The power of 'them'

Discussion in 'The Study' started by Bill Mattocks, Mar 17, 2011.

  1. 5-0 Kenpo

    5-0 Kenpo Master of Arts

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    73
    I think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the two arguments.

    It is certainly common for soldiers to develop demeaning terms for their enemies. This is an attempt at separating them from oneself which would allow an easier time to kill them.

    However, I think the use of the terms enemy combatant and target have very legitimate uses. Enemy combatant is used as a legalistic term, as the group which the U.S. is fighting is unique in modern legal linguistics. They had to call them something for legal purposes due to the fact that, at least according to certain legal minds, they did not fit any of the current classifications.

    By the way, I don't think adding "combatant" to the word "enemy" makes them any less human then using solely the term "enemy".

    In terms of target, it is usually seen as a goal. "We have reached our target destination," or, "We have reached our monthly sales target." Remember, especially when it comes to military communications, references tend to be coded, so as not to identify to the enemy what the actual goal is. So if the goal of an operation is to kill or capture a specific person, for secrecy's sake, the use of the word "target", or their appropriate specific code word, is used. Hell, every U.S. President since Truman has had a code name used by the Secret Service. Does this de-humanize him?
     
  2. Bruno@MT

    Bruno@MT Senior Master

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    3,399
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    108
    During the campaign for 2004, did democrats say 'George Walker Bush', or did they say George Bush or George W. Bush?
    From what I followed, virtually noone used the full middle name.
     
  3. 5-0 Kenpo

    5-0 Kenpo Master of Arts

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    73
    PM sent.
     
  4. granfire

    granfire Sr. Grandmaster

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    Messages:
    15,069
    Likes Received:
    881
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Location:
    In Pain

    I suppose there is the different levels of 'dehumanasation'

    Step one:
    make the object neutral: target, enemy combatant
    serves many purposes. but among others you take the face off a human target.
    step two:
    take the dignity away from the object.
    so you are no longer with just an enemy combatant, but, maybe a rug head, or a gook?
    It almost makes it a good deed to kill that.

    I think I did not make that clear enough earlier that that was I meant.

    Step one, normal, still necessary.
    step two can send you on the downward spiral to classifying your oposite to nothing more of a bug to be squashed. And it has precedent.
     
  5. 5-0 Kenpo

    5-0 Kenpo Master of Arts

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    73
    This is a fair argument.

    The only thing that I would caution is that it is against human nature to kill another human being. In order to do so, soldiers often de-humanize someone that they must kill. It is a psychological coping mechanism, and does not necessarily mean that in the abscense of needing to kill them that they would treat the people from that group as less then human.

    And I don't know if you were arguing this position here, but since you use negative terms for non-white enemies, I want to address it. White U.S. soldiers in WWII used the words "Kraut", "Fritz", "Heinee", etc for Germans. And for Italians, terms such as "Guinea", "Macaroni", etc.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2011
  6. granfire

    granfire Sr. Grandmaster

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    Messages:
    15,069
    Likes Received:
    881
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Location:
    In Pain
    Point taken.
     
  7. girlbug2

    girlbug2 Master of Arts

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Location:
    Southern Cal.
    From "W" to "Dubya". Neither are technically his true middle name, but a reference to it which was by design a way to turn then president George W Bush into one of "them".
     
  8. Empty Hands

    Empty Hands Senior Master

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,269
    Likes Received:
    197
    Trophy Points:
    173
    Location:
    Jupiter, FL
    I don't really think so. The use was widespread among both his allies and his enemies, and had been a nickname for years before his Presidential run. No one ever tried to use Dubya as an argument that George Bush shouldn't have been President like they did with the Barack HUSSEIN Obama nonsense. Not to say that Bush wasn't criticized in many other ways, just not with his middle name.
     
  9. 5-0 Kenpo

    5-0 Kenpo Master of Arts

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    73
    I still think it's a non-sensical argument. If it wasn't his middle name, his critics would have found something else to latch onto.

    Just like people have done to every candidate in history. If his name was supposed to be an indication of his religion, Thomas Jefferson was criticized for potentially being an athiest, and J.F.K. for being a Catholic.
     
  10. Empty Hands

    Empty Hands Senior Master

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,269
    Likes Received:
    197
    Trophy Points:
    173
    Location:
    Jupiter, FL
    Being criticized for those things was wrong. There is nothing wrong with being an atheist or a Catholic. There is also nothing wrong with having the middle name Hussein. There is something wrong with pointing out that fact repeatedly like it's supposed to mean something.
     
  11. 5-0 Kenpo

    5-0 Kenpo Master of Arts

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    73
    I agree. My only point is that it's nothing new.123
     

Share This Page