NEW HAVEN, CT—Calling such concern for linguistic precision a clear indicator of a thriving country, a panel of historians from Yale University issued a statement Thursday announcing that quibbling over the exact definition of a concentration camp was a sign of a healthy society. “Studies of the past tell us that nitpicking the particular semantics of the term ‘concentration camp’ as they pertain to a place the government is actively sending people with no criminal history is highly associated with national stability,” said historian Kristen Boyd, who added that the more pedantic one’s reasoning for a facility not fully satisfying the criteria for a true concentration camp, the better that bodes for a country’s future. “Time and time again, history shows us that caveat-laden arguments about what is or isn’t a concentration camp only occur in countries with sound political systems. When people are splitting hairs over the specific methodology and intent behind mass detention and human rights abuses, that’s when you know you’re looking at a vibrant, civilized society. It’s as true today as it was a hundred years ago. Civilizations are healthier when citizens are raising trivial objections to the use of the term ‘concentration camp’ on the grounds that their neighbor’s rendition to an oversight-free mass prison still technically exists within a legal framework, at least on paper.” Boyd went on to state that blindly insisting that anyone who wound up in a concentration camp must have done something wrong to get there has historically always been a sign of a healthy conscience.
