Doesn’t the term “treasure” (as in, “the cost of Iraq in blood and treasure”) seem kind of… weird? Like we’re fighting dragons, or something? Paying for our bastard swords +3 with gold pieces? Having our gemstones stolen by orcs?
I don’t know the history of the term, as it’s now applied. I guess the idea is that “money” makes war sound too materialistic, or something?
Insight, anyone?
(I guess “blood” isn’t totally accurate either, but it somehow seems more natural to me, as a handy-dandy blanket term for deaths and injuries.)
3 Comments
I would have assumed it meant artifacts, art, cultural treasures… like, in the museum lootings, ‘n’ stuff. But now that I think about it, really, they (the referrers to blood & treasure) probably don’t care so much about cultural destruction as they do about BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
A few years ago a related phrase popped up in the non-profit world: folks started talking about people donating “time, talent, and treasure” to organizations. I’ve always thought this was odd, like they were tooling up to our door with a bag of rubies and a knack for yo-yo tricks. Business-speak gets weirder all the time.
The libertarian (note the ’small ‘l”) presidential candidate, Bob Barr, used that same phrase…yeah, it’s bonky.
Post a Comment