Reader question:
Please explain “by the by” in this sentence: When the Nazis invaded Paris, they ransacked various apartments, though I think they used the word commandeered – but that is by the by.
My comments:
That is beside the point.
That’s what “by the by” means here. The Nazis ransacked apartments and caused a lot of damage and misery, that’s the main point.
The fact the Nazis used the official military word “commandeered” to describe their atrocious act is only mentioned in passing. It does not matter. What they did is an atrocity and let’s keep addressing it as an atrocity.
In other words, let’s not be distracted by what the word they used. Let’s stay on subject. Let’s not get sidetracked. That is, let’s not leave the main road and wander off one of those byways.
Byway?
Yes, byway, one of the small sidetracks or paths. “By the by”, you see, literally means “by the byway”, as IdiomOrigins.org explains:
This odd expression dates from the 17th century and means incidentally, of secondary importance or off the main track and it is the latter meaning that gives the clue to its origin. To travel by the by (or bye) originally meant to go via side roads (or byes) and not main ones.
See? “By” originally means “bye” or byway. That’s why, in fact, some people still spell “by the by” as “by the bye”.
By the way, “that is by the by or bye” in this sense (secondary) is an idiom that is rather rarely used today. “That is by the bye” is even rarer in print.
Perhaps that is neither here nor there. I mean, still, “that is by the by” is a valid idiom and worth knowing.
All right, here are media examples:
1. Students of twentieth century British literature need no reminding (unless they’ve begun to go dotty) that the poet Philip Larkin and novelist-poet-pen pal Kingsley Amis were both besotted by the erotic hauteur of prime minister Margaret Thatcher, who died this week at the age 87 to what might diplomatically be called mixed reviews. Sculpted out of cold cream and coiffed to beat the band, Thatcher was a dose of Viagra to these two neo-classical colloquialists before Viagra was invented.
Less noted is that a third literary elder of stature also fell under Mrs. T.’s spell, though with a scrim of critical detachment, as befitted his finicky temperament.
I speak of Anthony Powell, the author of the still-too-little-acknowledged comic masterpieces Afternoon Men and From a View to a Death and more famously for the twelve-volume novel cycle A Dance to the Music of Time, which bequeathed us perhaps the greatest bitch in English literature, Pamela Widmerpool, but that’s by the by.
In the first volume of his Journals, covering the years 1982 to 1986, Powell recounts a fancy-do dinner at 10 Downing Street where he is seated on one side of Thatcher, V. S. Naipaul on the other.
I continue to find Mrs. Thatcher very attractive physically. Her overhanging eyelids, hooded eyes, are the only suggestion of mystery (a characteristic I like in women, while totally accepting Wilde’s view of them as Sphinxes without a secret). Her general appearance seems to justify Mitterand’s alleged comment that she has the eyes of Caligula and the lips of Marilyn Monroe; the latter a film star I never, in fact, thought particularly attractive. Mrs. Thatcher has a fair skin; hair-do of incredible perfection, rather a dumpy figure, the last seeming to add a sense of down-to-earthiness that is appropriate and nut unattractive in its way. She was wearing a black dress, the collar rolled up behind her neck, some sort of gold pattern on it. On her right hand was a large Victorian ring, dark red, in an elaborate gold setting. She only likes talking of public affairs, which I never find easy to discuss in a serious manner... Mrs. T. is reputed to have no humour. I suspect she recognizes a joke more than she is credited with, if probably jokes of a limited kind, confined to those who know her well.
- Margaret Thatcher: Love Throb of the Tory Literati, by James Wolcott, VanityFair.com, April 10, 2013.
2. I have discovered a new word – Whataboutery. I would like to claim that I coined it. But that would be a lie. It is in the esteemed Oxford English Dictionary which says the word has been around since the 1970s. I just missed it.
However, it is missing from the pages of America’s premier lexicon Webster’s. So perhaps I can claim the credit for introducing it into the American vocabulary.
All that is by the by, the real issue is what is it about whataboutery that has struck my fancy and what is its definition.
The OED defines whataboutery as follows: “The technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.”
If you want to use it in a sentence you could say: “All too often, well-intentioned debate descends into whataboutery.”
There is even a useful ism synonym – Whataboutism.
Both words are very close to the well-known morality phrase: “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” This is a sentence I heard from my mother throughout childhood. It was uttered every time I tried to justify a usually nefarious action by whining: Johnny’s/Sam’s/Joe’s…(fill in the blank) mother let them…(fill in another blank).”
I never got away with it. But it seems that all too often politicians are being allowed to get away with sentences that start with “Whatabout” – and they are supposed to be responsible, respected, adult leaders. It just doesn’t seem fair.
Let’s be clear, Whataboutery is a smokescreen, distraction, diversion. Sometimes it is obvious. I have often heard Americans justify Donald Trump’s immigration policies with the words “Whatabout the immigration policies of Britain, Poland, Hungary, Australia, Switzerland, Japan….”
Or perhaps we are talking about the death penalty and the fickle finger of whatabout is turned around to point at those well-known bastions of human rights such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, Iraq, or Turkmenistan.
Then there is the more subtle whataboutism. The word is not clearly stated but is implied in the action. A good example of this might be President Trump’s use of the FBI to repeatedly investigate Hillary Clinton for her misuse of emails during her tenure as Secretary of State. Twice she has been investigated and twice she has been cleared.
Why does Trump persist? Because he is implicitly shouting: “Whatabout Hillary” every time someone accuses him of collusion with the Russians, racism, sexual harassment, corruption, nepotism or just plain bad taste. His whataboutism – is a smokescreen to divert public attention away from questionable policies and actions.
Donald Trump is probably the most glaring exponent of whataboutery. But he is not alone. Just tune into the BBC for Prime Minister’s Question Time every Wednesday. You will hear Theresa May employing her own brand of whataboutism. It may be more subtle than the current occupant of the White House, but it is clear that she is saying: “Well, if you think things are bad now, what about when Labour was in government or what about you just see what happens if Labour returns to government.”
You can hear the echoes of whataboutery bouncing off the walls of Westminster and parliaments around the world.
The most amazing thing about this political phenomenon is that the public allows its political leaders to get away with it. The history of the world has never enjoyed such a highly educated population. From the streets of New York to the jungles of Uganda and mountains of Tibet, there have never been so many literate, numerate and educated people in the world.
The reason political leaders escape censure for whataboutery is that their grassroots supporters are – if anything – even more guilty of the offense. Whataboutery is rampant at every level of political discourse. It poisons debate and creates divisions. The proponents of whataboutery aim to turn the argument around so that the other side is forced into justifying another wrong action or, at the very least, diluting their own wrong actions. In doing so, they accentuate and reinforce differences when both sides should be focused on finding a consensus. After all, as my mother said, two wrongs don’t make a right.
- Observations of an Expat: Whataboutery, by Tom Arms, TuckMagazine.com, January 26, 2018.
3. Arjen Robben and Franck Ribery brought teammates to tears after Bayern Munich completed an astonishing title race turnaround to win a seventh successive Bundesliga crown on Saturday.
Ribery and Robben both scored in their final Bundesliga appearance as Bayern sealed the title on the final day, having been nine points behind rivals Borussia Dortmund earlier in the season.
“We knew that we didn’t just need to win today, we needed to show everyone who the champions of Germany are,” striker Robert Lewandowski told Sky.
“I wanted to win for Franck and Arjen. I saw their families before the game and I have to say I almost cried.”
Robben and Ribery will both leave the club at the end of the season, having spent 10 and 12 years respectively in Munich.
Both looked close to tears before the game as they were given a roaring send-off by the Bayern fans before coming off the bench to help Bayern to a 5-1 win over Eintracht Frankfurt.
“After a game like that, so many emotions go through you, through your whole body,” Robben told Sky.
…
After a rocky start to the season, new coach Niko Kovac could not shake rumours of his impending dismissal, even as he led his team on a 14-game unbeaten streak since February to claim the title.
Kovac was visibly moved as the Bayern fans chanted his name towards the end of the game.
“There were ups and downs this season, that much is clear,” he said.
“I am not a robot, and I am not ashamed of showing my feelings.”
The title triumph makes Kovac just the second man to have won the Bundesliga with Bayern as both a player and a coach, following in the footsteps of German legend Franz Beckenbauer.
“I heard after the game that Kaiser Franz was the only person to do it before, but that is by the by,” said Kovac.
“Thank you to the team and the fans, we have achieved great things.”
- Crying game: Robben, Ribery bring tears as Bayern seal seventh successive title, AFP, May 19, 2019.
本文仅代表作者本人观点，与本网立场无关。欢迎大家讨论学术问题，尊重他人，禁止人身攻击和发布一切违反国家现行法律法规的内容。
About the author:
Zhang Xin is Trainer at chinadaily.com.cn. He has been with China Daily since 1988, when he graduated from Beijing Foreign Studies University. Write him at: zhangxin@chinadaily.com.cn, or raise a question for potential use in a future column.
（作者：张欣）
