Oct. 14, 2001

As a freelance journalist and someone who's been known to read books such as "Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable" just for the fun of it, I am always open to learning more about the origins and meaning of words. In light of recent events, this is even more important, and your excellent article could not be more timely. However, I tend to agree with the letter-writer who suspects that you are "preaching to the choir," in that those who are most willing to listen and learn are not the ones in most need of being enlightened.

Further, I would like to take the opportunity to disagree that this clash is about religion, or even philosophy. My uncle Liam (who is sadly familiar with the worst excesses of violence in Northern Ireland) pointed out to me once that any armed struggle, whether the indiscriminate killing of innocent passers-by with a car bomb or the dropping of bombs from an aircraft, is really all about territory and who gets to control it. Whether you look at the Crusades and their struggle for control of the "Holy Land," the internecine violence for control of Northern Ireland, the clashes between Palestinians and Israelis or the violence of the Chinese seeking to exert authority in Tibet, it's not really about religion or even ideology – it's about territory. Even the infamous "Cold War" fits this model. As usual, however, philosophy and religion are waved by both sides in an effort to justify what it's really all about – a power grab for a chunk of real estate.

In the case of the current situation, it is still about real estate and its control – should the USA have bases in Saudi Arabia; should the (until very recently) Pakistan-supported Taliban forces control Afghanistan, or the Northern Afghani forces? And on and on; religion and ideology make handy rallying cries for the masses, but that's not what is really the root cause or even the impetus behind the mobilization of force on either side.

Also, I noted with great interest your explanation of the original use of the term "terrorist." Noam Chomsky, who is surely one of the greatest linguistic scholars of this or any century (as well as being an astute social and political analyst who is almost universally ignored by the mainstream media) has pointed out that the term initially referred to the use of terror techniques by governments against the citizens. Indeed, he asserts that the use of the term "terrorism" to describe violence against the state is a 20th century development. He maintained that "terrorist" should still be used to describe states such as China, Peru, North Korea and the Philippines (before the UN became involved in East Timor.) Chomsky added that some other word or phrase should be coined to describe the actions of citizens who advocate and use violence against the state to further political aims. I'd be interested to hear suggestions from other readers.

Finally, this was the first time I have stumbled across your site, and I was greatly impressed. As an agnostic, I cannot say "thank God for the CBC" with absolute conviction (and my brain rebels at the thought of saying "thank Sheila Copps for the CBC") but thank who-or-whatever for the Mothercorp and the tremendous job you folks do in trying times with an ever-shrinking budget. I will be back to this site again. Strive on!

Rob N. Riley
The Slocan Valley, B.C.
(where the "counter-culture" still thrives!)

PS: I would be interested to see your take on a few other related words, such as "bigot," "chauvinist" (in the original French incarnation of the word!), and "radical." I once wrote a piece in an effort to rehabilitate the term "radical," pointing out that there is nothing intrinsically bad about being "radical." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Jesus Christ were all called "radicals" (and WERE radicals) in their day, but we've all benefited enormously from their time spent with us and what they had to teach us.

Sept. 28, 2001

I read your article Backlash of Bigotry: Terrorism after the Attack and found it very well written.

I began thinking about how the tragedy has spawned so many volunteer efforts to bring some sort of aid to the aftermath of the attack, including the clean-up, the victims, etc. Also, I thought about how people want to wave American flags and such, yet did we want to wave flags of other countries whose innocent citizens have been killed in the last decade? I cried for the victims but I also worried about using the emotions of this attack to stir up violent reactions, and how those reactions would be directed.

I think it would be great if there was a way to get involved with some organized group of people who could show their support to avoid racist reactions of this tragedy. If there was something I could do in this vein, I would get involved.

My very first reaction to hearing the reports from CNN as I was watching this tragedy happen live on TV that morning was: "Oh my God, the way this is getting reported is going to generate racist reactions!" That was my immediate concern and continues to be my major concern.

It's racism that fed the attack and racism that continues to feed war, violence and intolerance in the world. I wish I could do more to "fight" this battle against racism.

Barbara M. Sweeney
Ottawa

Sept. 24, 2001

Excellent piece.

It demonstrates sensitive understanding of the power of words (and etymology), history and Islam. All three are subjects about which I'm passionately interested – as an American, a citizen of the world and a religious Jew.

Thank you,

Mary Ann Zimmer

Sept. 24, 2001

Good column.

Thanks,

Michael Howard

Sept. 21, 2001

I want to thank you for writing this excellent article. It's refreshing to know that there is a group of people that rise above the rhetoric and aren't afraid to stand apart from "The Great Unwashed".

I hope your article reaches many readers and I hope those readers allow change in their previously held notions of what Islam is or what Muslims, Arabs, Pakistanis, Afghanis or any nation or religion east of Istanbul are.

I especially loved the paragraph that states:

"There's a word to describe the death threats and firebombs that have been hurled at Canada's Arab and Muslim communities recently: 'terrorism' – the deliberate attempt to hurt or frighten innocent people. Other visible minorities have also been targeted."

Again thank you for addressing these misconceptions.

I also want to express my deepest condolences to the families that have lost loved ones, my warmest sympathies to those who have been injured and my agreeing appreciation of anyone who is in emotional pain as a result of last week's attacks (that should be just about all of us).

It's my pain too.

Sam Hageahmad

Sept. 21, 2001

Admirable!! Unfortunately, too often the people who are willing to listen are the "already converted".

I most sincerely wish that every one could truly hear what you are saying. We are praying that the peaceful ones will get the message through before the others destroy themselves and us too.

No color or nation has a corner on that thought process. But people like you WILL make a difference, so keep talking/writing the way you have done. And we will keep praying that it will be soon enough and strong enough to save our Mother Earth.

Namaste,

A.J. Murch

Sept. 21, 2001

I will never forget the people in the disaster, nor will I ever forget the words of the small Muslim boy. He, his sister and his parents are also victims.

Jeannie Holland

Sept. 21, 2001

Regarding the word "mussulman", heard in concentration camps during WW II, as well as ghettos in Europe:

As a child of Holocaust survivors, I've heard the expression many times during Yiddish conversation, pronounced "musleman", to mean a person on the verge of death by starvation. No doubt the Yiddish word is derived from the language's step-parent, German.

The explanation that I have frequently heard for the expression was that the individual starving to death could frequently be seen sitting on the floor cross-legged(chairs were scarce), wrapped in a blanket (warm clothing was scarce), rocking to and fro, suggesting an image of a Moslem in prayer.

The expression may be considered offensive because it evokes a caricature. Accounting for the origins of colloquialisms will always be speculative to some degree. Probably the best way to go about finding an explanation would be to ask the people who use the expression. I think you will usually find more than one explanation.

David Fischman
Kingston, Ontario

Sept. 21, 2001

Pardon the grammar and syntax. I haven't bothered to proof read.

Very good article, but dwelling on the history and the distinctions between Islamic sects, still kind of misses the point. While it may be true the attacks were carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, the fact remains that terrorism is a political act, rather than a religious one.

Religion often becomes an expression of nationalism because it is a cultural trait shared most of the people in the region. In most cases, the militants aren't acting to carry out scripture. They are doing it to consolidate territory or beat back an oppressor.

Islamic fundamentalism is an expression of Middle Eastern nationalism because majority of the population in most of those countries are indoctrinated as Muslims and they are not keen on giving up their culture to imperialism. The Iranian revolution, for instance, was attributed to radical Shiites and the clerics who led them, it was an uprising against a dictator who was put in place after a popular leader was overthrown in a plot devised by the American government in the 1950s. No wonder America became "the great Satan" in the eyes of Iranians. The Ayatollah Khomeni was seen by most of the world as a religious fanatic, and granted he was, but what he led was an expression of a population who did not want to be ruled by external influences.

While Osama Bin Laden justifies his actions according to the Koran, he is reacting the American and European influence in his part of the world. Presumably, he does not like the fact there are American military bases in his native country of Saudi Arabia, sees Israel sees a European colony, and believed the Soviet Union had no business imposing its political system in Afghanistan. Also, Bin Laden appears to be the sort of fanatic who would regard anyone who holds beliefs different from his own as inferior and, as such, is less than human. Thus he invokes scripture as his justification for killing, just as governments invoke international law or history as a justification for war.

Invoking the name of a supreme being or philosophical ideal serves to mobilize troops who want to believe what they are doing is good. This has always been the popular justification of militarism: good versus evil; Hutu versus Tutsi; Serb versus Croat; civilization versus savages; Aryan against inferior race; communist utopia versus capitalist hegemony. In the end, they are conquering territory by either forcibly changing a national government or expanding the state's boundaries.

The confusion of religious and political motives is the same mistake made with the Northern Ireland conflict. While both sides are largely demarcated along religious lines, their goals have to do with political allegiances, not religious ones. Nationalists want a united Ireland free of British influence because they believe they will be entitled to a better quality of life under those circumstances. Unionists want to remain part of the United Kingdom because they enjoy the rights granted to them under that political structure. It just happens that most Irish nationalists are Catholic because it became an ingrained part of their culture when the British government tried to take it away from them after invading the island in the 1600s. The settlers who considered themselves Brits happened to adhere to Protestantism and identified it as part of their political allegiance. (Incidentally, some of the leading proponents of Irish independence in the 1800s and 1900s were Protestants. Beside the point though.)

Terrorism is low intensity warfare. Its combatants do not necessarily have definable borders or territory, but they have distinct political goals. The people planning the counter attack are aware of this. The security analysts quoted on public affairs programs know this. As it is now apparent as to how devastating it can be as a type of international warfare, the media owes its audience a complex explanation rather than a simplistic one.

While the people who blew up the World Trade Center may well have been fanatical Muslims, the media owes its audience reporting that underscores the supposed political motives rather than the religious ones. Whether the population is sophisticated to make the distinction is anyone's guess. While many members of the American militia movement ascribe to twisted Christian fundamentalist beliefs (especially when they view Christianity as part of their European heritage), Timothy McVeigh was not portrayed in that light. Will this assuage racism? Probably not. Acts of hate will still be carried out, except the racists will hate according to nationality rather than religious belief. If they understand the political underpinnings of terrorism, they may have a better idea of what motivates someone to start a war.

Bob Keelaghan
Calgary

P.S. I once read that the assassins (the original ones) were indoctrinated under the influence of hash. Mind control, you know.

Sept. 21, 2001

I think it is time for the leaders of the Islamic and Muslim communities to weed out those who corrupt their religion for there own purposes. They are the one who would be best able to infiltrate and destroy any extremist cells in our country and around the world. They have said the do not support terrorism, but they do not seem to take an active role in stopping it either.

When a group calls for jihad to destroy Americans, I do not hear the Islamic leaders say this is not a jihad and that those who have evoked this should be condemned by all Islamic people. Instead I hear groups say they do not support this action, but there is no call within the Islamic world to excommunicate these people or a call for a jihad against those who are perverting their religion.

If the Islamic community is not going to stop these people, they will condemn the Islamic religion and Muslims in general to be pariahs in the rest of the world. I ask all the Islamic communities in our country to seek out those people who are perverting their religion and turn them into authorities. If they do not, they are condoning their actions and it will be hard for non Muslims to trust and accept the Islamic people here. This will cause fear and hatred to grow.

The terrorism against the Islamic people in recent days has discussed me, but the Islamic communities do little to show they are Canadian. Canada has even adjusted our laws for other religions (R.C.M.P. can wear turbans and ceremonial knifes may be carried.) We accept all religions but Christians are not accepted in the Islamic world, yet we are called prejudice.

I love that all people are welcome in this country and that despite the fact that we are not perfect, we are a just and free country. I wonder how long this will last, and if the immigration that has built this land will close to the Muslim world.

Glynn Hanrahan
Calgary, Alberta

Sept. 20, 2001

I have just finished reading your article and found it to be one of the sanest pieces of journalism to come out in the past 9 days. I have forwarded a link to your article to several people. I have printed out to take home to my children.

Your article was both informative and profound. I have talked to my children a great deal about religious fanaticism and religious persecution. We have discussed the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Nazis. This has not been an educational experience I have enjoyed. However recent events have made it necessary. I wish I had had your article several days ago.

Thank you once again for your insightful commentary and researched information.

Yours truly

Stacey Leadbetter
Toronto

Sept. 20, 2001

As a writer, I really appreciate your careful analysis of the rhetoric we have seen in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attack. You identified many concerns I share.

One area I believe you missed was a more careful look at the term "fundamentalist." I read somewhere (or perhaps heard an interview) in which a "moderate" Muslim complained about applying the term fundamentalist to bin Laden and his group. He described the five fundamentals of Islam and showed how the actions of the people who committed the terrorist crimes (if they were indeed associated with bin Laden, which is not certain at this writing) violated the fundamentals of Islam.

He said a more accurate term for bin Laden and people who share his beliefs is extremists, and I agree with him. I am not even sure we should dignify these people by using Islamic as a modifier for this noun.

Kevin Longfield

Editor's Note: The section on "fundamentalist" has been clarified. Only "fanatical" fundamentalists actually condone the murder of innocent people.

Sept. 20, 2001

I thoroughly enjoyed your insightful article, "Backlash of Bigotry: Terrorism after the attack."

Hate and hate mail comes from a lack of information and ignorance. I invite you to read our online News Bulletin (Canadian Society of Muslims.) I request you join hands with us in our effort to bring to the attention of all Canadians that there is always a bright side to any story.

"Terrorism after the attack" also has a bright side. To me, that bright side is manifested through the 15 or so positive e-mails we've received. As I put it in the bulletin: 'Yes, there are some really nice people out there, who care to take the time and trouble to show thoughtfulness to the victims of bigotry even in troubled times!'

You are an accomplished writer – a master of your craft, "words." How about doing another essay/article to show us all that there, surely, is hope for humanity to survive the disasters, moral or otherwise?

Sincerely,

S.M. Ali
President, Canadian Society of Muslims

Sept. 20, 2001

Your document was well written. Such concerns should be discussed in all schools and homes. Hatred, bigotry and racism are perpetuated to the ill-informed and uneducated. History has proven in the past that such actions are a result of not understanding those who are different.

Differences make us unique as individuals and we must respect our uniqueness. But we must understand that such hatreds are fed by ignorance and that no matter what race, religion or ethnic origin when it comes to evil we all have them in our society.

It is that evil we must eradicate and tolerance is not simply lip service or politically correct but should be a part of our everyday life.

We are all different, but we must also understand why we are different. In many ways we are all the same. We belong to the human race, and we all want peace, harmony and to get along with each other and live our lives to the fullest. Hatred and prejudice is like a cancer, which will if we let it eventually destroy us as a human race.

E. Golemme

Sept. 20, 2001

I for one am heartbroken and angry about the horrible tragedy of last week. However, the backlash of attacks against the Muslim population is ridiculous. If the terrorists were white, would all white people then be targeted? If they were Japanese, would we try and kill all the Japanese living in Canada or the US? Of course not.

Just because someone is Muslim, does not mean they condone or agree with what happened, and they are as saddened by terrorism as the rest of us.

I was reading your article about the bigotry of some who have vandalized mosques, and made anyone who is Muslim afraid to go out their doors. Shame on those who are doing this. You are terrorizing innocents, and how does that make you any better than the monsters who did this?

Tammy Simmons

Sept. 20, 2001

I read your article on the backlash of bigotry. It was very informative and thought-provoking writing.

But after last night's Town Hall (on CBC Television), and based on my own experiences over the last two decades, I think that Canada's favorite bigotry is US-bashing – whether it as a simmering anger with the big country next door, or snobbish abuse of individual US citizens.

I was hoping Canada would lose this wart after the attack, but it was out in full view last night.

Dan Johnson

Lethbridge, Alta.

Sept. 20, 2001

A very incisive piece! YOU should do more for consumption in the U.S.A.

James E. Crawford, Sr.

Sept 19, 2001

I am an American student living in Orlando, Florida. I am moved to read your article mentioning the other victims involved in terrorism in our modern world.

I have heard of atrocities committed to people of Arabic decent and/or Muslim faith in America and on a personal level to friends of mine as well. I have not, however, heard the issue of Racism and other "isms" covered so pointedly.

It seems our news coverage here gleans over those issues in light of talking about troops being sent to the Middle East and aid to our Airline economy. Although I do not doubt the importance of these issues, it is refreshing to receive a point of view uniting citizens of the world in a common goal against terrorism and all of its victims including the people of Arabic decent and/or Muslim faith currently being persecuted.

Thank you for the informative article.

Sincerely,

Dorie A. Erdmann
Orlando, Florida

Sept. 20, 2001

Your article on the meaning of words is the best I have ever read. Unfortunately, too many people don't really know the meaning of words they have heard only recently.

I hope you will write more articles that clarify the meaning of some of the "new" words that are so common in the news these days.

Robert Cherry
Hull, Quebec

Sept. 20, 2001

It is unfortunate that in an article dedicated to using words accurately, you use the word 'anarchist' to describe Timothy McVeigh. Anarchy is probably one of the most misused and misdefined words around.

Whatever bizarre philosophy McVeigh is a proponent of, it is most definitely not anarchy as I understand it or as Mikhail Bakunin and other anarchist philosophers have defined it. At its very heart, anarchy is about taking full responsibility for one's actions; it is about living in such a way so as not to dominate anyone else. It is most definitely not about terrorism or chaos, even if unfortunately too many people and dictionaries define it this way.

Just something to think about. Words ARE very powerful. And anarchists are no more terrorists than Muslims, even though there may be some fanatical elements in either group, who seem to have had their brains short-circuited into believing that acts of terrorism are righteous.

Cheers,

Marion Grove

Editor's Note: We've received a couple of letters raising this valid point.
Only "militant" anarchists condone violence. The word comes from the Greek "anarkhos," meaning "without a chief." For centuries, many people have associated this term solely with disorder, rebellion and in some cases bloodshed. But "anarchy" has also been used to describe a political ideal: a society based on voluntary co-operation and individual freedom in the absence of government.
Both broad definitions are legitimate, but neither is sufficient for Timothy McVeigh. He was not merely an "anarchist," he was a "murderous anarchist" – a "terrorist" who killed innocent people in his campaign against government authority. The column has been changed to reflect this.

Sept. 19, 2001

Very interesting column on the use and misuse of Muslim, Islam and related words in Western history. Unfortunately there is a very serious historical error in your text: "They seemed stunned that Timothy McVeigh, a former U.S. army sergeant turned anarchist, had planted the explosives."

Indeed, bombings and other violent forms of "propaganda of the deed" were carried out by certain wings of the anarchist movement, especially in the 19th century. Not all anarchists agreed with such individual terror at any time and only a tiny minority of the many currents on the libertarian left would nowadays.

Timothy McVeigh may have been "anti-government", but he was on the extreme right. His favourite texts included Mein Kampf and militia takeover scenarios.

Yours truly,

Maria Gatti
Montreal

Sept. 19, 2001

The World Trade Center attack has changed the world. The vast majority of Canadians have cast their lot with the U.S., putting aside the many petty irritations we sometimes feel.

In about the only thing Prime Minister Jean Chretien has said that I agree with, he referred to the Americans as family. When someone attacks our family we have the right to be angry and the right to ask who attacked them and why they did it.

Bin Laden and other ISLAMIC fundamentalists are apparently the ones who did it. There is a principle that the enemy of my friend (or family) is my enemy. In simple language that puts some Islamic groups in the category of enemy.

My advice to Muslims would be to be very careful of open attacks on the U.S. at this time AND TO CHOOSE SIDES. This is not the time for fence sitting.

Bob Powelson
Cheonan, Korea

Sept. 19, 2001

Have people forgotten that over 40 different countries were represented by people who were in the World Trade Center at the time of these attacks. This has nothing to do with colour, it was an act of Anger against humanity and of flesh and blood.

Those who are attacking people of the Muslim or any other religion/or nationality are taking out their anger and fear on people who are in Canada as well as the United States for a reason. It's called Freedom!

I am desperately saddened by these events, not because the people who died were American but that they were HUMAN!

I hope that more people out there realize that no matter what the religion, we are all on earth for a short time. Is it necessary to make the experience as volatile and horrific as possible?

God Bless Humanity!
Tasha Simpson

top | main index | archived letters | contact us