On the mutation of "terrorism"
"Terrorism is a threat of a new nature that demands a new kind of response."
That is the excuse they peddle to push back our freedoms. Fearmongering? Of course. But what in fact is terrorism, and how new is it?
In my youth, I assumed that "terrorism" had been coined to describe relatively recent tactics such as those used by the IRA and other resistance groups. In fact, it once referred to the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. It was not even a pejorative word then: you could refer to political figures as Terrorists almost as if Terror were a political party. With anti-Jacobin governments in power from 1795 onward, combined with constant excoriation of all things Revolutionary from abroad, the term became pejorative quickly enough.
The Terror is spoken of, perhaps rightly, as a forerunner to the 20th century's atrocities. Looking closely, there were few outright massacres. Except for various episodes such as the deliberate sinking of a galley full of prisoners, most of the deaths were carried out as formal (if abbreviated) executions - more like Stalin's purges than the Holocaust or Katyn. And its motivations were more "understandable" than the paranoia and hatred we associate with mass killings. That France was beset on all sides by its enemies, and riddled with spies and saboteurs, was in fact the truth (not that that should be an excuse). At any rate, the precedent was set.
But the Terror that many defended was not the terror of random killing, such as bombings. It was the official espousal of government-sanctioned killing - unaccountable, unanswerable, and ubiquitous. The fear that one day, the government would break down your door, haul you off to prison, torture and execute you, and your loved ones could do nothing about it, because they were the government, and their goals and methods were not subject to question.
Fast-forward to today, with the steady erosion of judicial freedoms fed by a carefully-nurtured, unthinking dread of shadowy enemies. In ten or twenty years, if things continue to deteriorate, "terrorist" might mean nothing more than "enemy of the state." A grim irony it is, that the state is adopting more and more of the features of the Terror in the name of fighting "terror." Today Guantanamo; tomorrow the guillotine.
Remember that this tendency has existed for some time. The justifying enemy doesn't have to be terrorism - the government seizes on whatever the public is worried about. After numerous war-related outbreaks, the tendency has more recently arisen in peacetime too. The War on Drugs, for example, gave the government the right to confiscate assets on suspicion only.
In this age, we have given the state great powers in order to aid its people. But if we relax our vigilance, that massive machine may be loosed, to be turned against us freely.
That is the excuse they peddle to push back our freedoms. Fearmongering? Of course. But what in fact is terrorism, and how new is it?
In my youth, I assumed that "terrorism" had been coined to describe relatively recent tactics such as those used by the IRA and other resistance groups. In fact, it once referred to the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. It was not even a pejorative word then: you could refer to political figures as Terrorists almost as if Terror were a political party. With anti-Jacobin governments in power from 1795 onward, combined with constant excoriation of all things Revolutionary from abroad, the term became pejorative quickly enough.
The Terror is spoken of, perhaps rightly, as a forerunner to the 20th century's atrocities. Looking closely, there were few outright massacres. Except for various episodes such as the deliberate sinking of a galley full of prisoners, most of the deaths were carried out as formal (if abbreviated) executions - more like Stalin's purges than the Holocaust or Katyn. And its motivations were more "understandable" than the paranoia and hatred we associate with mass killings. That France was beset on all sides by its enemies, and riddled with spies and saboteurs, was in fact the truth (not that that should be an excuse). At any rate, the precedent was set.
But the Terror that many defended was not the terror of random killing, such as bombings. It was the official espousal of government-sanctioned killing - unaccountable, unanswerable, and ubiquitous. The fear that one day, the government would break down your door, haul you off to prison, torture and execute you, and your loved ones could do nothing about it, because they were the government, and their goals and methods were not subject to question.
Fast-forward to today, with the steady erosion of judicial freedoms fed by a carefully-nurtured, unthinking dread of shadowy enemies. In ten or twenty years, if things continue to deteriorate, "terrorist" might mean nothing more than "enemy of the state." A grim irony it is, that the state is adopting more and more of the features of the Terror in the name of fighting "terror." Today Guantanamo; tomorrow the guillotine.
Remember that this tendency has existed for some time. The justifying enemy doesn't have to be terrorism - the government seizes on whatever the public is worried about. After numerous war-related outbreaks, the tendency has more recently arisen in peacetime too. The War on Drugs, for example, gave the government the right to confiscate assets on suspicion only.
In this age, we have given the state great powers in order to aid its people. But if we relax our vigilance, that massive machine may be loosed, to be turned against us freely.
posted by Minivet at 5:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home