© one
stop
english.com 2003 |
This page can be photocopied
.
Words are weapons
Level 3 |
Advanced
2
S
econd world war posters warning that
"careless talk costs lives" represented a
lasting truth. Then the fear was that spies
might overhear conversations of value to the
N a z i s. The equivalent US slogan was "loose lips
sink ships". Sixty years on, in another era of
c o n f l i c t , the careless
talk comes more often
from politicians - but it is potentially just as
d e a d l y. When George Bush, soon after
September 11, referred to a "crusade" against
a l - Q a i d a , he helped persuade Muslims that
they were under renewed attack from Richard
the Lionheart in a US navy bomber jacke t .I n
the context of a potential "clash of
c i v i l i s a t i o n s " ,B u s h ’s loose use of language wa s
not only insensitive. It was unthinkingly
r e c k l e s s.
Bush has avoided the word "crusade" ever
s i n c e. But he still regularly talks about the need
to defend "civilisation" and "the civilised
world" against "dark forces". He never quite
says which part of the planet is the
"uncivilised" or "dark" bit. Perhaps he means
Kandahar in Afghanistan or Eastbourne in
E n g l a n d . It is unclear. But the unspoke n
implication is deeply divisive, even ra c i s t , not to
say insulting.
Words can define how a people sees itself: t h e
US declaration of independence is one
obvious
e x a m p l e. Yet modern-day Palestinians also see
themselves engaged in a struggle for
"independence" and "freedom" from external
o p p r e s s i o n . The current US government ignores
such semantic para d ox e s. Words such as
" i m p e r i a l i s m " ," e m a n c i p a t i o n " ," s e l f -
determination" and "liberation" define how
history is scripted, how the future will be
s h a p e d , how contemporary conflicts are
perceived and thus how they may be resolved.
Terrorism is a salient case in point. In the
a b s t ra c t , "terrorism" is a terrible thing;
everybody deplores it; nobody supports it. W h y
then is terrorism such a growth industry?
Because its definition is not agreed. It
depends
where you stand. Terrorism has thus become a
much abused word.
For Donald Rumsfeld, for example, the recent
helicopter attack at Falluja was simply the work
of "terrorists". That statement conceals a
l a r g e r, unpalatable truth. To the oppressed of
the world, the men of violence are, va r i o u s l y,
m i l i t a n t s, f r e e d o m - f i g h t e r s, g u e r r i l l a s,
i n s u r g e n t s, h e r o e s, m a r t y r s. The real
terrorists
belong to the "other side". Yet "state
terrorism" is a concept that is barely
recognised by the ostensible oppressors. W h i c h
brings us back to Bush. By declaring an open-
e n d e d , global "war on terror", Bush invited
every aspiring autocrat to do his worst in the
name of "security" (another much-scandalised
w o r d ) . From Chechnya to Colombia, Pakistan to
the Philippines, the anti-terror "war" has
expanded with Bush’s blessing.
In this loose-lipped, rapid-fire lingo, s u c h
p e o p l e, whether killed or locked up in Bagra m
or Guantanamo or a thousand other hell-holes,
are by definition "evil". H e r e, you might think,
is another trap for the unwa r y, to be
sidestepped by
sensible politicians in the
secular We s t . Not a bit of it. The latest addition
to the modern leader’s essential vocabulary, i s
W M D. This is now a universally understood
t e r m , or so you might think. WMD is
p r o l i f e ra t i n g , i t ’s deeply frightening, and it’s
coming to a cinema near you.
Yet symbolic WMD is also a reason why civil
liberties are everywhere under siege, w h y
military budgets are rising, why the developing
world is not developing, and why your opinion
is ignored. In fact, WMD is a vague term that
can be used to cover a multitude of supposed
s i n s. Developed countries have their own W M D,
of course, but their arsenals are somehow
regarded as acceptable. Not so
the WMD in
developing countries or "rogue states"
(whatever that means). This species of
unauthorised WMD is deemed destabilising.
There are certain words, c o n v e r s e l y, that the
We s t ’s leaders carefully avoid. These include
"resistance" - too encouraging a label for the
"remnants" opposing Ira q ’s emancipators,
especially when used with a capital "R", as in
Fr e n c h . And then there is "occupation".
O c c u p a t i o n , as in Ira q , is a no-go word;
l i b e ration is far prefera b l e. Occupation makes it
sound as if the US has barged uninvited into
somebody else’s country and refuses to go
a wa y. It makes Iraq sound like Pa l e s t i n e, Ti b e t ,
Afghanistan or, heaven forbid, Vi e t n a m . Th a t
really
is careless, ship-sinking talk.
Greater sensitivity in use of language is
required of politicians – and indeed the media.
The urge to suppress arguably loaded words
should as a rule be resisted as inimical to free
expression and better understanding. As every
spin doctor knows, acceptance of "official"
terminology can amount to implicit
endorsement of official policy. But the search
for the right word requires constant awa r e n e s s
of ambiguity and politically and cultura l l y
c h a r g e d , multiple meanings. As ever in human
d i s c o u r s e, there is truth and there is
p r o p a g a n d a . It is important to be able to tell
the difference. Before passing the ammunition,
pass the word.
The Guardian Weekly 2 0 - 1 1 - 0 3 , page 14
F rom ‘civilisation’ to ‘WMD’,
w
o rds are weapons
Simon Tisdall
