Take care before you accuse someone of using the wrong word

princess3

Merriam Dictionary: Revisionist: support of ideas and beliefs that differ from and try to change accepted ideas and beliefs especially in a way that is seen as wrong or dishonest

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Inigo Montoya. Princess Bride

Oxford Dictionary: Terrorist: A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

The other day, a friend got a hold of me to ask a question. She had just finished reading an article titled, The Weaker Sex? Violence and the Suffragette Movement. Something had caused her to think she misunderstood the author’s point. That thing was the comment section.

The article’s author, Fern Riddle, walks her readers through the darker side of the Suffragette Movement, and questions why this aspect of the movement has been lost to the ages. In the opening paragraph Riddle illustrates that the movement was not as peaceful as we have been led to believe.

In the early hours of a mild November morning in 1913, a three-inch pipe was primed to explode later and destroy the multiple panels and ornate metal work that made the Glass House ‘one of the chief attractions’ of Alexandra Park in Manchester. A smouldering mass of twisted metal and broken glass was discovered and quickly attributed by the popular press to the wave of ‘suffragette outrages’ being committed across the country by the militant branch of the women’s rights movement. Kew Gardens had already suffered two attacks, on an orchid house and pavilion, and the campaign of arson and intimidation conducted by the militant wing of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) and their supporters was reaching its height.

Riddle goes on to give other examples of extreme violence at the hands of militant Suffragettes. Riddle has done her homework. She cites court cases and press reaction to these acts of violence. Riddle is not attacking these women for their actions. The purpose of the article is to ask why historians continue to ignore them. Riddle calls the actions of these women, acts of terrorism, but does admit not everyone will agree.

While the majority of historians would baulk at describing any suffragette as a ‘terrorist’, most would accept that the actions of the militants could be viewed as a form of political extremism.

Riddle goes on to argue that after the horrors of World War I, the leaders of the movement sought to distance themselves from the agents of violence and because of this silence these women have been largely forgotten. Our unease with their tactics, leave us unable to come to term with their motives, as if they have no right to their feelings and frustration. It is a very good piece as it asks us to reevaluate the movement as a whole.

So, what’s the problem? Why was my friend confused? It turns out she wasn’t confused, it was the comment posters who were confused. Yeah, go figure.

The majority of the commenters were angry at Riddle over the use of the term terrorist when describing these agents of violence. One commenter thought Riddle was revising history by using a modern term (terrorism) when describing the events of the early 20th century (which, as far as I know, is still considered modern). Others agreed and continued to call Riddle a revisionist who uses a modern term to talk about (gasp) history!

The root of the word terrorism is taken from a Latin term that literally means “to frighten”. It became part of the phrase “terror cimbricus”, which was used by ancient Romans as far back as 105BC to describe the panic that ensued as they prepared for an attack by a fierce warrior tribe. The modern English word derives from the French term, Terreur , which was coined during the French Revolution. So no, the word is not modern, although we now reserve the use for war crimes or when groups attack nation-states.

Riddle is using the term correctly, but as stated before she concedes that historians might baulk at its use, but only because of the modern connotation. There are far worse terrorist out there and we could deem it inappropriate to group these ladies with modern terrorists. But to say the word does not apply would also be inappropriate, as by definition these ladies sought to strike fear and terror in the hearts and minds of those who opposed their political aims. Get over it people. You may feel uneasy with the term, but Riddle had every right to use it.

Riddle was not pushing any political agenda, nor was she revising history to make a point. Riddle is not placing these ladies on the same level as ISIS. The term terrorism is used to express the goal of the militant wing of the Suffragette Movement and the violent means by which these goals were to be met. In no way did Riddle color or revise the history of the movement. Even if she had used a modern term, this is not what it means to revise history anymore than using the word cancer to describe the medieval “wasting disease” revises history.

After reading the article, my friend and I agreed that the article illustrates just how hard women fought for equal rights and the right to vote. And, if schools would once again give these women a voice, we modern women might value what we have, instead of taking it for granted.

3e37a231-cd91-40b1-911f-4d5dac275abc

The difference between choice and privilege

rashes_princ_6l7247_measles_424x302

As a modern western society we are blessed with the privilege of choice. We get to decide where we live, what professional path to follow, who to marry, and how many children to have (if any). Hell, we even get to choose what type of dietary lifestyle we want to follow and what brand of water to drink. We live in an age of unabashed consumerism. Yet, how many of us stop to consider that what we call “choice” is in fact, privilege? We are privileged to live the way we do. Not everyone is so lucky. Not that long ago, neither were we. Here in lies the problem; we have forgotten that not that long ago, we had little choice over our lives.

Think about how lucky we are that we can wander the supermarket aisle, making choices about what food we want, what brand we want and how much we want. A 100 years ago this would have been unthinkable. Oh sure there were small mercantile shops in which one could find much needed supplies, but the norm was to produce most of what one needed at home. Now we have aisles of laundry soap to choose from, but our great-grandmothers made their own soap. People had little choice when it came to consumer goods and services. Today, we can order just about everything we need online.

Our choices do not stop at consumer goods. We assume we have other choices as well. The age of consumerism has changed our perception of choice. Many people now think they have the right to choose what medical advice to follow, even if it means the chance of harming other people. Because they have grown up in a society of choice, they erroneously believe everything is a choice.

polio-patients

Prior to 1952, parents had little choice when it came to polio. Before that it was smallpox. If a child came down with either, parents had little choice but to watch their child suffer and hope for some miracle cure. My own grandmother came down with polio in the 1930’s. When the doctors told her she would never walk again, she gritted her teeth and said, “I don’t have a choice, I have 5 young children. I will have to walk again”. She was one tough lady. She did in fact walk again, but with a very noticeable limp. Her left leg was twisted sideways. Her youngest child contract the disease, yet was one of the lucky ones, she has no noticeable side effects. Far too many children and adults were not so lucky. There was no choice in the matter, you got it or you didn’t. Thankfully now, there is a vaccine for polio. We are privileged to have it. Now we don’t have to worry about another polio epidemic breaking out and causing mass suffering. Or do we?

Because there are some people who now think everything is a choice, including inoculating their children against childhood diseases, we may see epidemics again. Here lies the irony; because we have not seen a childhood disease epidemic in over 60 years, many people have forgotten what it is like, and because of this, we may have another one soon.

To vaccinate or not to vaccinate should not be a question. It should not be treated like a consumer choice. Years ago, as a society we already made that choice for you. We chose not to watch our children suffer, die or become disfigured by childhood diseases. We were privileged to have a government who agreed and used tax dollars to fund cures of childhood diseases. We are now privileged to live in a world free of childhood diseases.

There are many choices we now get to make in our modern world. Deciding to expose us to more outbreaks is not one of them. There is a difference between choice and privilege. And the sooner you learn this, the better off society will be.

Amazing Waste

Repurposing Food and Reducing Waste

measurestillformeasure

Shakespeare, Classics, Theatre, Thoughts

Nerd Cactus

Quirky Intellect for the Discerning Nerd

Sillyverse

Stories of magic and mystery

Commonplace Fun Facts

Mind-Blowing Facts You Didn’t Know

Fictionophile

Fiction reviews, Bookblogger, Fiction book reviews, books, crime fiction, author interviews, mystery series, cover, love, bookish thoughts...

Patrick W. Marsh

monsters, monsters, everywhere

Shakespeare for Kids Books

Opening the door for kids to love Shakespeare and the classics

desperatelyseekingcymbeline

The 10-year Shakespeare New Year Resolution

Katzenworld

Welcome to the world of cats!

booksandopinions.com

The Book Reviews You Can Trust!

The Book Review Directory

For Readers and Writers

thelitcritguy

screams from the void

Author Adrienne Morris

Step Into the Past—Lose Yourself in the Story.

crafty theatre

ideas inspired by crafty characters

Critical Dispatches

Reports from my somewhat unusual life

The Nerd Nebula

The Nucleus of the Universe for all Nerd Hacks!