Icons, Poets and ‘Embedded’ reporters

Many years ago I attended a meeting of a social club where we were all invited to introduce ourselves by name and occupation. A very well spoken, handsome looking man stood up smartly, and stated: “I am So and So. I am a poet.” His simple statement was greeted by silence in a group that considered itself “intellectual.” No one believed him. His name had never been heard of as being associated with poetry. Was he really a poet and why had they never read anything by him? Of course he could have been a closet poet, one who poured out his feelings and heart to himself and himself alone. But he considered himself a poet and who were we to say otherwise.

One woman did have something to say. She quite openly challenged him to the point of suggesting that the man had a nerve to call himself a poet. She considered it an unforgivable devaluation of the word, and she might have been right but who could tell. But she hotly castigated people for what she determined was the sin of devaluing the meaning of words. I am reminded of this incident very frequently these days when I read or hear the way in which we devalue words. It is now almost a national pastime. Consider the word “icon.” It is used today without pause to describe every Tom, Dick and Harry who may have achieved some success as a dancer, singer, calypsonian, drummer, swimmer, footballer, cricketer. The only category not yet included is politician but as certain as night follows day it won’t be long before we have one of those, who sit in Parliament and bore us to death, being referred to in such reverent terms.

What does the word “icon” mean? The Oxford dictionary defines it as a representation of Christ or a saint, especially one painted in oil on a wooden panel in a traditional Byzantine style and venerated in the Eastern Church. Or it could be an image, a picture, a person regarded as a sex symbol Who in this country among the categories listed above qualifies either as a representation of Christ or as a sex symbol? Let’s get real for heaven’s sake and stop all this icon foolishness. Let’s honour people by all means but stop devaluing the word. Another word that has entered our daily vocabulary without much thought since the Iraq war is “embedded.” In the old days to be embedded meant something fixed firmly and deeply in a surrounding solid mass, to fix or retain a thought, idea in the mind. Since the US government “embedded” the media in its troops in the Iraq war we have latched on to word, even to the point where a silly television reporter who was invited to go along on a police road block exercise in Laventille proudly declared himself “embedded” with the Police. Does he realise the totally subjective reports of the Iraq invasion the world got from the “embedded” US reporters?  But here was this Trinidadian reporter standing on a Laventille Road surrounded by bemused and bewildered Laventillians telling viewers that he was embedded with the Police! Did he realise how silly he looked? Did he even pause for even a second to consider the image he presented? Was journalistic integrity was being scuttled by such nonsense? I doubt it.

I remember the days when a showcase was a shop or store window through which passersby could see what the store had to offer. A showcase at the corner parlour was for displaying bread or cakes or sandwiches. Today we “showcase” everything, a steelband performance, a concert, a flower show, a collection of dresses. Since when have we stopped holding flower shows or staging concerts?  Let’s stop “showcasing” ourselves and get on with life. But since we so like to copy others, we should follow the example of a recent artiste to this country from India, I believe. She was repeatedly being described as a “Diva.” She objected strenuously stating that she was not a “diva” but a singer. There is nothing to beat simplicity as the great philosopher Russel once pointed out. He was reading a book about monkeys and the way they behave. The book “showcased” a photograph of a monkey, under which the caption read: “Monkey with object.” Why, Russel irritability asked, did the writer use the word “object” when it was perfectly simple and clear for all to see that the monkey was eating a “banana.”

jstarr@newsday.co.tt