Wikipedia:
A euphemism is a generally innocuous word or expression used in place of one that may be found offensive or suggest something unpleasant.[1] Some euphemisms are intended to amuse; while others use bland, inoffensive, and often misleading terms for things the user wishes to dissimulate or downplay. [...]
Euphemisms may be used to avoid words considered rude, while still conveying their meaning; words may be replaced by similar-sounding words, gentler words, or placeholders. Some euphemisms have become accepted in certain societies for uncomfortable information; for example, in many English speaking countries, a doctor is likely to say "the patient passed away" rather than "the patient died". A second example relating uncomfortable information and concealing some degree of truth would be "we put the dog to sleep" rather than "we killed the dog". Euphemisms can be used to downplay or conceal unpalatable facts, such as "collateral damage" for "civilian casualties" in a military context, or "redacted" for "censored".
Wikipedia:
Dissimulation is a form of deception in which one conceals the truth. It consists of concealing the truth, or in the case of half-truths, concealing parts of the truth, like inconvenient or secret information. Dissimulation differs from simulation, in which one exhibits false information. Dissimulation commonly takes the form of concealing one's ability in order to gain the element of surprise over an opponent.
Collateral Damage
by Apollo, thearrowsoftruth.com - Dec 4, 2012
[...]
Words are weapons, as much as any gun or bomb, and you’d better believe that governments treat the language they use to describe a war as seriously as they take the war itself. A phrase can create an image of righteous strength to replace fear and trauma, as we saw with “Operation Freedom.” Similarly, clashes can be described in neutered terms that normalize violence and blunt the impact of war. From the tame “regime change,” with its implications of order instead of violent overthrow, to the false “victory” in Iraq claimed by George W. Bush, words embed themselves in the national psyche and affect public perception of conflict and its consequences.
This isn’t a new problem. Almost 70 years ago, in his essay “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell observed how governments manipulated public opinion by describing violent, inhumane policies in imprecise, euphemistic terms. “Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification,” wrote Orwell. “Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.”
[...]
One man's collateral damage, is another man's son.
-- Unnamed
St Thomas's Hospital, across the Thames from the Houses of Parliament, was bombed for the first time on 8th September 1940.
[Image source: WW2today.com -- St Thomas's Hospital bombed]
Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.
-- George Orwell -- from
brainyquote.com
All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.
-- George Orwell -- from
brainyquote.com
Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
-- George Orwell -- from
brainyquote.com
No where are euphemistic words more powerful (and some would say more damaging) than when it comes to their ability to mask (and dismiss) the every-day, common-sense 'horror of war'.
Making murder respectable
Phoney politeness and muddled messages: a guide to euphemisms
economist.com -- Dec 17 2011
SHORT sharp terms make big points clear. But people often prefer to soften their speech with euphemism: a mixture of abstraction, metaphor, slang and understatement that offers protection against the offensive, harsh or blunt. In 1945, in one of history's greatest euphemisms, Emperor Hirohito informed his subjects of their country's unconditional surrender (after two atomic bombs, the loss of 3m people and with invasion looming) with the words, “The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage.”
[...]
Another way to typify them is by theme. A third -- and a useful way to begin -- is by nationality. A euphemism is a kind of lie, and the lies peoples and countries tell themselves are revealing.
[...]
Little white lies
Orwell was right: euphemisms can be sneaky and coercive. They cloak a decision's unpleasant results, as in “let go” for “fire”, or “right-sizing” for “mass sackings”. They make consequences sound less horrid—as, chillingly, in “collateral damage” for “dead civilians”.
[...]
As long as those deaths "were justified" -- then
where's the problem?
Somehow those complex multi-layered 'moral dilemmas' (of nation vs nation) can be quietly swept away. Silent. Unasked. As Trivial. Soon to be forgotten.
Such is the power of a few well-chosen (ill-chosen) words. Such is the power of a 'good' euphemism. It can cover up a worldful of ills. "No harm, no foul."
"All's fair, in love, and in war ..."
Wikipedia:
Collateral damage is damage to things that are incidental to the intended target. It is frequently used as a military term where it can refer to the accidental or unintentional killing or wounding of non-combatants and/or destruction to non-combatant property during attacks on legitimate enemy targets.[1][2]
[...]
Controversy
The U.S. military states the term is used in regards to unintentional or incidental damage to non-combatant property and non-combatant casualties,[1] however, at least one source claims that the term "collateral damage" originated as a euphemism during the Vietnam War and can refer to friendly fire, or the intentional killing of non-combatants and the destruction of their property.[7]
During World War II, widespread civilian casualties and damage to civilian property were caused by strategic bombing of enemy cities. If the intent of the strategic bombing was to destroy the enemy's war industry, then civilian casualties were called collateral damage. [...]
Also during the 1991 Gulf War, Coalition forces used the phrase 'collateral damage' to describe the killing of civilians in attacks on legitimate military targets. According to Scottish linguist Deborah Cameron,[11] "the classic Orwellian argument for finding this usage objectionable would be that
[...]
* it is a euphemism; abstract, agentless and affectless, so that even if people succeed in associating it with a real act or event they will be insulated from any feeling of repulsion and moral outrage".
"
Wars happen."
Whatcha gonna do? Long as it's "over-there," well it's
not my problem.
But bring the conflict 'my side of the pond', and well that's "when we get our dander up;" that will "ruffle a few feathers;"
That's when "It just Got Personal!"
Take some time to talk about Israel’s efforts to prevent civilian casualties. The issue of Palestinian civilian casualties is one of the most damaging in the entire debate. Americans accept Israel’s right to defend itself. They understand that Iran-backed Hamas hides behind civilians.
Nevertheless, they place the burden on the Israeli military to do everything in its power to avoid civilian casualties. They perceive Israel to have significant military superiority and to be held accountable to international standards of conduct. They will accept that some civilian casualties are inevitable, but if your language isn’t correct about how seriously Israel takes this issue, they will refuse to accept your arguments about the vulnerability of Israel’s civilians.
So here is the five-step approach to talking about civilian casualties in Gaza:
[...]
-- STEP 5 – Turn Tables: “It is a great tragedy that Iran‐backed Hamas shoots rockets at our civilians while hiding in their own. This causes tragic deaths on BOTH sides. What would you do if you were in this situation?”
pg 50 -- Dr. Frank Luntz, April 2009
The Israel Project’s 2009 --
GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY
-- www.webcitation.org; www.newsweek.com
Wow. Where have I seen that movie before?
At the bottom of it all, "Euphemisms enable It." I learned this stark lesson way back in my Great American Lit course, back in college -- the few weeks we studied Orwell. I learned how the language used, and the words chosen, can be either a weapon of obscurity, or a sun-ray of reality. That lesson was an 'eye-opener', not that I was naive rube going into it, mind you.
And "it" -- What is It? ... Well "It" is whatever you need it to be at the moment, to achieve your somewhat 'dicey' objectives. That's when you need the subtle masking power of language to do the dirty work 'smoothing over' work, for you.
Same as it ever was. The battle for hearts and minds, is ultimately a battle of ideas.
Mankind is not likely to salvage civilization unless he can evolve a system of good and evil which is independent of heaven and hell.
-- George Orwell -- from
brainyquote.com
War is SO barbaric.
If the human race is to survive,
the human race has to learn how to wage Peace.
-- Unnamed