Power of Words free essay sample

For example, when in war, soldiers give names to the enemy to make it easier to kill them. These words are not necessarily meant to harm anyone, but it makes it easier to kill them, and protect the ones back home. In â€Å"The Power of Words in Wartime,† a scholarly article written by Robin Tolmach Lakoff, she argues that the way we use words, especially in times of war, alters our perception of the opposing side of the war; also known as our â€Å"enemy. † In the article, it is mentioned that names are given to the enemy to make it easier to kill. These names dehumanize the enemy and therefore, we think of them as inhuman. Changing the language during wartime makes the soldiers feel superior, therefore, making it easier to kill the enemy. Lakoff argues that this perception will do harm in the future and is an incorrect way to refer to human beings. We will write a custom essay sample on Power of Words or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page She supports her argument by stating examples of nicknames that were given in past wars, and addressing the modern day Abu Ghraib scandal that occurred in Iraq. Lakoff’s intent is to inform people about the problems that occur when using dehumanizing language in order to promote more peaceful actions. Lakoff argues that using this language dehumanizes our enemy, and this language could cause an immense problem in the future. Although, she argues that this language is misused, I disagree with her, because this is a beneficial tool used during wartime, and it is just another tactic used to defeat the enemy. Lakoff argues that this language is dehumanizing, and thinks that is could cause trouble in the future, but she does not back her argument with enough support. In this essay, Lakoff states that having a different language during wartime is beneficial, but at the same time it can cause trouble. The wartime language makes it easier for the soldier who has to go through all the hardships during war, and overcome the killings of other human beings. She states that, â€Å"Human beings are social animals, genetically hard-wired to feel compassion toward others. Under normal conditions, most people find it very difficult to kill. † (Lakoff 129) This is a strong response to how many feel about the language. Her idea can be supported by looking at the outcomes of the many soldiers that have had troubles after war. Many have been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder. The power of language has a way to reduce the problems for people and make it easier on them to kill the enemy. Wartime language is used in a positive way to bring change for everyone. Lakoff says that this language is a beneficial tool for the soldiers, but can be misused. Wartime language helps the soldiers on and off duty, and even the ones back home. We often hear stories about families that have been torn apart, because after a parent or a spouse comes back from war, they are a completely different person. If using this language can help these men and women, then why not use it? She uses different examples to show how the language is used in wartime, but she does not support her argument on how this has caused problems in the past. In the article, she states, â€Å"The Greeks and Romans referred to everyone else as â€Å"barbarians†- etymologically those who only babble, only go â€Å"bar-bar. † (Lakoff 130) Throughout the article, Lakoff uses examples of how many groups referred to others with nicknames in the past, but this does not show how giving names to them was harmful. In the article, it is shown that giving names to the enemy is beneficial, but Lakoff’s point of view is that, many times in the past, nicknames were given during war, but her ideas are not supported enough with evidence on why creating language during wartime is a cruel idea. She uses one example of the scandal in Abu Ghraib, but this is not enough to support her argument and to make her audience believe that the wartime language is harmful. In Lakoff’s article, she states that it is a beneficial tool throughout, but only uses one example of when it did harm. She only uses one example, which makes her credibility weak. Lakoff makes her ideas consistent and logical throughout the article, but lacks the support for her argument. Lakoff argues that using words especially in times of war alters our perception of the opposing side of the war, and dehumanizes the enemy. Moreover, some of the words that are used are not used correctly. For example, Lakoff states, â€Å"Some American soldiers refer to the Iraqis as â€Å"hadjis,† used in a derogatory way, apparently unaware that the word, which comes from the Arabic term for a pilgrimage to Mecca, is used as a term of respect for older Muslim men. (Lakoff 130) This shows that some use random words to represent people, which can be disrespectful. Lakoff also expresses her thought and opinions by talking about the many different times groups of people were given names, which mistreated them. This caused humiliation and torture, because these names were given to make fun of them, and to make them feel inferior. She also uses examples of past wars, and how many times the opposing side was given nicknames, which also was disrespectful. She states, â€Å"In World War I, the British gave the Germans the nickname â€Å"Jerries,† from the first syllable of German. In World War II, Americans referred to the Japanese as â€Å"Japs. † (Lakoff 130) Many times in the past, these names were given to the enemy, but arguing Lakoff’s point that using a certain language dehumanized the people, there was no harm done when these names were given. Lakoff writes this article to catch the attention of the ones who have gone through a lot during this war. Also, it is apparent that Lakoff is writing this article for those who are fighting, so they can realize what is becoming of their language. The intended audience of this essay is for the civilian population of a country at war, who has witnessed a long and costly war. To make the audience realize that dehumanizing the enemy could lead to horrible scandals, she uses an example of the modern day scandal that took place in Iraq. She says, â€Å"The linguistic habits that soldiers must absorb in order to fight make atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib virtually inevitable. † (Lakoff 131) The use of language created a difference between us and the Iraqis, which helped the troops kill, and these troops ended up humiliating the Iraqi soldiers, because they were not considered human. Abu Ghraib scandal caused humiliation for the troops because they were tortured and killed. She states this example because she thinks that this only happened because they were classified as the â€Å"enemy. † This is only example that is given in this article, which shows that using this type of language during wartime can cause scandals like this. However, Lakoff does not use enough evidence to prove to her audience that this language is inappropriate, and needs to be stopped. Classifying human beings as â€Å"enemies,† is a virtuous idea, because for soldiers it helps them protect their country, and helps them kill the enemy.