Re: OfB.biz: It's Official: SCO Declares IP Jihad on Linux

On Wednesday 7 May 2003 4:53 am, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
> > Notice for example that the horrors of the Crusade have been converted by
> > Christians into "Just" wars.
>
> Hmm... I haven't heard that before. Where are they known as "just" wars?
> Even in my church, when they did a Church history course, they were
> presented uncomplimentary light.

Well, in this country crusaders are generally considered 'noble', and in 
history lessons they are presented neutrally. So this has and does happen, if 
not in the US, and I think there's a parallel.

> > Christians tend to use the term crusades to
> > symbolize war against "bad" (from the speaker's perspective) things, such
>
> [...]
>
> > Tim unfortunately plays right into this religious hatred with his
> > article's subject, thereby demonstrating his religious intolerance.  So,
> > Tim, please prove me wrong and tell us the rational (as opposed to
> > prejudicial or hateful) reason you used the term "jihad" instead of
> > "crusade" or some other term in the article title, would you please?
>
>    Is this a loaded question or what? :-) First, before discussing my
> overall rationale, I would argue that it is quite hard to infer "religious
> intolerance" by the usage of one word in a subject of a title not
> discussing anything religious.

Well, if you were (purely for example, and I'm aware this isn't a very good 
one, but it's the best I can think of at the moment) to to say that SCO is 
acting 'with the stupidity of a negro', then that would infer racial hatred, 
even though the actual article has nothing to do with Africans. I think it's 
the same kind of thing. The difference is that 'stupidity of a negro' hasn't 
been used as a buzzword (or buzzphrase) by the mainstream media and therefore 
isn't acceptable.

>    Now, let me first bring in the Merriam-Webster definitions of both Jihad
> and Crusade:
>
> * A crusade is a "a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and
> enthusiasm," when not referring to the historical event "The Crusades."
>
> * A jihad is a "a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty
> [or] a crusade for a principle or belief."
>
>   Now, at least in the current understanding however, much as you note,
> Jihad does have more of a negative connotation, and is thus more
> appropriate for a negative headline than crusade. It is also a term close
> to memory for most people atm, which makes it fit better as well.

You hit the nail on the head here. Why does it have a negative connotation? 
The answer is that it is continually used in this fashion, in much the same 
way as the word 'awful' has completely reversed it's meaning. Words are often 
given a negative connotation by the media as a form of propaganda, making 
people more likely to reject a concept by making the word itself 
objectionable. Personally, I think you're contributing to this effect, 
whether you intend to or not.

There are a lot of other words which have unfairly been given negative 
connotations over time. In many ways, I could be described as a communist, 
but I hesitate to do so because this gives people completely the wrong idea 
about me. Worse, people who may otherwise agree with the concept are put off 
by the word. 'Homosexual' is another word which suffers this problem. 

>   Consider this: "SCO Declares Crusade against Linux" and "SCO Declares
> Jihad against Linux"... which gets the point across better?

Both about the same, from where I'm sitting. If you find the latter more 
effective then clearly you've succumbed to the kind of propaganda I was just 
talking about.

>   Coming through again "SCO Declares a Remedial Enterprise Undertaken with
> Zeal Against Linux" or "SCO Declares a Crusade of Belief Against Linux"?

How about 'War'? I think you're deliberately giving silly examples in an 
effort to make my position look ridiculous.

>   But, back to my point. Just because Jihad had religious, perhaps even
> commendable, orgins, its popular usage is quickly forming based on the
> visable usage of it by groups such as al-Qaeda. As such, I am using the
> newly formed secular usage and not the older religious usage.

You're also reinforcing that usage, which I find objectionable.

>   Consider this: the term "born again" was a term of great spiritual
> significance to the Christian Church at least since the writing of the
> Gospel of John around 90 AD. However, since the 1970's Christians have been
> forced to find a new term, as born again in the United States now often
> refers to stuff like used cars, refurbished vacuums, etc.
>
>   While most Christians aren't happy about this, certainly no one is going
> to say that someone "incorrectly" using that term is hateful of the
> Christian Church.

Maybe so, but I don't think that happened through a desire to demonise 
Christians. It's a similar example, but not the same, IMO.

>   Jihad is a vivid picture of a war at the moment, and more precisely a
> war(s) in which it would seem the one issuing the war is very convinced to
> the rightness of the battle.

I'm going off the point here but I don't actually think that applies to SCO.

> Further, most of those on the outside see the
> jihads negatively -- suicide bombings, innocent civilians killed, etc. Thus
> it's the term that fits. I would note, if the most vocal Muslims didn't use
> the term Jihad in the sense of physical, asymmetrical warfare, but rather
> as a personal inner struggle, that wouldn't be the case.

I'm not sure I agree with you here. True, vocal, warlike Muslims have used the 
term on several occasions, but after that the media picked up on it and now 
seems to apply it to every conflict it can find. I don't think this is a 
coincidence, I think it's a very deliberate action to demonise a section of 
society. This is a well used tactic; think about words like "Red" and 
"Communist" during McCarthyism and how they were applied by the media.

>   Crusade wouldn't work. What do people think of when you say a crusade? I
> dunno... probably Campus Crusade for Christ or a Billy Graham Crusade.
> Stuff that most perceive either positively or neutrally. Except to middle
> easterners, the word crusade doesn't have a negative connotation UNLESS we
> specifically refer to THE Crusades.

In which case it still doesn't have a negative connotation. In fact, a 
newspaper here has a crusader as it's logo. Although to be fair the newspaper 
in question appeals to an older, arguably more warlike section of society 
(yes, I'm aware this is a gross generalisation).

>   This all comes down to the secularization of words. For instance, I was
> reading the other day about Christian ministers going to some kind of Study
> of Christ mecca. What a sec... when people think about that, it doesn't
> make much sense. Mecca, of course, being the holiest city of Islam.
>
>   For that matter, I can be trying to find a good pork farmer to buy
> sausage from and decide that one guy really seems to be kosher. That again,
> doesn't make much sense, but it has been said.
>
>   It's all a matter of taking the words in context for the popular meaning.
>
>   See what I mean?

I do, but as I said I don't think it's the same thing in this case. Or, to 
clarify, it is the same thing, but there is something more sinister 
underlying it all. Maybe I'm wrong.

-- 
dan

"Were i susceptible to having my mind changed, it would have changed my mind" 
- Matthew Parris

Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.