"Terrorist" movement.

<b>Forum for the discussion of Applied Linguistics </b>

Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2

Post Reply
metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

"Terrorist" movement.

Post by metal56 » Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:09 pm

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/

jotham
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:51 am

Post by jotham » Sat Jun 23, 2007 2:23 am

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.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:57 am

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.

Stephen Jones
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm

Post by Stephen Jones » Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:49 pm

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

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:16 pm

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

jotham
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:51 am

Post by jotham » Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:28 am

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.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:24 am

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?

jotham
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:51 am

Post by jotham » Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:39 am

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.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:06 am

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.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:47 am

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

JuanTwoThree
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
Location: Spain

Post by JuanTwoThree » Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:05 am

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.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:17 am

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.)

Post Reply