agree with shows some disconnect with the situation in
Haiti. Lives are threatened, people are killed and many different
delegations, journalists and Haitians from all walks of life have
attested to that, to use another word. While I have no idea what a
"get-out question" is, it is indeed revealing when, confronted with
atrocities, the dialogue shifts to semantics. Here we really don't
have a case--such as the notorious misuse of the word genocide.

Anthony Fenton's words might not please you, but he appears as
someone quite capable in the use of language and it is the facts that
he reports about, that we should discuss. For example: why are, many
weeks into the occupation, armed irregulars still allowed to mete out
their own brand of "justice" with impunity? Why are the jails, make
shift or traditional, filling up with Lavalas partisans, while others
get applauded for their own crimes? And why is the main stream media
so impotent when it comes to showing a complete picture of the events
in Haiti?

As to your offense taken in bringing the NCHR in the discussion, I'd
like to quote renown photographer Alan Pogue (Who was part of a
delegation to Haiti):

   <The "human rights " groups CARLI and NCHR are acting as
McCarthy-style black listing agencies. They are not interest[ed] in
anything other than smearing Lavalas.>

Strong words indeed, but Pogue is not the only one with that
sentiment. It is a view shared by many Haitians and also by many
authors from various political backgrounds.

Speaking of the main stream media and their inaccuracies (no need for
quotation marks here): they haven't even covered in passing the
current wave of violence against popular organizations in Haiti.
Papers, such as the one of record, have been very silent about
killings that happened under Latortue's watch, whereas interestingly
enough even smallish anti Aristide demonstrations were deemed news in
the months leading up to the Coup d'État.


Chamberlain writes:
...
> As for Esser's semantic contortions, he knows perfectly well that the
> common usage understanding of "witnessing" is seeing with one's own
> eyes,
> as shown by Fenton's quote from the democracynow website.
>
> Predictably, we are served up with that hoary old get-out question
> about
> why "choice of words is more interesting than accounts from various
> sources that..."   And that other handy get-out that someone else
> (NCHR) is
> "worse."
>
> The attempted fraud about personally seeing 800 bodies remains.  These
> are
> the people who spend their time hammering the "corporate media" for
> "inaccuracy."
.