Terrorists, Dissidents and Writers: Why Language Matters

03/24/09  Print This Post Print This Post    No Comments   Popular   Written by Eva Holland
    Share

Over in Slate, in a piece titled Terrorists, Dissidents and Copy Editors, Christopher Hitchens tracks the shifting language used by journalists to describe the perpetrators of violence in both Iraq and Northern Ireland.

Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia (AQM), he notes, is now being referred to simply as a “a largely homegrown terrorist group,” when it was once known as “a largely homegrown terrorist group that American intelligence says is foreign-led.”

There is some debate as to whether AQM is a spontaneous local response to the American occupation, or a more calculated, opportunistic group with ties to Al-Qaeda proper — and, as Hitch writes, “at least this ponderous formulation expressed the ambiguity.”

Dropping that ambiguity, he argues, lends the group greater legitimacy.

Similarly, the perpetrators of the recent attacks in Northern Ireland, splinter groups of the IRA who refuse to participate in the peace process, are now being referred to as “dissidents” — a term which, Hitch writes, “describes only attitudes and not actions, and it is most famously associated with the intellectual opposition to Soviet totalitarianism.”

He goes on: “Plainly, something has been lost when such a historic term of honor and respect is loosely applied to homicidal thugs who shoot a Catholic policeman in the head and use pizza delivery workers as human shields.”

…If you want a quick definition of euphemism, this would do: It consists of inventing nice terms for nasty things (perhaps to make them seem less nasty) and soft words for frightening things (perhaps to make them seem less scary). We should have learned by now that this form of dishonesty is also a form of cowardice, by which some of the enemy’s work is done for him.

Fine points, all, and I’m glad to see someone is carrying on Orwell’s mission to monitor the use of language, and its enormous consequences.

But I’d be a lot more convinced that Hitchens really means what he says, if he didn’t refer to the US-led invasion of Iraq as “the coalition intervention” throughout the article.

What was that about “inventing nice terms for nasty things,” again?

Photo by ItzaFineDay (Creative Commons)


    Share

About the Author

Matador ID: deva

Eva Holland is a contributing editor to the Matador Network. She recently celebrated the one-year anniversary of quitting her day job to write and travel full time.

Leave a Comment

Get Matador in your inbox and around the web.

Sign up for our FREE weekly newsletter.


View full list of RSS feeds

Jump To Category:



Explore the Community



Popular Stories on Matador

10 Drink Recipes You Can Light On Fire

Put a shallow layer of 151-proof rum on top. Light the ... 

How to Read Your Writing Out Loud

JoshyWashington says: stop dreading reading your writin... 

The Importance of 'Quiet Time' During Travel

Experiencing the bustle of a new place is one of the bi... 

Witnessing The Divine In The Darkness

From the Yogis to the Romantics, many have sought to li... 

Find Solitude & Rejuvenation In Life's Best Moments

Finding quiet time on the road can often as easy as get... 

Brand Obama: Organizing T-Shirts for America

Barack Obama may have Health Care Reform Bill t-shirts,... 

Notes on Remembering Distances Traveled

How do you remember the distances traveled?... 

Body Image and Culture: My Watermelon Butt

Different cultures have different ideas of what constit... 

5 Things You Can Do to Help Free the Hikers

Help free Matador contributor Sarah Shourd from an Iran... 

5 Intense Wilderness Rescue Stories

Flooded caves, helicopter crashes, and armed rebels cou... 



Focus





Editor Blogs