Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2005 Taken from the

6.
The process of giving rights and freedom to someone is called ____________ .
7.
Unfair and cruel treatment by a powerful person or government is known as ____________ .
8
An ____________ government rules with complete power.
2
Connotation
Decide which of these words have a positive association and which have a negative
association and put them into the corresponding box:
terrorist
uncivilised
freedom-fighter
liberation
occupation
oppressor
militant
martyr
hero
self-determination
rogue states
dark forces
Positive
Negative
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________'>___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________
___________________________

---

© one
stop
english.com 2003 |
This page can be photocopied
.
Words are weapons
Level 2 | 
Intermediate
2
W
hen George Bush, soon after
September 11, referred to a
"crusade" against al-Qaida, h e
helped persuade Muslims that they were
under renewed attack from the Christian
w o r l d . In the context of a possible "conflict
between civilisations", B u s h ’s use of
language was not only insensitive but
extremely reckless.
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". H e
never explains which part of the planet is the
"uncivilised" or "dark" bit. Perhaps he
means Kandahar in Afghanistan or
Eastbourne in England. It is unclear.
Words can define how a people sees itself:
the US declaration of independence is one
obvious example. Modern-day Pa l e s t i n i a n s
also see themselves involved in a struggle
for "independence" and "freedom" from
external oppression. 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 written, how the future will be
s h a p e d . Terrorism is an obvious example. I n
the abstra c t , "terrorism" is a terrible thing;
nobody likes it; nobody supports it. W h y
then is there so much "terrorism"? Because
people cannot agree on its definition. I t
depends where you stand. Terrorism is a
word that is often misused.
For Donald Rumsfeld, for example, the recent
helicopter attack at Falluja was simply the
work of "terrorists". To the oppressed of the
w o r l d ,h o w e v e r, the men of violence are
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 the oppressors
do not recognise. Which brings us back to
B u s h . When Bush declared his global "wa r
on terror", he encouraged autocratic rulers
all over the world to do their worst in the
name of "security". From Chechnya to
C o l o m b i a , Pakistan to the Philippines, t h e
anti-terror "war" has grown with Bush’s
a p p r o va l .
In this carelessly used language, such people,
whether killed or locked up in Bagram or
Guantanamo or a thousand other hell-holes,
are by definition "evil". The latest addition to
p o l i t i c a l - s p e a k , to the modern leader’s
essential vocabulary, is W M D, or weapons of
mass destruction. Everyone has heard of
WMD and they are now a reason why civil
liberties are under attack everywhere, w h y
military budgets are rising, why the
developing world is not developing, and why
your opinion is ignored. Developed countries
have their own W M D, of course, but their
weapons are somehow regarded as
a c c e p t a b l e. WMD in developing countries or
"rogue states" (whatever that means), o n
the other hand, are unacceptable. Th e s e
WMD are regarded as a threat.
There are certain words that the We s t ’s
leaders carefully avoid. These include
" r e s i s t a n c e " , which is too positive a word to
use when describing those people in Ira q
who attack the American forces. And then
there is "occupation". O c c u p a t i o n , as in
I ra q , is a no-go word; l i b e ration is much
b e t t e r. Occupation makes it sound as if the
US has entered somebody else’s country
illegally and refuses to go awa y. It make s
I raq sound like Pa l e s t i n e, Ti b e t ,A f g h a n i s t a n
or even Vi e t n a m . That really is careless talk.
Politicians and the media need to be more
sensitive in their use of language. Th e y
should avoid ambiguity and words with
politically and culturally charged, m u l t i p l e
m e a n i n g s. As ever in human communication,
there is truth and there is propaganda. It is
important to be able to tell the difference.
Before passing the ammunition, pass the
w o r d .
The Guardian Weekly 2 0 - 1 1 - 0 3 , page 14
F rom ‘civilisation’ to ‘WMD’,
words are we a p o n s
Simon Tisdall 

---