|
This page can be photocopiedBog'liq 1,2 - THE GUARDIAN WEEKLY Elementary (2)This page can be photocopied
.
Words are weapons
Level 1 |
Elementary
2
S
ometimes politicians use words that could be dangerous.
Soon after September 11, President Bush spoke about a
"crusade" against al-Qaida. This word has a very
negative meaning for Muslims. It made them think that the
Christian world wanted to attack them. So Bush’s use of
language was very careless.
Now Bush does not use the word "crusade". But he still talks
about the need to defend "civilisation" and "the civilised
world" against "dark forces". He never explains which part of
the world is the "uncivilised" or "dark" bit. Perhaps he means
Kandahar in A f g h a n i s t a n . Or Eastbourne in the south of
E n g l a n d . It is not clear.
Words are important in how a people sees itself: the US
d e c l a ration of independence is one example. M o d e r n - d a y
Palestinians also see themselves in a battle for
"independence" and "freedom". Words like "imperialism"
and "liberation" influence the way people write history. Th e
word "terrorism" is a good example. In genera l , "terrorism" is
a terrible thing; everybody hates it; nobody likes it. Why then
is there so much "terrorism"? Because people cannot agree
what the word means. It depends on their point of view.
Terrorism is a word that people often use incorrectly.
For the US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, f o r
e x a m p l e, the recent helicopter attack at Falluja in Iraq was the
work of "terrorists". To the people on the other side, h o w e v e r,
the men who attacked the helicopter are freedom-fighters,
heroes or martyrs. The real terrorists always belong to the
"other side".
When Bush declared his world "war on terror", a u t o c ra t i c
rulers all over the world began to do terrible things in the
name of "security". From Chechnya to Colombia, Pakistan to
the Philippines, the anti-terror "war" grows every day. It is
difficult to believe that there are so many terrorists.
With this careless use of language, prisoners locked up in
places like Guantanamo Bay are, of course, " e v i l " . The latest
word in this political language is W M D, or weapons of mass
d e s t r u c t i o n . Everyone has heard of WMD and they are now
the reason why there is an attack on civil liberties everywhere.
They are the reason why military spending is rising, why the
developing world is not developing, and why politicians don’t
listen to public opinion. Rich countries have their own W M D,
of course, but their weapons are somehow "OK". WMD in
developing countries or "rogue states" on the other hand, a r e
not OK. These WMD are dangerous.
There are some words, on the other hand, that We s t e r n
leaders do not use. These include "resistance" and
" o c c u p a t i o n " . Resistance is a positive word and they do not
use it to talk about the people in Iraq who attack A m e r i c a n
f o r c e s. Also they do not use the word "occupation" when
they talk about Ira q ; they prefer the word "libera t i o n " .
"Occupation" sounds illegal. It makes Iraq sound like
Pa l e s t i n e, Ti b e t , Afghanistan or even Vi e t n a m . That really is
careless talk.
Politicians and the media need to be more careful in their use
of language. They should not use words that have a strong
political or cultural meaning or words which have unclear
m e a n i n g s. Sometimes it is difficult to know what is truth and
what is propaganda.
The Guardian Weekly 2 0 - 1 1 - 0 3 , page 14
F rom ‘civilisation’ to ‘WMD’,
w o rds are weapons
Simon Tisdall
|
| |
