Questioning Parlance - The Impact of Our Words

The words that we use in our descriptions have a tendency to shape
our reality. The explanatory language that we embrace over time in our society
or specific groups occasionally becomes morphed to have different meanings.
Remarkably, the original meanings of many words were incredibly different in the
past– or completely the opposite of current definitions. For instance, the word
“bravery” has completely changed its meaning over time- it was originally used
to signify cowardice, and in fact, its old meaning continues its utilization
today in the word ‘bravado’.

This acceptance of changing speech and verbiage is a window into
ourselves as a society. The words we choose to define other human beings or
groups shapes our reality, our beliefs, motivations, and emotional responses to
others. A common understanding of terms is important when we communicate with
one another; so when choosing descriptive expressions, it is important to be as
accurate as possible in order to avoid false
categorization.

The word “terrorism” incites strong emotional reactions in many
people in our country post 9/11. The word invokes images of mass death,
senseless killings, religious fanaticism and hatred. In 2002, an underground
environmental activism group calling themselves the Earth Liberation Front (or
ELF) set fire to a number of SUV dealerships in California, touting their
negative impact on the environment and causing an estimated one million dollars
in damages. Both the FBI and angry SUV owners at the time demanded that the
arsons be classified as acts of “domestic terrorism.” I agree that their
actions were extreme and did not help their cause and the cause of other
environmentalists, but the phrase “domestic terrorism” pushes the boundaries of
acceptable description.
 
Since definitions vary so much, there is no one fitting
classification for the term “terrorist” that groups or people can be put into.
Random House, Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, and Britannica all provide varying
definitions of the word. The words encompassing “terrorism” are different for
every attempt to define it: “the use of violence and threats to intimidate,
dominate, or coerce for political purposes,” the “state of fear and submission
produced by terrorism or terrorization,” or “a terroristic method of governing
or of resisting a government” are all varying examples. Different details are
used to outline what terrorism consists of; bombing, kidnapping, arson, suicide
bombers. Some may be used in one source, none in others, each differing
significantly.
 
There is one universal factor, though, in all the sources of
definition for terrorism: anti-government sentiment plays a strong role in each
one. Examples of this resistance against authorities defined as terrorism are
everywhere; Timothy McVeigh was retaliating against perceived government acts
of war against the people (Waco), Middle Eastern suicide bombers are trying to
end occupation of their homeland, the Hutu’s wanted the Tutsi’s out of power in
Rwanda. Along these lines, this definition would also include ELF’s actions as
terrorism, in their retaliation against the perceived government injustice of
allowing pollutants like SUV’s unhindered use without adherence to federal fuel
efficiency standards.

Yet ultimately, the word “terrorism” is not a fitting description 
of the ELF arsons. By definition alone, one cannot conclusively lump the SUV
arsons into the vastly mutating “terrorism” category without falsely
categorizing them by at least one source. Those who set the fires should be
described with words or phrases with less sadistic connotations that properly
depicts their intentions, such as “criminal protesters” or “destructive
activists,” which I will use in description of ELF’s
actions.



Both terrorists and the destructive ELF activists try to send a
specific message, but only one group is willing to take lives to get the point
across. This distinction must be focused on to avoid improper judgment: any loss
of life changes the definition in this case from “criminal protests” to “acts of
terrorism.” Angry SUV owners who were victimized by these arsons at the time
tended toward the extreme opinion that these criminal protesters should be
defined as domestic terrorists, using a powerful label to assuage their
passionate feelings. This is an easy categorization for those with these
  powerful emotions, but the use of a term that classifies murderers, kidnappers
  and suicide bombers to define these rebellious environmentalists smacks of
  extremism, playing on the common fear by using a label that is very serious-
very powerful.



It is easy to spread this definition of domestic terrorism to all
walks of life and any situations that one finds disturbing or inappropriate. We
could even use many religions as an example; willing to take the lives of untold
numbers of people over the centuries in the name of their deity, they can easily
fall into the category of “terrorist” in this light. The definition of terrorism
is too ambiguous and varying, not specifying the importance of killing and
bodily harm as a defining aspect of the term. If one is willing to accept loss
of life as a means to an end, this type of person would more aptly be described
as a terrorist than one who focuses on property damage as a way to express a
similar message of desire for governmental change. In 2010, Nihad Awad, National
Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, defined
terrorism as committed by any person towards other living human beings:
“Whenever an individual or group attacks civilians in order to make a political
statement: that is an act of terror.”



The difference between the ELF and the example of suicide bombers
(a more common example of a “terrorist”) is the acceptance of loss of life. The
SUV arsonists had no objective of harming or injuring any people; only property
damage was the intended effect. Extreme acts are common in response to
governmental action or inaction- all these groups had the intent to incite
change, but some are willing to kill in order to achieve those
ends.



The question is of intent: is arson a violent crime when the only
victims, intended or unintended, are inanimate? Is the intention to inflict
property damage and loss of money the same as the acceptance of the possibility
of taking human life? Wikipedia defines “violent crime” as “a crime in which the
offender uses or threatens to use violent force upon the victim- this entails
both crimes in which the violent act is the objective, such as murder, as well
as crimes in which violence is the means to an end, such as robbery.” This also
encompasses the examples of rape, aggravated assault, or simple assault, all of
which do physical harm to another.



There was indeed a possibility of harm in the SUV fires- the fires
could have spread to surrounding residential areas, explosions could have
  affected nearby traffic patterns, etc. But to use these odds of potential
  hazard as a measure of proper action, we would have to extend them to other
  areas of life: there is also a possibility of harm when hunting or setting off
  fireworks. If the fires had spread to surrounding areas, this could be seen as
  intent to harm, or just as easily become chalked up to stupidity. Weighing this
  against sanctions for killing and accepting a possible loss of life creates a
  clear distinction between these criminal protesters and suicide bombers. The
  destruction of other people’s property is by no means a mature or diplomatic
  approach to the problem these environmentalists faced, and if anything their
  actions were extremist and succeeded in immobilizing their own cause, but ELF’s
  actions were committed with the intent to destroy property, not
lives.



Anger at those involved in the ELF fires by those victimized was
the primary catalyst in the use of the term “domestic terrorism.” Their powerful
emotions inspired the use of a phrase that generates fury and resentment common
in society, so that others could share in their aggravation and put a stop to
the property damage. SUV owner George Allen, at the time of the arsons, said, “I
would treat them as terrorists, because we should not let them keep doing it!”
If the purpose of using the word is primarily to keep property damage from
occurring further, it is clear that the original usage of the word has been
allowed to modify drastically. In that case, however, the severe connotations of
the word should no longer apply, unless we are fine with falsely judging people
and allowing rampant animosity among those who refuse to think for themselves
free run toward any group we choose to
dislike.



The motives and messages of each situation can be weighed and
debated endlessly, but in the end it is the willingness to take human life, the
agreement that it takes the cracking of a few eggs to make an omelet, that truly
defines terrorism. It is inappropriate to lump any who are unwilling to injure
or kill into the definitive grouping of
“terrorist.”



It takes a fresh look at the jargon and semantics we use to define
our world; a questioning of the language we use and accept as normal and
  commonplace to peel back the layers of judgment of others that we regularly
  consent to. If the word “bravery” can start out with such a negative meaning,
  it is interesting to consider the life cycle of some of the more controversial
  words in our language. If 9/11 never happened, would we still be considering
  using the word “terrorism” so commonly? Using such emotionally charged,
  persuasive words like this in description of milder and milder actions could
  very well lead to the mutation of the word’s definition, and perhaps
“terrorism” will follow the evolutionary path of the word “bravery.”
Unfortunately, to get to that point, many people must be falsely labeled,
  ultimately causing pain and unnecessary condemnation because those who judged
  did not stop to weigh the consequences of their passionate
rulings