War in the media and the English language:

new-born babies, patients on dialysis, refugee camps, journalists and
TV crews on assignments, farmers in the fields, vendors on produce
markets, passengers in buses and trains, people crossing the bridges…
Residential houses and even residential neighbourhoods have been
destroyed or heavily demolished, telephone lines have been severed.
Numerous medical, educational, and cultural institutions, churches,
monasteries, cemeteries, and other religious facilities were also the
objects of destruction. Systematic destruction of installations for electricity
generation and transmission throughout the territory of Yugoslavia
resulted in the complete interruption of power and water supply,
causing true humanitarian catastrophe. The consequences for the life
and health of the population due to enormous environmental pollution
caused by bombing and grave are evident, not only for Yugoslavia
and neighbouring countries, but for the entire Europe.
Among the killed civilians 30% are children, while the share of children
among the wounded is even higher – 40%. Bombing also threatened
about 120,000 women who had just given birth, as well as their
new-born babies, some of whom were born during air strikes. About
1,300, 000 primary and secondary school students were deprived of
school classes during the bombing. The entire civilian population, particularly
children, were exposed to daily stresses caused by continuos
daytime and nightime bombing, causing traumas and other psychological
disorders which may accompany them until the end of their
life. More than half causalities in Kosovo and Metohija were ethnic
Albanians – those whose alleged protection prompted the aggression,
termed “humanitarian intervention” by its perpetrators (Nato Crimes
in Yugoslavia, xiv).
Is speed also the cause of what is going on in the English language
in American popular culture, as well? During the last several years
there has been a strong opposition against the naming of professional
sport teams such as 'Braves', 'Indians', 'Redskins', 'Chiefs', 'Fighting
Illini' and so on. The strongest voice was heard from Russell Means
who has compared this practice to the contemporary Germans naming
their soccer teams the 'Jews', 'Hebrews', and 'Yids', while adorning their
uniforms with grotesque caricatures of Jewish faces taken from the
Nazis' anti-Semitic propaganda of the 1930s. This is obviously not just
“good, clean, fun.” It causes real pain, and real suffering to real people.
Can it be called “crime against humanity” the way Ward Churchill
does? (Transitions, 534)
Does it mean that euphemisms used in wars can also be called
“crimes against humanity”? Words used intentionally to disguise
meaning (negative, offensive, too direct). In the Gulf War, which was
euphemistically titled Desert Storm, U.S. missiles were called smart
bombs, and the destruction of a target by a missile was called a surgical
strike. When both American and Iraqi soldiers were killed in the theatre
of operation, it was called collateral damage. Obviously the intent
of such language use is to cover up the truth about what occurs during
a war, to make combat seem clinical, sanitary, neat, and safe.
Politicians and members of the military were also very fond of the
use of euphemisms when war in the English language was concerned
in the case of the mentioned bombing of Yugoslavia. Instead of “Storm
Desert” the whole operation was called 'The Merciful Angel'. Other
euphemisms such as 'smart bombs', 'surgical strike', 'collateral damage',
'peace keepers', etc., were kept. Mr. Klinton used the same expressions
like Mr. Bush ('the last best chance for peace is war', 'the goal of the war
is peace') but he made an 'advancement' of 'doublespeak' saying that he
would throw his “smart bombs” until he achieves “just peace.”
Again television, one powerful source, has played its role – a perfect
tool, controlling human minds. Waging the media war with the
present Yugoslavia, it used media war experiences with former Yugoslavia,
as well. Instead of Sarajevo – Merkale, this time it was Racak
massacre in Kosovo. Orwell himself would have been astonished by
the imagination and 'creativity'.
The number of the most confusing expressions (idioms): legitimate
target, ethnic cleansing, war crime, genocide and humanitarian catastrophe,
all changed by the purposeful misuse, is great. They have
already become the subject of thinking of contemporary learned
minds. Thus, Nikola Milošević calls them destroyed idioms, for if
we do translate them to their original meaning then “živi štit” would
mean “hvatanje talaca”, “legitimate military aim target” would be “real
target”, “ethnic cleansing” would mean “reaction to ethnic cleansing in
Croatia", while “kritika budakom” would be “killing all those who do
not thing like you” (bombardment of Yugoslav Television). If we start
killing those for whom we think that they do not think like ourselves,
then there would not be half of the humanity, concludes Milošević.
Including Clinton, Clark, and Jamey Shey. (Politika, 20.05.1999). Was
not Jamie Shea elected the greatest liar of 1999th? Didn't Germans proclaim
the word “Kollateralschaden” to be the ugliest, (worst) word of
the 1999th (Politika, 26. januar 2000)?
Fraser Sutterland, a Canadian contemporary poet, discusses some
of these terms on the INTERN ET. He says that when truth becomes
the first victim of a war, then language experiences a shell-shock. That
is way "ethnic cleansing" should not have the meaning it has today (the
expel of the Serbs from Croatia, opposite direction today). The same
is with genocide, one of the key words of 20th century. (Albanians are
not systematically expelled, and kept in concentration camps). Humanitarian
catastrophe can only be "human" but not humanitarian
(help), concludes Sutherland.
“Tolerance for brutality” is the idiom which annoys Harold Pinter
most of all. In the text “We are Bandits Guilty of Murder” (The Telegraph
– taken from INTERN ET) he says: “As NA TO “always tells the
truth”, the civilians had no reason to expect to die. This was justified by
NA TO spokesman Jamie Shea, because Belgrade television displayed
“tolerance for brutality”… Tolerant Tony Blair shrugged off the deaths,
there were no words of regret. Whatever one might say about RTV
Serbia's ugly output, the Geneva Convention states that only civilians
directly involved in hostilities may be killed. The make-up girl who
was killed wielded a powder compact, not a Kalashnikov.
I cannot help mentioning Maddleinne Albright message to Yugoslav
people during the spring 1999 bombardment. “We love Serbian
people.” But, where to put this expression? It is not a euphemism, neither
an idiom, but what is it? Is it a new definition of love? High-tech definition?
A preparation for the future? What kind of future? For whom?
The decisive role of media in this war did not pass unnoticed
anywhere. On the contrary, during the spring 1999 bombardment a
hidden war was led on Internet on many sites. Information were exchanged,
people voted, truth was trying to penetrate as fast as possible.
Speed was in play again. What was its impact it is hard to say, but still it
did give people some hope in justice, goodness, truth, freedom, dignity.
Thus, on 26th April 2000 on the site: KOSO VO@YURO PE.COM –
SMEH this satire from the Rotten Apple, 4/14/99 appeared.
ATLAN TA – After several weeks of bombing and ethnic cleansing,
CNN has decided to end the war in the Balkans between Serbia
and NA TO allies. The Atlanta based news network will use an escape
clause with Serbia to release the country from its contract. "We have
no hard feelings towards Serbia and President Milosevic," said CNN
spokesperson, William Henderson… "We just feel that the war was
not up to our expectations and have decided to part the ways."
Obviously, the war in the media and the language remains one area
of confusion. For unlike the video game wars in video parlours, the
actual bombs have a final outcome that is not merely electronic: it is, let
me repeat: metal against flesh. Above all, television produces new TV
audience, a new form of human being – less creative, less able to make
subtle distinctions and less interested in human kind than in things,
especially in the area of high-tech war. The ultimate result, in hightech
terms, is the fact that television redesigns us to be compatible with
its vision of the future.
To conclude, after all that has happened throughout the history of
humankind, 1999 war again confirms that the picture of man, especially
now as we enter a mew millennium, is ironically better presented
than s/he deserves. If the pain of humanity is contained in a tear of a
single bombarded child, what is the meaning of the cries of all children?
Does it mean endless suffering? Is that the only inheritance we
give to and bequeath to our children? Obviously, thus far, science has
not found a remedy for and answers to children's suffering, their fears,
and their tears, nor have humanities, arts or religion.
Does the answer, perhaps, lie in a utopian hope that the remedy
can only be found within the hearts and souls of adults? Or does it lie
in the child within us all, which we have chosen to ignore or repress?
Or maybe in the hearts of all those who refuse to be told what to, how
to think, how to behave, those who do not consume information passively
but ask for the truth, who posses integrity of the character, independence
of mind, and sense of human dignity?