One after the other, they came out and said they believed
what the Iranian president Hassan Rouhani has said. What is puzzling is that
they did so after years of beating the drums of war saying they did not believe
anything the Iranians were saying. Furthermore, they wanted the whole world to
go along with them during all of those years, and disbelieve the Iranians. But
now, they want the whole world to go along with them, and believe what the
Iranians are saying. What is going on?
Well, Clifford D. May tells you what is going on in an
article he wrote under the title: “World Powers Surrender to Iran” and the
subtitle: “Iranian president Rouhani says so. The evidence doesn't contradict
him.” It was published on January 23, 2014 in National Review Online.
He says that after the Geneva talks, the Iranian president
tweeted something to the effect that the world powers have surrendered to
Iran's national will; an expression that conveys a different meaning than the
title of the article which simply says that the world has surrendered to Iran.
It is that the first conveys the notion of accepting the Iranian arguments,
while the second conveys the notion of surrender after a military defeat.
I cautioned many times in my previous writings about relying
too much on the literal translation of words from one language to another
especially when the two languages are far apart; each being rooted in a
different culture. I would like now to give an example of two languages that
are, in fact, very close to each other and yet convey two different meanings
using one and the same word. The two languages are French and English; the word
is exploitation.
Say in French: “L'exploitation des mines” and you mean the
development and use of mines. Nobody gets shocked by that. Now say the
exploitation of mimes in English, and people will hear it as the victimization
of mines. The response on the part of some people will be to raise an eyebrow.
Why is that? It is because the English carries with it the baggage of people
having victimized other people in the past. Thus, etymology defines the word in
French whereas in English, it is the culture, with all its baggage, that does.
Even in Canada which is a mining country and where the two
languages are official, you still see English speaking people become confused
when you speak of the exploitation of mines. Now imagine what it is like to
translate words from Farsi to English or from Arabic to English. You do not
only translate a word, you translate a whole culture and all the baggage that
it brings with it.
I do not speak Farsi, and so I do not know what exactly
happened in the case that Clifford May discusses in his article. But I speak
Arabic and I can imagine someone tweeting the word “istislam” which can be
translated into surrender or submission. As shown earlier, and depending on how
you use the word surrender, it can either convey the notion of surrender to the
negotiating will of the Iranian people, or convey the notion of surrender after
a military defeat. As to the word submission; it can mean submit to the
superior negotiating skills of the Iranian delegation or submit to the
realities of the situation and accept the inevitable.
Another example that shows how culture can play a big role
not only in the choice of words but also in the way that an author formulates a
thought. Look at this passage in May's article: “Iran also is sending warships
into the Atlantic Ocean for the first time – a not-so-subtle message, perhaps?”
No. The author is here deliberately deceiving his readers.
It is that the whole world knows what happened here. These
warships were originally sent to the Mediterranean Sea to shadow the American
fleet that was menacing Syria, Iran's ally. But now that the tension between
America and Iran has been reduced, the Iranians took those ships out of the
area.
Thus, if someone wants to see a message in this move, it is
that the Iranians are happy being friendly with America – which is certainly
not what May was trying to convey. In the context of the subculture that he and
his likes have fashioned in America, the move is translated into a threat. In
the subculture that the Iranians have been cultivating, the move is an
expression of their goodwill toward America.