When Language Grows Darker And Darker...

[AletheiaRivers]

When language grows darker and darker

By Joan Chittister, OSB

 

From Where I Stand - National Catholic Reporter - Link

 

"Language," John Stuart Mill wrote, "is the light of the mind." Right -- and sometimes it is its darkness, too. This may well be one of those times.

 

USA Today, for instance, carried an innocuous little article this week about Pope Benedict XVI. They did it in one of those tiny sidebar articles that newspapers use to make us all aware either of the depths of the mundane to which we as a species have sunk or to send an ominous first signal of impending but invisible doom.

 

It seems that Pope Benedict, in what has become for popes a regular Sunday public audience, prayed for God to "stop the murderous hands of terrorists." What's more, he made specific reference to the "abhorrent terrorist attacks in Egypt, Britain, Turkey and Iraq."

 

Such bidding prayers may seem innocent enough to the average Catholic. We are, after all, accustomed to the recitation of random and relatively apolitical petitions in the midst of public prayer.

 

To the Israeli ear, however, the prayer was both alarming and insulting. Here was a German pope who had failed -- refused? -- to include in the list of innocents lost in the maelstrom of global bombings Israelis who had also been killed in recent weeks by Palestinian suicide bombers. In fact, so major was the omission in the minds of Israeli officials that the Vatican's envoy to Israel got called in and told so, clearly, firmly and without putting a lot of protocol between the envoy and the message. This pope, Israel said, had "deliberately failed" to include the Jews among the ranks of those murderously targeted.

 

USA Today reports that the pope responded to the diplomatic correction by direct mail within days of the rebuke, explaining that his intention had been simply to draw attention to incidents of more recent -- and, presumably, less constant -- occurrence.

 

Frankly, I sympathized with the pope. I feel certain that the omission was not intentional. This was not a Catholic-Jewish, German-Jewish "thing." In the first place, those days are long gone, and furthermore, everything this pope has done in regard to the Jewish situation in the first three months of this papacy has been both sensitive and immediate. His first invitation and political outreach, in fact, was to the Jewish rabbis and community of Rome, a long-time historical measure of Catholic-Jewish relations.

 

No, the situation is much more complex than that. The question is how to recognize the cast of characters in this world of blurred boundaries and doubtful definitions. Who are we really praying for when we pray these days? Who are we really talking about as we describe the world to one another.

 

<snip>

 

If truth were told, we seldom, if ever, even presume to talk about it very directly. Patriotism, Patriot Acts, Americanism, politics and all those things get in the way, it seems. The very thought of open discussion of the subject of language as obfuscation is enough to get a person called a traitor -- or, worse, these days, it seems -- a liberal.

 

<snip>

 

It is the words and our shifting, sliding, slippery definitions of them that confuse us.

 

The truth is that most thinking people aren't really sure what a terrorist is. And the language just keeps getting messier and messier by the day.

 

What, after all, is the discernible difference between a "terrorist," an "insurgent," a "freedom fighter," an "enemy combatant," and -- the new governmental words for it -- "a global extremist." How would you tell one from the other if they were all coming down the alley at you?

 

I can understand it if you tell me that a terrorist is someone who for no discernible political or public reason at all simply determines to create havoc in a country for the sake of enjoying the chaos that bombs in subway trains will surely cause. But is that what's going on? Have these people really "no discernible reason" beyond some kind of social pathology to explain their actions?

 

I get it if by "insurgent" you mean somebody who rises up to challenge a legitimate government in a stable nation. But is that what is happening in Iraq where one government invaded another "with no discernible reason"? Who is the terrorist, everyone who resists the incursion or those who planned it in the first place?

 

I know that "enemy combatants" are some kind of military personnel who are engaged in military combat for the sake of their legitimate government, in its employ, in the service of that national system, or in fulfillment of their duties as citizens.

 

But when you start distinguishing one from the other of these -- terrorists from insurgents from military personnel -- according to the side they're on, to whether they're on our side or somebody else's side -- I admit to moments of confusion.

 

Is someone who resists invasion or foreign domination on behalf of his country and beyond or outside of legitimate government channels really a "terrorist." And if that's the case, what does that say about the French Underground in World War II or the Minutemen in New England before the signing of the U.S. Constitution?

 

Are insurgents people who simply won't quit when beaten, like the Vietnamese, for instance, who defeated both the French and the United States with citizen armies rather than properly organized armed forces?

 

Why were the mujahideen and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and the guerilla fighters in Latin America "freedom fighters" when they were on our side and terrorists when they were not?

 

Are the suicide bombers in Palestine and the army in Israel opposing military forces, one armed and one not, or is one legitimate and the other a terrorist organization?

 

From where I stand, the language seems to me to be getting darker and darker. But until we know who is who and what is what, how can a pope decide when to put them in the prayers or not? And most of all, how can the world decide to whose cries of real outrage and carnage to listen, which wars are really "just" anymore and which are not, which policies of the high and mighty are either "high" or "mighty"?

Edited August 2, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[AletheiaRivers]

My gut response -

 

There is no way whatsoever that 9-11 or the bombings in London can be construed as "freedom-fighter" acts.

 

I think of terrorism as being defined as a deliberate murderous act against civilians or those not directly involved in war.

 

I'm sure that definition could be picked apart and further nuances could be added to it, but for the nutshell version, I don't think it's too far off.

 

However, it does seem that the term "terrorist" is being tossed about rather randomly nowdays.

 

Any thoughts?

Edited August 2, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[Cynthia]

"There is no way whatsoever that 9-11 or the bombings in London can be construed as "freedom-fighter" acts"

 

 

I'm not sure what I think... honestly. The Teaching Co. class, Great World Religions: Beliefs, Practices and Histories (Version I - put out during the first Gulf War) by John Swanson - American University at Cairo - might disagree. He discussed (again - in 1991) the cultural assault that many Islamic countries feel that the United States (often primarily through corporations) has subjected them to. Calling their culture (based on being pleasing to God) backwards and outdated while insisting that they adopt ours (based on...?!?!) has raised a few backs. I think he could have predicted some type of extreme terror attacks against the Western cultures... justified???? Perhaps more than the current war. .

 

I think that the issue may have something to do with what people acting actually believe and their intentions. Determining that for anyone past your own nose is a trick.

 

I'll be interested to read others' opinions!

[AletheiaRivers]

It is a tricky situation.

 

Yes, the United States government (and many of her citizens) do push Christian and secular culture in countries where it's not only NOT appreciated but is actually seen as an insult.

 

Perhaps the individuals that respond with force towards those doing the direct "pushing" could be construed as "freedom fighters"?

 

But are attacks (suicide or otherwise) against unarmed citizens, usually on foreign soil (ie Italy, USA, England) an appropriate way to send a message of "We don't like you"?

 

Are these attacks really about that? Or are they merely about power, wrapped up nicely in a little "religious and cultural differences" package?

[Cynthia]

"But are attacks (suicide or otherwise) against unarmed citizens, usually on foreign soil (ie Italy, USA, England) an appropriate way to send a message of "We don't like you"?"

 

Clearly not. And, more importantly, since often done in God's name, inconsistent with Islam, Christianity, and judaism.

 

"Are these attacks really about that? Or are they merely about power, wrapped up nicely in a little "religious and cultural differences" package?"

 

I don't know. Haven't heard much explanation from the suicide bombers of any bent . It does seem like an apt description of most of the "legitimate" governments' reactions.

 

As for Christian and secular culture being an "insult", the class I mentioned before indicates that it is vastly more threatening than that. Perhaps more akin to the reaction many conservative fundamentalists here (US) have to Harry Potter, public schools, etc., but with a real threat. A twist on "in the world but not of it", I think. The other thing is.... as uncomfortable as it is to acknowledge.... there is not a lot about our culture that (I think) Jesus would recognize as Christian.

[des]

Well there is no way Osama Bin Laden is a "freedom fighter". Born into affluence, etc. But there may be many of his followers who he has gathered who have been attracted to his cause by their own poverty, despair, etc. Perhaps the Palestinians most fit this model though, and aren't for the most part direct followers of Bin Laden.

 

Still I think the US has been dishonest in portraying this as "these people don't like us for who were are". For sure some of them don't. But the separation of these actions from our policies allow us to not really look at them. I'm not saying in ANY way that our actions justify killing 3000 civilians.

 

Another thing, anybody notice how this has become the war on "terror". Terror is certainly the result of terrorism in many cases, but this is an interesting slip to hype up public perceptions in my opinion.

 

While I am on language, what about the use of the word "hero" to describe every single soldier, firefighter, and lately anybody that does some kind fo law enforcement work (Animal Planet talks about the heros in SPCA.) I have a defintion of hero. When we make everyone a hero in effect the term ends up less meaningful. Then there have to be super heros or something.

 

Just my 2.5¢

 

--des