October 13, 2023 • 26 mins
Professor David Vine, Professor of Anthropology at American University, is one of the authors of
www.wordsaboutwar.org. The “Words about War Matter" language guide aims to change how people discuss war to discard sanitized language that so often enables state violence. The goal is to help people write and talk about war and foreign policy more accurately, more honestly, and in ways that clearly expose the realities of war.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/facepalm-america--5189985/support.
www.wordsaboutwar.org. The “Words about War Matter" language guide aims to change how people discuss war to discard sanitized language that so often enables state violence. The goal is to help people write and talk about war and foreign policy more accurately, more honestly, and in ways that clearly expose the realities of war.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/facepalm-america--5189985/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:11):
Facebalm America, I'm be Wolf Rocklin. Facepalmamerica dot com is where you can
get more information about the show.I've always been fascinated with language from a
very early age, and language isused in a very particular way around issues
(00:31):
of war and death and injury thatcomes as a result of war. The
United States in particular seems to enjoyengaging in conflicts, in deadly conflicts,
(00:52):
ones that cause death and harm tomany people around the globe, but they
don't particularly like hearing about what thespecific consequences of those actions are in terms
of death, in terms of injury, in terms of mutilation, and so
(01:18):
it has constructed a language that hasbeen adopted by many other places, many
other countries around the world, thatprotects us, protects our sensitivities around issues
of death and injury. The onethat comes to the top of my mind
(01:40):
is collateral damage, which basically meansthat you killed some civilians. And I
think that we have to be moreopen and more honest about words like that
that we hear in the and wehear in news reports, because to such
(02:05):
a great extent they have just becomea regular thing. They formed the normal
everyday background to the way that wespeak, and I think that's very disturbing.
Fortunately for us, there has comeabout a webpage that you can go
(02:25):
to and an associated sort of bookcollection of terms called words about War,
and you can find that at wordsabout war dot org. And professor David
Vine, who we have had onthis show before, who is a professor
of anthropology at American University in Washington, d C. Is one of the
(02:50):
key writers of this David Vine,Welcome back to face, Paulmerica. Thank
you so much for being here.Bay Well, thank you so much for
having me. It's really a pleasure, and so glad you're paying such close
attention to language in ways that alltoo many people aren't. It's kind of
I read nineteen eighty four, asmany high schoolers did, and an Animal
(03:15):
Farm, and you know, lookedat the ways in which, you know,
very powerful regimes manipulate language to theirown ends. And I had at
one point a politically incorrect dictionary thathad a section in it that was dedicated
(03:38):
specifically to military terms. I nolonger have that, but I wish I
did. But it seems like ina way, in a more practical and
serious way, you have resurrected this, and I wonder what was it that
caused you to get to the pointthat you realized there was a need to
(04:02):
compile all of these terms in oneplace. There were a number of us,
and I should really emphasize that thisis a group project of involving academics
and activists, people who work inthink tanks, some journalists, among many
others, of veterans among them.Actually, and many of us were concerned
(04:28):
about much as you have been concernedabout the way that war and foreign policy
are talked about in the United Statesin particular and around the world, but
especially in the United States, theway in which so often war and matters
of foreign policy are talked about ina kind of dehumanized way, in a
(04:49):
way that doesn't call attention to thedeadly human impacts of war. And this
for a country, indeed, theUnited States, that has such a long,
long, long track record of wargetting to independence, more than one
hundred and thirty five countries, nations, and peoples that the United States has
(05:11):
fought wars with and virtually every it'sa long list when you think about it.
I mean, you talk about thenumber of words that we use to
obfuscate war and death. And yetjust a list of countries that we've been
at war with its pretty big.It is it is you know, well,
that provides something of the background ofwhat motivated us to want to call
(05:34):
upon people involved in any discussions ofwar and foreign policy. So we're talking
you know, journalists, of course, but regular members of the public as
well as people who I think areoften the source of much of this obfus
skating language, this language that hidesand disguise disguises what's really going on.
(05:56):
That is a group of elites inCongress and outside of Congress, and what's
called the foreign policy blob, thegroup of elites that so often dominate foreign
policy and decisions about going to war. We very much wanted to change the
status quo when it comes to thelanguage that is used and encourage and with
(06:19):
folks who are in those elite communities, pressure them to use language again that
is that is honest, that istransparent, that describes what is actually going
on in the world, and especiallywhen it comes to an activity that is
war, that has such deadly effects. Now the current war and on Gaza
(06:45):
is sadly another example of where wehave to pay very close attention to the
kind of language that's being used andwhat it enables. I think some of
the most common language that one seascirculating in the US and European global press
is language of Hamas's barbaric, socalled barbaric attacks, language of barbarism,
(07:12):
of savagery. Us excuse me.Israeli officials have talked about Hamas in terms
of animals, and of course thisis the kind of dehumanizing language that George
Orwell was pointing to and trying tochange in his day, Right, Yeah,
I mean, ultimately, is oneform of death and destruction and dismemberment
(07:38):
fundamentally any more or less barbaric thananother. Well indeed, and while the
Hamas's attacks on Israelis were spectacular inbeing so visible, the kinds of deaths
now being visited upon Palestinians in Gaza, the destruction of entire higher rise buildings,
(08:00):
entire blocks, entire neighborhoods with missilesand bombs. I think one need
only think for a moment what highpowered missile does to a human body.
And I think, you know,the language of barbarism should not be reserved
(08:22):
for just the kinds of acts thatthat are that Hamas committed the crimes,
not to mention the fact that theword barbarism and savagery have certainly, you
know, especially during the last coupleof decades, you know, post nine
(08:43):
to eleven, when when referring topeople of the Middle East, particularly of
Arab origin, carry a very strongweight of cultural racism to do it as
well. Yeah, I know,I'm glad you pointed that out. This
is language, the language of barbarismand savagery of animals, is language that
(09:05):
dates really to the nineteenth century infueling racism and ideas about race and racial
difference in ways that since the nineteenthcentury have made it easier for the powerful
to kill the racialized. And indeedthis language is now only fuelling Islamophobia,
anti Palestinian sentiment, and is languagethat should be discarded entirely people. As
(09:35):
our guide calls for, whether it'sin a context of US led wars or
wars in Gaza that the US isclearly implicated in, it's important to describe
the acts committed similar to the languageof terrorism. Terrorism has long been a
virtually useless term so to terrorists,because it's a term that just gets applied
(10:00):
by anyone to any person or groupor individuals they don't like, and thus
makes it easier to target them forattack and death. And that, of
course is also the language that iscirculating when it comes to Hamas's attacks that
work. Clearly, these are militaryattacks on civilians that should be condemned,
(10:24):
but the language of terrorism is simplynot useful and has not been useful for
decades. Again, as our guideshows, there are numerous more accurate,
more honest alternatives that we propose,and that's one of the things that I
really like about this guide is thefact that you not only identify these euphemisms,
(10:50):
but you define them and you providealternatives that can be practically used and
employed, not just by casual consumersand activists, but by actual reporters and
members of the media to employ sothat we can better represent and understand what
(11:15):
is really going on precisely. Preciselyso in the case of terrorism or terrorists,
we can talk about militants rather thanterrorists. In the case of terrorism,
acts of mass violence, attacks oncivilians, perhaps the phrase terror attacks.
(11:35):
But again one sees in the caseof the war and Godzip, But
the same was true in the USled wars after the attacks of nine to
eleven, the US Wars, andAfghanistan and Iraq, and far beyond the
acts of governments that so clearly terrorizepeople, the kind of you know,
(12:00):
fear that people in Gaza must currentlybe suffering, those who've been ordered by
the Israeli military to leave their homesone point one million people. How can
one describe anything that is anything otherthan a kind of terrorizing. So the
problem often is that the language isused inconsistently. And our guide, and
(12:24):
again the website you mentioned, wordsabout warmatter dot org calls on people to
discard the most troubling and most euphemistic, most Orwellian language instead to adopt language
that is more honest, more descriptive. It's not a radical shift we're asking
(12:48):
for. We're just asking people todescribe what is happening, especially what is
happening to human beings. And itgoes even deeper than just a desire to
avoid talking about death and destruction tosome more fundamental concepts. I mean,
(13:09):
if you think about it, andyou allude to this, I think in
in your guide words about warmatter dotorg, even the Department of Defense itself
is in its name is a euphemism. It didn't used to be the Department
of Defense used to be the WarDepartment, and for for most of the
(13:31):
history of the United States. Somany of the terms that you're talking about
just go towards warping reality because becauseif you repeat that Department of Defense,
d D, Department of Defense overand over again, you get to think
in your head, well, yeah, okay, I guess this is for
defense. It's it's not just forit's it's not about like going out and
(13:52):
killing people around the world, whichwhich it primarily is. It's a it's
it's about defending the homeland or whateverthat concept happens to me. The concept
of a homeland is I don't knowthat if that's one on your list,
but it certainly deserves to be inmy opinion. Yeah, the Department of
Homeland Security does indeed provide another painfuland unhelpful example. But indeed, the
(14:20):
language of defense is one of thoseexamples that most bothers me, and it
is most troubling. It really shouldbe the offense Department if you think about
it. Well, Indeed, thetrack record shows that the agency that has
been so named that was more honestlynamed the Department of War. The War
Department has a long track record oflaunching offensive wars. Calling it the defense
(14:48):
Department is a kind of pr Itis exactly what Orwell was warning about and
writing about. And it goes beyondjust the agency. It also goes to
when members the me refer to defensecontractors or defense manufacturers, when what they're
talking about our arms manufacturers or warcontractors or you know, war war profit
(15:11):
heres not defense profiteers. You know, I mean, call something what it
actually is. I mean that that'sthat's the bottom line. But so much
of this is is designed to reshapethe way that we the way that we
think about it because because language doesshape the thoughts that we have in our
head, and it prompts images ofcertain things. And if we're not forthright
(15:35):
about what we we name things,then we're constantly off kilter. I mean,
it's it's like looking looking at awarped mirror and we don't we're not
really able to to get at thetrue shape of things, and so and
so we're always uh miss misstepping andand and off balance. And I I
(16:00):
think that is a big problem inour modern era and you've really done an
excellent job to to put your yourfinger on it. And they're they're just
they're just so many excellent examples thatyou put on it, like things that
I take for granted, like theword casualty, I mean even in historical,
(16:22):
uh terms, And that goes backquite a way. That's that means
that someone who's been killed or wounded, the number of people who have been
killed or wounded. When you saycasual, I mean it comes off frankly
casually, which which we and weshould not be casual about war and death
and destruction. It's it's not acasual endeavor. It's a serious and and
(16:44):
horrific endeavor, and and when wehave to enter into it, it should
be given the the the gravity thatit deserves. And these these euphemisms take
that away. And I'm so gladthat you are clarifying this because of that,
Well, thank you for saying that. I think you indeed have to
(17:07):
use an overused phrase, hit thenail on the head. That language matters,
and that's why we call it.Words about war matter. This is
not just a matter of political correctnessor pritifying or academic nerdiness or you know,
This matters because words in the languagewe use change exactly as you described,
(17:33):
how we think, how we seethe world, how we understand the
world, how we decide what ispossible and what is not possible. And
of course there are some people whohave more power over the decisions of nations
like the United States and it's militarythan others. But we think that if
we can encourage people to talk aboutwar and foreign policy and again more honest,
(17:56):
more direct, more transparent, uneuphemistic, non dehumanized ways, that
it can be a small part ofchanging US foreign policy in particular, and
the US government's propensity to wage wars. Even describing this is another example that
(18:18):
we discuss in the guide, andthat that comes up so frequently in the
media just describing the United States orany nations as a single, homogeneous whole.
The United States invaded Iraq, theUnited States invaded Afghanistan. That is
just simply not so. All.Everyone in the United States did not get
picked up and invade Iraq or Afghanistan. The George W. Bush administration made
(18:42):
a decision to deploy the US militaryto invade in other parts of the Pentagon
establishment, and the military of theUnited States into Afghanistan and Iraq, and
this can hopefully provides another example ofthe way in which being more specific,
more precise, more accurate in ourlanguage choices can help us better understand what's
(19:07):
going on in the world. Yeah, you know something else that you've done
here. I really appreciate about yourapproach you have under the section in the
short version of your guide under moreguidance share alternatives gently, And I think
that's important. You say, shamingpeople's language is unhelpful, Explain, discuss
(19:30):
share the guide as a resource,invite conversations about how words shape how we
perceive the world and thus war andforeign policy. And I think, particularly
given the sort of narrow bandwidth thatmuch of this conversation takes place on social
media with, that's particularly important becauseit is so easy to flare up a
(19:53):
confrontational discussion about this, and frankly, many of these words have been so
thoroughly inculcated into the American English languagethat people personalize them and take offense,
at least at first, often ifyou try to take them away from them
(20:15):
and point out that there are areare better alternatives. So I appreciate that
you've taken that into consideration, becauseif you just if you just come at
it angrily and without understanding and withoutsympathy, then you are less likely to
have success. That's exactly right.And people use language not because they're bad
(20:41):
people who use the kinds of languagethat we're trying to change, not because
they're bad people or but because itis so much a part of the society
in which we live and the discoursesand narratives we read and hear all the
time. People are just using thelanguage that is available to them. So
we really do encourage people, asyou said, to ask people to reconsider
(21:04):
the language, use gently and politely, and to use language actually as a
chance to open up a conversation aboutwar and foreign policy and how we see
the world, what other consequences whenwe talk about collateral damage rather than talking
honestly about civilian deaths. And indeed, again that's something that we civilian deaths
(21:30):
we are seeing every day in fartoo many contexts. So yeah, I
would just echo what you said abouttrying to encourage people to rethink their language
choices. We encourage people to useour Language guide as a resource to point
(21:52):
people to the guide and to theto the website words about war dot org,
words about war dot org, andhope that our guide and the website
indeed it opens up not just aconversation about language and words, but a
conversation about the US foreign policy andwars, the long history of wars that
(22:18):
the United States government has waged,and in the hopes of ending that pattern
at least here I'm speaking for myself, right, And this is constantly evolving,
as language does, and you're opento receiving tips and new inputs from
(22:41):
people as new terms evolve, correctexactly. The website words about war dot
org offers a chance for people tosubmit suggestions of their own for revisions of
the guide, and we also arelikely to have an online version that we'll
be able to update more and morerapidly than the print version. But we
(23:06):
absolutely encourage people to submit suggestions oftheir own, things that we may have
omitted, or to encourage us torethink suggestions we've made, because again,
this is a conversation we want toopen up, and ultimately we do hope
to change the language that one seesall around us in the media and among
(23:29):
politicians, and so that we candiscuss this what you know, what matter
could be more important than matters ofwar and peace and the death and injury
and destruction that war reeks. Well, thank you so much, Professor David
Vine. Again it's words about warmatterdot org. And I really appreciate you
(23:55):
having been a part of this andeveryone who had participated in this, and
I wish you the best of luck, because we need to mean what we
say. We need to know thatwe're talking about, especially when it comes
to things that are deadly and destructive, and we need to be able to
(24:18):
make decisions about whether we get involvedin such things with a clear knowledge of
what it really is that we're gettinginto. And I think for a long
time we haven't had a very clearidea, and thank you for helping to
make that process better. Thank you, Thank you above all a clear idea
(24:41):
of the impacts of the choices thatour leaders are making when they decide to
wage war or support wars. Sothank you for again calling attention to the
guide and calling all our attention tothis language. And always a pleasure to
talk to you. I'm able.This is face Palm America, and we'll
(25:02):
be back in a moment to tellyou about an upcoming episode of Faceball.
America, Stay tuned Face Paul America. I'm Beowulf Rockland. I want to
let you know that on an upcomingepisode, we are going to be talking
(25:26):
as we do on Mondays, toJohn Rothman. He is the host of
Around the Political World with John Rothman. We'll be talking about the very strange
conflict over who will be the nextSpeaker of the House of Representatives, the
(25:48):
current state of the Republican Party,and the twenty twenty four election. And
I hope you can join us becauseit's going to be fascinating. He's a
really smart guy and he will giveus insight into those matters and many more.
I'd like to ask you to sharethis episode on your social media.
(26:10):
It's usually easy. You can dothe little share button on whatever device you're
on, and usually that will allowyou pretty easily to put it out there
on Facebook, on Twitter, onwhatever social media platform you favor. I
want to thank Ace Elson and RosabelHine, who are the producers of this
program, and remind you also thatif you would like to call or message
(26:34):
us anytime, you could do soat two zero two six five six six
two seven to one, and untilnext time, enjoy the day.
Facebalm America, I'm be Wolf Rocklin. Facepalmamerica dot com is where you can
get more information about the show.I've always been fascinated with language from a
very early age, and language isused in a very particular way around issues
(00:31):
of war and death and injury thatcomes as a result of war. The
United States in particular seems to enjoyengaging in conflicts, in deadly conflicts,
(00:52):
ones that cause death and harm tomany people around the globe, but they
don't particularly like hearing about what thespecific consequences of those actions are in terms
of death, in terms of injury, in terms of mutilation, and so
(01:18):
it has constructed a language that hasbeen adopted by many other places, many
other countries around the world, thatprotects us, protects our sensitivities around issues
of death and injury. The onethat comes to the top of my mind
(01:40):
is collateral damage, which basically meansthat you killed some civilians. And I
think that we have to be moreopen and more honest about words like that
that we hear in the and wehear in news reports, because to such
(02:05):
a great extent they have just becomea regular thing. They formed the normal
everyday background to the way that wespeak, and I think that's very disturbing.
Fortunately for us, there has comeabout a webpage that you can go
(02:25):
to and an associated sort of bookcollection of terms called words about War,
and you can find that at wordsabout war dot org. And professor David
Vine, who we have had onthis show before, who is a professor
of anthropology at American University in Washington, d C. Is one of the
(02:50):
key writers of this David Vine,Welcome back to face, Paulmerica. Thank
you so much for being here.Bay Well, thank you so much for
having me. It's really a pleasure, and so glad you're paying such close
attention to language in ways that alltoo many people aren't. It's kind of
I read nineteen eighty four, asmany high schoolers did, and an Animal
(03:15):
Farm, and you know, lookedat the ways in which, you know,
very powerful regimes manipulate language to theirown ends. And I had at
one point a politically incorrect dictionary thathad a section in it that was dedicated
(03:38):
specifically to military terms. I nolonger have that, but I wish I
did. But it seems like ina way, in a more practical and
serious way, you have resurrected this, and I wonder what was it that
caused you to get to the pointthat you realized there was a need to
(04:02):
compile all of these terms in oneplace. There were a number of us,
and I should really emphasize that thisis a group project of involving academics
and activists, people who work inthink tanks, some journalists, among many
others, of veterans among them.Actually, and many of us were concerned
(04:28):
about much as you have been concernedabout the way that war and foreign policy
are talked about in the United Statesin particular and around the world, but
especially in the United States, theway in which so often war and matters
of foreign policy are talked about ina kind of dehumanized way, in a
(04:49):
way that doesn't call attention to thedeadly human impacts of war. And this
for a country, indeed, theUnited States, that has such a long,
long, long track record of wargetting to independence, more than one
hundred and thirty five countries, nations, and peoples that the United States has
(05:11):
fought wars with and virtually every it'sa long list when you think about it.
I mean, you talk about thenumber of words that we use to
obfuscate war and death. And yetjust a list of countries that we've been
at war with its pretty big.It is it is you know, well,
that provides something of the background ofwhat motivated us to want to call
(05:34):
upon people involved in any discussions ofwar and foreign policy. So we're talking
you know, journalists, of course, but regular members of the public as
well as people who I think areoften the source of much of this obfus
skating language, this language that hidesand disguise disguises what's really going on.
(05:56):
That is a group of elites inCongress and outside of Congress, and what's
called the foreign policy blob, thegroup of elites that so often dominate foreign
policy and decisions about going to war. We very much wanted to change the
status quo when it comes to thelanguage that is used and encourage and with
(06:19):
folks who are in those elite communities, pressure them to use language again that
is that is honest, that istransparent, that describes what is actually going
on in the world, and especiallywhen it comes to an activity that is
war, that has such deadly effects. Now the current war and on Gaza
(06:45):
is sadly another example of where wehave to pay very close attention to the
kind of language that's being used andwhat it enables. I think some of
the most common language that one seascirculating in the US and European global press
is language of Hamas's barbaric, socalled barbaric attacks, language of barbarism,
(07:12):
of savagery. Us excuse me.Israeli officials have talked about Hamas in terms
of animals, and of course thisis the kind of dehumanizing language that George
Orwell was pointing to and trying tochange in his day, Right, Yeah,
I mean, ultimately, is oneform of death and destruction and dismemberment
(07:38):
fundamentally any more or less barbaric thananother. Well indeed, and while the
Hamas's attacks on Israelis were spectacular inbeing so visible, the kinds of deaths
now being visited upon Palestinians in Gaza, the destruction of entire higher rise buildings,
(08:00):
entire blocks, entire neighborhoods with missilesand bombs. I think one need
only think for a moment what highpowered missile does to a human body.
And I think, you know,the language of barbarism should not be reserved
(08:22):
for just the kinds of acts thatthat are that Hamas committed the crimes,
not to mention the fact that theword barbarism and savagery have certainly, you
know, especially during the last coupleof decades, you know, post nine
(08:43):
to eleven, when when referring topeople of the Middle East, particularly of
Arab origin, carry a very strongweight of cultural racism to do it as
well. Yeah, I know,I'm glad you pointed that out. This
is language, the language of barbarismand savagery of animals, is language that
(09:05):
dates really to the nineteenth century infueling racism and ideas about race and racial
difference in ways that since the nineteenthcentury have made it easier for the powerful
to kill the racialized. And indeedthis language is now only fuelling Islamophobia,
anti Palestinian sentiment, and is languagethat should be discarded entirely people. As
(09:35):
our guide calls for, whether it'sin a context of US led wars or
wars in Gaza that the US isclearly implicated in, it's important to describe
the acts committed similar to the languageof terrorism. Terrorism has long been a
virtually useless term so to terrorists,because it's a term that just gets applied
(10:00):
by anyone to any person or groupor individuals they don't like, and thus
makes it easier to target them forattack and death. And that, of
course is also the language that iscirculating when it comes to Hamas's attacks that
work. Clearly, these are militaryattacks on civilians that should be condemned,
(10:24):
but the language of terrorism is simplynot useful and has not been useful for
decades. Again, as our guideshows, there are numerous more accurate,
more honest alternatives that we propose,and that's one of the things that I
really like about this guide is thefact that you not only identify these euphemisms,
(10:50):
but you define them and you providealternatives that can be practically used and
employed, not just by casual consumersand activists, but by actual reporters and
members of the media to employ sothat we can better represent and understand what
(11:15):
is really going on precisely. Preciselyso in the case of terrorism or terrorists,
we can talk about militants rather thanterrorists. In the case of terrorism,
acts of mass violence, attacks oncivilians, perhaps the phrase terror attacks.
(11:35):
But again one sees in the caseof the war and Godzip, But
the same was true in the USled wars after the attacks of nine to
eleven, the US Wars, andAfghanistan and Iraq, and far beyond the
acts of governments that so clearly terrorizepeople, the kind of you know,
(12:00):
fear that people in Gaza must currentlybe suffering, those who've been ordered by
the Israeli military to leave their homesone point one million people. How can
one describe anything that is anything otherthan a kind of terrorizing. So the
problem often is that the language isused inconsistently. And our guide, and
(12:24):
again the website you mentioned, wordsabout warmatter dot org calls on people to
discard the most troubling and most euphemistic, most Orwellian language instead to adopt language
that is more honest, more descriptive. It's not a radical shift we're asking
(12:48):
for. We're just asking people todescribe what is happening, especially what is
happening to human beings. And itgoes even deeper than just a desire to
avoid talking about death and destruction tosome more fundamental concepts. I mean,
(13:09):
if you think about it, andyou allude to this, I think in
in your guide words about warmatter dotorg, even the Department of Defense itself
is in its name is a euphemism. It didn't used to be the Department
of Defense used to be the WarDepartment, and for for most of the
(13:31):
history of the United States. Somany of the terms that you're talking about
just go towards warping reality because becauseif you repeat that Department of Defense,
d D, Department of Defense overand over again, you get to think
in your head, well, yeah, okay, I guess this is for
defense. It's it's not just forit's it's not about like going out and
(13:52):
killing people around the world, whichwhich it primarily is. It's a it's
it's about defending the homeland or whateverthat concept happens to me. The concept
of a homeland is I don't knowthat if that's one on your list,
but it certainly deserves to be inmy opinion. Yeah, the Department of
Homeland Security does indeed provide another painfuland unhelpful example. But indeed, the
(14:20):
language of defense is one of thoseexamples that most bothers me, and it
is most troubling. It really shouldbe the offense Department if you think about
it. Well, Indeed, thetrack record shows that the agency that has
been so named that was more honestlynamed the Department of War. The War
Department has a long track record oflaunching offensive wars. Calling it the defense
(14:48):
Department is a kind of pr Itis exactly what Orwell was warning about and
writing about. And it goes beyondjust the agency. It also goes to
when members the me refer to defensecontractors or defense manufacturers, when what they're
talking about our arms manufacturers or warcontractors or you know, war war profit
(15:11):
heres not defense profiteers. You know, I mean, call something what it
actually is. I mean that that'sthat's the bottom line. But so much
of this is is designed to reshapethe way that we the way that we
think about it because because language doesshape the thoughts that we have in our
head, and it prompts images ofcertain things. And if we're not forthright
(15:35):
about what we we name things,then we're constantly off kilter. I mean,
it's it's like looking looking at awarped mirror and we don't we're not
really able to to get at thetrue shape of things, and so and
so we're always uh miss misstepping andand and off balance. And I I
(16:00):
think that is a big problem inour modern era and you've really done an
excellent job to to put your yourfinger on it. And they're they're just
they're just so many excellent examples thatyou put on it, like things that
I take for granted, like theword casualty, I mean even in historical,
(16:22):
uh terms, And that goes backquite a way. That's that means
that someone who's been killed or wounded, the number of people who have been
killed or wounded. When you saycasual, I mean it comes off frankly
casually, which which we and weshould not be casual about war and death
and destruction. It's it's not acasual endeavor. It's a serious and and
(16:44):
horrific endeavor, and and when wehave to enter into it, it should
be given the the the gravity thatit deserves. And these these euphemisms take
that away. And I'm so gladthat you are clarifying this because of that,
Well, thank you for saying that. I think you indeed have to
(17:07):
use an overused phrase, hit thenail on the head. That language matters,
and that's why we call it.Words about war matter. This is
not just a matter of political correctnessor pritifying or academic nerdiness or you know,
This matters because words in the languagewe use change exactly as you described,
(17:33):
how we think, how we seethe world, how we understand the
world, how we decide what ispossible and what is not possible. And
of course there are some people whohave more power over the decisions of nations
like the United States and it's militarythan others. But we think that if
we can encourage people to talk aboutwar and foreign policy and again more honest,
(17:56):
more direct, more transparent, uneuphemistic, non dehumanized ways, that
it can be a small part ofchanging US foreign policy in particular, and
the US government's propensity to wage wars. Even describing this is another example that
(18:18):
we discuss in the guide, andthat that comes up so frequently in the
media just describing the United States orany nations as a single, homogeneous whole.
The United States invaded Iraq, theUnited States invaded Afghanistan. That is
just simply not so. All.Everyone in the United States did not get
picked up and invade Iraq or Afghanistan. The George W. Bush administration made
(18:42):
a decision to deploy the US militaryto invade in other parts of the Pentagon
establishment, and the military of theUnited States into Afghanistan and Iraq, and
this can hopefully provides another example ofthe way in which being more specific,
more precise, more accurate in ourlanguage choices can help us better understand what's
(19:07):
going on in the world. Yeah, you know something else that you've done
here. I really appreciate about yourapproach you have under the section in the
short version of your guide under moreguidance share alternatives gently, And I think
that's important. You say, shamingpeople's language is unhelpful, Explain, discuss
(19:30):
share the guide as a resource,invite conversations about how words shape how we
perceive the world and thus war andforeign policy. And I think, particularly
given the sort of narrow bandwidth thatmuch of this conversation takes place on social
media with, that's particularly important becauseit is so easy to flare up a
(19:53):
confrontational discussion about this, and frankly, many of these words have been so
thoroughly inculcated into the American English languagethat people personalize them and take offense,
at least at first, often ifyou try to take them away from them
(20:15):
and point out that there are areare better alternatives. So I appreciate that
you've taken that into consideration, becauseif you just if you just come at
it angrily and without understanding and withoutsympathy, then you are less likely to
have success. That's exactly right.And people use language not because they're bad
(20:41):
people who use the kinds of languagethat we're trying to change, not because
they're bad people or but because itis so much a part of the society
in which we live and the discoursesand narratives we read and hear all the
time. People are just using thelanguage that is available to them. So
we really do encourage people, asyou said, to ask people to reconsider
(21:04):
the language, use gently and politely, and to use language actually as a
chance to open up a conversation aboutwar and foreign policy and how we see
the world, what other consequences whenwe talk about collateral damage rather than talking
honestly about civilian deaths. And indeed, again that's something that we civilian deaths
(21:30):
we are seeing every day in fartoo many contexts. So yeah, I
would just echo what you said abouttrying to encourage people to rethink their language
choices. We encourage people to useour Language guide as a resource to point
(21:52):
people to the guide and to theto the website words about war dot org,
words about war dot org, andhope that our guide and the website
indeed it opens up not just aconversation about language and words, but a
conversation about the US foreign policy andwars, the long history of wars that
(22:18):
the United States government has waged,and in the hopes of ending that pattern
at least here I'm speaking for myself, right, And this is constantly evolving,
as language does, and you're opento receiving tips and new inputs from
(22:41):
people as new terms evolve, correctexactly. The website words about war dot
org offers a chance for people tosubmit suggestions of their own for revisions of
the guide, and we also arelikely to have an online version that we'll
be able to update more and morerapidly than the print version. But we
(23:06):
absolutely encourage people to submit suggestions oftheir own, things that we may have
omitted, or to encourage us torethink suggestions we've made, because again,
this is a conversation we want toopen up, and ultimately we do hope
to change the language that one seesall around us in the media and among
(23:29):
politicians, and so that we candiscuss this what you know, what matter
could be more important than matters ofwar and peace and the death and injury
and destruction that war reeks. Well, thank you so much, Professor David
Vine. Again it's words about warmatterdot org. And I really appreciate you
(23:55):
having been a part of this andeveryone who had participated in this, and
I wish you the best of luck, because we need to mean what we
say. We need to know thatwe're talking about, especially when it comes
to things that are deadly and destructive, and we need to be able to
(24:18):
make decisions about whether we get involvedin such things with a clear knowledge of
what it really is that we're gettinginto. And I think for a long
time we haven't had a very clearidea, and thank you for helping to
make that process better. Thank you, Thank you above all a clear idea
(24:41):
of the impacts of the choices thatour leaders are making when they decide to
wage war or support wars. Sothank you for again calling attention to the
guide and calling all our attention tothis language. And always a pleasure to
talk to you. I'm able.This is face Palm America, and we'll
(25:02):
be back in a moment to tellyou about an upcoming episode of Faceball.
America, Stay tuned Face Paul America. I'm Beowulf Rockland. I want to
let you know that on an upcomingepisode, we are going to be talking
(25:26):
as we do on Mondays, toJohn Rothman. He is the host of
Around the Political World with John Rothman. We'll be talking about the very strange
conflict over who will be the nextSpeaker of the House of Representatives, the
(25:48):
current state of the Republican Party,and the twenty twenty four election. And
I hope you can join us becauseit's going to be fascinating. He's a
really smart guy and he will giveus insight into those matters and many more.
I'd like to ask you to sharethis episode on your social media.
(26:10):
It's usually easy. You can dothe little share button on whatever device you're
on, and usually that will allowyou pretty easily to put it out there
on Facebook, on Twitter, onwhatever social media platform you favor. I
want to thank Ace Elson and RosabelHine, who are the producers of this
program, and remind you also thatif you would like to call or message
(26:34):
us anytime, you could do soat two zero two six five six six
two seven to one, and untilnext time, enjoy the day.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.