The So-Called Mountain Meadows Massacre

[_beastie]

A poster on MAD shared this letter to the editor from Dan Peterson:

MALIGNING Mormons

REGARDING FRED BARNES's profile of actor Jon Voight ("Hollywood Witness," September 3), apart from the overwhelming consensus of critics that September Dawn, in which Voight stars, is a pathetic excuse for a movie, there are several other points that should be made about its misrepresentation of history.

The so-called Mountain Meadows Massacre is in no substantial way parallel to the attacks of 9/11. Speaking as a professor of Islamic studies and Arabic at Brigham Young University, there is no real resemblance between Mormons, even in the nineteenth century, and adherents of Wahhabi Islam.

At least one of the pivotal and most damning statements put in the mouth of Brigham Young by the scriptwriter of September Dawn appears to have been entirely invented by an anti-Mormon just a few years ago. It is not only "the church" that denies Brigham Young's alleged role in ordering and masterminding the massacre; no credible professional historian appears to believe it either--for the clear and sufficient reason that there is no evidence to support the charge. In fact, there is considerable reason to reject it. September Dawn is a disgrace, a piece of shameless anti-Mormon propaganda. Fortunately, it appears destined to disappear without leaving much of a trace behind.

DANIEL PETERSON
Provo, Utah

Why in the world would anyone refer to MMM as "so-called"?

by the way, I saw the movie, and don't recall them directly implicating Young as the MADdites seem to believe it did. Young's part in the movie, as a whole, was very minor and somewhat ambiguous.

[_Nightingale]

Is there a certain number of victims needed in order to qualify a murderous event as a "massacre"? Maybe that is what he is getting at. (Although I think that over 100 victims murdered in one event would be considered a massacre).

Another potential reason for slipping the "so-called" adjective in there is to downgrade it to "less than" (a massacre) or to cast a subtle slur against those who use the term.

That surprises me though. I thought that both sides at least agreed that it was a massacre.

[_beastie]

Yeah, I found it quite surprising, too, which is why I wondered if it was a slip-up that revealed something he didn't intend to reveal.

Of course, on MAD, they're pretending that there wasn't anything odd about his use of the term "so-called" but I find it bizarre.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I find the "so called" rather odd too.

[_moksha]

I think the Reverend Doctor was referring to the fact that it was not the Meadows that was massacred, but rather the men, women and children of the wagon train.

[_Nightingale]

Moksha:
"I think the Reverend Doctor was referring to the fact that it was not the Meadows that was massacred, but rather the men, women and children of the wagon train."

That would be a very ponderous rendering of the term; In other words, strained.

The Columbine school shooting is referred to as a massacre. I believe there were 12 dead in that incident (many others wounded). Certainly, no reader mistakenly believes that the noun "massacre" is referring to the school rather than the event that took place inside it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_ ... l_massacre

Other school shootings, including one in Canada recently in which "only" one student out of thousands was killed, are referred to as "rampages".

Playing with words to spin a horrific event is ignoble.

[_moksha]

Nightingale, I was just giving another potential explanation. Nobody ever told me these explanations had to make sense.

[_Trevor]

Why in the world would anyone refer to MMM as "so-called"?

by the way, I saw the movie, and don't recall them directly implicating Young as the MADdites seem to believe it did. Young's part in the movie, as a whole, was very minor and somewhat ambiguous.

"So-called" is general-authoritese for something that either does not deserve to be taken seriously or is not properly defined (by GA Mormon standards). So, intellectuals the GAs don't agree with are "so-called" intellectuals, and gays and lesbians are the "so-called" gays because they evidently are just "sinners" who try to minimize their sin by crafting a bogus "gay" identity. In this case, the treacherous slaughter of unarmed men, women, and children, is not, by DCP's definition, a massacre.

Since a massacre is, by the dictionary definition of Merriam-Webster, "the act or instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty," like, say, the betraying of a supposed surrender-truce to kill helpless people at close range, I am left confused by DCP's use of the term "so-called." If this is not a massacre, then someone needs to revise the dictionaries.

From what I have heard, the movie pretty well blew chunks, but that does not mean Brigham Young is completely innocent or that MMM is now only TSCMMM. Brigham is in some ways culpable, and it was a massacre. Still, I bet there is an argument over the precise definition of *massacre* somewhere on the horizon.

[_Nightingale]

Yes, Mok, I realize. I wasn't saying YOU were playing with words. :)

About making sense - aha - so that is my mistake. I do actually keep going back to the default position - liking things to be logical.

[_Nightingale]

"Still, I bet there is an argument over the precise definition of *massacre* somewhere on the horizon."

Last time I mentioned definitions to DCP, my recollection is that he said he was all "defined out" or words to that effect.

I think definitions are crucial.

No doubt, "so-called" is a slur.