¡¡¡¡An American soldier refers to an Iraqi prisoner as ¡°it.¡± A general speaks not of ¡°Iraqi fighters¡± but of ¡°the enemy.¡± A weapons manufacturer doesn¡¯t talk about people but about ¡°targets.¡± Bullets and bombs are not the only tools of war. Words too play their part. Human beings are social animals genetically hardª²wired to feel compassion toward others. Under normal conditions most people find it very difficult to kill. But in war military recruits must be persuaded that killing other people is not only acceptable but even honourable. The language of war is intended to bring about that change and not only for soldiers in the field. The specific words change from culture to culture and war to war. The names need not be obviously demeaning. Just the fact that we can name them gives us a sense of superiority and control. The Greeks and Romans referred to everyone else as ¡°barbarians¡±¡ªetymologically those who only babble only go ¡°bar bar.¡± During the American Revolution the British called the colonists ¡°Yankees¡± a term with a history that is still in dispute. While the British intended it disparagingly the Americans in perhaps the first historical instance of reclamation made the word their own and gave it a positive spin turning the derisive song ¡°Yankee Doodle¡±into the United States¡¯ first if unofficial national anthem. In World War I the British gave the Germans the nickname ¡°Jerries¡±from the first syllable of German. In World War II Americans referred to the Japanese as ¡°Japs.¡± The names may refer to real or imagined cultural and physical differences that emphasize the ridiculous or the repugnant. So in various wars¢Ÿ Germans have been called ¡°Krauts¡±a reference to weird and smelly food. The Vietnamese were called ¡°slopes¡±and ¡°slants.¡± The Koreans were referred to simply as ¡°gooks.¡±The war in Iraq has added new examples. Some American soldiers refer to the Iraqis as ¡°hajis¡±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. The terrors and uncertainties of war make learning this kind of language especially compelling for soldiers on the front. But civilians back home also need to believe that what their country is doing is just and necessary and that the killing they are supporting is in some way different from the killing in civilian life that is rightly punished by the criminal justice system. The use of the language developed for military purposes by civilians reassures them that war is not murder. The same language that creates a psychological chasm between ¡°us¡±and ¡°them¡±and enables American troops to kill in battle makes enemy soldiers fit subjects for torture and humiliation. The reasoning is They are not really human so they will not feel the pain. Once language draws that line all kinds of mistreatment become imaginable and then justifiable. -