Misuse of language

www.pakpositive.com Language is our very means of thought and expression. Anything that influences it, in turn, influences our perceptions and, ultimately, our beliefs.

'US versus the world' in Dawn by M. Zaidi touched on a crucial point in today's media - and its relation to power.

In Pakistan, we are affected by this scourge also namely by the term 'Af-Pak', which serves to eliminate the question of Kashmir in relations with the U.S., keeping India happy for further nuclear deals with Washington.

There are far too many examples to list of such offences but common to them all is mutilation of language as tool in the hands of politicians. Readers must beware these subtle changes in meaning to counter the new age of semantic warfare.

Semantic Warfare

The Gaza 'wall' is a 'fence' in Israeli media. The 'occupation' of the West Bank is now a 'dispute'. These gross violations by certain media outlets re-frame the parameters of an issue so as to disregard the grievances of the people living under oppression.

An excellent representation of this concept that has influenced many a writer and journalist is the portrayal of 'Newspeak' in George Orwell's 1984. Here, language is explicitly used as a means of thought control. It plays a sinister role in censorship, biased education and mendacious rewriting of history to suit the oppressive policies of 'Big Brother'.

This dystopia is unfortunately closer to reality than we would like to know. The writer has correctly grasped the usage of 'Anti-American' as meaning not subservient to U.S. interests and ambitions.

History is littered with similar examples of propaganda. The most expedient to current imperial policy makers is 'terrorist'. Nelson Mandela, revered national hero, was once a 'terrorist'. The capricious use of this term carries over to the Palestinian struggle also. Yasser Arafat, the darling of pro-Israel 'peace-process' proponents , for so many years a most-wanted criminal, a 'terrorist'. Almost every legitimate indigenous resistance movement at some time has been called a 'terrorist organisation'.

The unrelenting bias towards those in power this term connotes is undeniable. This misuse of language is often euphemistic such as when we debate whether massacres are deemed to be genocide. Instead, we opt for the more politically-friendly 'ethnic cleansing'. This is an affront to victims of such atrocities, the voiceless whose history is modified for the benefit of the powerful. af-pak www.pakpositive.com