Teacher Discussion Forums

Interesting to see the growth in frequency of the word "terrorist" over the decades below in Time magazine. Could this be because terrorism has grown over those decades, or many of what were once called freedom fighters are now renamed as terrorists, or is it that terrorism has become more newsworthy?

WORD - TERRORIST
1920s 5
1930s 41
1940s 36
1950s 67
1960s 131
1970s 314
1980s 453
1990s 226
2000s 694

http://corpus.byu.edu/time/

Interesting that it dwindled so much in the 90's. That was when we were getting hit most in the USA. We we being blown up all over: our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, a ship off Yemen, bomb in World Trade Center, Oklahoma City, etc. I think the administration was not mentioning it, ignoring it, or trying to deflect attention away from it, until 2001, when it became a central strategy.

That was when we were getting hit most in the USA. We we being blown up all over: our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, a ship off Yemen, bomb in World Trade Center, Oklahoma City, etc. I think the administration was not mentioning it, ignoring it, or trying to deflect attention away from it, until 2001, when it became a central strategy.>

Or maybe most of those hits relate to attacks on American soil and/or property.

Seems to be a clear correlation between the use of the word and having a Republican Administration.

Stephen Jones wrote:Seems to be a clear correlation between the use of the word and having a Republican Administration.

Could be.

Seems to be a clear correlation between the use of the word and having a Republican Administration.

Precisely my point. You said directly what I was implying.

jotham wrote:

Seems to be a clear correlation between the use of the word and having a Republican Administration.

Precisely my point. You said directly what I was implying.

Not sure if you and Stephen mean the same thing. Can you explain the comment you made in your first post?

While we were getting blown up all over the place, the administration (Democrat Clinton) was not mentioning it, was ignoring it, and deflecting attention away from it, until 2001, when it became a central strategy (Republican Bush).
The correlation, however, only holds true for the last three decades. The few occurences in the 20's were Republican. The uptick in the 30's and 60's was Democrat.

The correlation, however, only holds true for the last three decades.

Maybe it's a world wide thing. Maybe the word has made more of an appearance in many countries over the last three decades. I'll try to find other sources to test these theories.

Here are the figures for the "Clinton years", so to speak.

YEAR:
PER MIL WORDS

1993 45.45
1994 39.70
1995 61.24
1996 39.78
1997 20.62
1998 28.82
1999 10.25
2000 25.19
2001 189.32

Here are the figures for this decade up to 2006 - the "Bush years", so to speak.

YEAR:
PER MIL WORDS

2001 189.32 (Repeated from above.)
2002 192.08
2003 142.90
2004 137.58
2005 107.21
2006 113.84

It reminds me of those "verbs" ( I am a social drinker, You drink a lot, He is a lush)

The Taliban were freedom fighters when they fought the Evil Empire, terrorists when they took on the West. Coventry was a terror raid, Dresden was a civilian target or was it the other way round?

When the ANC bombed supermarkets during Apartheid or The Mau Mau killed white Kenyans (while the Brits put black Kenyans in concentration camps/protected villages) they were terrorists and/or freedom fighters depending on your view.

Loaded words were ever thus. What's the difference between "youthful pranks" and "adolescent vandalism"? Dad's wallet probably.

Same meat. Different gravy.

Loaded words were ever thus.

Indeed, but why the increase in the use of the word "terrorist"? Were all activist once only called "freedom fighters") (See 1920 Time mag results above.)