American English: The biggest casualty in the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Terry Spencer

Opinion, September 2003, www.aljazeerah.info

American English: The biggest casualty in the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

Terry Spencer

9/5/03

Many a writer has commented on how the biggest casualty in the Afghanistan/Iraq conflict has been language. I agree. It’s interesting just how powerful and persuasive language can actually be. Nothing is more powerful than the spoken word. This is a generally accepted principal. This is why large corporations have large communications departments. The spoken word of a corporation needs to be managed at all times. The same holds true for governments. This is why press conferences and press secretaries exist. One voice must convey the interested of the party that backs it.

So if we know that language is that powerful, what happens when the language ceases to assist in truthful communication? Computer programs rely on specific syntax of programming languages to carry out their tasks. As such society relies on language to carry out its daily endeavors. Take a moment to think about what would entail if all of a sudden, we could not longer communicate due to a meaningless language. How would we as a civilization progress? Reading would be meaningless. Conversations would be pointless. The transfer of knowledge would be stifled. History could not be recorded textually. Public discourse would end. Democracy would ultimately cease to exist.

Interestingly enough this is what seems to be happening in North America. The meaning of certain words has expanded to become non-descriptive generalities. The word “terrorist” is now defined as any person who is objective of the United States. An “anti-Semite” is defined as anyone who is objective of the Jewish or Israeli community. “Conspiracy theorist” is anyone who questions the official line of the current rightwing government in the US.

Then there are bastardized words like “hero” and “patriot” which have become synonymous with “actress” and “someone who tows the party-line”.

Some new words or phrases are used to soften the intended underlying meaning. Such as “friendly fire” which really means “Oops sorry, we killed him by accident”. Or “soft target” which means “we need to blow up your television station because you are broadcasting a message in your own country and in your own language and we do not like that.” Or how about “alleged links to Al-Qaeda” which sometimes can mean, “you have brown skin and have relatives in the middles east or India/Pakistan”. Or it can generally be used to suggest an opponent of the current US administration.

When you say a word over an over again it starts to sound funny. It becomes unique because you can focus on the pronunciation like you never have before. The meaning can sometimes change too based on repetition. To no surprise, this is why the current US campaign against terror uses words like “resolve, Axis of Evil. Iraq, Taliban, Sadaam, terrorism, 911, Coalition of the willing, Rouge states, Security threat, WMD (an acronym everyone now understands).

But what happens when the language that is being twisted turns against the twister? Companies usually go out employing marketing exports and focus groups to ensure that consumers don’t have negative associations with certain words. As such, government officials do road shows (John Ashcroft’s Patriot Act tour) to promote policy. Has the US government thought about the connotations that the following words have around the globe: “CNN, Fox News, and mainstream media”. My understanding is that most of the major networks are slumping in ratings. Yet most independent internet news sites have seen their ratings skyrocket. Is it fair to say that consumers have a negative association with major news networks? Is this why it has become fashionable for these major networks to begin covering the other side of the war? Is this also why it has also become fashionable for certain governments to hire experts who can render certain websites inoperable when they convey stories which d o satisfy the government in question?

As of yesterday it was reported that Colin Powel has approached the UN looking for support from UN members in Iraq. More specifically, he approached the UN on behalf of the US to ask for military help in Iraq. Yet on CNN’s website it stated that the US is “considering” UN assistance among other options. The word “considering” is now being used as a substitute for “asking”. I would also imagine that they are “considering assistance” versus “asking for help”. What should the members of the UN’s Security Council say to this? “Are you asking us for help? Are you recognizing us as a valid institution? Are you interested in working with us?” It’s not obvious from the US government language what they are really saying. In fact Colin Powell stated that he was “looking for language” in a Security Council resolution that would bring in UN assistance to Iraq. So once again, is the US asking the UN’s for help? Or is the US employing language to facilitate the assistance for s ustained stability in their theatre of operations? The US government has rendered its own communication useless.

Lastly, the current US government may also want to consider the global connotations of the following words: "USA, US Army, America, and American". These words may have also changed in meaning for many around the globe. The US may want to ponder what it will take to manage the public perception of these words as it participates in the global community.

Earth, a planet hungry for peace

The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03).

The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03).