The Language of War: Characterizing the Other, Rationalizing the Self, Part 1

Apartheid, meaning separateness, is one of the most well-known modern cases of institutional injustice, and although it might not be considered a typical case of imperialism —most Afrikaners themselves claim South Africa as their homeland—it still exemplifies the qualities of an oppressive regime against indigenous inhabitants through its system of racist repression and violence. Americans were quick to condemn this institutionalized racism which continued to occur three decades after the US civil rights movement, but much of the reasoning behind America’s current Iraq policy resembles the reasoning behind apartheid operations, though perpetrated on domestic soil in South Africa rather than foreign soil in Iraq.

Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela’s book A Human Being Died That Night does a wonderful job of exposing the mindset behind the state-sponsored atrocities of apartheid through interviews with Eugene de Kock, one of the principal perpetrators of some of the worst crimes committed under apartheid. This psychological analysis reveals motives and excuses that are not unlike those we hear today in the US with reference to Iraq. More specifically, we see similar descriptions of the supposed “enemy” in order to facilitate the type of action taken against resistors as well as similar justifications for these actions. But first, a rough description of apartheid.

Though apartheid officially began with the rise to power of the Afrikaners through the Purified Nationalist Party in 1948, apartheid-like practices had been in existence for much longer, along with corresponding resistance by black South Africans. For instance, in 1913, the Native Land Act was devised as a means of segregating the population and establishing native reserves, designating more than eighty percent of the land to whites; and the previous year, the African National Congress (ANC), which was to become one of the main resistance and liberation groups, was founded. Apartheid policies and laws included the establishment of a discriminatory racial classification scheme, requirements for blacks to carry identity passes, separate educational systems, the ban of interracial marriages, and resettlement of indigenous black South Africans onto Homelands that effectively revoked their South African citizenship by making them citizens of “independent nations,” among many other rules.

In opposition to apartheid policies in the 1940s, the ANC’s Youth League began, which further popularized the ANC and its peaceful resistance activities, but events such as the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre of nonviolent pass law protestors led to the ANC’s shift to militant resistance through “Spear of the Nation” led by Mandela as well as a splinter resistance group, Pan-African Congress. Most people are aware of South Africa’s attempts to squash resistance from highly publicized events such as the Soweto uprising in 1976 and the mysterious assassinations of opposition leaders such as Robert Sobukwe and Steve Biko, but less is known about the more clandestine state-authorized killings, detentions, and tortures of black South Africans, which is the focus of Gobodo-Madikizela’s book that we will now turn to for our comparisons.

In order to justify the violent action taken against the anti-apartheid movement, the government had to portray their opponents in a way that would validate such harsh measures. Gobodo-Madikizela describes how the government characterized the anti-apartheid blacks in just this way:

“The liberation movement, they claimed, was a surrogate arm of the Soviet Union, a communist threat to “the democracies of the Western world,” and not, of course, what it was: a threat to their own position of power and privilege. This made it easier for the most violent actions to be taken against the liberation movement.”

George Bush used similar rhetoric to justify the war in Iraq in a speech aboard the USS Lincoln on May 1, 2003 to declare—a little too early—that major combat had ended and the US had succeeded; namely, he claimed that a place like Saddam’s Iraq was “a grave danger to the civilized world”—much like the above claim by the apartheid state. According to this speech, freedom and democracy were the aims of the war, both for the Iraqis—hence the name Operation Iraqi Freedom—as well as for America. Bush himself said, “In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world,” and furthermore warned that “the enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland ….” The “enemies of freedom” and the “grave danger to the civilized world” sound a lot like the supposed “threat to “the democracies of the Western world”” posed by anti-apartheid blacks. Yet, many would also say that, as was the case with South Africa, there was an ulterior motive for the war in Iraq. Some would argue that it is eliminating the threat to America’s world dominance, just as the apartheid regime attempted to remove the threat to their “position of power and privilege” in South Africa. William Blum enumerates what he believes to be the true power-seeking motives in Iraq in a speech entitled “War against terrorism or expansion of the American Empire?”: the imperial establishment of military bases in the Middle East, corporate takeover by American firms, oil, protecting US currency, and supporting Israel.

As illustrated above, Bush frequently makes references to the “civilized world” in his speeches. For instance even before the war started, in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute on February 27, 2003, Bush asserted, “In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world—and we will not allow it.” In other words, Bush does not include Iraq or the Middle East as part of the “civilized world”—of which the United States is the obvious leader. Excluding Iraq and the Middle East from civilization is reminiscent of the Eurocentric arrogance that claimed other peoples were primitive, savage, or barbaric and was a tactic used to justify colonizing other people. For instance, Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, who writes of his adventures in the British colony of Kenya in Kenya Diary: 1902-1906, talks about “administering and policing a district inhabited by half a million well-armed savages” and makes frequent references to savages throughout. Though it is now not acceptable to call people savages, Bush’s reference to civilization expresses a similar arrogant sentiment and excuse for occupation. In fact, the Oxford Thesaurus American Edition (1992) actually lists uncivilized as a synonym for savage, so Bush’s statement about the “civilized world” does seem to be saying something about his views of the people he considers to be outside of it.

These examples all highlight the important role that vocabulary and rhetoric play in “wars” of this kind for the means of justifying one’s actions and characterizing the people one is against. According to Gobodo-Madikizela, word usage was a major aspect of the covert apartheid operations, and the use of vague, implicit language was a means of removing blame from the higher officials giving the orders. For instance, she writes that “expressions such as “making a plan,” “taking out” enemy leaders, and “neutralizing,” “eliminating,” or “removing” certain people from society formed much of the lexicon of death within the upper levels of power.” Similar ambiguities and euphemisms for murderous activities have also made their way into military operations in Iraq and discourse on the war. I couldn’t help but notice while watching a CBS 60 Minutes story in September about the November 19, 2005 Haditha incident that killed twenty-four Iraqi civilians the detached, non-descriptive terminology used by American Sgt. Wuterich who led the attack. He says in describing what they call “clearing” houses, which led to some of the civilian deaths, “we went through that house much the same, prepping the room with grenades, going in there, and eliminating the threat and engaging the targets…" One normally doesn’t refer to blowing up things as “prepping”—it sounds more like getting ready for a performance or sports competition. And “engaging the targets,” what does that mean? Engaging them in conversation? “Eliminating” the threat doesn’t need much explaining; apartheid’s “lexicon of death” above has already made us aware of what that means.

Gobodo-Madikizela’s interview with de Kock further reveals that the ANC, now considered a liberator for blacks in South Africa, was also seen in much the same way the insurgents and terrorist groups are seen now.

“Each and every one, from officers to lower ranks, wanted to fight terrorism,” de Kock says. “Every time ANC hit targets—civilians—the number of requests to join Vlakplaas [the head site for secret anti-apartheid operations, detentions, and murder] went up….The question of whether what we did was legal or not did not come into the picture…People wanted to see results. They wanted to know that we were rooting out what at the time we called terrorism.”

This representation sounds all too familiar in light of what we hear about the “war on terror,” which Iraq is now a part of. In fact, the same phrase “rooting out” terrorism has been used on numerous occasions to refer to US war endeavors and foreign policy—just Google the words Bush root out terror and see what comes up. Though I don’t condone violence of any type, one wonders if what we as Americans now call terrorism will also be seen differently in the future. Will it become just another group that did not tolerate US global hegemony? Will the insurgency become just another group wanting liberation from US occupation?

William Blum also recognizes how now and in the past, semantics has played a role in characterizing the “other”. In his speech, he comments

“During the cold war, Washington officials of course couldn't say that they were intervening to block social change, so they called it fighting communism, fighting a communist conspiracy, and of course fighting for freedom and democracy. Just like now the White House can't say that it invaded Iraq to expand the empire, or for the oil, or for the corporations, so it says it's fighting terrorism. During the cold war, the word "communist" was used exceptionally loosely, just as the word "terrorist" is used these days; or "al Qaeda" -- almost every individual or group that Washington wants to stigmatize is charged with being a member of al Qaeda…. It's just more word games to dazzle you and throw you off the scent.”

Sources: Background information on apartheid from the appendix of: Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela, A Human Being Died That Night: A South African Woman Confronts the Legacy of Apartheid (New York, Houghton Mifflin Company 2003) and lectures by Caroline Elkins for Historical Study A-21: Africa and Africans: The Making of a Continent in the Modern World, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2005.
-Quotes on apartheid South Africa from Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela, A Human Being Died That Night: A South African Woman Confronts the Legacy of Apartheid (New York, Houghton Mifflin Company 2003), 62, 64-65, 74.
-Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Kenya Diary: 1902-1906 (London, Oliver and Boyd Ltd. 1957), 32.
-President George W. Bush, “Full Text: Bush Speech Aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln” Washington Post, May 1, 2003 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2627-2003May1
- President George W. Bush, “Full text: George Bush's speech to the American Enterprise Institute,” Guardian Unlimited February 27, 2003 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,904086,00.html
-William Blum, “War against terrorism or expansion of the American Empire?” given on October 28, 2005 at Carleton University in Ottowa http://members.aol.com/bblum6/speech.htm
-CBS News, “The Killings in Haditha” 60 Minutes September 2, 2007 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/15/60minutes/main2574973.shtml

Introduction

After every great tragedy—the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, slavery, and so forth—humanity makes a pledge to let it be a lesson from which we can ensure that the same mistakes are never repeated. And yet day by day as I sit and watch the news, I can’t help but think to myself: history always repeats itself — a phrase I’ve even listed as one of my favorite quotes on my Facebook profile. I cannot help but notice the eerie resemblances between aspects of the “war in Iraq” and past imperial efforts and injustices around the world—resemblances which the United States either chooses to ignore or is ignorant of; and I would like to believe the latter judging from our unfortunate lack of exposure to the rest of the world and its history. After all, only a few of my twelve years of standard education were devoted to world history, the remaining 75% to the same old history of the U.S. since European settlement, however brief it may be in comparison to much of the world.

Part of our aim in this blog is to reveal these similarities between past colonial endeavors and recent American rhetoric and actions in Iraq using some historical examples from our limited knowledge of the countless comparable instances from history that exist. The hope is that by seeing in the American involvement in Iraq the same actions and motives used in past events that are now deplored, we as Americans will begin to rethink our actions in Iraq and how we approach the world in general.

Let me just say a few words about what this blog is not because we know there are already plenty of blogs about the war in Iraq. It is not your typical blog in that it has a more scholarly feel to it, with plenty of cited references in addition to opinions. Also, this blog will not focus on previous occupations of the Middle East or on the Vietnam War or much on any other popular wars like WWII for that matter—enough people are already making those comparisons. Nor will it focus on showing how the Iraq war or the “war on terror” in general is part of a trend toward American empire by citing examples of the US’s past foreign policy and interventions in other countries. While this may all be true, we feel that it is also being adequately addressed—William Blum’s works, for example, are a good source of such information. We think it might be more instructive to illustrate the point of historical repetition through examples of colonial activities, among other things, that are less well-known and not necessarily related to the U.S. or the Middle East. For one thing, it is probably information that not too many people have already heard before, which is probably why we see similar things happening again. So sit back, read, and hopefully enjoy and learn.

(Note: picture is of the commemorative plaque outside the slave dungeons in Elmina and Cape Coast Castles)

Intro 2: Why History?

The future of Iraq seems very uncertain at the moment, and everyone, from politicians to activists to ordinary civilians, is eager to weigh in on whether to pull the troops out of Iraq and when to do so, whether or not the U.S. was ever justified in invading Iraq in the first place, which nations we should be concerned about next, and the list goes on. Amidst all the talk of what to do and what not to do, what may happen and what may not happen, one thing seems to be missing from the discussion—history. Apart from a few anecdotes here and there to Vietnam, Abraham Lincoln, and Korea, a thorough discussion about the potential insights historical events can give to our current situation with Iraq has not occurred. Yet societies everywhere recognize the importance of history: “You can’t know where you’re going unless you know where you came from,” they say. I am here today because my parents were here yesterday and their parents were there 40 years ago and so on. After all, most of the decisions we make and much of our intelligence is based on our past experiences—history. In other words, history cannot be separated from the present because the present arrives through the past.

Just as history guides and shapes our personal lives, it can also be very telling in public, political, and economic spheres, and its relevance to current events cannot be denied. For example, the country of Iraq as we know it has the boundaries it possesses largely because of the British occupation of the region from 1920 to 1932 and again from 1941 to 1945. These historical events have influenced the politics, conflicts, and economy of Iraq today. Likewise, the U.S.’s present position as an international superpower is partly a result of the outcome of World War II. Harvard University, arguably the most renowned academic institution in the world, recognized the importance of historical events to current events and created an area of study known as Historical-Study A as part of its long-standing general education or “Core” requirements. The courses in Historical Study A were

designed to help the student understand, through historical study, the background and development of major issues of the contemporary world. These courses illustrate the way in which historical study helps make sense of some of the great issues—often problematic policy issues—of our own world. The courses focus on the sequential development of issues whose origins may be quite distant from the present but whose significance is still profound in the world in which students live today.[1]

In these courses, students learned about such topics as colonialism and its role in the formation of present-day Africa or “The Making of Modern South Asia,” et cetera.

Not only does history explain why we are where we are now, it might also be used to predict what the consequences of certain actions may be. By examining events and situations of the past and their aftermaths, one may get an idea of how current decisions made under similar circumstances may impact the world in the future, much the way weather forecasters and climatologists incorporate past climate, geological, and weather trends to predict weather events, or the way epidemiologists use past data and patterns to make predictions about disease outbreaks. In plainer terms, “Nothing is new in the universe.” However it seems that few of our leaders and economists are educated in the important historical issues that may help them make decent decisions.

What this series of blog entries sets out to do is to compare the current media and political discourse on major present-day U.S. foreign policy issues, particularly the “War on Terrorism,” with media, political discourse, and historical information from other times and other places. Our brief study of colonial history while at Harvard has revealed many parallels between the rhetoric of the Iraq war and the rhetoric of the European colonial period. This has prompted us to do an analysis using primary and secondary sources, including newspaper articles and news broadcasts, political speeches, statements, and reports, to compare the two eras and other historical periods in order to see what similarities exist. The hope is that with such comparisons, if parallels are found, the past can be used to advise future directions the U.S. takes.

[1] Courses of Instruction 2006-2007 Harvard University: Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard College, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.