Nov. 25, 2003 - 19:54 PST

THE WONDERING JEW

Words, Words, Words

We are afloat on a sea of words it seems to me. Acronyms, oxymorons, and words which are the same but used by opposing sides with a meaning favorable to their side.

Sharon Schuman an assistant professor of literature at the University Of Oregon gave a guest interview to The Register-Guard here in Eugene, Oregon in todays paper. She says, "Iraq reports should use neutral terms." Quotes follow. She says for instance, "Take the word terrorism: According to the Oxford English Dictionary it comes from the French Revolution and describes 'government by intimidation.' Terrorists were the agents and partisans who carried out this intimidation. Thus, anyone who 'attempts to further his views by a system of coercive 'intimidation' is a terrorist."

She says further, "One could argue that this definition accurately describes those who attack American troops, attempting to coercively intimidate them into leaving Iraq. One could also argue, however, that maintaining a presence of more than 100,000 troops and dropping bombs on houses coud be seen as an attempt to coercively intimidate those who resist the U.S. effort to remake Iraq."

Then she refers to another word in common use also, "Or take the OED definition of 'guerilla': One engaged in an irregular war carried out by small bodies of men acting independently (now somewhat rare). Beyond noting the 1971 dictionary's lack of forsight, we should consider the degree to which opposition in Iraq comes from people 'acting independently.' To the extent that organized resistance is coming from Saddam loyalists or al-Qaeda operatives, as many argue, the word 'guerilla' would be insufficient."

Ms. Schuman brings out another word used in the news. "The term most frequently used these days is ,'insurgent' which the OED defines as 'one who rises in revolt against constituted authority,' who takes part in an insurrection, or a 'limited rebellion.' The insurgent is defined in relationship to the 'constituted authority' against which he or she rebels. The key here is 'constituted.' What constitutes the authority against which opponents fight in Iraq ? The U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council ? The military presence led by the U.S. ?

Following on she says, "At the heart of the war is the problem of legitimacy. When the U.S. decided to use unilateral force to impose regime change, it proclaimed that force alone -- not diplomacy, not precedent, not law, not international agreements -- confers legitimacy. But if force is the only measure of legitimacy, all forms of force become equally legitimate, and the whole ooncept of insurgency becomes moot.

Then she goes further in the confusion existing,

The problem of languiage extends also to descriptions of American forces in Iraq. 'Coalition' implies a vast and representative array of governments engaged in a multilateral project. 'Liberation' suggests fredom from tyranny, which sounds good, but imposing through force involves resorting to the very methods that are the tyrant's. In what sense are the Iraqis now liberated ? We might argue that Iraq is 'occupied' rather than 'liberated,' which is only to say that we are there, and we haven't yet figured out how to leave.

Following is important to me to think about, she says, "My point is not to suggest that there is an easy solution to the Iraq mess. but if we intend even make the tiniest progress toward one, we need to begin using language that at least attempts to describe things as they are, not as the various propaganda machines want them to be. When we use a word like 'insurgent,' we are not making a neutral statement. We label the insurgent as illegitimate and confer legitimacy on the forces being resisted."

She goes deeper, "What, then, should the opponents in Iraq be called ? I favor calling them fighters, enemies, snipers, bombers, opposition forces, or whatever most neutrally describes them in the course of describing their actions. In turn I would refer to the Americans as Marines, soldiers, etc., and to their allies as Italians, British troops, etc.

In the following she makes a big point, "This solution is so mundane that one might wonder why it has not already been employed. The answer is that all governments, including that of the U.S. employ words like 'terrorist, guerilla,' or 'insurgent' TO HELP JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS. (my caps) We expect them to do that."

She makes a main point, "But it is the responsibility of news media to establish their own language for reporting what they see as the truth and to use words only when they are truely merited. If a car bomb kills children, that is terrorism. If an enemy missile destroys a U.S. helicopter, is that terrorism too ? If a U.S. air strike aimed at terrorists in apartment 2-A also kills children in 2-B, is that terrorism,too, or is it collateral damage ? These are the difficult questions which must be faced daily in newsrooms across the nation. NOT TO FACE THEM IS TO CEDE TO FORCE ALONE THE POWER FIRST TO DO WHATEVER IT WANTS AND THEN TO MAKE US THINK WHATEVER IT WANTS US TO THINK." (Caps agin mine)

You know, they don't even call them propagandists now, spin doctors is one word I hear used. Someone who can make black seem white and vice versa by a careful choice of words not completely understood by us common Joes and Jills.

Oh the slogans, "Operation Iraqi Freedom," "Mission Accomplished," the showers of acronyms, so many and so confusing that it boggles one's mind.

But it is pointed out by Ms. Schuman the danger of each side using the same words to describe actions taken against each other, puttin the onus on each others shoulders. It becomes claim agains counter-claim with spiteful feelings building yet further. The proper use of words and accuracy of them, will the world ever see things like that again ? Now all we see is a shower of Words, Words, Words . . . . . . . . .

Blog