Dehumanizing people and Euphemizing war

Language holds the most power when trying to understand and communicate effectiv
ely. A proficient use of language allows people to clearly communicate
an exact idea from one person to another person or group of people. An important
link between language and power is persuasion. The power of persuasion allows
certain individuals to influence and control thousands, even millions of people.
"Words are important. If you want to care for something, you call it a
"flower," if you want to kill something, you call it a "weed." This quote by Don
coyhis is the premise behind the use of language today. In our society,
language is an essential tool and in Haig Bosmajian's article, "Dehumanizing peo
ple and Euphemizing war," he describes the connection between the power of
language and dehumaniztion by explain how the government uses language to manipu
late the polulation's thoughts. By referencing historical events, such
as world war II, the Vietnam war, and cold war, Bosmajian supports his statement
that language has been and can be used to dehumanize people. It can be
clearly seen that Bosmajian's argument that the use of language present in Nazi-
Germany a half century ago are relevant to the united states today.
From politics to advertising, though both may have different motives, one thing
for certain is that the language used can influence our perceptions and
produce preconceived without fully understanding the whole context of a situatio
n.
The influence on our perceptions and thoughts of the dehumanizingly defined, thr
ough the use of metaphors and acronyms, can be seen in our generation.
During the Cold war, which was a period of hostility between Russia and the Unit
ed states. Ronald Reagan used dehumanizing metaphors as more than a figure
of speech, but as words utilized to affect an individual's thoughts and behavior
s. By decribing Russia as an evil empire and communism as cancer, "such
language invites hostility and aggression, not coexistence and compromise"(Bosma
jian). People did not look at the whole context of the situation anymore,
but rather at this bellicose language to help shape their opinions and further b
lurred the reallity of what was going on. Thus, Reagan was able to joke
in "an acceptable way the unacceptable view that millions of human beings ought
to be killed and their nation destroyed" (Bosmajian). In this situation, a
statement that would be considered inhumane is acceptable because of the thought
s instilled in the population through the use of such powerful language.
When people have power, such as elected officials, the population automatically
assumes that whatever authority figures have to say is the truth. In the
late 19th century, when the population of Native Americans decreased from one mi
llion to 250,000 due to the diseases that came with columbus' arrival, the
new mexico supreme court Judges justified the native americans deaths by stating
that they were savages and barbarians, thus instilling the notion that
language influences people's perceptions of those dehumanzing defined. It was es
sential for the governement to use the power of metaphorical language to
dehumanize the "enemy" so that the populace perceptions and point of views of th
e issue are without consciousness.
Even today, the government and television are known for using doublespeak to mak
e things look and sound better then what they really are. Doublespeak is a
form of communication that is constructed to disguise or distort its actual mean
ing. In most instances, doublespeak tries to achive a particular objective,
which can be seen in president Bush's address to the nation on sep 11th, after t
he terrorist attacks. In his speech he mollifies the emotions of a frightened
nation and at the same time sets the tone for what is to come as a result of the
attacks.An example of this is when he is indirectly saying is "Our
way of life, our way very freedom came under attack." Analying these words, they
come across as vague glittering generalities, but what he is indirectly saying
is that everything Americans are accustomed to is at stake. With these simple wo
rds and the tone chosen to deliver them, President Bush is strategically taking
the emotions of the american people for a ride and making sure that they cam tru
st what he has to say. president Bush, further in his speech, then refers to
the terrrorists of the attack as the "Axis of Evil", and thus, instilling this f
eeling into the american population that everything must be done in order to
find and execute these people.
When President Bush asserted to the public that saddam Hussein, the dictator of
Iran, still possessed weapons of mass destruction, also known as nuclear
weapons, and that saddam huessein was still planning to obtain more,the US invad
ed Iraq and overthrew Saddam. However, after further investigation between
2002 and 2003, it was deemed that there was no evidence of actual weapons of mas
s destruction. Because president Bush was trusted by the public and acknowledged
as of the highest authority, people believed what he said regardless of the fact
s.
By using language as a tool, authority figures such as judges, presidents, and r
eligious leaders, obtain more power since language has become institutionalized.
During the Vietnam war, when words such as "pacification", "byproducts", "saniti
zed", and other terms were used to describe destructive actions, the
american population was indifferent to the human beings that were dying in Vietn
am. Acronyms are still another means used to hide the horrors and the weapons of
war. Calling nuclear weapons as ABMs,SLCMs, MIRYs, and other letters of the alph
abet, make these destructive weapons appear to be tolerable. Thus, lanugage
could be used to not only dehumanize the "enemy" but also to disguise and euphem
ize the destructive acts of the government that would otherwise be considered
inhumane.
Not only do the words of authority figures play a role on our perceptions but al
os the media. It can be argued that the media doesn't present the facts and
information as it used to, but has the media really been doing that since the be
gining? Network, filmed in 1976, is a satire of the state of networks and
jouranlism during that time. Diana Christensen, a producer of UBS network, does
everything in her power to make sure that ratings go up, even as far as
featuring a senile man who is recognized as the "mad prophet of the airways" and
having him shot and killed while on air, after his show wasn't producing as
much as viewers used to. The point behind this film is that ratings and money dr
ive everything. Everyone in the broadcast industry recognize this, and so
does most of the public; however, it delves into the reasons why certain program
s do better than others and what the viewing public really wants. According
to the movie, there are three undenialbe characteristics of TV viewers: a love o
f scandal, a taste for anything shocking, and a short attention span. Though
it may not be this extreme, media almost 30 years ago is the same as it has alwa
ys been, driven by ratings.

The news is a prime example where dehumanizing and metaphorical language can lea
ve people ignorant of the situation as a whole and remain focused on the
"enemy" that is targeted and mentioned by the media and the govenment. George Or
well's novel 1984, written of a dystopian futuristic society nearly sixty
years ago, bares resemblance with our society today. One of the themes behind 19
84 was that nonstop propaganda and suppression of information in the media
can control a populace. The media today, tends to exaggerate and present materia
l that will produce reaction and ratings. After 9/11 attacks, it has been
polled that the majority of the population feel most threatened by a terrorist a
ttack, but in reality, the threat of dying due to a peanut allergy is more
plausible. This kind of thought process is due to the fact that the media and t
he government focus on these assertions so that the population is hyped and
more impulsive to taking action against terrorists, as can be seen through the c
onflict still going on in Iraq today.
For people to see through these abstractions, and euphemisms that disguise us fr
om reality, "euphemisms of war must be exposed for what they truly are - words
and phrases that fool us into accepting the unacceptable" (Bosmajian) so that we
will be able to form our own unbiased opinions and thoughts for ourselves.
There is not an exact antidote or cure - all for this situation, but people must
have the initiative to research information and not rely so heavily on what
the media or what the government officials may be saying. A quote by Gerald Mass
ey from the film Zeitgeist, an interesting and controversial conspiracy
theory type documentary, really sums up the dilemma some leaders face. "They mus
t find it difficult... those who have taken authority as the truth, rather
than truth as the authority." Not only do people need to make the initiative, bu
t also politicians and authority figures. They need to effectively communicate
with the public without the metaphors describe the "enemy" as an "axis of evil"
or "microorganism" and acronyms disguising destructive motives, but by presentin
g
the facts and the truth as they truly are. Despite their responsibility, we have
the responsibility to be more aware of a situation, so as to prevent us from
accepting inhumane actions, to be able to make out our own beliefs and opinions,
and to be more conscious of what is really going on in the world around us.