Why "insurgents"?
I've been wondering lately why the media now consistently call the bad guys in Iraq "insurgents", so I had to look it up.
Now, I admit that I didn't know the meaning and had assumed it meant bad guys coming from another place, such as over the border. By way of defence, I must plead, your honour, that it sort of suggests people 'surging in'.
Before I looked it up I was discussing it with Baz le Tuff and we were in agreement that the journalists, even from the fairly progressive Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), never call them anything but 'insurgents' these days. Certainly never 'freedom fighters'. You won't hear any reporter calling these bad guys 'blokes defending their block against an invading army' (by 'bad guys' I mean the scruffy, bearded ones getting mowed down in vast numbers by weapons as big as houses to the applause of US soldiers). Baz and I both prettty much theorised that all these 'embedded har har' 'reporters har har' are coached by Army PR on what to call cannon fodder.
Fortunately, Baz le Tuff took some time out of his very busy schedule (he's putting on a wombat rodeo for crippled kiddies with suspected tropical horticulture aptitude) to assign his personal secretary, Mister Hister, the task of finding out why all this is so.
Mr Hister found this and this.
The first link says, inter alia, "The assault on Fallujah is intended to eliminate 'insurgents' from one of the most important centers of opposition in Iraq and is therefore a significant moment in the struggle to control the country. The term 'insurgent' has become the accepted way for both hawks and doves to refer to armed opposition in Iraq and is now used as if its meaning were unproblematic. The most recent studies, for example, assume a common understanding of the word and concentrate instead on strategic, battleground matters. Yet the term is far from being transparent and is also loaded with political claims. To investigate it is to consider the nature of the enemy. This is, self-evidently, an important exercise: we cannot claim to comprehend the world unless we can be sure that we are describing it in the most appropriate language. Ill-fitting descriptions may have far-reaching consequences for public understanding and formal policy-making."
The second one (from the Seattle Post) says, beneath the heading
Resist biased words: The fighters are not 'insurgents'
"On Nov. 3, 2003, the staff at the Los Angeles Times received a memo from an editor forbidding the use of the term 'resistance fighters' to describe those resisting the American military occupation of Iraq. The term 'romanticizes the work and goals of those killing GI's,' the memo said, according to the Web site L.A. Observed.
"In a subsequent interview with Dan Whitcomb of Reuters, Melissa McCoy, the editor who issued the memo, claimed that the term evoked images of the French Resistance in World War II and of the Jews fighting the Nazis in the Warsaw ghetto.
"McCoy then said that the decision to ban the term had been made by top editorial staff and was not a result of readers' complaints, Whitcomb reports in the same Nov. 5, 2003 article. In fact, she was not aware of any reader complaints about the Times' use of the term prior to the decision to ban it.
"Lately, 'insurgent' has been the media's noun of choice to describe those resisting the American occupation of Iraq. While it appears relatively infrequently in the international media, it is a favorite of National Public Radio, CNN and Fox News.
"They especially like using the term when it is unknown who in particular actually carried out an attack.
"Everyone who attacks American forces, whether former military or Baath party loyalists, Iraqi or outsider, is labeled 'insurgent.' This sets American interests as the norm and implies all non-American interests are the same.
"More importantly, the term 'insurgent' ascribes legitimacy to one side of a conflict. This is why American military leaders in the Spanish-American War, America's first war of conquest and occupation, preferred the Spanish term 'insurrectos' to describe the indigenous Filipino resistance.
"The Oxford American English Dictionary defines 'insurgent' as 'a person who rises in revolt against civil authority or a recognized government.'
"Biases and inaccuracies abound when this term is used to describe the situation in Iraq. It is clearly a matter of perspective whether or not the American occupation constitutes a 'civil authority' or a 'recognized government.' Many Iraqis and internationals certainly do not believe it does.
"In fact, whether the American occupation amounts to a recognized government is a hotly debated, politically charged question. It is easy to deduce which perspective is favored when a party is branded 'insurgent.'
"Then there is the fact that Americans really only occupy some areas in Iraq. We know from recent reports of violence and death that American forces have failed to control Falluja, a city west of the capital Baghdad. The Marine and Army divisions surrounding Falluja do not constitute a civil authority or government, so how can someone fighting them be an insurgent?
"The answer is that such a person is not an insurgent, he is a resistance fighter."
Well spotted, Mr Hister, and thank you, Baz 'Venceremos!' le Tuff.
I've been wondering lately why the media now consistently call the bad guys in Iraq "insurgents", so I had to look it up.
[n] a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment
[n] a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)
[adj] in opposition to a civil authority or government
Source:
HyperDictionary
Now, I admit that I didn't know the meaning and had assumed it meant bad guys coming from another place, such as over the border. By way of defence, I must plead, your honour, that it sort of suggests people 'surging in'.
Before I looked it up I was discussing it with Baz le Tuff and we were in agreement that the journalists, even from the fairly progressive Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), never call them anything but 'insurgents' these days. Certainly never 'freedom fighters'. You won't hear any reporter calling these bad guys 'blokes defending their block against an invading army' (by 'bad guys' I mean the scruffy, bearded ones getting mowed down in vast numbers by weapons as big as houses to the applause of US soldiers). Baz and I both prettty much theorised that all these 'embedded har har' 'reporters har har' are coached by Army PR on what to call cannon fodder.
Fortunately, Baz le Tuff took some time out of his very busy schedule (he's putting on a wombat rodeo for crippled kiddies with suspected tropical horticulture aptitude) to assign his personal secretary, Mister Hister, the task of finding out why all this is so.
Mr Hister found this and this.
The first link says, inter alia, "The assault on Fallujah is intended to eliminate 'insurgents' from one of the most important centers of opposition in Iraq and is therefore a significant moment in the struggle to control the country. The term 'insurgent' has become the accepted way for both hawks and doves to refer to armed opposition in Iraq and is now used as if its meaning were unproblematic. The most recent studies, for example, assume a common understanding of the word and concentrate instead on strategic, battleground matters. Yet the term is far from being transparent and is also loaded with political claims. To investigate it is to consider the nature of the enemy. This is, self-evidently, an important exercise: we cannot claim to comprehend the world unless we can be sure that we are describing it in the most appropriate language. Ill-fitting descriptions may have far-reaching consequences for public understanding and formal policy-making."
The second one (from the Seattle Post) says, beneath the heading
Resist biased words: The fighters are not 'insurgents'
"On Nov. 3, 2003, the staff at the Los Angeles Times received a memo from an editor forbidding the use of the term 'resistance fighters' to describe those resisting the American military occupation of Iraq. The term 'romanticizes the work and goals of those killing GI's,' the memo said, according to the Web site L.A. Observed.
"In a subsequent interview with Dan Whitcomb of Reuters, Melissa McCoy, the editor who issued the memo, claimed that the term evoked images of the French Resistance in World War II and of the Jews fighting the Nazis in the Warsaw ghetto.
"McCoy then said that the decision to ban the term had been made by top editorial staff and was not a result of readers' complaints, Whitcomb reports in the same Nov. 5, 2003 article. In fact, she was not aware of any reader complaints about the Times' use of the term prior to the decision to ban it.
"Lately, 'insurgent' has been the media's noun of choice to describe those resisting the American occupation of Iraq. While it appears relatively infrequently in the international media, it is a favorite of National Public Radio, CNN and Fox News.
"They especially like using the term when it is unknown who in particular actually carried out an attack.
"Everyone who attacks American forces, whether former military or Baath party loyalists, Iraqi or outsider, is labeled 'insurgent.' This sets American interests as the norm and implies all non-American interests are the same.
"More importantly, the term 'insurgent' ascribes legitimacy to one side of a conflict. This is why American military leaders in the Spanish-American War, America's first war of conquest and occupation, preferred the Spanish term 'insurrectos' to describe the indigenous Filipino resistance.
"The Oxford American English Dictionary defines 'insurgent' as 'a person who rises in revolt against civil authority or a recognized government.'
"Biases and inaccuracies abound when this term is used to describe the situation in Iraq. It is clearly a matter of perspective whether or not the American occupation constitutes a 'civil authority' or a 'recognized government.' Many Iraqis and internationals certainly do not believe it does.
"In fact, whether the American occupation amounts to a recognized government is a hotly debated, politically charged question. It is easy to deduce which perspective is favored when a party is branded 'insurgent.'
"Then there is the fact that Americans really only occupy some areas in Iraq. We know from recent reports of violence and death that American forces have failed to control Falluja, a city west of the capital Baghdad. The Marine and Army divisions surrounding Falluja do not constitute a civil authority or government, so how can someone fighting them be an insurgent?
"The answer is that such a person is not an insurgent, he is a resistance fighter."
Well spotted, Mr Hister, and thank you, Baz 'Venceremos!' le Tuff.
Pip Wilson posted item above at 5:56 PM | Permalink
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home