Words are weapons
Level 3 | Advanced
1 Pre-reading
The following words are all taken from the text.Which of them do you regard as positive, which as negative
and which as neutral?
1. liberation
2. dark forces
3. civilisation
4. terrorist
5. militant
6. freedom-fighter
7. guerrilla
8. insurgent
9. hero
10. martyr
2 Key Vocabulary
Match these words from the text with their meanings:
deadly
unpalatable
crusade
unwary
reckless
secular
divisive
vague
salient
loaded
1. not connected with religion
2. with a second or hidden meaning
3. able or likely to kill people
4. not thinking about the possible bad effects of one’s actions
5. extremely unclear
6. likely to cause arguments between people
7. unpleasant to think about or accept
8. a holy war
9. not paying attention to the dangers around you
10. particularly noticeable or relevant
Now read the text
1
© onestopenglish.com 2003 | This page can be photocopied.
Words are weapons
Level 3 | Advanced
From ‘civilisation’ to ‘WMD’,
words are weapons
Simon Tisdall
S
econd world war posters warning that
"careless talk costs lives" represented a
lasting truth. Then the fear was that spies
might overhear conversations of value to the
Nazis. The equivalent US slogan was "loose lips
sink ships". Sixty years on, in another era of
conflict, the careless talk comes more often
from politicians - but it is potentially just as
deadly. When George Bush, soon after
September 11, referred to a "crusade" against
al-Qaida, he helped persuade Muslims that
they were under renewed attack from Richard
the Lionheart in a US navy bomber jacke t .I n
the context of a potential "clash of
civilisations",Bush’s loose use of language was
not only insensitive. It was unthinkingly
reckless.
Bush has avoided the word "crusade" ever
since. But he still regularly talks about the need
to defend "civilisation" and "the civilised
world" against "dark forces". He never quite
says which part of the planet is the
"uncivilised" or "dark" bit. Perhaps he means
Kandahar in Afghanistan or Eastbourne in
England. It is unclear. But the unspoken
implication is deeply divisive, even racist, not to
say insulting.
Words can define how a people sees itself: the
US declaration of independence is one obvious
example. Yet modern-day Palestinians also see
themselves engaged in a struggle for
"independence" and "freedom" from external
oppression. The current US government ignores
such semantic paradoxes. Words such as
"imperialism","emancipation","selfdetermination" and "liberation" define how
history is scripted, how the future will be
shaped, how contemporary conflicts are
perceived and thus how they may be resolved.
Terrorism is a salient case in point. In the
abstract, "terrorism" is a terrible thing;
everybody deplores it; nobody supports it. Why
then is terrorism such a growth industry?
Because its definition is not agreed. It depends
where you stand. Terrorism has thus become a
much abused word.
For Donald Rumsfeld, for example, the recent
helicopter attack at Falluja was simply the work
of "terrorists". That statement conceals a
larger, unpalatable truth. To the oppressed of
the world, the men of violence are, variously,
militants, freedom-fighters, guerrillas,
insurgents, heroes, martyrs. The real terrorists
belong to the "other side". Yet "state
terrorism" is a concept that is barely
recognised by the ostensible oppressors. Which
brings us back to Bush. By declaring an openended, global "war on terror", Bush invited
every aspiring autocrat to do his worst in the
name of "security" (another much-scandalised
word). From Chechnya to Colombia, Pakistan to
the Philippines, the anti-terror "war" has
expanded with Bush’s blessing.
In this loose-lipped, rapid-fire lingo, such
people, whether killed or locked up in Bagram
or Guantanamo or a thousand other hell-holes,
are by definition "evil". Here, you might think,
is another trap for the unwary, to be
sidestepped by sensible politicians in the
secular West. Not a bit of it. The latest addition
to the modern leader’s essential vocabulary, is
WMD. This is now a universally understood
term, or so you might think. WMD is
proliferating, it’s deeply frightening, and it’s
coming to a cinema near you.
Yet symbolic WMD is also a reason why civil
liberties are everywhere under siege, why
military budgets are rising, why the developing
world is not developing, and why your opinion
is ignored. In fact, WMD is a vague term that
can be used to cover a multitude of supposed
sins. Developed countries have their own WMD,
of course, but their arsenals are somehow
regarded as acceptable. Not so the WMD in
developing countries or "rogue states"
(whatever that means). This species of
unauthorised WMD is deemed destabilising.
There are certain words, conversely, that the
West’s leaders carefully avoid. These include
"resistance" - too encouraging a label for the
"remnants" opposing Iraq’s emancipators,
especially when used with a capital "R", as in
French. And then there is "occupation".
Occupation, as in Iraq, is a no-go word;
liberation is far preferable. Occupation makes it
sound as if the US has barged uninvited into
somebody else’s country and refuses to go
away. It makes Iraq sound like Palestine, Tibet,
Afghanistan or, heaven forbid, Vietnam. That
really is careless, ship-sinking talk.
Greater sensitivity in use of language is
required of politicians – and indeed the media.
The urge to suppress arguably loaded words
should as a rule be resisted as inimical to free
expression and better understanding. As every
spin doctor knows, acceptance of "official"
terminology can amount to implicit
endorsement of official policy. But the search
for the right word requires constant awareness
of ambiguity and politically and culturally
charged, multiple meanings. As ever in human
discourse, there is truth and there is
propaganda. It is important to be able to tell
the difference. Before passing the ammunition,
pass the word.
The Guardian Weekly 20-11-03, page 14
2
© onestopenglish.com 2003 | This page can be photocopied.
Words are weapons
Level 3 | Advanced
3 Comprehension Check
Which of these statements best reflect the meaning of the text as a whole?
1. When George Bush used the word ‘crusade’…
a. it had a negative impact on everyone.
b. it started a war with Muslims.
c. it had negative associations for Muslims.
2. Which words have replaced the word ‘crusade’ in Bush’s vocabulary?
a. attack and defend
b. uncivilised and dark
c. self-determination and liberation
3. What is the problem with the definition of terrorism?
a. t is a growth industry.
b. Terrorists are freedom-fighters or heroes.
c. The definition depends on your perspective.
4. Why do Western politicians avoid words like ‘resistance’?
a. Because such words might encourage people fighting against occupation.
b. Because they are too negative.
c. Because they want to ignore political problems.
5. Which of these titles best reflects the general theme of the article?
a. Freedom and terrorism
b. The power of words
c. Weapons of mass destruction
3
© onestopenglish.com 2003 | This page can be photocopied.
Words are weapons
Level 3 | Advanced
4 Vocabulary: Find the word
The words and expressions are in chronological order in the text.
Find
1. A word which means ‘people inside a country who secretly support the enemies of that country’.
2. A word which means ‘a person who has complete power in a country’.
3. A slang word for ‘language’.
4. An expression which means ‘a terrible place’.
5. An expression which means ‘under prolonged attack’.
6. An expression which means ‘a country which is considered to be dangerous by other countries’.
7. An exclamation which you use when you hope something will not happen.
8. An expression used to describe a person who helps politicians to present their policies in a positive
light.
5 Vocabulary: Collocations
Match the verbs with the nouns they collocate with. Check your answers in the text.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
to overhear
to shape
to resolve
to declare
to ignore
to resist
to endorse
to tell
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
war
an urge
someone’s opinion
a conversation
a conflict
a policy
the difference
the future
6 Discussion
Do you agree that the words used by politicians can shape our opinions of world events?
Think of examples of terrorists and freedom-fighters in history and discuss why they are labelled in this
way.
4
© onestopenglish.com 2003 | This page can be photocopied.