Posted by Helen on: 02.28.2007 /
Benjamin Ady posted the following comment on Meredith’s side of the story:
I [...] don’t like the way that Bush and company have steered the entire dialogue of the nation in such a way that the word “terrorist” is now so much more common, and commonly used, than it previously was.
Here’s kind of what I meant, I guess
On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one’s enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. ‘What is called terrorism,’ Brian Jenkins has written, `’thus seems to depend on one’s point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.’ Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist’ becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism.[14]
(from Bruce Hoffman, cited here)
It seems to me that Bush and co have somehow grabbed hold of what happened on 9-11 and interpreted it, and from it interpreted the whole world (life, the universe, and everything), in such a way that we now more readily think “terrorist, fear, enemy, danger, … etc.” than we did previously, than we need to, and … than, for instance, they do in England or Australia. Jonathan Raban touched on this in My Holy War, a very readable take on the whole thing by a british journalist in Seattle.
Comment by: Helen
1I don’t like how people stir up fear in other people, which then manipulates other people into doing what they want/agreeing with them. This happens in so many situations - this is one, where the President stirs up fear about terrorists to get war approved and funded.
I’ve seen it in church a lot where fear is stirred up not only about hell but also about the ‘end-times’ and about how the US is (supposedly) going to hell in a handbasket (not because of global warming or unequal allocation of resources or other things we should really be concerned about, imo, but supposedly because people of the same gender who love each other are allowed to form a union referred to as ‘marriage’) .
I’ve seen it with doctors who make it hard for women to have children as naturally as possible by pushing all the ‘risks’ of that on them. (Probably because they are afraid of being sued for malpractice should anything go wrong). And so the C-section rates among people with access to healthcare are higher in the US than in other countries.
And it’s often hard to assess whether the other person is accurately representing the risks, and you should go with their recommendation, or whether you should take on the risk because it really isn’t as big as they’re making it out to be. If you reject what they say - if they are right and you are wrong, it will be all your fault…because they did warn you…and often big things are at stake. like your baby, your freedom, or (if you believe in such things) your eternal future.
Comment by: Mike Clawson
2Long ago St. Augustine made a similar point that the only real difference between Kings and pirates (i.e. terrorists) is one of scale and what side you were on.
On another note, it bugs me that Bush has labeled “terrorism” and “terrorists” as a group of people. Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology or group, and as such can be used by any group, whether nations or bands of men hiding in caves. A terrorist is someone who uses tactics of terror, regardless of their justification for doing so.
Comment by: benjamin ady
3Mike,
so in a sense we could say that “terrorism” and “shock and awe” are similar?
Comment by: Julie Clawson
4As the bumper sticker says - “war is terrorism with a bigger budget”. But try to attach that label to “us” (the good guys…) and you get some really pissed off people. But its just fine to label an oppressed Afgani woman whose children where killed in crossfire a terrorist…
Comment by: benjamin ady
5Julie,
Indeed. We could do a longish post on military euphemism, couldn’t we? like how come we tend to call it the “war for independence” instead of “the revolutionary war”. How come we call them “insurgents” if we are against them, but “freedom fighters” if we are for them? I mean what if Iraq had invaded the U.S., deposed George Bush, put him in prison, then overseen the holding of elections? and what if there were a whole bunch of American militias using lots of violence to protest it. Would they be called insurgents or terrorists? I think not. They would be considered the good guys.
Comment by: Helen
6Yes - language is used strategically by many people to produce certain responses from others. And not just by those overtly in sales ;-)
Comment by: Daisi145
7Since September 11, 2001, the terminology of “terrorism” has become prevalent in our media, our political rhetoric, and our daily conversations. The term is used so often that it risks becoming a catch-all word for any kind of violence. Other terms that are used in its place are Islamist, radical, rebel, militant, freedom fighter, insurgent, jihadist, and others. The kind of language used to present information to the public plays a crucial role in what perspective is gleaned. Using one catch-all term risks linking what may be very different situations — so, a “terrorist’ in southern Thailand angry at domestic policies may be completely unrelated to the “terrorists’ that bombed the London train stations, yet calling them both terrorists links them on a rhetorical level. The alternative — which is using a different term for every situation - risks confusing the audience. This kind of debate is essential in the public dialogue as terminology plays such a large part in the public’s perspective on issues.
– For more on this topic, see http://politicalworld.wordpress.com/2006/09/19/the-terminology-of-terrorism/. It’s a conversation about the same topic on another blog.
daisi