[Crossed posted at Wheat and Tares.]
The Oregon standoff has included the frequent use of the
word “terrorism” to describe the Bundys and their associates. Because of my
research into revolutionary warfare, I’m not surprised that words like “terrorists”
are used as tools to delegitimize political actors.
My research projects have included
insurgencies into the Late Roman Empire, samurai warfare in medieval Japan and
the Chinese Civil War from 1927-1934.
(The latter of which is my proposed dissertation topic at Kings College
London.) In every period I found that
the use of the term robber or bandit connoted specific differences in power
between the central government and the perceived illegitimacy of new actors and
centers of power. As a result, this led
to the use of words that were far more emotional than accurate.
What was most interesting is that
the new powers were often a mix of local officials with private soldiers that
gained autonomy in the chaos, invading barbarians (or revolutionaries) that were
alternatively courted and opposed by the government and often given official
titles, protective groups of war bands, and some old fashioned predatory
robbers that fit the traditional idea behind the term. To cite one example, Mao Zedong actively
courted local groups of bandits, and echoing Giddiahni’s letter located in the
Book of Mormon (3
rd Nephi 3),
he even offered their secret societies forgiveness and an oath of friendship in
exchange for rejoining the revolution.
Roman elites had private soldiers called
bucellarii loyal to them and not the
government, because those armed bands operated independently of government
control historians often called them robbers.
As de facto power holders the far off Eastern
Roman emperor eventually courted these leaders and granted many of them
official status, including such war lords as Childeric, Clovis, Alaric, and the
Scourge of God Attila the Hun. and he eventually rose to become an official
governor of the provenance. In medieval
Japan, local power holders jealously guarded their rights, and often labelled
agents of the Shogun as “akuto” or “evil gangs.” Those that were labelled Akuto
sometimes formed economic cartels to strengthen their power, and used hired
muscle to ensure the cooperation of local farmers, collect taxes, and resist
rival akuto. Despite these activities, often their only crime was being an
agent of a government not recognized by local court officials!
In short, there is a great deal of
confusion between illegal bandits and rival armies and the legitimate use of force
directed by government officials. As Susan Mattern said in describing anti
Roman insurgencies, “The difference
between a bandit, a tribal chief, a petty king, or the leader of a rebellion
could be open to interpretation; many individuals are located in more than one
of these categories by the ancient sources.”
[6]
Often times, especially in ancient
history, but always in contested lawless regions, the only difference between a
robber (bandit, or member of an evil gang) and a tax collector was the
perceived legitimacy of the actors. Chiang Kai Shek for example found his
strongest tactic during the Fifth Bandit Suppression and Encirclement Campaign was
to harness the locals’ ability to shakedown merchants to and from Communist
base areas and call it a tax.
Despite most of the “robbers” having at least some form of legitimacy they were
stigmatized with the dismissive and often inaccurate term.
These terms are used in such non
clinical ways because as historians John Shy and Thomas Collier wrote that:
Words themselves are weapons…Language
is used to isolate and confuse enemies, rally and motivated friends, and enlist
the support of wavering bystanders…
Revolutionary soldiers are often called
‘bandits’, in effect denying them the legal status of combatants, and their
supporters described as ‘criminals’ or ‘traitors’. Government forces become
‘enemies of the people’ or ‘mercenaries’ the government itself being ‘fascist,’
corrupt,’ or a ‘puppet regime’….In revolutionary war there can be no neutral,
apolitical vocabulary.
[8]
We see the potency of words today
as well. Policy makers debated over
whether to call anti-American forces in Iraq “insurgents” or “terrorists.”
Many Americans felt a great deal of
frustration when the sectarian conflict in Iraq was labeled the demoralizing term
“civil war.” It explains why the surge led by General Petraeus was labeled an
escalation by some critics who were trying to invoke the ghoul of Vietnam. A
blockade during the Cuban Missile crisis would have been an act of war, but a
quarantine of the island prescribed the same action without the accompanying
baggage. In the prelude to the Bosnia
deployment, each side avoided the term “genocide” to evade the treaty obligations
associated with it. Thus policy makers use the rose-by-any-other-name term
“ethnic cleansing” instead.
In conclusion, most people who
accuse the Bundys of terrorism do so utterly unware of the long history of
using emotionally charged words that obscure more than they clarify. I certainly disagree with their actions, but
I’m even more bothered by the casual use of emotional charged words that do
little to accurately describe behavior or prescribe public policy. They instead
simply seek to incite public opinion by using emotionally charged words instead
of marshalling clear evidence and thoughtfully articulated positions.
Posts
