A few years ago I was listening to college lectures about medieval history and was struck by the clarity of the professor.
Don’t judge! One of my hobbies is learnin’ stuff I didn’t already know. As a product of American public school I didn’t know shit about medieval history! (You probably don’t either.)
One of the more interesting (to me) topics was the Inquisition.
It wasn’t the gore and violence and corruption that interested me. It was the vocabulary.
The professor didn’t default to the vague pathetic phrasings of the common generic current-era woke dipshit student or mid-wit prof. Being skilled enough that he could run a side gig selling lectures and knowing non-students like me actually wanted to learn, he didn’t dumb it down. He carefully he used the correct vocabulary in the proper context.
A default professorial nullity would dumb it down until it hurt: (“Inquisition = Bad”). This would include wrapping actual knowledge in modern sensibilities (“Inquisition = Women and minorities hurt most”).
Using the proper terminology, as befitting serious events, made it a better experience. Events happened to legitimately devout peasants and they wouldn’t have thought in Marx/athiest garbled NewSpeak. In using the right words the lectures felt almost poetic.
We forget how to use the right words for things. There are English words that are perfectly adequate to most situations. They come from a time when words actually meant things. Words were once used to convey thoughts precisely instead of bury facts that might make us use our intellect. Unlike our current world of perpetual relativism which is a vocabulary of nudges and winks.
For example (and I’m just paraphrasing here), the Inquisition derived its authority from the Papacy. It was interested in the sin of heresy, which had arisen from schism within the Catholic church. Inquisitors sought out testimony and considered evidence (obviously lacking evidentiary rules we currently take for granted). There were protections (though less than ideal) against false accusations. There was consideration whether a transgression was merely odious or truly sinful.
We assume the Inquisition just threw box lots of innocents into a wood chipper but it was more of a spectrum (with the Spanish Inquisition taking the gold in the terrifying psychopaths category). More often than not, blots on the accused person’s soul (and life!) could be rectified. For many, a simple admission of remorse and a public vow to turn from the path of wickedness was enough. Friends, relatives, and neighbors would vouch for the accused. Assured that henceforth the accused would model proper behavior would merit forgiveness and everyone would breathe a sigh of relief as the Inquisitors moved on from Springfield to far off Shelbyville. Even if you were an ornery cuss, you had a fair shot with repentance, atonement, and/or demonstration of good character.
Depending on the era and actors involved (and your past behavior towards your neighbors, the morality of the nearby Bishop, and how much the church coveted your assets) things might go off the rails. (See the Spanish!) Also, if you were a flat out asshole they might fling your butt into a dungeon faster than you can say “your legal defense has been ignored”.
(Have you ever wondered what situation would make anyone wish they’d been nicer to your neighbors? The Inquisition (again, with some exception for those whacky Spaniards) was all about that. Keeping malcontents from getting out of hand in hopes of maintaining social order seemed as important as spiritual purity! In modern times you might rip off everyone in town at your used car lot and nothing will happen. An old style Inquisition rolling through town shortly after you’d dumped a bunch of clapped out Hondas on unsuspecting villagers, might involved wronged parties extracting serious karmic payback! [Note that “karma” is not a Catholic / European concept of the time. Probably the better phrase would be righteous retribution.])
Look at all of those words in bold! How often do you hear them spoken in modern time? We still have sin and malcontents and (a seriously faded) concept of morality. But we tiptoe around even speaking such ideas. None of this is to defend the Inquisition (they were clearly dangerous people prone to the inevitable corruption that results from unchecked power) but my point is that one cannot intelligently discuss the real world using the vocabulary of a child. 15th century European events came with powerful words like God and repentance. 21st century events merit the same level of discourse.
Listen to modern bullshit and you’ll hear what I’m talking about. It’s all a mishmash of weasel words. “Mistakes were made”; by whom? “Follow the science”; without apparently using the scientific method? Hunter Biden’s laptop is “misinformation”; yet it’s verifiably true. January 6th was an “insurrection”; of unarmed people who voluntarily dispersed? Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were guilting of sex trafficking; to nobody.
How can “misinformation” be true? How can a mistake exist without having been made by anyone? How can a victim be sex trafficked to nobody?
When I hear weasel words I ignore the speaker. Those who talk as children, think as children.
In my next post I’ll talk about vocabulary and the power grid.