In the essay “From Ancient Greece to Iraq, the Power of Words in Wartime” by Robin Tolmach Lakoff, Lakoff discusses the fact that words are a tool as well when it comes to wars. She talks about the differences between our natural want and ability to kill things, and the mental training soldiers receive to make it easier for them. Lakoff talks about the practice of dehumanizing the “enemy” through nicknames that make us feel superior then our foes, and the repercussions of using this type of language. In the essay by George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”, Orwell talks about the decay of the English language, especially in political writings. He discusses the fact that when it comes to writing, political being the main focus, it’s …show more content…
Orwell states in his essay, “…to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political regeneration,” which means if we want governmental or political change, we must first know what they are telling us through written reports, or speeches, by paying close attention. This is important to pay attention too, especially in times of war, when political parties can be more deceptive. Lakoff mentions thinking critically as well, and its tailored more specifically to in times of war. She paraphrases ethnologist Konrad Lorenz by saying, “…the more clearly we see other members of our own species as individuals, the harder we find it to kill them.” This is a pretty good point, considering most human beings cannot fathom murdering someone. There are exceptions to this, as there are with most things, but for the most part it holds …show more content…
Lakoff approaches the subject, stating that, “The linguistic habits that soldiers are must absorb in order to fight make atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib virtually inevitable.” It is a little strong to say that it is inevitable, but it does raise the point that this type of language does blur the line. If we are training soldiers to see the enemy as non-human, then why are we surprised when they treat the enemy inhumanely? While it is probably safe to say the majority of our soldiers are not distanced enough from reality to commit horrendous acts such as torture, we are opening the gateway for these things to occur. When the issues aren’t so cut and dry, we look to our political leaders to inform us of what really happened. If one doesn’t think critically when given this information, they can easily be fooled into believing something that is either untrue, or only given half of the story. Orwell says that political parties can use words that are “designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable…” It is not a rare occurrence for the government to attempt to sugar coat the information in order to deceive the general public. When something horrible happens during times of war, we either quickly justify it, or we remain uneducated on what is actually happening around
Within his novel The Wars, Timothy Findley, deconstructs the concept of friend and enemy. Jacques Derrida, the founder of deconstruction stated, “Deconstruction takes place, it is an event that does not await the deliberation, consciousness or organization of a subject, or even of modernity. It deconstructs it-self. It can be deconstructed.” (Mapp, 781). Jacques Derrida believed deconstruction happens on its own, and therefore one does not need to consciously deconstruct a text, as it is an unconscious process that one need not deliberate. In the text The Wars, Findley makes the assumption that one’s enemy is their closest friend. Oxford Dictionaries defines the term “enemy”, as a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something. Within a war the concept of friend and enemy is certainly evident; soldiers are deployed from all around the world fighting alongside their country and their allies, this being their “friends”, to ultimately defeat the “enemy”. In the text, the protagonist, Robert Ross and his men are commanded by Captain Leather to set up gun beds close to the German lines. While setting up, Robert Ross and his men are unmasked by the Germans, and after luckily surviving a gas attack, Robert Ross and his men encounter a German sniper sent to watch and kill them, who instead, ended up risking his own life to free them all. “He could have killed them all. Surely that had been his intention. But he’d relented. Why” (Findley, 131)? Robert Ross realizes that the German soldier had a rifle beside him the entire time, which he could of used to kill them all, but did not. As an enemy of Ross and his men, this young German soldier should have, being inimical to these soldiers, shot and killed them as he intended....
Through the manipulation of language, deception and control are facilitated. A clear demonstration is uttered by Syme to Smith: “Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?...Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?” (Orwell 46). The attenuating language represents an additional barrier preventing contradictory thoughts from even existing. With a limited and insufficient language, the complexity of thought is considerably reduced along with a person's aptitude to formulate or express ideas thus preventing threats to the all-powerful government. As a result of the shrinking language, the future will be affected in such a way that “By 2050- earlier, probably- all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed” (Orwell 47). The changing of the language would have serious repercussions in any future, real or fictitious. Without knowledge of a different world, people will know no better than to blindly and obediently follow their strict, totalitarian government, never becoming aware of the power it holds over them. The...
My groups theme is Alliances, and a excerpt from All Quiet on the Western Front that supported our theme for chapter 5 is “ We don't talk much, but I believe we have a more complete communion with one another than even lovers have. We are two men, two minute sparks of life; outside is the night and the circle of death. We sit on the edge of it crouching in danger, the grease drips from our hands, in our hearts we are close to one another…What does he know of me or I of him? formerly we should not have had a single thought in common--now we sit with a goose between us and feel in unison, are so intimate that we do not even speak.”. I believe that this excerpt relates to the theme of alliances because when Paul says “We sit on the edge of it crouching in danger…” it reminds me of how the countries that have formed an alliance always risk losing the war and many resources. Also, when Paul continues to say “What does he know of me
After an analysis of the preliminary speeches Former Senator Robert C. Byrd gave in the early 2000s one may deduce that the senator had the welfare of his fellow Americans in mind as the copious amounts of people around the world might be effected by this war. These speeches are in regard to the grand dilemma that presented itself over a decade ago. This conflict happened to be whether or not we ought to go to war with Iraq. The vein of the initial speech, Rush to War Ignores U.S. Constitution, is cautionary. Byrd is attempting to emblematically pump the breaks on the notion that we have a duty to wage war. In the second speech A Preordained Course of Action on Iraq, Byrd continues to convey his disapprobation as well as recurrently referencing
Aldous Huxley once wrote, “Thanks to words, we have been able to rise above the brutes; and thanks to words, we have often sunk to the level of the demons” (299). The latter seems to be the situation in which we find ourselves today—with language being manipulated in the realms of media and politics, to the ultimate advantage of those doing the manipulating. In 1984, Orwell warns his readers of this very problem using his concepts of Newspeak and doublethink. In Winston’s world, Newspeak is the language that is used in Oceania, and is the only language in the world that is shrinking. By getting
Despite the warnings of Orwell through both his essay and dystopian novel, bad English is still used today, and could be argued to affect more English than it did during Orwell’s life. The consequences are also just as he predicted, those who control the language are able to wield control over the thoughts of others. The usage of poor quality English by media has he effect of making the recipients of news more detached from events and as a consequence, more self-focused. The clumsiness and foolishness imposed by bad English ultimately degrading thought, politics, culture, and society is what Orwell had foretold. This is the English tragedy that is disregarded, modern thoughts of “English” are not of language but of the English Queen.
One of the most essential ways in which feelings are expressed by humans is through language. Without language people are merely robotic figures that can not express their thoughts because language is in fact thought. When this speech is taken away through complete governmental power, a portion of human nature is also taken away. In 1984, due to totalitarianism, language has begun to transform into a poor representation of humanity and natural human expression. Orwell states, “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” In the novel, a new language, Newspeak, has emerged. Newspeak has drastically limited the vocabulary of the English language
In the United States the cold-blooded murder of one citizen to another is considered cruel, psychopathic, and illegal. The thought of murdering a fellow human being is, justifiably, discriminated against and shunned. Since murder is officially condemned wrong what causes one to believe that in the case of war, murder on a large scale, that this happening can be considered acceptable, at some points cheered on even. If murder is not justifiable, then war is not justifiable; but in the case when the lesser evil must dominate the greater evil in order to maintain peace, then this scenario of war may be considered more just than any alternative.
Going to War The arrival of winter is well on its way. Colorful leaves had turned to brown and fallen from the branches of the trees. The sky opened to a new brightness with the disappearance of the leaves. As John drove down the country road, he was much more aware of all his surroundings.
In Kirby Dick’s influential documentary “The Invisible War,” filmmaker Kirby Dick uses pathos, ethos and logos to gain information and supplementary details to make his point that there is an epidemic of rape in throughout the DOD (Department of Defense) and the fact that military sexual trauma (MST) in the United States military goes unheard, mostly unpunished and needs to be addressed at a higher level.
War has always been an essential ingredient in the development of the human race. As a result of the battles fought in ancient times, up until modern warfare, millions of innocent lives have ended as a result of war crimes committed. In the article, “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of Obedience,” Herbert C. Kelman and V.Lee Hamilton shows examples of moral decisions taken by people involved with war-related murders. This article details one of the worse atrocities committed during the Vietnam War in 1968 by the U.S. military: the My Lai Massacre. Through this incident, the question that really calls for psychological analysis is why so many people are willing to formulate , participate in, and condone policies that call for the mass killings of defenseless civilians such as the atrocities committed during the My Lai massacre. What influences these soldiers by applying different psychological theories that have been developed on human behavior.
Two articles, in particular, help clarify and explain this trend. The first is “The Genocidal Killer in the Mirror” by Crispin Sartwell, who explains how so many average people can be turned into hordes of willing and eager killers. In the case of Rwandan, Sartwell notes how the Hutu government ordered the mass-killings of the Tutsis for the “greater good” of it’s people, forcing the people to see the Tutsis as schemers and assassins to prevent personal injury to themselves and their loved ones. The other article, was Erich Fromm’s “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem”, in which Fromm illustrates how many can be forced into becoming an automatized man, who simply does as he is told by his superiors, allowing him to become a killer without conscience. Fromm also discusses the importance of group mentality upon morality, and how when subjects are viewed as a group, they can be demonized and easily passed off as subhuman. Though both Crispin Sartwell’s article “The Genocidal Killer in the Mirror” and Erich Fromm’ piece “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem” are from two vastly different time periods, the Cold War era with its apocalyptic fears and the post- Col...
Birk and Birk explore the many processes that automatically and often unintentionally, take place during the gathering of knowledge and expression through words. In their book Birk and Birk break the usage of words into sections: Selection, Slanting by the use of emphasis, slanting by selection of facts, and slanting by the use of charged words. When words are used this way they reveal naturally occurring bias of the writer. Upon reviewing the selection from Birk and Birk’s book Understanding and Using Language it is clear that the essay written by Jake Jameson has examples of every principal Birk and Birk discuss. The Birk and Birk selection provides us with a set of tools that enable us to detect bias in the many forms that it takes. These tools reveal what Jamieson favors and make plain the bias present in his essay The English-Only movement: Can America Proscribe Language With a Clean Conscience?
e. At first the analogy had the narrow meaning of pointing out the unprovoked annexation of foreign territory: just as Hitler had invaded Czechoslovakia, Saddam had swallowed Kuwait, both transgressions against internationally recognized borders. Quickly, however, even during the first Iraq war, the metaphor came to signify the brutality of the Iraqi regime or, rather, the brutality of the Iraqi regime in its occupation of Kuwait. During the second Gulf war, the use of the metaphor became more emphatic: the brutality of the Iraqi regime to the Iraqi population itself and, especially, to ethnic minorities (e.g., the Kurds, the treatment of whom displayed a genocidal character). Moreover, the nature of the international threat posed by Iraq changed.
The Politician and the soldier have a common goal; to win the war. But there is a difference in their mindsets. The politician, safe behind his desk, has never experienced the fear and terror of being in battle. He has not seen the blood or heard the screams of suffering soldiers. He has not watched his best friend die in his arms after being hit my enemy fire. He is an onlooker, free to analyze and critique every aspect of the war from the safety of his office. He is free and safe to talk of ethics and proper war etiquette. The soldier, immersed in battle, fighting for his life, can think of only one thing. Kill or be killed. When bullets are flying past his face and mortar shells are exploding all around him, he is not mindful of fighting ethically. Nor is he even mindful of fighting for his country. He is fighting for his life. To stay alive, he must kill the enemy, destroy the enemy. The longer the war persists, the more likely he will not go home alive.